Martyred Goat

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Martyred Goat

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

149 profile views
  1. That's the last straw, ima go learn about interior design instead :/
  2. Yeah, i wish i could reverse time. Can't even put them in identical positions... Do you think quantum fluctuations causes the varying decay rate... or is it just weirder than that?
  3. Aye!! Then we may be closer to the mistake i made (assuming i made one) So the outcome is pre determined, But our predictability is limited to probability of the outcome... We can't determine the specific outcome, but it is not "random" A muons decay... will occur at a specific time, but it is not predictable. So not random, but we are limited to predicting in terms of probability? For me, "true random" means that we restart the big bang, and the event occurs differently... Bells theorum disproving the possibility of hidden variables.. seemed to be saying that true random was present. Thanks for humouring me on all this. If nothing else, i have a shit tonne of reading material Ok. So just because it is not determined before it is measured... does not make it random... It just means that there is no way to know that it is not?
  4. Now... I am getting better with some of the technical stuff... but that is beyond me for now. Layman level... Can i not say then that the muons entry into an environment where it does want to decay is the cause for the event and time of it? It still seems that (hypothetically) if i observe it decaying, then reverse time... there is a chance that the time of decay varies. If it does not, then its not true random..... if its not random.... then its deterministic? (I may have to leave shortly, If i don't squeeze in another noob question/complaint..... Ty Strange, Mordred and others )
  5. I have no issues with the any of it. **Except** I fail to understand how bells theorem disproves determinism.. And don't think i have seen anything to suggest that anything is not potentially deterministic... I've learned a lot today (thank you all)... But innocent until proven guilty... Till i know better... I will argue that events require causes! (And yes, i seem to have mashed the two topics a little) But i think i'm after the same knowledge in both. Off to the other thread i go.
  6. That all sounds fine to me. The bit where my comprehension fails, Is when you measure one of the pair and it is spin up.... (i assume its a 50/50 chance) Then you somehow reverse time, measure again in the exact same way... and its now spin down. If this doesn't occur. i.e. you reverse time magically... Measure it as spin down... reverse time measure it as spin down (always getting spin down)... then it there is a factor that determined its state and so its not probabilistic. In terms of an example strange gave. "Well, the reason is that it is unstable and there are lower mass particles for it to decay into. But that isn't a cause. It is just a description of what is possible. There is no clockwork mechanism that makes it decay after 2 us. There is nothing that causes it to decay at the exact time it does." I produce a muon, it decays at a time. I reverse time (with my cool magic) And the muon decays at a slightly different time.... Now if the muon decays at the same time after reversing time (as i believe it would) then there was a mechanism that determined its time of decay. If reversing time does not reset and replay events in the same way... then i have to rethink a lot... as do many... Now i know reversing time is really not a good scientific test... but i'm running out of ways to articulate the issues i see. Would love a bit more info on the matter
  7. But it does decay.... And it decays for a reason.... That is not a baseless assertion. If it decays, that decaying is evidence of a pre-decaying state.... and a transition from not decayed to decay. Doesn't matter what the reason for it changing is... It changes... therefore there is a reason. I get that you may have seen evidence that says otherwise, I get that maybe you know things i don't. But trying to have someone agree that something occurs without cause.... without accepting that there may be a cause... seems incredulous to me. If we ever decide something happens without cause, then there is no point in looking further. If the assertion of no cause is incorrect, and no one looks further, then the mistake would never be noticed. If i ask "why does the muon decay?" Would "I don't know why the muon decays" not be a better answer? If its not a better answer.... then please tell me why the muon decays...
  8. Nah, Space would have to be infinitely divisible. Jump jump jump jump jump, Looks like movement. Me thinks :p
  9. Urm.... It doesn't matter how much you mess with time.... forwards or backwards.... All things within time would remain relative. For it to change anything, be measurable/knowable or for it to contradict any theory.... you would also need something that is not effected by the reversal.
  10. My personal belief is that each instant is a static state, Like a frame rate. This means that movement does not occur
  11. I am unsure as to what just happened... regardless, i think this needs to be tested!! Any volunteers. Dibs on being the producer of said spit!!
  12. You can run time forwards and backwards as much as you like, you can rewind and restart as many times as you like.. and its as if you never did. The billionth reverse and restart would be identical to the first, because it is the first. Unless you have something (Anti time thing) that the time reversal does not effect... then there is no way of knowing/telling. If you have something like that, then you have another type of time, one which stays forwards for this (anti time thing) even when you reverse normal time.... but you can just propose reversing this "greater time" and the same issue happens... now your anti time thing... which told you if time had been restarted doesn't work.... Damn... i would love one of them anti time doodahs
  13. I get that, I wish i had a grasp of calculus and a load of neat machines..... or even some polarisation filters!! (See if you can guess what i've been looking up) I think faster than light interaction is a far more likely explanation than a probabilistic nature.... Gimme 10 years and i'll try and say why :/ I see it as a statement. aka "Event A will occur"
  14. So we know the muon will decay. Therefore there must be a reason for it to decay. I'm not inventing anything. The decaying muon is the evidence that it decayed for a reason. You seem to be saying that it decays for no reason. I am saying that no thing happens for no reason.... Which i thought was a given.
  15. Ahh, brainwave. And this will likely sound silly... QM is not the thing QM is attempting to describe. It is a label for the language, Not a label for the thing the language is used to talk about..... I don't think "IT" is probabilistic.... I almost argued against your statement. But you have said QM is probabilistic..... I think you are probably right lol..... I have a lot to learn, Ty for indulging me ......As for the second bit. Regardless of the experiment. Regardless of the results, there is always the potential for a second configuration (at least) which appears identical to all current means of measurement and observation...... QM may be probabilistic, Reality is not. Probability is the math of guessing. There is no chance... Sorry, but to me its quite simple. Unless my definition of probability is miles off.... It is clever guesswork, And any use of it in literal theory.... is a patch to fill in gaps. It can help people to understand something. But it always has the potential to be wrong. And therefore never has the potential to define (Short of certainty)