Author Topic: What the shit is all of this?  (Read 18905 times)

The Invisible Man

  • gives people the beeps
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 29947
    • View Profile
Re: What the shit is all of this?
« Reply #120 on: April 01, 2014, 01:02:34 pm »
Consider me schooled!

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 87077
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: What the shit is all of this?
« Reply #121 on: April 01, 2014, 01:41:41 pm »
Ok, I'll grant that maybe, someday, someone might come up with a way of removing the probability fields from quantum physics.

But if that ever happens, it will pretty much tip over the apple cart, and undo the past century or so of physics as we know it.

That is to say, the probabilty of it happening is quite low.

Cramulus

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 130637
    • View Profile
    • Cramul.us
Re: What the shit is all of this?
« Reply #122 on: April 01, 2014, 01:50:09 pm »
wait wait, I thought the point of the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment was to show that quantum particles don't behave like, eh, bigger particles? The Copenhagen interpretation says matter can be in two eigenstates at once, but that only makes sense when we're talking about itty bitty little things, not big things like cats. I thought that was what the experiment showed?

I'm no expert - please correct me if I'm wrong so I stop saying the wrong thing



Also, I've never heard people agree that quantum behavior is "truly random". Is that really accepted? Don't people believe there is some knowable mechanism, some hidden variable, underlying these hard to predict events?

The Invisible Man

  • gives people the beeps
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 29947
    • View Profile
Re: What the shit is all of this?
« Reply #123 on: April 01, 2014, 01:57:47 pm »
wait wait, I thought the point of the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment was to show that quantum particles don't behave like, eh, bigger particles? The Copenhagen interpretation says matter can be in two eigenstates at once, but that only makes sense when we're talking about itty bitty little things, not big things like cats. I thought that was what the experiment showed?

I'm no expert - please correct me if I'm wrong so I stop saying the wrong thing



Also, I've never heard people agree that quantum behavior is "truly random". Is that really accepted? Don't people believe there is some knowable mechanism, some hidden variable, underlying these hard to predict events?

I was under the impression Schrodinger was making fun of the Copenhagen interpretation with the cat analogy...

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 87077
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: What the shit is all of this?
« Reply #124 on: April 01, 2014, 02:07:20 pm »
wait wait, I thought the point of the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment was to show that quantum particles don't behave like, eh, bigger particles? The Copenhagen interpretation says matter can be in two eigenstates at once, but that only makes sense when we're talking about itty bitty little things, not big things like cats. I thought that was what the experiment showed?

I'm no expert - please correct me if I'm wrong so I stop saying the wrong thing



Also, I've never heard people agree that quantum behavior is "truly random". Is that really accepted? Don't people believe there is some knowable mechanism, some hidden variable, underlying these hard to predict events?

In part, yes.  But in the original experiment, the poison gas was triggered by whether or not a radioactive isotope decays at a certain moment.  The point being, when we do the math, we have no idea whether or not that decay happened at that moment, because the math goes both ways.  The only way to figure it out is to go look.

As far as "truly random" goes, that depends on your definition.  If I predict a 60% chance of something being in a certain place at a certain time, can I say it's behavior is random?  It has a greater chance of being there than not, so maybe you could call that predictable, but since there's no way of saying for sure, wouldn't that be pretty random?

The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 36736
    • View Profile
Re: What the shit is all of this?
« Reply #125 on: April 01, 2014, 02:11:56 pm »
Yep.  Me too.

Below the subatomic level, there is nothing but randomness.  This is as readily apparent as the earth being flat by observers around the world!  Until of course, we see around the world.

LOGICAL CHECKMATES!

Person 1: "Think for Yourself!"
Person 2: "Alright!"
Person 1: "Hmmm..."

both scratch their heads...

Person 1: "Think for Yourself!"
Person 2: "No!"

both scratch their heads...

Person 1: " Think for yourself!"
Person 2: "Shut up."

Person 2 goes back to their e-sodoku.
Person 1 is butthurt because nobody's fighting the power with them.

This reminds me of  my recent discovery that about the most offensive thing you can say to a person, be they religious, atheist, vegan, or whatever, is "I don't want to talk about your beliefs because I don't care". This is, for reasons I have not yet explored, much more offensive to most people than "I think you're wrong and I'm going to tell you why".

Yeah, I've seen that for a few years, but it took the advent of the SJW to really drive it home.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 36736
    • View Profile
Re: What the shit is all of this?
« Reply #126 on: April 01, 2014, 02:13:03 pm »
It also, coincidentally, completely sums up my reaction to everything said by any philosophy student ever.

 :lulz:
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 36736
    • View Profile
Re: What the shit is all of this?
« Reply #127 on: April 01, 2014, 02:15:00 pm »
To consider someone wrong, you'd first have to consider them, at all.  It's almost like to refuse to even consider the position, you've denied their personhood - it would seem negation of the self is worse than possibly being wrong.

I do not deny the person hood of SJWs, philosophy majors, etc.  They are people.  I just don't care to listen to what they have to say, which is a different thing altogether, BECAUSE what they are SAYING is not what they are SAYING that they're saying.  If you know what I mean.

I can acknowledge someone's existence and agency without putting up with their shit.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 36736
    • View Profile
Re: What the shit is all of this?
« Reply #128 on: April 01, 2014, 02:15:42 pm »
Sadly, no.  It's that damn Heisenberg.  The "instrument" we're using is pure math.  When that fails you, you know the universe is cheating.

Doesn't happen.  The math never fails.  It just doesn't always give you the result you want.

ETA:  and sometimes it gives you more than you really wanted.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Faust

  • Tyrannical Overlord
  • Deserved It
  • *
  • Posts: 82644
  • The Greasy Strangler
    • View Profile
Re: What the shit is all of this?
« Reply #129 on: April 01, 2014, 02:17:26 pm »
wait wait, I thought the point of the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment was to show that quantum particles don't behave like, eh, bigger particles? The Copenhagen interpretation says matter can be in two eigenstates at once, but that only makes sense when we're talking about itty bitty little things, not big things like cats. I thought that was what the experiment showed?

I'm no expert - please correct me if I'm wrong so I stop saying the wrong thing



Also, I've never heard people agree that quantum behavior is "truly random". Is that really accepted? Don't people believe there is some knowable mechanism, some hidden variable, underlying these hard to predict events?

In part, yes.  But in the original experiment, the poison gas was triggered by whether or not a radioactive isotope decays at a certain moment.  The point being, when we do the math, we have no idea whether or not that decay happened at that moment, because the math goes both ways.  The only way to figure it out is to go look.

As far as "truly random" goes, that depends on your definition.  If I predict a 60% chance of something being in a certain place at a certain time, can I say it's behavior is random?  It has a greater chance of being there than not, so maybe you could call that predictable, but since there's no way of saying for sure, wouldn't that be pretty random?

Exactly, and even on the quantum scale there are the upper and lower thresholds on the uncertainty of energy and position. I cant remember what the maximum energy/position uncertainty was but it was something tiny like planks constant over pi or something.

Ok, I'll grant that maybe, someday, someone might come up with a way of removing the probability fields from quantum physics.

But if that ever happens, it will pretty much tip over the apple cart, and undo the past century or so of physics as we know it.

That is to say, the probabilty of it happening is quite low.
I wasn't really saying that they would break that relationship, maybe it was a bad example I was just describing how many of the "unknowables" vanished with renormalisation.

The Invisible Man

  • gives people the beeps
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 29947
    • View Profile
Re: What the shit is all of this?
« Reply #130 on: April 01, 2014, 02:21:37 pm »
To consider someone wrong, you'd first have to consider them, at all.  It's almost like to refuse to even consider the position, you've denied their personhood - it would seem negation of the self is worse than possibly being wrong.

I do not deny the person hood of SJWs, philosophy majors, etc.  They are people.  I just don't care to listen to what they have to say, which is a different thing altogether, BECAUSE what they are SAYING is not what they are SAYING that they're saying.  If you know what I mean.

I can acknowledge someone's existence and agency without putting up with their shit.

Oh, absolutely... I meant that as the view from their side, if that makes sense.  I just didn't think to actually add that.  :lol:

The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 36736
    • View Profile
Re: What the shit is all of this?
« Reply #131 on: April 01, 2014, 02:24:16 pm »
To consider someone wrong, you'd first have to consider them, at all.  It's almost like to refuse to even consider the position, you've denied their personhood - it would seem negation of the self is worse than possibly being wrong.

I do not deny the person hood of SJWs, philosophy majors, etc.  They are people.  I just don't care to listen to what they have to say, which is a different thing altogether, BECAUSE what they are SAYING is not what they are SAYING that they're saying.  If you know what I mean.

I can acknowledge someone's existence and agency without putting up with their shit.

Oh, absolutely... I meant that as the view from their side, if that makes sense.  I just didn't think to actually add that.  :lol:

Naw.  When St Mae and I had our falling out, it was because of a disagreement.  She didn't say, "Dammit, Roger, I don't want to hear it", she said, "You're just a troll and this isn't the time."

Notice the subtle difference?  I don't think she did, and I no longer care.  Being told to SHUT UP by someone you respect, for example, is one thing.  Being told you don't actually HAVE an opinion is another.

" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Cramulus

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 130637
    • View Profile
    • Cramul.us
Re: What the shit is all of this?
« Reply #132 on: April 01, 2014, 02:25:39 pm »
As far as "truly random" goes, that depends on your definition.  If I predict a 60% chance of something being in a certain place at a certain time, can I say it's behavior is random?  It has a greater chance of being there than not, so maybe you could call that predictable, but since there's no way of saying for sure, wouldn't that be pretty random?


Ok, I'll grant that maybe, someday, someone might come up with a way of removing the probability fields from quantum physics.

But if that ever happens, it will pretty much tip over the apple cart, and undo the past century or so of physics as we know it.

That is to say, the probabilty of it happening is quite low.

isn't the fact that we represent it via a probability indicative that we're glossing over what's really happening?

I mean, a die rolls a given number 16.6% of the time - but it's not truly a random event, it's completely predictable if you know enough about the roll, physics, etc.

it sounds like you're saying that the perceived randomness at the center of quantum events is (probably) how it really is - that a certain degree of magnification, the universe is fundamentally random, unknowable?

The Invisible Man

  • gives people the beeps
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 29947
    • View Profile
Re: What the shit is all of this?
« Reply #133 on: April 01, 2014, 02:27:05 pm »
To consider someone wrong, you'd first have to consider them, at all.  It's almost like to refuse to even consider the position, you've denied their personhood - it would seem negation of the self is worse than possibly being wrong.

I do not deny the person hood of SJWs, philosophy majors, etc.  They are people.  I just don't care to listen to what they have to say, which is a different thing altogether, BECAUSE what they are SAYING is not what they are SAYING that they're saying.  If you know what I mean.

I can acknowledge someone's existence and agency without putting up with their shit.

Oh, absolutely... I meant that as the view from their side, if that makes sense.  I just didn't think to actually add that.  :lol:

Naw.  When St Mae and I had our falling out, it was because of a disagreement.  She didn't say, "Dammit, Roger, I don't want to hear it", she said, "You're just a troll and this isn't the time."

Notice the subtle difference?  I don't think she did, and I no longer care.  Being told to SHUT UP by someone you respect, for example, is one thing.  Being told you don't actually HAVE an opinion is another.

Hey, I never claimed they were correct:wink:

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 87077
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: What the shit is all of this?
« Reply #134 on: April 01, 2014, 02:32:46 pm »
it sounds like you're saying that the perceived randomness at the center of quantum events is (probably) how it really is - that a certain degree of magnification, the universe is fundamentally random, unknowable?

No, the universe is knowable, just not in the way you'd like it to be.