The World is a Verb (something approaching "scientific/mathematical" proof)

[Cain]

Have any of you actually studied math?  I mean beyond differential equations.  I don't think anything I've seen in this thread counts as logic, it's reasoning (I know, semantics, but meaning is crucial in math). 

I did two courses in logic.  One semester of informal logic, and one of modal logic and proof theory.

I just see no need to waste it on mystical pseudo-babble when I have better things to do, like writing or job application forms, or stabbing myself in the eye with a fork.

[LMNO]

Ok, after a brief consultation, I think I know what's going on here.

First off, we have to remember that quantum-level observations/formulae have nothing to do with macro-level actions and reactions.  The dirty little secret is that quantum physics doesn'y give a picture of experiential reality at all.  It gives results that are unvisualizable and unimaginable.  Any metaphor or "real-world" explanation of quantum physics will make it sound just as silly as Schrodinger's Cat.

Ok, now let's look at the experiment itself. The observer ALWAYS decides what to measure.  ANYTHING you measure depends on the setup; there's a very broad principle of relativity at work here.  You always have to have a coordinate system, a framework, or measurement doesn't make any sense. 

What's interesting about quantum mechanics is that the choices of frameworks include much more than just coordinate systems; they include whether you're going to measure position, or momentum, for example.  In quantum mechanics, choosing one or the other is exactly like choosing one coordinate reference frame or another.  Nature will look different from these different perspectives.

In the "quantum enigma" experiment, you make a choice about how you'll look at the boxes.  Two completely different procedures are described.  Choosing one of them amounts to choosing a coordinate frame in which to view the system.  But nature still gets to decide what you see; you don't actually create the natural phenomena, you only create the framework for it.  Nature's choice shows up in the part of the experiment where you decide to look inside the boxes. 

You will never find a particle in both boxes.  You'll find it in one or the other.  Nature gets to decide which one.  You can't affect that.  All you do is put the boxes there and decide what to do with them.  You create the conditions for the results, but not everything is under your control. 

The two kinds of experiments, by the way, differ exactly in the things that the uncertainty principle says you can't measure at the same time.  The interference experiment measures a wave property (momentum), the experiment where you look in the boxes measures position (where the entity is).

So basically, the experiment is right, and the results are right, but the conclusions being drawn from them are not.  Your "freedom of will" is not changing nature, it's changing how we look at nature.

[Roaring Biscuit!]

You will never find a particle in both boxes.  You'll find it in one or the other.  Nature gets to decide which one.  You can't affect that.  All you do is put the boxes there and decide what to do with them.  You create the conditions for the results, but not everything is under your control. 

Unless you open them both at the same time, and see an interference pattern, showing that the "atom" or wave funciton came from both boxes...

Other than that I think I basically see what your saying with regards to the consciousness side, but quantum physics is still all kinds of messed up 

[LMNO]

No, in that frame of reference, you're measuring a wave property; hence, you'll get an interference pattern.

[Roaring Biscuit!]

yes but an interference pattern is only possible when two seperate waves from two seperate origins interact.

[LMNO]

You realize you're still trying to describe quantum phenomena in macro-world language, right?

I thought we went over this already.

[Roaring Biscuit!]

yes, it had also occurred to me that we are discussing something (quantum phenomena) that no-one really understands (yet)...  thus (while it has been enjoyable and informing) it is at this stage a truly worthless argument...

Still its been fun...  I think i might stick my massively flawed world is a verb theory into my BIP rewrite, with an end note about how massively flawed it is (pulled from this thread, if the various contributors dont mind of course).

More on that later

x

edd

[LMNO]

Well, as long as you make sure it's clear that people do not change the fundamental elements in nature merely by observing them.

[Cainad (dec.)]

Aye but thats where my original pentagon example comes back in, that is a pentagon is made of 5 sides, but equally a pentagon could be divided into 8 bits of line or an infinite amount of infinitely small dots in the shape of a pentagon...  In theory the same dividing into a ridiculously small bits i possible of anything.

Um.  Not really.  See, since we're talking about the Universe, we're talking about Experiential Reality.  So, that line that makes up the Pentagon is made out of stuff.  And that stuff, ultimately, is made up of fundamental particles.  Finite fundamental particles.

It appears you're trying to force a theoretical thought experiment of a pentagon (which does not exist) onto an actual physical representation of a pentagon (which does exist).


In a related note, I want to shoot Aristotle in the face.

You. Me. Time machine. ASAP.

[Golden Applesauce]

I WILL KILL A MOTHERFUCKER.

I have to admit, I only read the 1st and most recent pages, so I apologize if someone already said this...

but stop trying to "divide" by zero, and stop treating division as a real operation.

There is no such thing as division.  When people say "divide" in the mathematical sense, they are using shorthand for "multiply by the multiplicative inverse of."  In the field of rational numbers (or the real numbers, for that matter) every number except zero has such an inverse - that is, for every X, there is a number denoted X' such that X * X' = 1.  0 does not have such a number - in fact, you can prove that for every X', 0 * X' = X' * 0 = 0.  That is, 0 provably does not have a multiplicative inverse.  The phrase "divide by zero" is meaningless.

Remember, 0 is defined as the number for which this statement is true, for all a:
a + 0 = a = 0 + a

from here:
1 * a = a // definition of 1
(1 + 0) * a = a // definition of 0
1*a + 0 * a = a // right distributive property
a + 0 * a = a // definition of 1
-a + (a + 0 * a) = -a + a // every number has an additive inverse
(-a + a) + 0 * a = (-a + a) // associative property
0 + 0 * a = 0 // definition of 0
0 * a = 0 // definition of 0

If there were a multiplicative inverse of 0, call it 0', then 0 * 0' = 1.  But for all numbers a in our field, 0 * a = 0.  So  0 * 0' = 0, and 0 * 0' = 1.  Unless 0 and 1 are the same number (which is perfectly permissible in the field consisting of only one number) this is a contradiction, and 0 does not have a multiplicative inverse.

[LMNO]

I like smart people.

[Roaring Biscuit!]

wow...  I've learnt a lot by being wrong. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

wow...  I've learnt a lot by being wrong. 

Welcome to Discordia...

[Requia ☣]

I WILL KILL A MOTHERFUCKER.

I have to admit, I only read the 1st and most recent pages, so I apologize if someone already said this...

but stop trying to "divide" by zero, and stop treating division as a real operation.

There is no such thing as division.  When people say "divide" in the mathematical sense, they are using shorthand for "multiply by the multiplicative inverse of."  In the field of rational numbers (or the real numbers, for that matter) every number except zero has such an inverse - that is, for every X, there is a number denoted X' such that X * X' = 1.  0 does not have such a number - in fact, you can prove that for every X', 0 * X' = X' * 0 = 0.  That is, 0 provably does not have a multiplicative inverse.  The phrase "divide by zero" is meaningless.

Remember, 0 is defined as the number for which this statement is true, for all a:
a + 0 = a = 0 + a

from here:
1 * a = a // definition of 1
(1 + 0) * a = a // definition of 0
1*a + 0 * a = a // right distributive property
a + 0 * a = a // definition of 1
-a + (a + 0 * a) = -a + a // every number has an additive inverse
(-a + a) + 0 * a = (-a + a) // associative property
0 + 0 * a = 0 // definition of 0
0 * a = 0 // definition of 0

If there were a multiplicative inverse of 0, call it 0', then 0 * 0' = 1.  But for all numbers a in our field, 0 * a = 0.  So  0 * 0' = 0, and 0 * 0' = 1.  Unless 0 and 1 are the same number (which is perfectly permissible in the field consisting of only one number) this is a contradiction, and 0 does not have a multiplicative inverse.

Congratulations, you just proved calculus doesn't exist!   

[Rev Thwack]

I WILL KILL A MOTHERFUCKER.

I have to admit, I only read the 1st and most recent pages, so I apologize if someone already said this...

but stop trying to "divide" by zero, and stop treating division as a real operation.

There is no such thing as division.  When people say "divide" in the mathematical sense, they are using shorthand for "multiply by the multiplicative inverse of."  In the field of rational numbers (or the real numbers, for that matter) every number except zero has such an inverse - that is, for every X, there is a number denoted X' such that X * X' = 1.  0 does not have such a number - in fact, you can prove that for every X', 0 * X' = X' * 0 = 0.  That is, 0 provably does not have a multiplicative inverse.  The phrase "divide by zero" is meaningless.

Remember, 0 is defined as the number for which this statement is true, for all a:
a + 0 = a = 0 + a

from here:
1 * a = a // definition of 1
(1 + 0) * a = a // definition of 0
1*a + 0 * a = a // right distributive property
a + 0 * a = a // definition of 1
-a + (a + 0 * a) = -a + a // every number has an additive inverse
(-a + a) + 0 * a = (-a + a) // associative property
0 + 0 * a = 0 // definition of 0
0 * a = 0 // definition of 0

If there were a multiplicative inverse of 0, call it 0', then 0 * 0' = 1.  But for all numbers a in our field, 0 * a = 0.  So  0 * 0' = 0, and 0 * 0' = 1.  Unless 0 and 1 are the same number (which is perfectly permissible in the field consisting of only one number) this is a contradiction, and 0 does not have a multiplicative inverse.

Dude, he tried to divide by zero... do you think he's going to follow this?

Oh, and you've lost the war on the whole "division isn't a real operation" bit. It's a shorthand name used by mathematicians everywhere and by people who never took calculus, don't know what "multiply by the multiplicative inverse of" means, and are able to "divide" just fine.