Author Topic: A rant : Magic (possibly Spirituality to)  (Read 42721 times)

P3nT4gR4m

  • Official SSOOKN Pariah
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 15194
  • I'm an artist now - isn't that depressing?
    • View Profile
    • fuck you
Re: A rant : Magic (possibly Spirituality to)
« Reply #390 on: January 06, 2010, 03:59:38 pm »
So they're essentially observing something that's too small to see and describing it as a wave in one set of equations and a ickle ping pong ball in another, depending on what effect they want to produce but if you try to measure it one way the other breaks down. Truth is probably that the phenomena is neither a wave nor a ping pong ball?

Not actually a meat product.
Ass-Kicking & Foot-Stomping Ancient Master of SHIT FUCK FUCK FUCK
Awful and Bent Behemothic Results of Last Night's Painful Squat.
High Altitude Haggis-Filled Sex Bucket From Beyond Time and Space.
Internet Monkey Person of Filthy and Immoral Pygmy-Porn Wart Contagion
Octomom Auxillary Heat Exchanger Repairman
walking the fine line line between genius and batshit fucking crazy

"computation is a pattern in the spacetime arrangement of particles, and it’s not the particles but the pattern that really matters! Matter doesn’t matter." -- Max Tegmark

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 62117
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: A rant : Magic (possibly Spirituality to)
« Reply #391 on: January 06, 2010, 04:01:18 pm »
That's closer than most people will ever understand, so I'm going to say Yes.

P3nT4gR4m

  • Official SSOOKN Pariah
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 15194
  • I'm an artist now - isn't that depressing?
    • View Profile
    • fuck you
Re: A rant : Magic (possibly Spirituality to)
« Reply #392 on: January 06, 2010, 04:10:29 pm »
Yeah I realise I'll never be bang on, on account of I don't get the math but I was kind of hoping this was what was going on. It's only been the last couple of years that I've begun to realise how abstract science is. I thought, probably like a lot of laypersons, that the map was the territory but I'm starting to get my head around the idea that science is full of situations where things are described as "behaving predictably as if..." rather than "it does this because..."

It's kinda ironic that it's taken me this long, considering my approach to self psychology. Shoulda been obvious :lulz:
Not actually a meat product.
Ass-Kicking & Foot-Stomping Ancient Master of SHIT FUCK FUCK FUCK
Awful and Bent Behemothic Results of Last Night's Painful Squat.
High Altitude Haggis-Filled Sex Bucket From Beyond Time and Space.
Internet Monkey Person of Filthy and Immoral Pygmy-Porn Wart Contagion
Octomom Auxillary Heat Exchanger Repairman
walking the fine line line between genius and batshit fucking crazy

"computation is a pattern in the spacetime arrangement of particles, and it’s not the particles but the pattern that really matters! Matter doesn’t matter." -- Max Tegmark

Hangshai

  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 155
  • Master of Assholetry
    • View Profile
Re: A rant : Magic (possibly Spirituality to)
« Reply #393 on: January 06, 2010, 07:29:19 pm »
The key part I overlooked was how everything works a certain way until you get down to the SMALLEST level of matter, and then it goes apeshit.  Which law or theory is the one about the wave that gets transmitted from the center of the universe, and then gets picked up as two particles that register as opposite values of each other?  I dont know if Im getting that quite right, but I really got a kick out of that one the first time I had it explained to me.
All text and pictures uploaded by/to/from this person/account is/are purely fictional and for entertainment purposes only. Or not.

Kai

  • A flea circus and
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 8910
  • Richard Feynman fangirl.
    • View Profile
Re: A rant : Magic (possibly Spirituality to)
« Reply #394 on: January 06, 2010, 10:08:13 pm »
So they're essentially observing something that's too small to see and describing it as a wave in one set of equations and a ickle ping pong ball in another, depending on what effect they want to produce but if you try to measure it one way the other breaks down. Truth is probably that the phenomena is neither a wave nor a ping pong ball?



The best way I have found to visualize it is that a photon is like a hazy orb, that collapses to a point when interacting with other hazy orbs. It's diffuse, a sort of spherical probability field of "energy" (for visualization purposes). So, it can GO through both slits at once.

Or I'm completely wrong.
If there is magic on this planet, it is contained in water. --Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey

Her Royal Majesty's Chief of Insect Genitalia Dissection
Grand Visser of the Six Legged Class
Chanticleer of the Holometabola Clade Church, Diptera Parish

P3nT4gR4m

  • Official SSOOKN Pariah
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 15194
  • I'm an artist now - isn't that depressing?
    • View Profile
    • fuck you
Re: A rant : Magic (possibly Spirituality to)
« Reply #395 on: January 06, 2010, 11:00:19 pm »
Just out of interest how close together are these slits?
Not actually a meat product.
Ass-Kicking & Foot-Stomping Ancient Master of SHIT FUCK FUCK FUCK
Awful and Bent Behemothic Results of Last Night's Painful Squat.
High Altitude Haggis-Filled Sex Bucket From Beyond Time and Space.
Internet Monkey Person of Filthy and Immoral Pygmy-Porn Wart Contagion
Octomom Auxillary Heat Exchanger Repairman
walking the fine line line between genius and batshit fucking crazy

"computation is a pattern in the spacetime arrangement of particles, and it’s not the particles but the pattern that really matters! Matter doesn’t matter." -- Max Tegmark

Hangshai

  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 155
  • Master of Assholetry
    • View Profile
Re: A rant : Magic (possibly Spirituality to)
« Reply #396 on: January 07, 2010, 04:47:03 am »
Im pretty sure it has something to do with our ability to measure things, and the way that you can only measure a particle's speed or position, but not both, at the same time.  If I've been horribly misinformed, I'm sure someone will point it out, but this is how I visualize the wave/particle conundrum.  When you measure speed, it acts as a wave, when you measure location, it acts as particle.  Imagine, if you will, a car speeding by you.  You can take a still photo that measures exact location, but not its speed, which would be particle like behavior.  Or, you can use a radar gun to tell you it's speed, but not its location.  That would be wave like properties.  You WILL be able to tell WHEN it passes you though, by noticing the change in speed.  That is the act of observing the experiment.  I know its not a great metaphor, but it kind of helps me wrap my brain around it.  Also, I dont think the distance of the slits matter.  Its more of the fact that when you measure that 'phenomenon' of the particle, it has wave like properties.  It shouldnt, but it does.  But when you start to measure WHICH slit it goes through, instead of just the PROBABILITY of either slit, then you get particle like properties...  I think.
All text and pictures uploaded by/to/from this person/account is/are purely fictional and for entertainment purposes only. Or not.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 77637
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: A rant : Magic (possibly Spirituality to)
« Reply #397 on: January 07, 2010, 05:04:21 am »
Just out of interest how close together are these slits?

That's what HE said.
“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”


Kai

  • A flea circus and
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 8910
  • Richard Feynman fangirl.
    • View Profile
Re: A rant : Magic (possibly Spirituality to)
« Reply #398 on: January 07, 2010, 01:03:19 pm »
I realized that when Ratatosk was talking about the mutable nature of cause, what he was probably referring to was ultimate and proximate cause.

Proximate cause = mechanism, HOW something happens, the physiological, physical chemical, etc causative for whatever happens.

Ultimate cause = WHY something happened, the reason, meaning and purpose causative.

In the example of missing a red light, the proximate cause is that the person didn't see the red light, that the brain didn't recognize it at that moment. The ultimate cause is having a bad day or distraction by traffic or whatever. BOTH are correct, but they are different questions, one is how, and the other is why.

Incidentally, the three greatest behaviorists Lorenz, Tinbergen, and von Frisch all received the Nobel Prize in 1973 for their ability to separate ultimate and proximate cause in behavior, and were the only people ever to receive the prize for behavior work.

Note: this does not mean that cause is mutable. This simply means that the questions you ask when assessing cause need to address both the proximate and ultimate levels.
If there is magic on this planet, it is contained in water. --Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey

Her Royal Majesty's Chief of Insect Genitalia Dissection
Grand Visser of the Six Legged Class
Chanticleer of the Holometabola Clade Church, Diptera Parish

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

  • Probably
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 11430
    • View Profile
Re: A rant : Magic (possibly Spirituality to)
« Reply #399 on: January 07, 2010, 05:06:24 pm »
I realized that when Ratatosk was talking about the mutable nature of cause, what he was probably referring to was ultimate and proximate cause.

Proximate cause = mechanism, HOW something happens, the physiological, physical chemical, etc causative for whatever happens.

Ultimate cause = WHY something happened, the reason, meaning and purpose causative.

In the example of missing a red light, the proximate cause is that the person didn't see the red light, that the brain didn't recognize it at that moment. The ultimate cause is having a bad day or distraction by traffic or whatever. BOTH are correct, but they are different questions, one is how, and the other is why.

Incidentally, the three greatest behaviorists Lorenz, Tinbergen, and von Frisch all received the Nobel Prize in 1973 for their ability to separate ultimate and proximate cause in behavior, and were the only people ever to receive the prize for behavior work.

Note: this does not mean that cause is mutable. This simply means that the questions you ask when assessing cause need to address both the proximate and ultimate levels.

Kai that is brilliantly stated! It is precisely what I meant though my explaination was clumsy and badly worded. Thanks!!!

EDIT: Also I'd like to clarify what I meant by saying that "correlation" was evidence.

"Correlation" can be evidence that "something is going on". Often investigation begins because of someone looking at numbers and seeing a pattern where there should be none. It is not evidence that "X is caused by Y because they correlate" but rather "Something funky may be happening to X because of this weird pattern... we should find out why".

So for example, when hiring people at Bletchley Park during WWII (where the Brits and Americans were trying to crack German cipher codes) they were careful about the height, age etc of people that they hired. If they hired only the best cryptanalyst, or if they hired predominantly women good at punching numbers... then the "bell curve" would be off and through this 'correlation' they were concerned that the Germans would say "Hrmmm, something isn't right there... what is happening at Bletchly Park?"

I think the reason I stated it directly before is because its an everyday occurrence in my job. Many of my investigations begin because of correlation, particularly Log reviews, scanner reports etc. The correlation isn't evidence that X person did Y thing... but it is evidence that "something out of normal parameters happened here... we must determine what".

Ok, I think I made that more clear...
« Last Edit: January 07, 2010, 05:12:57 pm by Doctor Rat Bastard »
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

Golden Applesauce

  • Token Apologist
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 2429
  • Where does this text go?
    • View Profile
Re: A rant : Magic (possibly Spirituality to)
« Reply #400 on: January 07, 2010, 05:59:15 pm »
Just out of interest how close together are these slits?

They have to be closer together than the wavelength of the photon passing through them.
Q: How regularly do you hire 8th graders?
A: We have hired a number of FORMER 8th graders.

Hangshai

  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 155
  • Master of Assholetry
    • View Profile
Re: A rant : Magic (possibly Spirituality to)
« Reply #401 on: January 25, 2010, 04:17:50 am »
Figured this was a good a place as any for this.  Another vid of an acupuncturist/Qi gong master doing cool stuff with Chi/ki.  Kinda like magic, I guess.  Clip from Ripley's believe it or not.  Entertaining, regardless of whether its magic or not.


Edit - Forgot the link...  Duh..

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2174763/qigong_master_boils_water_with_his_hands_pyrokinesis/
All text and pictures uploaded by/to/from this person/account is/are purely fictional and for entertainment purposes only. Or not.

Bu☆ns

  • █ ▀█ ▀ █ ▀█▄ ▀█
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 4709
    • View Profile
Re: A rant : Magic (possibly Spirituality to)
« Reply #402 on: January 25, 2010, 06:50:18 am »
I can do that with my :






edit: I had to make it smaller.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2010, 06:55:01 am by Burns »

BabylonHoruv

  • Infectious Projectile Faecalator
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 3398
    • View Profile
Re: A rant : Magic (possibly Spirituality to)
« Reply #403 on: January 25, 2010, 10:15:19 pm »
I realized that when Ratatosk was talking about the mutable nature of cause, what he was probably referring to was ultimate and proximate cause.

Proximate cause = mechanism, HOW something happens, the physiological, physical chemical, etc causative for whatever happens.

Ultimate cause = WHY something happened, the reason, meaning and purpose causative.

In the example of missing a red light, the proximate cause is that the person didn't see the red light, that the brain didn't recognize it at that moment. The ultimate cause is having a bad day or distraction by traffic or whatever. BOTH are correct, but they are different questions, one is how, and the other is why.

Incidentally, the three greatest behaviorists Lorenz, Tinbergen, and von Frisch all received the Nobel Prize in 1973 for their ability to separate ultimate and proximate cause in behavior, and were the only people ever to receive the prize for behavior work.

Note: this does not mean that cause is mutable. This simply means that the questions you ask when assessing cause need to address both the proximate and ultimate levels.

In the case of the red light it looks to me like you are giving ultimate causes over all, just at different levels, the proximate cause would be muscle motions within the driver and mechanical operations within the car.
You're a special case, Babylon.  You are offensive even when you don't post.

Merely by being alive, you make everyone just a little more miserable

-Dok Howl

Doktor Howl

  • Вся ваша база принадлежит нам
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 32873
  • Horrible Bastard
    • View Profile
Re: A rant : Magic (possibly Spirituality to)
« Reply #404 on: September 30, 2018, 08:42:01 pm »
So that would mean you have a definition, what is yours?

The similarities are there, Science can do some pretty awesome stuff. Magic is a science itself the way I see it.

Magic is proto-science; in other words, theres a cause-effect correlation that is not explained rigurously yet.

If i tased a native from an island they would say i have "magical powers".

The ancient herbal medicine was achieved thru "magical" attributions (derived from trial and error) to plants, which later on were explained by biochemistry.

The bolded section should have ended this thread.
"What were you expecting?  Violins?"
- Lieutenant Checkov