Author Topic: I need someone smarter than me to parse this  (Read 3929 times)

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: I need someone smarter than me to parse this
« Reply #30 on: December 14, 2016, 07:10:44 pm »
So, if we must relegate the designation of all things "micro" to the quantum level, this does /not/ mean that the probability of any such condition is causally independent of say, the determinite perceptions of a macro (biological) scale organism.

Whatever this says, I was unable to parse it in a way that makes sense.
Im 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.


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: I need someone smarter than me to parse this
« Reply #31 on: December 14, 2016, 07:28:39 pm »
All I can say is that "quantum" doesn't mean what most people seem to think it means, at all, and that a conversation about how quantum behavior can or cannot manifest really can't be had unless all participants first understand what quantum behavior IS.

In the interest of getting on the same page, here is a very simple, straightforward introduction to the basic concepts: http://www.livescience.com/33816-quantum-mechanics-explanation.html
Im 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.


LuciferX

  • Metanoia
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 28096
  • fripping moncrey!
    • View Profile
Re: I need someone smarter than me to parse this
« Reply #32 on: December 15, 2016, 01:34:47 am »
This is cool; not what I initially intended, but cool nonetheless :). Just to be clear, my use of the word "micro/neuronal" was not meant to include quantum mechanics.  It was meant to distinguish scales of magnitude.  The human body(s) as a whole was the macro, the neurons were the micro.

...this does /not/ mean that the probability of any such condition is causally independent of say, the determinite perceptions of a macro (biological) scale organism.

If I understand what you're proposing, I should point out that quantum behavior is not affected by perception.  I think I explained that a while back in some thread or other.  If you really want to know more, I can get into it; but most people don't like it when the universe becomes more interesting and less mysterious.

Challenges, good.  So I feel we could probably address this most directly by way of the double-slit experiment but my brain can't do multiplexing today.  Routing around, I was thinking Heissenberg.  Let's see, the measurement problem?  So, if I determine the quanta's probable position, I have absolutely precluded the possibility of determining it's momentum, and vice versa.  So, the perception does not causally determine the property, but it determines the kind of information about that which I will/not have access to.  In some sense, my perceptions determine the kind of information I can derive from quantum behaviour, not the bahaviour itself.  Perceptions determine possibilities over actualities. 

PS.  Fuck, it does still feel like dividing by zero though, I know that the information is not destroyed, however it feels like that...  Thar goes the multiverse.

All I can say is that "quantum" doesn't mean what most people seem to think it means, at all, and that a conversation about how quantum behavior can or cannot manifest really can't be had unless all participants first understand what quantum behavior IS.

In the interest of getting on the same page, here is a very simple, straightforward introduction to the basic concepts: http://www.livescience.com/33816-quantum-mechanics-explanation.html

Putting this in to read once my brain allows it - hopefully soon.
Hic Salta?
________
Constant Eso-Opthamologist of Elicited Stopped-Clock Illusions, brings it back, or sinners just repent______

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: I need someone smarter than me to parse this
« Reply #33 on: December 15, 2016, 02:29:04 am »
This is cool; not what I initially intended, but cool nonetheless :). Just to be clear, my use of the word "micro/neuronal" was not meant to include quantum mechanics.  It was meant to distinguish scales of magnitude.  The human body(s) as a whole was the macro, the neurons were the micro.

For scale, think more like solar system as macro and sesame seed as micro.
Im 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.


P3nT4gR4m

  • Official SSOOKN Pariah
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 72172
  • I'm an artist now - isn't that depressing?
    • View Profile
    • fuck you
Re: I need someone smarter than me to parse this
« Reply #34 on: December 15, 2016, 11:10:02 am »
This is cool; not what I initially intended, but cool nonetheless :). Just to be clear, my use of the word "micro/neuronal" was not meant to include quantum mechanics.  It was meant to distinguish scales of magnitude.  The human body(s) as a whole was the macro, the neurons were the micro.

...this does /not/ mean that the probability of any such condition is causally independent of say, the determinite perceptions of a macro (biological) scale organism.

If I understand what you're proposing, I should point out that quantum behavior is not affected by perception.  I think I explained that a while back in some thread or other.  If you really want to know more, I can get into it; but most people don't like it when the universe becomes more interesting and less mysterious.

Challenges, good.  So I feel we could probably address this most directly by way of the double-slit experiment but my brain can't do multiplexing today.  Routing around, I was thinking Heissenberg.  Let's see, the measurement problem?  So, if I determine the quanta's probable position, I have absolutely precluded the possibility of determining it's momentum, and vice versa.  So, the perception does not causally determine the property, but it determines the kind of information about that which I will/not have access to.  In some sense, my perceptions determine the kind of information I can derive from quantum behaviour, not the bahaviour itself.  Perceptions determine possibilities over actualities. 

PS.  Fuck, it does still feel like dividing by zero though, I know that the information is not destroyed, however it feels like that...  Thar goes the multiverse.

All I can say is that "quantum" doesn't mean what most people seem to think it means, at all, and that a conversation about how quantum behavior can or cannot manifest really can't be had unless all participants first understand what quantum behavior IS.

In the interest of getting on the same page, here is a very simple, straightforward introduction to the basic concepts: http://www.livescience.com/33816-quantum-mechanics-explanation.html

Putting this in to read once my brain allows it - hopefully soon.

Imagine you're looking at an elephant and your curious nature wants to know two things -

1) What is inside elephant?

2) How fast does elephant run?

So you grab your trusty chainsaw and set about investigating the pachyderm's interior. Satisfied you have a pretty good handle on what is inside elephant, you turn your attention to question 2...

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 its not the particles but the pattern that really matters! Matter doesnt matter." -- Max Tegmark

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: I need someone smarter than me to parse this
« Reply #35 on: December 15, 2016, 03:26:37 pm »
I think this paragraph in particular from the above-linked article might be helpful:

Quote
Also in 1927, Heisenberg made another major contribution to quantum physics. He reasoned that since matter acts as waves, some properties, such as an electron's position and speed, are "complementary," meaning there's a limit (related to Planck's constant) to how well the precision of each property can be known. Under what would come to be called "Heisenberg's uncertainty principle," it was reasoned that the more precisely an electron's position is known, the less precisely its speed can be known, and vice versa. This uncertainty principle applies to everyday-size objects as well, but is not noticeable because the lack of precision is extraordinarily tiny. According to Dave Slaven of Morningside College (Sioux City, IA), if a baseball's speed is known to within a precision of 0.1 mph, the maximum precision to which it is possible to know the ball's position is 0.000000000000000000000000000008 millimeters.
Im 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.


LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 87074
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: I need someone smarter than me to parse this
« Reply #36 on: December 15, 2016, 04:34:40 pm »
To complement the above, the "paradox" mainly stems from the math.  The particle* has position, and has velocity.  That's not arbitrary.  We have to choose which one we measure; the math doesn't allow for both.

This doesn't mean the universe is weird -- it means our tools to understand it aren't always up to the task.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: I need someone smarter than me to parse this
« Reply #37 on: December 15, 2016, 04:43:16 pm »
To complement the above, the "paradox" mainly stems from the math.  The particle* has position, and has velocity.  That's not arbitrary.  We have to choose which one we measure; the math doesn't allow for both.

This doesn't mean the universe is weird -- it means our tools to understand it aren't always up to the task.

I mean, the universe is pretty fucking weird, to be fair.
Im 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.


LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 87074
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: I need someone smarter than me to parse this
« Reply #38 on: December 15, 2016, 04:46:31 pm »
OK, to be fair, it start playing by it's own rules once it gets really damn small.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: I need someone smarter than me to parse this
« Reply #39 on: December 15, 2016, 05:09:40 pm »
OK, to be fair, it start playing by it's own rules once it gets really damn small.

I think it might be fair to say that it always plays by its own rules, and it's just that we don't understand them at scales too small to directly observe, because our brains didn't evolve to make submicroscopic observations.
Im 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.


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: I need someone smarter than me to parse this
« Reply #40 on: December 15, 2016, 05:11:29 pm »
It is pretty fucking cool, and a real testament to the versatility of the neuronal network system of processing data, that we are able to use math as an indirect tool by which to make these observations and come to a closer understanding.
Im 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.


LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 87074
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: I need someone smarter than me to parse this
« Reply #41 on: December 15, 2016, 06:40:08 pm »
As usual, you're about five steps ahead of me.

LuciferX

  • Metanoia
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 28096
  • fripping moncrey!
    • View Profile
Re: I need someone smarter than me to parse this
« Reply #42 on: December 17, 2016, 12:26:39 am »
I think this paragraph in particular from the above-linked article might be helpful:

Quote
Also in 1927, Heisenberg made another major contribution to quantum physics. He reasoned that since matter acts as waves, some properties, such as an electron's position and speed, are "complementary," meaning there's a limit (related to Planck's constant) to how well the precision of each property can be known. Under what would come to be called "Heisenberg's uncertainty principle," it was reasoned that the more precisely an electron's position is known, the less precisely its speed can be known, and vice versa. This uncertainty principle applies to everyday-size objects as well, but is not noticeable because the lack of precision is extraordinarily tiny. According to Dave Slaven of Morningside College (Sioux City, IA), if a baseball's speed is known to within a precision of 0.1 mph, the maximum precision to which it is possible to know the ball's position is 0.000000000000000000000000000008 millimeters.
I really thought it was momentum, velocity at least.  :cheekydevil:
(only responding antagonistically to buy time, not poop-posting ;-)

Hic Salta?
________
Constant Eso-Opthamologist of Elicited Stopped-Clock Illusions, brings it back, or sinners just repent______

LuciferX

  • Metanoia
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 28096
  • fripping moncrey!
    • View Profile
Re: I need someone smarter than me to parse this
« Reply #43 on: December 17, 2016, 12:54:04 am »
To complement the above, the "paradox" mainly stems from the math.  The particle* has position, and has velocity.  That's not arbitrary.  We have to choose which one we measure; the math doesn't allow for both.

This doesn't mean the universe is weird -- it means our tools to understand it aren't always up to the task.

Wait, I didn't think it was a matter of tools (scientific equipment), I thought this was somehow the way information about quanta was fundementally organized.  That is, to the best of our understanding, the maths /always/ conceals one when the other is revealed.  Or, an increase in accuracy for one probability measurement MUST result in decreased accuracy of the other.  I even got a sense that we dont have reason to believe the maths is going to go about changing that - that it is fundamentally not up to task, that the universe /is/ weird.

I suppose this is where we reiterate "less mysterious more interesting"?
Hic Salta?
________
Constant Eso-Opthamologist of Elicited Stopped-Clock Illusions, brings it back, or sinners just repent______

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 87074
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: I need someone smarter than me to parse this
« Reply #44 on: December 17, 2016, 04:58:01 pm »
Math is a tool.