I need someone smarter than me to parse this

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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

[minuspace]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[P3nT4gR4m]

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...

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think this paragraph in particular from the above-linked article might be helpful:

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.

[LMNO]

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]

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.

[LMNO]

OK, to be fair, it start playing by it's own rules once it gets really damn small.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[LMNO]

As usual, you're about five steps ahead of me.

[minuspace]

I think this paragraph in particular from the above-linked article might be helpful:

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

[minuspace]

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"?

[LMNO]

Math is a tool.