A little known fact is that the collapse of the state vector (or wave function) in any given circumstance occurs in the consciousness of the perciever (see Multiverse, Consistant/Multiple histories, Many Worlds, and Schr??dinger's cat, among other cosmology).
As such it can be inferred that although an instance may occur that it will be recieved differently by every consciousness including de-coherance.
Speaking strictly from a rational veiwpoint, the universe cannot exist strictly in a state of equilibrium or antithesis as both terms are mutually exclusive of subjectivity (hence the forces of chaos).
Reason then allows us to deduce that although we, as human beings, do not have the power to control the origin of information, we do indeed have 100% responsibility to how we percieve/measure and react to it.
Cabbages are often noted for measuring their own subjective human conditions in terms of suffering. How will you measure yours?
Still trying to teach us poor unaware Discordians?
Fuck off.
Where is that long cat?
Longcat behind the toolbox, but which toolbox will have the special honor of posting it in this thread first is the real question.
Thanks for your post, it kinda serves as a giant exclamation point to my essay.
QuoteA little known fact is that the collapse of the state vector (or wave function) in any given circumstance occurs in the consciousness of the perciever
Please cite a direct, peer-reviewed source that says the collapse of the state vector occurs in in the conciousness of the perciever.
While we're at it, when did the Wheeler-Everett model get proved, anyway?
Quote from: Ambassador KAOS on May 07, 2007, 07:11:05 AM
Longcat behind the toolbox, but which toolbox will have the special honor of posting it in this thread first is the real question.
Thanks for your post, it kinda serves as a giant exclamation point to my essay.
I didn't read your "essay".
Because you're a fucking troll. You have nothing to say.
Quote from: LMNO on May 07, 2007, 03:34:53 PM
QuoteA little known fact is that the collapse of the state vector (or wave function) in any given circumstance occurs in the consciousness of the perciever
Please cite a direct, peer-reviewed source that says the collapse of the state vector occurs in in the conciousness of the perciever.
While we're at it, when did the Wheeler-Everett model get proved, anyway?
1) I'll see what I can dig up. I read on that whoel thing over a year ago it was mixed in with the reading on einstein and philosophy, I think it had something to do with how the perception of the speed f light occurs. There's bound to be several documents on it somewhere.
2) Decoherance theories are never "proven" because it is their nature to be mutually exclusive of the ability to be proven. It's like talking about the aether, you can't find it because it's ever present, further, if moving to another world, one wouldn't necessarilly detect the difference. you may be slipping through different points in extradimensional space already.
Everett does however hold up to shroedenger's cat which is pretty much the deffault test for barstool subjectivity.
Seems reasonable enough, you already do it with time and space as it is.
Decoherance simply states that although you weren't there to hear it, the tree that fell in the woods did indeed make a sound and this is apparent with butterfly effect, sooner or later it will relate back to you, just not necessarilly how you might imagine.
If you don't subscribe to decoherance and think that if you don't percieve something that it didn't actually happen, well, i can't help you on that.
Yes reality is subjective, but I still have faith that certain principles most always ring true: IE gravity, 2nd law of thermodynamics, etc.
And even still, under special circumstances these things are faulty, and that would be why i tend to agree with many worlds myself.
If a given system can self sustain in isolation (certain ones can, though it's not worth speaking of really) then it also seems plausible that there may be more to the system than what we originally thought.
Quote from: Ambassador KAOS on May 08, 2007, 06:15:05 AM
Quote from: LMNO on May 07, 2007, 03:34:53 PM
QuoteA little known fact is that the collapse of the state vector (or wave function) in any given circumstance occurs in the consciousness of the perciever
Please cite a direct, peer-reviewed source that says the collapse of the state vector occurs in in the conciousness of the perciever.
While we're at it, when did the Wheeler-Everett model get proved, anyway?
1) I'll see what I can dig up. I read on that whoel thing over a year ago it was mixed in with the reading on einstein and philosophy, I think it had something to do with how the perception of the speed f light occurs. There's bound to be several documents on it somewhere.
2) Decoherance theories are never "proven" because it is their nature to be mutually exclusive of the ability to be proven. It's like talking about the aether, you can't find it because it's ever present, further, if moving to another world, one wouldn't necessarilly detect the difference. you may be slipping through different points in extradimensional space already.
Everett does however hold up to shroedenger's cat which is pretty much the deffault test for barstool subjectivity.
Seems reasonable enough, you already do it with time and space as it is.
Decoherance simply states that although you weren't there to hear it, the tree that fell in the woods did indeed make a sound and this is apparent with butterfly effect, sooner or later it will relate back to you, just not necessarilly how you might imagine.
If you don't subscribe to decoherance and think that if you don't percieve something that it didn't actually happen, well, i can't help you on that.
Yes reality is subjective, but I still have faith that certain principles most always ring true: IE gravity, 2nd law of thermodynamics, etc.
And even still, under special circumstances these things are faulty, and that would be why i tend to agree with many worlds myself.
If a given system can self sustain in isolation (certain ones can, though it's not worth speaking of really) then it also seems plausible that there may be more to the system than what we originally thought.
Oh, now he's a physicist, too! :lulz:
He's a fucking idiot that thinks he's got it all figured out and wants to teach us poor unenlightened Discordians the Real Path.
just one few remarks:
a "consciousness" cannot pick up non-laboratory condition quantum effects, because they are too tiny to pick up with our senses. when quantum effects somehow manifest themselves in the perceivable world, by then there have been so many of then (trillion zillion billion gazschmillions) that the "uncertainty" principles and weird quantum math and quantum logic all have averaged out into thermic noise, and this average is what we call newtonian physics and is the only one we can perceive outside of laboratory conditions.
ok i might have cut a few corners in that explanation, but the gist of it is:
- you cannot observe quantum effects with your eyes
- you cannot apply quantum effects to human-perceivable scale. hell we can hardly connect the chain from chemical molecules to living single celled organisms.
He's trying to teach LMNO physics. :roll: Those of you who know LMNO well, know this is like trying to teach Roger how to hate, or aini how to be a psychotic attention whore (no offence, cuz you do it so well).
he should stick to teaching himself to be an idiot.
thread degeneration...
wasn't trying to teach anyone anything.
i think that perception comes in when people take this rant that wan't directed at anyone in paticular and start applying it to themselves personally as if i had written it just for them, which, if I had, I'd PM it.
This instead was designed to attack a standpoint my market research has indicated needed addressing; that somehow I'm responsible for someone taking a shitty attitude with me, rather than making their own shitty attitude their problem and letting me worry about my attitude, which, I don't seem to be having a problem with.
Other people on the other hand seem to be having attitudinal problems and I won't be taking responsibility for that, sorry, but I don't even do taht for my closest friends. Rather, I provide what physical support I can, but it's my firm belief that you are responsible for your attitude and life, duh.
I suppose it is bit presumptuous to assume that what I percieve as in needing of adjustment (ie people losing their cool and flipping shit) is something that they would percieve as such as many are slaves to their own emotions and are actually addicted to the chemical high they get when they flip out or cuss me out or whatever, and for them that may not be a problem,
however, I'm well within my rights to tell them they suck just as they are within theirs to longcat spam all day.
More importantly, this wasn't written to anyone specifically, but if you think that it was meant to apply to you, then it probably does.
.............
on a different note, I don't pretend to teach people shite, as a matter of fact I've already come to realize that LMNO is far better read on physics than myself which is one of th reasons i enjoy discussing it with him (and no, I am not a physicist, but i do enjoy the topic). That doesn't however, automattically discredit anything that I might think or know on the subject and at any time that I am shown to be wrong I learn something new and integrate it, thus bettering myself.
Further, everyone knows something you don't and the pupil does indeed teach the master something at one point or another.
To me this point seems elementary, but since your not me I can't expect that you'd know it, or alternatley, expect you to have faith in that I know it and expect you to bypass questioning it .
Flaming nude space midgets.
LOL THREAD DEGENERATED
but not roont! no such thing as a roont fread!
AKK - your argument is bullshit and here's why.
Say I kick your parents door in and shoot your mom inna face - you honestly telling me I'm not responsible for your reaction?
you are responsible for your actions, but it's my duty to determine how I respond and how I percieve/measure the incident.
Do I call the cops? Do I give you fifty dollars? Do I kick you in the junk? Do I cower like an emo child?
How I react is up to me. Certainly the origin of the information stemmed to you, but the type of reaction I have is my choice.
Key: Don't be a slave to your emotions, have some mental endurance.
further: build mental end. through training (just like physical endurance); cut the head off, grows back harder and all that jazz.
LOL - you think this board's reaction to you is emotional?
No wonder you don't get it :lulz:
I could be nice to you at the drop of a hat.
Emotion don't even enter into it.
You made yourself a target.
Hitting targets is what life is all about.
Quote from: SillyCybin on May 08, 2007, 12:20:24 PMHitting targets is what life is all about.
Have you been going to management seminars again?
Quote from: Ambassador KAOS on May 08, 2007, 12:04:51 PM
How I react is up to me. Certainly the origin of the information stemmed to you, but the type of reaction I have is my choice.
Key: Don't be a slave to your emotions, have some mental endurance.
further: build mental end. through training (just like physical endurance); cut the head off, grows back harder and all that jazz.
LOL now he's telling Silly how to control his emotions :lulz:
this keeps getting better and better
Quote from: triple zero on May 08, 2007, 12:41:51 PM
Quote from: Ambassador KAOS on May 08, 2007, 12:04:51 PM
How I react is up to me. Certainly the origin of the information stemmed to you, but the type of reaction I have is my choice.
Key: Don't be a slave to your emotions, have some mental endurance.
further: build mental end. through training (just like physical endurance); cut the head off, grows back harder and all that jazz.
LOL now he's telling Silly how to control his emotions :lulz:
this keeps getting better and better
Hes in the kiddie sandbox, and we're the kids playing on the swings.
Quote from: Ambassador KAOS on May 08, 2007, 06:15:05 AM
Quote from: LMNO on May 07, 2007, 03:34:53 PM
QuoteA little known fact is that the collapse of the state vector (or wave function) in any given circumstance occurs in the consciousness of the perciever
Please cite a direct, peer-reviewed source that says the collapse of the state vector occurs in in the conciousness of the perciever.
While we're at it, when did the Wheeler-Everett model get proved, anyway?
1) I'll see what I can dig up. I read on that whoel thing over a year ago it was mixed in with the reading on einstein and philosophy, I think it had something to do with how the perception of the speed f light occurs. There's bound to be several documents on it somewhere.
2) Decoherance theories are never "proven" because it is their nature to be mutually exclusive of the ability to be proven. It's like talking about the aether, you can't find it because it's ever present, further, if moving to another world, one wouldn't necessarilly detect the difference. you may be slipping through different points in extradimensional space already.
Everett does however hold up to shroedenger's cat which is pretty much the deffault test for barstool subjectivity.
Seems reasonable enough, you already do it with time and space as it is.
Decoherance simply states that although you weren't there to hear it, the tree that fell in the woods did indeed make a sound and this is apparent with butterfly effect, sooner or later it will relate back to you, just not necessarilly how you might imagine.
1. You won't find it, because it's bullshit.
2. So, your argument is based upon something that cannot be proven.
3. Schrodinger's cat doesn't say that the cat is both alive and dead before we observe it; it says that the equations alone can't tell us if it is dead or alive.
Quote from: Beneath RealitySchr??dinger's Cat
Quantum theory does not tell all we would like to know about things. It does not attempt to describe "things" at all, only their potential impact on our senses (or on any other registration device). Physicists like to theorize about simple systems that are conveniently isolated (more or less) from their surroundings, such as a single electron moving about an atomic nucleus. But real things can be large and complicated.
Schr??dinger envisioned a wave function for a cat to emphasize the absurd inadequacy of the quantum viewpoint. The 'wave function' does not have to look at all like a wave. Its key feature is a list of probabilities for registrations corresponding to a set of well-defined events ,Äì one probability for each event. For the cat the events are determinations that the animal is dead or alive.
Schr??dinger imagined a cat confined to a box containing a flask of poisonous vapor linked to an apparatus that would smash the flask when a detector clicked in response to the decay of a radioactive nucleus. Radioactive decays occur at random with a characteristic average time ,Äì the "half-life." After the lid is closed, you wait one half-life. At that time, quantum theory implies a wave function that gives the cat a 50% chance of being observed alive when you open the box. Well, is the cat dead or not? The wave function does not judge.
To Schr??dinger, that is a ridiculous state of affairs. Obviously the wave function could not be telling everything about the cat. Quantum theory appears to be saying that until the box is opened the cat is in a smeared-out state, a superposition of possibilities, in this case half dead and half alive. Your act of opening the box appears to resolve the situation. Does your act decide the cat's fate? Must you bear responsibility?
No. The wave function does not pretend to describe the cat. The information it contains is about measurement probabilities, not entirely about what causes them. The cat's fate is sealed as soon as a radioactive emission effects an irreversible consequence in the world ,Äì certainly by the time the first detector clicks. We simply do not know what has happened until we open the box. If we want to reassure ourselves that our action did not kill the cat, then we can perform an autopsy to determine the instant of demise.
4. Decohenrence doesn't offer a mechanism for explaining an actual wave collapse, only it's appearance.
Quote from: SillyCybin on May 08, 2007, 12:20:24 PM
LOL - you think this board's reaction to you is emotional?
No wonder you don't get it :lulz:
I could be nice to you at the drop of a hat.
Emotion don't even enter into it.
You made yourself a target.
Hitting targets is what life is all about.
I only signed up for being a target for two weeks, after that the trend just continued, or rather, worsened IMO. Not everyone here is ruled by there emotions, but many fly off the handle over a silly post on the internet, ON THE FREAKING INTERNET!!!! (LOL)
I wasn't presuming you'd feel that my comments about being ruled by emotions would be applied to you specifically silly as I have yet to see any evidence that you would let an internet post ruin your day (also addressing BMW's accusation there).
French Toast.
Quote from: Ambassador KAOS on May 08, 2007, 07:59:13 PM
I only signed up for being a target for two weeks, after that the trend just continued, or rather, worsened IMO. Not everyone here is ruled by there emotions, but many fly off the handle over a silly post on the internet, ON THE FREAKING INTERNET!!!! (LOL)
My hatred for you is pretty clinical. I don't know you, after all...I just hate everything you stand for.
Quote from: Ambassador KAOS on May 08, 2007, 07:59:13 PM
I wasn't presuming you'd feel that my comments about being ruled by emotions would be applied to you specifically silly as I have yet to see any evidence that you would let an internet post ruin your day (also addressing BMW's accusation there).
So, who WERE you talking about, Luke?
Quote from: Ambassador KAOS on May 08, 2007, 07:59:13 PM
French Toast.
Still trying that lame-ass dadaism, I see. :roll:
Quote from: Ambassador KAOS on May 08, 2007, 07:59:13 PMI only signed up for being a target for two weeks, after that the trend just continued, or rather, worsened IMO.
where did you get this idea?
you sign up here, and you become a target for the time you act like an idiot. no longer and
definitely no shorter.
if you only wanted to be a target for two weeks you shoulda stopped acting like an idiot after two weeks, or stop posting/delete your account after two weeks.
where did you get the idea we would let you off after two weeks, just because two weeks were over? if we would stop calling people on their bullshit simply for the fact they've been posting for two weeks this board would turn into an unrecognizable soap box shouting contest before you can say "what".
no man, time has nothing to do with it. nor does postcount. just the content of your (new, current, and also past) posts. nothing more and nothing less.
@ AKK's faux physicist subjectivist suchlike: :barstool:
@ all the other stuff going on:(http://blog.dreamhost.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/serious.jpg)
Quote from: triple zero on May 08, 2007, 09:06:38 PM
Quote from: Ambassador KAOS on May 08, 2007, 07:59:13 PMI only signed up for being a target for two weeks, after that the trend just continued, or rather, worsened IMO.
where did you get this idea?
Well, see, now he's going to tell us that he's acted like a total shithead ON PURPOSE.
Because he's outlandish.
SocioLOLgical experiment!
Quote from: Cain on May 08, 2007, 09:28:08 PM
SocioLOLgical experiment!
:mittens:
Goddamn, AKK is a fucking shithead.
That's the problem with being a "weird" religion. You attract the USELESS freaks, too.
:lulz: