A phrase I picked straight out of the Illuminatus! Trilogy, but never understood until I actually sat down with a pen and paper and worked it out. I'll be honest it required some minor alterations to "conventional" logic (which people here may or may not have a problem with)... well, here goes, do as thou wilst an all that:
"Leap of Faith" #1: 1/0 = infinity thus 1/infinity = 0
"Leap of Faith" #2: Any object can be represented as the sum of its parts involved in being aforementioned object e.g. 1 pentagon = 5 lines being a pentagon or 1 = 1/5 x 5 in equation form (and I'm sure those with a most basic undestanding of mathematics can see that is "true" at least in the sense that the majority of humanity would accept)
And now only one thing remains, to argue my point to absurdity:
When the above rules are taken to extremes, that is, we talk in terms of the very make-up of the universe then say that we wish to divide this vastness into its most fundamental particle (which is nothingness btw, that bit is coming :)).
The universe can be said to be a collection of galaxies being the universe, and each galaxy is made from solar systems being a galaxy and such forth... as an important side note, as we continue to divide the universe in this way the denominator in our "Pentagon Equation" (you know the one i mean...) steadily becomes to increase in size, thus the whole expression 1/y becomes closer to 0 and the y value which equals the number of times the universe is divided but also the amount of being that a division of that size would have to undertake in order to equal the universe. That bit was a little unclear I guess, but I hope you tried to understand, or not understand, depending on your persuasion.
Eventually we reach a case (theoretically) where the universe is divided into an infinite number of pieces, and this is where things start to matter. In this event the "Pentagonal Equation" reaches its "logical" climax in that:
1 (universe) = 1/infinity x infinity
As earlier stated, 1/infinity = 0
Thus, when we arrive at the infinite division of the universe we are shown that the fundamental particle is nothing and that the universe is in this situation created entirely from being (as stated earlier, that the y value = the number of subdivisions and the amount of being necessary for a subdivision of size 1/y to recreate the universe.
If you read all that then well done, I'll be heading off back to my tower of mathematical and logical pretentiousness,
x
Amanda
EDIT: I would like to add, that I don't really draw any conclusions from this, I don't know what it means if the world is a verb from a philosophical stand-point, so any helpful pointers will probably be appreciated (i make no promises), and thats kinda why I posted it, I hope that discussion of this theory will at least help me (and maybe others) to from meaninful from above ridiculousness.
OH and one thing I almost forgot:
Ⓚ All Rites Reversed. Reprint What You Like.
Quote from: TSosBR! on April 12, 2009, 11:26:36 PM
"Leap of Faith" #1: 1/0 = infinity thus 1/infinity = 0
Wrong. Faith or not, infinity is not a number. Infinity is the lack of a boundary.
"1/0 = no boundary" makes no sense
(http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/images/2008/04/16/dividedbyzero.jpg)
(http://www.angwinreporter.com/2006/AR04/lakeberryessa01.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Q_4mbCuV7QE/ScbnCnkns2I/AAAAAAAAFNw/FWsMS-q4OA4/s400/1divide.jpg)
(http://www.cosmographica.com/gallery/portfolio2007/content/bin/images/large/131_BlackHole.jpg)
Actually the whole thing is wrong. Remember, 0 is a mathematical representation for a lack of a value, either positive or negative, or nothing... depending on how you want to say it. In division, all you are trying to do is figure out how much of one value it takes to make up another value. Well, unless you were shot in the head with a nailgun, you can easily see that you can't keep adding together nothings and eventually get something. The answer of a/0 isn't something, it's fucking undefined since you're trying to do an operation that doesn't make sense. So, since 1/0 != infinity, you've still got nothing saying what 1/infinity is equal to. Now sure, if you were wanting to round things (even to the nearest trillionth place would do it), you could try to say that 1/infinity = 0, but that would still only be 1/infinity = 0, with a + or - .1*10^-infinity accuracy.
Since we're not really going to be able to do any real math with infinitesimally small numbers (or large for that matter), let's look at that last equation of yours again. We'll let a=infinity, and deal with another proper way for expressing your equation so we can easily see where it went wrong.
Quote from: TSosBR! on April 12, 2009, 11:26:36 PM
1 (universe) = 1/infinity x infinity
So, substituting a, we get this:
1 (universe) = 1/a x aNow, lets look at that last part... the times a. Since anything divided by itself is itself yet again, you can express any number or variable as it/1, or in this case, a/1. This would make your equation look like this...
1 (universe) = 1/a x a/1Another trip down basic mathematics lane will remind us that any fraction, multiplied by its inverse, is equal to...
that's right, 1.
So, where are we now? well, since
1/a x a/1 = 1 (multiplying inverses), we can then reduce the first formula to 1 (universe) = 1.
So, since we've gone through and seen that the universe is actually still a whole and not imploding when someone decided to see what happens when you try to divide by zero using faulty math assumptions and a lack of reasoning, it's safe to return to your *chan image making without fear of existence suddenly ending in a big *slurp* sound.
actually, it is perfectly logical to assume that 1/0 = infinity, as and infinite number of 0s will go into one, the 1/infinity = 0 is simple algebraic rearrangement, and for the record that part of the equation was not mine, it was explained to me by someone far better at maths than I (and probably the majority of you) can ever hope to be.
And yes I am aware that 1 = 1 i think if you have decided to pick that out from the thoery outlined above you may have missed the point somewhat, as I never sought to prove that 1 equals anything other than 1.
Lets look at a smaller scale: A cat does not exist, it is a greater number of cells being a cat. A cell does not exist, it is a collection of cytoplasm and cell membrane and various organelles being a cell, an organelle does not exists, it is a collection of molecules arranged in a specific way being an organelle. A molecule does not exist, it is a collection of compounds bonded together being a molecule, like wise a compound does not exist, it is a collection of atoms being a compound.
Finally, an atom does not exist, it is electrons protons and neutrons (and a hell of a lot of empty space) being an atom. Even these do not exist, eveything is made of quarks at our smallest and (currently) most fundamental denomination.
The point I had/have hoped to illustrate (and apparently failed) is that nothing exists, it is merely made of other, smaller things being. The infinity equation was developed in order to illustrate the extreme of this theory, in that when anything is divided (by infinity as is only "theoretically" possible) into "nothings" we are left with the noun described being created from nothing x an infinite amount of being.
I hope that has clarified some points a little.
X
Edd
"There are certain things in which one is unable to believe for the simple reason that he never ceases to feel them. Things of this sort — things which are always inside of us and in fact are us and which consequently will not be pushed off or away where we can begin thinking about them — are no longer things; they, and the us which they are, equals A Verb; an IS."
also
"Listen: There's a hell of a good universe next door; lets go!
e.e. cummings (1894 - 1962) ^^
Yes.
First off,
:barstool:
Secondly,
QuoteThe universe can be said to be a collection of galaxies being the universe, and each galaxy is made from solar systems being a galaxy and such forth... as an important side note, as we continue to divide the universe in this way the denominator in our "Pentagon Equation" (you know the one i mean...) steadily becomes to increase in size, thus the whole expression 1/y becomes closer to 0 and the y value which equals the number of times the universe is divided but also the amount of being that a division of that size would have to undertake in order to equal the universe. That bit was a little unclear I guess, but I hope you tried to understand, or not understand, depending on your persuasion.
Eventually we reach a case (theoretically) where the universe is divided into an infinite number of pieces, and this is where things start to matter.
Approaching zero is not zero. Approaching infinity is not infinity.
Per the actual equations, the (current understood) fundmental particles, while very small, are
not infinitely small.
Uh...is there some sort of fetish which means we now have to declare everything a verb, all of a sudden? Even when it makes no sense?
For example:
Your mother is a verb
The President is a verb
Hangovers are a verb
Bankrupty is a verb
Hack philosophy is a verb
Nouns are a verb.
Quote from: LMNO on April 13, 2009, 02:46:16 PM
First off,
:barstool:
Approaching zero is not zero. Approaching infinity is not infinity.
Per the actual equations, the (current understood) fundmental particles, while very small, are not infinitely small.
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.
Also on the approaching zero point,
Approaching The Finish Line is Not The Finish Line, But is a Necessary Step in Crossing the Finish Line.
I wanted my reasoning to be as clear as I could make it (which still wasn't very clear) by providing ideas that build up to absurdity in little baby steps.
I'm not
declaring nouns are verbs neither... "proving" nouns are verbs is more fun.
Indeed. Its like Derrida for Retards or something. Actually analyzing language and discourse in the role of creating (mis)perceptions of reality is too much like hard work...just declare things verbs (and throw in some bad maths) and everyone can bask in your intellectual genius
Quote from: TSosBR! on April 13, 2009, 11:06:57 AM
actually, it is perfectly logical to assume that 1/0 = infinity, as and infinite number of 0s will go into one
go into, but will still not add up to. Using your logic, anything/0 = infinity.... only problem, = is not the same as >. Hell, if we just went with your logic, we could easily say that if a/b = c, a/b actually is equal to everything less than c, since anything less than c will go into a. See the fault yet?
Let's try it this way. If you were to graph out either 1/0 = infinity or 1/infinity = 0, you would see that although you do approach the correct points, you never actually quite reach them. Understand? Yes, you get close to the correct value, but that value is never reached.
Or let's look at it like this... since a/b = c is really another way of saying a = b * c, we can shift the zero over in your equation and get 1 = 0 x infinity, and since anything times zero is actually zero, and since zero is not equal to one, we've once again seen that 1/0 is not infinity. Sure, dividing by zero is done under certain circumstances in higher mathematics, but they are not part of a basic algebraic function like you were using. There is also the fact that your x/0 = infinity assumption is at times used in formal calculations, but all mathematicians understand that this relationship can actually be used in a calculation in a way that actually makes it not true and leads to logic errors... such as in:
Quote from: TSosBR! on April 12, 2009, 11:26:36 PM
1 (universe) = 1/infinity x infinity
where it should have been realized that you can't just plug in 0 for 1/infinity and should have instead looked at the equation as a hole and realized that in this case, the proper thing to do would have been to realize that the two infinities cancel out (x / a, then * a, just equals x), leaving you still with 1 = 1.
I hadn't missed any of your points in your first post about what you were or were not trying to prove regarding the value of 1, I just noticed that your premise was based off of flawed mathematics.... you can't divide something into nothing. Your little attempt here, based off of flawed math, also ignores the fact that you're not dealing with a whole bunch of little nothings. Sure, you might be dealing with subatomic particles, but guess what... they're still somethings. Just because you get your pizza from the delivery man and start pulling everything apart doesn't mean that those pieces of it are not still there, and doesn't change the fact that as a whole, it's still a pizza (a very messy and strewn out one now, but still one). Need that again? How about this...
Sure, a car is made up of just a bunch of atoms... Just like a snowball. Now, if they were all traveling at 60mph relative to you, which would you rather have hit you?
1) a quark
2) a snowball
3) a 1980 Delta '88
Or if you need things in a less scientific and less concrete example way, how about this.
The reality of an object is not defined by the division of the whole by its parts, but instead by the sum of its parts and their interaction together to complete and make up the whole.
Quote from: TSosBR! on April 13, 2009, 03:07:36 PM
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.
Quote from: LMNO on April 13, 2009, 03:15:05 PM
Quote from: TSosBR! on April 13, 2009, 03:07:36 PM
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.
Seems more like he's trying to force a physical representation of division onto a theoretical idea. "Look people, I can cut the cake time and time again till there is nothing left (except fuckloads of crumbs), and if you did the same thing with the universe you'd see that it doesn't really exists at all any more." People need to remember that while dealing with your change at the gas pump remainders might not count for shit and it's cool to round, if you're working with high end mathematics, theoretical astrophysics, or space launches, your shit better account for every tiny ass bit of remainder, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant (and for fuck's sake, make sure you don't put the decimal point in the wrong place and have your planetary lander try to turn off it's thrusters at the wrong altitude.)
QuoteSeems more like he's trying to force a physical representation of division onto a theoretical idea.
Yeah, I suppose it depends on how you look at it.
I went from "I can imagine a line of infinite points", and then 'concluded', "I can divide a physical line infinitely."
Also, I'm not sure of TSo's gender.
Quote from: LMNO on April 13, 2009, 03:24:46 PM
QuoteSeems more like he's trying to force a physical representation of division onto a theoretical idea.
Yeah, I suppose it depends on how you look at it.
I went from "I can imagine a line of infinite points", and then 'concluded', "I can divide a physical line infinitely."
Also, I'm not sure of TSo's gender.
He's being
outlandish about it.
Quote from: Cain on April 13, 2009, 03:09:23 PM
Indeed. Its like Derrida for Retards or something. Actually analyzing language and discourse in the role of creating (mis)perceptions of reality is too much like hard work...just declare things verbs (and throw in some bad maths) and everyone can bask in your intellectual genius
You think maths is intellectual?
@Rev. Thwack
I'd still argue that the maths isn't flawed so much as ridiculous to the point of being wholly inconclusive, and also (perhaps another time) that our logic isn't as all encompassing and correct as it may appear (the Copenhagen thingumy if you're familiar with quantum physics). But in general Yes.
As an answer to your second question, probably a snowball (assuming it was loosely packed) as quarks do wierd shit with entanglement and I might end up being eaten by a shark or summint (insert appropriately ridiculous annoying comment here). And cars hurt.
Now that we've all done some Thinking for Ourself Schmuckery can we have big group hug?
:aww:
Quote from: Rev. Thwack on April 13, 2009, 03:09:54 PM
The reality of an object is not defined by the division of the whole by its parts, but instead by the sum of its parts and their interaction together to complete and make up the whole.
And thats not entirely true but I'll only discuss that if you wish it to be discussed.
Quote from: TSosBR! on April 13, 2009, 03:30:02 PM
Quote from: Rev. Thwack on April 13, 2009, 03:09:54 PM
The reality of an object is not defined by the division of the whole by its parts, but instead by the sum of its parts and their interaction together to complete and make up the whole.
And thats not entirely true but I'll only discuss that if you wish it to be discussed.
Discuss away, as I was just using that as a counterpoint to your
Quote from: TSosBR!
noun described being created from nothing x an infinite amount of being.
and your using fetish for dividing things like crazy until you get to bits so tiny you feel just fine leaving them out altogether as a way to support it.
That's sort of where I was going.
A quark and a gluon are discreet bits of stuff. The fact that they don't seem to be able to be broken down any further, there doesn't seem to be a need to keep dividing.
Also, seeing as how the relationship of mass and energy seems to go batshit insane, some scientists have speculated that you really can't have a particle smaller that 10-33 cm.
Which, if you're keeping score, is 0.000000000000000000000000000000001 cm.
And, if you're paying attention, is not zero.
Quote from: Rev. Thwack on April 13, 2009, 03:36:28 PM
Quote from: TSosBR! on April 13, 2009, 03:30:02 PM
Quote from: Rev. Thwack on April 13, 2009, 03:09:54 PM
The reality of an object is not defined by the division of the whole by its parts, but instead by the sum of its parts and their interaction together to complete and make up the whole.
And thats not entirely true but I'll only discuss that if you wish it to be discussed.
Discuss away, as I was just using that as a counterpoint to your
Quote from: TSosBR!
noun described being created from nothing x an infinite amount of being.
and your using fetish for dividing things like crazy until you get to bits so tiny you feel just fine leaving them out altogether as a way to support it.
Well you've stated that an object and its qualities exist of its own accord, not really true (and I suppose this will be where people proclomations that reality is subjective comes in blah blah...)
I'll use a quoted example, because to write my own would probably be recognised fairly quickly as plagiarism around these parts, and I don't feel comfortable passing off someone else's ideas as my no matter how strongly i agree with them:
QuoteLet us consider a piece of cheese. We say that this has certain qualities, shape, structure, color, solidity, wieght, taste, smell, consistency and the rest; but investigation has shown that this is illusory. Where are these qualities? Not in the cheese, for different observers give quite different accounts of it. Not in ourselves, for we do not percieve them in the abscence of the cheese...
What then are these qualities of which we are so sure? They would not exist without our brains; they would not exist without the cheese. They are the results of the union, that is of the Yoga, of the seer and the seen, of subject and object...
Its Uncle Al (as people here seem to call him, and if Bob is to be believed).
This idea has recently been given more credence by advances in quantum physics, that is the general nature of an atom (which is something entirely wierder than everything ever), and seemingly, how without observation an atom exists entirely as a probability, thus any arguments involving matter that disregard consciousness are inherently flawed... I think.
Just thoughts mind, I don't really want to say anything I might be held to at a later date :/
x
Joanne
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=10125.0
Quote from: TSosBR! on April 13, 2009, 03:30:02 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 13, 2009, 03:09:23 PM
Indeed. Its like Derrida for Retards or something. Actually analyzing language and discourse in the role of creating (mis)perceptions of reality is too much like hard work...just declare things verbs (and throw in some bad maths) and everyone can bask in your intellectual genius
You think maths is intellectual?
You think its not?
Cain,
thinks you may not understand maths very much.
Quote from: Cain on April 13, 2009, 03:59:27 PM
Quote from: TSosBR! on April 13, 2009, 03:30:02 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 13, 2009, 03:09:23 PM
Indeed. Its like Derrida for Retards or something. Actually analyzing language and discourse in the role of creating (mis)perceptions of reality is too much like hard work...just declare things verbs (and throw in some bad maths) and everyone can bask in your intellectual genius
You think maths is intellectual?
You think its not?
Cain,
thinks you may not understand maths very much.
I think I'm allowed a point of view. Is a spanner intellectual?
Quote from: TSosBR! on April 13, 2009, 03:54:05 PM
Quote from: Rev. Thwack on April 13, 2009, 03:36:28 PM
Quote from: TSosBR! on April 13, 2009, 03:30:02 PM
Quote from: Rev. Thwack on April 13, 2009, 03:09:54 PM
The reality of an object is not defined by the division of the whole by its parts, but instead by the sum of its parts and their interaction together to complete and make up the whole.
And thats not entirely true but I'll only discuss that if you wish it to be discussed.
Discuss away, as I was just using that as a counterpoint to your
Quote from: TSosBR!
noun described being created from nothing x an infinite amount of being.
and your using fetish for dividing things like crazy until you get to bits so tiny you feel just fine leaving them out altogether as a way to support it.
Well you've stated that an object and its qualities exist of its own accord, not really true (and I suppose this will be where people proclomations that reality is subjective comes in blah blah...)
No, I stated that we define what an object is due to what its components are and how they respond to each other. I'm not trying to say that a car is a car because it's a car, but that a car is a car because it contains everything we attribute to being required by a car. It's my counterpoint to your statement that a car is really nothing because we can find really tiny bits of it to talk about that are almost too small to measure. Even trying to go as far as saying that the car is only a car in my reality is off. Yes, there are aspects of the car that we will experience differently due to the way that our brains process and handle information, but those are mostly the superficial things such as color and smell, while the majority of the concrete aspects of the car (size, shape, it's ability to crush you like a bug) remained unchanged due to the fact that it does have characteristics that are not dependent upon observation by an outside force.
Reality isn't subjective.... parts of reality are subjective, parts are non-subjective, and parts are ignored by many.
Oh... You went to AC
and Quantum in the same post!
QuoteLet us consider a piece of cheese. We say that this has certain qualities, shape, structure, color, solidity, wieght, taste, smell, consistency and the rest; but investigation has shown that this is illusory. Where are these qualities? Not in the cheese, for different observers give quite different accounts of it. Not in ourselves, for we do not percieve them in the abscence of the cheese...
There seems to be confusion between the perception of the cheese versus the cheese itself. All the Opium Fiend seems to be saying is that there is an additional process in our heads that affect how we perceive the cheese. The bit you quoted continues:
QuoteIn reality the cheese is nothing but a series of electric charges. Even the most fundamental quality of all, mass, has been found not to exist.
Well, he sort of gets that bit wrong, like most non-scientists trying to explain Relativity. But still, one must keep in mind that this was from a lecture on basic Yoga; the purpose of which was to teach how to alter your reality filters (Bars in your Black Iron Prison).
But please note that Al said "The cheese is a series of electric charges". You can nit-pick that all you want, but the core of the statement is that "something exists outside of yourself that can be measured".
As for the Schrodinger/Heisenberg routine, the atom does not exist as a "probability". We simply cannot measure it in a well-defined manner, due to the nature of our measurements.
Quote from: TSosBR! on April 13, 2009, 04:01:33 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 13, 2009, 03:59:27 PM
Quote from: TSosBR! on April 13, 2009, 03:30:02 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 13, 2009, 03:09:23 PM
Indeed. Its like Derrida for Retards or something. Actually analyzing language and discourse in the role of creating (mis)perceptions of reality is too much like hard work...just declare things verbs (and throw in some bad maths) and everyone can bask in your intellectual genius
You think maths is intellectual?
You think its not?
Cain,
thinks you may not understand maths very much.
I think I'm allowed a point of view. Is a spanner intellectual?
The thought that went into the initial design and creation, yes.
The thought that went into the metallurgy and tooling, yes.
The thought that went into picking it up to hit someone in the head with, no.
Quote from: TSosBR! on April 13, 2009, 04:01:33 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 13, 2009, 03:59:27 PM
Quote from: TSosBR! on April 13, 2009, 03:30:02 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 13, 2009, 03:09:23 PM
Indeed. Its like Derrida for Retards or something. Actually analyzing language and discourse in the role of creating (mis)perceptions of reality is too much like hard work...just declare things verbs (and throw in some bad maths) and everyone can bask in your intellectual genius
You think maths is intellectual?
You think its not?
Cain,
thinks you may not understand maths very much.
I think I'm allowed a point of view. Is a spanner intellectual?
Sure, and I'm allowed to make fun of it. No, but its certainly a tool, like something else in this thread.
QuoteOh... You went to AC and Quantum in the same post!
:facepalm:
Incidentally, in case you were gonna go :cn:
Quote from: JHMIII, "Beneath Reality"The Schrödinger field pattern in position space determines where a detection event is likely to be found, and its pattern in wavelength space determines the momentum we associate with the object causing the event.
If the events are localized in a small region, the wave pattern will be localized but consequently it will contain many elementary waves – its momentum will not be well-defined.
Conversely, if the momentum detector clicks only for a narrow range of momentum values, the wavelength is well-defined, and the wave pattern must extend over many cycles – its location in space is not well-defined.
You can have waves with well-defined position or well-defined momentum, but not both at once. This is the true meaning of the uncertainty relation first enunciated in 1927 by Heisenberg.
Quote from: LMNO on April 13, 2009, 04:11:23 PM
Incidentally, in case you were gonna go :cn:
Quote from: JHMIII, "Beneath Reality"The Schrödinger field pattern in position space determines where a detection event is likely to be found, and its pattern in wavelength space determines the momentum we associate with the object causing the event.
If the events are localized in a small region, the wave pattern will be localized but consequently it will contain many elementary waves – its momentum will not be well-defined.
Conversely, if the momentum detector clicks only for a narrow range of momentum values, the wavelength is well-defined, and the wave pattern must extend over many cycles – its location in space is not well-defined.
You can have waves with well-defined position or well-defined momentum, but not both at once. This is the true meaning of the uncertainty relation first enunciated in 1927 by Heisenberg.
I take it you understand/have knowledge of the basic experiment showing an atoms paradoxical nature?
EDIT: may as well reply to the various other people as well so I don't feel rude:
@Cain: yes I am a tool. Lets move on... unless you were in fact agreeing with me that maths is a tool (thats what the metaphor was supposed to represent...) much like the spanner, in that its creation required much thought and reasoning, but now any twat can pick it up and do whatever heshe likes with it.
@Rev Thwack: I'm glad that has been clarified, though I still disagree that any of reality is objective. If I have no sense of touch what does a car feel like? If I have no sense of taste what does chocolate taste like? You see? I hope you have another argument to make me feel silly for asking those questions though, you seem to be quite good at it after all...
Quote from: TSosBR! on April 13, 2009, 04:14:38 PM
Quote from: LMNO on April 13, 2009, 04:11:23 PM
Incidentally, in case you were gonna go :cn:
Quote from: JHMIII, "Beneath Reality"The Schrödinger field pattern in position space determines where a detection event is likely to be found, and its pattern in wavelength space determines the momentum we associate with the object causing the event.
If the events are localized in a small region, the wave pattern will be localized but consequently it will contain many elementary waves – its momentum will not be well-defined.
Conversely, if the momentum detector clicks only for a narrow range of momentum values, the wavelength is well-defined, and the wave pattern must extend over many cycles – its location in space is not well-defined.
You can have waves with well-defined position or well-defined momentum, but not both at once. This is the true meaning of the uncertainty relation first enunciated in 1927 by Heisenberg.
I take it you understand/have knowledge of the basic experiment showing an atoms paradoxical nature?
Things are only a paradox if you don't understand them or are following an incorrect view of them.
QuoteThe "Heisenberg uncertainty relation" emerged in an atmosphere of confusion from which it has never quite escaped. Much of the fault lies with Heisenberg himself who was not content with setting forth the bare theory, he also tried to make the result more comprehensible with suggestive physical arguments.
For example, he implied that the uncertainty has its origin in the inevitable disturbance caused by the measurement process (which is not inherently a quantum concept). Bohr objected to these explanatory efforts, convinced that the matter was deeper than Heisenberg made it out to be.
As I see it, most problems of interpretation are resolved by the simple fact that the microscopic theory does not refer to any physical waves or particles. It refers to well-defined detectors and unambiguous events of detection.
Accounts that ascribe position to particles and momentum to waves apply macroscopic language inappropriately to microscopic nature. You can set a detector to register an event with well-defined momentum, or you can set it to record an event with well-defined position. That does not entitle you to say that the event is caused by a "wave" or by a "particle."
...
Schrödinger'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. Schrödinger 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 – one probability for each event.
For the cat the events are determinations that the animal is dead or alive. Schrödinger 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 – 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 Schrödinger, 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 – 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.
Bohr grasped intuitively the mouse-trapping that converts the possibilities inherent in a microscopic system into macroscopic reality. Much of the century passed, however, before physicists developed a satisfactory theoretical account of this process. It is complicated by the fact that irreversibility entails the disturbance of many pieces, as in the dissipation of energy in friction, or the dispersal of a drop of ink in water. The quantum version of the process is called decoherence, but the image of a mousetrap will serve our purpose.
The world is a Verb... but not for the reasons listed in the OP. Our experiential reality can be considered a verb, because its an active process. There is not a Red House, there is the interaction between my neurological system and a bunch of stuff in Objective reality which we'll label house and based on the wavelengths bouncing off of it, we'll label it a Red House.
In Objective Reality, the house may be a noun. In experiential reality, the house is a part of an interaction and thus a verb. Humans, more importantly tend to always be verbs, since few are rarely in static state long enough to be properly labeled as nouns.
The Barstool is also a verb.
Also, getting back to Crowley, from the same lecture:
QuoteAll phenomena of which we are aware take place in our own minds, and therefore the only thing we have to look at is the mind; which is a more constant quantity over all the species of humanity than is generally supposed. What appear to be radical differences, irreconcilable by argument, are usually found to be due to the obstinacy of habit produced by generations of systematic sectarian training.
All of this seems to be pointing to Crowley's main thesis: That humans ascribe subjective perceptions to objective phenomena, without realizing their own subjectivity.
He does not say that objective phenomena does not exist; he says that we can only percieve it subjectively.
Quote from: LMNO on April 13, 2009, 04:27:42 PM
Also, getting back to Crowley, from the same lecture:
QuoteAll phenomena of which we are aware take place in our own minds, and therefore the only thing we have to look at is the mind; which is a more constant quantity over all the species of humanity than is generally supposed. What appear to be radical differences, irreconcilable by argument, are usually found to be due to the obstinacy of habit produced by generations of systematic sectarian training.
All of this seems to be pointing to Crowley's main thesis: That humans ascribe subjective perceptions to objective phenomena, without realizing their own subjectivity.
He does not say that objective phenomena does not exist; he says that we can only percieve it subjectively.
Precisely. The idea that objective reality doesn't exist seems to require as much faith and belief as believing that objective reality is exactly as we perceive it ;-) ST00PID Post Modernists!!!
@Rev Thwack: see edited post on the page before
@LMNO: I'm not really sure if we're saying the same thing, but the way I have been interpreting it is that the atom does exist as a probability
until it is measured and that the very act of measuring it (the way it is measured) causing
Stuff to Happen. i think I understand your point about lack of correct measuring equipment, but I would say: work with evidence you have not evidence you wish you had.
(though I have almost definitely got the wrong end of the stick there, so be gentle :/)
e.g. If a fossil was found that definitively disproved the theory of evolution, we would rework the theory, not conclude that our understanding and our ability to discover/interpret fossils was incorrect.
But I think we may be talking about different things here :/
Quote from: LMNO on April 13, 2009, 04:27:42 PM
Also, getting back to Crowley, from the same lecture:
QuoteAll phenomena of which we are aware take place in our own minds, and therefore the only thing we have to look at is the mind; which is a more constant quantity over all the species of humanity than is generally supposed. What appear to be radical differences, irreconcilable by argument, are usually found to be due to the obstinacy of habit produced by generations of systematic sectarian training.
All of this seems to be pointing to Crowley's main thesis: That humans ascribe subjective perceptions to objective phenomena, without realizing their own subjectivity.
He does not say that objective phenomena does not exist; he says that we can only percieve it subjectively.
But each mind does not exist outside itself, so what difference does it make whether there is objective reality, if we can only interpret it subjectively?
x
Simon
Quote from: TSosBR! on April 13, 2009, 04:39:20 PM
@LMNO: I'm not really sure if we're saying the same thing, but the way I have been interpreting it is that the atom does exist as a probability until it is measured and that the very act of measuring it (the way it is measured) causing Stuff to Happen. i think I understand your point about lack of correct measuring equipment, but I would say: work with evidence you have not evidence you wish you had.
(though I have almost definitely got the wrong end of the stick there, so be gentle :/)
A wavelength is defined as "the distance between repeating units of a propagating wave of a given frequency."
In order to find a wavelength, you must measure it over time. By definition, it will not have a specific position when measured.
Accordingly, if you define a specific position at a specific moment in time for an occilating particle, you cannot determing it's wavelength. So it's not about evidence. It's about the nature of what we are measuring, and how it is measured.
The atom isn't in some sort of "between" state that becomes "either/or" when we pull out a ruler.
Quote from: LMNO on April 13, 2009, 04:27:42 PM
But each mind does not exist outside itself, so what difference does it make whether there is objective reality, if we can only interpret it subjectively?
That's where our measuring devices come into play. While the subjective experience is unique, If I tell you that "a meter" is the distance travelled by light in free space in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second", we now have a common frame of reference.
So, if I tell you that an object was measured to be 2 meters long, the length of that object is common between us.
That is to say, by using a reference that is defined objectively, we remove the subjective.
One of Einstein's insights was to remove the observer even further, which resulted in Special Relativity.
coolies :)
Quote from: TSosBR! on April 13, 2009, 04:39:20 PM
@LMNO: I'm not really sure if we're saying the same thing, but the way I have been interpreting it is that the atom does exist as a probability until it is measured and that the very act of measuring it (the way it is measured) causing Stuff to Happen. i think I understand your point about lack of correct measuring equipment, but I would say: work with evidence you have not evidence you wish you had.
(though I have almost definitely got the wrong end of the stick there, so be gentle :/)
The Map is not the Territory.
Just because our MAP models the atom as a probability doesn't mean that it IS a probability.... only that it appears that way to us, based on the measuring devices we're using and the models we're applying.
Yeah, that too.
Oooohhh... actually I'm not sure I do agree, I thought I was talking about something different... It's not really to do with measurement at all (I don't think)...
The basic "quantum experiment" was to split an atoms wave function in half and have each half contained in a "box" (for want of a better word) and a screen (some sorta magic screen that I can't remember the proper name for :/). You could then either open the "boxes" simultaneously or seperately.
If the boxes are opened simultanteously, an interference pattern emerges (you seem to have a pretty good grasp of this stuff so I assume you understand what that means...)*, if the boxes are opened seperately the atom comes out and hits the screen at a singular point. This, does not appear to fit your measurement thing cited earlier (thought that is a very relevant point to the general understanding and I'm glad you brought it up). This example is called the Quantum Enigma (physics's skeleton in the closet) and regardless of measuring equipment points to consciousness effecting physical reality.
That's paraphrased from a book of the same name that I read a while back.
*in canse you don't really get the implications, this isn't a matter of us measuring an atom in two different ways and getting two different results, here all that is measured is an atoms interaction with a screen and the two approaches cause different physical realities, a wave (more than that, two seperate halves of a wave (which is two seperate halves of an atom) interacting with each other to form an interference pattern), and the second which involves wave form collapse, the probability of a wave being in one place or another dissapates when it is seen to be in exactly one place.
I hope that makes sense, and even if you don't think it is relevant to the argument, at least constituted a fairly interesting read.
x
James
EDIT:
for completeness: the website with some "in a nutshell" explanation of what i tried to say above, probably far better than my post.
http://quantumenigma.com/71/
TSo, I'll take a look at the site, and think about it a bit.
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).
Just for shits here's a nice little mind warping thought:
There are infinitely many numbers each with infinitely many digits that contain as substrings every single number. The proof is pretty simple, but it's a neat way to start wrapping your mind around the concept of varying levels of infinity.
I checked the link out. It simply looks like the two slit experiment.
I checked out the FAQ:
QuoteYour book’s subtitle says, “Physics Encounters Consciousness.” How?
With the advent of quantum mechanics, physics found that observation created a physical reality. By freely choosing a different observation, you could have created a physical reality inconsistent with the one you actually chose to create. (And therefore a different history!)
:? The what?
QuoteThough, because of randomness and the complexity of big things, you can’t bring about just the future you want–as purveyors of pseudo-science imply. Quantum mechanics reveals a mysterious encounter of “free choice,” conscious free will, with the physical world. Does this impact your world-view? It sure does impact mine.
Still don't follow. These aren't actually answers. They look like an ambiguous sales pitch to hoover up the crowd who are weary of pseudo-science yet still want to bask in the glamour of strange interpretation.
Quote from: TSosBR! on April 13, 2009, 05:23:11 PMThis example is called the Quantum Enigma (physics's skeleton in the closet) and regardless of measuring equipment points to consciousness effecting physical reality.
That's paraphrased from a book of the same name that I read a while back.
So how does the book link consciousness with reality?
Quote from: TSosBR! on April 13, 2009, 05:23:11 PM(more than that, two seperate halves of a wave (which is two seperate halves of an atom) interacting with each other to form an interference pattern)
In the experiment you mention, photons were used. Not atoms. Even so, the split wave function is not two halves of the photon. The wave function is a man-made mathematical tool for calculating the probability of where a particle is likely to be found and is not the particle itself.
Quote from: Xooxe on April 14, 2009, 07:11:41 AM
Quote from: TSosBR! on April 13, 2009, 05:23:11 PM(more than that, two seperate halves of a wave (which is two seperate halves of an atom) interacting with each other to form an interference pattern)
In the experiment you mention, photons were used. Not atoms. Even so, the split wave function is not two halves of the photon. The wave function is a man-made mathematical tool for calculating the probability of where a particle is likely to be found and is not the particle itself.
Yes thats true, but in the experiment, which has been conducted with atoms and other things up to the size of small molecules, it can be shown, that conscious decision makes the atom (or photon, whichever you are more comfortable with) is either present in both boxes, or present in one box.
This is to answer your earlier question, physics encountering consciousness.
An explanation of interference patterns may be in order:
An interference pattern is a set of peaks and troughs that (obviously) can only be formed by a wave, or more precisely, the interaction of two seperate waves, this is why two musicians playing the same tune are not twice as loud as one musician, because some of the wave patterns start to cancel each other out. If an atom can be shown to produce an interference pattern, that means it was
present in both boxes.
I hope that serves as some explanation...
x
edd
Quote from: Samuel Boone Johnson Thomas Frederik Douglas III on April 14, 2009, 04:57:28 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: LMNO on April 14, 2009, 01:11:20 PM
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 :D
No, in that frame of reference, you're measuring a wave property; hence, you'll get an interference pattern.
yes but an interference pattern is only possible when two seperate waves from two seperate origins interact.
You realize you're still trying to describe quantum phenomena in macro-world language, right?
I thought we went over this already.
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
Well, as long as you make sure it's clear that people do not change the fundamental elements in nature merely by observing them.
Quote from: LMNO on April 13, 2009, 03:15:05 PM
Quote from: TSosBR! on April 13, 2009, 03:07:36 PM
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.
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.
I like smart people.
wow... I've learnt a lot by being wrong. :D
Quote from: TSosBR! on April 14, 2009, 05:43:18 PM
wow... I've learnt a lot by being wrong. :D
Welcome to Discordia...
Quote from: GA on April 14, 2009, 05:00:09 PM
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! :lulz:
Quote from: GA on April 14, 2009, 05:00:09 PM
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.
Quote from: Cain on April 14, 2009, 12:13:23 PM
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.
Funny you should say that. I was talking to a friend last night and she suggested that I stab people in the eye with forks to cure my writers block. This could be a win-win situation for us both?
Quote from: TSosBR! on April 14, 2009, 01:50:48 PM
Quote from: LMNO on April 14, 2009, 01:11:20 PM
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...
The interference pattern suggests that the particle came from both boxes. The fact that the particle can only be found in one box suggests that the particle wasn't in both. Both of those suggestions together suggest that we're unable to understand it all properly by looking at it this way.
By the way, you're still confusing wave function to be the actual observed phenomena, although they are related. The wave function actually is in both the boxes at the same time in an abstract sense (in the same way that the number 5 follows me around if I have £5 in my pocket.) It absolutely
must be in both boxes if there is a chance that it could be, because that's the way that the mathematics works.
well, as einstein said...
"fuck this i need a shit"
did einstein actually say that?
:p
Quote from: TSosBR! on April 23, 2009, 09:28:14 PM
did einstein actually say that?
:p
Well, he said it in German, so you've probably seen it by a different translation... but yes.
"The only real valuable thing is intuition."
=albert einstein
bought the same thing...