question and where's the contradiction??!!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

GS, It seems to me one of the problems you're having is that you're trying to understand quantum theory using a non-quantum type of understanding.

Yes, I know that doesn't seem to make sense.  Quantum theory is non-intuitive.  And I can tell by the OP that as a logician and set theorist, that you like hard numbers, and step-by-step logic that one can deduce from core principles.

That simply doesn't happen prior to decoherence.

Quantum Mechanics:  If it doesn't piss you off, you didn't understand the work.

You know, it didn't irritate me at all, and I didn't find it particularly difficult. Maybe I just don't get it? But I also wonder whether there's a cultural aspect, because I was raised with a flexible perspective about the state of "being"; I am not particularly attached to "is". Sometimes the answer to an either/or question is yes.

Look, the fucking cat IS or it ISN'T.  It's a particle or a wave. 

UNIVERSE WILL NOW MAKE UP ITS FUCKING MIND.  WE'RE ON A SCHEDULE.

Cat is in an indeterminate state in which it is equally both alive and dead! What is so hard about that?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Cat is in an indeterminate state in which it is equally both alive and dead! What is so hard about that?

GOD IS CHEATING.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Cat is in an indeterminate state in which it is equally both alive and dead! What is so hard about that?

GOD IS CHEATING.

God's a dick. We already know this.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Cat is in an indeterminate state in which it is equally both alive and dead! What is so hard about that?

GOD IS CHEATING.

God's a dick. We already know this.

REMEMBER THE CANAANITES?

NEITHER DO I.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Cat is in an indeterminate state in which it is equally both alive and dead! What is so hard about that?

GOD IS CHEATING.

God's a dick. We already know this.

REMEMBER THE CANAANITES?

NEITHER DO I.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

What I really like is that there are all of these rules that make logical sense, and then hidden in the very heart of all these rules, in the basis of all matter, is a violation of everything else.

And that's what all of existence is based on, is fuck you, that's what. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

What I really like is that there are all of these rules that make logical sense, and then hidden in the very heart of all these rules, in the basis of all matter, is a violation of everything else.

And that's what all of existence is based on, is fuck you, that's what. 

God's all like "This is reeeeeally gonna piss them off", and Gabriel's all "hahahahaha"

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

What I really like is that there are all of these rules that make logical sense, and then hidden in the very heart of all these rules, in the basis of all matter, is a violation of everything else.

And that's what all of existence is based on, is fuck you, that's what. 

God's all like "This is reeeeeally gonna piss them off", and Gabriel's all "hahahahaha"

[GrannySmith]

Where my thoughts changed direction on this subject involved an idea I had that kind of explains why the perceived dimensions of reality are discrete and how time possibly might work.  My idea was that time comes from the universe (or reality - or whatever you like to call the "all encompassing everything that exists") trying to resolve the law that matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

The big bang (or something similar) happened and reality was all like "whoops, matter was created - we can't have that! GTFO Matter!" so everything vanished, but then the universe was like, "ah, fuck - some matter just got destroyed" so all the matter re-appeared in the next iteration of everything.  And, repeat.

Throw in a little "information must be preserved" and you get kind of a foundation for progression of time with some kinda sorta explanation for how and why physical things change and there are discrete changes (not continuous ones) in states of things.

It's not a very well fleshed out idea, and the concepts are kind of right on the edge of what I know how to explain and talk about but I hope you get the idea.

It sounds like it could develop into a great idea! No clue how though, as I said I'm too concerned trying to figure out the logic of all this.

GS, It seems to me one of the problems you're having is that you're trying to understand quantum theory using a non-quantum type of understanding.

Yes, I know that doesn't seem to make sense.  Quantum theory is non-intuitive.  And I can tell by the OP that as a logician and set theorist, that you like hard numbers, and step-by-step logic that one can deduce from core principles.

That simply doesn't happen prior to decoherence.

I do like hard numbers, and step by step logic is a wonderful game, but logic doesn't necessarily mean aristotelian logic. we can just create any logical system that fits what we want to describe. or maybe this is where i'm getting it wrong, is this what you mean? If that's the case then how should i approach quantum theory you think? i just feel that if i really look through the details of these definitions it will make sense. and once more, thank you for your post LMNO, always in the right direction: i didn't even know what decoherence is! man, i need to take holidays from work to look through all this.

I think maybe the problem he is having is that probability distributions are continuous functions...

this is exactly my problem there! by the way i'm a she, why do you guys keep calling me he today? 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

There IS a logical system that fits what we're trying to describe. It just doesn't work the same way any other logical systems work.

[GrannySmith]

There IS a logical system that fits what we're trying to describe. It just doesn't work the same way any other logical systems work.

i want to try and understand how it works! any clues where to look?

[LMNO]

Probability theory.

[Reginald Ret]

The probability of certain interactions. Though there is nothing to interact, the interaction is what makes the things that the -action is inter- to.
Though it is not really an action the way we normally understand action either. Nothing is acting, there is no cause and effect in the usual sense.
I'm quite confused about this subject, but that seems to be the norm.

[rong]

I think maybe the problem he is having is that probability distributions are continuous functions...

this is exactly my problem there! by the way i'm a she, why do you guys keep calling me he today? 

terribly sorry. 

[GrannySmith]

Probability theory.

The probability of certain interactions. Though there is nothing to interact, the interaction is what makes the things that the -action is inter- to.
Though it is not really an action the way we normally understand action either. Nothing is acting, there is no cause and effect in the usual sense.
I'm quite confused about this subject, but that seems to be the norm.

Sounds like this "quantum logic" i've been reading about lately:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantlog/

At its core, quantum mechanics can be regarded as a non-classical probability calculus resting upon a non-classical propositional logic. [...] Some have argued that the empirical success of quantum mechanics calls for a revolution in logic itself.

I could not agree more! But this with my half knowledge of this field.

Here's also the wikipedia article about quantum logic, it's slightly less technical:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logic

Still, continuity creeps in when we talk of intervals but it's not so serious there i guess. Anyway, it's all so exciting!