User Controls
The mind is a meat radio.
-
2017-02-07 at 9:37 PM UTC
Originally posted by Discount Whore It's still middle-school level philosophy. Like deciding that you're atheist after all.
you wouldn't know what philosophy was if it struck you in the face. that's not philosophy; that's the facts. what i said was simply the objective nature of things. you're almost certainly some twisted semi-individual whose brain is a pile of fuck and you try to be hip and sound smart while actually hating the process of thinking altogether. you have all the signs of a being someone who fails at even going through the motions of being a tyro. you have yet to give evidence that you think about what you say at all, you simply fit into a groove which arrives at a dead end.
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Yeah but at least it's not blatantly misinformed, wrong, and poorly reasoned like his other posts. That's progress enough for me.
you're not in any position to assess whether someone is being misinformed or if they are correct or not. i don't think you've actually developed that capacity.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-02-07 at 9:41 PM UTC
Originally posted by snab_snib you wouldn't know what philosophy was if it struck you in the face. that's not philosophy; that's the facts. what i said was simply the objective nature of things. you're almost certainly some twisted semi-individual whose brain is a pile of fuck and you try to be hip and sound smart while actually hating the process of thinking altogether. you have all the signs of a being someone who fails at even going through the motions of being a tyro. you have yet to give evidence that you think about what you say at all, you simply fit into a groove which arrives at a dead end.
you're not in any position to assess whether someone is being misinformed or if they are correct or not. i don't think you've actually developed that capacity.
U madThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-02-07 at 10:01 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon No, you completely missed the mark on what actual physical probabilism is. In the present day, the position that most scientists agree upon is that quantum mechanics are truly random. There are debates to this day about whether or not Bell's theorem actually establishes that (for example superdeterminism), but for the most part, to the best of our knowledge, it simply is. Accept that.
Some people try to argue that the fact that QM is random, doesn't mean that our universe at large is not deterministic, or has random elements. Which is honestly retarded. There are a lot of physics related discussion beyond your level of knowledge right now to explain it but let me give you a simple scenario to illustrate that that argument is facile:
Imagine you are a quantum physicist. You conduct an experiment where a detector observes a truly random quantum event and tells you the outcome. This information, which has been randomly generated, informs your decision to pick A or B on a test. Bam, determinism broken.
I honestly don't understand your reasoning; in fact, from where I am it looks like you're just saying the world isn't deterministic because "quantum mechanics", without giving me the line of reasoning between your proposition and your conclusion. The example you provided doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't looks like you broke determinism, it just looks like you forgot to include or are unaware of all the variables. Please feel free to attempt to explain this further.
If determinism is an illusion as was claimed earlier, why does the world appear to be deterministic? -
2017-02-07 at 10:11 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind I honestly don't understand your reasoning; in fact, from where I am it looks like you're just saying the world isn't deterministic because "quantum mechanics", without giving me the line of reasoning between your proposition and your conclusion.
I don't think you quite understood the link, so perhaps the problem is my communication. But it's a fairly straightforward connection band I think my explanation was fairly straightforward too.The example you provided doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't looks like you broke determinism, it just looks like you forgot to include or are unaware of all the variables. Please feel free to attempt to explain this further.
There is not really a question of not including or being unaware of all the variables; to the best of our knowledge, quantum mechanics are truly random, and there is no "hidden variable" determining the outcome of random events on the quantum scale. There's no easy way to explain it, so you will have to try to grapple with the science yourself, and I would be happy to answer specific questions you have:
https://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/BellsTheorem/BellsTheorem.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/bells_inequality.html
There are some debates about this but for the most part, it is agreed upon that QM is truly random.If determinism is an illusion as was claimed earlier, why does the world appear to be deterministic?
Because there's nothing stopping the creation of many largely deterministic systems within the universe. There is a "separation of scale" between classical and quantum mechanics. Classical mechanics appear to be almost 100% deterministic because there are few systems that translate the randomness of quantum events to the mechanics of events that occur at the classical scale. But they do exist. For example, the radiation emitted from a star can vary and fluctuate based on quantum mechanical principles. It can be truly random. But in a sea of radiation, what does the specific pattern of these emissions really effect? For the most part, not too much; it's just noise, and it beats on the rocks of some desolate planet all the same.
Side note: Some use this to argue for how consciousness, specially human consciousness, might have a "special" position in the universe because we can translate these quantum events into macroscopic results... such as a scientist taking a measurement of a random quantum event. I don't know about that, but it's an interesting thought.
Post last edited by Captain Falcon at 2017-02-07T22:15:11.840203+00:00
Post last edited by Captain Falcon at 2017-02-07T22:26:34.404487+00:00 -
2017-02-08 at 3:23 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon https://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/BellsTheorem/BellsTheorem.html
Honest question: how does a violation of Bell's inequality in the experiment described demonstrate what you're saying it does? Accepting that the outcome of some physical phenomena has no historical cause doesn't seem to make the findings described here any less odd. -
2017-02-08 at 3:39 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Honest question: how does a violation of Bell's inequality in the experiment described demonstrate what you're saying it does? Accepting that the outcome of some physical phenomena has no historical cause doesn't seem to make the findings described here any less odd.
Could you please narrow it down to what specific part of my post you are confused about?
And I'm not sure what you mean about the findings being odd.
What I'm saying is, is that there are certain completely random quantum events that also may affect macroscopic phenomena. One can conjure up some examples, but it's true that they are rare phenomena.
For example, if you go to Alaska to see the aurora borealis, those patterns are entirely determined randomly, based on electron emissions by the sun (solar wind). Perhaps if you see these lights, it affects or changes your behaviour in some way in the future; perhaps on one night there's a particularly large burst of solar radiation that causes a flare in the aurora in a way that's particularly beautiful and it creates a perfect moment for you to kiss the girl sitting next to you, and it changes the course of your life forever. Or perhaps that night the aurora is still beautiful but not particularly so, and it doesn't do that. Or maybe something else happens that triggers the neurons in your brain to affect you behaviour some other way.
Similarly, atomic decay is entirely random. Perhaps one day you're taking your now-wife, who is pregnant, to Hawaii. While you are in the upper atmosphere, some atmospheric radiation strikes your unborn baby and triggers some mutation that turns him into Superman. This could even possibly affect the tree of life, how evolution takes place.
So no, the idea that the universe is deterministic... it's really not very well supported. Perhaps one day we will find out that that is the case, but currently, this is where the weight of science seems to stand. -
2017-02-08 at 4:33 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Could you please narrow it down to what specific part of my post you are confused about?
It seems like you brought up Bell's theorem as a knockdown argument against hidden variable explanations of seemingly random random phenomena (e.g. time to decay). I'm asking how the experiments cited in that link do this.
I guess as I think about it I understand it a little better, a hidden local variable carried at the point of emission couldn't be the only factor in determining what the spin of an electron is when later measured. Ok, I see the issue there, but this doesn't seem like an argument for a probabilistic model either. The problem (that non-local measurements seem to affect each other's outcome) here doesn't go away if we say the spin of an electron is probabilistic and truly random. A probabilistic model of electron spin would still seem to predict Bell's inequality will hold in experimental results.
-
2017-02-08 at 6:23 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny It seems like you brought up Bell's theorem as a knockdown argument against hidden variable explanations of seemingly random random phenomena (e.g. time to decay).
Yes, correctI'm asking how the experiments cited in that link do this.
I guess as I think about it I understand it a little better, a hidden local variable carried at the point of emission couldn't be the only factor in determining what the spin of an electron is when later measured. Ok, I see the issue there, but this doesn't seem like an argument for a probabilistic model either. The problem (that non-local measurements seem to affect each other's outcome) here doesn't go away if we say the spin of an electron is probabilistic and truly random. A probabilistic model of electron spin would still seem to predict Bell's inequality will hold in experimental results.
Oh geez, I see exactly what you have wrong but it's very difficult to explain it.
Okay imagine there are some balls. Each ball has either 1 or 2 printed on it, either A or B printed on the opposite side, and each ball is either red or green.
Bell's inequality is essentially that of these balls, the number which have, for example, 1-B plus the number which have
A-green is at least the amount that are 1-green. This is mathematically true, you can test this yourself if you feel like it. You can use this for any first second third pair of properties.
Okay, so imagine that you and I both have a box of our own. A third party takes "unmatched pairs" (eg 1ARed and 2BGreen) of these balls and gives one to you and to me. We both open our shit, turns out that we now also know what each other's ball looks like because it is the opposite. Repeat this experiment 100 times and you will notice that the inequality holds true, because it's a mathematical necessity of you drawing each ball from this pool of balls. This drawing is the "local variable" that determines the outcome.
In experiment, this does not happen all the time; you can do it 1000 times and you might observe that the inequality is violated. This means that you are not simply drawing from *any* prior "pool", it is simply being generated as the photons are being observed.
The problem is not actually that the measurement of one affects the other. It is that one being a certain result means that other necessarily have has to be the other, and this would suggest a local variable is responsible i.e. In my example you are drawing from a pool. However experimental data shows that while one measurement does in fact tell us the other, the violation of the inequality means that it's not coming from some hidden variable (in my example, being drawn from a pool). In actual QM, it does not matter what the hidden variable is, what its nature is or the mechanism of its action, because if it is indeed a variable that determines the spin of either particle then it needs to respect the inequality, unless you are willing to toss out the established laws of mathematics, or find a fault in the mathematical proof establishing the inequality.
It simply "happens", and the spin is determined as a matter of chance for no apparent "reason" upon observation. That's why it can violate the inequality.
Post last edited by Captain Falcon at 2017-02-08T06:26:14.594683+00:00
Post last edited by Captain Falcon at 2017-02-08T06:53:15.692312+00:00 -
2017-02-08 at 9:12 AM UTC
The problem is not actually that the measurement of one affects the other. It is that one being a certain result means that other necessarily have has to be the other, and this would suggest a local variable is responsible i.e. In my example you are drawing from a pool. However experimental data shows that while one measurement does in fact tell us the other, the violation of the inequality means that it's not coming from some hidden variable (in my example, being drawn from a pool). In actual QM, it does not matter what the hidden variable is, what its nature is or the mechanism of its action, because if it is indeed a variable that determines the spin of either particle then it needs to respect the inequality, unless you are willing to toss out the established laws of mathematics, or find a fault in the mathematical proof establishing the inequality.
It simply "happens", and the spin is determined as a matter of chance for no apparent "reason" upon observation. That's why it can violate the inequality.
How is it possible that the equality is violated and yet observing spin on one side tells us anything about spin on the other? Like if the probability is 50/50 and collapses at the point of measurement and I take two measurements there's as much of a chance that both having the same spin on both sides as being opposite (like flipping two coins, it's as likely to produce two of the same side as opposites). The reason we learn something about what ball the other party has in your prior example is because they have this property of being drawn from a pool, once that goes away observing one side tells you nothing about the other. -
2017-02-08 at 3:29 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny How is it possible that the equality is violated and yet observing spin on one side tells us anything about spin on the other? Like if the probability is 50/50 and collapses at the point of measurement and I take two measurements there's as much of a chance that both having the same spin on both sides as being opposite (like flipping two coins, it's as likely to produce two of the same side as opposites). The reason we learn something about what ball the other party has in your prior example is because they have this property of being drawn from a pool, once that goes away observing one side tells you nothing about the other.
That's the million dollar question.
For any particle with any given spin, the sum of the spin of the particles that decay from it will add up to the spin of the initial particle. For example a neutral (no spin) particle may decay into particles in one of I believe 8 different configurations, and its "opposite).
But we are also certain that they result of the measurement is not determined at the time of emission; it can't be. It's mathematically impossible for it to somehow be "taken" from this pool of different possibilities.
It seems like a contradiction, and it's indeed spooky how this action at a distance works.
Post last edited by Captain Falcon at 2017-02-08T15:57:54.766762+00:00 -
2017-02-08 at 6:19 PM UTCWhat do you mean by action at a distance here? My first thought is measurement at one point acts in some way on measurement at another but you seem to have specifically rejected that earlier.
It does indeed seem like a very strange finding, but it seems just, or nearly, as impossible, to the point of being almost trivially dismissable, that independent probabilistic collapse at the point of measurement should display this pattern sum zero spin as a hidden local variable carried at emission being responsible for violating Bell's inequality. It just doesn't seem like a purely probabilistic model offers any better explanation of the results than a local hidden variable explanation, both seem simply wrong.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-02-08 at 7:46 PM UTCMaybe I worded it badly: if there is a local hidden variable responsible for the result, then there is no "action at a distance".
So to give an analogy, imagine that you have a box and I have a box. We also have 2 balls, one that says +1 and one that says -1. A third person takes our boxes and balls, and hidden from us, puts the +1 in your box and -1 in mine. Then you and I take our boxes and go 1 lightyear apart. You open your box, see the ball is +1 and thus instantly know that my box has the -1 because only one of the balls can be +1. However, the outcome here was already decided at the "point of emission"; we hadn't observed it but the ball in your box was already +1. i.e. there is a "local variable" that determined the outcome beforehand.
This makes sense, but in the QM world, with 3 axes of spin (imagine all of them being +-1 on the X, Y, Z axis), it violates Bell's inequality, it's mathematically impossible for a local hidden variable to be responsible. (Also, clarification: the term "local variable" basically means something that is connecting or connected these two things that has to travel through space without any kooky shit where it skips or warps across, something that obeys relativity).
So the logical solution to this is both balls are actually neither +1 or -1 until you or I open the box, and there is say a 50/50 chance that either is either. Then somehow, in some way, when you open your box, some cosmic coin toss decides that you have +1, which means that mine must be -1... But this was not determined at the time of emission. It literally just happened. 1 light year apart, instantly.
To make the probability part clear, imagine the initial particle has spin 0 on any axis. So here are some possibilities of what the other two particles can be (lets say the numbers are listed as X Y Z axis)
Particle X --- Particle Y
A) +1 +1 +1 --- -1 -1 -1
B) +1 +1 -1 --- -1 -1 +1
C) +1 -1 -1 --- -1 +1 +1
D) +1 -1 +1 --- -1 +1 -1
There's more, but fuck it okay, lets just say there are only these four.
Now say there is a 25% possibility that the "pair" can be any one of these, but it is none of these up until the point where one is observed. So both are off 1 light year away, both can be any one of them, it's impossible for it to have been determined beforehand... but both collapse into corresponding states, always. Nobody really knows right now why, but we know that it's simply not a matter of some hidden force that obeys relativity. Somehow their probabilistic outcomes are linked inextricably to each other. We don't really have an explanation but that's what it is.
The probabilistic model doesn't really offer an explanation for why this is, but it says that it simply does, the QM model is complete in this regard, and here is how it fits with the rest of it. It is still useful, well evidenced and an important part of QM, and it helps us make predictions, albeit in general cases rather than specific cases.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-02-08 at 7:59 PM UTCI specifically dropped out of school not to deal with this.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-02-08 at 8:23 PM UTCHere it is explained by a smarter man than all of us, I think this will be of special interest to Lanny
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jint5kjoy6IThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-02-08 at 8:26 PM UTCmichio isn't smart. i don't give a fuck what he has to say.
-
2017-02-08 at 8:42 PM UTCHe looks like Bill from Kill Bill, good enough for me
-
2017-02-08 at 9:05 PM UTC
-
2017-02-08 at 9:41 PM UTC
-
2017-02-08 at 10:36 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon 1v1 me IRL
everything tarantino has done since pulp fiction has been gratuitous victim-porn.
this is what he wishes he could make, but can't.
http://putlockers.ch/watch-range-15-online-free-putlocker.html -
2017-02-09 at 2:28 AM UTC
Originally posted by snab_snib everything tarantino has done since pulp fiction has been gratuitous victim-porn.
this is what he wishes he could make, but can't.
http://putlockers.ch/watch-range-15-online-free-putlocker.html
I actually thought you had an intelligent point until you linked Range 15 as an example of a good movie and realised, nope, your taste is simply shit.
