all it takes for something to exist is...

Ahnimus wrote:

It clearly isn't observation only, because the observation methods affect or cause the effect we observe. Thus proving that the observations are also a perturbation and the quantum world is affected, and therefor causal.

Basically it sounds like we are agreeing--that the observations perturb the quantum world. I am asserting that in a causal sense, although I am doing so for communification and clarification purposes. It is a concept that I tend to look at causally, obviously.

As for my initial mention of cause/effect, re: quantum physics, I was referring to in other aspects of quantum physics:
"Quantum mechanics is yet another branch of physics in which the nature of causality is somewhat unclear".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

If nothing in this universe is as it appears, then we are all very much, and completely fucking insane....

lol

And really looking at the world, you think we are all mentally stable? :eek:

This is crazy but....

I suspect CERN, at some point, will confirm that black holes can exist within all interchanges of energy, both within us, and within all matter that surrounds us at extremely microscopic levels. If/when they do...I'll be 99.99% certain I know what the deal is.

Ahnimus wrote:

No it doesn't. Thinking about that proves pointless. It gets us no further ahead. I challenge you to even give me an example of something that could be wrong that would change everything we know. Red-shift may be wrong, but that will only change what we know about the structure of the universe, not what happens here on earth. It won't change the contribution corn gives to the atmosphere.

I used those other statements as examples of things that prove pointless. What if we are all wrong, doesn't matter, because unless we are all wrong, it serves no purpose to suppose we might be, it's only purposeful to suppose we might be wrong if you intend on discovering how we are wrong, otherwise it's a pointless thought experiment. What if I was a turtle?

Well I think if we don't stay aware of the possiblity that we may be wrong we've really not advanced as much as we'd like to think we have.
You know I can't be bothered with your challenges. As far as I can see love, they are an exercise in futility. You see things as you do. And you have no time for anything other than how you see it. And that's fine. But I don't need the headfuck of trying to get you to see things anyway than how you see them. It's nice and clear to me. You see things as you do and anything I have to say on the matter is pointless to you.

I do think it's interesting that you make the turtle analogy though!

Ahnimus wrote:

But Bohr says that it has nothing to do with observation. I quoted that earlier. Einstein believed in hidden variables and so on...

If I walk outside with a camera, and try to look at my son through the lens of the camera, and my son begins to behave differently, one could say it is because of the camera that my son behaves differently. The camera doesn't exist in a vacuum, however. It is there as an offshoot of my intentions. It is there because I decided to put it there. It is there because I am holding it to my face in order to get impressions of observations of my son. We cannot assess the fullness of the situation including why my son is acting differently by only looking at the camera without also seeing it's existence extending from my purposes. Do you agree, Ahnimus?

I assume this is the part you refer to, which I have also used to support what I am saying--it supports both of our views, just like the word empirical also did in the empirics debate:

"The emergence of complementarity in a system occurs when one considers the circumstances under which one attempts to measure its properties; as Bohr noted, the principle of complementarity "implies the impossibility of any sharp separation between the behaviour of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena appear." It is important to distinguish, as did Bohr in his original statements, the principle of complementarity from a statement of the uncertainty principle. "

angelica wrote:

If I walk outside with a camera, and try to look at my son through the lens of the camera, and my son begins to behave differently, one could say it is because of the camera that my son behaves differently. The camera doesn't exist in a vacuum, however. It is there as an offshoot of my intentions. It is there because I decided to put it there. It is there because I am holding it to my face in order to get impressions of observations of my son. We cannot assess the fullness of the situation including why my son is acting differently by only looking at the camera without also seeing it's existence extending from my purposes. Do you agree, Ahnimus?

I assume this is the part you refer to, which I have also used to support what I am saying--it supports both of our views, just like the word empirical also did in the empirics debate:

"The emergence of complementarity in a system occurs when one considers the circumstances under which one attempts to measure its properties; as Bohr noted, the principle of complementarity "implies the impossibility of any sharp separation between the behaviour of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena appear." It is important to distinguish, as did Bohr in his original statements, the principle of complementarity from a statement of the uncertainty principle. "

Are you suggesting that quantum particles are aware of their surroundings? In the same way that your son (as a complete entity) is aware of you and the camera?

Ahnimus wrote:

But CERN will only be proving that black-holes can exist when very small particles colide at 99% the speed of light.

Yes, there's a 1% "blur" in the lens so to speak. Is it a formidable enough barrier to deny a reasonable conclusion? ... I hope not.

Jeanie wrote:

And really looking at the world, you think we are all mentally stable? :eek:

lol...you got me there!

lol@post#255