all it takes for something to exist is...

Jeanie · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

This is an absolutely childish debate. I'm not going on about this any longer. Feel proud or whatever it is you do, I could really care less if you believe the easter bunny is real.

Hey!! Back off the Easter Bunny!!!!

lucylespian · April 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Studies have shown that people who imagine themselves losing weight or gaining more muscle, gain more and lose more than those who exercise and eat identically but don't visualize.

Merely thinking something can bring about a physical reality. Not immediately visible in all cases but it does happen.

Yes, but the methodology of that study was appalling. They measured strength of teh non-dominanat little finger, on teh "assumption" that it is not used for anything, so cannot gain sterngth without a specific exercise. Well, my littel finger certailny gets plenty. Furthermore, it was an unblinded trial, and teh study group subjeects could very easily exercise that finger at any time.

angelica · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

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?

I am suggesting that the instruments that do the testing in the quantum world do not have a will of their own and therefore are an extension of the human being doing the observation of the phenomenon.

It is the act of observation that brings the intruments into play in assessing the quantum world. And therefore it is the observation that created the affected outcome, via the instruments of observation.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

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

I forgot to mention... The particle's size essentially irrelevant no? If the same characteristics of our "big" or outward universe can also be observed by smashing particles together and looking at the fine dust dust of our "inner" microscopic universe (whereby repeating patterns can be established)... I'd say that's a pretty big deal imo.

onelongsong · April 2007

Cosmo wrote:

...
No... you don't. You don't have all the time in the world because if you did, you would have been around when the dinosaurs walked the planet. You were around before the pyramids were built and you were around when Hiroshima was bombed. None of that is true. You only occupy a tiny slither in the expanse of time... your birth, your life and your death is less than a spark. The time you are here should be proof enough that time exists.
Just because you don't care what time the clock says it is, doesn't mean that time doesn't exist.

my perception of time is my life. time for me stops when i die. it began when i was born. all the time in the world for me means that i have the rest of my life to wait. wait for MR Science absloute PHD to prove time. i know it exists but not as it exists for others. time means something different to everyone. 5:00 pm to you may mean quitting time. to me it's just another number. quitting time for me is when i finish my last feeding for the day. it could be 4:00 pm or 1:00 am.
to my knowledge; no one has been able to prove time.

Jeanie · April 2007

lucylespian wrote:

Yes, but the methodology of that study was appalling. They measured strength of teh non-dominanat little finger, on teh "assumption" that it is not used for anything, so cannot gain sterngth without a specific exercise. Well, my littel finger certailny gets plenty. Furthermore, it was an unblinded trial, and teh study group subjeects could very easily exercise that finger at any time.

Well speaking as someone who has experienced the loss of function of the little finger on several occassions, I can confirm that my little finger is used for a lot of things and when it isn't working it means the rest of the hand cannot function within it's normal range either. And exercising the beejezus out of it can reinstate the neural pathways to some degree.
It's unfortunate and disappointing when an interesting premise is sullied by inaffectual study.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · April 2007

lucylespian wrote:

Yes, but the methodology of that study was appalling. They measured strength of teh non-dominanat little finger, on teh "assumption" that it is not used for anything, so cannot gain sterngth without a specific exercise. Well, my littel finger certailny gets plenty. Furthermore, it was an unblinded trial, and teh study group subjeects could very easily exercise that finger at any time.

The power of the mind is great...

angelica · April 2007

Let's look into quantum physics, at a widely accepted view in terms of the causal/deterministic view:

" Within the widely but not universally accepted Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (i.e., it was not accepted by Einstein or other physicists such as Alfred Lande), the uncertainty principle is taken to mean that on an elementary level, the physical universe does not exist in a deterministic form — but rather as a collection of probabilities, or potentials. . For example, the pattern (probability distribution) produced by millions of photons passing through a diffraction slit can be calculated using quantum mechanics, but the exact path of each photon cannot be predicted by any known method. The Copenhagen interpretation holds that it cannot be predicted by any method, not even with theoretically infinitely precise measurements.

It is this interpretation that Einstein was questioning when he said "I cannot believe that God would choose to play dice with the universe." Bohr, who was one of the authors of the Copenhagen interpretation responded, "Einstein, don't tell God what to do." Niels Bohr himself acknowledged that quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle were counter-intuitive when he stated, "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood a single word."

The basic debate between Einstein and Bohr (including Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) was that Einstein was in essence saying: "Of course, we can know where something is; we can know the position of a moving particle if we know every possible detail, and thereby by extension, we can predict where it will go." Bohr and Heisenberg were saying the opposite: "There is no way to know where a moving particle is ever even given every possible detail, and thereby by extension, we can never predict where it will go."

Einstein assumed that there are similar hidden variables in quantum mechanics which underlie the observed probabilities and that these variables, if known, would show that there was what Einstein termed "local realism," a description opposite to the uncertainty principle, being that all objects must already have their properties before they are observed or measured...

but in 1964 John Bell theorized the Bell inequality to counter them, ...

The interpretation of Bell's theorem explicitly prevents any local hidden variable theory from holding true because it shows the necessity of a system to describe correlations between objects. ...

In the years following, Bell's theorem was tested and has held up experimentally time and time again, and these experiments are in a sense the clearest experimental confirmation of quantum mechanics."

Whether Einstein's view or Heisenberg's view is true or false is not a directly empirical matter. One criterion by which we may judge the success of a scientific theory is the explanatory power it gives us, and to date it seems that Heisenberg's view has been the better at explaining physical subatomic phenomena.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_uncertainty_principle

Finally I clue in as to why you would like to "leave well enough alone" on these topics, Ahnimus. The seemingly reigning view, even though there is dispute, is that determinism is not real at the quantum physics level. You've conveniently kept this quiet in debates. And at the same time, you have felt free to continue to try to prove determinism, even though it is very much in doubt at a fundamental level. Frankly, I'm a little caught off guard, here.

Ahnimus · April 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I forgot to mention... The particle's size essentially irrelevant no? If the same characteristics of our "big" or outward universe can also be observed by smashing particles together and looking at the fine dust dust of our "inner" microscopic universe (whereby repeating patterns can be established)... I'd say that's a pretty big deal imo.

Well, there is a particular reason that bullets are made to be small. When calculating force, the impact area is extremely important. If you have a force of 3 kilojoules, the impact area is 5 cubic milimeters, then the impact force is roughly 600 joules per cubic milimeter, whereas if the impact area was 1 cubic milimter, with a force of 3 kilojoules, then the impact force is 3 kilojoules per cubic milimeter, as force is dispersed over impact area. Thus, the force required for two planets to cause a black-hole would be exponentially greater than the force required for two protons to make a black-hole.

Ahnimus · April 2007

angelica wrote:

Finally I clue in as to why you would like to "leave well enough alone" on these topics, Ahnimus. The seemingly reigning view, even though there is dispute, is that determinism is not real at the quantum physics level. You've conveniently kept this quiet in debates. And at the same time, you have felt free to continue to try to prove determinism, even though it is very much in doubt at a fundamental level. Frankly, I'm a little caught off guard, here.

I don't get that from what you've posted, all I get is a lot of different theories on what might be true.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · April 2007

onelongsong wrote:

my perception of time is my life. time for me stops when i die. it began when i was born. all the time in the world for me means that i have the rest of my life to wait. wait for MR Science absloute PHD to prove time. i know it exists but not as it exists for others. time means something different to everyone. 5:00 pm to you may mean quitting time. to me it's just another number. quitting time for me is when i finish my last feeding for the day. it could be 4:00 pm or 1:00 am.
to my knowledge; no one has been able to prove time.

you lost me on this one...

Cosmo · April 2007

onelongsong wrote:

my perception of time is my life. time for me stops when i die. it began when i was born. all the time in the world for me means that i have the rest of my life to wait. wait for MR Science absloute PHD to prove time. i know it exists but not as it exists for others. time means something different to everyone. 5:00 pm to you may mean quitting time. to me it's just another number. quitting time for me is when i finish my last feeding for the day. it could be 4:00 pm or 1:00 am.
to my knowledge; no one has been able to prove time.

...
You choose not to read the clock. That's it. That's all you're doing.
Nothing to do with the existance of time or not... you choose to do your chores at whenever you want. Big deal. I sleep til noon on Saturday... by my choosing. Therefore, time ceases to exist for the rest of the world? I think not.
But, whatever. Go ahead and choose not to believe in time... we have people here who believe they are ancestors of aliens cross-bred with humans... it's a free country.

Ahnimus · April 2007

angelica wrote:

Finally I clue in as to why you would like to "leave well enough alone" on these topics, Ahnimus. The seemingly reigning view, even though there is dispute, is that determinism is not real at the quantum physics level. You've conveniently kept this quiet in debates. And at the same time, you have felt free to continue to try to prove determinism, even though it is very much in doubt at a fundamental level. Frankly, I'm a little caught off guard, here.

In any case Angelica

"Quantum mechanics predicts events only in terms of probabilities, casting doubt on whether the universe is deterministic at all. However, if an action is taken due to quantum randomness, this in itself, means that free will is still absent, as such action can not be controllable by someone claiming to posses such free will" - Wikipedia

That's where I stand on quantum indeterminism vs macro determinism. But I don't "believe" quantum indeterminism as much as you do either.

angelica · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

I don't get that from what you've posted, all I get is a lot of different theories on what might be true.

Whether you understand or not, all that matters to me is that I now know and understand this.

Don't worry, I'll adjust my arguments based on this new understanding and I'll gladly demystify the subject when the need arises.

angelica · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

In any case Angelica

"Quantum mechanics predicts events only in terms of probabilities, casting doubt on whether the universe is deterministic at all. However, if an action is taken due to quantum randomness, this in itself, means that free will is still absent, as such action can not be controllable by someone claiming to posses such free will" - Wikipedia

That's where I stand on quantum indeterminism vs macro determinism. But I don't "believe" quantum indeterminism as much as you do either.

I'm not really concerned with what you believe.

Ahnimus · April 2007

angelica wrote:

I'm not really concerned with what you believe.

We are talking about beliefs. Quantum mechanics is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

angelica · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

We are talking about beliefs. Quantum mechanics is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

And your view of determinism is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Well, there is a particular reason that bullets are made to be small. When calculating force, the impact area is extremely important. If you have a force of 3 kilojoules, the impact area is 5 cubic milimeters, then the impact force is roughly 600 joules per cubic milimeter, whereas if the impact area was 1 cubic milimter, with a force of 3 kilojoules, then the impact force is 3 kilojoules per cubic milimeter, as force is dispersed over impact area. Thus, the force required for two planets to cause a black-hole would be exponentially greater than the force required for two protons to make a black-hole.

I don't know if I'm being picky but how do you produce a black hole from smashing two planets together?

Ahnimus · April 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I don't know if I'm being picky but how do you produce a black hole from smashing two planets together?

I'm not saying you can, I'm not saying you can do it with protons either. That's yet to be discovered.

Ahnimus · April 2007

angelica wrote:

And your view of determinism is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

Actually it pretty much is, and if you asked Einstein, Bell or Bohr, they'd probably tell you the same thing I would.

all it takes for something to exist is...

Comments

Categories