Philosophy can be really fun
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-03-2011, 01:26 PM
RE: Philosophy can be really fun
EInstein put pretty much effort into trying to disproove the Heisenberg principle. The examples you mentioned were not succesful(+l ?) in doing so. The problem with the two writings is the same: we cannot measure the recoil of the slits with absoulte certainty since they are made of uncertain particles. Also we cannot measure weight with any scale that is made of particles because of the Heisenberg particle itself.
Quote:The fact we don't and can't know what the place and impulse are doesn't mean that it wasn't caused by prior effects or that the future is or isn't decided. I call non-sequitur.

It's not just that we can't or don't know, it's that it doesnt exist. The Hp doesn't originate from the inperfection of our measuring tools, it is a basic quality of the universe. And I think it exactly means that the future is not decided yet, as long as the universe can be considered a big snooker table. If all the balls had determined qualities the future would be written unequivocally. But if the balls had uncertain qualities, (as they have in this universe) their interactions could not be predicted unequivocally, therefore the future would have uncertainty.

..."we can be truly free - not because we can rebel against the the tyranny of the selfish replicators but because we know that there is no one to rebel."
Susan Blackmore : The Meme Machine
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2011, 07:40 PM
RE: Philosophy can be really fun
We may not be able to tell the arbritrary place and impulse of the proverbial balls but they may still have been caused by something, and something else caused the something, etc. They only have uncertain quantities to us. They may be predetermined but we couldn't know place and impulse simultaneoulsy, due to Heisenbergs principle, but they still were predetermined. Is there anything that stops this being an option?

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo

"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do." - Voltaire
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2011, 11:43 AM
RE: Philosophy can be really fun
Quote: They only have uncertain quantities to us
Most importantly: they have uncertain qualities. It is theoretically and experimentally proved that even with a measuring device that is not in any kind of contact with the measured particle acts accordingly to the Heisenberg relation. (EPR experiment) So even thought everything has -of course- a cause, the effect it will have on something other, is not yet determined because of this.

I wish I could do the math for you, but i can't. Confused

..."we can be truly free - not because we can rebel against the the tyranny of the selfish replicators but because we know that there is no one to rebel."
Susan Blackmore : The Meme Machine
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2011, 07:29 AM
RE: Philosophy can be really fun
The comic is equivocating between two definitions of "cause". The relevant definition for determinism is "leads directly to". In everyday life, it means "leads directly or indirectly to".

Someone stabbed by three people dies. The cause that most people would refer to is multiple stabbings, and the three would be sent to jail, no matter what order the stabbings occurred in. Deterministically, the cause of death was blood loss caused by the basic laws of the universe.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2011, 07:54 AM
RE: Philosophy can be really fun
I completely follow you on the equivocating part. It's a joke after all...

What blinded me was the way they mixed up "direct guilt" with "cause of death".

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2011, 10:33 AM (This post was last modified: 01-04-2011 01:50 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Philosophy can be really fun
(30-03-2011 07:40 PM)daemonowner Wrote:  We may not be able to tell the arbritrary place and impulse of the proverbial balls but they may still have been caused by something, and something else caused the something, etc. They only have uncertain quantities to us. They may be predetermined but we couldn't know place and impulse simultaneoulsy, due to Heisenbergs principle, but they still were predetermined. Is there anything that stops this being an option?
Yeah, that was what I was trying to get at when I asked why are we concerned about sub-atomic particles, but if I am beginning to understand the technical aspects of the nuclear disaster correctly, then I am beginning to understand the importance.
Wikipedia - Causality Wrote:One crack in this belief system has been produced by radioactivity. An atom of some radioactive substance such as radium will eventually decay, and in the process it will emit energy. But there is no known triggering event that could serve as the cause of this decay event. In a large collection of radium atoms the rate of decay can be accurately predicted, but the identity of the decayed atoms cannot be determined beforehand. Their decay is random and uncaused. Of course it is possible to assert that there must be a hidden factor interior to the radium atoms that predetermines their time of decay, but that factor has not been found.
But then again, I wonder . . .

So, it still seems to come down to determinism being the crux of human thought and something to do with construction of science - right?

Wikipedia - EPA experiment Wrote:The EPR paradox (or Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox) is a topic in quantum physics and the philosophy of science concerning the measurement and description of microscopic systems (such as individual photons, electrons or atoms) by the methods of quantum physics. It refers to the dichotomy that either the measurement of a physical quantity in one system must affect the measurement of a physical quantity in another, spatially separate, system or the description of reality given by a wave function must be incomplete.

(30-03-2011 01:26 PM)TheSelfishGene Wrote:  It's not just that we can't or don't know, it's that it doesnt exist. The Hp doesn't originate from the inperfection of our measuring tools, it is a basic quality of the universe. And I think it exactly means that the future is not decided yet, as long as the universe can be considered a big snooker table. If all the balls had determined qualities the future would be written unequivocally. But if the balls had uncertain qualities, (as they have in this universe) their interactions could not be predicted unequivocally, therefore the future would have uncertainty.
And this basically leads to the need for understanding the details of the Big Bang, which we can only theorize and criticize by the accumulation and proper systematizing (classification) of the emerging information of the cosmos, and then generating better renditions of the seemingly "infinite" system. And I predict, that as we gather more and more information, we generate a more accurate theory(s). But for right now, the only thing that matters is - WINNING!

And, philosophy is not fun - it's boring - who cares?

- lol

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2011, 12:03 PM
RE: Philosophy can be really fun
(01-04-2011 10:33 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  And this basically leads to the need for understanding the details of the Big Bang, which we can only theorize and criticize by the accumulation and proper systematizing (classification) of the emerging information of the cosmos, and then generating better renditions of the seemingly "infinite" system. And I predict, that as we gather more and more information, we generate a more accurate theory(s). But for right now, the only thing that matters is - WINNING!

Must you make EVERYTHING about your classification system? How bout a conversation that doesn't revolve around your ego?

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2011, 12:13 PM
RE: Philosophy can be really fun
(01-04-2011 10:33 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  But for right now, the only thing that matters is - WINNING!
Winning what TrainWreck?

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2011, 01:35 PM (This post was last modified: 01-04-2011 01:55 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Philosophy can be really fun
(01-04-2011 12:03 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Must you make EVERYTHING about your classification system?
It's amazing to me when I can find a way to promote it in the context of solving a dilemma.
(01-04-2011 12:03 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  How bout a conversation that doesn't revolve around your ego?
People cannot formulate questions from ignorance. Why enter a discussion if not risking one's understanding of reality?

Besides, I thought you dismissed me as a wingnut, and some other things - just ignore me as irrelevant, but necessary for complying with the ideal of tolerance for diversity of thought.

(01-04-2011 12:13 PM)The_observer Wrote:  Winning what TrainWreck?

Winning the approval of others to guide society - generating biographics (events of the individual considered as statistical data) of significance determined to be for the betterment of mankind.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2011, 01:45 PM
RE: Philosophy can be really fun
(01-04-2011 01:35 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(01-04-2011 12:03 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Must you make EVERYTHING about your classification system?
It's amazing to me when I can find a way to promote it in the context of solving a dilemma.
(01-04-2011 12:03 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  How bout a conversation that doesn't revolve around your ego?
People cannot formulate questions from ignorance. Why enter a discussion if not risking one's understanding of reality?

Besides, I thought you dismissed me as a wingnut, and some other things - just ignore me, as irrelevant.

I don't dismiss your constant "promotion" because it looks very much like spam to me. We have very few rules here, but no spamming in one of them.

As much as I think you are an arrogant, self-important, delusional wingnut, everyone is allowed to voice their opinion here. Even when some find that opinion to be irrelevant and ignorant. Remain within the very broad boundaries set forth and you will also remain a member of this forum for as long as you like. Dismissed by me or not.

Clear enough for you?

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: