What is matter?

[DBT]

The act of observation either collapsing wave function and creating the world we experience, according to 'Captain Copenhagen,' or fixing the observers position in one timeline within multiple parallel worlds, or.....

 

[Speakpigeon]

The root cause itself. To say that there is a root cause is precisely to say that there is no other cause that would explain it. Either because there is no explanation to be had or because the root cause explains everything therefore itself.

"Root cause" is a chimera.

Not necessarily.

You dont need it and it is a logical contradiction.

If there is a root cause, whether you need one is of course irrelevant.

I also don't see how it's necessarily a contradiction. Could you explain?
EB

Seems you havent considered what "cause" really is.

If you have, could you explain why you think the notion of "root cause"is, as you said, a logical contradiction?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

A great statement.

I guess it's too bad that it just isn't true. It's almost like random people on the internet think that they are better at physics than physicists...

Seriously though, there's been enough experimental verification of the violation of Bell's inequalities for us to pretty solidly reject any notion of hidden deterministic variables mimicking quantum results. Unless you want to assume FTL communication and throw away relativity as well?

Yes but this point is really, really hard to understand.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

You misunderstand his position. He says that the laws of quantum mechanics are not themselves random, which is true. He also says that if we make a measurement, that determinism goes out the window and we get a random result. That is also true.

Not random- unpredictable.

As I understand what scientists say, the theory is that it's random. Not even, probabilistic as in macroscopic phenomena, but absolute randomness.

Bell's theorem doesn't rule out non-local hidden variables

Argggg, I forgot about that. Thanks for pointing this out. As I said, this thing is really hard.

, and in fact, it doesn't rule out local hidden variables of the conscious variety (some beings deliberately interfering with all experiments to obfuscate the true nature of reality- they only have to fuck with a few scientists, so it's not out of the question).

I'm not sure if that's what you mean but Bell's theorem comes with assumptions and if these are wrong then the deducion is indeed wrong as well. As I understand it, one way the assumption could be wrong would be due to some kind of interference between experiments and consciousness. Nothing is really said like this but I think it's the implication.
EB

 

[skepticalbip]

Again, that was completely unresponsive to the post you are pretending to be responding to. You are just repeating your nonsense.

You notice, there are two questions.

You posted them but somehow managed not to see them.

Those questions were not a response to the post that you were pretending to be responding to. Try again.

My post that you pretended to but did not respond to:

Inventing a language of your own that only you understand is not examination of ideas. The purpose of language is to communicate. Communication requires that everyone engaged in a discussion understand the meaning of the words being used. The meanings of the words "scientist" and "engineer" already have specific meanings for those who understand them. Someone trying to communicate with these people who don't have a clue and feels free to use the words any way they wish is not communicating with anyone.

See, that is how conversations work. One person acknowledges and responds to the other and only then makes their point. So Ill waif for an actual response and then address your questions.

 

[untermensche]

You notice, there are two questions.

You posted them but somehow managed not to see them.

Those questions were not a response to the post that you were pretending to be responding to. Try again.

My post that you pretended to but did not respond to:

Inventing a language of your own that only you understand is not examination of ideas. The purpose of language is to communicate. Communication requires that everyone engaged in a discussion understand the meaning of the words being used. The meanings of the words "scientist" and "engineer" already have specific meanings for those who understand them. Someone trying to communicate with these people who don't have a clue and feels free to use the words any way they wish is not communicating with anyone.

See, that is how conversations work. One person acknowledges and responds to the other and only then makes their point. So Ill waif for an actual response and then address your questions.

The questions were to actually try to move this forward and away from your nauseating lecturing.

You have no in interest in actually exploring ideas.

From your ignorance you simply want to pretend you already understand things.

 

[beero1000]

You misunderstand his position. He says that the laws of quantum mechanics are not themselves random, which is true. He also says that if we make a measurement, that determinism goes out the window and we get a random result. That is also true.

Not random- unpredictable. Bell's theorem doesn't rule out non-local hidden variables, and in fact, it doesn't rule out local hidden variables of the conscious variety (some beings deliberately interfering with all experiments to obfuscate the true nature of reality- they only have to fuck with a few scientists, so it's not out of the question).

In fact, the theorem could be an obfuscation itself...

Non-local hidden variables imply faster than light communication. If you want to get rid of quantum mechanics with hidden variables then you need to get rid of relativity as well...

As for conscious agent interference, that's true for the result of every experiment ever. We might as well say that a coin flip lands on its edge every time, we've just gotten unlucky in that they've fallen over most of the times we've tried it. Someone, or SOMETHING, has been knocking over every coin ever tossed...

 

[untermensche]

This is Krauss on the matter.

Moreover, although the underlying laws of quantum mechanics are completely deterministic—I need to repeat this, they are completely deterministic—the results of measurements can only be described probabilistically"

Schrodinger's cat is a completely deterministic experiment. Nothing "just happens".

The only thing undetermined is our knowledge of what happened.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The Theoretical Theater Has Been a Flop

So to you everything humans do can only be divided into science, religion or random behavior?

That need not be read into what I wrote.

I just don't see how the practical application of science is not also science.

My view of science seems broader than some.

In order to create progress, the Scientific Method should add one final step: "How can we use this?"

For example, the neutrino could have been used as a sort of Geiger Counter to map where all the oil and minerals are in the Earth's crust. Instead, we've gotten 80 years of escapist nerds indulging in mental masturbation.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Post Clac Quacks

What seemed to be indeterminacy should have been a clue that there is an outside dimension affecting the movements. Only an intentionally mindless culture would answer that things "just happen," the Willy-Nilly Theory. Not only that, the postmodernists insist on it and ban any attempt to return to puzzling things out.

A great statement.

His advisors at Princeton warned John Nash against challenging Postclassical Physics. Yet he was free to stand up to Adam Smith and get the Nobel Prize for his daring new theory. I take Authoritarianism as a clue that the anti-rationalist dictators can't defend their theories otherwise.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Mesmerized by the Glitter of Decadent Nobels

A great statement.

I guess it's too bad that it just isn't true. It's almost like random people on the internet think that they are better at physics than physicists...

Seriously though, there's been enough experimental verification of the violation of Bell's inequalities for us to pretty solidly reject any notion of hidden deterministic variables mimicking quantum results. Unless you want to assume FTL communication and throw away relativity as well?

You're assuming that the determination has to happen within the 3D universe. So you are arbitrarily rejecting my solution and join the huddle of the controlling scientific clique.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Preppy Nerd's Playpen

That need not be read into what I wrote.

I just don't see how the practical application of science is not also science.

My view of science seems broader than some.

Someone who is actually engaged in science or engineering would likely have a better understanding of the difference than someone who has never been schooled in either. Just because someone works at Bell Labs (or uses an instrument with blinking lights ) doesn't make them a scientist.

These are only matters of opinion.

Again you seem to have trouble understanding the difference between opinion and fact.

And you seem to have trouble understanding that definitions pulled from your arse based on what feels good to you only hold weight for you.

You are just simple minded.

You equate examination of ideas with pulling ideas from your ass.

Your kind never brings knowledge forward.

Inventing a language of your own that only you understand is not examination of ideas. The purpose of language is to communicate. Communication requires that everyone engaged in a discussion understand the meaning of the words being used. The meanings of the words "scientist" and "engineer" already have specific meanings for those who understand them. Someone trying to communicate with these people who don't have a clue and feels free to use the words any way they wish is not communicating with anyone.

Gotta giggle that you call claiming that there is no difference between science and engineering "examination of ideas".

You are so dense you think talking about your girlish giggling is an argument.

Again, what part of engineering is not the practical application of science?

And how is the application of science not a part of science?

Snobbish academic contempt for practical value is an aristocratic virus that has obstructed science for almost 3,000 years.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

"The Wisdom of the Lord Passeth Human Understanding" All Over Again

I guess it's too bad that it just isn't true. It's almost like random people on the internet think that they are better at physics than physicists...

Seriously though, there's been enough experimental verification of the violation of Bell's inequalities for us to pretty solidly reject any notion of hidden deterministic variables mimicking quantum results. Unless you want to assume FTL communication and throw away relativity as well?

Yes but this point is really, really hard to understand.
EB

That would make it supernaturally great, wouldn't it? Or is it motivated by the desire to inhibit and humiliate independent minds? Or is it a pathetic attempt by the childish escapist theoretologists to seem mature by saying the equivalent of "You're too young to understand"?

 

[beero1000]

I guess it's too bad that it just isn't true. It's almost like random people on the internet think that they are better at physics than physicists...

Seriously though, there's been enough experimental verification of the violation of Bell's inequalities for us to pretty solidly reject any notion of hidden deterministic variables mimicking quantum results. Unless you want to assume FTL communication and throw away relativity as well?

You're assuming that the determination has to happen within the 3D universe. So you are arbitrarily rejecting my solution and join the huddle of the controlling scientific clique.

No, I'm really not.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Rationality Doesn't Sell Popcorn

Not random- unpredictable. Bell's theorem doesn't rule out non-local hidden variables, and in fact, it doesn't rule out local hidden variables of the conscious variety (some beings deliberately interfering with all experiments to obfuscate the true nature of reality- they only have to fuck with a few scientists, so it's not out of the question).

In fact, the theorem could be an obfuscation itself...

Non-local hidden variables imply faster than light communication. If you want to get rid of quantum mechanics with hidden variables then you need to get rid of relativity as well...

As for conscious agent interference, that's true for the result of every experiment ever. We might as well say that a coin flip lands on its edge every time, we've just gotten unlucky in that they've fallen over most of the times we've tried it. Someone, or SOMETHING, has been knocking over every coin ever tossed...

The 3D medium provides friction that slows down the maximum possible velocity. Entanglement is the same particle going back and forth through 4D at 6 light years a second "beneath" the distance between the two points in 3D.

That is a rational explanation. "Spooky" science is exactly what it sounds like. It belongs in Hollywood.

 

[untermensche]

Snobbish academic contempt for practical value is an aristocratic virus that has obstructed science for almost 3,000 years.

It's a virus that continues to infect many things, academia, politics, economics.

We still have adults in places like England that consider the monarchy legitimate.

 

[fromderinside]

Again, what part of engineering is not the practical application of science?

And how is the application of science not a part of science?

first sentence: Practical application of science is practical application of something, science, removing it one step from being science itself. If derivatives were the thing, applications of science were science, there would be no need for engeenering, for instance, since it would be just application of science.

Second sentence: See first sentence comment.

 

[untermensche]

Again, what part of engineering is not the practical application of science?

And how is the application of science not a part of science?

first sentence: Practical application of science is practical application of something, science, removing it one step from being science itself. If derivatives were the thing, applications of science were science, there would be no need for engeenering, for instance, since it would be just application of science.

Second sentence: See first sentence comment.

That is your opinion not the ultimate word on the matter from the Grand Poobah.

Practical application of science is science in action.

How is science in action not science? An actual argument this time instead of an opinion would be nice.

Just tell me, where is the part engineers say, "We don't need science for this"?

 

[Kharakov]

Not random- unpredictable.

As I understand what scientists say, the theory is that it's random. Not even, probabilistic as in macroscopic phenomena, but absolute randomness.

Equating an indeterminate system with a non-determinate system is scientific trolling (arousing interest in science, or simply drawing attention to a specific person).

Of course, some of them get realllllly caught up in it, and some may have good reasons to engage in the trolling, it's trolling nonetheless. Basically, a bunch of scientists figured out they could get more funding by falsely equating indeterminacy with nondeterminacy....

 

[Kharakov]

Not random- unpredictable. Bell's theorem doesn't rule out non-local hidden variables, and in fact, it doesn't rule out local hidden variables of the conscious variety (some beings deliberately interfering with all experiments to obfuscate the true nature of reality- they only have to fuck with a few scientists, so it's not out of the question).

In fact, the theorem could be an obfuscation itself...

Non-local hidden variables imply faster than light communication. If you want to get rid of quantum mechanics with hidden variables then you need to get rid of relativity as well...

That assumes a lack of "super" determinism (which is simply determinism.. fucking comicbookization of science and philosophy... meh).

As for conscious agent interference, that's true for the result of every experiment ever. We might as well say that a coin flip lands on its edge every time, we've just gotten unlucky in that they've fallen over most of the times we've tried it.

Is it even probable for a rotating coin to hit a surface with something other than an edge? There's your magnum opus: probability of a coin flip landing completely on a face= \(\epsilon\). Side question, is epsilon the accepted symbol for an infinitesimal?

Someone, or SOMETHING, has been knocking over every coin ever tossed...

Nah. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993PhRvE..48.2547M