The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 267658 times)

yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2400 on: 03/10/2016 18:45:31 »
there is naturally a possibility of bifurcations creating bifurcations, creating bifurcations, creating b.... In that scenario your 'copy' will become another 'copy's original', and as there seems to be no end to 'copy's' becoming 'originals'. Would you want to call that a equivalence to free will?

all of it presumes a arrow though.

But as all paths must be taken in it it also defines a static reality to me, and those are not about free will, unless you find a way to introduce uncertainty into it.

yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2401 on: 08/10/2016 12:24:22 »
Let's talk about probability. As far as I see it's about collecting statistics foremost, from them defining probabilities to types of events. Uncertainty can here be seen as a result coming from it. Then there is also Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to consider http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec14.html   "once a measurement of the particle is made, a single momentum is observed. But, like fuzzy position, momentum before the observation is intrinsically uncertain. This is what is know as the uncertainty principle, that certain quantities, such as position, energy and time, are unknown, except by probabilities. In its purest form, the uncertainty principle states that accurate knowledge of complementarity pairs is impossible. For example, you can measure the location of an electron, but not its momentum (energy) at the same time....

Notice that this is not the measurement problem in another form, the combination of position, energy (momentum) and time are actually undefined for a quantum particle until a measurement is made (then the wave function collapses)."

yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2402 on: 08/10/2016 12:30:35 »
Hup can then be considered to exist before a measurement, and the same goes for probability. what defines the event is time, your local time defining a event as passed. Let's assume a 'field' existing, would you then say that the probability of something happening is related to the fields composition?

yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2403 on: 08/10/2016 12:33:45 »
If so, where would you set your limits for how this field relate to something falling out? All of it, or part of it?

yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2404 on: 08/10/2016 12:40:06 »
put another way, is probability something coming from our ignorance of what defined a outcome for 'you', or do you expect it to be as illusive as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, demanding a infinite reach of multitudes also 'falling out' for other 'you', created in that instant?
==

sorry, 'elusive', not illusive. And by 'demanding' I just mean that 'many worlds' start somewhere there in my mind, at HUP. It's a way to fill in all paths of probable outcomes, and before that you meet HUP. You could also see it as HUP disappear there, if now all paths are taken. Which then should mean that any idea of uncertainty as " this is not the measurement problem in another form, the combination of position, energy (momentum) and time are actually undefined for a quantum particle until a measurement is made (then the wave function collapses)" will be wrong. From a 'static' point of view there is no uncertainty anymore. ( All of it disagreeing with me naturally :)

« Last Edit: 10/10/2016 18:14:02 by yor_on »

yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2405 on: 08/10/2016 12:49:14 »
If it was so that only consciousness defined 'reality', 'collapsing wave functions' Then you would have to ask yourself how this universe ever developed into begetting it, wouldn't you? Or maybe you're of a more mystical disposition :) in which case a answer is ready made,  'divine intervention', although that's not about physics unfortunately, unless you can prove it.

yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2406 on: 08/10/2016 12:52:47 »
Measurements though, they 'collapse wave functions' splendidly. If a ball hits another ball, did they take each others measurements?

yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2407 on: 08/10/2016 13:01:01 »
There is also a third alternative. The one in where time 'doesn't exist'. In that version, still presuming many worlds you both find your infinite universe, as well as a infinity of all other 'uncertain' as well as 'possible' universes 'coexisting' from a static perspective. In that one your consciousness is what travels in time. But which 'you' would that be? Maybe you need something more than a local 'you' to define such a thing, as every 'you' bifurcates at all events, leaving each one as a 'sliver' of static reality. A meta 'you' then?

yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2408 on: 08/10/2016 13:03:05 »
Maybe we all should stay with the idea of man created in the image of a 'creator' :) Although it makes me worry for this creators sanity at times. I wouldn't want to be responsible for the acts of us.

yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2409 on: 08/10/2016 13:13:27 »
You have to admit it, looking at us. We're pretty stupid. We willingly agree to a game in where only a few of us have access to this worlds assets. the main reason why we do it seems to be because we all believe that we're destined to become one of those few, and the system is set up so that those few are getting fewer and fewer, gaining more and more assets, leaving a majority of this earths population without assets. And it all starts with a birth, and ends with a death,

yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2410 on: 08/10/2016 13:15:35 »
Where does that leave this image we're supposedly created in/from?
And to put the last nail in the coffin, the creator isn't even responsible for it. Because of our free will :)
Do we have it?

yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2411 on: 08/10/2016 13:20:24 »
So, without a free will, you're predestined and none can demand any responsibility from you, you're also no longer a 'mystic' :)

On the other tentacle, believing that free will exist?

yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2412 on: 08/10/2016 13:22:08 »
What predestination does is to make you without worth, as well as me. It really doesn't matter what you do.
==

You can't both eat the cake and keep it, not if the cake is your free will. Presuming that you did both in different 'world lines' makes very little sense.

« Last Edit: 08/10/2016 13:24:43 by yor_on »

yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2413 on: 10/10/2016 17:46:15 »
Take a coin, flip it. It now will have a 50 % probability of either landing head or tail. But it's also so that the coin doesn't have a memory of what it did before, therefore it's perfectly alright for this coin to land head as much as it want. would you call this type of probability the same as the one in where one use statistics to define the chances (probability) of something happening?

yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2414 on: 10/10/2016 17:48:58 »
Now define how many throws we will need to prove this 50/50 disposition of the coin.

yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2415 on: 10/10/2016 17:57:17 »
It is logic, (assuming a perfect coin and perfect throws though) two sides give us two possibilities, both as plausible. Could one express it so that logic gives one definition of probability, statistics another? You can always argue that what statistics presents to you will become a logic of its own though, although not always so straight forward.

yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2416 on: 10/10/2016 18:29:05 »
There is a problem inherent in the statements I made before, at least to me. Either probability contain this coins 'loss of memory', or it sometimes doesn't? Can you imagine a universe in where coins always lands tail? Or a 'perfect universe' in where coins constantly follow pure probability's logic to give us this 50/50 outcome, no matter how few, or many, throws one make. Both universes would make me nervous I think :)

yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2417 on: 10/10/2016 18:31:02 »
We have neither of them, and we also have HUP.

yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2418 on: 10/10/2016 18:49:00 »
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is such a perfect equivalence to a 'free will' to me, you might alternatively think of it as a mirror, describing some type of pure state, before a decision is made. But then we have statistics, and whatever probabilities we find coming from them. If they are correct they speak about rules of conduct to me, of order. So not only uncertainty, also a net of rules defining a logic from where we exist.

yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2419 on: 10/10/2016 19:23:05 »
You set up the experiment, you define the way you will measure, then you try to sort out the result in meaningful terms. Sometimes that leads you to very strange answers, as superpositions for example.

" an NIST group confined a charged beryllium atom in a tiny electromagnetic cage and then cooled it with a laser to its lowest energy state. In this state the position of the atom and its "spin" (a quantum property that is only metaphorically analogous to spin in the ordinary sense) could be ascertained to within a very high degree of accuracy, limited by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

The workers then stimulated the atom with a laser just enough to change its wave function; according to the new wave function of the atom, it now had a 50 percent probability of being in a "spin-up" state in its initial position and an equal probability of being in a "spin-down" state in a position as much as 80 nanometers away, a vast distance indeed for the atomic realm. In effect, the atom was in two different places, as well as two different spin states, at the same time--an atomic analog of a cat both living and dead.

The clinching evidence that the NIST researchers had achieved their goal came from their observation of an interference pattern; that phenomenon is a telltale sign that a single beryllium atom produced two distinct wave functions that interfered with each other.

The modern view of quantum mechanics states that Schrodinger's cat, or any macroscopic object, does not exist as superpositions of existence due to decoherence. A pristine wave function is coherent, i.e. undisturbed by observation. But Schrodinger's cat is not a pristine wave function, its is constantly interacting with other objects, such as air molecules in the box, or the box itself. Thus a macroscopic object becomes decoherent by many atomic interactions with its surrounding environment."

Here's another nice description of the meaning of decoherence http://www.physics.drexel.edu/~tim/open/main/node2.html
=

« Last Edit: 10/10/2016 19:26:11 by yor_on »

yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2420 on: 13/10/2016 15:02:56 »
So we have something in a superposition. That one is defined by us not looking. As NIST presented their experiments I will now assume that they used what is called as 'weak observations/measurements", That's a kind of observation in where people, that put their trust in it, expect it not to interfere with the experimental setup, leaving it in a 'pure state' at the same time as they then 'know' the reaction to what exist before the measurement. In essence a form of 'fooling' the wave function, making it think that we still don't know :)

Do you notice what this kind of reasoning leads you to?

yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2421 on: 13/10/2016 15:03:45 »
It's not thought out.

yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2422 on: 13/10/2016 15:05:01 »
Either you have a 'pure wave function' or you don't. Can't both eat the cake and keep it, can you?
Can you?

yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2423 on: 13/10/2016 15:07:45 »
Some folks think you can :)
And the reason is probably similar to the idea of superpositions, the idea that something can be several 'things', coexisting before that measurement.
If that's true, why not be able to look at something without 'disturbing' it?

yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2424 on: 13/10/2016 15:11:12 »
The measurement problem has two sides. One is 'classical', the idea of that when you measure something you will have to touch it, even if it is just by light. The other is different, it belongs to Quantum mechanics and in there a 'wave function' is uncertain by its nature. There is no classical counterpart to it.

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2424 on: 13/10/2016 15:11:12 »