0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
He's just talking about the choices physicists make regarding whether to conduct an interference 2-slit experiment or otherwise : you either decide to determine via your choice of experiment whether to get an interference pattern or otherwise .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 01/01/2015 17:26:27He's just talking about the choices physicists make regarding whether to conduct an interference 2-slit experiment or otherwise : you either decide to determine via your choice of experiment whether to get an interference pattern or otherwise .That's not what he said. And although what he said was obvious nonsense, he also didn't say that a single particle would produce an interference pattern, which would be even more nonsensical.
dlorde :Let's start the new year with a clean sheet or slate .Try to change your dogmatic , irritating , belittling and degrading behavior and then i will change mine as well .Deal ?
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg447737#msg447737 date=1420140489]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 01/01/2015 17:46:24dlorde :Let's start the new year with a clean sheet or slate .Try to change your dogmatic , irritating , belittling and degrading behavior and then i will change mine as well .Deal ? It's entirely up to you, Don. I am always civil and polite to people who are civil and polite to me.
However, I can't stop you considering my opinions to be dogmatic, nor can I stop you from finding reasoned argument and having your errors pointed out to be irritating, belittling or degrading; that's just a matter of emotional maturity.
It's always the fault of other people , never ours , right ?A little self-reflection or self-introspection won't hurt anybody , to the contrary .
Here you go again , emotional maturity , of course : you're not guilty of the above , silly me : i have just imagined all that , thanks to my emotional immaturity.
You either choose to conduct a 2-slit interference experiment without a detector thus or otherwise= a 2-slit experiment with a detector at the top of the 2-slits thus .Isn't that true ? It is .
Alasatair Rae in his "Quantum physics , illusion or reality ? " book was even clearer when he talked about the interpretation problem in QM while discussing the co-authored book of Popper and Eccles that argued for a separate soul :Alastair who's a proponent of MW interpretation of QM said that if there was indeed a separate soul , the latter would have causal effects on matter without obeying , by definition , any laws of physics ,and that would solve the interpretation problem in QM .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 01/01/2015 17:26:27... if there was indeed a separate soul , the latter would have causal effects on matter without obeying , by definition , any laws of physics...If there are souls that can causally affect matter without obeying any of the laws of the universe, but all they ever bother to do is f*ck with certain physics experiments in a consistent and predictable fashion, souls have an odd sense of humor.
... if there was indeed a separate soul , the latter would have causal effects on matter without obeying , by definition , any laws of physics...
...I think Earl's position is worth taking a closer look at, if anyone is interested. It also overlaps with other approaches such as Baars "global workspace," Kock and Crick's works on the function of the claustrum, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/neuronal-superhub-might-generate-consciousness/ and Tononi's integrated information theory.
Yes, I agree - to an extent. I haven't heard a clear definition of information in this context. In physics, information is a somewhat abstruse concept, but here I think it's more like 'data with meaning' (e.g. sensory data).
I would suggest that the meaning comes via pattern-matching, with the associative patterns of neural activity that the incoming data triggers. Patterns of input signals will stimulate pathways established by similar previous experience, and through those pathways, associations established previously for those patterns, so triggering recognition, familiarity, emotional associations, etc., at the same time contextual differences and novelties in the input will create new pathways, triggering different areas, and generating new associations. Something along those lines...
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg447743#msg447743 date=1420150650]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 01/01/2015 19:59:57It's always the fault of other people , never ours , right ?A little self-reflection or self-introspection won't hurt anybody , to the contrary .Quite. Nobody's perfect, but anyone reading the thread can make up their own mind.
QuoteHere you go again , emotional maturity , of course : you're not guilty of the above , silly me : i have just imagined all that , thanks to my emotional immaturity.[] The basic rule for civil and polite debate or discussion is that you may attack the argument but not the arguer. If you attack the arguer, don't be surprised if they bite back.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 01/01/2015 18:07:13You either choose to conduct a 2-slit interference experiment without a detector thus or otherwise= a 2-slit experiment with a detector at the top of the 2-slits thus .Isn't that true ? It is .No detector = no experiment.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 01/01/2015 17:26:27Alasatair Rae in his "Quantum physics , illusion or reality ? " book was even clearer when he talked about the interpretation problem in QM while discussing the co-authored book of Popper and Eccles that argued for a separate soul :Alastair who's a proponent of MW interpretation of QM said that if there was indeed a separate soul , the latter would have causal effects on matter without obeying , by definition , any laws of physics ,and that would solve the interpretation problem in QM .If there are souls that can causally affect matter without obeying any of the laws of the universe, but all they ever bother to do is f*ck with certain physics experiments in a consistent and predictable fashion, souls have an odd sense of humor.
Quote from: cheryl j on 02/01/2015 05:36:55Quote from: DonQuichotte on 01/01/2015 17:26:27... if there was indeed a separate soul , the latter would have causal effects on matter without obeying , by definition , any laws of physics...If there are souls that can causally affect matter without obeying any of the laws of the universe, but all they ever bother to do is f*ck with certain physics experiments in a consistent and predictable fashion, souls have an odd sense of humor.And here was I thinking that causality was a fundamental law of physics...