by jst2laws 63 Replies latest social current
Ross:
IMHO you're wrong on all three counts
I'm with Steve on this one
Well, ok then; prove your dissension.
I dare you, you worthless upflowing-kilt-kinda-guy.
PS: Methinks you just wanna garner points with Steve and Joy for a free ride on their boat.
PS, WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO THIS THREAD?
The thread was titled for AlanF and he abstained.
What did you expect to happen?
LOL
You guys are all asking the wrong question. The REAL question is:
"If a man speaks in a forest and there is no woman to hear him, is he still wrong?"
Farkel
jst2laws,
you are referring to the copenhagen interpretation of heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
What seemingly began as a simple measurement problem under specific circumstances became gratuitously generalized into a metaphysical assertion. Although the original thought experiment was a causal demonstration which assumed an underlying deterministic position and velocity (momentum), the Copenhagen Interpretation began to deny that the electron has a definite position or velocity. From the positivist idea that it is meaningless to discuss the existence of something which cannot be measured (position and velocity, within certain limits) came the idea that the electron is an unreal, causeless "possibility" which only achieves actuality upon observation. Thus positivism became twisted into subjectivism (some say "solipsism") and the idea that the observer somehow creates reality by the act of observation.
http://www.benbest.com/science/quantum.html
einstein schrödinger and others argued against this point of view. einstein said something like: "i like to think that the moon is there even if i don't look at it".
i would assume that no one on this forum is competent to really discuss the validity of either side.
littletoe,
the tree would make a larger dent since there is no air that would slow it down.
Realist,
: you are referring to the copenhagen interpretation of heisenberg's uncertainty principle
Most people probably can't understand that scientific gobbledy-gook you cited.
Put simply, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that the more certain you are of an object's position, the less certain you can be about its speed. The more certain you are about an object's speed, the less certain you can be about its position.
Farkel
farkel,
the whole issue is something that most people can't understand.
the uncertainty principle by itself does not state that particles are unreal unless observed. only a certain interpretation of this fact allows for the idea that without an observer there is really no particle.
jst2, I didn't know you were into quantum physics, I am quite interested myself.
Aside from the other points,
about the perseption and existance of matter, I think your implications are based on hypothesised and speculative theory. Matter exists based on its probababilty to be in a certain state at a given point in space time, but our perception only affects that probability, not the existance itself. In my random thoughts anyway, I havent bothered looking this up.
"If a man speaks in a forest and there is no woman to hear him, is he still wrong?"
Yes Sir!
Just for a brief moment I thought that I understood what this thread was about, but I realized it was just a reaction to a sneeze that caught me suddenly.
I suppose I should be concerned that the sneeze might have a caused a butterfly to flap its wings in Indonesia resulting in a falling Cypress tree in Pelion, on the other hand...... As Kirkegaard once said to Schlegel after six double brandies, "Anybody sheen mie welfare check?".
HS
