What, in relatively simple language, are the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (132 of them)

"Green" is not "green" until the human brain translates it into "green", until it is perceived it is undefined patterns of vibrations. How is that not correct?

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 15:45 (twenty-two years ago)

I find the anal sex thread more appropriate at this early hour than this stuff. I dont rely on science, god answers my questions.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 15:47 (twenty-two years ago)

I dont really believe in the religeous part either...its just the lazy way out. And I am in fact lazy.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 15:48 (twenty-two years ago)

All the good philosophy can be gotten from classical mechanics.

1. Parabolas are awesome.
2.Without friction we're all fucked.
3. The Principle of Least Action dictates that instead of going to class I should stay home, drink a beer and play Vice City.

― adam (adam), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 15:55 (twenty-two years ago)

But its not an undefined patterns of vibrations.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 15:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Hurrah for Hamiltonians!

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 15:56 (twenty-two years ago)

None of what i've said is religious/mystical. They are philosophical conclusions that one could come to (and many have, many scrupulous philosophers not new-age dickwads).
I referenced karma because there is no better description of interconnedness (check out the Hindu conception to see what i mean)
and Hinduism, Buddhism etc. because they are philosophical disciplines, as well as religions. They rely far less on Revelation than some other things.(like science)

only kidding there

― Pete S, Wednesday, 3 December 2003 15:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Or were Hamiltonians not classical? In which case Hurrah for Lagrangians!

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 15:57 (twenty-two years ago)

I thought the basis of quantum mechanics was that things observed are altered by the methods of observation, and thus nothing is ever truly defined. I am wrong then. Back to the books.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 15:58 (twenty-two years ago)

all science is a theory !=> all theories are equal to science

besides i do not think all science is just a theory
i think it is also a methodology for trying to test/decide between theories insofar as that can be done
QM is sort of self-referential science

― Snowy Mann (rdmanston), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 15:58 (twenty-two years ago)

But its not an undefined patterns of vibrations.

Exactly! How would flatbed scanners work if that were the case?

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 3 December 2003 15:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Problem is quantum mechanics really goes to pot unless your talking about small isolated things, really really freaking small things. If you want to deal with big honking universes you have to use relativity. People have been trying to connect the two ever since they were born.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:01 (twenty-two years ago)

my flatbed scanner only works on a probabilistic basis i.e. 90% of the time it doesn't work. stupid USB port.

― ken c, Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Well not the basis, things observed are altered by the methods of observation is true, but you got to be careful because you are not saying what is altered, its thus nothing is ever truly defined which doesn't follow.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:02 (twenty-two years ago)

The one thing you can say philosophically about the whole venture is that it does make a good case against absolute determinism.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:04 (twenty-two years ago)

it's also the tip of an unbelievably vast iceberg.

― Pete S, Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, that can't be determined. ;)

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:07 (twenty-two years ago)

It doesn't rule out absolute determinism if I remeber, it just says we can't absolutely determine something incredibly tiny?

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:09 (twenty-two years ago)

If you can't absolutely determine the smallest of things, then how can you expect to make unimpeachable statements about what those small things compose and affect?

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:12 (twenty-two years ago)

It's not that nothing can be determined, it's just that Newton's grand vision of retracing that eternal billard game of physics simply can't be done b/c quantum physics precludes tracing certain things back (or forwards). Thus, no absolute determinism.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:13 (twenty-two years ago)

the tip-of-the-haha-unbelievable-iceberg aspect is why scientists are suspicious of "telekinetic-intelligence-operating-everywhere" or "force-at-a-distance": once you let them in, you have to spend your entire time explaining why they DON'T operate in 99.9999999999999% of cases

Scientist A: "I don't get this bit"
Scientist B: "That's caused by magic elves"
Scientist A: "But why do magic elves only work on bits of the universe I don't understand"
Scientist B: "Because you are an arrogant reductionist"

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:13 (twenty-two years ago)

*Spinktor rides in trough the saloon doors in the middle of the science-talk-conversation weilding a length of barbed wire that he is swinging wildly around him as he shreiks like an idiot.*

AYAYAAAAAYYYAYYYYYYY!!!

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Maxwell's Demon: *cackle*

― Ricardo (RickyT), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:15 (twenty-two years ago)

You can still say that they compose and affect something, you just can never know exactly what.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:16 (twenty-two years ago)

*Spinktor smacks the compose out of Mr Noodles' affect.*

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Surely the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment means you can expand the quantum indeterminacy into the visible world, not just the world of very tiny things?

('tho I still don't understand what the actual ontological status of the cat is)

― Jonathan Z., Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:16 (twenty-two years ago)

my new theory: since everything is ~~energy~~, er ~~vibrations~~, er some kind of stuff, then everything is the same as everything else when you look close enough...so close in fact that you can't really see or know for sure, er, but that shows that SCIENCE PROVES that we can't really definitely know anything so anything is possible so my theory is ultimately as good as YOURS haha DO YOU SEE

the usefulness of this theory is as yet unclear

― Snowy Mann (rdmanston), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:17 (twenty-two years ago)

you just can never know exactly what.

Wouldn't that sorta rule out absolute determinism? Obviously (or not? Hume experts?) cause and effect is still operating. But determinism, as I am interpreting it, relies on the predicative abilities (forwards and back).

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Surely the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment means you can expand the quantum indeterminacy into the visible world, not just the world of very tiny things?

No, because it's just an analogy.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:19 (twenty-two years ago)

the schrodinger's cat theory is a way of dramatising an idea in the macro-world: actually building a real-world machine to amplify the effect being dramatised would (of course) submit the whole process to a vast sequence of other (teenytiny) quantum effects in every other atom of this machine

the basic point pete made holds: the material logic of activity doesn't isn't a one-stop shop whatever size you are

this is why newton's billiard balls stop being a useful model: billiards logic stops working

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Well it hamstrings it for sure.

And people aren't quiet grasping the meaning of cat Gedankenexperiment.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Feckin Planck...

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:25 (twenty-two years ago)

If you can't absolutely determine the smallest of things, then how can you expect to make unimpeachable statements about what those small things compose and affect?

depends what the statements are ?
when my central heating broke down i didn't call in a subatomic physicist to fix the boiler because 'the atoms weren't working properly'
(though obviously it would have been good to have that call recorded on Scottish Gas' helpline)

― Snowy Mann (rdmanston), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Planck should have fudged his results and we never would have been in this mess.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:28 (twenty-two years ago)

if your dealing with central heating or cooling, statistical mechanics is much more handy.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:29 (twenty-two years ago)

greasy-rag mechanics works too

― Snowy Mann (rdmanston), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Cowboy physicist inspects boiler:
"It's yer atoms mate. They need replacing. That's pricey but I can get you a new lot for a pound each!"

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:32 (twenty-two years ago)

i didn't call in a subatomic physicist to fix the boiler because 'the atoms weren't working properly'

Being as they would be a subatomic physicist, what did you expect?

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:35 (twenty-two years ago)

This is still going?

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Its the Boise-Einstein clan that have decided to stop working with the Fermi-Dirac clan and you got a blood feud breaking out.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Quantum gravity vs. relativistic electroweak force FITE!

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Someone - I forget who - has posited a connection between quantum theory and consciousness, to cover the so-called 'explanatory gap' in the consciousness debate. Now, if that were true (or even simply the fact that a scientist can think it might be true) then quantum theory might well have a huge effect on the non-subatomic world.

― Jonathan Z., Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:39 (twenty-two years ago)

No one's denying that quantum theory can have a huge effect on the non-subatomic world. We're just denying that the implications within the subatomic world can simply be cut and pasted into larger scenarios wholesale.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:40 (twenty-two years ago)

generally, science has been used as useful tropes to explore the relationship of various epistemologies with each other. not just cut/paste

― possible m (mandinina), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:44 (twenty-two years ago)

You guys jumped the shark.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:45 (twenty-two years ago)

well, the various aspects of science. so the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, revealing the limits of science, is important in itself -- especially because so many social sciences have striven for the purity of 'real science'.

― possible m (mandinina), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:46 (twenty-two years ago)

well, the various aspects of science. meant, um to clarify my earlier post.....

― possible m (mandinina), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh, to sort of answer the question:
If you stop moving completely, aka your energy drops to 0ev, you may perhaps disappear. I remeber someone mentioning this while lecturing on electron traps.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:47 (twenty-two years ago)

Godel, Escher, Bach.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:47 (twenty-two years ago)

If you stop moving completely, aka your energy drops to 0ev, you may perhaps disappear.

But wouldn't you have to be at absolute zero? Which pretty much kills entropy.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Skipping 32 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.