You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Breaking Rules of Quantum Mechanics
- Thread starter Reiku
- Start date
No. It argues, that ''we know where we are going, and we know where we are...''
This is showing that the overall conclusions of consciousness breaks free from quantized behaviour.
But we don't always know where we're going. Otherwise we'd never trip and fall and have accidents. And we don't always know where we are, either. And when we do know where we're going and where we are, it's not to a degree of precision that would violate the Uncertainty Principle. I still don't see what this has to do with QM.
We may have a bit of uncertainty where we are heading, but we know that out future lays ahead of us in some kind of defined form. A quantum nature, cannot distinguish this, because there is an infinite amount of paths for a particle, when a location is made.
See the difference?
We can limit how much we know, even if there is a small amount of uncertainty. But this uncetainty is limited, next to the infinite amount of paths a particle can take, when in relation to our experiences.
See the difference?
We can limit how much we know, even if there is a small amount of uncertainty. But this uncetainty is limited, next to the infinite amount of paths a particle can take, when in relation to our experiences.
We may have a bit of uncertainty where we are heading, but we know that out future lays ahead of us in some kind of defined form. A quantum nature, cannot distinguish this, because there is an infinite amount of paths for a particle, when a location is made.
See the difference?
We can limit how much we know, even if there is a small amount of uncertainty. But this uncetainty is limited, next to the infinite amount of paths a particle can take, when in relation to our experiences.
But not all of the infinite paths a particle can take are equally probable, or, to be more precise, there are many more paths leading to some outcomes as opposed to others. For instance, if I shoot a high speed proton at a piece of paper, chances are the proton will pass right through. If I throw a baseball at a wall, there is almost no chance whatsoever that the ball or any visible portion of it will pass through. These are things we can predict and "know" are going to happen because the "predictable" outcome has such a high probability attached to it. That doesn't mean we have absolute certainty over what's going to happen in the future- there's still a degree of uncertainty just like the Uncertainty Principle says, it's just such a tiny level of uncertainty in most situations that we'd never notice it in our daily lives.
Gustav. I don't deal with that kind of philosophy of physics alone. I deal with actual experience, and even reflect on what we ''come to mutually agree on.''
Now, if my OP is not of mutual understanding, then how can it be scientific? Indeed, what about any of the science i mentioned at all, such as David Alberts Conclusion on ''Secret Knowledge,'' as he terms it, defying the Uncertainty Principle?
reflect on that first... and then consider whether any semantics are a mess. Which really is ironic... you have certainly expressed some of the stranger semantics round here... and i don't mean that in a bad way... but rather that you have shown to be quite an unusual individual at best.
Now, if my OP is not of mutual understanding, then how can it be scientific? Indeed, what about any of the science i mentioned at all, such as David Alberts Conclusion on ''Secret Knowledge,'' as he terms it, defying the Uncertainty Principle?
reflect on that first... and then consider whether any semantics are a mess. Which really is ironic... you have certainly expressed some of the stranger semantics round here... and i don't mean that in a bad way... but rather that you have shown to be quite an unusual individual at best.
And whatever mod moved this here, has a few short too.
I mean for FUCK SAKE. I showed that this was mainstream, i showed that these where conclusions forwarded by David Albert (A NON-PSUEDOSCENTIST).
It just shows the mod (Ben i am guessing... maybe James) have become totally biased not in anything i explain as being nothing but something of psuedoscience. Their dogmatic nature is actually embarrassing if they are supposidly scientists.
May as well just FUCKIN MAKE ME the mod of psuedoscience.
I mean for FUCK SAKE. I showed that this was mainstream, i showed that these where conclusions forwarded by David Albert (A NON-PSUEDOSCENTIST).
It just shows the mod (Ben i am guessing... maybe James) have become totally biased not in anything i explain as being nothing but something of psuedoscience. Their dogmatic nature is actually embarrassing if they are supposidly scientists.
May as well just FUCKIN MAKE ME the mod of psuedoscience.
May as well just FUCKIN MAKE ME the mod of psuedoscience.
If you were, would you promise to stop posting in physics and math?
How about an honorary mod of pseudoscience position? You can't actually do anything, but you could say that you're... King of the Pseudos.
Would that suffice?
And I quoted him categorically stating quantum mechanics and conciousness are not related.I showed that this was mainstream, i showed that these where conclusions forwarded by David Albert (A NON-PSUEDOSCENTIST).
Alphanumeric..
...i am not sure whether you know or not, but you are on ignore. This means i cannot read what you say. So if anything you say is directed at me, i have fuckin no idea what it is you are saying, so it's pointless even trying, because this time, i am not un-doing the ignore.
...i am not sure whether you know or not, but you are on ignore. This means i cannot read what you say. So if anything you say is directed at me, i have fuckin no idea what it is you are saying, so it's pointless even trying, because this time, i am not un-doing the ignore.