Oblarg
-
Posts
873 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Oblarg
-
-
Specifically this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretatio...nics#Comparison
Oblarg, note the column 'deterministic'? Note how many interpretations are?
Does nothing to change the fact that quantum mechanics describes the world in terms of probabilities.
-
Ah, really. And where does this randomness come from Oblarg? 'It just is', perhaps? Charming.
Yes, it just is. You may as well ask "why does everything exist." You won't get an answer, because it's not an answerable question.
-
Why? How? In what way is this 'a fact'? Do you have some evidence to prove it?
Uh, yes - the equations themselves. They deal with probabilities. That's rather the entire point of the uncertainty principle.
I don't know about you, but when I see a system which is defined in terms of probabilities, I call it probabilistic. I do not think that there's some imaginary "guiding function" secretly working behind the probabilities, because that's a meaningless proposition.
-
You're being a tool. The maths (and fit with experimental data) is as sound as that of the probabilistic interpretations, therefore it is as valid as them until new data allows us to rule one or more interpretations out.
It's basic science.
You're missing the point - it itself is not much more than a baseless, untestable "what-if." The math "what if" doesn't directly conflict with the equations that describe quantum mechanics, but it is still baseless and untestable.
It's akin to the belief in a god who decides how nature's random number generator works - there's no way to disprove it, it doesn't directly conflict with the equations, but it is ultimately meaningless. The fact is that the equations are all probabilistic.
@Krezack - appeals to authority mean nothing. I can dig up some creationists who've been at very prestigious colleges, yet that would do nothing to validate creationism.
-
You're being a tool. The maths (and fit with experimental data) is as sound as that of the probabilistic interpretations, therefore it is as valid as them until new data allows us to rule one or more interpretations out.
It's basic science.
There is no "math" to support it other than simply renaming some of the variables.
It's not a theory, it's not even a testable hypothesis. It's simply baseless speculation by people who don't like the fact that all of quantum physics is defined in terms of probabilities, something that you clearly don't understand.
-
Somewhat pretentious and absurdly ambitious, sure, but awesome regardless. How many other heavy metal bands can make gigantic, multi-part concept album adaptations of Greek tragedies with tons of interludes and ballads that actually work? Just about none.
-
What a load of ****.
I'm sorry, but we do NOT know whether QM is deterministic or probabilistic. What we know is that it APPEARS to us to be probabilistic much like chaotic systems appear to us to be random (but, as it turns out, they aren't).
Unfortunately, all you're doing is showing that you don't really understand quantum mechanics.
That's ok - not very many people do.
Take some physics classes, then get back to me.
I find it interesting that you're telling ME I don't understand QM when it is you who is discounting one of the main interpretations of QM (Bohm's) without any logical reason.
It's not one of the "main interpretations" of quantum mechanics. In fact, it hardly qualifies as an "interpretation" at all, as it does nothing to change the fact that the laws which govern quantum mechanics are probabilistic in nature. Baseless speculation about the workings of nature's random number generator doesn't qualify as legitimate determinism.
-
To throw in one off-the-cuff thing..
I'll always remember one of my college physics professors turning around and basically saying "ah, you think you understand quantum physics? Then you really haven't learnt anything yet. The more you study it, the less you'll realise you can understand at the moment."
I believe it was Feynman who said "anyone who tells you he understands quantum mechanics is lying."
But that's not the type of understanding I'm referring to here.
-
What a load of ****.
I'm sorry, but we do NOT know whether QM is deterministic or probabilistic. What we know is that it APPEARS to us to be probabilistic much like chaotic systems appear to us to be random (but, as it turns out, they aren't).
Unfortunately, all you're doing is showing that you don't really understand quantum mechanics.
That's ok - not very many people do.
Take some physics classes, then get back to me.
-
Let me use an analogy: to the untrained eye, the digits of Pi look random. No two ways about it, you can't look at those digits and see any immediate pattern. But analyse it a bit and one pattern does pop-up: each number is used equally often (which is as odd as it is neat). And if you know enough about the maths behind it, you can calculate nth digits on the fly without calculating the digits that came before. Clearly the distribution of digits of Pi is unpredictable to the human eye, yet is also not random.
Edit: Ah, here is something congruent with what I am talking about: hidden variables and the Bohm interpretation of QM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory
So I think it is very safe to say that we do not yet know if the universe is deterministic. I personally feel it is deterministic, but anybody who claims that QM settles the matter is incorrect.
Yes, we do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
Non-local hidden variables are pretty meaningless, and local hidden variables don't work. You could believe that there's some supernatural entity governing the behavior of particles within the probabilistic laws set forth by quantum mechanics, but such a thought is untestable and therefore irrelevant - the fact remains that quantum mechanics is only describable with probabilistic laws, not deterministic ones.
Quantum mechanics itself is a probabilistic description of the universe.
Deterministic (Newtonian) mechanics simply do not describe the universe at a small scale.
-
The point of Schrodinger's cat is that you can only have a quantum state if the cross-terms make physical sense. A cat cannot be partially dead, therefore it cannot be in a quantum state. It's a very easily resolved paradox - one only has to know the difference between a cat and a particle.
-
Philosophically speaking, I'd interpret the monk's statement as a way of tackling free will within a deterministic worldview.
My "translation": Reality is deterministic, but the illusion of human free will is a necessary one in order to function as a self aware entity.
Except, reality isn't deterministic. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of quantum physics knows this.
Did you miss out on the point of Schrodinger's Cat? Don't blindly apply micro to macro.
I don't think you fully understand Schrodinger's cat. The fact that a cat cannot be in a quantum state does not make the universe deterministic.
The rules that govern the macroscopic universe (newtonian mechanics) are nothing more than a limiting behavior of quantum mechanics. This is absolutely essential to our understanding of physics. Things don't suddenly start following different rules when they get below a certain size.
The uncertainty principle states in very clear terms that the universe is probabilistic.
-
Philosophically speaking, I'd interpret the monk's statement as a way of tackling free will within a deterministic worldview.
My "translation": Reality is deterministic, but the illusion of human free will is a necessary one in order to function as a self aware entity.
Except, reality isn't deterministic. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of quantum physics knows this.
Regardless of the universe's actual inner workings, a person (in this case, the Tibetan monk) can have whatever beliefs he wants. I'm positing that the monk believes in a deterministic universe.
In any case, it's perfectly possible to argue that there's a deterministic framework hidden behind quantum mechanics. It's pure speculation, of course, and it's not my own opinion, but it's a valid way of seeing things.
No, it's not. The universe is quite clearly probabilistic.
-
Philosophically speaking, I'd interpret the monk's statement as a way of tackling free will within a deterministic worldview.
My "translation": Reality is deterministic, but the illusion of human free will is a necessary one in order to function as a self aware entity.
Except, reality isn't deterministic. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of quantum physics knows this.
-
The fact is, while there has been a lot of recent searching for variation in various physical constants (they're trying to do this with the Fine Structure Constant, as well), there have been no conclusive results. As far as we can currently tell, constants are indeed constant.
A lot of modern theoretical physics is a bit of a joke, anyway - it's not science if it doesn't make testable predictions.
-
It's alright, Kaftan, most other people don't understand physics, either.
Time and space are obviously real, and to "treat them as if they are illusions" is the most meaningless thing I have heard in a long time.
-
I like the art direction of those photos, especially the lighting - looks much more sleek and clean, like the first game.
-
Caps better win tonight.
-
ME3 was never really high on my list. They dropped the ball with ME2, so now it's "will they get back up to the quality of the first game" rather than "will the quality stay high?" To be sure, ME2 did do a fair number of things better, but the improvements are dwarfed by the blunders.
-
I'd say Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion has ME3 beat for my most anticipated game.
Is that yet another expansion, or a new game?
Standalone expansion. Lots of changes.
What types of changes? Is it going to be d/l or both d/l and (retail) store?
Retail, I believe.
Some of the changes:
- Each faction has split into two: Loyalists, and rebels. Differences between the two not yet specified, but each comes with a unique, new tech-tree.
- New Titan-class ships, much larger than Capital ships.
- New Corvette-class ships, small and maneuverable.
- More levels of each Capital ship ability
- More victory conditions
- Updated graphics
-
I'd say Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion has ME3 beat for my most anticipated game.
Is that yet another expansion, or a new game?
Standalone expansion. Lots of changes.
-
I'd say Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion has ME3 beat for my most anticipated game.
-
Well, people will finally recognize overfishing as a legitimate concern once several Important Species are extinct in a few decades (the bluefin tuna, for example).
-
The Dutch and Japanese governments have both funded studies into illegal music downloading which both came back reporting it was of net benefit to the industry.
Anyone who is an avid music listener can easily confirm this - it's a HUGE source of exposure for bands that would otherwise be unknown.
Obsidian debates -1
in Way Off-Topic
Posted · Edited by Oblarg
The "interpretations" do nothing to change the equations themselves, which deal with probabilities.
You want a really simply example? Consider radioactive decay.