Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #689172 > unrolled thread
| Started by | will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-06 18:07 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-06-06 16:30 -0400 |
| Articles | 8 on this page of 68 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-06 18:07 +0000
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 18:14 +0000
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-06 22:38 +0000
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 17:43 -0700
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-07 22:07 +0000
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 17:12 -0700
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-08 14:49 +0000
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 22:39 -0400
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-06-07 05:19 +0200
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-07 05:31 -0400
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-06-07 12:01 +0200
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-07 16:32 -0400
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-07 21:58 +0000
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 04:12 -0700
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-08 14:38 +0000
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-06-08 02:41 +0200
"Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-06 11:47 -0700
Re: "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 19:00 +0000
We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-06 12:25 -0700
Re: We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 16:35 -0400
Re: We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 17:52 -0700
Re: We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-06-06 18:15 -0700
No truth, Nothing to aspire to ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-06 18:21 -0700
Re: No truth, Nothing to aspire to ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 22:47 -0400
NO TRUTH. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-06 20:28 -0700
Re: NO TRUTH. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-07 05:32 -0400
Harp playing, androgynous angels in the clouds ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-07 11:18 -0700
Re: Harp playing, androgynous angels in the clouds ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-07 16:42 -0400
Ben Jacoby takes _pride_ in his randomness, I don't. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-07 14:15 -0700
Re: Ben Jacoby takes _pride_ in his randomness, I don't. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-08 02:20 -0400
Worshiping Ignorance. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-07 23:36 -0700
Re: Worshiping Ignorance. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-08 11:42 -0400
" I can choose to do the opposite of what I prefer " -- Ben Jacoby. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-08 10:17 -0700
Re: Worshiping Ignorance. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 01:58 +0000
Re: Worshiping Ignorance. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 19:55 -0700
Re: Worshiping Ignorance. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 21:37 +0000
EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 14:51 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-06-09 22:01 +0000
To a retard, _everything_ is "random". Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 15:11 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:13 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:52 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 22:54 +0000
People are forever MisQuoting Einstein; I correct them. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 16:40 -0700
Re: People are forever MisQuoting Einstein; I correct them. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 00:15 +0000
Putting words in Einstein's mouth. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 17:42 -0700
Re: Putting words in Einstein's mouth. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 00:59 +0000
God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 18:28 -0700
Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 01:42 +0000
Mark Twain was a determinist. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 20:16 -0700
Re: Mark Twain was a determinist. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-10 12:48 -0400
Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not complete. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-10 10:51 -0700
Re: Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not complete. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 11:02 -0400
Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-06-09 19:37 -0700
Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 22:59 -0400
Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 03:51 +0000
Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-10 12:50 -0400
Mark Twain, Einstein and Stephen Hawking are revered by nerds Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-10 11:01 -0700
Re: Mark Twain, Einstein and Stephen Hawking are revered by nerds benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 11:06 -0400
Re: Putting words in Einstein's mouth. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-11 07:02 -0500
Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 22:28 -0400
Re: Worshiping Ignorance. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:53 -0700
Re: Worshiping Ignorance. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 16:41 -0700
If the truth is your enemy... Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 00:14 -0700
Re: Worshiping Ignorance. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-06-09 06:52 -0400
Re: We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 21:22 +0000
I feel rich, very rich. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-06 14:39 -0700
Re: "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 16:32 -0400
Re: "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 16:30 -0400
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 14:53 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Worshiping Ignorance. |
| Message-ID | <fo30ioFongoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689728 |
On 6/9/18 2:37 PM, vallor wrote: ... >> How do you know if you have free will? > > If you have to ask that question, then you don't have it. So just a feeling. Fair enough. But you cannot know if this feeling is true. > I would leave it at that, but perhaps you are making a serious inquiry. Well, I have had these types of discussions many times. I know there is no real answer... but curious what folks say. Maybe they will surprise me. :) > In that case, I suggest you consider points made by some modern > philosophers. > > This is very much wrapped up in the "hard" problem of consciousness, and > without an appreciation of that, you can find yourself stuck in long- > refuted 19th century determinism. > > One point is that the universe has already demonstrated it has non- > deterministic processes, so there is the very real possibility that > consciousness is also non-deterministic. > > Another one is that if free will is an illusion[*], it's very hard to > shake off. That I agree with. Well, sort of. What even do we mean by free will? Not determined? If so then is it random? If not either what else is there (other than a combination)? > If these ideas truly interest you, I suggest watching Dr. Searle's Google > talk, found here: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCyKNtocdZE I have read some of his work... and am familiar with the "Chinese Room" argument (and the weaknesses of it, or at least some). Overall I would side more with Dennett... though I have disagreed with him as well. > Good luck, and may the force be with you. :) -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 16:41 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Worshiping Ignorance. |
| Message-ID | <73e7104a-d73f-4791-9d0a-db71316f232d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #689749 |
On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 2:53:32 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote: > On 6/9/18 2:37 PM, vallor wrote: > ... > >> How do you know if you have free will? > > > > If you have to ask that question, then you don't have it. > > So just a feeling. Fair enough. But you cannot know if this feeling is true. > > > I would leave it at that, but perhaps you are making a serious inquiry. > > Well, I have had these types of discussions many times. I know there is > no real answer... but curious what folks say. Maybe they will surprise > me. :) > > > In that case, I suggest you consider points made by some modern > > philosophers. > > > > This is very much wrapped up in the "hard" problem of consciousness, and > > without an appreciation of that, you can find yourself stuck in long- > > refuted 19th century determinism. > > > > One point is that the universe has already demonstrated it has non- > > deterministic processes, so there is the very real possibility that > > consciousness is also non-deterministic. > > > > Another one is that if free will is an illusion[*], it's very hard to > > shake off. > > That I agree with. Well, sort of. What even do we mean by free will? Not > determined? If so then is it random? If not either what else is there > (other than a combination)? > > > If these ideas truly interest you, I suggest watching Dr. Searle's Google > > talk, found here: > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCyKNtocdZE > > I have read some of his work... and am familiar with the "Chinese Room" > argument (and the weaknesses of it, or at least some). Overall I would > side more with Dennett... though I have disagreed with him as well. > > > Good luck, and may the force be with you. > > :) > > > > -- > Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They > cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel > somehow superior by attacking the messenger. > > They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. > > <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308> How is Blender on Linux doing anything above the lowest common denominator? Tizen, runs on the Systemd kernel. So yeah, Systemd is mobile. Systemd is a super computer. Systemd is a server. Systemd is a desktop. Systemd is growing in market share. No more! Lots of idiots are talking about the open source "UI" as if they think it literally is something we would want. Just give it up already. You're again trying to bolster yourself beyond your grade. You're the court jester and your many incoherent programs show this. -- One Smart Penny! http://www.5z8.info/mydick_x6g9hr_nakedgrandmas.jpg http://www.5z8.info/lemon-party-redux_v1o7pm_nakedgrandmas.jpg Jonas Eklundh Communication
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 00:14 -0700 |
| Subject | If the truth is your enemy... |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.9--0.14am.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #689593 |
You (Scott) wrote: > One way to deal with the "we don't have free will" > folks is to believe them. > > Therefore, Jeff is nothing more than a philosophical zombie ... > he doesn't know what it is like to be conscious with free will. If the truth is your enemy, as it is for most ( we assert _useful_ premises, no matter the truth ) than you assert randomness, e.g. the MultiVerse, religion and MMO games. All of history, every lesson ever, every advance, tells me: Randomness is ignorance, nothing more; otherwise, there'd be NO TRUTH, nothing for me to aspire to. _Everyone_ is enslaved, there is no free will. We simply prefer the LeastBad "option", and we can't change what we prefer. How and What we consume is what makes us different. At the start, there was no entropy, just infinite eXergy/density. [ eXergy is a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ] And, because " Time == Entropy ", there was no time on the clock then. Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy; leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy but none of the eXergy. Gravity is the "memory" of where the stuff was. General Relativity's four dimensional TimeScape is static, eternal, perfectly causal... it is, at once, everything _and_ nothing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 06:52 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Worshiping Ignorance. |
| Message-ID | <pfgcif$abn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #689593 |
vallor wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > One way to deal with the "we don't have free will" folks is to believe > them. LOL -- For there are moments when one can neither think nor feel. And if one can neither think nor feel, she thought, where is one? -- Virginia Woolf, "To the Lighthouse" [Quoted in "VMS Internals and Data Structures", V4.4, when referring to powerfail recovery.]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 21:22 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. |
| Message-ID | <pf9jau$1t05$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #689197 |
<Jeff-Relf.Me @.> wrote:
> You ("Odd" [sic]) replied ( to me ):
>>> "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities;
>>> it tells you the likelihood of something you might bet on,
>>> like a poker game; the details, the real cause, is unknown.
>>
>> Cause and effect is fully supported in QM.
>> I think you’re confusing determinism with causality.
>
> No, it's SemiRandom, like a poker game... place your bets.
>
> _Everyone_ is enslaved, there is no free will.
> We simply prefer the LeastBad "option",
> and we can't change what we prefer.
>
> We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth.
> How and What we consume is what makes us different.
>
Oh ick.
Personal self-rationalization of deep poverty and sexual alienation as a
choice rather than as a consequence of numerous other choices. Nothing to
do with physics.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 14:39 -0700 |
| Subject | I feel rich, very rich. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.6--2.39pm.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #689228 |
You ("Odd" [sic]) replied ( to me ):
> > _Everyone_ is enslaved, there is no free will.
> > We simply prefer the LeastBad "option",
> > and we can't change what we prefer.
> >
> > We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth.
> > How and What we consume is what makes us different.
>
> Oh ick. Personal self-rationalization of deep poverty
I feel rich, very rich.
> and sexual alienation
Sex is a _bad_ deal for everyone involved.
Google "Feminist Porn".
> as a choice rather than as a consequence of numerous other choices.
What ? you're not making sense.
> Nothing to do with physics.
_Everything_ is physics, when you're doing it right.
At the start, there was no entropy, just infinite eXergy/density.
[ eXergy is a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ]
And, because " Time == Entropy ", there was no time on the clock then.
Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy;
leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
but none of the eXergy.
Gravity is the "memory" of where the stuff was.
All of history, every lesson ever, every advance, tells us:
Randomness is ignorance, nothing more.
General Relativity's four dimensional TimeScape is static, eternal,
perfectly causal... it is, at once, everything _and_ nothing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 16:32 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities. |
| Message-ID | <wxXRC.95712$4M6.73276@fx27.iad> |
| In reply to | #689179 |
On 6/6/2018 3:00 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > <Jeff-Relf.Me @.> wrote: >> "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities; >> it tells you the likelihood of something you might bet on, >> like a poker game; the details, the real cause, is unknown. >> > > Nonsense, Jeff. Cause and effect is fully supported in QM. I think you’re > confusing determinism with causality. > Nonsense Odd. You need to learn to read. Rolf said that the real cause was UNKNOWN! He did not say that there was no cause and effect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 16:30 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities. |
| Message-ID | <UvXRC.95711$4M6.49266@fx27.iad> |
| In reply to | #689176 |
On 6/6/2018 2:47 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: > "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities; > it tells you the likelihood of something you might bet on, > like a poker game; the details, the real cause, is unknown. > Quantum Mechanics = Science of Ignorance. You are starting to catch on, Rolf. The problem with QM is that even ON AVERAGE it does not act like the macro physics we all know and love. Hence previous explanations and causes cannot be correct at the quantum level.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web