Albert Einstein.

[Altair]

 

[Moriarty]

He was/is/on a quantum level wrong.

 

[Altair]

He was/is/on a quantum level wrong.

Fair comment. But he didn't have the technology that we have today did he.!

He was pretty right about Black holes.

Quantum Physics are great aren't they. One particle can be in TWO places at the same time...Right?.

Ha..

 

[LadyOnArooftop]

Einstein the kinky-haired,
said E equals MC squared.
So all mass decreases
as activity ceases
His brain was most unimpaired!

 

[Altair]

Einstein the kinky-haired,
said E equals MC squared.
So all mass decreases
as activity ceases
His brain was most unimpaired!

That's not exactly how it goes...But I like your attempt at it. Your Brain is thinking.

 

[Altair]

About Quatum Physics...

 

[Moriarty]

Fair comment. But he didn't have the technology that we have today did he.!

He was pretty right about Black holes.

Quantum Physics are great aren't they. One particle can be in TWO places at the same time...Right?.

Ha..

No, particles are in the same places at the same time if you limit your thinking to normal dimensional physics..
It's not that one particle can be in two places, it's it can be in 2 observable places, as in it is probably in all other places we cannot observe to.

It's observable reality.
As with subjective reality which we fecked about with in another post Altair.
Observable, subjective, objective, they are definitions of reality one can choose.
However, unless we percieve them, how do they exist?
A sunrise is dependent on someone viewing it and giving it a name.
It exists whether or not we name it.
If we dont percieve and usually name it, then it does not exist in our reality.
Thats what you missed in our last conversation.
Our human existance is coloured by what we can and cannot percieve, hence name and attempt to reason.
Hence is science not the search for observational fact?

As technology increases our ability to learn more about the physical world, these terms change.
Yet we still understand little of the meta physical world.

Hence we believe what is common as we understand it, as we see reality.
Yet we have no more understanding of it as we do the human psyche.

 

[Altair]

No, particles are in the same places at the same time if you limit your thinking to normal dimensional physics..
It's not that one particle can be in two places, it's it can be in 2 observable places, as in it is probably in all other places we cannot observe to.

It's observable reality.
As with subjective reality which we fecked about with in another post Altair.
Observable, subjective, objective, they are definitions of reality one can choose.
However, unless we percieve them, how do they exist?
A sunrise is dependent on someone viewing it and giving it a name.
It exists whether or not we name it.
If we dont percieve and usually name it, then it does not exist in our reality.
Thats what you missed in our last conversation.
Our human existance is coloured by what we can and cannot percieve, hence name and attempt to reason.
Hence is science not the search for observational fact?

As technology increases our ability to learn more about the physical world, these terms change.
Yet we still understand little of the meta physical world.

Hence we believe what is common as we understand it, as we see reality.
Yet we have no more understanding of it as we do the human psyche.

Okay. I like your take on stuff...But it's not exactly watertight.

I don't personally have a Limit to my thinking, normal or dimensional...regarding Physics too.!

You contradict yourself with the Sunrise statement.

The rising of the SUN is dependant on NO ONE.

It will Rise every day until it eventually dies in 5 BL years time.

The SUN doesn't rely on people to observe it to be there. It just is.

I don't think I missed anything in our last discussion old boy.

Regards.

A.

 

[Moriarty]

Okay. I like your take on stuff...But it's not exactly watertight.

I don't personally have a Limit to my thinking, normal or dimensional...regarding Physics too.!

You contradict yourself with the Sunrise statement.

The rising of the SUN is dependant on NO ONE.

It will Rise every day until it eventually dies in 5 BL years time.

The SUN doesn't rely on people to observe it to be there. It just is.

I don't think I missed anything in our last discussion old boy.

Regards.

A.

If no one observes it and hence names it a "Sunrise" then the Sunrise does not exist.
It is simply motion of objects.

To expand the Sunrise point :-
A sunrise in the UK takes place at a different time than one in Japan.
Reality for people seperated by distance and/or time is observed by them individually.
So when does the sun really rise?
Thats the point.

 

[Altair]

If no one observes it and hence names it a "Sunrise" then the Sunrise does not exist.
It is simply motion of objects.

To expand the Sunrise point :-
A sunrise in the UK takes place at a different time than one in Japan.
Reality for people seperated by distance and/or time is observed by them individually.
So when does the sun really rise?
Thats the point.

Well that's a Given..! We know the Earth revolves around the SUN.

Depending on where you live on the Earth the sun rise will differ.

You haven't made any point.!

 

[Moriarty]

Well that's a Given..! We know the Earth revolves around the SUN.

Depending on where you live on the Earth the sun rise will differ.

You haven't made any point.!

Ok, your on a zoom call with a friend in Japan, he shows you a live video of the sun rising outside his window.
For you, the sun is a long way from rising out of your window.
Has your reality changed as you now see a perfect sunrise through a video camera?

Your percieving events from a different place/time, your observing another reality of a sunrise which does not match your own.

In the normally accepted theories it is as you say, the sun will rise and set as it will with or without our knowledge.

However, without someone to see it it cannot be called a "Sunrise", it is simply objects in motion.

For a namable, objective "Sunrise" to occur, it must be percieved as such.

It's a linguistic and meta-physical argument, your seeing in almost realtime something which does not match your reality.

You can, quite rightly say, "Today I watched the sun rise twice" even though that is impossible as the sun only rises for you once a day.


So, by using a camera, you can have the same light from your friends sunrise hit the camera, be converted into data and re-formed into light through your screen.
Just as your eyes percieve light, convert that into "data" and your brain comprehends it.

By using a man made device and a genetic structure you have changed percieved reality.

You cannot refute you are seeing a "sunrise".

That in a very simplified and not entirely accurate description of Qbism.

 

[Altair]

Ok, your on a zoom call with a friend in Japan, he shows you a live video of the sun rising outside his window.
For you, the sun is a long way from rising out of your window.
Has your reality changed as you now see a perfect sunrise through a video camera?

Your percieving events from a different place/time, your observing another reality of a sunrise which does not match your own.

In the normally accepted theories it is as you say, the sun will rise and set as it will with or without our knowledge.

However, without someone to see it it cannot be called a "Sunrise", it is simply objects in motion.

For a namable, objective "Sunrise" to occur, it must be percieved as such.

It's a linguistic and meta-physical argument, your seeing in almost realtime something which does not match your reality.

You can, quite rightly say, "Today I watched the sun rise twice" even though that is impossible as the sun only rises for you once a day.


So, by using a camera, you can have the same light from your friends sunrise hit the camera, be converted into data and re-formed into light through your screen.
Just as your eyes percieve light, convert that into "data" and your brain comprehends it.

By using a man made device and a genetic structure you have changed percieved reality.

You cannot refute you are seeing a "sunrise".

That in a very simplified and not entirely accurate description of Qbism.

Really. ? Qbism.. Okay.

 

[Moriarty]

Really. ? Qbism.. Okay.

 

[Moriarty]

When the last living creature to observe the universe dies, time from an observed viewpoint will enter infinity...

It's the old "If a tree falls down in a forest but no one hears it does it make a sound".
Which it does not, as a sound is a linquistic term, much like reality, it requires a listener, or a viewer in the case of reality to exist.

Another problem arises when you consider time, much like sound, is based on perception.
Everyone understands the doppler effect of sound.
As a car comes toward you, passes you and travels off into the distance, the tone changes as the sound waves travel at 330m/s toward, past and away from you hence changing thier relative form.

Time works the same way, it's why we have to constantly update GPS satellites and can only have a relative positional accuracy to about a foot.

 

[Radiolady63]

I'd rather have Nic Tesla

 

[MisterWensleydale]

To the best of my knowledge, the Pauli exclusion principle only excludes identical fermions from occupying the same quantum state in a quantum mechanical system. It doesn't apply to bosons, so we get to have fun with lasers.

 

[Moriarty]

To the best of my knowledge, the Pauli exclusion principle only excludes identical fermions from occupying the same quantum state in a quantum mechanical system. It doesn't apply to bosons, so we get to have fun with lasers.

Depends on positionality doe's it not?

 

[Chip_TheViking]

Depends on positionality doe's it not?

regardless of their position or any other factors the principle holds true in all quantum systems, from atoms and molecules to condensed matter and nuclear physics it is a foundational concept that helps explain the behavior and properties of matter at the quantum level.

 

[MisterWensleydale]

regardless of their position or any other factors the principle holds true in all quantum systems, from atoms and molecules to condensed matter and nuclear physics it is a foundational concept that helps explain the behavior and properties of matter at the quantum level.

What he said

 

[MisterWensleydale]

Also while I'm at it... The flow of time is dependent only on changes in the quantum state of the universe (or 'events') continuing to take place. It is not dependent on organic/conscious observers being present within the universe in any way.

Solipsistic interpretations of the observer paradox often lead to the false assumption that causality is somehow dependent on conscious observers. It's worth pointing out that the observer paradox is merely a restatement of the uncertainty principle.

In a nutshell, the uncertainty principle makes it clear that if you use anything with a mass/energy content to measure the position and/or momentum of any object/system (for example, by directing a beam of photons toward it), then on contact it will give that object/system a jolt that changes both its position and momentum.

The upshot? If you attempt to measure any system you will interact with it and therefore disturb it.

You will always have to live with a certain amount of uncertainty about the position and momentum of any system you attempt to measure. If you measure the position of something with 100% accuracy, you have zero information about its momentum and vice versa.

The take home? Interacting systems disturb each other's position and momentum. There is no physical law stating interactions can only take place between systems with a mass/energy content if one or more of them contains conscious/organic entities.