12 Dec 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe more we know about the universe, the stranger it gets. Einstein believed that quantum mechanics was deeply flawed and set out to prove it by postulating that its logic would lead to the impossible conclusion that locality fails and superluminal connections are inevitable even though these would violate the law that nothing could exceed the speed of light. 30 years later, Bell's Theorem came along and it and the experiments performed based on it proved that this impossibility was true in the universe. In fact in quantum mechanics as already discussed the prevailing view among physicists is that no description of reality is objectively possible i.e. nothing happens until someone observes it (Schrodingers' famous Cat is an illustration of this).
It depends on the creator. I think that if there were a creator that paid a lot of attention to detail, and didn't actively try to cover his tracks, then yes, there would be evidence. The current universe appears as far as we can tell so far, to follow a set of laws of physics exactly, and everything within it can be explained based on those laws alone. W ...[text shortened]... r the laws is some particular outcome, but rather all outcomes are mere consequence of the laws.
Of course, what we see as matter is composed of almost entirely empty space populated by things that may or may not exist in reality. There's a lot in these scientific ideas that is consistent with ancient Eastern ideas about Brahman and Maya and very little that works with the old classical systems of reality that we learned in high school.
12 Dec 14
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's not what you said earlier.
The Rick's analogy was merely to show the fallacy of the argument that because the same thing could arise from two circumstances that the circumstances are equally likely.
Which would be a more logical conclusion for an observer to draw under these circumstances: that the husband was fantastically lucky or that someone had rigged the game?
That it was rigged. But importantly, once again, you have failed to explain why it is an accurate analogy. You are merely trying to scare me off with enormously low probabilities, whilst sneaking in some critical details that simply don't apply.
The universe has only won one lottery, not multiple lotteries in a row. There is a very significant difference.
So, answer this question: if there was a single lottery, with the same odds of wining as the husband hitting a 22, 1,000 times in a row, and somebody won that lottery, would you think that the winner was fantastically lucky or that someone had rigged the game?
I notice you have failed to respond to the issue with the dice. I hope you are not one of those poster who simply can't admit when they are wrong.
12 Dec 14
Originally posted by no1marauderThat is common misinterpretation, but it is neither correct, nor is it the prevailing view among physicists.
In fact in quantum mechanics as already discussed the prevailing view among physicists is that no description of reality is objectively possible i.e. nothing happens until someone observes it (Schrodingers' famous Cat is an illustration of this).
12 Dec 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe dice example doesn't prove anything so I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be "wrong" about. I think you are are making an argument regarding probability based on the Fallacy of Equivocation. Everything that happens can't be "improbable" according to standard definitions so all you've proven is that you can use terms in a non-standard manner.
That's not what you said earlier.
[b]Which would be a more logical conclusion for an observer to draw under these circumstances: that the husband was fantastically lucky or that someone had rigged the game?
That it was rigged. But importantly, once again, you have failed to explain why it is an accurate analogy. You are merely trying to scare me o ...[text shortened]... ith the dice. I hope you are not one of those poster who simply can't admit when they are wrong.[/b]
The point is that 100 22s in a row would have the same chance of occurring as one draw in a row at the same odds of the 100 22s in a row. And, of course, we've covered the same ground already; a lottery is not the universe - we know that a lottery must have a winner whereas the universe could and should have been randomly drawn as a "loser". You've refused to address this rather basic point.
12 Dec 14
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, it's the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics which is the most popular one among physicists. Deep Thought said this in the thread regarding my statement:
That is common misinterpretation, but it is neither correct, nor is it the prevailing view among physicists.
I think as a sound bite your description of that interpretation is fine, but it's not really that there is no description of objective reality, it's that in C.I. the reality doesn't exist until after measurement.
You may present whatever evidence you wish to refute mine and DT's statement. Mere assertion to the contrary won't do it.
12 Dec 14
Originally posted by no1marauderWell, o.k., but your quote of my post at the top of page 9 reflects my understanding of the Copenhagen interpretation rather than my feelings about what quantum mechanics means. Bear in mind most physicists have some degree of unease about the Copenhagen interpretation. Also it's somewhat fuzzy. Bohr more or less insisted on the subjectivist view, whereas Heisenberg was more drawn to realism. In my mind it's not that there isn't a reality between measurements, but that it isn't knowable. So Bohr's position supports yours, but it's a strong version of C.I. that you are advocating.
No, it's the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics which is the most popular one among physicists. Deep Thought said this in the thread regarding my statement:
I think as a sound bite your description of that interpretation is fine, but it's not really that there is no description of objective reality, it's that in C.I. the reality doesn't ex ...[text shortened]... evidence you wish to refute mine and DT's statement. Mere assertion to the contrary won't do it.
According to the Wikipedia page it is the most popular interpretation, but that it's level of support is around 50%. A lot of that support is based on the lack of a viable alternative. I agree that it is radically different from Classical physics. But I think it has problems. It talks about "pure states" but a pure momentum state - one with a definite momentum in some direction is not properly normalizable - and a wavefunction with definite position say at r = R would be zero everywhere except at R where it's infinite. So I'm not happy with that part of the formulation. I'll read back through the last few pages of exchanges and make another comment later today.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
12 Dec 14
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThere is a parallel here with reincarnation, a subject which always puzzles me for one reason. The idea that an individual (or now, a universe) is "reincarnated" implies that there is some sort of continuity of identity, wherein the individual or the universe is the "same" in some sense, through the change. What remains the same?
No, my cyclic universe is not randomly generated so it won't yield life-hostile universes IF the universe doesn't want to be life hostile.
The multiverse refers to a reality with many separate universes, not merely one recycling itself.
We can think of the universe we are in as being a particular instance of a multiverse, or we can think of it as being a particular instance of a cyclic universe. How do we tell which one we are in? It seems that the latter would be temporally sequenced (one instance earlier in time than the next), but how do we know that it is temporally sequenced, and is it in fact temporally sequenced? What does time mean, for a cyclic universe?
12 Dec 14
Originally posted by no1marauderIt proves that every possible outcome in that experiment is improbable, and that improbable events have to happen.
The dice example doesn't prove anything so I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be "wrong" about.
Everything that happens can't be "improbable" according to standard definitions so all you've proven is that you can use terms in a non-standard manner.
Please give your 'standard definitions'. Because the definitions I know, require all practically all events to be improbable.
The point is that 100 22s in a row would have the same chance of occurring as one draw in a row at the same odds of the 100 22s in a row.
You are not making any sense, but I am pretty sure you didn't answer the question. Please answer the question. I answered yours.
And, of course, we've covered the same ground already; a lottery is not the universe - we know that a lottery must have a winner whereas the universe could and should have been randomly drawn as a "loser". You've refused to address this rather basic point.
Why do you believe the universe should have been randomly drawn as a looser? What does that even mean? One doesn't draw loosers in a lottery. I haven't refused to address that point, I just don't know what you are getting at. How can I address something you haven't properly explained?
If it is so basic, then try and say it in more sensible English.
12 Dec 14
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadDe Broglie–Bohm theory, seemingly the main competition, says that the initial configuration of the entire universe determines the action of every single particle. This is probably even more consistent with the type of pantheistic conscious universe I am postulating (and even cooler).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation
12 Dec 14
Originally posted by JS357In the case of reincarnation of an individual the invariant property is the soul, I think. Conscious thought without body. I think it's typically believed that all experiences and memories collected by a soul during a corporeal lifetime are stored in the soul and never lost, though memories of previous lifetimes are forgotten (rendered inaccessible) during any one particular state of embodiment.
There is a parallel here with reincarnation, a subject which always puzzles me for one reason. The idea that an individual (or now, a universe) is "reincarnated" implies that there is some sort of continuity of identity, wherein the individual or the universe is the "same" in some sense, through the change. What remains the same?
We can think of the univers ...[text shortened]... y sequenced, and is it in fact temporally sequenced? What does time mean, for a cyclic universe?
That all things in reality cycle in series and in parallel in some way or another I believe must be so, but I'm skeptical of the prevailing notions of reincarnation.
As for the reincarnation of universes, I would say that a universe born in a Big Bang that is caused by the Big Crunch of a previous universe could be thought of as a reincarnation of the previous universe, especially if the new universe has the same physical parameters as its antecedent. I'm fairly sure I've heard a hypothesis to that effect: the entropy score is reset to zero, but the rules of the game remain the same.
12 Dec 14
Originally posted by JS357I seem to recall reading somewhere (probably a book by Hawking) that time may break down as we regress back toward the Big Bang, defeating any inquiry into the "first instant" of the universe. Yes, it was certainly Hawking. I think he advanced the idea to get 'round the problem of infinite regress and the related problem of time having a "beginning."
We can think of the universe we are in as being a particular instance of a multiverse, or we can think of it as being a particular instance of a cyclic universe. How do we tell which one we are in? It seems that the latter would be temporally sequenced (one instance earlier in time than the next), but how do we know that it is temporally sequenced, and is it in fact temporally sequenced? What does time mean, for a cyclic universe?