Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads

Post by Scott Mayers »

seeds wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 11:14 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:46 am First off, a multi-world universe would have DISCRETE universes, not universes that DEPEND upon any particular world. As such, you are falsely interpreting that those universes are CONNECTED literally to ours rather than as separate worlds that happen to MAP to each subtle differences. Our world does not literally SPLIT into different worlds, they already exist independently. So...

...given the possibility that in this world I might turn right versus left in a simple binary set of possibilities does not mean that at the point of these options I split into two worlds. Rather, both of those classes of world types exist as identical copies except for the points of divergent options taken.
I'm sorry, Scott, but what you are proposing about the "pre-existence" of "identical copies" of our universe, is even more ridiculous than what is implied in the standard take on the MWI, wherein it is alleged that a "single" universe...

(and not pre-existing "identical/parallel" universes)

...splits-off into "branches" of itself (as is clearly depicted in the following illustration)...

Image

In which case, you seem to be mistakenly combining two completely different multi-world (multiverse) theories into some kind of hybrid theory that misrepresents Everett's MWI.
I warned early on that when I argue FOR multiworld theories, as with steady state, that these are CLASS theories, not necessarily the PARTICULAR interpretations that I would hold, ...especially if I am not fully informed of the particular claims.

I hold that Totality is not biased to favor special realities. If you ONLY interpret this world as absolutely unique, you lose any meaning to how any probability can actually distribute the odds in reality without some real universe elsewhere to cover each of those possibilities. That is, if you have a real probability of 1/3 for something to occur, each possibility of the three has to be distributed 'fairly' or the weight of each is indeterminate without resolution. The Everett (class) interpretions assert that these probabilities cannot exist if the possibilities are not coinciding with something real. As such, EACH possibility in the probability has to exist or it is just an illusion.

Taking the deterministic interpretation, either this world is determined or incomplete. The non-multiworld interpretations (note how I'm wording the complementary views collectively) ...hold a permanent state of "indeterminacy" in THIS world and assumes that THIS is the only world. They interpret that the probabilities "COLLAPSE" into only one unique reality as though this supposedly unique world is run by some Being that SPECIALLY defines our world and is thus a type of 'religious' interpretation. That Einstein said, "God does not toss dice" and Shrodinger's cat thought experiments expresses, IF the Copenhagen interpetation is true, the cat IS both alive and dead but then 'collapses' into a SPECIFIC reality upon opening the box. That was meant to ridicule the interpretation. BUT it CAN make sense that the cat is both dead and alive in a collection of universes, reconserving 'determinism' by recognizing that each universe is distinct.

It is a misunderstanding on your part to assume that the 'split' of the film strip example literally means that our universe 'splits'. In fact, looking back in time, the same 'split' occurs. That is, for every future that remains fixed, there are also multiple possible origins. So, as I tried to explain, each world is 'distinct' with at least ONE possible difference between all the others.


Anyway, with that being said, if you are going to stick to your own take on the situation, then I must ask you to explain when and how did these "identical copies" of the universe come into existence?

I mean, are you actually imagining that an infinite number of these "identical" (yet "discrete") universes came into existence (all-at-once) at precisely the same moment in an initial and shared inception point sometime in the past?
They are not 'identical'. They are separated by AT LEAST one 'quantized' difference.

If given digits 0-9, we have 10 possible ways to express each digit of a number in positional notation.

So if given say some special (arbitrary) number like "789", for a three digit selection, there are 1000 possibilities (10 x 10 x 10). I just randomly thought of this number. But with respect to nature that we assume is non-biased, if we were to randomly pick a number between 1/1000, each possibility has to represent a probability that has 'equal weight' to be able to say that 789 has 1/1000 probability to be selected. If nature were absolutely unique, the 'weights' would be indeterminate such that if you tossed a coin a hundred times, you might get an average of 78/100 to be heads, 2/100 for the same at a different time, etc in a way that you could never demonstrate an average of 1/2 as we expect. Of course we could have just as probable 0% heads (100% tails) in some million tosses.

The only real stat that you'd have to accept none if you interpret our world as so 'special'. The reason for those favoring the Copenhagen intepretation relates to the same cause of the support of the Big Bang over the Steady State interpretations: religion and its political ramifications. The 'weirdness' interpretions help the religious to save the magic of some God as giving us humans 'free will' while only appearing to have determinism with respect to nature apart from ourselves.

Let's say that we have a three-point universe with P0, P1, and P2 as possible points.

Totality would interpret these as having 6 possible 'ordered' worlds:

P0, P1, P2
P0, P2, P1
P1, P0, P2
P1, P2, P0
P2, P0, P1
P2, P1, P0


You CAN also order the above worlds by the rule, "Swap two adjacent points at a time". This example above happens to have this rule by default of how I listed it. It is hard to make the less usual order of swapping the first and last positions using only three. But we can also interpret these as cycles whereby you repeat this pattern over and over as though P0, P1, P2 are in a circle. Then any 'swap' occurs no matter what to any different possiblity. Each line that represents a world, can be numbered as uniquely distinct so that you can arbtrarily assign a number to each world.

1. P0, P1, P2
2. P0, P2, P1
3. P1, P0, P2
4. P1, P2, P0
5. P2, P0, P1
6. P2, P1, P0


Now we can represent these on a die. This is to tie this example to Einstein's quote. That is, each odd is weighted EQUALLY as a die and so the Copenhagen interpretation means that some 'toss' is made by Nature in a SPECIAL way (as a world of some religious God would define uniquely).

The PROOF that there ARE other worlds relates to the fact that you CAN induce patterns that suggest equivalent weights of distinct possibilities. If the 'possibilities' that do not occur in one toss do not exist elsewhere (including the present world), then those would no longer be 'possible' (able to pose) and be 0% probability.

If you extend the above example by imagining everything in space as reduced to points in space. Then every POSSIBLITY of arrangements of points act as distinct worlds. Then the set of pairs of these as having ordered patterns also, such as "swapping only two points at a time per adjacency, can exist. That is, we can also order the prior ordered sets into a set of ordered sets.

There will be a world with only one point. If this point references some absolute reality of many, then for as many absolute realities, there would be a world for each of these. Then, there is a set of worlds that have two points and combines each absolute to any other (including itself). Then, her is another set of worlds with three points. This process goes on infinitely and covers all possible worlds.

We have a 'sense' of ORDER to the chaotic set of all possible worlds because we happen to only be ABLE to perceive pattern where patterns exist. As such, it makes sense why all possiblities can exist but not be 'probable' with respect to one possible story.

Niel Bohr responded to Einstein's charge: "Stop telling God what to do." But this missed the point. Einstein was arguing that science should remain silent if we discover something 'weird' rather than affirming its 'weirdness' as God-works-in-mysterious-ways type of POSITION. If we propose a senseless interpretation of reality just because it is SOME explanation rather than none, it is best to NOT draw any conclusive interpretation. The many-worlds explanation retains determinism and closure by providing real places for probabilities that EXIST.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads

Post by Scott Mayers »

Age wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:11 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:51 pm
seeds wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 8:14 pm
Scott, do you actually believe that due to the interaction taking place between the photons of light jumping off your computer screen and that of your eyeballs,...

...that trillions of copies of you, me, the earth, and the entire universe just now sprang into existence in the few seconds it took you to read this sentence?

Really???
_______
In general, yes. The fact that we can find certain realities as based UPON probabilities between multiple possibilities (where they exist), the reality could NOT be statistically valid if the other options do not exist somewhere.

For instance, you come to a T-intersection in which you could turn left or you can turn right. If the probability of real instances is 50% for turning left and 50% for turning right, this probability could not be demonstrated consistently if whichever possible choice one does not choose is 0% to the 100% one does choose. That is, where you discover real statistical probabilities consistently, this requires one accept the other options as real or believe that we live in an absolutely unique universe.

To add force to this, when given a frame of a movie, is there only one unique possible 'story' that this frame uniquely fits into? That is, can you tell from ONLY that one frame what is determined to precede it or follow it uniquely? The Copenhagen interpretation would assert that the probabilities are real in some grand univeral computer that 'tosses dice' in order to determine the particular reality AND that this particular reality is the ONLY one. The multiple worlds interpretaton is the only option that completes the full picture because it would account for why certain consistent probabilities are distributed FAIRLY among the different possibilies.
How, EXACTLY, could there be so-called "different possibilities" if there exists One, infinite AND eternal, Universe, ONLY?

What is the 'probability' of there being "different possibilities" in thee One and ONLY Universe?
Infinites and continuities are not 'deFINable' [Fin = end] since the whole as defined as Totality cannot literally be bounded. The meaning of Universe as [One spoken of] is now reduced to be a subset of Totality and with more than one unending. So while you are correct to question this IF such an absolute is actually from the perspective of someone outside Totality looking in, we are INSIDE this concept and so cannot conFINe the possibilities that do not exist here in our present reality as non-existing elsewhere.

But the EXISTENCE of measurable phenomena that we infer as real probabilities that do exist in fact, the weight of each possiblity has to be distributed BY those probabilities by providing a real place for each to exist somewhere. I cannot assert that a particular path not taken is a probable possibility if the path not taken cannot ever exist anywhere.

Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:51 pm Note that I only used "Everett Interpretation" based upon it being the name of the first person to propose it, ....not to assert my support for any PARTICULAR unique meaning to Everett's views.
Did you mean here; the first KNOWN person to propose it, the first KNOWN person, to 'you', to propose it, or do 'you' literally mean the first person to propose it and that there was NO person EVER throughout human history who had proposed 'it', even in one's own head, previously?
Not important. I was responding to seeds charge of me not having the official claim mapping to Everett's own theory. I hold that all realities exist in Totality without necessarily being true of SPECIFIC worlds or "universes". If Everett added some particular idea beyond multiple worlds in general, I cannot speak for them. But he was the 'first' in the modern physics of the last century to have proposed multiple worlds WITHIN science and as a direct alternative to the Copenhagen interpretions of Quantum Mechanics.

Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:51 pm As such, my argument is more broadly extended and requires being a truth about Totality (all posssible Universes of universes).
How, EXACTLY, do you define the 'Universes' and the 'universes' words?

And, is it possible, to you, that either a capital 'U' or a small 'u' could be used without and 's' at the end?

Also, did you mean to use a capital 'U' in the first word and a small 'u' in the second word?
The original word was used in the assumption that the physical world mapped coincided with a real non-physical one like 'heavens' with regards to one's religion. As such it meant "totality" but many could not separate the two. Then "Cosmos" was used to try to speak of the Universe without mystical places included, like heaven. A "cosmos" would more appropriately define our scientific physical universe. "Totality" is what I reserve for the absolute whole. Then universe becomes a 'unit' among many.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:51 pm If only ONE actual option in the above left-right-turn example is true, any measure of statistics collected about many different instances would not have ANY actual predictable pattern.


Note also that the example I gave in reality to which way one turns can depend on other factors such as whether we are in London versus Toronto, given we would tend to possibly favor turning 'right' in Toronto but 'left' in London due to which side of the road we normally ride on.
In relation to thee Universe, Itself, is there even a 'left' or a 'right', and if so, then how would you describe that 'left' and that 'right'?

See, to me, 'left', 'right', 'up', 'down', and 'upside-down' are NOT actual 'things' in relation to thee Universe, Itself.
?? I used an analogy with the context of understanding what these mean. If I was defining this abstractly it would be less easy to understand and require even more arguments that would go far beyond the intent.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:51 pm But even under the possibility of such differences, while it might be say 75% chance that people in Toronto might favor turning 'right', we still expect this probability to hold consistently under those restricted influences. The only way a statistic of nature to hold consistently where it is not 100% or 0% assured is if the possibilities are actually distributed and fit with the same probability regardless of how many times you repeat it.
IF the people in "toronto" might favor turning 'right' or turning 'left' might also be influenced on how much each one of them, for example, likes drinking alcohol, likes to gamble, likes to buy hand bags, likes to eat fruit and vegetables, likes to go fishing, likes to do exercise, or likes to do just about ANY thing. The variables are just way TO MANY for this to even be a True consideration of 'things', Especially in regards to discussions about thee Universe, Itself.

There can ONLY EVER be, by definition, One 'Universe'.

Now, if ANY one of 'you' wants to discuss if the One and ONLY Universe is finite AND not eternal, finite AND eternal, infinite AND not eternal, or infinite AND eternal, then let us DISCUSS.

I will inform you now, however, that thee One and ONLY Universe can ONLY be infinite AND eternal.
I explained this already in this post above.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:51 pm Does this help understand the distinction? The Copenhagen interpretation drew the same criticism from Einstein that I share. "God does not toss dice" was asserted by him about this interpretion because it implies our PARTICULAR reality should not show real fixed pattern of probabilities that 'collapse' into one unique reality unless it was perfectly indeterminate (not even predictable by probabilities.)
I suggest to 'you', human beings, instead of formulating 'theories' and/or 'guesses' about what COULD BE true, and instead just LOOK AT and DISCUSS what ACTUALLY IS True, then you WILL FIND what 'it' is that 'you' are ALL LOOKING FOR here.

If ANY one would like to give that a go, just to FIND OUT and SEE what RESULTS, then I am more than happy and willing to. Until then just carry on as 'you' have been. But just REMEMBER 'you' have been going like that for thousands upon thousands of years now, and REALLY are 'you' that much CLOSER?
I suggest to 'you', whatever 'being' you are, that you resist the rhetoric about your feelings about what is ACTUALLY TRUE unqualified. You are repeating yourself without substance in meaning and are hypocritical for continuing to speak while basically telling others that we should 'shut up' about things. If you SEE THEE TRUTH, good for you. But you don't need to repeat what we all already understand of your skepticism. ARGUE it, don't just POSTulate (an assumption one conditions a logical argument upon.) You are postulating some ideals of "truth" without substance (without proof) and why it then just acts as an 'assumption' when you state and expect others to have faith in it UP FRONT.
seeds
Posts: 1428
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads

Post by seeds »

seeds wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 11:14 pm Anyway, with that being said, if you are going to stick to your own take on the situation, then I must ask you to explain when and how did these "identical copies" of the universe come into existence?

I mean, are you actually imagining that an infinite number of these "identical" (yet "discrete") universes came into existence (all-at-once) at precisely the same moment in an initial and shared inception point sometime in the past?
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 12:38 am They are not 'identical'. They are separated by AT LEAST one 'quantized' difference.
Yes, I get that, and that is precisely what I was implying when I established the following insane scenario:
seeds wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 11:14 pm For example, do you actually believe that if you, Scott Mayers, were to set up a double slit experiment in our universe where you shoot a single electron through the slits,...

...that a precise copy (or copies) of you in those other "independent" universes would be creating the exact same experiment wherein every move they (and their electron) make would be a precise and instantaneous mirroring of every move that you and your electron make?

And that the absolute only difference between the entire inner-dimensions of those discrete and independently evolved - (billions of years old) - universes, would be that in your universe, the electron was discovered (measured) to be on the left side of the phosphorescent screen, while in one of the other universes it was measured to be on the right side of the screen, while in yet another universe, it was measured to be in the middle of the screen.
And the problem is that you seem to accept that scenario as being plausible. Yet, for some inexplicable reason, you do not seem to comprehend just how utterly preposterous the scenario actually is.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 12:38 am Niel Bohr responded to Einstein's charge: "Stop telling God what to do." But this missed the point. Einstein was arguing that science should remain silent if we discover something 'weird' rather than affirming its 'weirdness' as God-works-in-mysterious-ways type of POSITION. If we propose a senseless interpretation of reality just because it is SOME explanation rather than none, it is best to NOT draw any conclusive interpretation. The many-worlds explanation retains determinism and closure by providing real places for probabilities that EXIST.
But you are distorting Everett's "Many-Worlds Interpretation" by denying its "branching" feature as depicted in the illustration I provided...

Image

...while opting for some hybrid version of the MWI that includes a near infinity of pre-existing universes of which you not only do not provide any plausible explanation as to how they initially came into existence,...

...but have also suggested that the only difference between each of these (discrete and independently evolved) universes is in some infinitesimal variance between a singular electron or a singular photon somewhere within their overall makeup.

Scott, I appreciate the effort you are putting-forth in defense of your argument, and I apologize for being so blunt about this, but, again, the word "preposterous" simply isn't strong enough to address such nonsense.

All of which leads me to the following question:

Why is the preservation of the concept of "determinism" so important to you that you are willing to torture and stretch logic and credulity to such outrageous degrees?
_______
Age
Posts: 10958
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:52 am
Age wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:11 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:51 pm
In general, yes. The fact that we can find certain realities as based UPON probabilities between multiple possibilities (where they exist), the reality could NOT be statistically valid if the other options do not exist somewhere.

For instance, you come to a T-intersection in which you could turn left or you can turn right. If the probability of real instances is 50% for turning left and 50% for turning right, this probability could not be demonstrated consistently if whichever possible choice one does not choose is 0% to the 100% one does choose. That is, where you discover real statistical probabilities consistently, this requires one accept the other options as real or believe that we live in an absolutely unique universe.

To add force to this, when given a frame of a movie, is there only one unique possible 'story' that this frame uniquely fits into? That is, can you tell from ONLY that one frame what is determined to precede it or follow it uniquely? The Copenhagen interpretation would assert that the probabilities are real in some grand univeral computer that 'tosses dice' in order to determine the particular reality AND that this particular reality is the ONLY one. The multiple worlds interpretaton is the only option that completes the full picture because it would account for why certain consistent probabilities are distributed FAIRLY among the different possibilies.
How, EXACTLY, could there be so-called "different possibilities" if there exists One, infinite AND eternal, Universe, ONLY?

What is the 'probability' of there being "different possibilities" in thee One and ONLY Universe?
Infinites and continuities are not 'deFINable' [Fin = end] since the whole as defined as Totality cannot literally be bounded.
But 'infinites' and 'continuities' are deFINable. Just LOOK IN a dictionary for PROOF of this.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:52 am The meaning of Universe as [One spoken of] is now reduced to be a subset of Totality and with more than one unending.
When, EXACTLY, did the meaning of the 'Universe' word get reduced to be a 'subset' of TOTALITY?

And, by whom, EXACTLY?
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:52 am So while you are correct to question this IF such an absolute is actually from the perspective of someone outside Totality looking in, we are INSIDE this concept and so cannot conFINe the possibilities that do not exist here in our present reality as non-existing elsewhere.
But we are NOT INSIDE a 'concept'. We are, however, INSIDE thee Universe. And, it could be said 'concepts' are INSIDE US.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:52 am But the EXISTENCE of measurable phenomena that we infer as real probabilities that do exist in fact, the weight of each possiblity has to be distributed BY those probabilities by providing a real place for each to exist somewhere.
But there is ONLY One Universe, and can EVER ONLY be One Universe. So, there are NO 'other' probabilities to even imagine, let alone to ponder over and consider.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:52 am I cannot assert that a particular path not taken is a probable possibility if the path not taken cannot ever exist anywhere.
Great observation, and recognition.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:52 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:51 pm Note that I only used "Everett Interpretation" based upon it being the name of the first person to propose it, ....not to assert my support for any PARTICULAR unique meaning to Everett's views.
Did you mean here; the first KNOWN person to propose it, the first KNOWN person, to 'you', to propose it, or do 'you' literally mean the first person to propose it and that there was NO person EVER throughout human history who had proposed 'it', even in one's own head, previously?
Not important. I was responding to seeds charge of me not having the official claim mapping to Everett's own theory. I hold that all realities exist in Totality without necessarily being true of SPECIFIC worlds or "universes". If Everett added some particular idea beyond multiple worlds in general, I cannot speak for them. But he was the 'first' in the modern physics of the last century to have proposed multiple worlds WITHIN science and as a direct alternative to the Copenhagen interpretions of Quantum Mechanics.

Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:51 pm As such, my argument is more broadly extended and requires being a truth about Totality (all posssible Universes of universes).
How, EXACTLY, do you define the 'Universes' and the 'universes' words?

And, is it possible, to you, that either a capital 'U' or a small 'u' could be used without and 's' at the end?

Also, did you mean to use a capital 'U' in the first word and a small 'u' in the second word?
The original word was used in the assumption that the physical world mapped coincided with a real non-physical one like 'heavens' with regards to one's religion. As such it meant "totality" but many could not separate the two. Then "Cosmos" was used to try to speak of the Universe without mystical places included, like heaven. A "cosmos" would more appropriately define our scientific physical universe. "Totality" is what I reserve for the absolute whole. Then universe becomes a 'unit' among many.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:51 pm If only ONE actual option in the above left-right-turn example is true, any measure of statistics collected about many different instances would not have ANY actual predictable pattern.


Note also that the example I gave in reality to which way one turns can depend on other factors such as whether we are in London versus Toronto, given we would tend to possibly favor turning 'right' in Toronto but 'left' in London due to which side of the road we normally ride on.
In relation to thee Universe, Itself, is there even a 'left' or a 'right', and if so, then how would you describe that 'left' and that 'right'?

See, to me, 'left', 'right', 'up', 'down', and 'upside-down' are NOT actual 'things' in relation to thee Universe, Itself.
?? I used an analogy with the context of understanding what these mean. If I was defining this abstractly it would be less easy to understand and require even more arguments that would go far beyond the intent.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:51 pm But even under the possibility of such differences, while it might be say 75% chance that people in Toronto might favor turning 'right', we still expect this probability to hold consistently under those restricted influences. The only way a statistic of nature to hold consistently where it is not 100% or 0% assured is if the possibilities are actually distributed and fit with the same probability regardless of how many times you repeat it.
IF the people in "toronto" might favor turning 'right' or turning 'left' might also be influenced on how much each one of them, for example, likes drinking alcohol, likes to gamble, likes to buy hand bags, likes to eat fruit and vegetables, likes to go fishing, likes to do exercise, or likes to do just about ANY thing. The variables are just way TO MANY for this to even be a True consideration of 'things', Especially in regards to discussions about thee Universe, Itself.

There can ONLY EVER be, by definition, One 'Universe'.

Now, if ANY one of 'you' wants to discuss if the One and ONLY Universe is finite AND not eternal, finite AND eternal, infinite AND not eternal, or infinite AND eternal, then let us DISCUSS.

I will inform you now, however, that thee One and ONLY Universe can ONLY be infinite AND eternal.
I explained this already in this post above.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:51 pm Does this help understand the distinction? The Copenhagen interpretation drew the same criticism from Einstein that I share. "God does not toss dice" was asserted by him about this interpretion because it implies our PARTICULAR reality should not show real fixed pattern of probabilities that 'collapse' into one unique reality unless it was perfectly indeterminate (not even predictable by probabilities.)
I suggest to 'you', human beings, instead of formulating 'theories' and/or 'guesses' about what COULD BE true, and instead just LOOK AT and DISCUSS what ACTUALLY IS True, then you WILL FIND what 'it' is that 'you' are ALL LOOKING FOR here.

If ANY one would like to give that a go, just to FIND OUT and SEE what RESULTS, then I am more than happy and willing to. Until then just carry on as 'you' have been. But just REMEMBER 'you' have been going like that for thousands upon thousands of years now, and REALLY are 'you' that much CLOSER?
I suggest to 'you', whatever 'being' you are, that you resist the rhetoric about your feelings about what is ACTUALLY TRUE unqualified.
But what IS ACTUALLY True is NOT some 'thing' I have 'feelings' about AT ALL.

What IS ACTUALLY True is 'that', which you can NOT refute.

You talking about 'feelings' in regards to what I ACTUALLY SAID is just MISLEADING and DECEPTIVE on your part.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:52 am You are repeating yourself without substance in meaning and are hypocritical for continuing to speak while basically telling others that we should 'shut up' about things.
Well here is ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of just how ASSUMING and/or BELIEVING 'things' leads human beings COMPLETELY and UTTERLY ASTRAY.

I have NEVER even IMAGINED ANY one should 'shut up' here about ANY thing.

When LOOKED AT I am thee One who is ASKING the MOST QUESTIONS, which therefore basically MEANS that I am SEEKING answers from 'you', people, here in this forum, which OBVIOUSLY MEANS 'do NOT shut up' and 'speak thee Truth of things'.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:52 am If you SEE THEE TRUTH, good for you. But you don't need to repeat what we all already understand of your skepticism.
What 'skepticism', EXACTLY, are you talking about and referring to here, which, supposedly, ALL of you ALREADY UNDERSTAND?

If you EVER become Truly Honest and answer the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS I pose to you, then what you are ASSUMING and/or BELIEVING here can ACTUALLY be LOOKED AT, and then DISCUSSED.

Until then what you talk about and refer to here LIES within YOUR IMAGINATION, ONLY.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:52 am ARGUE it,
ARGUE 'what', EXACTLY?

What does the 'it' word here refer to, EXACTLY?
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:52 am don't just POSTulate (an assumption one conditions a logical argument upon.) You are postulating some ideals of "truth" without substance (without proof) and why it then just acts as an 'assumption' when you state and expect others to have faith in it UP FRONT.
But I am NOT 'postulating' ANY thing AT ALL here. This is just ANOTHER ONE of YOUR ASSUMPTIONS.

I have been TALKING about thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', which OBVIOUSLY exists with PROOF, and just as OBVIOUSLY exists WITHOUT ASSUMPTIONS.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads

Post by Scott Mayers »

seeds wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 6:05 pm Scott, I appreciate the effort you are putting-forth in defense of your argument, and I apologize for being so blunt about this, but, again, the word "preposterous" simply isn't strong enough to address such nonsense.

All of which leads me to the following question:

Why is the preservation of the concept of "determinism" so important to you that you are willing to torture and stretch logic and credulity to such outrageous degrees?
_______[/size]
I don't think you understand the issue. But then this supposedy proves that you therefore understand it according to Copenhagen interpretation! :lol:

If there is ONLY THIS world AND NO OTHER, it is permanently 'deterministic' and would imply that no matter what you do, the outcome is 'fated'. If ANY indeterminant reality DOES exist, this means that optional realities also exist. The QM experiments are AGREED by all to demonstrate 'indeterminant' outcomes by all interpretations. If reality were literally indeterminate, then nature (or God) tosses dice to determine what happens even if we do not. To repair this, the Copenhagen interpretation IGNORES the cause but adds with their PRINCIPLE of INDETERMINACY that NO ONE CAN EVER find a determinate alternative. Those who disagree do not necessarily default to multiple discrete worlds but just assert that you cannot SIT with anything that closes the issue permanently as Copenhagen does.

The Multi-world Possibilities only retains the conservation of those probable outcomes by asserting that those other possibilities still exist or we would not witness a consistent meaning to what is 'probable'. A distribution of odds where it occurs in nature means that each possibility exists somewhere necessarily or they are NEVER able to be sup-posed as pose-able (possible) with a relatively certain probability. If you tossed a coin but it turned up that 1/3 of the time you get heads as a real measure of possible outcome, you'd suspect that there is some 'hidden' factor that is causing the weight to be favorable to heads. The cause may be indeteminate but it does not mean that nature itself cannot 'determine' it.

"God does not toss dice" refers to the presumption that there is ONLY ONE possibility but that it depends on nature itself to 'flip a coin'. But then what appears as not occurring cannot be interpreted as 'possible' in ANY world. Copenhagen stops short of trying to look deeper into the issue to seek a determinate interpretation. Multi-world possibilities accounts for this.

I am against superstitious interpretions, like religion. As such, I would not accept that Nature itself could FAVOR being 'fair' in distributing odds without providing real possibilities that represent those odds SIMULTANEOUSLY. This is more rational when you interpret reality as merely being based upon the abstract possibilities with defining patterns that get manifest as 'laws of physics'. That is, everything is merely a construct of mathematical possibilities where patterns CAN exist. And these cannot exist experientially by those made up of the very patterns that define them. So we, for instance, cannot perceive those other world experiences while experiencing one at a time.

In the film strip analogy, the 'split' means that if you ARE the movie....the living reality of the story with the parts defined in some ordered arrangement, you ONLY go down one of those paths but the other is also a distinct reality.

You could question whether there exists actual points where the odds CAN split. Most would have relatively deterministic single possible outcomes. But does nature have points of real alternatives? Yes. Imagine you are a single elemental particle that is not further reducible by its meaningful definition. Then which direction would two of these identical particles go if they were EXACTLY on the same but opposite path within an already defined set of dimensions of space we have? One particle might go left while the other goes right. But in space this might also mean up versus down. In such cases of many possibilities how would nature 'decide' between options where the distributing odds are IDENTICAL? There are an infinite possible perpendicular directions to go to if you are in our particular spacial dimensions. We might assure symmetry of the two particles going off in different but opposite directions, but which plane does it reside in relative to the parallel infinite planes that can exist from one line?

Everett interpretation limits itself to consistent worlds and/or those that map onto the same laws as our particular universe. Logically, it is more but requires recognizing that Totality KEEPS everything, including things that are not relatively 'real' in particular universes. Those universes that exist without consistency lack the patterns that cause any manifestation of it as 'consistent' and so may remain merely abstract incomplete 'nonsense'. I happen to extend Everett to ALL possibilities in this way. That is my only difference. Everett interpretion as literally defined AT LEAST is true for a more complete multiworld possibility to be possible. I don't bias Totality as requiring consistency everywhere. Rather, those realities that don't complete sensible worlds are not sensed and get 'weened' out by evolution of 'sensible' classed worlds.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads

Post by Scott Mayers »

Age wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 10:25 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:52 am
Age wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:11 am

How, EXACTLY, could there be so-called "different possibilities" if there exists One, infinite AND eternal, Universe, ONLY?

What is the 'probability' of there being "different possibilities" in thee One and ONLY Universe?
Infinites and continuities are not 'deFINable' [Fin = end] since the whole as defined as Totality cannot literally be bounded.
But 'infinites' and 'continuities' are deFINable. Just LOOK IN a dictionary for PROOF of this.
"Fin" is from "ends" and references a clarity in understanding. Infinites means it is not 'fin(ite)' and so cannot be 'de(fined)' ["define" means 'of finite' description]

We can artificially define any set as "infinite" if it as "any set that is a proper subset of itself". This is actually the best way to define it formally but is also a contradictory type reality. However, what is literally undefinable in finite terms refers to the reality and not our use of it as a meaning where we do define it.

For instance, I can use a name to "define" someone but the name itself may have no particular reality. My name is Scott. I am not Scottish and so the term as it relates to me is not referencing some DEFINITION of 'Scott" itself. Does a "Scott" exist independent of my use of the term? The definition of ME as "Scott" is just a label referencing who I am but it doesn't 'define' me. But if I died, that meaning is gone.

The reference of infinity is not 'provable' as a reality because it would TAKE an infinite being to cover an infinite amount of territory. Thus the reality is not 'definable' as a real thing but is 'definable' by reference to a particular class of meanings.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:52 am The meaning of Universe as [One spoken of] is now reduced to be a subset of Totality and with more than one unending.
When, EXACTLY, did the meaning of the 'Universe' word get reduced to be a 'subset' of TOTALITY?

And, by whom, EXACTLY?
I wasn't aware that we REQUIRE using language as 'officiated' by some dictator? I know that my country wants me to pronounce "schedule" as "shed u al" (the shhh sound). I just say that I guess that I need to go back to "shool" [rather than 'school' with the 'k' sound]. Either way, others still understand me.

My defintions have precedence that you CAN look up yourself. I keep close to them where possible but require separating the term Universe from Totality as I defined.

"Rational" used to mean "that which can be represented as a 'ratio'. x/y means "x compares to y" as a rate. Yet, when they discovered that not all numbers can be presented this way, it became normal to use the word "irrational" to define them, even though it may seem irrational. Imaginary numbers exist too. That is why the term "Real" numbers were distinguished from them.

I've defined Totality and Universe explicitly as I use it and that is enough.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:52 am So while you are correct to question this IF such an absolute is actually from the perspective of someone outside Totality looking in, we are INSIDE this concept and so cannot conFINe the possibilities that do not exist here in our present reality as non-existing elsewhere.
But we are NOT INSIDE a 'concept'. We are, however, INSIDE thee Universe. And, it could be said 'concepts' are INSIDE US.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:52 am But the EXISTENCE of measurable phenomena that we infer as real probabilities that do exist in fact, the weight of each possiblity has to be distributed BY those probabilities by providing a real place for each to exist somewhere.
But there is ONLY One Universe, and can EVER ONLY be One Universe. So, there are NO 'other' probabilities to even imagine, let alone to ponder over and consider.
When it was first used, it meant absolutely THEE ONE Universe but they included Heavens and Hells, Hades, and Mount Olympus. The point is that it was limited to those listeners who restrict what they HEAR to mean what is in ALREADY in their OWN heads, beliefs, etc. But if you are trying to discuss meanings uniquely from other's biases that separate these beliefs WITH CLARITY, you require adding more terms to describe them. I don't say "Christianity" when I want to discuss all religions and why I would use the term, "religion" instead. But many Christians would then interpret "religious" as not what is unreal to them but to Christianity itself.

"Universe" is from logic and philosophy and actually comes from "Universal". "Totality" is a logical 'universal' that means ALL of everything, including nothing itself. The term, "Universe" as in this one is "Cosmos" if you want to refer only to the physical and it too was only created in light of those reading into another's use of "universe". It is good that it throws you off because it demonstrates you were more limited in your scope of class references. But it is important to understand the way I am using it is clearly defined.

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:52 am I cannot assert that a particular path not taken is a probable possibility if the path not taken cannot ever exist anywhere.
Great observation, and recognition.[/quote]
Thanks.
Age
Posts: 10958
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 5:18 am
seeds wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 6:05 pm Scott, I appreciate the effort you are putting-forth in defense of your argument, and I apologize for being so blunt about this, but, again, the word "preposterous" simply isn't strong enough to address such nonsense.

All of which leads me to the following question:

Why is the preservation of the concept of "determinism" so important to you that you are willing to torture and stretch logic and credulity to such outrageous degrees?
_______[/size]
I don't think you understand the issue. But then this supposedy proves that you therefore understand it according to Copenhagen interpretation! :lol:

If there is ONLY THIS world AND NO OTHER, it is permanently 'deterministic' and would imply that no matter what you do, the outcome is 'fated'.
And this is True. But do NOT forget that 'free will' ALSO EXISTS.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 5:18 am If ANY indeterminant reality DOES exist, this means that optional realities also exist.
WHY? What are you basing this CLAIM and ASSUMPTION on, EXACTLY?

How many 'realities' do 'you' think or BELIEVE could, POSSIBLY, exist?
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 5:18 am The QM experiments are AGREED by all to demonstrate 'indeterminant' outcomes by all interpretations.
This is NOT correct, and the reason for this is because there are OTHER ways to LOOK AT 'this' here.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 5:18 am If reality were literally indeterminate, then nature (or God) tosses dice to determine what happens even if we do not.
What 'you', human beings, in those days when this was being written COMPLETELY and UTTERLY OVERLOOKED is that so-called 'tossing dice' AND 'determinism' BOTH EXIST.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 5:18 am To repair this, the Copenhagen interpretation IGNORES the cause but adds with their PRINCIPLE of INDETERMINACY that NO ONE CAN EVER find a determinate alternative. Those who disagree do not necessarily default to multiple discrete worlds but just assert that you cannot SIT with anything that closes the issue permanently as Copenhagen does.

The Multi-world Possibilities only retains the conservation of those probable outcomes by asserting that those other possibilities still exist or we would not witness a consistent meaning to what is 'probable'. A distribution of odds where it occurs in nature means that each possibility exists somewhere necessarily or they are NEVER able to be sup-posed as pose-able (possible) with a relatively certain probability. If you tossed a coin but it turned up that 1/3 of the time you get heads as a real measure of possible outcome, you'd suspect that there is some 'hidden' factor that is causing the weight to be favorable to heads. The cause may be indeteminate but it does not mean that nature itself cannot 'determine' it.

"God does not toss dice" refers to the presumption that there is ONLY ONE possibility but that it depends on nature itself to 'flip a coin'. But then what appears as not occurring cannot be interpreted as 'possible' in ANY world. Copenhagen stops short of trying to look deeper into the issue to seek a determinate interpretation. Multi-world possibilities accounts for this.

I am against superstitious interpretions, like religion. As such, I would not accept that Nature itself could FAVOR being 'fair' in distributing odds without providing real possibilities that represent those odds SIMULTANEOUSLY. This is more rational when you interpret reality as merely being based upon the abstract possibilities with defining patterns that get manifest as 'laws of physics'. That is, everything is merely a construct of mathematical possibilities where patterns CAN exist. And these cannot exist experientially by those made up of the very patterns that define them. So we, for instance, cannot perceive those other world experiences while experiencing one at a time.

In the film strip analogy, the 'split' means that if you ARE the movie....the living reality of the story with the parts defined in some ordered arrangement, you ONLY go down one of those paths but the other is also a distinct reality.

You could question whether there exists actual points where the odds CAN split. Most would have relatively deterministic single possible outcomes. But does nature have points of real alternatives? Yes. Imagine you are a single elemental particle that is not further reducible by its meaningful definition. Then which direction would two of these identical particles go if they were EXACTLY on the same but opposite path within an already defined set of dimensions of space we have? One particle might go left while the other goes right. But in space this might also mean up versus down. In such cases of many possibilities how would nature 'decide' between options where the distributing odds are IDENTICAL? There are an infinite possible perpendicular directions to go to if you are in our particular spacial dimensions. We might assure symmetry of the two particles going off in different but opposite directions, but which plane does it reside in relative to the parallel infinite planes that can exist from one line?

Everett interpretation limits itself to consistent worlds and/or those that map onto the same laws as our particular universe. Logically, it is more but requires recognizing that Totality KEEPS everything, including things that are not relatively 'real' in particular universes. Those universes that exist without consistency lack the patterns that cause any manifestation of it as 'consistent' and so may remain merely abstract incomplete 'nonsense'. I happen to extend Everett to ALL possibilities in this way. That is my only difference. Everett interpretion as literally defined AT LEAST is true for a more complete multiworld possibility to be possible. I don't bias Totality as requiring consistency everywhere. Rather, those realities that don't complete sensible worlds are not sensed and get 'weened' out by evolution of 'sensible' classed worlds.
Age
Posts: 10958
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:17 am
Age wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 10:25 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:52 am
Infinites and continuities are not 'deFINable' [Fin = end] since the whole as defined as Totality cannot literally be bounded.
But 'infinites' and 'continuities' are deFINable. Just LOOK IN a dictionary for PROOF of this.
"Fin" is from "ends" and references a clarity in understanding. Infinites means it is not 'fin(ite)' and so cannot be 'de(fined)' ["define" means 'of finite' description]
WHY do you CLAIM that 'infinites' can NOT be defined in the EXACT SAME sentence that you DE-FINED that word?

You, literally, in that sentence, gave and provided the 'infinites' word 'a (or of) finite' description.

Also, if ANY one else wants to FIND more examples 'of finite' descriptions for the 'infinite' word, then all they have to do is look in dictionaries.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:17 am We can artificially define any set as "infinite" if it as "any set that is a proper subset of itself". This is actually the best way to define it formally but is also a contradictory type reality.
But there are actually better and more accurate ways to define the 'infinite' word.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:17 am However, what is literally undefinable in finite terms refers to the reality and not our use of it as a meaning where we do define it.
But what is, literally, definable, in finite terms, is 'that' what refers to 'Reality', Itself. And the PROOF of this is, ONCE AGAIN, found in dictionaries.

See, for ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing within the Universe, Itself, 'you', human beings, have created a word, and a definition, for. 'you', human beings, literally, HAVE made definable EVERY 'thing'. As ALREADY PROVED True.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:17 am For instance, I can use a name to "define" someone but the name itself may have no particular reality.
'you' could use a name to 'define' someone, but to do so would be ILLOGICAL, as well as a NONSENSICAL thing to do. But, please feel FREE to do absolutely ANY thing 'you' want to do.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:17 am My name is Scott.
WHOSE name is "scott"?
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:17 am I am not Scottish and so the term as it relates to me is not referencing some DEFINITION of 'Scott" itself.
And for this VERY REASON is WHY I POINT OUT and SAY that NOT until 'you' are able to answer the 'Who am 'I'?' question, properly AND correctly, will 'you' be a Truly Self-AWARE Being.

So, if 'I' am NOT "scottish", then who and/or what am 'I', EXACTLY?

What you say here is; OF COURSE, "scott" is just a name, or just a label, just used to separate 'that you' from those "other" of 'you', human beings.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:17 am Does a "Scott" exist independent of my use of the term?
"scotts" exist independent of YOUR use of the term WHEN "others" use the term "scott" to refer to some of 'you', "other" human beings.

OF COURSE there is NO ACTUAL 'thing' as a "scott". BUT, there are MANY of 'you', human beings, who are known as or labeled "scott".

"scott" is NOTHING MORE than just a name or label to help in the separation of 'you', human beings, from one another.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:17 am The definition of ME as "Scott" is just a label referencing who I am but it doesn't 'define' me.
LOL The label "scott" does NOT 'reference WHO 'I' am, NOR WHO 'you' are.

WHO, and WHAT, 'I' am and 'you' ARE has to DISCOVERED or, more correctly, UNCOVERED, BEFORE you FIND and UNDERSTAND the True words that label reference who 'I' am, properly AND correct, (or IRREFUTABLY True).

The label "scott" is just ANOTHER WORD in order to help in distinguishing 'you', human beings, apart from one another.

AND, there is NO 'definition' of 'ME' as "scott". To define 'ME' or 'you' as "scott" would just be absolutely TOTALLY LUDICROUS and NONSENSICAL. The one known as "henry quirk" here, in this forum, is the ONLY one I have SEEN here who defined itself as "henry quirk", which is REALLY just the label it gave itself here, in this forum.

Once the question 'Who am 'I'?' is answered, properly AND correctly, and KNOWN, for sure, then the definition of and for 'me' becomes far better understood, and known, ALSO.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:17 am But if I died, that meaning is gone.
What 'meaning'? And,

'I' can NOT die. But I KNOW this because I KNOW 'Who 'I' am', whereas 'you' are NOT able to answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?' properly NOR correctly YET, right?
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:17 am The reference of infinity is not 'provable' as a reality
But the reference of 'infinity' is ALREADY PROVED, as a reality.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:17 am because it would TAKE an infinite being to cover an infinite amount of territory.
ONCE 'you' learn WHO 'I' am, EXACTLY, then 'you' will ALSO learn and SEE how this is DONE, and has ALREADY BEEN DONE.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:17 am Thus the reality is not 'definable' as a real thing but is 'definable' by reference to a particular class of meanings.
And what are 'meanings', EXACTLY, if not 'definitions', themselves?
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:17 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:52 am The meaning of Universe as [One spoken of] is now reduced to be a subset of Totality and with more than one unending.
When, EXACTLY, did the meaning of the 'Universe' word get reduced to be a 'subset' of TOTALITY?

And, by whom, EXACTLY?
I wasn't aware that we REQUIRE using language as 'officiated' by some dictator?
We do NOT.

Which is WHY I posed and asked the clarifying question, to you.

Also, WHY put a question mark as the end of your STATEMENT here.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:17 am I know that my country wants me to pronounce "schedule" as "shed u al" (the shhh sound). I just say that I guess that I need to go back to "shool" [rather than 'school' with the 'k' sound]. Either way, others still understand me.
If that is 'your' country, which sounds rather 'dictatorish', or 'ownershipish', then why do you NOT make the rules?

Also, 'countries', themselves, do NOT 'want' ANY thing.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:17 am My defintions have precedence that you CAN look up yourself.
But WHY do 'your' definitions "have precedence", AND, what do 'your definitions' "have precedence" OVER, EXACTLY?

Am I, or ANY one else, able to make the same CLAIM, 'My definitions have precedence that you CAN look up yourself', and still be just as VALID?
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:17 am I keep close to them where possible but require separating the term Universe from Totality as I defined.
What does the 'them' word here refer to, EXACTLY?

But how, EXACTLY, have you defined the 'Universe' word, from the 'Totality' word, which you say here the terms require separating?
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:17 am "Rational" used to mean "that which can be represented as a 'ratio'. x/y means "x compares to y" as a rate. Yet, when they discovered that not all numbers can be presented this way, it became normal to use the word "irrational" to define them, even though it may seem irrational. Imaginary numbers exist too. That is why the term "Real" numbers were distinguished from them.
Besides this is becoming even more topic it could be said probably EVERY word 'used to mean' some thing else.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:17 am I've defined Totality and Universe explicitly as I use it and that is enough.
That is enough for who and/or what, EXACTLY?

For example, f you were wanting to paint a UNIFIED, and IRREFUTABLE Picture of Everything, then is YOUR OWN explicitly defined terms for the 'Totality' and Universe' words here, enough?
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:17 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:52 am So while you are correct to question this IF such an absolute is actually from the perspective of someone outside Totality looking in, we are INSIDE this concept and so cannot conFINe the possibilities that do not exist here in our present reality as non-existing elsewhere.
But we are NOT INSIDE a 'concept'. We are, however, INSIDE thee Universe. And, it could be said 'concepts' are INSIDE US.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:52 am But the EXISTENCE of measurable phenomena that we infer as real probabilities that do exist in fact, the weight of each possiblity has to be distributed BY those probabilities by providing a real place for each to exist somewhere.
But there is ONLY One Universe, and can EVER ONLY be One Universe. So, there are NO 'other' probabilities to even imagine, let alone to ponder over and consider.
When it was first used, it meant absolutely THEE ONE Universe but they included Heavens and Hells, Hades, and Mount Olympus.
Was does the 'it' word here refer to, EXACTLY?
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:17 am The point is that it was limited to those listeners who restrict what they HEAR to mean what is in ALREADY in their OWN heads, beliefs, etc.
Which is EXACTLY what you are doing here, correct?

A PRIME EXAMPLE of this would be ANY reader/listener here now restricting what they SEE/HEAR to mean what is ALREADY in one's BELIEFS.

SEE, I have absolutely NO IDEA NOR CLUE AT ALL here in regards to what you are referring to, EXACTLY. And, this is BECAUSE of the Fact that you have used the 'it' word here ONCE AGAIN.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:17 am But if you are trying to discuss meanings uniquely from other's biases that separate these beliefs WITH CLARITY, you require adding more terms to describe them.
Considering I am NOT AT ALL trying to do what you say and write here, this is all moot.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:17 am I don't say "Christianity" when I want to discuss all religions and why I would use the term, "religion" instead. But many Christians would then interpret "religious" as not what is unreal to them but to Christianity itself.
Just about ALL people, at just about ALL times, do NOT say SOME 'things' when they want to discuss OTHER 'things'. So, 'you' are NOT alone here.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:17 am "Universe" is from logic and philosophy and actually comes from "Universal".
Is this a Fact, which would OBVIOUSLY be IRREFUTABLE?

Is it NOT AT ALL POSSIBLE that the word 'universal' came from the word 'Universe'? Not that it would matter one iota here.

And, what does saying "ANY word is from logic and philosophy" ACTUALLY MEAN?
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:17 am "Totality" is a logical 'universal' that means ALL of everything, including nothing itself.
'ALL of everything' could also just be worded 'Everything' correct?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Also, OF COURSE 'Everything' would include 'nothing', itself. To NOT include 'nothing' in 'Everything' would just be ILLOGICAL.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:17 am The term, "Universe" as in this one is "Cosmos" if you want to refer only to the physical and it too was only created in light of those reading into another's use of "universe".
If 'you' are referring to 'me' DIRECTLY in this statement and claim of 'yours' here, then just so you are AWARE I NEVER wanted to refer only to the physical, so this is all moot as well.

Also, WHY do you CLAIM; 'Universe' as in this one, is 'Cosmos'?
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:17 am It is good that it throws you off because it demonstrates you were more limited in your scope of class references.
AGAIN, what does the 'it' word refer to, EXACTLY?

And, what has 'it', SUPPOSEDLY, "thrown me" off from, EXACTLY?

Does this third 'it' the same as the second 'it', or is 'it', literally, some 'thing' DIFFERENT?

Because if the second 'it' can "throw me off" that would infer that that 'it' could NOT also 'demonstrate' some thing as well.

When 'you' use the 'you' word here are 'you' referring to 'me', DIRECTLY?

Also, I will NOT even ask 'you' what the first 'It' refers to. This is because I KNOW you will be TO STUMPED by the second and third one to answer my clarifying questions, to even be able to start answering and clarifying the first one.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:17 am But it is important to understand the way I am using it is clearly defined.
I wonder how many noticed the irony here, at first.

Not UNTIL 'you' TELL us what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, will we EVER be able to understand the way 'you' are using 'it'.

And, if you EVER do INFORM us of what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, then will you PLEASE define 'it' CLEARLY, for us as well?

ESPECIALLY SO when it is supposedly IMPORTANT to understand the way you are using 'it' is clearly defined.

Also, and by the way, just 'clearly defining' ANY word does NOT necessarily mean that that word, in that 'clearly definition' context, fits in with thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', NOR 'Reality', Itself, AT ALL.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:17 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:52 am
I cannot assert that a particular path not taken is a probable possibility if the path not taken cannot ever exist anywhere.
Great observation, and recognition.
Thanks.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 6116
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads

Post by attofishpi »

socrat44 wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:25 am Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads
The 'weirdness' is on both sides of the coin.

Matter-anti-matter, Energy-Dark Energy might be required for qualia, ergo consciousness. Much in the way that a component on an electrical circuit is USED via Cathode-component-Anode.

The wave function collapse is apparent and may be required for consciousness at an entropy dictated efficiency.

There is a 3rd party intelligence that is at the sub-atomic fabric of reality:-- REAL_IT_Y?

- Perhaps as we observe anything, via our senses, we are actually transferring the energy back to the other 'dark' side - and in time the flip will occur a bang of some sort.
- Perhaps that is the ONLY way that conscious appreciation via qualia can exist - indeed, consciousness itself.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads

Post by Scott Mayers »

Age wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:40 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 5:18 am
seeds wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 6:05 pm Scott, I appreciate the effort you are putting-forth in defense of your argument, and I apologize for being so blunt about this, but, again, the word "preposterous" simply isn't strong enough to address such nonsense.
...
I don't think you understand the issue. But then this supposedy proves that you therefore understand it according to Copenhagen interpretation! :lol:

If there is ONLY THIS world AND NO OTHER, it is permanently 'deterministic' and would imply that no matter what you do, the outcome is 'fated'.
And this is True. But do NOT forget that 'free will' ALSO EXISTS.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 5:18 am If ANY indeterminant reality DOES exist, this means that optional realities also exist.
WHY? What are you basing this CLAIM and ASSUMPTION on, EXACTLY?

How many 'realities' do 'you' think or BELIEVE could, POSSIBLY, exist?
I should reword it as, IF any mathematical probability sufficiently predicts outcomes in a statistically routine way, then each possibility representing a probability would have to be real at some point in time, even if it is not the immediate reality of an instance.

That is, we determine what is probable by counting the incidents of each possibility as it realitistically occurs. The probability of it occurring requires it be proven as an outcome at least once (meaning it is 'possible') AND be predicted to be true on average according to some numerical constant.

For instance, in a coin toss, we first have to know that both sides of the coin have had at least one representation in reality. If there has never been a 'head' landing face up in the world, then "heads" would NOT be considered a possibility proven to exist. Second, if we were to measure arbitrary tosses and notice that the average of ANY such experimental set of tosses that demonstrate a close alignment to being 50/50 or 1/2 odds for each possibility, then it would prove that both possibilities exist with each being FAIRLY distributed. If the coin was a trick coin, it might have only heads on both sides, tails on both sides, or it might be WEIGHTED so that one side will always be the only possibility.

Now you may be thinking that these are never able to be true at one particular instance in practice. Although this is true you can imagine an interval of time that gets closer and closer to zeroand so you would still trust that the probability should still hold true AT no interval of time. If you toss a coin, it is 1/2 heads, 1/2 tails on average regardless of how quickly or slowly we toss coins. So the same probability should still be true if you tossed a million tosses in one whole day or a fraction of a second. The 'consistency' of 1/2 heads to 1/2 tails that shows the probability to be EQUIVALENT means that each event's outcomes are DISTRIBUTED FAIR.

IF the probability itself were not true on average, we would not have a fair distribution of these odds and be unable to use the probability to predict what the outcome would be.

Because there at least EXISTS some probability that works, it proves that there has to be a distinct 'place' where the other odds not true at the moment nevertheless exist still somewhere or it is NEVER possible to demonstrate probabilities themselves as meaningful.

I quoted your prior comment regarding you asserting that 'free will' still exists, correct? This would NOT be true if no alternate world exists in which such a choice COULD be not be taken. That is, our world would have to be ONLY 'deterministic' 100% at all times and 'choice' would not even exist as an illusion if there were no other worlds that 'proved' them to be impossible.

Let's say that you win the lottery. Of course after you won, you can assert that you won 100%. If there were no other world where you lost, then THIS world would be extraordinarily 'special'. Most people actually DO think this way and why they might interpret such a win as something DIVINELY granted. It is psychological for us to presume out particular reality was 'fated' given we cannot simultaneously witness any other possible world. However, if the world were fated, there would be nothing you could do to affect any change and thus, no free will could exist. Free will, if it exists, can only be true where there are multiple worlds. Then while in one particular world (of many), we WOULD have relative "free will" but reality would still be "determined" when you count ALL possible worlds.


The biggest reason for our illusion of 'free will' is based upon the fact that we cannot perceive optional outcomes of a whole when we are only a part of it. "Free will" though is relatively indeterminate if you are only a part of the whole and cannot literally perceive the whole at once.

I know this is hard to understand as 'real' literally because we cannot find a DIRECT proof of this. But INDIRECTLY we can prove this by recognizing that time itself is just another dimension of space. We can interpret a time interval as equivalent to a distance: a "light-second" is thus the distance of 299 792 458 meters that one can maximally travel in one second. If any two distinct distances exist, these themselves are distinct 'places' in the same way. You also cannot 'prove' that two distinct real places exist DIRECTLY in the same way. We can only BE at one general place at a time. But given we can experience another place at distinct times, we still infer that both places exist INDIRECTLY even though we cannot BE in both places at once. The extension of time as a dimension thus proves useful to understand how other worlds can coexist.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 5:18 am The QM experiments are AGREED by all to demonstrate 'indeterminant' outcomes by all interpretations.
This is NOT correct, and the reason for this is because there are OTHER ways to LOOK AT 'this' here.
You missed the point. The ACCEPTANCE of the slit experiment to represent distinct probable outcomes to be all coinciding at once (to give the interference result), is the agreement by all different scientific views but they ONLY differ by interpretation. IT CAN be the case that there is some other distinct reason for the interference pattern such that it may prove that it does not represent the overlap of many distinct probabilities overlapping. But the belief that the result of the slit experiment is NOT multiple possibilities of distinct probabilities is at present undenied by the formal quantum theory scientists. You are welcome to point me to some counterproof of this.

Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 5:18 am If reality were literally indeterminate, then nature (or God) tosses dice to determine what happens even if we do not.
What 'you', human beings, in those days when this was being written COMPLETELY and UTTERLY OVERLOOKED is that so-called 'tossing dice' AND 'determinism' BOTH EXIST.
ONLY by my argument is this true. ONLY if we interpret our particular world as unique among MANY does this make sense.
Age
Posts: 10958
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads

Post by Age »

socrat44 wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:25 am Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads
What "weirdness"?

How 'things' behave at the smaller level/scale they behave the EXACT SAME way at the larger scale/level.

ALL 'things' just come into and out of Existence at different rates.

Understand this Fact, then there is absolutely NO "weirdness" AT ALL.
Age
Posts: 10958
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads

Post by Age »

attofishpi wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:36 am
socrat44 wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:25 am Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads
The 'weirdness' is on both sides of the coin.

Matter-anti-matter, Energy-Dark Energy might be required for qualia, ergo consciousness. Much in the way that a component on an electrical circuit is USED via Cathode-component-Anode.

The wave function collapse is apparent and may be required for consciousness at an entropy dictated efficiency.

There is a 3rd party intelligence that is at the sub-atomic fabric of reality:-- REAL_IT_Y?
WHY would this so-called "3rd party intelligence" be only at the sub-atomic fabric of reality and NOT be at ALL 'fabrics' of Reality, Itself.

And, when you write REAL_IT_Y?

What, EXACTLY, are you asking here?

If you are asking something like; WHY is IT/3rd party intelligence REAL, then thee answer to that is VERY SIMPLE to learn and VERY EASY to understand. But, if you are asking something else, then what is 'that', EXACTLY?
attofishpi wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:36 am - Perhaps as we observe anything, via our senses, we are actually transferring the energy back to the other 'dark' side - and in time the flip will occur a bang of some sort.
When ANY one is able to DESCRIBE what the 'dark side' IS, EXACTLY, then we are WAITING for 'that'.

The reason human beings, hitherto when this was being written, STILL found some 'things' "weird" was only because they LOOK AT 'things' from the human being perspective and NOT from a MUCH BETTER and ENLIGHTENING perspective.
attofishpi wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:36 am - Perhaps that is the ONLY way that conscious appreciation via qualia can exist - indeed, consciousness itself.
Age
Posts: 10958
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:22 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:40 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 5:18 am
I don't think you understand the issue. But then this supposedy proves that you therefore understand it according to Copenhagen interpretation! :lol:

If there is ONLY THIS world AND NO OTHER, it is permanently 'deterministic' and would imply that no matter what you do, the outcome is 'fated'.
And this is True. But do NOT forget that 'free will' ALSO EXISTS.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 5:18 am If ANY indeterminant reality DOES exist, this means that optional realities also exist.
WHY? What are you basing this CLAIM and ASSUMPTION on, EXACTLY?

How many 'realities' do 'you' think or BELIEVE could, POSSIBLY, exist?
I should reword it as, IF any mathematical probability sufficiently predicts outcomes in a statistically routine way, then each possibility representing a probability would have to be real at some point in time, even if it is not the immediate reality of an instance.
But, "mathematics" is a human made up construct right?

If yes, then WHY would ANY 'mathematical probability', which sufficiently just PREDICTS outcomes in just a STATISTICALLY routine way, then MEAN, IRREFUTABLY, that EACH, and thus EVERY possibility representing a "probability" would HAVE TO be REAL, as SOME point in time (even if it is not the immediate reality of an instance)?

And, what does the NUMBER of probabilities HAVE TO DO with what ACTUALLY physically could be true?

For example, there may well be A 'mathematical probability', which sufficiently predicts outcomes in a statistically routine way that I COULD or WILL will the lottery one day, for example, then HOW EXACTLY each 'possibility' representing a 'probability' would then HAVE TO BE REAL at SOME POINT IN TIME?

The 'probabilities', and/or 'possibilities', may have been 'sufficiently mathematically predicated', but they have absolutely NO bearing on if, after those probabilities had been predicted, I DECIDED to NEVER enter another lottery ever again. Which MEANS I could NOT win the lottery one day, which further CONCLUDES that me winning the lottery does NOT have to be real at some point in time.

And, this is WHY I said, do NOT forget that 'free will' ALSO EXISTS.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:22 pm That is, we determine what is probable by counting the incidents of each possibility as it realitistically occurs.
BUT, what people CHOOSE to do in future events is NOT 'predictable', especially by counting the incidents of each possibility as it realistically occurs.

Although, in saying that, what people CHOOSE to do in future events IS 'predictable', but there is NO mathematical, NOR ANY other, formula that could ever work this out.

One would have to KNOW, without ANY doubt AT ALL, EACH and EVERY human thought PREVIOUSLY, which, at the "current moment", is just NOT YET possible.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:22 pm The probability of it occurring requires it be proven as an outcome at least once (meaning it is 'possible') AND be predicted to be true on average according to some numerical constant.
Just to be sure, are you talking about EACH and EVERY event in the future, or just some number of events, in the future?
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:22 pm For instance, in a coin toss, we first have to know that both sides of the coin have had at least one representation in reality. If there has never been a 'head' landing face up in the world, then "heads" would NOT be considered a possibility proven to exist. Second, if we were to measure arbitrary tosses and notice that the average of ANY such experimental set of tosses that demonstrate a close alignment to being 50/50 or 1/2 odds for each possibility, then it would prove that both possibilities exist with each being FAIRLY distributed. If the coin was a trick coin, it might have only heads on both sides, tails on both sides, or it might be WEIGHTED so that one side will always be the only possibility.
Okay, but before we get to WEIGHED DOWN with the DETAILS, what is 'it' again that you want to say here is POSSIBLE?

There is One Universe, right?

Which is infinite, spatially, and, eternal, temporally, correct?

And, that EVERY event that happens is because of past previous events, true?

If yes, to all, then HOW EXACTLY could there be ANY "other" possibilities?

To you, is thee Universe, Itself, ONLY One 'Thing', and ONLY works or behaves in One way, or do you SEE 'things' DIFFERENTLY here?
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:22 pm Now you may be thinking that these are never able to be true at one particular instance in practice. Although this is true you can imagine an interval of time that gets closer and closer to zeroand so you would still trust that the probability should still hold true AT no interval of time. If you toss a coin, it is 1/2 heads, 1/2 tails on average regardless of how quickly or slowly we toss coins. So the same probability should still be true if you tossed a million tosses in one whole day or a fraction of a second. The 'consistency' of 1/2 heads to 1/2 tails that shows the probability to be EQUIVALENT means that each event's outcomes are DISTRIBUTED FAIR.
Okay.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:22 pm IF the probability itself were not true on average, we would not have a fair distribution of these odds and be unable to use the probability to predict what the outcome would be.
BUT, you can NEVER 'predict', with 100% accuracy, of what the next outcome of a coin toss will be, and this includes even with KNOWING what the outcome of EVERY past toss has been.

With all things being equal, except the actual toss, the 'probability' of a coin being heads or tails will ALWAYS remain 50/50.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:22 pm Because there at least EXISTS some probability that works, it proves that there has to be a distinct 'place' where the other odds not true at the moment nevertheless exist still somewhere or it is NEVER possible to demonstrate probabilities themselves as meaningful.
But some 'probabilities' are very meaningful, like, for example, driving drunk on the road, then the probability of crashing is higher. But, then there are other 'probabilities', which are truly meaningless, like, for example, the last 100 or 1000 coin tosses where tails. This has absolutely NO bearing AT ALL on what the outcome of the next toss will be. As it will ALWAYS REMAIN 50/50.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:22 pm I quoted your prior comment regarding you asserting that 'free will' still exists, correct?
If you quoted 'it', then yes it is correct that you quoted it.

If, however, you quoted absolutely EVERY thing of 'it' the EXACT SAME way I DID is another matter.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:22 pm This would NOT be true if no alternate world exists in which such a choice COULD be not be taken.
This is what just about EVERY one thinks or perceives when they discuss 'free will/determinism' topics. But, then again you used three 'negatives' so I am NOT exactly sure what you are saying here. But, from what I take you to be saying here is; 'This', referring to 'free will' exists, would be true if alternative 'worlds' exist in which such a choice (referring to 'free will' choices again) COULD be taken. Is this what you are saying here?

Anyway, in this One and ONLY 'world', 'free will' exists (what 'free will' EXACTLY IS, which FITS IN PERFECTLY with EVERY 'thing' else, however, is ANOTHER matter), but because of the way the 'world' IS, EXACTLY, and how 'it' works, EXACTLY, there could NEVER be ANY other 'worlds'. Well, to me anyway. And, I have YET to SEE absolutely ANY thing contrary.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:22 pm That is, our world would have to be ONLY 'deterministic' 100% at all times and 'choice' would not even exist as an illusion if there were no other worlds that 'proved' them to be impossible.
Again, at first glance, this is what just about EVERY one thinks or ASSUMES in the 'free will/determinism' discussion.

What does the 'them' word here refer to, exactly?

This 'world' IS 'deterministic' WITH 'choices'. And, this is HOW 'this world' has evolved through creation, and, is created through evolution.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:22 pm Let's say that you win the lottery.
LOL This was an example I used above.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:22 pm Of course after you won, you can assert that you won 100%. If there were no other world where you lost, then THIS world would be extraordinarily 'special'. Most people actually DO think this way and why they might interpret such a win as something DIVINELY granted. It is psychological for us to presume out particular reality was 'fated' given we cannot simultaneously witness any other possible world.
OF COURSE 'it' (thinking/interpreting/presuming) is 'psychological'. That is what the word 'psyche' and 'psychology' refer to, correct?

WHY do 'you' presume your 'particular reality' was 'fated'. I do NOT, by the way.

The reason you can NOT 'simultaneously witness' ANY other "possible worlds' is BECAUSE there are NO other 'possible worlds' that exist. But, you are absolutely FREE to IMAGINE ANY other 'worlds' as you like. You are even FREE to BELIEVE other 'worlds' are even 'possible'.

But what is ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True can sometimes be VERY, VERY DIFFERENT than what 'you', human beings, imagine, think, or believe is true.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:22 pm However, if the world were fated, there would be nothing you could do to affect any change and thus, no free will could exist.
This is NOT exactly correct. This is because of what ACTUALLY does happen and occur.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:22 pm Free will, if it exists, can only be true where there are multiple worlds.
This will all depend on what you mean by 'worlds' and 'multiple worlds'.

The fact that 'you', human beings, lived in a 'world' without houses nor computers existed and the fact that 'you', human beings, lived in a 'world' with houses and computers, and there is also the fact that 'you', human beings, lived in houses without computers all lead to the conclusion that there are (different) 'multiple worlds'.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:22 pm Then while in one particular world (of many), we WOULD have relative "free will" but reality would still be "determined" when you count ALL possible worlds.
When you say 'possible worlds' do you refer to 'worlds', or 'ways of life', or do you refer to something different?

What do the word 'free will' mean or refer to, to you?
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:22 pm The biggest reason for our illusion of 'free will' is based upon the fact that we cannot perceive optional outcomes of a whole when we are only a part of it.
Here is ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of when one BELIEVES some 'thing' to be true, and then they will LOOK FOR, and "find" 'things' to back up and support their CURRENT BELIEF/S, and what can also be SEEN is that they can and will say just about ANY thing to 'fight' for what they CURRENTLY BELIEVE is ALREADY true.

If 'free will' is YOUR ILLUSION, and JUST AN ILLUSION, then there is NOTHING MORE to say here.

OBVIOUSLY what is AN ILLUSION, is NOT 'real' anyway. So, what you are essentially SAYING and "fighting for" here is that 'free will' just does NOT even exist, correct?

Also, could one who BELIEVES that 'free will' does exist just change the words 'free will' to 'determinism', and then that statement you wrote here would work for them?

If no, then WHY NOT?
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:22 pm "Free will" though is relatively indeterminate if you are only a part of the whole and cannot literally perceive the whole at once.
Can 'you' perceive the WHOLE, AT ONCE?

If yes, then what was that PERCEPTION you had/have?

By the way, SEEING the WHOLE for what 'It' Truly IS what is SHOWING that 'free will' AND 'determinism' BOTH EXIST. But, then again, I do SEE 'things' VERY DIFFERENTLY than 'you', human beings, do, MOST OF THE TIME.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:22 pm I know this is hard to understand as 'real' literally because we cannot find a DIRECT proof of this.
WHY I find 'this' hard to understand as 'real' or 'not real' is because you are YET to INFORM us of what the word 'this' here is referring to EXACTLY.

Also, because what does 'relatively indeterminate' mean or refer to, to you, exactly?

What I SEE and KNOW I find is VERY SIMPLE and EASY to understand as REAL, literally, because we ALL HAVE DIRECT access and PROOF of 'IT'.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:22 pm But INDIRECTLY we can prove this by recognizing that time itself is just another dimension of space.
Ah yes bring in the old 'time/space' discussion, like one REALLY KNOWS what they are talking about, without considering the Fact that most if not ALL of the philosophic AND scientific communities are STILL squabbling over what 'time' and/or 'space' ACTUALLY IS EXACTLY. Even though this discussion has been going on for millennia now, in the days when this was being written.

So, what is 'time' to you, and, what is 'space', to you? And, do these definitions FIT IN PERFECTLY with ALL other definitions to FORM One PERFECTLY UNIFIED and ALIGNED Picture of thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

If yes, then GREAT.

But if no, then HOW EXACTLY could what NOT be true, right, NOR correct to BEGIN WITH "prove" some 'thing' else true, right, OR correct?
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:22 pm We can interpret a time interval as equivalent to a distance: a "light-second" is thus the distance of 299 792 458 meters that one can maximally travel in one second. If any two distinct distances exist, these themselves are distinct 'places' in the same way. You also cannot 'prove' that two distinct real places exist DIRECTLY in the same way. We can only BE at one general place at a time. But given we can experience another place at distinct times, we still infer that both places exist INDIRECTLY even though we cannot BE in both places at once. The extension of time as a dimension thus proves useful to understand how other worlds can coexist.
Either so-called "other worlds" exist or not.

If they do, then WHERE?

But if they do NOT, then OKAY?
Age
Posts: 10958
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:22 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:40 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:22 pm The QM experiments are AGREED by all to demonstrate 'indeterminant' outcomes by all interpretations.
This is NOT correct, and the reason for this is because there are OTHER ways to LOOK AT 'this' here.
You missed the point. The ACCEPTANCE of the slit experiment to represent distinct probable outcomes to be all coinciding at once (to give the interference result), is the agreement by all different scientific views but they ONLY differ by interpretation.
You missed the point also. What you wrote was NOT correct.

"AGREED by all", is VERY DIFFERENT to, "AGREED by all different scientific views".

And, even ALL different scientific views could be questioned for 'correctness' here.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:22 pm IT CAN be the case that there is some other distinct reason for the interference pattern such that it may prove that it does not represent the overlap of many distinct probabilities overlapping.
VERY True.

But the belief that the result of the slit experiment is NOT multiple possibilities of distinct probabilities is at present undenied by the formal quantum theory scientists. You are welcome to point me to some counterproof of this.[/quote]

I am NOT intent on "counter proofing" beliefs.

NOT ALL agree with this.

The reason those experiments only APPEAR to demonstrate 'in-determinant outcomes' is just because of the way 'things' ACTUALLY ARE, and just because of the way 'you', human beings, LOOK AT, and SEE, 'things' from a NARROWED perspective. You are NOT SEEING 'them' as they ACTUALLY ARE.

Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 5:18 am If reality were literally indeterminate, then nature (or God) tosses dice to determine what happens even if we do not.
NOT True.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:22 pm What 'you', human beings, in those days when this was being written COMPLETELY and UTTERLY OVERLOOKED is that so-called 'tossing dice' AND 'determinism' BOTH EXIST.
ONLY by my argument is this true.

This is ALSO NOT True.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:22 pm ONLY if we interpret our particular world as unique among MANY does this make sense.
The reason WHY 'free will' AND 'determinism' BOTH EXIST is because thee Universe/Reality could NOT be ANY other way.

And, this makes PERFECT sense.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 6116
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads

Post by attofishpi »

Age wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:57 am
attofishpi wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:36 am
socrat44 wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:25 am Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads
The 'weirdness' is on both sides of the coin.

Matter-anti-matter, Energy-Dark Energy might be required for qualia, ergo consciousness. Much in the way that a component on an electrical circuit is USED via Cathode-component-Anode.

The wave function collapse is apparent and may be required for consciousness at an entropy dictated efficiency.

There is a 3rd party intelligence that is at the sub-atomic fabric of reality:-- REAL_IT_Y?
WHY would this so-called "3rd party intelligence" be only at the sub-atomic fabric of reality and NOT be at ALL 'fabrics' of Reality, Itself.
By stating this 3rd party intelligence is at the sub-atomic fabric of reality, one would infer that indeed I am stating it permeates all 'fabrics' of reality - as in, it's not missing a bit here nor there.

attofishpi wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:36 amAnd, when you write REAL_IT_Y?

What, EXACTLY, are you asking here?
It's a suggestion. You have read what I have stated regarding the English language with key words having been construed by this intelligence.
Divine or A.I. - REAL IT Y? - did we evolve into a reality of IT, and Y (why) answer = entropy.

Age wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:57 amIf you are asking something like; WHY is IT/3rd party intelligence REAL, then thee answer to that is VERY SIMPLE to learn and VERY EASY to understand. But, if you are asking something else, then what is 'that', EXACTLY?
See above
(btw - please don't use capitals as much, it makes it difficult to read and appears like you are shouting at me, and it detracts (doesn't assist) in you being taken seriously, intelligently. Occasionally it is ok, must of us do it sometimes.

Age wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:57 am
attofishpi wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:36 am - Perhaps as we observe anything, via our senses, we are actually transferring the energy back to the other 'dark' side - and in time the flip will occur a bang of some sort.
When ANY one is able to DESCRIBE what the 'dark side' IS, EXACTLY, then we are WAITING for 'that'.

The reason human beings, hitherto when this was being written, STILL found some 'things' "weird" was only because they LOOK AT 'things' from the human being perspective and NOT from a MUCH BETTER and ENLIGHTENING perspective.
Sure. So are you suggesting you have better information about what most of the rest of us consider 'weird'? - if so, please share.

Age wrote:
attofishpi wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:36 am - Perhaps that is the ONLY way that conscious appreciation via qualia can exist - indeed, consciousness itself.
-
Why did you quote my last sentence without anything to add or question?
Post Reply