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

Age
Posts: 10982
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: Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:19 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:57 am
attofishpi wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:36 am

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.
GREAT, because this is the ONLY way that this so-called '3rd party intelligence' could and does exist.
attofishpi wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:19 pm
And, 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.
Are okay, so you are NOT asking ANY thing AT ALL.
attofishpi wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:19 pm
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.
But I am NOT shouting. I am just highlighting some words.

And, just out of curiosity, who do you and/or 'you', adult human beings, have so much difficulty reading words when some letters are capitalized?
attofishpi wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:19 pm
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.
I WILL, when you specifically tell me WHAT is 'weird' to you, and, WHY 'it' APPEARS 'weird' to you.
attofishpi wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:19 pm
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?
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 6121
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: Sat Jan 22, 2022 10:02 am
attofishpi wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:19 pm
And, 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.
Are okay, so you are NOT asking ANY thing AT ALL.
It's a quizzical suggestion that has an answer = entropy.

Age wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 10:02 am
attofishpi wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:19 pm
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.
But I am NOT shouting. I am just highlighting some words.
And, just out of curiosity, who do you and/or 'you', adult human beings, have so much difficulty reading words when some letters are capitalized?
You are MAKING your STATEMENTS look RIDICULOUS, how you DONT see THAT IS beyond comprehension.
You are making your statements look ridiculous, how you don't see that is beyond comprehension.

Which of the above two lines look as though they were written more intelligently and are clearer to read?

Age wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 10:02 am
attofishpi wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:19 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:57 am
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.
I WILL, when you specifically tell me WHAT is 'weird' to you, and, WHY 'it' APPEARS 'weird' to you.
Oh. OK. Why does an electromagnetic field behave as a wave until observed by conscious entities, that appears weird to us mere humans.
What hast thou to say about such a matter?
Age
Posts: 10982
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: Sun Jan 23, 2022 4:51 am
Age wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 10:02 am
attofishpi wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:19 pm

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.
Are okay, so you are NOT asking ANY thing AT ALL.
It's a quizzical suggestion that has an answer = entropy.
But, to me,

There is NO entropy in regards to the WHOLE Universe Itself. And,

The Divine is certainly NOT 'artificial', AT ALL.
attofishpi wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 4:51 am
Age wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 10:02 am
attofishpi wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:19 pm

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.
But I am NOT shouting. I am just highlighting some words.
And, just out of curiosity, who do you and/or 'you', adult human beings, have so much difficulty reading words when some letters are capitalized?
You are MAKING your STATEMENTS look RIDICULOUS, how you DONT see THAT IS beyond comprehension.
But WHY now CHANGE this to "ridiculous"?

You said, previously, that using capitals makes it DIFFICULT for you to read. I then just asked, for clarity, WHY do you find it DIFFICULT to read when some letters are capitalized?

To which, you replied with words that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do with your previous CLAIM nor to my QUESTION.

Now, to address your NEW ISSUE here.

Firstly, if my WRITINGS appear RIDICULOUS to you or ANY other poster here is of NO concern AT ALL to me.

Secondly, I do NOT find it at all DIFFICULT to read what you wrote with some capitalized words. So, I STILL wonder WHY 'you', human beings, find it, supposedly, DIFFICULT to read when some letters are capitalized.
attofishpi wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 4:51 am You are making your statements look ridiculous, how you don't see that is beyond comprehension.
REMEMBER;

1. I am making my statements, apparently, look ridiculous, to YOU.

2. They, OBVIOUSLY, do NOT look ridiculous, to Me.

3. I can SEE CLEARLY that my statements LOOK RIDICULOUS, to YOU. This is what you have TOLD us. Unless, OF COURSE, you are LYING here.

4. I am NOT 'making' my statements look ridiculous. However, if that is how they APPEAR to YOU, then that is how they LOOK, to YOU.

5. I might ACTUALLY be making my statements LOOK a particular way to 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written, so that I can SHOW, with IRREFUTABLE PROOF, that even when I HIGHLIGHTED some WORDS the peoples back in 'those' days STILL could NOT see, hear, NOR UNDERSTAND what 'it' was that I was ACTUALLY WRITING and SAYING here, even when in CAPITAL LETTERS.
attofishpi wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 4:51 am Which of the above two lines look as though they were written more intelligently and are clearer to read?
NEITHER.

And, in case you found that all so too DIFFICULT to read, neither.

By the way, do you REALLY BELIEVE that EVERY one SEES 'thing' EXACTLY the SAME WAY 'you' DO?
attofishpi wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 4:51 am
Age wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 10:02 am
attofishpi wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:19 pm

Sure. So are you suggesting you have better information about what most of the rest of us consider 'weird'? - if so, please share.
I WILL, when you specifically tell me WHAT is 'weird' to you, and, WHY 'it' APPEARS 'weird' to you.
Oh. OK. Why does an electromagnetic field behave as a wave until observed by conscious entities, that appears weird to us mere humans.
But HOW do 'you', human beings, even KNOW said 'electromagnetic field' behaves in ANY particular way if you are NOT even observing 'it'?
attofishpi wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 4:51 am What hast thou to say about such a matter?
What I just said, and asked. Also, is a dog a 'conscious entity', if yes, has the so-called "experiment" be done using a dog, and then is a frog, worm, or beetle 'conscious entities', and if yes, then has said "experiment" been done with them?
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 6121
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: Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:27 am
attofishpi wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 4:51 am
Age wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 10:02 am

Are okay, so you are NOT asking ANY thing AT ALL.
It's a quizzical suggestion that has an answer = entropy.
But, to me,

There is NO entropy in regards to the WHOLE Universe Itself. And,

The Divine is certainly NOT 'artificial', AT ALL.
attofishpi wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 4:51 am
Age wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 10:02 am

But I am NOT shouting. I am just highlighting some words.
And, just out of curiosity, who do you and/or 'you', adult human beings, have so much difficulty reading words when some letters are capitalized?
You are MAKING your STATEMENTS look RIDICULOUS, how you DONT see THAT IS beyond comprehension.
But WHY now CHANGE this to "ridiculous"?

You said, previously, that using capitals makes it DIFFICULT for you to read. I then just asked, for clarity, WHY do you find it DIFFICULT to read when some letters are capitalized?

To which, you replied with words that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do with your previous CLAIM nor to my QUESTION.

Now, to address your NEW ISSUE here.

Firstly, if my WRITINGS appear RIDICULOUS to you or ANY other poster here is of NO concern AT ALL to me.

Secondly, I do NOT find it at all DIFFICULT to read what you wrote with some capitalized words. So, I STILL wonder WHY 'you', human beings, find it, supposedly, DIFFICULT to read when some letters are capitalized.
attofishpi wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 4:51 am You are making your statements look ridiculous, how you don't see that is beyond comprehension.
REMEMBER;

1. I am making my statements, apparently, look ridiculous, to YOU.

2. They, OBVIOUSLY, do NOT look ridiculous, to Me.

3. I can SEE CLEARLY that my statements LOOK RIDICULOUS, to YOU. This is what you have TOLD us. Unless, OF COURSE, you are LYING here.

4. I am NOT 'making' my statements look ridiculous. However, if that is how they APPEAR to YOU, then that is how they LOOK, to YOU.

5. I might ACTUALLY be making my statements LOOK a particular way to 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written, so that I can SHOW, with IRREFUTABLE PROOF, that even when I HIGHLIGHTED some WORDS the peoples back in 'those' days STILL could NOT see, hear, NOR UNDERSTAND what 'it' was that I was ACTUALLY WRITING and SAYING here, even when in CAPITAL LETTERS.
attofishpi wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 4:51 am Which of the above two lines look as though they were written more intelligently and are clearer to read?
NEITHER.

And, in case you found that all so too DIFFICULT to read, neither.

By the way, do you REALLY BELIEVE that EVERY one SEES 'thing' EXACTLY the SAME WAY 'you' DO?
attofishpi wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 4:51 am
Age wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 10:02 am

I WILL, when you specifically tell me WHAT is 'weird' to you, and, WHY 'it' APPEARS 'weird' to you.
Oh. OK. Why does an electromagnetic field behave as a wave until observed by conscious entities, that appears weird to us mere humans.
But HOW do 'you', human beings, even KNOW said 'electromagnetic field' behaves in ANY particular way if you are NOT even observing 'it'?
attofishpi wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 4:51 am What hast thou to say about such a matter?
What I just said, and asked. Also, is a dog a 'conscious entity', if yes, has the so-called "experiment" be done using a dog, and then is a frog, worm, or beetle 'conscious entities', and if yes, then has said "experiment" been done with them?
I am so upset that I wasted my time on you. You are quite simply THE MOST RIDICULOUS IMBECILE I have ever bothered with upon this forum.

I like the rest of us humans should never bother again with you, clearly you are of some inbred form of life that is beneath that of human, hence why you address us all as 'you humans'. I admire that you admit you are beneath us in the scale of sapient beings, and still attempt to communicate with us, but alas it is time for me to simply say FUCK OFF.
Age
Posts: 10982
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: Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:24 am
Age wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:27 am
attofishpi wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 4:51 am

It's a quizzical suggestion that has an answer = entropy.
But, to me,

There is NO entropy in regards to the WHOLE Universe Itself. And,

The Divine is certainly NOT 'artificial', AT ALL.
attofishpi wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 4:51 am

You are MAKING your STATEMENTS look RIDICULOUS, how you DONT see THAT IS beyond comprehension.
But WHY now CHANGE this to "ridiculous"?

You said, previously, that using capitals makes it DIFFICULT for you to read. I then just asked, for clarity, WHY do you find it DIFFICULT to read when some letters are capitalized?

To which, you replied with words that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do with your previous CLAIM nor to my QUESTION.

Now, to address your NEW ISSUE here.

Firstly, if my WRITINGS appear RIDICULOUS to you or ANY other poster here is of NO concern AT ALL to me.

Secondly, I do NOT find it at all DIFFICULT to read what you wrote with some capitalized words. So, I STILL wonder WHY 'you', human beings, find it, supposedly, DIFFICULT to read when some letters are capitalized.
attofishpi wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 4:51 am You are making your statements look ridiculous, how you don't see that is beyond comprehension.
REMEMBER;

1. I am making my statements, apparently, look ridiculous, to YOU.

2. They, OBVIOUSLY, do NOT look ridiculous, to Me.

3. I can SEE CLEARLY that my statements LOOK RIDICULOUS, to YOU. This is what you have TOLD us. Unless, OF COURSE, you are LYING here.

4. I am NOT 'making' my statements look ridiculous. However, if that is how they APPEAR to YOU, then that is how they LOOK, to YOU.

5. I might ACTUALLY be making my statements LOOK a particular way to 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written, so that I can SHOW, with IRREFUTABLE PROOF, that even when I HIGHLIGHTED some WORDS the peoples back in 'those' days STILL could NOT see, hear, NOR UNDERSTAND what 'it' was that I was ACTUALLY WRITING and SAYING here, even when in CAPITAL LETTERS.
attofishpi wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 4:51 am Which of the above two lines look as though they were written more intelligently and are clearer to read?
NEITHER.

And, in case you found that all so too DIFFICULT to read, neither.

By the way, do you REALLY BELIEVE that EVERY one SEES 'thing' EXACTLY the SAME WAY 'you' DO?
attofishpi wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 4:51 am

Oh. OK. Why does an electromagnetic field behave as a wave until observed by conscious entities, that appears weird to us mere humans.
But HOW do 'you', human beings, even KNOW said 'electromagnetic field' behaves in ANY particular way if you are NOT even observing 'it'?
attofishpi wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 4:51 am What hast thou to say about such a matter?
What I just said, and asked. Also, is a dog a 'conscious entity', if yes, has the so-called "experiment" be done using a dog, and then is a frog, worm, or beetle 'conscious entities', and if yes, then has said "experiment" been done with them?
I am so upset that I wasted my time on you. You are quite simply THE MOST RIDICULOUS IMBECILE I have ever bothered with upon this forum.

I like the rest of us humans should never bother again with you, clearly you are of some inbred form of life that is beneath that of human, hence why you address us all as 'you humans'.
I have NEVER addressed ANY 'thing' like that. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True above.
attofishpi wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:24 am I admire that you admit you are beneath us in the scale of sapient beings, and still attempt to communicate with us, but alas it is time for me to simply say FUCK OFF.
PLEASE, say whatever you like, but you are just PROVING that you are completely AND utterly INCAPABLE of just being able to LOOK AT OPENLY, back up and support YOUR CLAIMS, and also being completely UNABLE to just CLARIFY.

There is absolutely NOTHING 'weird' AT ALL in the Universe, besides the ASSUMPTIONS, INTERPRETATIONS, and BELIEFS 'you', human beings, MAKE UP.
Age
Posts: 10982
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 »

WHY ANY theory is 'strange' is because ALL of them are NOT based on ACTUAL, IRREFUTABLE Facts.
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 21, 2022 11:31 am
You would be best to stop at a pivoting question or you waste a lot of effort on something that the one pivotal question could resolve. It appears that you have a pivoting such point of view with respect to the concept of "infinity".

You appear to assume that there is only ONE infinity that covers everything, correct?

This is important to first understand given you think that this Universes' state of existence is completely exhaustive of all possibilities for being 'infinite'. Let me know and I'll try to get this point understood or we'd be wasting a lot more time here.

Thanks.
Age
Posts: 10982
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 27, 2022 2:28 am
Age wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:31 am
You would be best to stop at a pivoting question or you waste a lot of effort on something that the one pivotal question could resolve.
For example?
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:28 am It appears that you have a pivoting such point of view with respect to the concept of "infinity".
What do 'you' mean by "a pivoting such point of view", EXACTLY?

'infinity' means, or refers to, what 'it' does, to me. So, where EXACTLY is this, perceived, "pivoting point of view"?
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:28 am You appear to assume that there is only ONE infinity that covers everything, correct?
Firstly, I do NOT 'assume' this. So, you are Incorrect here.

Secondly, how MANY 'infinities' could there be, to you?
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:28 am This is important to first understand given you think that this Universes' state of existence is completely exhaustive of all possibilities for being 'infinite'.
If that is what has 'come across', then that is NOT what was MEANT.

I do recall when writing some 'thing' that at the moment of writing it I 'thought', (something similar to); "this may be interpreted as meaning absolutely EVERY and ALL POSSIBILITIES. But I will this go for now".

Will you PROVIDE my ACTUAL WORDS that 'you' have ascertained 'this' from, EXACTLY?
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:28 am Let me know and I'll try to get this point understood or we'd be wasting a lot more time here.

Thanks.
How MUCH 'time' do you think or BELIEVE 'we' have ALREADY wasted?
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 27, 2022 1:33 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:28 am
Age wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:31 am
You would be best to stop at a pivoting question or you waste a lot of effort on something that the one pivotal question could resolve.
For example?
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:28 am It appears that you have a pivoting such point of view with respect to the concept of "infinity".
What do 'you' mean by "a pivoting such point of view", EXACTLY?

'infinity' means, or refers to, what 'it' does, to me. So, where EXACTLY is this, perceived, "pivoting point of view"?
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:28 am You appear to assume that there is only ONE infinity that covers everything, correct?
Firstly, I do NOT 'assume' this. So, you are Incorrect here.

Secondly, how MANY 'infinities' could there be, to you?
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:28 am This is important to first understand given you think that this Universes' state of existence is completely exhaustive of all possibilities for being 'infinite'.
If that is what has 'come across', then that is NOT what was MEANT.

I do recall when writing some 'thing' that at the moment of writing it I 'thought', (something similar to); "this may be interpreted as meaning absolutely EVERY and ALL POSSIBILITIES. But I will this go for now".

Will you PROVIDE my ACTUAL WORDS that 'you' have ascertained 'this' from, EXACTLY?
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:28 am Let me know and I'll try to get this point understood or we'd be wasting a lot more time here.

Thanks.
How MUCH 'time' do you think or BELIEVE 'we' have ALREADY wasted?
It's exhausting to be expected to teach you from scratch something you don't know about what you don't know. The very first question you asked was, "But 'infinites' and 'continuities' are deFINable. Just LOOK IN a dictionary for PROOF of this." when I was explaining what "undefined terms" refer to in logic. They are terms that are just assigned like a variable at the beginning of the system that have an intuited meaning DUE to dictionary definitions or common use BUT are EXPLICITLY defined within the axioms and any theorems of the system.

When we meet someone, the first thing we do is trade each others' NAMES which act as unknown by meaning until you have time to get to know them. Knowing them 'defines' who we are. And this is a process that requires investing time in getting to know someone before understanding what that person means to you. When you meet someone, their names are just arbitrary referents but CAN be something that reminds you of other people of the same name that you've known before. Do you find it disappointing if someone named, "Charity", wasn't in need nor worthy of giving to when you get to know them better?

"Undefines" in logic are any initial terms that are going to be used in the system that are necessary. "Class" and the concept of "belongs to" are undefined terms of most set theories. It doesn't matter what some dictionary may say because the system is MORE SPECIFIC than a dictionary could provide.

I use "Totality" (or "totality") for WHATEVER the absolute whole of everything is that includes all that is true and false. Nothingness (any form) is included in this meaning. Then I reserve "universe" for a unit whole among many. If you simply deny this as possible, you are implying it is impossible and thus suffices to close off the discussion. If I capitalize "Universe" it means THIS "universe"; "Totality" can be capitalized to reference MY definition but "totality" can reference the dictionary's normal use.

If you INSIST on absurdly questioning of each and every word, then I'd have to ask you to BE prepared by first studying the minimal logic systems of reasoning. I am not able to participate fully where I don't know you personally and have no power to control your learning environment intimately. I waste too much time online not seemingly able to affect anyone regardless of what I might know and so have to stop investing in the time.
Age
Posts: 10982
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: Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:20 am
Age wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 1:33 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:28 am
You would be best to stop at a pivoting question or you waste a lot of effort on something that the one pivotal question could resolve.
For example?
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:28 am It appears that you have a pivoting such point of view with respect to the concept of "infinity".
What do 'you' mean by "a pivoting such point of view", EXACTLY?

'infinity' means, or refers to, what 'it' does, to me. So, where EXACTLY is this, perceived, "pivoting point of view"?
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:28 am You appear to assume that there is only ONE infinity that covers everything, correct?
Firstly, I do NOT 'assume' this. So, you are Incorrect here.

Secondly, how MANY 'infinities' could there be, to you?
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:28 am This is important to first understand given you think that this Universes' state of existence is completely exhaustive of all possibilities for being 'infinite'.
If that is what has 'come across', then that is NOT what was MEANT.

I do recall when writing some 'thing' that at the moment of writing it I 'thought', (something similar to); "this may be interpreted as meaning absolutely EVERY and ALL POSSIBILITIES. But I will this go for now".

Will you PROVIDE my ACTUAL WORDS that 'you' have ascertained 'this' from, EXACTLY?
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:28 am Let me know and I'll try to get this point understood or we'd be wasting a lot more time here.

Thanks.
How MUCH 'time' do you think or BELIEVE 'we' have ALREADY wasted?
It's exhausting to be expected to teach you from scratch something you don't know about what you don't know.
LOL And IF I found it exhausting teaching 'you', human beings, from scratch, what you do NOT YET KNOW, then I could say the EXACT SAME to 'you', "scott mayers". But because I FULLY UNDERSTAND WHY 'you' STILL do NOT YET KNOW what thee ACTUAL Truth is here, then I will NOT say such a CONDESCENDING thing as you what you have HERE.

Also, 'where' is the 'expectation' you have coming from, EXACTLY?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:20 am The very first question you asked was, "But 'infinites' and 'continuities' are deFINable. Just LOOK IN a dictionary for PROOF of this." when I was explaining what "undefined terms" refer to in logic. They are terms that are just assigned like a variable at the beginning of the system that have an intuited meaning DUE to dictionary definitions or common use BUT are EXPLICITLY defined within the axioms and any theorems of the system.

When we meet someone, the first thing we do is trade each others' NAMES which act as unknown by meaning until you have time to get to know them. Knowing them 'defines' who we are.
So, considering thee IRREFUTABLE Fact that 'you', human beings, do NOT YET KNOW who 'we' are EXACTLY, in the days when this was being written, MEANS that 'you' can NOT 'define' 'who 'we' are'.

Which gets PROVED over and over again when I ask for CLARITY about who and/or what is the 'we' (when that word gets mentioned).

'you', "scott mayers", are doing here what ALL of 'you', adult human beings, do, in the days when this is being written, that is; just LOOK FROM a very superficial and/or narrowed perspective of 'things'.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:20 am And this is a process that requires investing time in getting to know someone before understanding what that person means to you.
But EVERY 'person' comes to 'be' in ESSENTIALLY thee EXACT SAME.

This is partly explains what the word 'person' means, to me.

What does the word 'person' mean, to you?

WHY does it require 'you', adult human beings, to so-call "invest time" to just get to KNOW someone?

'you' are ALL ESSENTIALLY thee EXACT SAME 'thing'. That is; just the thoughts and emotions within a human body.

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:20 am When you meet someone, their names are just arbitrary referents but CAN be something that reminds you of other people of the same name that you've known before. Do you find it disappointing if someone named, "Charity", wasn't in need nor worthy of giving to when you get to know them better?
Here is ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of DETRACTION and DISTRACTION.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:20 am "Undefines" in logic are any initial terms that are going to be used in the system that are necessary. "Class" and the concept of "belongs to" are undefined terms of most set theories. It doesn't matter what some dictionary may say because the system is MORE SPECIFIC than a dictionary could provide.
Okay. But considering the Fact that 'theories' are NOTHING MORE than just ASSUMPTIONS or GUESSES about what COULD BE true, and I do NOT do "theories", NOR "set theories", LOOKING INTO this is just a waste of time, from my perspective anyway.

Thee Universe is infinite AND eternal, and this is just an IRREFUTABLE Fact.

What more needs to be said here?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:20 am I use "Totality" (or "totality") for WHATEVER the absolute whole of everything is that includes all that is true and false.
SO DO I, and I have gone through this with you ALREADY.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:20 am Nothingness (any form) is included in this meaning.
I KNOW. And, I AGREE with you here OKAY?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:20 am Then I reserve "universe" for a unit whole among many.
WHY would you do such a thing?

And, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is you use a small 'u'. So, if you wrote the word 'Universe' with a capitalized 'U' does this change anything from your perspective?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:20 am If you simply deny this as possible,
LOL How could I simply deny you doing this as possible when it is ME who continually STATES: 'you' are absolutely FREE to do absolutely ANY 'thing'.

That 'you' reserve the word 'universe' to have some particular definition or to mean or refer to some 'thing' in particular could NEVER be denied.

So, WHY would you say such a thing as you just did here?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:20 am you are implying it is impossible and thus suffices to close off the discussion.
BUT LOL "simply denying this as possible", as NEVER even crept into ANY thought WHATSOEVER in this body. So, what you say here is just moot.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:20 am If I capitalize "Universe" it means THIS "universe"; "Totality" can be capitalized to reference MY definition but "totality" can reference the dictionary's normal use.
LOL Now, what is " THIS "universe" '.

How can I SEPARATE "this universe" from ALL of the "other universes" that you IMAGINE or think about?

How can 'I' PERCEIVE what 'you' DO, if you do NOT explain the DIFFERENCE?

What is the 'THIS' word even in reference to, EXACTLY?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:20 am If you INSIST on absurdly questioning of each and every word, then I'd have to ask you to BE prepared by first studying the minimal logic systems of reasoning.
WHY 'try' and CONDESCEND here?

If you want to say that, TO YOU, the word 'universe' refers to a "whole unit among many", but the 'Universe' word refers to THIS "universe", then SURELY you have the ABILITY to just EXPLAIN to "others" WHERE EXACTLY and WHAT EXACTLY are the FEATURES that could POSSIBLY SEPARATE these IMAGINED and TALKED ABOUT MANY DIFFERENT "universes" here, correct?

But if no, then WHY NOT?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:20 am I am not able to participate fully where I don't know you personally and have no power to control your learning environment intimately.
LOL ANOTHER ATTEMPT at CONDESCENSION.

I suggest if you want to TEACH some 'thing', then you AT LEAST KNOW what you are TALKING ABOUT. Which, OBVIOUSLY, involves being ABLE to EXPLAIN EXACTLY what the words that YOU USE mean or refer to, EXACTLY.

Otherwise, you end up just being ANOTHER 'religious' fanatic, or BELIEVER, who just REPEATS what they have heard, but ACTUALLY have absolutely NO IDEA NOR CLUE what they are actually TALKING ABOUT.

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:20 am I waste too much time online not seemingly able to affect anyone regardless of what I might know and so have to stop investing in the time.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE of SUPERIORITY COMPLEX.

What do you THINK 'you know', which would have some REAL IMPORTANCE to "others" here?

One of the MAIN REASONS you are ACTUALLY STILL LOST and CONFUSED is because of these TOTALLY ILL-FITTING and Wrong definitions you have placed on some words, like for example; 'universe' AND 'Universe'.

But if they work for you, and thus can UNIFY EVERY thing TOGETHER in One PERFECT Picture, then so be it. But SHOW us HOW this could, or actually does, work.
Post Reply