I read that a couple of times, though I'm not sure i understand it perfectly. Here is my point of view:
everything is deterministic, all the properties are exactly determined, it's just that since we are part of the system ( = universe ) it's computably impossible to measure their exact and determined values. It's like godel's incompleteness theorem applied to the universe. We would have to be "out of the universe", know all the data, all the laws and simulate it, in order to have an exact measurement, otherways the measurement itself will affect the end result. These errors are higher, the smaller is the scale of the events ( subatomic particles ) we want to measure.
there can't possibly be (in my humble opinion) an inherent probabilistic behaviour of subatomic particles. particles don't have a mind (conciousness) of their own, it would also violate the most important of the laws of motion ( that a body will change its momentum only if a force is applied to it ). Now I know that this law is not a god given law, but it sounds sane enough, much more sane than saying that there is an inherent probabilistic nature in elements. Why would a subatomic particle be either here or there? I think it's obvious that it can't, it's just that the factors affecting its position and momentum are so many that to us it looks like probabilistic.
I'm not sure but i think that what i said provides an answer about the contextuality problem: of course the properties are predetermined. but no, their properties are not independent of the way they are measured because WE ( the physicist, the apparatus is part of the system).
from Kochen–Specker theorem in wikipedia:
The theorem proves that there is a contradiction between two basic assumptions of the hidden variable theories intended to reproduce the results of quantum mechanics: that all hidden variables corresponding to quantum mechanical observables have definite values at any given time, and that the values of those variables are intrinsic and independent of the device used to measure them.
The second assumption in my opinion is wrong, the hidden variables properties are still determined, but NOT un-affected by the measurement.
of course. the principle of locality is just an approximation too for practical reasons. Every particle in the universe affects all others, nomatter how far it is no matter how small the effect is. It's just that for approximation reasons we don't take (and we can't) them into consideration. But in reality even the mass of an electron on mars' soil will affect by let's say 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% electrons here on earth and that's the cause of the "randonmness".
Historically, the uncertainty principle has been confused[4][5] with a somewhat similar effect in physics, called the observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems. Heisenberg offered such an observer effect at the quantum level (see below) as a physical "explanation" of quantum uncertainty.[6] It has since become clear, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems, and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects. Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology.[7] It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer.[8]
The uncertainty principle has been frequently confused with the observer effect, evidently even by its originator, Werner Heisenberg.[8] The uncertainty principle in its standard form actually describes how precisely we may measure the position and momentum of a particle at the same time — if we increase the precision in measuring one quantity, we are forced to lose precision in measuring the other.[9] An alternative version of the uncertainty principle,[10] more in the spirit of an observer effect,[11] fully accounts for the disturbance the observer has on a system and the error incurred, although this is not how the term "uncertainty principle" is most commonly used in practice.
So you are obviously right. Though I have to be forgiven since even Heisenberg meant what I said and later it became clear that it was an inherent property of the wave like systems.
HOWEVER I will still say (taking einstein's position) that quantum theory is not how the world actually IS. it's just a semi-accurate representation, like gases laws which give us an approximation and not the accurate position of each molecule of the gas. It's just that the variables are so many and the total particles in all of the universe so many (all of them interacting with all others) that we have to invent an approximate theory (like quantum mechanics) but in reality all atomic and subatomic particles do have a very particular position and momentum. I'ts just our inability to detect it due to the universe being very complex and us being part of it, thus affecting it. (so even schrodinger's cat is in reality wrong).
and all those things make us feel a sort of euphoria, i guess due to pheromones/hormones etc. etc. maybe just like chocolate eating does.
P.S. i hate the lack of the editing feature on slashdot
No shit captain obvious. Many people do imagine winning races, beating opponents, winning an intellectual discourse*, becoming great generals and so on and so forth.
*uhm..no i'm not a schizophrenic..._turns around_ yes we are!
do not change the subject for the sake of covering your ignorance. Heisenberg's principle says it's impossible to _know_ ( as in MEASURE ) with HIGH accuracy both the momentum and the position. It doesn't say ANYTHING at all about it having or not a particular ( definite ) position or momentum. REREAD the heisenberg's principle.
you are completely wrong. heisenberg's principle is purely PRACTICAL. it doesn't say that in theory the particle won't have a specific momentum at a specific position. It just states our practical inability to measure with accuracy both simultaneously.
why download and install when you can just run it in the browser, saving the user all the issues with installing, license management (serials/product keys), incompatibilities etc. in a web app you write once and it runs always in most browsers ( yeah, don't nitpick, there are crossbrowser libraries like jquery etc. ).
I did (vertically) read the article. Yes they can produce different kind of "oils" and that's exactly the problem: it's OIL. no kind of oil burns in a clean fashon. you need ethanol or hydrogen for that.
because even if you burn ethanol ( clean burn ) you still need millions of hectares to grow corn, hectares which otherwise would go to food production. Plus, It's a bad sort of energy conversion: instead of using solar panels, you use corn to harness the energy of the sun.
Having said that, it seems that what this company does is worse; it produces some sort of "oil" which i highly doubt would burn a clean fashion like ethanol or hydrogen.
there are way more important problems to solve in sociology than this nonproblem. thanks for the strawman tho'. oh and please next time be a tad less yellow and post with your nickname.
spend their resources, intellect and time in such important life saving matters as hand clapping, instead of ridiculous and unimportant researches conducted by others in meaningless fields such as cancer, hiv and other diseases.
a cabin in the woods? complete with a cinema nearby, hospital, supermarket, grocery and all the facilities we need every day..well maybe some small roads connecting them..oh wait!
MOD THIS UP. proper answer for elitist morons coming from the stone age trying to sell their rusted selves and presenting themselves as be-all and end-all of computer literacy.
do you know how many people have declared the PC to be dead. It's usually either people who have "better" solutions to offer, or the useful idiots who believe them. Ever tried doing some real work on a tablet ? like video editing, image editing, mundane tasks like excel, word editing. how about video games ?
indeed, halved, that's what happens when you don't proofread. Point is, with mpg one may think that the difference in efficiency will be way bigger than it actually is.
from 12.5mpg to 25mpg it will save you 4 gallons on a 100miles trip. from 25mpg to 50mpg it will save you 2 gallons. yet, most people will think that the difference of going from a 25mpg car to a 50mpg is way better than going from 12.mpg to 25mpg.
Slashdot Mirror
virutal
i see what you did there.
no. People don't practically care plus they have the memory of a fish.
not being able to get a (non-virtual) gf???
I read that a couple of times, though I'm not sure i understand it perfectly. Here is my point of view:
everything is deterministic, all the properties are exactly determined, it's just that since we are part of the system ( = universe ) it's computably impossible to measure their exact and determined values. It's like godel's incompleteness theorem applied to the universe. We would have to be "out of the universe", know all the data, all the laws and simulate it, in order to have an exact measurement, otherways the measurement itself will affect the end result. These errors are higher, the smaller is the scale of the events ( subatomic particles ) we want to measure.
there can't possibly be (in my humble opinion) an inherent probabilistic behaviour of subatomic particles. particles don't have a mind (conciousness) of their own, it would also violate the most important of the laws of motion ( that a body will change its momentum only if a force is applied to it ). Now I know that this law is not a god given law, but it sounds sane enough, much more sane than saying that there is an inherent probabilistic nature in elements. Why would a subatomic particle be either here or there? I think it's obvious that it can't, it's just that the factors affecting its position and momentum are so many that to us it looks like probabilistic.
I'm not sure but i think that what i said provides an answer about the contextuality problem: of course the properties are predetermined. but no, their properties are not independent of the way they are measured because WE ( the physicist, the apparatus is part of the system).
from Kochen–Specker theorem in wikipedia: The theorem proves that there is a contradiction between two basic assumptions of the hidden variable theories intended to reproduce the results of quantum mechanics: that all hidden variables corresponding to quantum mechanical observables have definite values at any given time, and that the values of those variables are intrinsic and independent of the device used to measure them. The second assumption in my opinion is wrong, the hidden variables properties are still determined, but NOT un-affected by the measurement.
i am not a physicist, what is the noncontextuality problem?
of course. the principle of locality is just an approximation too for practical reasons. Every particle in the universe affects all others, nomatter how far it is no matter how small the effect is. It's just that for approximation reasons we don't take (and we can't) them into consideration. But in reality even the mass of an electron on mars' soil will affect by let's say 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% electrons here on earth and that's the cause of the "randonmness".
right, so from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg's_principle
Historically, the uncertainty principle has been confused[4][5] with a somewhat similar effect in physics, called the observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems. Heisenberg offered such an observer effect at the quantum level (see below) as a physical "explanation" of quantum uncertainty.[6] It has since become clear, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems, and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects. Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology.[7] It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer.[8]
and from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
The uncertainty principle has been frequently confused with the observer effect, evidently even by its originator, Werner Heisenberg.[8] The uncertainty principle in its standard form actually describes how precisely we may measure the position and momentum of a particle at the same time — if we increase the precision in measuring one quantity, we are forced to lose precision in measuring the other.[9] An alternative version of the uncertainty principle,[10] more in the spirit of an observer effect,[11] fully accounts for the disturbance the observer has on a system and the error incurred, although this is not how the term "uncertainty principle" is most commonly used in practice.
So you are obviously right. Though I have to be forgiven since even Heisenberg meant what I said and later it became clear that it was an inherent property of the wave like systems.
HOWEVER I will still say (taking einstein's position) that quantum theory is not how the world actually IS. it's just a semi-accurate representation, like gases laws which give us an approximation and not the accurate position of each molecule of the gas. It's just that the variables are so many and the total particles in all of the universe so many (all of them interacting with all others) that we have to invent an approximate theory (like quantum mechanics) but in reality all atomic and subatomic particles do have a very particular position and momentum. I'ts just our inability to detect it due to the universe being very complex and us being part of it, thus affecting it. (so even schrodinger's cat is in reality wrong).
and all those things make us feel a sort of euphoria, i guess due to pheromones/hormones etc. etc. maybe just like chocolate eating does. P.S. i hate the lack of the editing feature on slashdot
No shit captain obvious. Many people do imagine winning races, beating opponents, winning an intellectual discourse*, becoming great generals and so on and so forth.
*uhm..no i'm not a schizophrenic..._turns around_ yes we are!
do not change the subject for the sake of covering your ignorance. Heisenberg's principle says it's impossible to _know_ ( as in MEASURE ) with HIGH accuracy both the momentum and the position. It doesn't say ANYTHING at all about it having or not a particular ( definite ) position or momentum. REREAD the heisenberg's principle.
nope it doesn't. learn to read and comprehend.
you are completely wrong. heisenberg's principle is purely PRACTICAL. it doesn't say that in theory the particle won't have a specific momentum at a specific position. It just states our practical inability to measure with accuracy both simultaneously.
why download and install when you can just run it in the browser, saving the user all the issues with installing, license management (serials/product keys), incompatibilities etc. in a web app you write once and it runs always in most browsers ( yeah, don't nitpick, there are crossbrowser libraries like jquery etc. ).
I did (vertically) read the article. Yes they can produce different kind of "oils" and that's exactly the problem: it's OIL. no kind of oil burns in a clean fashon. you need ethanol or hydrogen for that.
because even if you burn ethanol ( clean burn ) you still need millions of hectares to grow corn, hectares which otherwise would go to food production. Plus, It's a bad sort of energy conversion: instead of using solar panels, you use corn to harness the energy of the sun.
Having said that, it seems that what this company does is worse; it produces some sort of "oil" which i highly doubt would burn a clean fashion like ethanol or hydrogen.
it will take about 1million seconds to fill it or about 11.5 days
there are way more important problems to solve in sociology than this nonproblem. thanks for the strawman tho'. oh and please next time be a tad less yellow and post with your nickname.
spend their resources, intellect and time in such important life saving matters as hand clapping, instead of ridiculous and unimportant researches conducted by others in meaningless fields such as cancer, hiv and other diseases.
a cabin in the woods? complete with a cinema nearby, hospital, supermarket, grocery and all the facilities we need every day..well maybe some small roads connecting them..oh wait!
MOD THIS UP. proper answer for elitist morons coming from the stone age trying to sell their rusted selves and presenting themselves as be-all and end-all of computer literacy.
Why are such important files internet accessible ? I mean that's security 101 for top secret stuff
do you know how many people have declared the PC to be dead. It's usually either people who have "better" solutions to offer, or the useful idiots who believe them. Ever tried doing some real work on a tablet ? like video editing, image editing, mundane tasks like excel, word editing. how about video games ?
last i heard esset ist now kaput! ss i the new norm!
you don't need to know that. the car already tells you when it's low in fuel. it's right in the front of the driver's eyes.
indeed, halved, that's what happens when you don't proofread. Point is, with mpg one may think that the difference in efficiency will be way bigger than it actually is.
from 12.5mpg to 25mpg it will save you 4 gallons on a 100miles trip. from 25mpg to 50mpg it will save you 2 gallons. yet, most people will think that the difference of going from a 25mpg car to a 50mpg is way better than going from 12.mpg to 25mpg.