Sure, I will grant you that if you cut my explanation from a quote then it does sound like I did not make an argument.
Your explanation is not an *argument* against my explanation, that was why I cut it out. The only parts of your reply that actually responded to my explanation were the first and last sentences. I simply pointed out that they did not represent an argument.
Thus, the explanation you gave is not sufficient to understand why the wave function collapses. By contrast, the No-Cloning theorem does provide a sufficient explanation.
The no-cloning theorem is a more precise *predictor* of reality than "particles bouncing off eachother", but it is also more abstract, and not necessary for explanation to a layman. To explain why observing the double-slit experiment changes the result, it is only necessary to say, "the light that is required for one to make an observation happens to interact with the entities one is trying to observe, and that interaction changes the result." That removes the mystery regarding the role of the observer. If they then ask, "how does light interact with electrons", then you would have to get into the more abstract discussion.
Explanation as path to understanding involves delving into deeper and deeper layers of abstraction. If I were ask how fish breathe underwater, and you started at the quantum mechanical level, you would not be *explaining* anything to me that I could understand and conceptually integrate, because you would not be connecting it to my existing knowledge. You would first have to discuss the biological, then the chemical, etc. It is not wrong to answer, "because they have gills". Likewise, "light interacts with electrons, changing the result" is not a wrong answer to the question above.
That is completely wrong...This is not philosophy, this is mathematics.
That is not an argument. Why is it completely wrong? And why is Richard Feynman incorrect for espousing it? And why is it so obvious from perception?
The reason why measurement affects reality is because of the No-Cloning Theorem which dictates that quantum information cannot be copied, so the most that you can do is entangle yourself with the particle which creates the perception of a collapsing wave function.
This is as backwards as saying that "the amount of impedence of the individual components of an AC circuit is caused by the imaginary exponential." No, the imaginary exponential was devised to easily calculate the impedence. To pretend that the math makes reality is to put the cart before the horse. Quantum mechanics and the no-cloning theorem are concepts used for predicting reality. They are concepts of method. They do not create reality.
The wave function is a *concept of method* used to aid the mind in understanding reality. The fact that it conveniently and easily predicts reality does not imply there is anything *physical* about the wave function, any more than the use of complex numbers to calculate phase shift in electrical circuits, or the use of "electron holes" to simplify equations, implies the actual physical existence of imaginary numbers or "electron holes".
As for the apparently strange fact that observation affects reality - that is simply due to the fact that we must bounce particles off of something in order for us to measure it. To *see* electrons going through the double-slit experiment, we have to bounce photons off of them - and that interferes with the experiment, changing the result. It has nothing to do with us being "entangled observers" or having some "privileged reference frame".
I recommend Richard Feynman's 1-hour lecture on the quantum mechanical view of nature, which clarifies much of the poor philosophizing that has come out of quantum mechanics.
Claims that directly contradict reality are necessarily disproven by their contradictory nature. All claims to a "God", when described in sufficient detail, contain some contradictory component, disproving the claim. For example, God the "creator being who spawned existence", would be a consciousness *conscious of only itself*, existing in *non-existence*, acting *outside of time*. That is contradictory on three counts.
And so long as governments continue to consider open waters untenable public property, the pollution will continue without proper (judicial) repercussions, and will be susceptible to the whims of politicians owned by special interest groups.
At most, Microsoft only has a responsibility to their vendors to make clear any sort of handicapping that they've implemented in their OS. So long as the vendor is aware of that, and still voluntarily chooses to enter into a licensing agreement with Microsoft, there is no fraud occurring.
Yes, that does mean I am saying that the sort of anti-trust laws that are used against software companies with claimed "monopolies" are unjust and should not exist. So long as no force is involved, and no purposeful deception is used (fraud), then the government should stay out of it.
As a pro-choice, pro-gay rights atheist, I voted almost entirely GOP, knowing that gridlock is the only thing preventing either party from further spending away our long-term future on futile attempts to reinflate economic bubbles (e.g. housing) and prop up Ponzi schemes (e.g. Social Security). We can only hope that they do not attempt compromise and bipartisanship.
I'm not sure - I haven't played a new game in years. Still working on Myst. I hope to have it completed by 2015, and then I'll move on to Riven. I may just finish this series before I die...
It's my understanding that Stuxnet was designed to only *do only* to one certain computer/system that was specifically targeted. On all other computers that do not match the signature of that computer, it leaves them alone. So what is the "havoc" that it is causing?
Zynga's underground 'Platinum Purchase Program,' reportedly geared towards making players known as 'whales' part with a minimum of $500 at a time for imaginary credits.
They sound more like cows to me - prime for the milking.
I've used OverDrive's eBook/audio/video checkout services at local libraries here for a couple years now, and they all work that way. You add items to a basket, check out, and then you have access to them for a fixed period. During that period, nobody else can access them. It makes sense given how the library got the items in the first place - through licensed sale from the publisher.
Slashdot Mirror
Next the Slashdot story will be used as a Reliable Source on Wikipedia.
A 3-sentence comment in a blog is converted into a 4-sentence blog post by someone else, and that is converted into a news story by Slashdot?
Sure, I will grant you that if you cut my explanation from a quote then it does sound like I did not make an argument.
Your explanation is not an *argument* against my explanation, that was why I cut it out. The only parts of your reply that actually responded to my explanation were the first and last sentences. I simply pointed out that they did not represent an argument.
Thus, the explanation you gave is not sufficient to understand why the wave function collapses. By contrast, the No-Cloning theorem does provide a sufficient explanation.
The no-cloning theorem is a more precise *predictor* of reality than "particles bouncing off eachother", but it is also more abstract, and not necessary for explanation to a layman. To explain why observing the double-slit experiment changes the result, it is only necessary to say, "the light that is required for one to make an observation happens to interact with the entities one is trying to observe, and that interaction changes the result." That removes the mystery regarding the role of the observer. If they then ask, "how does light interact with electrons", then you would have to get into the more abstract discussion.
Explanation as path to understanding involves delving into deeper and deeper layers of abstraction. If I were ask how fish breathe underwater, and you started at the quantum mechanical level, you would not be *explaining* anything to me that I could understand and conceptually integrate, because you would not be connecting it to my existing knowledge. You would first have to discuss the biological, then the chemical, etc. It is not wrong to answer, "because they have gills". Likewise, "light interacts with electrons, changing the result" is not a wrong answer to the question above.
That is completely wrong...This is not philosophy, this is mathematics.
That is not an argument. Why is it completely wrong? And why is Richard Feynman incorrect for espousing it? And why is it so obvious from perception?
The reason why measurement affects reality is because of the No-Cloning Theorem which dictates that quantum information cannot be copied, so the most that you can do is entangle yourself with the particle which creates the perception of a collapsing wave function.
This is as backwards as saying that "the amount of impedence of the individual components of an AC circuit is caused by the imaginary exponential." No, the imaginary exponential was devised to easily calculate the impedence. To pretend that the math makes reality is to put the cart before the horse. Quantum mechanics and the no-cloning theorem are concepts used for predicting reality. They are concepts of method. They do not create reality.
They keep them in the inside left pocket of their black suits, next to the rocket launcher.
The wave function is a *concept of method* used to aid the mind in understanding reality. The fact that it conveniently and easily predicts reality does not imply there is anything *physical* about the wave function, any more than the use of complex numbers to calculate phase shift in electrical circuits, or the use of "electron holes" to simplify equations, implies the actual physical existence of imaginary numbers or "electron holes".
As for the apparently strange fact that observation affects reality - that is simply due to the fact that we must bounce particles off of something in order for us to measure it. To *see* electrons going through the double-slit experiment, we have to bounce photons off of them - and that interferes with the experiment, changing the result. It has nothing to do with us being "entangled observers" or having some "privileged reference frame".
I recommend Richard Feynman's 1-hour lecture on the quantum mechanical view of nature, which clarifies much of the poor philosophizing that has come out of quantum mechanics.
Claims that directly contradict reality are necessarily disproven by their contradictory nature. All claims to a "God", when described in sufficient detail, contain some contradictory component, disproving the claim. For example, God the "creator being who spawned existence", would be a consciousness *conscious of only itself*, existing in *non-existence*, acting *outside of time*. That is contradictory on three counts.
And the cover now has a big shiny sticker that says "Nigger Free!"
Government Motor's NASA Robot On Tour
There, I fixed that for ya!
And so long as governments continue to consider open waters untenable public property, the pollution will continue without proper (judicial) repercussions, and will be susceptible to the whims of politicians owned by special interest groups.
At most, Microsoft only has a responsibility to their vendors to make clear any sort of handicapping that they've implemented in their OS. So long as the vendor is aware of that, and still voluntarily chooses to enter into a licensing agreement with Microsoft, there is no fraud occurring.
Yes, that does mean I am saying that the sort of anti-trust laws that are used against software companies with claimed "monopolies" are unjust and should not exist. So long as no force is involved, and no purposeful deception is used (fraud), then the government should stay out of it.
5.5 × 10^-6, which sounds like pretty much the same chance as you being a reasonable human being.
So there are only 36,835 reasonable people on Earth. And they all live in Liechtenstein.
You're right. It's not a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme is voluntary. But Social Security is mandatory.
So it's worse than a Ponzi scheme.
As a pro-choice, pro-gay rights atheist, I voted almost entirely GOP, knowing that gridlock is the only thing preventing either party from further spending away our long-term future on futile attempts to reinflate economic bubbles (e.g. housing) and prop up Ponzi schemes (e.g. Social Security). We can only hope that they do not attempt compromise and bipartisanship.
Wow, and given that she can only travel to times within her own lifetime, she must be frickin' old!
"Granny Leap" probably wouldn't have done so well in the ratings.
I'm not sure - I haven't played a new game in years. Still working on Myst. I hope to have it completed by 2015, and then I'll move on to Riven. I may just finish this series before I die...
They installed gigabit fiber in the dorms my freshman year. I guess we were spoiled.
In your fantasy world, "freedom" involves laws that violate individual rights.
It's my understanding that Stuxnet was designed to only *do only* to one certain computer/system that was specifically targeted. On all other computers that do not match the signature of that computer, it leaves them alone. So what is the "havoc" that it is causing?
This seems very appropriate.
Doesn't the fact that you called it "Dances with Thundercats" imply that it has a story, and that the story is similar to Dances with Wolves?
I thought it sucked too, but just sayin...
Hell, you can get milk out of things without nipples - soy, coconut, your mom.
Nearly all of those proprietary apps are themselves clones.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Zynga's underground 'Platinum Purchase Program,' reportedly geared towards making players known as 'whales' part with a minimum of $500 at a time for imaginary credits.
They sound more like cows to me - prime for the milking.
I've used OverDrive's eBook/audio/video checkout services at local libraries here for a couple years now, and they all work that way. You add items to a basket, check out, and then you have access to them for a fixed period. During that period, nobody else can access them. It makes sense given how the library got the items in the first place - through licensed sale from the publisher.