|
mnottertail -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/14/2006 6:36:22 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip
quote:
Original: somebody else
> Do you consider a particle to be simultaneously a particle and a wave to be rational?
That Heisenberg seems to answer this rationally is rational enough for me (even if others refuse to see that this is a matter of uncertainty due to measurement (and therefore observation, really; in these cases they are used interchangeably in meaning, much like weight and mass)
quote:
Original ; The whipster
No, that is why no physicist has ever made this claim. You are referring to the paradox
of wave-particle duality. Bohr initially answered this paradox by giving the "priniciple
of complimentarity." Then he claimed that there is no objective reality between
measurement in effect asserting that matter and energy does not travel in a
wave-like manner between measurements, that matter and energy simply has
no objective reality between measurements.
and this is the void, isn't it? Unless it is observed, it do what it do and we are found unawares. This cannot be. If the entire population of the earth and anyone else out there in the galaxy (ooops, went to far) the earth closes its eyes and shuns the moon, does it still exist? Really, we suppose it should. Exists is a fundamental property, an axiom that we associate a whole lot of shit with. The best argument to date is 'Ja pense. D'onc je suis'.................p not p.......not independantly confirmable.
quote:
O; the whip:
Of course, the paradox of wave-particle duality does not exist in the Many-Worlds view of reality.
Mayhaps, or it is that the Copenhagen view collapses floor by floor like the world trade centers. I see no disagreement and see no ambiguity in glueing them together with gluons. It is what it is because I saw it. You come and look and you see something different in your frame of reference.
In Hugh Everett's Many-Worlds there are only waves, there are no particles.
See above, I am sick of the new quoting system.
> Everyone knows that cows have both hooves and horns, so why cannot
> something be both 100 % true and 100% false?
The same statement can't be both 100% true and 100% false by
definition of the words true and false.
Percentages get in the way of this because they are mathematical functions that have contained in there very axioms, untruth, as was so elegantly pointed out. (LOL)
> Pray show me 2.34 uranium atoms.
I can't because no such thing exists.
Yet, that is our measurement, our model, our truth, as we perceive it.
> Such numbers do not make sense.
Such numbers make perfect sense.
Totally agreed, here is the sense, would you rather make 2.34 an hour or 2.33? Your choice and the IRS will average over paychecks....the world works to less than the billionth term of PI quite nicely, thank you.
> I already gave a number of examples, but you dismissed them
> as a consequence of being so used to them that you no longer
> recognize the patent absurdity of non-natural numbers.
You are not making any sense to me. I have no idea what you
are trying to say.
> How about dismissing Greek court proceedings that testify that
> the gods Apollo and Athena actively participated in the court session?
How about it? You need to take a few basic course in logic.
There is nothing irrational in the above statement.
You are laboring under a number of misconceptions.
I will let this pass.
Now, for the final point.
I, a man of some vanity, and self-referentialy some intelligence,l would not in sophistic fashion, raise (with language) a tautology to Lam.
I believe he could carry on a reasonable conversation with the greatest roman orator, and he is also capable of socializing with the Devil and Daniel Webster...........(but you can trip him up on some norse ....if you get in trouble just tell him he talks like lefse.....he'll fold.....LOLOLOL)
but I am sure he is aware of himself, and will or will not answer in kind.
Ron
|
|
|
|
