The nature of the universe.

JackCB

synchronicity wrote:

I find it hard to believe the initial assumption of EXACTLY 50% chance. 50.0000000000000000000000001% is not the same as 50%.

And by putting all this shite in a box, you've probably already affected the whole system through additional gravitational attraction between all the particles involved... i.e. if you can't even know the position of 3 freakin' atoms exactly w.r.t time (due to something called the n-body problem) how can you predict the probability of atomic decay with such precision?

The trouble is that it's all too easy to make wrong assumptions...

But you can make any assumptions you want! It's a thought experiment.

I like the 2 perpendiculr universes interfereing with each other theory.

That's the one I'd plump for too. I actually did a course on the interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, and it's surprising how unclear/unsettled our understanding of the theory actually is. Really interesting stuff though.

synchronicity

JackCB wrote:

synchronicity wrote:

I find it hard to believe the initial assumption of EXACTLY 50% chance. 50.0000000000000000000000001% is not the same as 50%.

And by putting all this shite in a box, you've probably already affected the whole system through additional gravitational attraction between all the particles involved... i.e. if you can't even know the position of 3 freakin' atoms exactly w.r.t time (due to something called the n-body problem) how can you predict the probability of atomic decay with such precision?

The trouble is that it's all too easy to make wrong assumptions...

But you can make any assumptions you want! It's a thought experiment.

Precisely my point. Thought is not a true reality, in the sense that we have a biased perspective of reality.

It's the same with aeroengineers who state that bumblebees should not be able to fly or physicists who state that motorcycles should not be able to lean more than 45°. Just try that cat experiment in practise, and you quickly see that it is ludicrous.

JackCB

synchronicity wrote:

JackCB wrote:

synchronicity wrote:

I find it hard to believe the initial assumption of EXACTLY 50% chance. 50.0000000000000000000000001% is not the same as 50%.

And by putting all this shite in a box, you've probably already affected the whole system through additional gravitational attraction between all the particles involved... i.e. if you can't even know the position of 3 freakin' atoms exactly w.r.t time (due to something called the n-body problem) how can you predict the probability of atomic decay with such precision?

The trouble is that it's all too easy to make wrong assumptions...

But you can make any assumptions you want! It's a thought experiment.

It's the same with aeroengineers who state that bumblebees should not be able to fly or physicists who state that motorcycles should not be able to lean more than 45°. Just try that cat experiment in practise, and you quickly see that it is ludicrous.

You're quite right. This is the core 'problem' of Quantum Mechanics, the Measurement Problem.

Quantum Mechanics predicts the existence of cats that are in superpositions of dead and alive. So we face the problem: what is the nature of these superpositions? The prima facie most appealing answer, situations in which the cat is both alive and dead, is obviously in some sense wrong because we never experience cats that are both alive and dead.

This in part leads to these 'many-world' interpretations: when a cat is in a superposition, there are in fact two cats in two different worlds, one of which is alive and one of which is dead. And this doesn't contradict our actual real world experience of cats.

I'm sure that's not very well explained. Essentially what I'm getting at is this: Q Could the cat really end up in a superposition of alive and dead states? A Yes; Q Does this mean the cat is 'both alive and dead'? A No, although it depends in part on what you mean by 'both alive and dead'.

barriecusvein

dennisn wrote:

I seem to recall a theory wherein it is proven that you can never get anywhere.
To get from point A to point B you first must go halfway, then you must go half the remaining distance, and then half the remaining, and then...........and so so and so on.
Thereby, never arriving at point B because of having to go halfway, etc., etc.,

It's called Zeno's paradox. It was thought up to show that in fact motion is an illusion. If you want to go from A to B then you must first cross half the distance, then a quarter etc. So to travel the distance you must complete an infinite number of tasks, which was considered impossible. I think there is also some argument that says that there can in fact be no first distance covered, because you can apply the same infinite tasks argument to it as well, and hence movement is impossible.

I believe the solution is to challenge the idea that space is infinitely divisible, ie there is a point where you can no longer divide the distance to travel in half (i'm assuming this would be the planck length?) and hence the paradox is avoided. I think somewhere there is a solution based on the uncertainty principle as well.

dennisn

barriecusvein wrote:

dennisn wrote:

I seem to recall a theory wherein it is proven that you can never get anywhere.
To get from point A to point B you first must go halfway, then you must go half the remaining distance, and then half the remaining, and then...........and so so and so on.
Thereby, never arriving at point B because of having to go halfway, etc., etc.,

It's called Zeno's paradox. It was thought up to show that in fact motion is an illusion. If you want to go from A to B then you must first cross half the distance, then a quarter etc. So to travel the distance you must complete an infinite number of tasks, which was considered impossible. I think there is also some argument that says that there can in fact be no first distance covered, because you can apply the same infinite tasks argument to it as well, and hence movement is impossible.

I believe the solution is to challenge the idea that space is infinitely divisible, ie there is a point where you can no longer divide the distance to travel in half (i'm assuming this would be the planck length?) and hence the paradox is avoided. I think somewhere there is a solution based on the uncertainty principle as well.

Or, there is a third possibility. Zeno was full of sh*t.

Mike Healey

The answer is obvious. Challenge Zeno to outrun an arrow. He can set off first, before you fire the arrow. Using his argument, the arrow will never reach him as, by the time it reaches the halfway mark to where he was when the arrow was fired, Zeno will have moved on.

Then, by the time the arrow has reached the next half-way mark, Zeno has.....

Etc.

How did he die, by the way?

dennisn

Mike Healey wrote:

The answer is obvious. Challenge Zeno to outrun an arrow. He can set off first, before you fire the arrow. Using his argument, the arrow will never reach him as, by the time it reaches the halfway mark to where he was when the arrow was fired, Zeno will have moved on.

Then, by the time the arrow has reached the next half-way mark, Zeno has.....

Etc.

How did he die, by the way?

I think you answer proves my third possibilty.

barriecusvein

Mike Healey wrote:

The answer is obvious. Challenge Zeno to outrun an arrow. He can set off first, before you fire the arrow. Using his argument, the arrow will never reach him as, by the time it reaches the halfway mark to where he was when the arrow was fired, Zeno will have moved on.

Then, by the time the arrow has reached the next half-way mark, Zeno has.....

Etc.

How did he die, by the way?

Wikipedia says he bit off his tongue and spat it at the tyrannic ruler of Elea, who had him killed...

Edit:Make the wikipedia link work

blu3cat

Wikipedia says he bit off his tongue and spat it at the tyrannic ruler of Elea, who had him killed...

But the tongue would never have hit the ruler....

Thank the lord for calculus that does deal with continuous change.