Anyone got any Mind Blowing Questions?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by joelozzy, Jul 13, 2010.

Tags:
  1. Tomo009

    Tomo009 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    754
    Likes Received:
    35
    Joined:
    May 8, 2010
    Location:
    Melton, VIC, Melbourne
    But wouldn't everyone act the same way? They still have the same nsture/nurture as they are following the same string of chaos theory. So wouldn't everyone be affected and act the same? Resulting in the same events occurring?
     
  2. Varcolac

    Varcolac Frets? What frets?

    Messages:
    2,377
    Likes Received:
    297
    Joined:
    May 8, 2009
    Location:
    London
    I don't know. You'd have to put your Earth #2 in a different point in spacetime to the original, so the different context might subtly alter things. Even a difference in gravity or cosmic rays might have a small effect (incredibly small, but still there). It'd be interesting.
     
  3. silentrage

    silentrage The DeRailer

    Messages:
    3,479
    Likes Received:
    264
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    @Jbroll
    Thanks for that very lengthy write up, it's assuming the 4th dimension is time, how is it different if we assume N spatial dimensions and 1 Time dimension where N > 3? ^^

    @Varcolac
    Given the uncertainty principle I think it depends on the determinacy of those earth circa 1935 particles (or really the universe circa 1935 particles) under the affect of quantum fluctuations because these fluctuations exist everywhere and is believed to have affected the structure of the universe shortly after the bigbang and caused the formation of galaxies.
    So I think it's safe to say if quantum fluctuations are deterministic, and you have succeeded in copying every particle of the earth in 1935, then you might have a chance of arriving at the same 2010. But if it's not, you definitely won't arrive at the same 2010, and freewill may not have had anything to do with that.
     
  4. vampiregenocide

    vampiregenocide SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    16,161
    Likes Received:
    2,102
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    Yeah. :lol: They're good books.
     
  5. JBroll

    JBroll Hard-On For Freedom™ Contributor

    Messages:
    4,099
    Likes Received:
    531
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX, USA
    This is dead wrong. I just explained how to do it. I have to do it regularly as part of my studies, and if it's not beyond my understanding I'm pretty sure most or all people can pull it off... I've already fiddled with several pentatopes and a hexateron today and I haven't even had my coffee yet.

    This is also dead wrong - the above doesn't have anything to do with the uncertainty principle.

    Goddamn, I leave for one evening and it's back to physics-word salad...

    Silentrage, given n+1 dimensions (n space, 1 time) you can see an n-dimensional object and 'glue' an n+1 dimensional object together in the way described above.

    Jeff
     
  6. pink freud

    pink freud SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,105
    Likes Received:
    496
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Location:
    Seattle
    How can one picture an object except outside of time? Unless there is zero atomic movement an object is constantly changing, thus the only way to observe an object's physical characteristics at a given point is exactly that, at a point in time. If the Uncertainty Principle states that we cannot know location while simultaneously knowing movement, it is equally true that one cannot know the exact position of every atom of an object without observing it at a single point in time.
     
  7. JBroll

    JBroll Hard-On For Freedom™ Contributor

    Messages:
    4,099
    Likes Received:
    531
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX, USA
    This stuff is *NOT REAL*. The Uncertainty Principle refers to *MEASUREMENTS OF REAL THINGS*. (On top of that, they're either tiny or oddly-moving things - ever notice how not everything looks like a fuzzy superposition of metathings?)

    Because what I described was ENTIRELY IMAGINARY, and NOT REAL, the Uncertainty Principle has nothing to do with it AT ALL. If you're going to try to use physics ideas, you need to be much more careful about how and why you apply them.

    Jeff
     
  8. silentrage

    silentrage The DeRailer

    Messages:
    3,479
    Likes Received:
    264
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    @pink
    I think you're forgetting the fact that we still don't know how the probabilities of constituent subatomic particles become the observed definite macroscopic object, one that does have a measurable position and momentum.


    Ok, in the spirit of the thread, shall we include a mind-boggling question once in a while?
    Here's mine, if you make boots out of vagina, would they be impossible to wear out? :agreed:
     
  9. Razorgrin

    Razorgrin SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    200
    Likes Received:
    6
    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Location:
    Greeley, CO
    Mind = blown.
     
  10. MFB

    MFB Banned

    Messages:
    13,105
    Likes Received:
    2,410
    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Were Chuck Norris jokes ever funny?
     
  11. JBroll

    JBroll Hard-On For Freedom™ Contributor

    Messages:
    4,099
    Likes Received:
    531
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX, USA
    I'm not sure that's right.

    MFB... Chuck Norris once told a good Chuck Norris joke.

    (The real question is now whether or not jokes about Chuck Norris jokes were ever funny. Whee.)

    Jeff
     
  12. josh pelican

    josh pelican Banned

    Messages:
    3,459
    Likes Received:
    434
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2009
    Location:
    Dartmouth, NS
    The answer is no.

    I said it.
     
  13. vampiregenocide

    vampiregenocide SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    16,161
    Likes Received:
    2,102
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    There is footage of Chuck Norris talking bout the jokes about him, and he finds them very funny, even cleared up a few facts.
     
  14. joelozzy

    joelozzy RG7 Whore

    Messages:
    259
    Likes Received:
    78
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2009
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
  15. joelozzy

    joelozzy RG7 Whore

    Messages:
    259
    Likes Received:
    78
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2009
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
     
  16. silentrage

    silentrage The DeRailer

    Messages:
    3,479
    Likes Received:
    264
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
  17. JBroll

    JBroll Hard-On For Freedom™ Contributor

    Messages:
    4,099
    Likes Received:
    531
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX, USA
    Do you happen to have the full article handy? Since it's from a general-audience publication and it's three years old I wouldn't be too sure that it's the latest breakthrough.

    Jeff
     
  18. silentrage

    silentrage The DeRailer

    Messages:
    3,479
    Likes Received:
    264
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Ah shit, I remember seeing an article with a similar title that was just published on sciencedaily 2 weeks ago.

    But anyway, what I mean is ( and maybe this is because I don't really understand decoherence or quantum mechanics at all) there seems to be no tangible or intuitively understood mechanism by which a quantum superposition of states becomes a single coherent macroscopic reality, besides the MWI which is entirely non-ontological and therefore does nothing for me. :p
     
  19. JBroll

    JBroll Hard-On For Freedom™ Contributor

    Messages:
    4,099
    Likes Received:
    531
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX, USA
    Let me know if you find the recent one.

    Say what you want about MWI, but from what I've been told it fits phenomena like quantum computing better than the other mainstream theories - your own philosophical preferences shouldn't get in the way of science, and right now MWI is viable (despite non-physics-based complaints) and can give practical results on top of that.

    Jeff
     
  20. silentrage

    silentrage The DeRailer

    Messages:
    3,479
    Likes Received:
    264
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Well I trust your opinion on that better than my own, maybe I'll know better once I study some of the math involved.
    I think what bugs me is that MWI can't really be experimentally proven, but as I guess that's not necessarily a bad thing in science as long as the math is solid and it helps to predict other experimental results?
     

Share This Page