Quantum Activist

Discussion in 'Debate Room' started by AVCortez, Jun 29, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AVCortez

    AVCortez Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2013
    Messages:
    390
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    I'll take that as a no you haven't seen it and therefore cannot actually make an informed comment. You can validate it any way you want but you're not the publisher tossing out a poorly written manuscript, you're a zealot denying the value differing ideas. As I said prior, quantum physics nor any other area of science has made any progress towards explaining conciousness. So, by default, the ideas should be taken as philosophy... Can I point out once more that you wound't understand the maths even if it was correct it makes no difference whether or not he's right - you are denying it based on your beliefs and that his conflict with yours.

    @AJC this is the kind of objectivity I have been looking for in the discussion. I hadn't thought of QM as problematic as you say it is, but I had always taken the term theoretical physicist very literally. Theory is theory, practice is practice. I understand that some of the theory is based on proven laws but from what I can gather a lot of it isn't. That sort of material requires me to put way to much faith in the unknown... just like organised religion. I just can't validate putting any more faith in a professor preaching his PHD, than I can a priest belting the bible.

    I see QM a little like neuro-science in that it has the potential to unlock answers to some of humanity's unanswered questions. That said, due to the erratic nature of discoveries it could happen next year or never. What worries me more is that with its popularity science has become obsessed with painting paradigm as fact (I see this as a flaw in capitalism, not science). It slows progress, but until more governments shift away from religion and invest in science, the money simply isn't there for fundamental research.

    The movie is on youtube if you want to check it out.
     
  2. thirdwind

    thirdwind Member Contest Administrator Reviewer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    7,655
    Likes Received:
    3,130
    Location:
    Boston
    I use it incorrectly in everyday conversation, not when I'm trying to show someone that I know what I'm talking about (i.e., on a physics test).

    Again, you said
    You're saying that you can't get both properties at the same time. You can. You can get both the position and the momentum of a particle; it's just that you can't get them both to within arbitrary precision. Now do you see where you were wrong?
     
    jazzabel and 123456789 like this.
  3. GingerCoffee

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    18,426
    Likes Received:
    6,892
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    The guy's a fraud, @AVCortez.

    Why does he claim fraudulent awards for his film?
     
  4. GingerCoffee

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    18,426
    Likes Received:
    6,892
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    No, I fail to see where I'm wrong. I do see you trying to find a nit-pik to make it wrong however.
     
  5. 123456789

    123456789 Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    8,056
    Likes Received:
    4,545
    Ginger, at the bottom of my heart I believe you made an incorrect statement because you did not know any better, ad I believe deep down you know this is true, which is why you seem so upset. I'm sorry it had to turn out this way. Please don't trivialize these concepts anymore and in the future try to be more precise.
     
    jazzabel and GoldenGhost like this.
  6. GingerCoffee

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    18,426
    Likes Received:
    6,892
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    Oh for pity's sake. First you tried to say one needed to know the equations, now you claim not stating, 'one loses precision' instead of 'you can't know both at the same time' actually means I don't get the gist.

    You just go on your merry way pretending the little peons don't get the concept of the uncertainty principle like you do because the peons didn't use the right terminology.

    It's not fundamentally different from what I said. It doesn't mean I don't get it.

    The reason I'm annoyed is because it took you all day and half a dozen posts to get to the point. The fact you're insulting my intelligence isn't helping, but I have to remind myself that I don't care. You do sound arrogant, by the way.
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2014
  7. 123456789

    123456789 Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    8,056
    Likes Received:
    4,545
    I exposed your ignorance with one post, you did the rest.
     
    GoldenGhost likes this.
  8. AVCortez

    AVCortez Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2013
    Messages:
    390
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    You don't have any proof of that other than "the logos are all the same" - which I have already explained is born out of your own ignorance of graphic design - and you couln't find some of them on google. There is evidence to support the idea that Socrates was a fictional character created by Plato - does that immediately void everything he contributed to modern thought? This fruitcake could be the puppet of a Harvard prof. scared of losing his standing - you simply don't know.

    It's an interesting movie, worth debating. Treat it as a fictional text if you want, I don't care. It would be nice to see you formulate a personal opinion on something rather than doing a google search and beating the i know everything drum.
     
  9. GingerCoffee

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    18,426
    Likes Received:
    6,892
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    They are fake awards! Are you trying to claim they are not?

    Please, by all means, give us evidence these are real film festival awards.

    I looked every one of those organizations up, none of them are legitimate film festivals.

    The organizations don't exist, the awards are made up, the guy is shilling his DVDs. He's dishonest. Did you buy one?
     
  10. AVCortez

    AVCortez Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2013
    Messages:
    390
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    No. It's 2014, who buys DVD's? Thomas Edison was dishonest, doesn't mean my house doesn't have light.
     
  11. thirdwind

    thirdwind Member Contest Administrator Reviewer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    7,655
    Likes Received:
    3,130
    Location:
    Boston
    I'm not nitpicking. What you initially stated and what the uncertainty principle actually is are completely different things. What you said is an entirely different concept, and I'm not even sure such a concept is found in quantum mechanics. Your second definition, however, is correct. Compare that definition to the one you initially had, and I hope you'll see the difference.
     
    GoldenGhost likes this.
  12. GingerCoffee

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    18,426
    Likes Received:
    6,892
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    @AVCortez, You continue to sidestep the fact the DVD is falsely advertised as having awards that turned out to be fake. Maybe that doesn't bother you, but it tells me not to waste my time on snake oil and quackery.
     
  13. GingerCoffee

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    18,426
    Likes Received:
    6,892
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    @thirdwind, I understood the concept, I still understand the concept and frankly I'm done with the discussion.
     
  14. AVCortez

    AVCortez Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2013
    Messages:
    390
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    Quack? interesting turn of phrase given it's roots within early 18th century society to devalue the sciences.

    The only reason you're not looking into it is because it questions your own beliefs. It is the exact reason scientists have been persecuted throughout history. I just don't understand how someone who comes off as so well informed can be so philosophically stunted. Then again, I suppose there's no way to know whether a person in a forum like this has internalised the knowledge, or is just googling their way through a discussion.
     
  15. thirdwind

    thirdwind Member Contest Administrator Reviewer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    7,655
    Likes Received:
    3,130
    Location:
    Boston
    I'm sure you understand it now, especially given that we've spent over a page on this topic. But I'm not entirely convinced you understood it the first time you mentioned it.

    Even if you did understand it before, at the very least you should be able to admit that you made a mistake with the definition. I'll admit here and now that there are several things in physics I don't understand. Hell, even @123456789 admitted he doesn't know some things about quantum mechanics, and I'm sure even @AJC would admit that. Ain't no shame in that.
     
  16. GingerCoffee

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    18,426
    Likes Received:
    6,892
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    I don't care if you're convinced and I didn't make a mistake.

    If I feel like I later I'll start a thread where we can discuss the difference between actually not understanding something and not recognizing someone actually does understand.

    Believe me, I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. I wasn't, and I'm still not and yes I got it before and I get now as well. But by all means, believe what you want.:rolleyes:
     
  17. AVCortez

    AVCortez Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2013
    Messages:
    390
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    What's the point? You'd just say the same thing over and over again until one of you gives up. You need to take a more reflexive approach to the way you discuss things because you come off as extremely closed minded.
     
  18. GingerCoffee

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    18,426
    Likes Received:
    6,892
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    It's funny, I point out to you that the website makes fraudulent claims and you ignore that and make up other reasons I'm not impressed by this guy's claims or even his hypothesis.

    Why should anyone investigate further once you've found clear evidence of fraud? I don't get it.
     
  19. AVCortez

    AVCortez Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2013
    Messages:
    390
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    Well you've spent the last 7 hours bickering with people on an internet forum, so in all honesty, do you have anything better to do?

    You have come into a topic and completely hijacked it. You haven't even been able to discuss the QM theories put fourth in the movie - not only because you haven't seen it, but you wouldn't understand them on a deep enough level to argue for or against them. You have denied his philosophical theory of conciousness without even knowing what it is. This is the behaviour of a person who has been indoctrinated.

    Anyway, the more time you spend validating the little you know, the less you'll learn.
     
    jazzabel likes this.
  20. 123456789

    123456789 Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    8,056
    Likes Received:
    4,545
    Here is a very good explanation of the uncertainty principle.

    https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Uncertainty_principle.html

    "In quantum physics, a particle is described by a wave packet, which gives rise to this phenomenon. Consider the measurement of the position of a particle. It could be anywhere. The particle's wave packet has non-zero amplitude, meaning the position is uncertain – it could be almost anywhere along the wave packet. To obtain an accurate reading of position, this wave packet must be 'compressed' as much as possible, meaning it must be made up of increasing numbers of sine wavesadded together. The momentum of the particle is proportional to the wavenumber of one of these waves, but it could be any of them. So a more precise position measurement – by adding together more waves – means the momentum measurement becomes less precise (and vice versa)."

    In short, momentum and position have a continuously inverse relationship, which cannot be simply described as "you know one or you know the other" (which sounds pretty boolean to me).That entirely ignores the concept of probability and that you can know "one a little and the other a little" as well (not to mention it entirely ignores planck's constant). When someone makes a statement like the one above in bold, it doesn't matter whether they knew the entire thing or not. The important part is, he/she does not see the detail important enough to mention(after all, it takes less words to say "sigma p * sigma x => h/2"), which is a huge no no when discussing science.

    Understand, this is not just a matter of semantics. Sure, if I asked you how tall that tree was, and you said seven feet, and I said, you're wrong, it's actually 7.0 feet, yeah, I'd be a jerk looking for trouble. In the case above, you can't say "well, I can know the position reasonably well and the momentum reasonably unwell and vice versa, which is effectively equivalent to knowing one and not the other," because you're trivializing the importance of "reasonably well" and "reasonably unwell," which in this context relate to the shape of the wave packet, you're probability density, or your number of eigenstates, however you want to look at it. All these things are fundamental in quantum mechanics.
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2014
    jazzabel likes this.
  21. AVCortez

    AVCortez Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2013
    Messages:
    390
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    A quick response to this - I haven't made up a single reason why you're not impressed. As far as I can tell you've contributed absolutely nothing in relation to his claims or hypothesis. Do you even know what his claims are? I dunno why I bother asking, you'll just google it, parrot whatever you find and then act as though I'm the fool for questioning your knowledge.
     
    jazzabel likes this.
  22. AVCortez

    AVCortez Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2013
    Messages:
    390
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    @GingerCoffee oh and I decided I'd actually go on a hunt for the film festivals, I honestly thought you were wrong and I'd be able to find them easiliy. I couldn't, but I did find this - so it was the film-maker who was scammed - you got it wrong.

    EDIT:
    Science of non-duality - this is another one where it was selected and screened.
    EDIT 2:
    Chile digital int. film festival - another one. This one all I did was google it and it was there.
    EDIT 3:
    Asia conciousness festival

    That's it, mystery solved. You can now in good conscience watch the film :). You're welcome.

    EDIT 4: I wish I had have done this sooner.
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2014
    jazzabel likes this.
  23. KaTrian

    KaTrian A foolish little beast. Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2013
    Messages:
    6,773
    Likes Received:
    5,383
    Location:
    Funland
    That was actually a useful conversation, I learned something new too. :D

    I've often noticed that finding the precise words to express a certain concept can be difficult when one has only a rudimentary understanding of it (regardless what the case was here in this thread, I'm just saying). This is particularly challenging when writing characters who are experts in fields the writer is not, but that's another topic, really.

    As for this topic, I haven't seen the documentary, but it seems interesting, so I could give it a try out of curiosity. Somehow, however, I'm reminded of people explaining a phenomenon they don't know how to study or explain with something that sorta-kinda makes sense (e.g. the plague must be a punishment from our gods, so let's sacrifice more virgins to appease them).
     
    123456789 and jazzabel like this.
  24. AVCortez

    AVCortez Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2013
    Messages:
    390
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    Thaaaat's not what it is at all. To be honest, I wasn't paying a tremendous of attention. I'm busy being house husband while on uni break so I was doing the washing while I was watching it (walking in and out of the room) so I'd miss a chunk then spend some time trying to figure out what he was on about... That said, I will rewatch it.

    I took it purely as philosophy, and really lost interest when he used an equation (that literally meant nothing to me) to explain choice. As a self proclaimed philosophy I find conciousness fascinating, partly because it's one of the few things that is completely unexplained by science. Philosophically this docco puts forward a pretty sound argument, but like everything within the field of conciousness it really is about what you believe more than it is about fact.

    For me, that's what people who haven't studied philosophy really struggle with. They get blinded by the need to know and become frustrated when a light is shone on the holes in our knowledge. Personally I see it as a beautiful thing... not knowing. If we knew, fiction would cease to exist. Art would lose what little place it still has in the world and we'd be reduced to the sum of our parts. Not knowing accompanied by deep contemplation and the exploration of potential theories can be as terrifying as it is amazing.

    Approach it with a critical but open mind and remember that you don't have to believe in it.... Now that I think about it, it's sort of like the planet in Avatar - everything working together as a single conciousness.
     
  25. jazzabel

    jazzabel Agent Provocateur Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Messages:
    4,266
    Likes Received:
    1,696
    I too learned lots, especially from the people here who actually understand QM on an academic level. I too, like so many others, am fascinated by it and sometimes feel like I'm this close to grasping it, but alas, QM concepts are so much more difficult to understand then some others. For example, even the most uneducated person can easily understand the 'plumbing' analogies with blood vessels, and thusly a mechanism for the heart attack or baloon angioplasty. But not all concepts are created equal. Krebs cycle, blood clotting pathway, how the ecg relates to intenal cardiac physiology, acid-base and renal function, are all much more abstract and then there are phenomena that takes people years of intense study to barely grasp the concepts. But I still think that all out of the box theorising, especially about more abstract and difficult concepts, if we are to take it seriously in any way, requires a solid knowledge base and one can't 'wing it'. So I don't understand laypersons arguing with an expert (or a much more learned person) about their field of expertise. It's just common sense that some people know more about something then us, we can choose to learn from them or not, but arguing with them requires a thorough understanding on a similar level, and if that is absent then so should be the arguing. There's nothing worse then an ignorant person opposing everything you say, whilst expecting that you teach them all that you already know, so that they can then what? Win an argument? In a flash undo the work of an entire branch of science? All the while forgetting that if they knew as much as you, chances are, they'd be agreeing anyway.

    On the other hand, that article from the first page with a morbid comic about an ageing physicist (which I think speaks volumes about some minds in science) mocks the lateral thinking between the sciences. The problem is too concrete an approach to their field, which in itself can form sort of a blind spot. It sometimes takes a completely different perspective to spur a new idea, a new direction. And even though lateral thinking mostly results in theories based on amusing misunderstanding of the material, it shouldn't be so smugly dismissed because it gives the opportunity for a high level discussion. Seeing some science nerd rudely mocking a senior mind, who perhaps at the end of their career has some wisdom to impart, even if their idea is wrong it still isn't meaningless to recognise a theme. It's that unpleasant nerd side to modern science that is the most off-putting thing for me.
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2014
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice