Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [regsaudioforum] Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance ofAbsolutes

Expand Messages
  • Richard Tuck
    Hi Tom In a chaotic system, like a coin toss, you can never know the initial conditions accurately enough to be predictive. In the UK, a weather system cross
    Message 1 of 29 , Sep 2, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Tom

      In a chaotic system, like a coin toss, you can never know the initial
      conditions accurately enough to be predictive. In the UK, a weather system
      cross roads, except in quiet spells, the nights forecast, is never useful
      every day to do any thing with the info tomorrow.

      Richard

      -----Original Message-----
      From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com]
      On Behalf Of Tom Mallin
      Sent: 02 September 2009 18:17
      To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance ofAbsolutes

      I wondered about the coin toss, too. But I don't think quantum physics
      ideas relegate individual coin toss outcomes to the unknowable.

      I think what Doug meant was that if you knew everything relevant that there
      was to know about the coin toss--the initial orientation of the coin, the
      exact vector forces applied to the coin by the tosser, the exact weightings
      of each side of the coin, the exact distances the coin would travel before
      coming to rest, the exact nature of the air currents and surfaces the coin
      would come into contact with before it came to rest, the exact affects of
      gravity and other forces acting on the coin besides the vector forces
      applied to the coin by the tosser, etc.--you could accurately predict the
      outcome of each toss. What might appear a "random" outcome would then not
      be random at all, but just the predictable result of exhaustive knowledge of
      all the relevant factors and enough smarts to understand how all the factors
      would interact.

      REG mentioned the weather a few days back as another example of something
      which isn't very predictable except in the short term. But, here again, IF
      you had exhaustive knowledge of all the factors and IF you had enough
      computational power to put all the factors together, accurate predictions
      could be made. I don't think anyone is hypothesizing that weather patterns
      are controlled at the micro quantum level. The problem with such complex
      systems is that, first, all the relevant factors may not have been
      identified, much less fully understood, and second, we don't yet have the
      computational power to accurately model the interplay of even all the known
      factors out beyond a relatively short time horizon. That does not mean,
      however, that the weather behaves randomly beyond two or ten days out. We
      might eventually have done enough scientific investigation of
      weather-influencing factors and have enough computational power at our
      disposal to make accurate long-range predictions.


      >>> "Ted Rook" <rooknrol@...> 9/2/2009 10:53 AM >>>
      Excuse my weak grasp of philosophy but I have an idea this is not true. The
      point about a
      coin is that it is symmetrical and has no property that predetermines the
      outcome, or put
      another way, heads and tails are the same, it is a pretty contrivance of our
      thinking to label
      them as different, it is only the picture on the face that is different.
      What happens if we use a
      so called double sided coin having no visual way to identify the two faces?

      OK I'm worn out from thinking, that's my limit of philosophy for the day!!

      Ted

      On 2 Sep 2009 at 7:44, douglasm6 wrote:

      If we really
      > understood and could express mathematically all the factors coming
      > into play as we toss a coin, we would be able to predict the outcome
      > with certainty.



      ------------------------------------

      Yahoo! Groups Links






      ------------------------------------

      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Fred
      It was thought an absolute marvel when atomic clocks of the past were predicted to be accurate to within one second per several thousand years. Now we have the
      Message 2 of 29 , Sep 2, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        It was thought an absolute marvel when atomic clocks of the past were predicted to be accurate to within one second per several thousand years.
        Now we have the reality of satellite navigation atomic clocks accurate beyond one second per 300,000 years. The latest Strontium atomic standard at JILA, University of Colorado is claimed accurate to one second per 300 Million years.

        This to me is material evidence of past developments controlling the future far beyond probability and since these are actual measured accuracies, something had to be predicted (then made) to prove such accuracy.

        :-)

        Fred.

        P.S. What a misused term "Quantum" is outwith science!


        --- On Wed, 2/9/09, regtas43 <regonaudio@...> wrote:

        From: regtas43 <regonaudio@...>
        Subject: [regsaudioforum] Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance of Absolutes
        To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Wednesday, 2 September, 2009, 5:17 PM

        Reality is only predictable in a statistical sense.

        This is the message of quantum mechanics.

        The idea that the past controls the future in any precise sense is not correct in physics as presently conceived,
        and it has not been thought of as correct for a long time.

        I really do not have time to summarize quantum mechanics in any detail. But in quantum mechanics(which is the bedrock of physics
        as presently conceived), God does play dice with the universe, even as Einstein said he famously did not believe He did. There is not even in principle a way to deduce the future precisely from the past.

        A typical example is radioactivity. In a given sample of radioactive
        material, the number of atoms that decay in a certain time interval can be predicted statistically. But the prediction is not exact--it is just "with certain probabilities the numbers will be blah blah".
        Moreover, WHICH atoms will decay is not knowable at all. Neither the exact number nor the identity is knowable.

        When one listens to a Geiger counter clicking away, the clicks
        not only sound as if elements of randomness were involved,
        elements of randomness ARE involved.

        Sorry to rain on what little is left of the 18th cdntury's mechanical universe's parade. but this is just how it is.

        (This must come a a considerable philosophical displacement to anyone previously unaware of it, but I assure everyone that this is not my
        purely personal view but the shared view of 21st century physics).

        REG

        --- In regsaudioforum@ yahoogroups. com, "Ted Rook" <rooknrol@.. .> wrote:
        >
        > Excuse my weak grasp of philosophy but I have an idea this is not true. The point about a
        > coin is that it is symmetrical and has no property that predetermines the outcome, or put
        > another way, heads and tails are the same, it is a pretty contrivance of our thinking to label
        > them as different, it is only the picture on the face that is different. What happens if we use a
        > so called double sided coin having no visual way to identify the two faces?
        >
        > OK I'm worn out from thinking, that's my limit of philosophy for the day!!
        >
        > Ted
        >
        > On 2 Sep 2009 at 7:44, douglasm6 wrote:
        >
        > If we really
        > > understood and could express mathematically all the factors coming
        > > into play as we toss a coin, we would be able to predict the outcome
        > > with certainty.
      • regtas43
        This is hardly an argument for events being predictable on the whole. Would people please read something somewhere about these things? The nonpredictive nature
        Message 3 of 29 , Sep 2, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          This is hardly an argument for events being predictable
          on the whole.

          Would people please read something somewhere about these things?

          The nonpredictive nature of quantum mechanical reality is
          one of the most fundamental--and widely publicized--aspects
          of physics in the last say 75 years.

          There is really no controversy about it at all , and there is little point in arguing about it--unless one wants to argue that
          contemporary physics is simply wrong.

          Separate from this but also fundamental is the theory of chaotic
          dynamical systems. Their unpredictability is not simply a question
          of not knowing the initial conditions accurately enough. No degree of accuracy is enough! It would be like trying to determine whether
          a measurement was an irrational or a rational number--no number of decimal places of accuracy would be enough to decide, since one can tell only by looking at the WHOLE infinite decimal.

          These things are interesting. But they take a little while to explain.
          And I am busy!

          Please read up on these elsewhere. They are widely discussed on line,
          as well as in standard books(especially quantum mechanics, which is
          very heavily documented--so many texts...) This is all standard science, not hard to find out about. But one ought to find out,
          not make stuff up! Making stuff up about something like quantum mechanics is hardly likely to lead to illumination--unless you personally are in contention for a Nobel prizein physics or the like,
          whatever you make up is not going to be a contribution to the field and is probably just wrong. No offense, but this is one of the deepest and most profoundly analyzed aspects of human thought. Casual
          impression are not going to contribute anything and will almost surely be incorrect.

          It would be pretty awful, come to think of it, if the work of lifetimes by some of the deepest thinkers of all time could be somehow
          reconstructed or added to by casual intuitions. Human effort ought to count for something--and it does.


          REG

          --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Fred <glenndriech@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > It was thought an absolute marvel when atomic clocks of the past were predicted to be accurate to within one second per several thousand years.
          > Now we have the reality of satellite navigation atomic clocks accurate beyond one second per 300,000 years. The latest Strontium atomic standard at JILA, University of Colorado is claimed accurate to one second per 300 Million years.
          >
          > This to me is material evidence of past developments controlling the future far beyond probability and since these are actual measured accuracies, something had to be predicted (then made) to prove such accuracy.
          >
          > :-)
          >
          > Fred.
          >
          > P.S. What a misused term "Quantum" is outwith science!
          >
          >
          > --- On Wed, 2/9/09, regtas43 <regonaudio@...> wrote:
          >
          > From: regtas43 <regonaudio@...>
          > Subject: [regsaudioforum] Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance of Absolutes
          > To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
          > Date: Wednesday, 2 September, 2009, 5:17 PM
          >
          > Reality is only predictable in a statistical sense.
          >
          > This is the message of quantum mechanics.
          >
          > The idea that the past controls the future in any precise sense is not correct in physics as presently conceived,
          > and it has not been thought of as correct for a long time.
          >
          > I really do not have time to summarize quantum mechanics in any detail. But in quantum mechanics(which is the bedrock of physics
          > as presently conceived), God does play dice with the universe, even as Einstein said he famously did not believe He did. There is not even in principle a way to deduce the future precisely from the past.
          >
          > A typical example is radioactivity. In a given sample of radioactive
          > material, the number of atoms that decay in a certain time interval can be predicted statistically. But the prediction is not exact--it is just "with certain probabilities the numbers will be blah blah".
          > Moreover, WHICH atoms will decay is not knowable at all. Neither the exact number nor the identity is knowable.
          >
          > When one listens to a Geiger counter clicking away, the clicks
          > not only sound as if elements of randomness were involved,
          > elements of randomness ARE involved.
          >
          > Sorry to rain on what little is left of the 18th cdntury's mechanical universe's parade. but this is just how it is.
          >
          > (This must come a a considerable philosophical displacement to anyone previously unaware of it, but I assure everyone that this is not my
          > purely personal view but the shared view of 21st century physics).
          >
          > REG
          >
          > --- In regsaudioforum@ yahoogroups. com, "Ted Rook" <rooknrol@ .> wrote:
          > >
          > > Excuse my weak grasp of philosophy but I have an idea this is not true. The point about a
          > > coin is that it is symmetrical and has no property that predetermines the outcome, or put
          > > another way, heads and tails are the same, it is a pretty contrivance of our thinking to label
          > > them as different, it is only the picture on the face that is different. What happens if we use a
          > > so called double sided coin having no visual way to identify the two faces?
          > >
          > > OK I'm worn out from thinking, that's my limit of philosophy for the day!!
          > >
          > > Ted
          > >
          > > On 2 Sep 2009 at 7:44, douglasm6 wrote:
          > >
          > > If we really
          > > > understood and could express mathematically all the factors coming
          > > > into play as we toss a coin, we would be able to predict the outcome
          > > > with certainty.
          >
        • $orabji
          REG, I am hardly one to challenge what you wrote, but I am curious what your view is in what is mentioned (link below) as to the suggested use of the Riemann
          Message 4 of 29 , Sep 2, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            REG,

            I am hardly one to challenge what you wrote, but I am curious what your view is in what is mentioned (link below) as to the suggested use of the Riemann hypothesis to extract order from chaotic systems such as quantum mechanics?

            http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_6_28_99.html

            Of course, since the Riemann hypothesis is formally unproven, perhaps it is just an interesting moot question.

            - John

            --- On Wed, 9/2/09, regtas43 <regonaudio@...> wrote:

            > From: regtas43 <regonaudio@...>
            > Subject: [regsaudioforum] Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance of Absolutes
            > To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
            > Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2009, 5:24 PM
            > This is hardly an argument for events
            > being predictable
            > on the whole.
            >
            > Would people please read something somewhere about these
            > things?
            >
            > The nonpredictive nature of quantum mechanical reality is
            > one of the most fundamental--and widely
            > publicized--aspects
            > of physics in the last say 75 years.
            >
            > There is really no controversy about it at all , and there
            > is  little point in arguing about it--unless one wants
            > to argue that
            > contemporary physics is simply wrong.
            >
            > Separate from this but also fundamental is the theory of
            > chaotic
            > dynamical systems. Their unpredictability is not simply a
            > question
            > of not knowing the initial conditions accurately enough. No
            > degree of accuracy is enough! It would be like trying to
            > determine whether
            > a measurement was an irrational or a rational number--no
            > number of decimal places of accuracy would be enough to
            > decide, since one can tell only by looking at the WHOLE
            > infinite decimal.
            >
            > These things are interesting. But they take a little while
            > to explain.
            > And I am busy!
            >
            > Please read up on these elsewhere. They are widely
            > discussed on line,
            > as well as in standard books(especially quantum mechanics,
            > which is
            > very heavily documented--so many texts...) This is all
            > standard science, not hard to find out about. But one ought
            > to find out,
            > not make stuff up! Making stuff up about something like
            > quantum mechanics is hardly likely to lead to
            > illumination--unless you personally are in contention for a
            > Nobel prizein physics or the like,
            > whatever you make up is not going to be a contribution to
            > the field and is probably just wrong. No offense, but this
            > is one of the deepest and most profoundly analyzed aspects
            > of human thought. Casual
            > impression are not going to contribute anything and will
            > almost surely be incorrect.
            >
            > It would be pretty awful, come to think of it, if the work
            > of lifetimes by some of the deepest thinkers of all time
            > could be somehow
            > reconstructed or added to by casual intuitions. Human
            > effort ought to count for something--and it does.
            >
            >
            > REG
          • Fred
            This is hardly an argument for events being predictable on the whole. I just stared at this sentence. Fred. ... From: regtas43 Subject:
            Message 5 of 29 , Sep 2, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              "This is hardly an argument for events being predictable
              on the whole."

              I just stared at this sentence.

              Fred.


              --- On Thu, 3/9/09, regtas43 <regonaudio@...> wrote:


              From: regtas43 <regonaudio@...>
              Subject: [regsaudioforum] Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance of Absolutes
              To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Thursday, 3 September, 2009, 1:24 AM


              This is hardly an argument for events being predictable
              on the whole.

              Would people please read something somewhere about these things?

              The nonpredictive nature of quantum mechanical reality is
              one of the most fundamental- -and widely publicized-- aspects
              of physics in the last say 75 years.

              There is really no controversy about it at all , and there is little point in arguing about it--unless one wants to argue that
              contemporary physics is simply wrong.

              Separate from this but also fundamental is the theory of chaotic
              dynamical systems. Their unpredictability is not simply a question
              of not knowing the initial conditions accurately enough. No degree of accuracy is enough! It would be like trying to determine whether
              a measurement was an irrational or a rational number--no number of decimal places of accuracy would be enough to decide, since one can tell only by looking at the WHOLE infinite decimal.

              These things are interesting. But they take a little while to explain.
              And I am busy!

              Please read up on these elsewhere. They are widely discussed on line,
              as well as in standard books(especially quantum mechanics, which is
              very heavily documented-- so many texts...) This is all standard science, not hard to find out about. But one ought to find out,
              not make stuff up! Making stuff up about something like quantum mechanics is hardly likely to lead to illumination- -unless you personally are in contention for a Nobel prizein physics or the like,
              whatever you make up is not going to be a contribution to the field and is probably just wrong. No offense, but this is one of the deepest and most profoundly analyzed aspects of human thought. Casual
              impression are not going to contribute anything and will almost surely be incorrect.

              It would be pretty awful, come to think of it, if the work of lifetimes by some of the deepest thinkers of all time could be somehow
              reconstructed or added to by casual intuitions. Human effort ought to count for something--and it does.

              REG

              --- In regsaudioforum@ yahoogroups. com, Fred <glenndriech@ ...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > It was thought an absolute marvel when atomic clocks of the past were predicted to be accurate to within one second per several thousand years.
              > Now we have the reality of satellite navigation atomic clocks accurate beyond one second per 300,000 years. The latest Strontium atomic standard at JILA, University of Colorado is claimed accurate to one second per 300 Million years.
              >
              > This to me is material evidence of past developments controlling the future far beyond probability and since these are actual measured accuracies, something had to be predicted (then made) to prove such accuracy.
              >
              > :-)
              >
              > Fred.
              >
              > P.S. What a misused term "Quantum" is outwith science!
              >
              >
              > --- On Wed, 2/9/09, regtas43 <regonaudio@ ...> wrote:
              >
              > From: regtas43 <regonaudio@ ...>
              > Subject: [regsaudioforum] Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance of Absolutes
              > To: regsaudioforum@ yahoogroups. com
              > Date: Wednesday, 2 September, 2009, 5:17 PM
              >
              > Reality is only predictable in a statistical sense.
              >
              > This is the message of quantum mechanics.
              >
              > The idea that the past controls the future in any precise sense is not correct in physics as presently conceived,
              > and it has not been thought of as correct for a long time.
              >
              > I really do not have time to summarize quantum mechanics in any detail. But in quantum mechanics(which is the bedrock of physics
              > as presently conceived), God does play dice with the universe, even as Einstein said he famously did not believe He did. There is not even in principle a way to deduce the future precisely from the past.
              >
              > A typical example is radioactivity. In a given sample of radioactive
              > material, the number of atoms that decay in a certain time interval can be predicted statistically. But the prediction is not exact--it is just "with certain probabilities the numbers will be blah blah".
              > Moreover, WHICH atoms will decay is not knowable at all. Neither the exact number nor the identity is knowable.
              >
              > When one listens to a Geiger counter clicking away, the clicks
              > not only sound as if elements of randomness were involved,
              > elements of randomness ARE involved.
              >
              > Sorry to rain on what little is left of the 18th cdntury's mechanical universe's parade. but this is just how it is.
              >
              > (This must come a a considerable philosophical displacement to anyone previously unaware of it, but I assure everyone that this is not my
              > purely personal view but the shared view of 21st century physics).
              >
              > REG
              >
              > --- In regsaudioforum@ yahoogroups. com, "Ted Rook" <rooknrol@ .> wrote:
              > >
              > > Excuse my weak grasp of philosophy but I have an idea this is not true. The point about a
              > > coin is that it is symmetrical and has no property that predetermines the outcome, or put
              > > another way, heads and tails are the same, it is a pretty contrivance of our thinking to label
              > > them as different, it is only the picture on the face that is different. What happens if we use a
              > > so called double sided coin having no visual way to identify the two faces?
              > >
              > > OK I'm worn out from thinking, that's my limit of philosophy for the day!!
              > >
              > > Ted
              > >
              > > On 2 Sep 2009 at 7:44, douglasm6 wrote:
              > >
              > > If we really
              > > > understood and could express mathematically all the factors coming
              > > > into play as we toss a coin, we would be able to predict the outcome
              > > > with certainty.
              >
            • regtas43
              Quantum mechanics is not chaotic in the sense I was using the word(chaotic dynamics). I ll have a look at this reference below when I have some time. But the
              Message 6 of 29 , Sep 2, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Quantum mechanics is not chaotic in the sense I was
                using the word(chaotic dynamics).

                I'll have a look at this reference below when I have some time.
                But the randomness of quantum mechanics cannot be "rescued" by mathematical methods. It is REAL, not a limitation of mathematical analysis but the nature of reality (to the extent that there is any reality left in the conventional sense of that word).


                Once and for all(I hope):
                the deterministic universe model in which the present is
                even in principle knowable enough to determine the future
                simply does not apply to the quantum mechanical world.
                Not even in principle does the present determine the future!!


                People may or may not care enough about this to look into
                it carefully. But I assure you this is correct.

                Events in quantum mechanics are often probabilistic. Think once
                more of the radioactive decay situation. Each atom of the mass has a certain probability of decay(the same one for each atom actually) in unit time
                and so, since there are a lot of atoms, one can make a quite accurate guess as to how many will decay in a given time interval.
                But this estimate is not exact--the actual number observed during the interval could be differen--
                and moreover one cannot predict WHICH atoms will decay, even if you get the number right from the probabilistic estimate(which is not guaranteed to occur by any means!).

                "Half life" does not mean that exactly half the atoms decay in that time. It just means that on average half of them decay in that time!!
                PROBABILITY!

                This is not a question of not knowing enough observations.
                Even if one isolated a single atom, one would have no way of making observations that would predict when the atom would decay. All
                one would know was the probability of its decaying in some given time interval, which probablilty would be larger if the time interval were chosen longer. The probability is just a probability.

                This truly is a random process. It does not just appear random because we do not have enough information. It IS random in truth.

                I cannot convince you of this informally. But I can assure yout that this is how it is. Radioactive atoms are not like little alarm clocks that will go off at a certain time,where one could see the time each was set to go off if one looked closely enough. This is not how it works.
                They are instead like a guy throwing dice until he gets a double six whereupon he decays. Except that dice throwing is not really so random, being mostly deterministic as part of the macroscopic world, where true randomness is low in level. But at the atomic level, the
                process is REALLY RANDOM. In Einstein's phrase, God really is playing dice with the Universe--in its microdetail at least.

                But of course microrandomness IMPLIES that randomness of non-micro-events can also occur:

                If you are listening to a Geiger counter clicking occasionally and decide to make a cup
                of tea if and only if the counter clicks in the next half a second,
                you are making a cup of tea or not truly at random. The tea making event is macroscopic, but now it too is random
                (cf Schrodingers cat online)

                NO ONE can observe the universe right now and know for sure whether you are going to make that cup of tea or not.

                Sorry, but that is the world as it is.

                REG

                PS I am a little surprised that this is unfamiliar , as it seems to be. This was the major philosophical shift of the 20th century as
                far as physics was concerned. Middle of 19th century say, deterministic universe, middle of 20 th century and thereafter,
                no more deterministic universe.



                --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, $orabji <orabji@...> wrote:
                >
                > REG,
                >
                > I am hardly one to challenge what you wrote, but I am curious what your view is in what is mentioned (link below) as to the suggested use of the Riemann hypothesis to extract order from chaotic systems such as quantum mechanics?
                >
                > http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_6_28_99.html
                >
                > Of course, since the Riemann hypothesis is formally unproven, perhaps it is just an interesting moot question.
                >
                > - John
                >
                > --- On Wed, 9/2/09, regtas43 <regonaudio@...> wrote:
                >
                > > From: regtas43 <regonaudio@...>
                > > Subject: [regsaudioforum] Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance of Absolutes
                > > To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                > > Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2009, 5:24 PM
                > > This is hardly an argument for events
                > > being predictable
                > > on the whole.
                > >
                > > Would people please read something somewhere about these
                > > things?
                > >
                > > The nonpredictive nature of quantum mechanical reality is
                > > one of the most fundamental--and widely
                > > publicized--aspects
                > > of physics in the last say 75 years.
                > >
                > > There is really no controversy about it at all , and there
                > > is  little point in arguing about it--unless one wants
                > > to argue that
                > > contemporary physics is simply wrong.
                > >
                > > Separate from this but also fundamental is the theory of
                > > chaotic
                > > dynamical systems. Their unpredictability is not simply a
                > > question
                > > of not knowing the initial conditions accurately enough. No
                > > degree of accuracy is enough! It would be like trying to
                > > determine whether
                > > a measurement was an irrational or a rational number--no
                > > number of decimal places of accuracy would be enough to
                > > decide, since one can tell only by looking at the WHOLE
                > > infinite decimal.
                > >
                > > These things are interesting. But they take a little while
                > > to explain.
                > > And I am busy!
                > >
                > > Please read up on these elsewhere. They are widely
                > > discussed on line,
                > > as well as in standard books(especially quantum mechanics,
                > > which is
                > > very heavily documented--so many texts...) This is all
                > > standard science, not hard to find out about. But one ought
                > > to find out,
                > > not make stuff up! Making stuff up about something like
                > > quantum mechanics is hardly likely to lead to
                > > illumination--unless you personally are in contention for a
                > > Nobel prizein physics or the like,
                > > whatever you make up is not going to be a contribution to
                > > the field and is probably just wrong. No offense, but this
                > > is one of the deepest and most profoundly analyzed aspects
                > > of human thought. Casual
                > > impression are not going to contribute anything and will
                > > almost surely be incorrect.
                > >
                > > It would be pretty awful, come to think of it, if the work
                > > of lifetimes by some of the deepest thinkers of all time
                > > could be somehow
                > > reconstructed or added to by casual intuitions. Human
                > > effort ought to count for something--and it does.
                > >
                > >
                > > REG
                >
              • Ken Holder
                ... As Hawking said, He s also doing it where you can t see it. Ken Holder Just a Poor, Old, Simple, Country, Music-Lover
                Message 7 of 29 , Sep 2, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 08:23 PM 9/2/2009, regtas43 wrote:

                  >process is REALLY RANDOM. In Einstein's phrase, God really is
                  >playing dice with the Universe--in its microdetail at least.


                  As Hawking said, "He's also doing it where you
                  can't see it."

                  Ken Holder
                  Just a Poor, Old, Simple, Country, Music-Lover
                • Richard Tuck
                  http://tinyurl.com/kow2qj http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory A couple of links to articles on chaos theory. Richard ... From:
                  Message 8 of 29 , Sep 3, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    http://tinyurl.com/kow2qj

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

                    A couple of links to articles on chaos theory.

                    Richard

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com]
                    On Behalf Of Fred
                    Sent: 03 September 2009 02:59
                    To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance of
                    Absolutes

                    "This is hardly an argument for events being predictable
                    on the whole."

                    I just stared at this sentence.

                    Fred.


                    --- On Thu, 3/9/09, regtas43 <regonaudio@...> wrote:


                    From: regtas43 <regonaudio@...>
                    Subject: [regsaudioforum] Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance of Absolutes
                    To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Thursday, 3 September, 2009, 1:24 AM


                    This is hardly an argument for events being predictable
                    on the whole.

                    Would people please read something somewhere about these things?

                    The nonpredictive nature of quantum mechanical reality is
                    one of the most fundamental- -and widely publicized-- aspects
                    of physics in the last say 75 years.

                    There is really no controversy about it at all , and there is little point
                    in arguing about it--unless one wants to argue that
                    contemporary physics is simply wrong.

                    Separate from this but also fundamental is the theory of chaotic
                    dynamical systems. Their unpredictability is not simply a question
                    of not knowing the initial conditions accurately enough. No degree of
                    accuracy is enough! It would be like trying to determine whether
                    a measurement was an irrational or a rational number--no number of decimal
                    places of accuracy would be enough to decide, since one can tell only by
                    looking at the WHOLE infinite decimal.

                    These things are interesting. But they take a little while to explain.
                    And I am busy!

                    Please read up on these elsewhere. They are widely discussed on line,
                    as well as in standard books(especially quantum mechanics, which is
                    very heavily documented-- so many texts...) This is all standard science,
                    not hard to find out about. But one ought to find out,
                    not make stuff up! Making stuff up about something like quantum mechanics is
                    hardly likely to lead to illumination- -unless you personally are in
                    contention for a Nobel prizein physics or the like,
                    whatever you make up is not going to be a contribution to the field and is
                    probably just wrong. No offense, but this is one of the deepest and most
                    profoundly analyzed aspects of human thought. Casual
                    impression are not going to contribute anything and will almost surely be
                    incorrect.

                    It would be pretty awful, come to think of it, if the work of lifetimes by
                    some of the deepest thinkers of all time could be somehow
                    reconstructed or added to by casual intuitions. Human effort ought to count
                    for something--and it does.

                    REG

                    --- In regsaudioforum@ yahoogroups. com, Fred <glenndriech@ ...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > It was thought an absolute marvel when atomic clocks of the past were
                    predicted to be accurate to within one second per several thousand years.
                    > Now we have the reality of satellite navigation atomic clocks accurate
                    beyond one second per 300,000 years. The latest Strontium atomic standard at
                    JILA, University of Colorado is claimed accurate to one second per 300
                    Million years.
                    >
                    > This to me is material evidence of past developments controlling the
                    future far beyond probability and since these are actual measured
                    accuracies, something had to be predicted (then made) to prove such
                    accuracy.
                    >
                    > :-)
                    >
                    > Fred.
                    >
                    > P.S. What a misused term "Quantum" is outwith science!
                    >
                    >
                    > --- On Wed, 2/9/09, regtas43 <regonaudio@ ...> wrote:
                    >
                    > From: regtas43 <regonaudio@ ...>
                    > Subject: [regsaudioforum] Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance of Absolutes
                    > To: regsaudioforum@ yahoogroups. com
                    > Date: Wednesday, 2 September, 2009, 5:17 PM
                    >
                    > Reality is only predictable in a statistical sense.
                    >
                    > This is the message of quantum mechanics.
                    >
                    > The idea that the past controls the future in any precise sense is not
                    correct in physics as presently conceived,
                    > and it has not been thought of as correct for a long time.
                    >
                    > I really do not have time to summarize quantum mechanics in any detail.
                    But in quantum mechanics(which is the bedrock of physics
                    > as presently conceived), God does play dice with the universe, even as
                    Einstein said he famously did not believe He did. There is not even in
                    principle a way to deduce the future precisely from the past.
                    >
                    > A typical example is radioactivity. In a given sample of radioactive
                    > material, the number of atoms that decay in a certain time interval can be
                    predicted statistically. But the prediction is not exact--it is just "with
                    certain probabilities the numbers will be blah blah".
                    > Moreover, WHICH atoms will decay is not knowable at all. Neither the exact
                    number nor the identity is knowable.
                    >
                    > When one listens to a Geiger counter clicking away, the clicks
                    > not only sound as if elements of randomness were involved,
                    > elements of randomness ARE involved.
                    >
                    > Sorry to rain on what little is left of the 18th cdntury's mechanical
                    universe's parade. but this is just how it is.
                    >
                    > (This must come a a considerable philosophical displacement to anyone
                    previously unaware of it, but I assure everyone that this is not my
                    > purely personal view but the shared view of 21st century physics).
                    >
                    > REG
                    >
                    > --- In regsaudioforum@ yahoogroups. com, "Ted Rook" <rooknrol@ .> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Excuse my weak grasp of philosophy but I have an idea this is not true.
                    The point about a
                    > > coin is that it is symmetrical and has no property that predetermines
                    the outcome, or put
                    > > another way, heads and tails are the same, it is a pretty contrivance of
                    our thinking to label
                    > > them as different, it is only the picture on the face that is different.
                    What happens if we use a
                    > > so called double sided coin having no visual way to identify the two
                    faces?
                    > >
                    > > OK I'm worn out from thinking, that's my limit of philosophy for the
                    day!!
                    > >
                    > > Ted
                    > >
                    > > On 2 Sep 2009 at 7:44, douglasm6 wrote:
                    > >
                    > > If we really
                    > > > understood and could express mathematically all the factors coming
                    > > > into play as we toss a coin, we would be able to predict the outcome
                    > > > with certainty.
                    >







                    ------------------------------------

                    Yahoo! Groups Links
                  • Richard Tuck
                    http://tinyurl.com/26y7q6 A primer on quantum mechanics RIchard ... From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                    Message 9 of 29 , Sep 3, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      http://tinyurl.com/26y7q6

                      A primer on quantum mechanics

                      RIchard

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com]
                      On Behalf Of Ken Holder
                      Sent: 03 September 2009 07:51
                      To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance of
                      Absolutes

                      At 08:23 PM 9/2/2009, regtas43 wrote:

                      >process is REALLY RANDOM. In Einstein's phrase, God really is
                      >playing dice with the Universe--in its microdetail at least.


                      As Hawking said, "He's also doing it where you
                      can't see it."

                      Ken Holder
                      Just a Poor, Old, Simple, Country, Music-Lover







                      ------------------------------------

                      Yahoo! Groups Links
                    • yipmangmeng
                      And I thought that quantum physics randomness applies only to sub-atomic particles and not to the human perception of reality in real life situation. best, Yip
                      Message 10 of 29 , Sep 3, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        And I thought that quantum physics randomness applies only to sub-atomic particles and not to the human perception of reality in real life situation.

                        best,
                        Yip

                        --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "regtas43" <regonaudio@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Quantum mechanics is not chaotic in the sense I was
                        > using the word(chaotic dynamics).
                        >
                        > I'll have a look at this reference below when I have some time.
                        > But the randomness of quantum mechanics cannot be "rescued" by mathematical methods. It is REAL, not a limitation of mathematical analysis but the nature of reality (to the extent that there is any reality left in the conventional sense of that word).
                        >
                        >
                        > Once and for all(I hope):
                        > the deterministic universe model in which the present is
                        > even in principle knowable enough to determine the future
                        > simply does not apply to the quantum mechanical world.
                        > Not even in principle does the present determine the future!!
                        >
                        >
                        > People may or may not care enough about this to look into
                        > it carefully. But I assure you this is correct.
                        >
                        > Events in quantum mechanics are often probabilistic. Think once
                        > more of the radioactive decay situation. Each atom of the mass has a certain probability of decay(the same one for each atom actually) in unit time
                        > and so, since there are a lot of atoms, one can make a quite accurate guess as to how many will decay in a given time interval.
                        > But this estimate is not exact--the actual number observed during the interval could be differen--
                        > and moreover one cannot predict WHICH atoms will decay, even if you get the number right from the probabilistic estimate(which is not guaranteed to occur by any means!).
                        >
                        > "Half life" does not mean that exactly half the atoms decay in that time. It just means that on average half of them decay in that time!!
                        > PROBABILITY!
                        >
                        > This is not a question of not knowing enough observations.
                        > Even if one isolated a single atom, one would have no way of making observations that would predict when the atom would decay. All
                        > one would know was the probability of its decaying in some given time interval, which probablilty would be larger if the time interval were chosen longer. The probability is just a probability.
                        >
                        > This truly is a random process. It does not just appear random because we do not have enough information. It IS random in truth.
                        >
                        > I cannot convince you of this informally. But I can assure yout that this is how it is. Radioactive atoms are not like little alarm clocks that will go off at a certain time,where one could see the time each was set to go off if one looked closely enough. This is not how it works.
                        > They are instead like a guy throwing dice until he gets a double six whereupon he decays. Except that dice throwing is not really so random, being mostly deterministic as part of the macroscopic world, where true randomness is low in level. But at the atomic level, the
                        > process is REALLY RANDOM. In Einstein's phrase, God really is playing dice with the Universe--in its microdetail at least.
                        >
                        > But of course microrandomness IMPLIES that randomness of non-micro-events can also occur:
                        >
                        > If you are listening to a Geiger counter clicking occasionally and decide to make a cup
                        > of tea if and only if the counter clicks in the next half a second,
                        > you are making a cup of tea or not truly at random. The tea making event is macroscopic, but now it too is random
                        > (cf Schrodingers cat online)
                        >
                        > NO ONE can observe the universe right now and know for sure whether you are going to make that cup of tea or not.
                        >
                        > Sorry, but that is the world as it is.
                        >
                        > REG
                        >
                        > PS I am a little surprised that this is unfamiliar , as it seems to be. This was the major philosophical shift of the 20th century as
                        > far as physics was concerned. Middle of 19th century say, deterministic universe, middle of 20 th century and thereafter,
                        > no more deterministic universe.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, $orabji <orabji@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > REG,
                        > >
                        > > I am hardly one to challenge what you wrote, but I am curious what your view is in what is mentioned (link below) as to the suggested use of the Riemann hypothesis to extract order from chaotic systems such as quantum mechanics?
                        > >
                        > > http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_6_28_99.html
                        > >
                        > > Of course, since the Riemann hypothesis is formally unproven, perhaps it is just an interesting moot question.
                        > >
                        > > - John
                        > >
                        > > --- On Wed, 9/2/09, regtas43 <regonaudio@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > > From: regtas43 <regonaudio@>
                        > > > Subject: [regsaudioforum] Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance of Absolutes
                        > > > To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                        > > > Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2009, 5:24 PM
                        > > > This is hardly an argument for events
                        > > > being predictable
                        > > > on the whole.
                        > > >
                        > > > Would people please read something somewhere about these
                        > > > things?
                        > > >
                        > > > The nonpredictive nature of quantum mechanical reality is
                        > > > one of the most fundamental--and widely
                        > > > publicized--aspects
                        > > > of physics in the last say 75 years.
                        > > >
                        > > > There is really no controversy about it at all , and there
                        > > > is  little point in arguing about it--unless one wants
                        > > > to argue that
                        > > > contemporary physics is simply wrong.
                        > > >
                        > > > Separate from this but also fundamental is the theory of
                        > > > chaotic
                        > > > dynamical systems. Their unpredictability is not simply a
                        > > > question
                        > > > of not knowing the initial conditions accurately enough. No
                        > > > degree of accuracy is enough! It would be like trying to
                        > > > determine whether
                        > > > a measurement was an irrational or a rational number--no
                        > > > number of decimal places of accuracy would be enough to
                        > > > decide, since one can tell only by looking at the WHOLE
                        > > > infinite decimal.
                        > > >
                        > > > These things are interesting. But they take a little while
                        > > > to explain.
                        > > > And I am busy!
                        > > >
                        > > > Please read up on these elsewhere. They are widely
                        > > > discussed on line,
                        > > > as well as in standard books(especially quantum mechanics,
                        > > > which is
                        > > > very heavily documented--so many texts...) This is all
                        > > > standard science, not hard to find out about. But one ought
                        > > > to find out,
                        > > > not make stuff up! Making stuff up about something like
                        > > > quantum mechanics is hardly likely to lead to
                        > > > illumination--unless you personally are in contention for a
                        > > > Nobel prizein physics or the like,
                        > > > whatever you make up is not going to be a contribution to
                        > > > the field and is probably just wrong. No offense, but this
                        > > > is one of the deepest and most profoundly analyzed aspects
                        > > > of human thought. Casual
                        > > > impression are not going to contribute anything and will
                        > > > almost surely be incorrect.
                        > > >
                        > > > It would be pretty awful, come to think of it, if the work
                        > > > of lifetimes by some of the deepest thinkers of all time
                        > > > could be somehow
                        > > > reconstructed or added to by casual intuitions. Human
                        > > > effort ought to count for something--and it does.
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > REG
                        > >
                        >
                      • robert.tyrka
                        ... wrote: But the randomness of quantum mechanics cannot be rescued by mathematical methods. It is REAL, not a limitation of mathematical analysis but the
                        Message 11 of 29 , Sep 3, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment


                          --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "regtas43" <regonaudio@...> wrote:  "But the randomness of quantum mechanics cannot be "rescued" by mathematical methods. It is REAL, not a limitation of mathematical analysis but the nature of reality (to the extent that there is any reality left in the conventional sense of that word)."

                          It's delightful to be able to agree with REG; it so seldom happens.  When I was in college--this was a generation after Heisenberg produced his famous/notorious Principle of Uncertainty, no one ever mentioned it.  Even my fellow students who were studying  Physics never mentioned it, and I suspect it wasn't being taught at the undergraduate level even then.

                          We were still all captives of the concept of the clockwork universe, against which religious philosophers like Thomas Aquinas had struggled mightily, but against which that perfectly ordered working of the universe was too rational to be discarded for such a messy concept of free will, which can't even be defined in any 'sensible' manner. 

                          The problem, I believe, is that the idea that there is no absolute predictability is utterly foreign to our common sense, just as the awareness of time is, though physicists tell us that time is a mere construct of how we humans think and has no outer reality (think of how dogs experience 'time').

                          From Wikipedia: "In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known. It is impossible to measure simultaneously both position and velocity of a microscopic particle with any degree of accuracy or certainty. This is not only a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but once the wave-nature of matter is accepted, the general properties of waves cause the uncertainty principle to be a statement about the nature of the system itself."

                          When first reading about this concept many years ago, my mind persisted in believing that such behavior took place because of the lack of preciseness of the observational tools.  It took quite a while before I could even attempt to grasp (and still don't because it is so counter-intuitive) the principle.

                          Since then, I've been reading about such weirdness as string theory, a multiplicity, perhaps even an infinity of universes, many 'folded' and interpenetrating each other, or the genesis of THIS universe from a 'singularity', which I believe is described as all the matter and energy in the universe compressed into the size of a dime, or an infinitely small mass, depending upon whose theory you love best.  At that point in my reading I have to change my bib because my open-mouthed reaction to such seeming absurdities has soaked it with idiot's drool.

                          Bob 

                           


                           

                        • ymm
                          A friend of mine having read many books on these subjects told me that the real world does not exist when there are no human to observe it, I told him if he
                          Message 12 of 29 , Sep 3, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            A friend of mine having read many books on these subjects told me that the real world does not exist when there are no human to observe it, I told him if he would like to close his eyes so that he couldn't see me ,therefore I didn't exist to him at that moment, so that I can pinch him hard on the nose. He chose not to .
                            Newtonian physics still works wonderfully on this earth ,even though it has been displaced by Einstein's physics and Quantum physics in postgraduate courses.
                             
                            best,
                            Yip

                            --- On Thu, 3/9/09, robert.tyrka <rtyrka@...> wrote:

                            From: robert.tyrka <rtyrka@...>
                            Subject: [regsaudioforum] Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance of Absolutes
                            To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                            Date: Thursday, 3 September, 2009, 10:27 PM

                             

                            --- In regsaudioforum@ yahoogroups. com, "regtas43" <regonaudio@. ..> wrote:  "But the randomness of quantum mechanics cannot be "rescued" by mathematical methods. It is REAL, not a limitation of mathematical analysis but the nature of reality (to the extent that there is any reality left in the conventional sense of that word)."

                            It's delightful to be able to agree with REG; it so seldom happens.  When I was in college--this was a generation after Heisenberg produced his famous/notorious Principle of Uncertainty, no one ever mentioned it.  Even my fellow students who were studying  Physics never mentioned it, and I suspect it wasn't being taught at the undergraduate level even then.
                            We were still all captives of the concept of the clockwork universe, against which religious philosophers like Thomas Aquinas had struggled mightily, but against which that perfectly ordered working of the universe was too rational to be discarded for such a messy concept of free will, which can't even be defined in any 'sensible' manner. 
                            The problem, I believe, is that the idea that there is no absolute predictability is utterly foreign to our common sense, just as the awareness of time is, though physicists tell us that time is a mere construct of how we humans think and has no outer reality (think of how dogs experience 'time').
                            From Wikipedia: "In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known. It is impossible to measure simultaneously both position and velocity of a microscopic particle with any degree of accuracy or certainty. This is not only a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but once the wave-nature of matter is accepted, the general properties of waves cause the uncertainty principle to be a statement about the nature of the system itself."
                            When first reading about this concept many years ago, my mind persisted in believing that such behavior took place because of the lack of preciseness of the observational tools.  It took quite a while before I could even attempt to grasp (and still don't because it is so counter-intuitive) the principle.
                            Since then, I've been reading about such weirdness as string theory, a multiplicity, perhaps even an infinity of universes, many 'folded' and interpenetrating each other, or the genesis of THIS universe from a 'singularity' , which I believe is described as all the matter and energy in the universe compressed into the size of a dime, or an infinitely small mass, depending upon whose theory you love best.  At that point in my reading I have to change my bib because my open-mouthed reaction to such seeming absurdities has soaked it with idiot's drool.
                            Bob 
                             

                             


                            New Email names for you!
                            Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail.
                            Hurry before someone else does!
                          • Tom Mallin
                            Although we do need Einstein s relativity to make our GPS units work: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html ... A friend of mine
                            Message 13 of 29 , Sep 3, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Although we do need Einstein's relativity to make our GPS units work:

                              http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

                              >>> ymm <yipmangmeng@...> 9/3/2009 9:48 AM >>>
                              A friend of mine having read many books on these subjects told me that the real world does not exist when there are no human to observe it, I told him if he would like to close his eyes so that he couldn't see me ,therefore I didn't exist to him at that moment, so that I can pinch him hard on the nose. He chose not to .
                              Newtonian physics still works wonderfully on this earth ,even though it has been displaced by Einstein's physics and Quantum physics in postgraduate courses.

                              best,
                              Yip

                              --- On Thu, 3/9/09, robert.tyrka <rtyrka@...> wrote:


                              From: robert.tyrka <rtyrka@...>
                              Subject: [regsaudioforum] Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance of Absolutes
                              To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                              Date: Thursday, 3 September, 2009, 10:27 PM








                              --- In regsaudioforum@ yahoogroups. com, "regtas43" <regonaudio@. ..> wrote: "But the randomness of quantum mechanics cannot be "rescued" by mathematical methods. It is REAL, not a limitation of mathematical analysis but the nature of reality (to the extent that there is any reality left in the conventional sense of that word)."

                              It's delightful to be able to agree with REG; it so seldom happens. When I was in college--this was a generation after Heisenberg produced his famous/notorious Principle of Uncertainty, no one ever mentioned it. Even my fellow students who were studying Physics never mentioned it, and I suspect it wasn't being taught at the undergraduate level even then.
                              We were still all captives of the concept of the clockwork universe, against which religious philosophers like Thomas Aquinas had struggled mightily, but against which that perfectly ordered working of the universe was too rational to be discarded for such a messy concept of free will, which can't even be defined in any 'sensible' manner.
                              The problem, I believe, is that the idea that there is no absolute predictability is utterly foreign to our common sense, just as the awareness of time is, though physicists tell us that time is a mere construct of how we humans think and has no outer reality (think of how dogs experience 'time').
                              From Wikipedia: "In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known. It is impossible to measure simultaneously both position and velocity of a microscopic particle with any degree of accuracy or certainty. This is not only a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but once the wave-nature of matter is accepted, the general properties of waves cause the uncertainty principle to be a statement about the nature of the system itself."
                              When first reading about this concept many years ago, my mind persisted in believing that such behavior took place because of the lack of preciseness of the observational tools. It took quite a while before I could even attempt to grasp (and still don't because it is so counter-intuitive) the principle.
                              Since then, I've been reading about such weirdness as string theory, a multiplicity, perhaps even an infinity of universes, many 'folded' and interpenetrating each other, or the genesis of THIS universe from a 'singularity' , which I believe is described as all the matter and energy in the universe compressed into the size of a dime, or an infinitely small mass, depending upon whose theory you love best. At that point in my reading I have to change my bib because my open-mouthed reaction to such seeming absurdities has soaked it with idiot's drool.
                              Bob


















                              New Email addresses available on Yahoo!
                              Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail.
                              Hurry before someone else does!
                              http://mail.promotions.yahoo.com/newdomains/sg/
                            • regtas43
                              Except that every time you turn on your audio system, the transistors only work because of quantum mechanics. Newtonian physics works for, say, playing tennis.
                              Message 14 of 29 , Sep 3, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Except that every time you turn on your audio system,
                                the transistors only work because of quantum mechanics.

                                Newtonian physics works for, say, playing tennis. But that is
                                because we are big,clumsy, not very observant creatures!

                                But as you read this on your computer, you are doing so only
                                by virtue of things that would not exist if the world were the world of classical physics.

                                REG


                                -- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, ymm <yipmangmeng@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > A friend of mine having read many books on these subjects told me that the real world does not exist when there are no human to observe it, I told him if he would like to close his eyes so that he couldn't see me ,therefore I didn't exist to him at that moment, so that I can pinch him hard on the nose. He chose not to .
                                > Newtonian physics still works wonderfully on this earth ,even though it has been displaced by Einstein's physics and Quantum physics in postgraduate courses.
                                >  
                                > best,
                                > Yip
                                >
                                > --- On Thu, 3/9/09, robert.tyrka <rtyrka@...> wrote:
                                >
                                >
                                > From: robert.tyrka <rtyrka@...>
                                > Subject: [regsaudioforum] Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance of Absolutes
                                > To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                > Date: Thursday, 3 September, 2009, 10:27 PM
                                >
                                >
                                >  
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > --- In regsaudioforum@ yahoogroups. com, "regtas43" <regonaudio@ ..> wrote:  "But the randomness of quantum mechanics cannot be "rescued" by mathematical methods. It is REAL, not a limitation of mathematical analysis but the nature of reality (to the extent that there is any reality left in the conventional sense of that word)."
                                >
                                > It's delightful to be able to agree with REG; it so seldom happens.  When I was in college--this was a generation after Heisenberg produced his famous/notorious Principle of Uncertainty, no one ever mentioned it.  Even my fellow students who were studying  Physics never mentioned it, and I suspect it wasn't being taught at the undergraduate level even then.
                                > We were still all captives of the concept of the clockwork universe, against which religious philosophers like Thomas Aquinas had struggled mightily, but against which that perfectly ordered working of the universe was too rational to be discarded for such a messy concept of free will, which can't even be defined in any 'sensible' manner. 
                                > The problem, I believe, is that the idea that there is no absolute predictability is utterly foreign to our common sense, just as the awareness of time is, though physicists tell us that time is a mere construct of how we humans think and has no outer reality (think of how dogs experience 'time').
                                > From Wikipedia: "In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known. It is impossible to measure simultaneously both position and velocity of a microscopic particle with any degree of accuracy or certainty. This is not only a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but once the wave-nature of matter is accepted, the general properties of waves cause the uncertainty principle to be a statement about the nature of the system itself."
                                > When first reading about this concept many years ago, my mind persisted in believing that such behavior took place because of the lack of preciseness of the observational tools.  It took quite a while before I could even attempt to grasp (and still don't because it is so counter-intuitive) the principle.
                                > Since then, I've been reading about such weirdness as string theory, a multiplicity, perhaps even an infinity of universes, many 'folded' and interpenetrating each other, or the genesis of THIS universe from a 'singularity' , which I believe is described as all the matter and energy in the universe compressed into the size of a dime, or an infinitely small mass, depending upon whose theory you love best.  At that point in my reading I have to change my bib because my open-mouthed reaction to such seeming absurdities has soaked it with idiot's drool.
                                > Bob 
                                >  
                                >
                                >  
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > New Email addresses available on Yahoo!
                                > Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail.
                                > Hurry before someone else does!
                                > http://mail.promotions.yahoo.com/newdomains/sg/
                                >
                              • Richard Tuck
                                Hi Yip You need to get down to the very small for quantum effects to be observed directly, although the effects when summed to the macro scale are important
                                Message 15 of 29 , Sep 3, 2009
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hi Yip

                                  You need to get down to the very small for quantum effects to be observed
                                  directly, although the effects when summed to the macro scale are important
                                  e.g. REG's example of transistors.

                                  You need to get to the very large or very fast to feel the effects of
                                  relativity.

                                  I used to work on multi-megawatt klystrons (electron tubes) used for early
                                  warning, the beam of electrons in this device is affected by relativistic
                                  effects. The electrons come from a cathode that is best described using
                                  quantum electronics.

                                  Exotic yes, but in everyday use and in the Cold War absolutely vital.

                                  Although in the UK it gave us 4 minutes to hide...........

                                  Richard

                                  -----Original Message-----
                                  From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com]
                                  On Behalf Of yipmangmeng
                                  Sent: 03 September 2009 13:25
                                  To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: [regsaudioforum] Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance of Absolutes

                                  And I thought that quantum physics randomness applies only to sub-atomic
                                  particles and not to the human perception of reality in real life situation.


                                  best,
                                  Yip

                                  --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "regtas43" <regonaudio@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Quantum mechanics is not chaotic in the sense I was
                                  > using the word(chaotic dynamics).
                                  >
                                  > I'll have a look at this reference below when I have some time.
                                  > But the randomness of quantum mechanics cannot be "rescued" by
                                  mathematical methods. It is REAL, not a limitation of mathematical analysis
                                  but the nature of reality (to the extent that there is any reality left in
                                  the conventional sense of that word).
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Once and for all(I hope):
                                  > the deterministic universe model in which the present is
                                  > even in principle knowable enough to determine the future
                                  > simply does not apply to the quantum mechanical world.
                                  > Not even in principle does the present determine the future!!
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > People may or may not care enough about this to look into
                                  > it carefully. But I assure you this is correct.
                                  >
                                  > Events in quantum mechanics are often probabilistic. Think once
                                  > more of the radioactive decay situation. Each atom of the mass has a
                                  certain probability of decay(the same one for each atom actually) in unit
                                  time
                                  > and so, since there are a lot of atoms, one can make a quite accurate
                                  guess as to how many will decay in a given time interval.
                                  > But this estimate is not exact--the actual number observed during the
                                  interval could be differen--
                                  > and moreover one cannot predict WHICH atoms will decay, even if you get
                                  the number right from the probabilistic estimate(which is not guaranteed to
                                  occur by any means!).
                                  >
                                  > "Half life" does not mean that exactly half the atoms decay in that time.
                                  It just means that on average half of them decay in that time!!
                                  > PROBABILITY!
                                  >
                                  > This is not a question of not knowing enough observations.
                                  > Even if one isolated a single atom, one would have no way of making
                                  observations that would predict when the atom would decay. All
                                  > one would know was the probability of its decaying in some given time
                                  interval, which probablilty would be larger if the time interval were chosen
                                  longer. The probability is just a probability.
                                  >
                                  > This truly is a random process. It does not just appear random because we
                                  do not have enough information. It IS random in truth.
                                  >
                                  > I cannot convince you of this informally. But I can assure yout that this
                                  is how it is. Radioactive atoms are not like little alarm clocks that will
                                  go off at a certain time,where one could see the time each was set to go off
                                  if one looked closely enough. This is not how it works.
                                  > They are instead like a guy throwing dice until he gets a double six
                                  whereupon he decays. Except that dice throwing is not really so random,
                                  being mostly deterministic as part of the macroscopic world, where true
                                  randomness is low in level. But at the atomic level, the
                                  > process is REALLY RANDOM. In Einstein's phrase, God really is playing dice
                                  with the Universe--in its microdetail at least.
                                  >
                                  > But of course microrandomness IMPLIES that randomness of non-micro-events
                                  can also occur:
                                  >
                                  > If you are listening to a Geiger counter clicking occasionally and decide
                                  to make a cup
                                  > of tea if and only if the counter clicks in the next half a second,
                                  > you are making a cup of tea or not truly at random. The tea making event
                                  is macroscopic, but now it too is random
                                  > (cf Schrodingers cat online)
                                  >
                                  > NO ONE can observe the universe right now and know for sure whether you
                                  are going to make that cup of tea or not.
                                  >
                                  > Sorry, but that is the world as it is.
                                  >
                                  > REG
                                  >
                                  > PS I am a little surprised that this is unfamiliar , as it seems to be.
                                  This was the major philosophical shift of the 20th century as
                                  > far as physics was concerned. Middle of 19th century say, deterministic
                                  universe, middle of 20 th century and thereafter,
                                  > no more deterministic universe.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, $orabji <orabji@> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > REG,
                                  > >
                                  > > I am hardly one to challenge what you wrote, but I am curious what your
                                  view is in what is mentioned (link below) as to the suggested use of the
                                  Riemann hypothesis to extract order from chaotic systems such as quantum
                                  mechanics?
                                  > >
                                  > > http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_6_28_99.html
                                  > >
                                  > > Of course, since the Riemann hypothesis is formally unproven, perhaps it
                                  is just an interesting moot question.
                                  > >
                                  > > - John
                                  > >
                                  > > --- On Wed, 9/2/09, regtas43 <regonaudio@> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > > From: regtas43 <regonaudio@>
                                  > > > Subject: [regsaudioforum] Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance of
                                  Absolutes
                                  > > > To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                  > > > Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2009, 5:24 PM
                                  > > > This is hardly an argument for events
                                  > > > being predictable
                                  > > > on the whole.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Would people please read something somewhere about these
                                  > > > things?
                                  > > >
                                  > > > The nonpredictive nature of quantum mechanical reality is
                                  > > > one of the most fundamental--and widely
                                  > > > publicized--aspects
                                  > > > of physics in the last say 75 years.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > There is really no controversy about it at all , and there
                                  > > > is  little point in arguing about it--unless one wants
                                  > > > to argue that
                                  > > > contemporary physics is simply wrong.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Separate from this but also fundamental is the theory of
                                  > > > chaotic
                                  > > > dynamical systems. Their unpredictability is not simply a
                                  > > > question
                                  > > > of not knowing the initial conditions accurately enough. No
                                  > > > degree of accuracy is enough! It would be like trying to
                                  > > > determine whether
                                  > > > a measurement was an irrational or a rational number--no
                                  > > > number of decimal places of accuracy would be enough to
                                  > > > decide, since one can tell only by looking at the WHOLE
                                  > > > infinite decimal.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > These things are interesting. But they take a little while
                                  > > > to explain.
                                  > > > And I am busy!
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Please read up on these elsewhere. They are widely
                                  > > > discussed on line,
                                  > > > as well as in standard books(especially quantum mechanics,
                                  > > > which is
                                  > > > very heavily documented--so many texts...) This is all
                                  > > > standard science, not hard to find out about. But one ought
                                  > > > to find out,
                                  > > > not make stuff up! Making stuff up about something like
                                  > > > quantum mechanics is hardly likely to lead to
                                  > > > illumination--unless you personally are in contention for a
                                  > > > Nobel prizein physics or the like,
                                  > > > whatever you make up is not going to be a contribution to
                                  > > > the field and is probably just wrong. No offense, but this
                                  > > > is one of the deepest and most profoundly analyzed aspects
                                  > > > of human thought. Casual
                                  > > > impression are not going to contribute anything and will
                                  > > > almost surely be incorrect.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > It would be pretty awful, come to think of it, if the work
                                  > > > of lifetimes by some of the deepest thinkers of all time
                                  > > > could be somehow
                                  > > > reconstructed or added to by casual intuitions. Human
                                  > > > effort ought to count for something--and it does.
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > > REG
                                  > >
                                  >




                                  ------------------------------------

                                  Yahoo! Groups Links
                                • Ted Rook
                                  But we are not hopeless, we learned by study to observe the relativistic effects, solar system and satellite orbital mechanics come to mind, perhaps the space
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Sep 4, 2009
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    But we are not hopeless, we learned by study to observe the relativistic effects, solar system
                                    and satellite orbital mechanics come to mind, perhaps the space program was some use
                                    after all?

                                    Ted

                                    On 3 Sep 2009 at 14:58, regtas43 wrote:

                                    > Except that every time you turn on your audio system,
                                    > the transistors only work because of quantum mechanics.
                                    >
                                    > Newtonian physics works for, say, playing tennis. But that is
                                    > because we are big,clumsy, not very observant creatures!
                                    >
                                    > But as you read this on your computer, you are doing so only
                                    > by virtue of things that would not exist if the world were the world
                                    > of classical physics.
                                    >
                                    > REG
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > -- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, ymm <yipmangmeng@...> wrote: > >
                                    > A friend of mine having read many books on these subjects told me that
                                    > the real world does not exist when there are no human to observe it, I
                                    > told him if he would like to close his eyes so that he couldn't see me
                                    > ,therefore I didn't exist to him at that moment, so that I can pinch
                                    > him hard on the nose. He chose not to . > Newtonian physics still
                                    > works wonderfully on this earth ,even though it has been displaced by
                                    > Einstein's physics and Quantum physics in postgraduate courses. >   >
                                    > best, > Yip > > --- On Thu, 3/9/09, robert.tyrka <rtyrka@...> wrote: >
                                    > > > From: robert.tyrka <rtyrka@...> > Subject: [regsaudioforum]
                                    > Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance of Absolutes > To:
                                    > regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com > Date: Thursday, 3 September, 2009,
                                    > 10:27 PM > > >   > > > > > > --- In regsaudioforum@ yahoogroups. com,
                                    > "regtas43" <regonaudio@ ..> wrote:  "But the randomness of quantum
                                    > mechanics cannot be "rescued" by mathematical methods. It is REAL, not
                                    > a limitation of mathematical analysis but the nature of reality (to
                                    > the extent that there is any reality left in the conventional sense of
                                    > that word)." > > It's delightful to be able to agree with REG; it so
                                    > seldom happens.  When I was in college--this was a generation after
                                    > Heisenberg produced his famous/notorious Principle of Uncertainty, no
                                    > one ever mentioned it.  Even my fellow students who were studying 
                                    > Physics never mentioned it, and I suspect it wasn't being taught at
                                    > the undergraduate level even then. > We were still all captives of the
                                    > concept of the clockwork universe, against which religious
                                    > philosophers like Thomas Aquinas had struggled mightily, but against
                                    > which that perfectly ordered working of the universe was too rational
                                    > to be discarded for such a messy concept of free will, which can't
                                    > even be defined in any 'sensible' manner.  > The problem, I believe,
                                    > is that the idea that there is no absolute predictability is utterly
                                    > foreign to our common sense, just as the awareness of time is, though
                                    > physicists tell us that time is a mere construct of how we humans
                                    > think and has no outer reality (think of how dogs experience 'time').
                                    > > From Wikipedia: "In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty
                                    > principle states that certain pairs of physical properties, like
                                    > position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision.
                                    > That is, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely
                                    > the other can be known. It is impossible to measure simultaneously
                                    > both position and velocity of a microscopic particle with any degree
                                    > of accuracy or certainty. This is not only a statement about the
                                    > limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities
                                    > of a system, but once the wave-nature of matter is accepted, the
                                    > general properties of waves cause the uncertainty principle to be a
                                    > statement about the nature of the system itself." > When first reading
                                    > about this concept many years ago, my mind persisted in believing that
                                    > such behavior took place because of the lack of preciseness of the
                                    > observational tools.  It took quite a while before I could even
                                    > attempt to grasp (and still don't because it is so counter-intuitive)
                                    > the principle. > Since then, I've been reading about such weirdness as
                                    > string theory, a multiplicity, perhaps even an infinity of universes,
                                    > many 'folded' and interpenetrating each other, or the genesis of THIS
                                    > universe from a 'singularity' , which I believe is described as all
                                    > the matter and energy in the universe compressed into the size of a
                                    > dime, or an infinitely small mass, depending upon whose theory you
                                    > love best.  At that point in my reading I have to change my bib
                                    > because my open-mouthed reaction to such seeming absurdities
                                    > has soaked it with idiot's drool. > Bob  >   > >   > > > > > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > > New Email addresses available on Yahoo! > Get the
                                    > Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail.
                                    > > Hurry before someone else does! >
                                    > http://mail.promotions.yahoo.com/newdomains/sg/ >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > ------------------------------------
                                    >
                                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                  • Tom Mallin
                                    Beyond the primer to interpretation of quantum mechanics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics And a critique of the various
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Sep 8, 2009
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Beyond the primer to interpretation of quantum mechanics:

                                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics

                                      And a critique of the various interpretations which argues that, whichever major interpretation one picks, quantum mechanics is a friend to belief in the supernatural.

                                      http://tinyurl.com/nbcvfb


                                      >>> "Richard Tuck" <rtuck@...> 9/3/2009 4:46 AM >>>
                                      http://tinyurl.com/26y7q6

                                      A primer on quantum mechanics

                                      RIchard

                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com]
                                      On Behalf Of Ken Holder
                                      Sent: 03 September 2009 07:51
                                      To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance of
                                      Absolutes

                                      At 08:23 PM 9/2/2009, regtas43 wrote:

                                      >process is REALLY RANDOM. In Einstein's phrase, God really is
                                      >playing dice with the Universe--in its microdetail at least.


                                      As Hawking said, "He's also doing it where you
                                      can't see it."

                                      Ken Holder
                                      Just a Poor, Old, Simple, Country, Music-Lover







                                      ------------------------------------

                                      Yahoo! Groups Links





                                      ------------------------------------

                                      Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    • Fred
                                      quantum mechanics is a friend to belief in the supernatural. http://tinyurl. com/nbcvfb What I find supernatural is Tom s determination to use this forum to
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Sep 8, 2009
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        "quantum mechanics is a friend to belief in the supernatural."
                                        http://tinyurl. com/nbcvfb

                                        What I find supernatural is Tom's determination to use this forum to spread the word
                                        http://tinyurl.com/nayuu9

                                        Fred.


                                        --- On Tue, 8/9/09, Tom Mallin <tmallin@...> wrote:


                                        From: Tom Mallin <tmallin@...>
                                        Subject: RE: [regsaudioforum] Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance of Absolutes
                                        To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                        Date: Tuesday, 8 September, 2009, 6:40 PM

                                        Beyond the primer to interpretation of quantum mechanics:

                                        http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Interpretation_ of_quantum_ mechanics

                                        And a critique of the various interpretations which argues that, whichever major interpretation one picks, quantum mechanics is a friend to belief in the supernatural.

                                        http://tinyurl. com/nbcvfb

                                        >>> "Richard Tuck" <rtuck@tuck-asc. demon.co. uk> 9/3/2009 4:46 AM >>>
                                        http://tinyurl. com/26y7q6

                                        A primer on quantum mechanics

                                        RIchard

                                        -----Original Message-----
                                        From: regsaudioforum@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:regsaudioforum@ yahoogroups. com]
                                        On Behalf Of Ken Holder
                                        Sent: 03 September 2009 07:51
                                        To: regsaudioforum@ yahoogroups. com
                                        Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance of
                                        Absolutes

                                        At 08:23 PM 9/2/2009, regtas43 wrote:

                                        >process is REALLY RANDOM. In Einstein's phrase, God really is
                                        >playing dice with the Universe--in its microdetail at least.

                                        As Hawking said, "He's also doing it where you
                                        can't see it."

                                        Ken Holder
                                        Just a Poor, Old, Simple, Country, Music-Lover

                                        ------------ --------- --------- ------

                                        Yahoo! Groups Links

                                        ------------ --------- --------- ------

                                        Yahoo! Groups Links
                                      • ymm
                                        When science and religion should not be mixed. ... From: Fred Subject: RE: [regsaudioforum] Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance of
                                        Message 19 of 29 , Sep 8, 2009
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          When science and religion should not be mixed.

                                          --- On Wed, 9/9/09, Fred <glenndriech@...> wrote:

                                          From: Fred <glenndriech@...>
                                          Subject: RE: [regsaudioforum] Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance of Absolutes
                                          To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                          Date: Wednesday, 9 September, 2009, 6:15 AM

                                           

                                          "quantum mechanics is a friend to belief in the supernatural. "
                                          http://tinyurl.. com/nbcvfb

                                          What I find supernatural is Tom's determination to use this forum to spread the word
                                          http://tinyurl. com/nayuu9

                                          Fred.

                                          --- On Tue, 8/9/09, Tom Mallin <tmallin@plrb. org> wrote:

                                          From: Tom Mallin <tmallin@plrb. org>
                                          Subject: RE: [regsaudioforum] Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance of Absolutes
                                          To: regsaudioforum@ yahoogroups. com
                                          Date: Tuesday, 8 September, 2009, 6:40 PM

                                          Beyond the primer to interpretation of quantum mechanics:

                                          http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Interpretation_ of_quantum_ mechanics

                                          And a critique of the various interpretations which argues that, whichever major interpretation one picks, quantum mechanics is a friend to belief in the supernatural.

                                          http://tinyurl. com/nbcvfb

                                          >>> "Richard Tuck" <rtuck@tuck- asc. demon.co. uk> 9/3/2009 4:46 AM >>>
                                          http://tinyurl. com/26y7q6

                                          A primer on quantum mechanics

                                          RIchard

                                          -----Original Message-----
                                          From: regsaudioforum@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:regsaudiofo rum@ yahoogroups. com]
                                          On Behalf Of Ken Holder
                                          Sent: 03 September 2009 07:51
                                          To: regsaudioforum@ yahoogroups. com
                                          Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance of
                                          Absolutes

                                          At 08:23 PM 9/2/2009, regtas43 wrote:

                                          >process is REALLY RANDOM. In Einstein's phrase, God really is
                                          >playing dice with the Universe--in its microdetail at least.

                                          As Hawking said, "He's also doing it where you
                                          can't see it."

                                          Ken Holder
                                          Just a Poor, Old, Simple, Country, Music-Lover

                                          ------------ --------- --------- ------

                                          Yahoo! Groups Links

                                          ------------ --------- --------- ------

                                          Yahoo! Groups Links



                                          New Email names for you!
                                          Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail.
                                          Hurry before someone else does!
                                        • regtas43
                                          Quantum mechanics surely has nothing to do with the supernatural. What is true is that people who do not understand it find it confusing. And some aspects are
                                          Message 20 of 29 , Sep 8, 2009
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Quantum mechanics surely has nothing to do with the supernatural.

                                            What is true is that people who do not understand it find it confusing. And some aspects are a bit confusing to people who
                                            do understand in terms of its intuitive meaning.

                                            But being confused is not a good reason, nor indeed any reason
                                            to appeal to supernatural explanations.

                                            I mean, are you going to decide that you need the supernatural
                                            because you do not know how to prove the Riemann Mapping Theorem
                                            (supposing that you do not--probably some of you do)?

                                            This makes no sense to me.

                                            REG



                                            --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Fred <glenndriech@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > "quantum mechanics is a friend to belief in the supernatural."
                                            > http://tinyurl. com/nbcvfb
                                            >
                                            > What I find supernatural is Tom's determination to use this forum to spread the word
                                            > http://tinyurl.com/nayuu9
                                            >
                                            > Fred.
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > --- On Tue, 8/9/09, Tom Mallin <tmallin@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > From: Tom Mallin <tmallin@...>
                                            > Subject: RE: [regsaudioforum] Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance of Absolutes
                                            > To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                            > Date: Tuesday, 8 September, 2009, 6:40 PM
                                            >
                                            > Beyond the primer to interpretation of quantum mechanics:
                                            >
                                            > http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Interpretation_ of_quantum_ mechanics
                                            >
                                            > And a critique of the various interpretations which argues that, whichever major interpretation one picks, quantum mechanics is a friend to belief in the supernatural.
                                            >
                                            > http://tinyurl. com/nbcvfb
                                            >
                                            > >>> "Richard Tuck" <rtuck@tuck-asc. demon.co. uk> 9/3/2009 4:46 AM >>>
                                            > http://tinyurl. com/26y7q6
                                            >
                                            > A primer on quantum mechanics
                                            >
                                            > RIchard
                                            >
                                            > -----Original Message-----
                                            > From: regsaudioforum@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:regsaudioforum@ yahoogroups. com]
                                            > On Behalf Of Ken Holder
                                            > Sent: 03 September 2009 07:51
                                            > To: regsaudioforum@ yahoogroups. com
                                            > Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance of
                                            > Absolutes
                                            >
                                            > At 08:23 PM 9/2/2009, regtas43 wrote:
                                            >
                                            > >process is REALLY RANDOM. In Einstein's phrase, God really is
                                            > >playing dice with the Universe--in its microdetail at least.
                                            >
                                            > As Hawking said, "He's also doing it where you
                                            > can't see it."
                                            >
                                            > Ken Holder
                                            > Just a Poor, Old, Simple, Country, Music-Lover
                                            >
                                            > ------------ --------- --------- ------
                                            >
                                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                            >
                                            > ------------ --------- --------- ------
                                            >
                                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                            >
                                          • Richard Tuck
                                            Once one becomes comfortable with quantum theory its outcomes become simple and understandable. The wordy religious distortions of QM proving the existence of
                                            Message 21 of 29 , Sep 10, 2009
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Once one becomes comfortable with quantum theory its outcomes become simple
                                              and understandable.

                                              The wordy religious distortions of QM proving the existence of a deity are a
                                              lot of waffle and fail the "so what" test in my view. Any compelling idea
                                              should be able to be described in principal on a sheet or two of paper and
                                              not require a bombast of quaslilegal arguments.

                                              Richard

                                              -----Original Message-----
                                              From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com]
                                              On Behalf Of Tom Mallin
                                              Sent: 08 September 2009 18:41
                                              To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                              Subject: RE: [regsaudioforum] Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance of
                                              Absolutes

                                              Beyond the primer to interpretation of quantum mechanics:

                                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics

                                              And a critique of the various interpretations which argues that, whichever
                                              major interpretation one picks, quantum mechanics is a friend to belief in
                                              the supernatural.

                                              http://tinyurl.com/nbcvfb


                                              >>> "Richard Tuck" <rtuck@...> 9/3/2009 4:46 AM >>>
                                              http://tinyurl.com/26y7q6

                                              A primer on quantum mechanics

                                              RIchard

                                              -----Original Message-----
                                              From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com]

                                              On Behalf Of Ken Holder
                                              Sent: 03 September 2009 07:51
                                              To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                              Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance of
                                              Absolutes

                                              At 08:23 PM 9/2/2009, regtas43 wrote:

                                              >process is REALLY RANDOM. In Einstein's phrase, God really is
                                              >playing dice with the Universe--in its microdetail at least.


                                              As Hawking said, "He's also doing it where you
                                              can't see it."

                                              Ken Holder
                                              Just a Poor, Old, Simple, Country, Music-Lover







                                              ------------------------------------

                                              Yahoo! Groups Links





                                              ------------------------------------

                                              Yahoo! Groups Links






                                              ------------------------------------

                                              Yahoo! Groups Links
                                            • regtas43
                                              Well said , and I absolutely agree. REG
                                              Message 22 of 29 , Sep 10, 2009
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Well said , and I absolutely agree.

                                                REG

                                                --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Tuck" <rtuck@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > Once one becomes comfortable with quantum theory its outcomes become simple
                                                > and understandable.
                                                >
                                                > The wordy religious distortions of QM proving the existence of a deity are a
                                                > lot of waffle and fail the "so what" test in my view. Any compelling idea
                                                > should be able to be described in principal on a sheet or two of paper and
                                                > not require a bombast of quaslilegal arguments.
                                                >
                                                > Richard
                                                >
                                                > -----Original Message-----
                                                > From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com]
                                                > On Behalf Of Tom Mallin
                                                > Sent: 08 September 2009 18:41
                                                > To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                                > Subject: RE: [regsaudioforum] Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance of
                                                > Absolutes
                                                >
                                                > Beyond the primer to interpretation of quantum mechanics:
                                                >
                                                > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics
                                                >
                                                > And a critique of the various interpretations which argues that, whichever
                                                > major interpretation one picks, quantum mechanics is a friend to belief in
                                                > the supernatural.
                                                >
                                                > http://tinyurl.com/nbcvfb
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > >>> "Richard Tuck" <rtuck@...> 9/3/2009 4:46 AM >>>
                                                > http://tinyurl.com/26y7q6
                                                >
                                                > A primer on quantum mechanics
                                                >
                                                > RIchard
                                                >
                                                > -----Original Message-----
                                                > From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com]
                                                >
                                                > On Behalf Of Ken Holder
                                                > Sent: 03 September 2009 07:51
                                                > To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                                > Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance of
                                                > Absolutes
                                                >
                                                > At 08:23 PM 9/2/2009, regtas43 wrote:
                                                >
                                                > >process is REALLY RANDOM. In Einstein's phrase, God really is
                                                > >playing dice with the Universe--in its microdetail at least.
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > As Hawking said, "He's also doing it where you
                                                > can't see it."
                                                >
                                                > Ken Holder
                                                > Just a Poor, Old, Simple, Country, Music-Lover
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > ------------------------------------
                                                >
                                                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > ------------------------------------
                                                >
                                                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > ------------------------------------
                                                >
                                                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                >
                                              • regtas43
                                                PS At the risk of carrying the issue on longer than need be, I would like to point out that there is really nothing contrary to common sense in the idea of
                                                Message 23 of 29 , Sep 10, 2009
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  PS At the risk of carrying the issue on longer than need be,
                                                  I would like to point out that there is really nothing
                                                  contrary to "common sense" in the idea of things happening
                                                  by probabilty.

                                                  Ganes of chance have been part of human life for a long time.
                                                  No one found it hard to accept that they were games of chance.
                                                  and the chance nature of life as a whole is an ancient idea: think of the opening words of Carmina Burana!

                                                  I do not think their is a culture without the idea of "good luck".!

                                                  What is actually new is the idea of exact causality , that the world is a machine with the future exactly determined by the past. This idea was speculated upon long ago, but it became a kind of practical doctrine only in the aftermath of Newtonian mechanics, combined with French "Rationalism". It is an orthodoxy, and a realtively new one, not a long standing part of the commonsense of the human species.

                                                  When Julius Caesar said "Alea iacta est"(the die is cast)
                                                  he meant just what we would mean: that something had been
                                                  set in motion the outcome of which was uncertain.

                                                  The physical world as probabilty is not really all that hard to take
                                                  The details take a bit of getting used to, but the basic idea
                                                  is easy to fit into daily life--the idea that things are probabalistic is already there, with its own temples even(the Las Vegas hotels, the casinos of Monte Carlo, the stock exhanges of the world).

                                                  Anyway, classical physics just does not suffice. If you are a classical person, what the heck is a transistor, a laser, or even..
                                                  a permanent magnet?

                                                  REG



                                                  --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "regtas43" <regonaudio@...> wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > Well said , and I absolutely agree.
                                                  >
                                                  > REG
                                                  >
                                                  > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Tuck" <rtuck@> wrote:
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Once one becomes comfortable with quantum theory its outcomes become simple
                                                  > > and understandable.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > The wordy religious distortions of QM proving the existence of a deity are a
                                                  > > lot of waffle and fail the "so what" test in my view. Any compelling idea
                                                  > > should be able to be described in principal on a sheet or two of paper and
                                                  > > not require a bombast of quaslilegal arguments.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Richard
                                                  > >
                                                  > > -----Original Message-----
                                                  > > From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com]
                                                  > > On Behalf Of Tom Mallin
                                                  > > Sent: 08 September 2009 18:41
                                                  > > To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                                  > > Subject: RE: [regsaudioforum] Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance of
                                                  > > Absolutes
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Beyond the primer to interpretation of quantum mechanics:
                                                  > >
                                                  > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics
                                                  > >
                                                  > > And a critique of the various interpretations which argues that, whichever
                                                  > > major interpretation one picks, quantum mechanics is a friend to belief in
                                                  > > the supernatural.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > http://tinyurl.com/nbcvfb
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > > >>> "Richard Tuck" <rtuck@> 9/3/2009 4:46 AM >>>
                                                  > > http://tinyurl.com/26y7q6
                                                  > >
                                                  > > A primer on quantum mechanics
                                                  > >
                                                  > > RIchard
                                                  > >
                                                  > > -----Original Message-----
                                                  > > From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com]
                                                  > >
                                                  > > On Behalf Of Ken Holder
                                                  > > Sent: 03 September 2009 07:51
                                                  > > To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                                  > > Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] Slightly off-topic: Re: Importance of
                                                  > > Absolutes
                                                  > >
                                                  > > At 08:23 PM 9/2/2009, regtas43 wrote:
                                                  > >
                                                  > > >process is REALLY RANDOM. In Einstein's phrase, God really is
                                                  > > >playing dice with the Universe--in its microdetail at least.
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > > As Hawking said, "He's also doing it where you
                                                  > > can't see it."
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Ken Holder
                                                  > > Just a Poor, Old, Simple, Country, Music-Lover
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > > ------------------------------------
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > > ------------------------------------
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > > ------------------------------------
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.