Two slit experiment
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Apollo Mission: a Giant Leap Discrediting Greenhouse Gas Theory
Next: Misconceptions from bad use of language was Re: Two slit experiment
From: Sam Wormley on 5 Jun 2010 10:11 On 6/5/10 8:08 AM, Huang wrote: > ...because the rocks are stationary with respect to each > other...they can be regarded as being entangled. > Educate yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
From: Huang on 5 Jun 2010 20:12 On Jun 5, 9:16 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/5/10 8:59 AM, Huang wrote: > > > > > Western science has a very heavy bias in favor of seeking models which > > are deterministic... > > One of the biggest pillars of modern physics is anything but > deterministic! > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics Yes - I know. Probability theory based on random variables. But you didn't address the indeterminacy (ahem, generality) which is inherent to the very concept of "number". Why should I believe that probability theory is the only source of indeterminacy when numbers themselves are so nondescript (ahem, "general) that they might safely be regarded as employing indeterminacy themselves.
From: Sam Wormley on 5 Jun 2010 21:28 On 6/5/10 7:12 PM, Huang wrote: > On Jun 5, 9:16 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6/5/10 8:59 AM, Huang wrote: >> >> >> >>> Western science has a very heavy bias in favor of seeking models which >>> are deterministic... >> >> One of the biggest pillars of modern physics is anything but >> deterministic! >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics > > > Yes - I know. Probability theory based on random variables. But you > didn't address the indeterminacy (ahem, generality) which is inherent > to the very concept of "number". > > Why should I believe that probability theory is the only source of > indeterminacy when numbers themselves are so nondescript (ahem, > "general) that they might safely be regarded as employing > indeterminacy themselves. > You are not making any sense, man!
From: Huang on 5 Jun 2010 22:32 On Jun 5, 8:28 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/5/10 7:12 PM, Huang wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 5, 9:16 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 6/5/10 8:59 AM, Huang wrote: > > >>> Western science has a very heavy bias in favor of seeking models which > >>> are deterministic... > > >> One of the biggest pillars of modern physics is anything but > >> deterministic! > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics > > > Yes - I know. Probability theory based on random variables. But you > > didn't address the indeterminacy (ahem, generality) which is inherent > > to the very concept of "number". > > > Why should I believe that probability theory is the only source of > > indeterminacy when numbers themselves are so nondescript (ahem, > > "general) that they might safely be regarded as employing > > indeterminacy themselves. > > You are not making any sense, man!- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - lol Sam, now you're talking like an old hippie :) A number is a way to distinguish various quantities, but because the concept of number can be applied to "anything in general" one could argue that it is indeterminate as to exactly what numbers are quantifying unless you specify this in some particular context, but those particular contexts are of no use to someone who is trying to define what numbers are because of course mathematicians love the power of "generality". There does seem to be a connection to indeterminacy, but this is completely ignored on philosophical grounds and reasons relating more to tradition than any sensible reason.
From: Sam Wormley on 5 Jun 2010 22:59
On 6/5/10 9:32 PM, Huang wrote: > On Jun 5, 8:28 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6/5/10 7:12 PM, Huang wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 5, 9:16 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 6/5/10 8:59 AM, Huang wrote: >> >>>>> Western science has a very heavy bias in favor of seeking models which >>>>> are deterministic... >> >>>> One of the biggest pillars of modern physics is anything but >>>> deterministic! >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics >> >>> Yes - I know. Probability theory based on random variables. But you >>> didn't address the indeterminacy (ahem, generality) which is inherent >>> to the very concept of "number". >> >>> Why should I believe that probability theory is the only source of >>> indeterminacy when numbers themselves are so nondescript (ahem, >>> "general) that they might safely be regarded as employing >>> indeterminacy themselves. >> >> You are not making any sense, man!- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > > lol Sam, now you're talking like an old hippie :) > > A number is a way to distinguish various quantities, but because the > concept of number can be applied to "anything in general" one could > argue that it is indeterminate as to exactly what numbers are > quantifying unless you specify this in some particular context, but > those particular contexts are of no use to someone who is trying to > define what numbers are because of course mathematicians love the > power of "generality". > > There does seem to be a connection to indeterminacy, but this is > completely ignored on philosophical grounds and reasons relating more > to tradition than any sensible reason. > Mathematics is the working language of physics, Huang. If you get confused about the uses of mathematics in the physical sciences, stick with philosophy. That would make these the wrong newsgroups for you. -Sam |