 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Of course, maybe that's just anthropogenic. If the universe didn't work
> consistently, I'd (wild-ass) guess that it's likely that life capable of
> wondering about it wouldn't have evolved.
I'm sure if you asked a physicist specialized in quantum mechanics he
would say that life would probably not be possible without the wild
uncertainties of quantum phenomena (such as particles physically being
at multiple locations at the same time).
Yet, even the counter-intuitive quantum phenomena can be subject to
mathematical formulation.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> And the thing about QED is there doesn't seem to be math at the bottom
> level - it's random on an event-by-event basis.
My personal theory is that it *isn't* random - we just can't see it well
enough to find a pattern. (As in, it's not possible to make the actual
measurements that would reveal a pattern.) But hey, what do I know?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Yet, even the counter-intuitive quantum phenomena can be subject to
> mathematical formulation.
A closed set can also be an open set.
It is possible to construct a 2D set of points such that each point
simultaneously touches three other connected sets.
A propper class is a collection of things larger than any possible set.
Mathematics is *littered* with utterly counter-intuitive things. ;-)
[And people wonder why mathematicians are so pedantic about everything.
If YOU worked with something so unpredictable, you'd be cautious too...]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> A couple of remarks:
> - According to that most reliable source of wikipedia, it was Truman
> that fired MacArthur for disagreeing with him. So I would be surprised
> if he did not try to portrait him as an idiot. That is irrespective of
> whether he was right or wrong. Simply the case that a president fires a
> famous general dictates that the president should convince the public
> that he was much better equipped than the general.
Basically, it all came down to the fact that MacArthur wanted to go out,
fight, and win WWIII.
Truman did everything in his power to avoid an actual war - he thought
two World Wars were more than enough, and would rather see the conflict
played out on a smaller scale. The Korean War (and, eventually, the
Vietnam War) were direct results of his policies in that respect, as was
the Cold War in general.
People blame our leadership for those confrontations, but fail to
realize that the alternative was all out war on a scale similar to, if
not larger than, WWII.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> My personal theory is that it *isn't* random - we just can't see it well
> enough to find a pattern. (As in, it's not possible to make the actual
> measurements that would reveal a pattern.) But hey, what do I know?
No, you can actually measure that isn't the case. Look up "Bell's
Inequality."
Basically, if you measure A, you get W or X. If you measure B, you get Y
or Z. If there was some variable C that told you which you got, you'd
get a distribution of W,X,Y,Z when you measured some As and some Bs
that's different from what you really get. Hence, there's no actual
"hidden variable", not even one that you theoretically can't measure.
It's complex and ugly, but if you actually find a decent tutorial, it
makes sense.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I'm sure if you asked a physicist specialized in quantum mechanics he
> would say that life would probably not be possible without the wild
> uncertainties of quantum phenomena (such as particles physically being
> at multiple locations at the same time).
I imagine that life based on DNA and chemistry and such wouldn't work
the same way. I was talking more about if (say) the universe worked the
way you thought it should, or there really were demons and spirits that
could make fundamental changes to how the world works, etc.
(BTW, you don't get particles being physically present at multiple
locations. If you actually measure where they are, they're only in one
place.)
> Yet, even the counter-intuitive quantum phenomena can be subject to
> mathematical formulation.
Only statistically speaking, tho. Nobody has figured out what causes it
to have the properties they have, even tho (surprisingly enough) it's
the only way you can get a mathematically consistent treatment. In a bit
more detail, QED is based on probabilities. The only probabilities that
work are 1-dimensional probabilities (i.e., real numbers, and =
multiply, or = add), and 2-dimensional probabilities (i.e., complex
numbers as probabilities). I believe it's been mathematically proven
that you can't have something with the properties of "probability" that
has more than 2 dimensions. QED has two-dimensional probabilities for
events, and when you average enough of them you get one-dimensional
probabilities for events.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> exorbitant sums demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem
> never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real."
> -- General Douglas MacArthur, 1957
That doesn't really sound like a MacArthur quote. More like something
Truman said to MacArthur. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote
> Warp wrote:
> > I would say that mathematics can always be used to represent reality
> > when put in the proper context.
> The fascinating thing to wonder about is ... why is this so?
Easy. Mathematics can represent *anything*, since you get to make up your
own axioms.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Mathematics is *littered* with utterly counter-intuitive things. ;-)
Ever heard of the Banach-Tarski paradox? A solid ball in 3-dimensional
space can be split into several non-overlapping pieces, which can then be
put back together in a different way to yield two identical copies of
the original ball.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> (BTW, you don't get particles being physically present at multiple
> locations. If you actually measure where they are, they're only in one
> place.)
But their simultaneous location in more than one place can be inferred
by other side-effects. For example a single electron can pass through two
slits at the same time, interfering with itself after doing so.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
