Thanks for the reply, Mike.
So is the Schroedinger's Cat thing just a way to explain quantum mechanics? It's just a teaching tool, right? It's not really saying anything about a real cat being alive or dead in a box, right? The same thing with your coin analogy, right? If you consider universes branching off and shit I could see that the coin is both heads and tails when you take that into consideration but in the our universe isn't the coin one or the other?
Also, yeah, when anyone says that everything has been predetermined since the Big Bang they're making a bold claim. It feels like, even if no one knew anything about quantum mechanics, they would still not know shit, I feel. It's just such an assertion without much proof to back it up. It's like an gross extrapolation of good some good science to the point that it's been extrapolated so much no one knows their ass from their elbow anymore.
And my last questions for now:
How does observing it affect it? Why is an observer so important? If a dolphin or ant observed something, would the same thing happen as when a human did? Why would these things on a quantum level "choose" to act differently when being observed? How would they "know" they're being observed?
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Free Will and Quantum Mechanics
On the level of the brain, neurons are firing constantly and there is a lot going on. Imagine that you had the universes most sophisticated computer. If you could simulate every particle exactly in a system surrounding a single person, you would in theory be able to predict what would happen to that person and what 'decisions' that person would make. If you believe this is true, you are a determinist. This is what people mean (I think) when they say that free will is an illusion: Everything is determined based on molecular interactions that are part of a long chain of events set in motion since the big bang over which we have no control.
This is incorrect, however, because of quantum mechanics. On the quantum level, things are not predetermined. In fact, until they are observed or measured in some way, they aren't determined at all. It is because of this that I think the whole 'free will is an illusion' argument is bullshit.
Consider the following as a metaphor for something on the quantum level.
Let's say there is an event with two possible outcomes, like a coin toss. You throw the coin in the air and it lands in a bucket. Without looking at the coin, is it heads or tails?
The Schrödinger's cat thought experiment is saying that it is both (again, its a metaphor. It isn't actually both, but something on the quantum level would be). It is both heads and tails until someone looks into the bucket. The very act of observing the coin has the effect of making it either heads or tails. This is because when we measure things on the quantum level we affect them directly.
Some people think that as soon as you look into the metaphorical bucket, there is a branch and two universes are formed. In one universe the coin is heads, and in another, the coin is tails. This theory says that everything that can happen, does happen in some universe.
Please let me know if I got something wrong here or if you have any more questions.
This is incorrect, however, because of quantum mechanics. On the quantum level, things are not predetermined. In fact, until they are observed or measured in some way, they aren't determined at all. It is because of this that I think the whole 'free will is an illusion' argument is bullshit.
Consider the following as a metaphor for something on the quantum level.
Let's say there is an event with two possible outcomes, like a coin toss. You throw the coin in the air and it lands in a bucket. Without looking at the coin, is it heads or tails?
The Schrödinger's cat thought experiment is saying that it is both (again, its a metaphor. It isn't actually both, but something on the quantum level would be). It is both heads and tails until someone looks into the bucket. The very act of observing the coin has the effect of making it either heads or tails. This is because when we measure things on the quantum level we affect them directly.
Some people think that as soon as you look into the metaphorical bucket, there is a branch and two universes are formed. In one universe the coin is heads, and in another, the coin is tails. This theory says that everything that can happen, does happen in some universe.
Please let me know if I got something wrong here or if you have any more questions.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Free Will
There's a lot of talk about the nature of free will as it pertains to quantum mechanics, etc.
If the universe is causally closed then there is no free will. Determinism reigns.
If quantum mechanics randomness is true, then indeterminism rules.
The thing is...so ...what is the thought process here? What does this have to do with our brains directly? Let me try to point out the timeline. So there's a bunch of tiny particles coming together either randomly or not and you have to take into account things happening on the quantum level. Then there's the particles that make up our brains. However, what do these particles have to do with our choices in the world? These particles don't have a mind of their own. It's kind of a sum is greater than the parts type of thing, isn't it?
What in the living fuck do these random particles coming together in a causally closed world have ANYTHING to do with me deciding to have cheese on my hamburger or not? I really do not get this whole free will discourse in the slightest. Do you think that I just have the illusion of free will? What does "causally closed universe" have anything to do with my personal preferences and tastes? Sure, I'm human and I prefer eating beef to eating coral and perhaps the universe "decided" that preference for me but other than that, what does all this talk of free will and its non-existence have to do with me choosing to do what I want? I often feel like I'm choosing to do what I want. Is the "what I want" part the thing that's "causally closed" ? Someone please explain this to me.
If you don't believe in free will but then all of a sudden got it what in the fuck would you do differently from now?
If the universe is causally closed then there is no free will. Determinism reigns.
If quantum mechanics randomness is true, then indeterminism rules.
The thing is...so ...what is the thought process here? What does this have to do with our brains directly? Let me try to point out the timeline. So there's a bunch of tiny particles coming together either randomly or not and you have to take into account things happening on the quantum level. Then there's the particles that make up our brains. However, what do these particles have to do with our choices in the world? These particles don't have a mind of their own. It's kind of a sum is greater than the parts type of thing, isn't it?
What in the living fuck do these random particles coming together in a causally closed world have ANYTHING to do with me deciding to have cheese on my hamburger or not? I really do not get this whole free will discourse in the slightest. Do you think that I just have the illusion of free will? What does "causally closed universe" have anything to do with my personal preferences and tastes? Sure, I'm human and I prefer eating beef to eating coral and perhaps the universe "decided" that preference for me but other than that, what does all this talk of free will and its non-existence have to do with me choosing to do what I want? I often feel like I'm choosing to do what I want. Is the "what I want" part the thing that's "causally closed" ? Someone please explain this to me.
If you don't believe in free will but then all of a sudden got it what in the fuck would you do differently from now?
Schroedinger's Cat
How do we go from not knowing something to a cat being in a state of quantum superposition?
Just because I haven't observed something doesn't make it alive or dead. It just makes me unaware of it. My observance on things isn't in and of itself a kind of god. I don't get this at all.
Just because I haven't observed something doesn't make it alive or dead. It just makes me unaware of it. My observance on things isn't in and of itself a kind of god. I don't get this at all.
Monday, November 9, 2009
My Questions
Somebody help me out.
1.) Why is going faster than light impossible? There's no work-around?
2.) How exactly could there be other universes? How does that work?
3.) When they explain M-Theory on documentaries, they also show these sheets rippling and these sheets represent different universes. I just want to know what is that space in between the sheets? Is that the intergalactic medium again? Some sort of hyperspace medium void thing? What is that supposed to be?
1.) Why is going faster than light impossible? There's no work-around?
2.) How exactly could there be other universes? How does that work?
3.) When they explain M-Theory on documentaries, they also show these sheets rippling and these sheets represent different universes. I just want to know what is that space in between the sheets? Is that the intergalactic medium again? Some sort of hyperspace medium void thing? What is that supposed to be?
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Martian Landscapes
These are incredible.
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/11/martian_landscapes.html
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/11/martian_landscapes.html
Monday, October 26, 2009
Will E.T. Look Like Us?
First watch the video. I'll wait.
My reaction? FACE PALM. This is a horrible argument! He says that because we are so rare, that it would be statistically impossible for intelligent life to form on another planet that is also a bipedal primate.
So after the evolution of hundreds of millions of species on earth, only one of them turned into a bipedal primate. And in the blink of an eye (in evolution time) that species became intelligent. Hmmmm. Could the two be related? For all we know bipedalism is a prerequisite of intelligence!
Look at it the other way. One could argue that bipedal primates are rare because we are the only ones, but we are just the first ones. Isn't it also clear that the first became intelligent, and we haven't been around long enough to see any more show up? The first of anything is rare by definition!
Here's a thought experiment. What prerequisites could there be for intelligent space faring life that we could communicate with. Let's assume a planet like ours with similar foundations of life (carbon based, etc).
1. It will NOT be underwater. Why? Because they can't use fire. Without fire there isn't anywhere to go. Feel free to speculate why I could be wrong here, but I just don't see it happening.
2. Next we need a species that can manipulate objects with great versatility. Candidates include primates, some birds, and elephants (dolphins and octopi don't count: see #1). Birds use their beak and legs, and elephants use their trunk. Two arms with many digits each makes more sense economically. Am I biased? Of course, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Evolutionary Biologist Ernst Mayr said: “Nothing demonstrates the improbability of the origin of high intelligence better than the millions of phyletic lineages that failed to achieve it.”
But this is looking at it all wrong. Intelligence isn't a goal of evolution. There is no goal! You can't fail without a goal. Intelligence is just an arbitrary feature of a single species. You could pick any species out there and find something unique to it that has never evolved in any other species and say the exact same thing (and it would be equally meaningless).
Anyway, my money is on E.T. to be a biped a lot like us. It won't necessarily be a primate, though. It could be amphibious, or nocturnal, or have a pouch like a kangaroo, or a number of other details, but I think the chances are a lot higher than this guy says that it will be bipedal with two arms. And to be sure, I'm not saying it couldn't be something else. In fact I think it's fun to ponder the other possibilities.
My reaction? FACE PALM. This is a horrible argument! He says that because we are so rare, that it would be statistically impossible for intelligent life to form on another planet that is also a bipedal primate.
So after the evolution of hundreds of millions of species on earth, only one of them turned into a bipedal primate. And in the blink of an eye (in evolution time) that species became intelligent. Hmmmm. Could the two be related? For all we know bipedalism is a prerequisite of intelligence!
Look at it the other way. One could argue that bipedal primates are rare because we are the only ones, but we are just the first ones. Isn't it also clear that the first became intelligent, and we haven't been around long enough to see any more show up? The first of anything is rare by definition!
Here's a thought experiment. What prerequisites could there be for intelligent space faring life that we could communicate with. Let's assume a planet like ours with similar foundations of life (carbon based, etc).
1. It will NOT be underwater. Why? Because they can't use fire. Without fire there isn't anywhere to go. Feel free to speculate why I could be wrong here, but I just don't see it happening.
2. Next we need a species that can manipulate objects with great versatility. Candidates include primates, some birds, and elephants (dolphins and octopi don't count: see #1). Birds use their beak and legs, and elephants use their trunk. Two arms with many digits each makes more sense economically. Am I biased? Of course, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Evolutionary Biologist Ernst Mayr said: “Nothing demonstrates the improbability of the origin of high intelligence better than the millions of phyletic lineages that failed to achieve it.”
But this is looking at it all wrong. Intelligence isn't a goal of evolution. There is no goal! You can't fail without a goal. Intelligence is just an arbitrary feature of a single species. You could pick any species out there and find something unique to it that has never evolved in any other species and say the exact same thing (and it would be equally meaningless).
Anyway, my money is on E.T. to be a biped a lot like us. It won't necessarily be a primate, though. It could be amphibious, or nocturnal, or have a pouch like a kangaroo, or a number of other details, but I think the chances are a lot higher than this guy says that it will be bipedal with two arms. And to be sure, I'm not saying it couldn't be something else. In fact I think it's fun to ponder the other possibilities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)