Makaze

hey,maka i wan to ask you something

"what make you interest to join here?"

though the question are a little bit violent

You said you wanted the gif? [/spoiler]

That is what I mean by your clinging to faith. Do you have any reason to prefer one to the other, or is it just easier for you to accept?


----------
Doesn't this go against your belief in the beginning of the universe? Don't evolutionists agree that there was a time during which incredibly important events occurred wherein there was absolutely no life to be found in the known universe? How, then, could those events have occurred, if nothing existed? Or am I missing what you're saying?
----------
Why are you assuming that I am an evolutionist? I do not attempt to explain a first cause because a first cause is logically impossible. Unlike you, I do not need a "scientific" explanation. The more I learn about the world, the more I realize that the world and I are inseparable. If I die, the world dies with me. What is functionally true is an undeniable possibility; that both I and the 'evidence' of the beginning of the universe are a part of me. Practicalism beats out any kind of realism any day, let alone naïve realism.

I'm going to have to reject the idea that something needs to be observed to exist. I mean we could get into the argument about observers being needed to collapse wavefunctions, but let's not. A painting does not need to be seen to exist. This can be seen by the fact a painting can start to lose its color even when nobody is observing it. To start to lose its color/rot, it must exist.

You can mean that I need to see a painting in order for it to exist to me, but that's different. The big problem I'm having is when you say


----------
It is impossible to separate the universe from yourself. If all senses were to disappear, the universe would not be tied to anything and so would not exist. You are the universe and the universe is you. This logic stands independent no matter what the universe one sees consists of.
----------
Doesn't this go against your belief in the beginning of the universe? Don't evolutionists agree that there was a time during which incredibly important events occurred wherein there was absolutely no life to be found in the known universe? How, then, could those events have occurred, if nothing existed? Or am I missing what you're saying?

That's an interesting question. Yes, the universe would exist even if you aren't aware of it, just like the taste of fish still exists even if you cannot taste it. One without knowledge of the existence of the world outside their own head would likely have no reason to assume it exists and would likely have no desire to gain knowledge of it.

I'm not assuming that, I know myself well enough to know that I do need some explanation of the universe. When I say I looked into other sorts of beliefs I include atheism, materialism, etc., and those things are not appealing to me. Like I said, I need an explanation of the universe. I have looked at all of the options thoroughly and found that Christianity offers the least illogical explanation (And I use "Least illogical" on purpose, I see that Christianity is illogical but so is everything else). I'm never going to get over needing a belief to explain how things are.

Well I don't know about that, I've looked into other sorts of beliefs and none of them seem appealing to me other than the one I subscribe to. It's not so much that I need to "Edit" my faith, it's just that when presented with evidence I need to "See" it in another way, if you know what I mean.

I don't think that having faith and being able to consider other arguments are mutually exclusive, so I don't think my "Progress" necessarily needs to lead me away from faith (Though I see how you would think that way). I seriously doubt I will ever give up my faith, I am in many ways dependent on it.

What exactly are you saying I'm dependent on? I would think you mean my faith but you also say that as if differentiating it. So what do you mean? And what exactly do you mean when you say I will come around to independence in a year or two?

Of all the details to annoy me, it bothers me that your sig pic says "soft kitty" a second time instead of "little ball of fur"

Oh derp


----------
What is the wave function, then?

And, the way you explain it, you are simply saying, "We haven't seen it as alive or dead, so it can be both." You are not explaining why it can be both well enough.
----------
To understand the wave function, you first need to understand what superposition is. Superposition tells us that a particle or system can exist in an indefinite (or definite) number of states. Until we look at a system, it exists in all of those states simultaneously, and to the degree determined by the amount of energy in the system and the energy of the states and the number of states and other factors. This condition is described by the wave function, which defines the states and their energies. Once we look at the system, however, the wave function collapses and the superposition of states is replaced by the system achieving a single defined state. This is known as collapsing the wave function. The wave function in Schrödinger's cat for example would be the state of the cat. Is it alive or dead? We can't know until it's observed and until it is, both states exist simultaneously. But once you do open up the box, the wave function collapses and it assumes one of the two states, dead or alive. Schrödinger's cat is just a thought experiment though but it gets the general idea across. The wave function collapse is observed in microscopic systems. Light for example travels in both waves and particles and we've got experiments to show that both are true. But until we observe the light, it's both simultaneously. By observing it, the wave function collapses and it becomes either a particle or a wave. Like Robert Anton Wilson said in the one video you showed me: "It looks as if the damn light is waiting to see how we're going to do the experiment and then decide which way it's going to travel".

I tried my best to explain the concepts. I hope you're able to understand it.


----------
I am afraid that I do not follow your meaning. When you say, "But each such interaction would alter their momentum by an unknown and indeterminable increment," what interaction are we talking about, and why can't it be measured?
----------
To measure the location of a particle, we would have to scatter light or other particles off that particle but in doing so, we would change the momentum and trajectory of the particle because of the light or other particles being bounced off it. Thus while we gain information on its position, we lose information on their momentum. On a larger scale, it's like trying to find the position of a baseball by hitting it with another baseball. The interaction of a particle and a photon of light is like two baseballs colliding. You'll learn where it was, but not where it was going, or vice versa. The end result of this is that a particle's location and momentum are not independent of one another and our knowledge of either limits and is limited by our knowledge of the other.


----------
I also do not understand this at face value. What is the wave function, and how does it collapse? Please explain it in detail.
----------
Well I'm no quantum mechanist so bear with me here. The easiest way to sum it up would be with Schrödinger's cat. You've most likely heard of it. To elaborate, Erwin Schrödinger's thought experiment involved a cat sealed inside a box with a Geiger counter attached to it. Inside that Geiger counter is a small amount of radioactive substance. The box is set up so that when the radioactive substance decays, a device smashes a vial of toxic gas, killing the cat inside. The thing is, after an hour, until the box is open, there is no way to determine whether the cat inside is alive or dead, thus allowing the cat to be both alive and dead. Once we open up the box, however, the wave function collapses and the superposition of states is replaced by the system achieving a single defined state. This is known as collapsing the wave function.

Bah, I can't believe I forgot to respond to this. Sorry but I've been distracted by various things or a little unmotivated as well. >_>;


----------
The reason why people flip coins in order to win bets is because they are not able to predict the outcome on the fly. If they were able to measure the amount of force used, the angle at which it was tossed, the density of the air, and so on, then it would cease to be chance and they would stop using it for decisions. It is hard to deny that these things can be measured and that the result of a coin flip can be predicted with perfect accuracy. Am I wrong? Every event that takes place has a probability of one by nature of having happened. It is just a matter of finding out what brought the event about. That is what I have learned throughout my life.
----------
You are somewhat right when you say that these things can be measured. Your argument is very similar to Laplace's demon which is "if someone knows the precise location and momentum of every atom in the universe, their past and future values for any given time are entailed; they can be calculated from the laws of classical mechanics" which would be possible if the whole universe was strictly deterministic. And a lot of scientist did believe that if you couldn't predict something with certainty then you just needed more information to form a deterministic theory. But this is inherently incompatible with quantum mechanical theories where chance is very much a big thing.

Let's take the Uncertainty Principle, for example, which states that exact measurements of positions and momentum may not be defined and observed together with more than a given precision. For example, assume that the initial momentum of all of the atoms that make up a coin have been accurately calculated by measuring their mass, the force applied to them, and the length of time each was subjected to that force. Then to measure their positions after they are no longer being accelerated would require another measurement to be done by scattering light or other particles off of them. But each such interaction would alter their momentum by an unknown and indeterminable increment, degrading our knowledge of its momentum while augmenting our knowledge of its position. Because of this we can never truly reach 100% accuracy and thus there is uncertainty which allows leeway for indeterminism.

I'll agree though that the determinism we have, while not the strict, necessary, logical determinism, is adequate enough to provide us with a predictable and orderly world. Although this only applies to macroscopic objects and structures. Even then this doesn't mean that the strict determinism is true and it would be fallacious to believe so. Just because some things can be determined, it doesn't mean that all things can be.


----------
I would have to see evidence to the effect that you cannot predict every single event with enough knowledge of the circumstances. An experiment or induction that demonstrates indeterminism, perhaps? I would be extremely interested in such a thing.
----------
>points towards the Uncertainty Principle.

There's also the collapse of the wave function, in which the state of a system upon measurement cannot be predicted.

I would really rather not. You already have an opinion of me, so why not just stick with it? Again, I am not going to tell anyone what they should think about me. It's all up for interpretation. What kind of person am I? I am being sincere or not?

People say that about me? D: That's so mean! However, I don't really feel like I need to explain my personality to people. You're all free to make up your own opinions. It would feel morally wrong to just be all "I am the best guy! because of ___"

Oh, in that case there are a pretty good number of people. At least a good ten or so people who I am alright with showing my personal feeling to.

Hm. So it would seem.

I was hired to shoot you. http://www.kh-vids.net/showthread.p...of-Organized-Deadpools-Society-(Or-D.O.O.D.S)