Yoruichi-san

Secondly, generalizing often leads to the gaining of information rather than the loss of it. Generalizing allows for the specification of what information is necessary and sufficient to draw a correlation. Hence by recognizing that, we gain information about the correlation itself. I.e. when Galileo dropped a wooden ball and a metal ball (or something similar, I don't remember exactly) off a tower and they landed the same time, he gained information about the general principle. By recognizing what was necessary and sufficient for this phenomena of 'sameness' (traveling the same path), he could gain information to come up with a theory to explain the phenomena.

First off, I disagree with your definition of definition . I would say a definition is a specification of a set of characteristics that are necessary and/or sufficient to categorize something as that word/phrase. Similarly to in math where a definition could be like "an integer is..." I do not think removal of information is "lying to ourselves", i.e. when I talk about "an integer" instead of specifying which exact integer it is, I am not lying but rather making my analysis apply to a larger field. Specifying every piece of information and making conclusions that are only true for those exact specifications is not very useful. It's not ignorance, but rather generality which makes the observations (and hence learning and gaining experience in life) actually useful. And on "sameness", I don't think anyone actually uses sameness in the way you seem to be defining it. The majority of time people don't think or talk about things as "exactly the same PERIOD", but "has the same ______ (color, size, cost, etc)". Its usually to be able to compare things, i.e. there are two boxes of cereal that cost the same but A tastes better than B, so A is obviously the better choice to buy. I don't think we construct in our minds this idea of things being "the same" the way you are defining it. The "the same" in our minds is a recognition of like characteristics that are correlated with information in our experience that is useful for decision making. I.e. other than having the philosophical debate you specify in the OP, in real life if a captain of a ship thinks of a ship being "the same" he is not thinking it is exactly the same in every way, but instead like thinking whether it will operate in the same way or, like, if he takes shore leave, whether if he returns to the same (as in same location) ship.

Oh? I didn't realize beauty queens understood the fine points of the zombie apocalypse .

What is really out there? What information is in the fabric of existence? If you can't know for certain causes and effects, how can you be certain causation is one-to-one and onto?

I don't think there is an official, definitive, universal definition of "sameness". Some would define it as congruency, others indistinguishability, etc. By logical and scientific standards, my above assertions should hold. Bosons aren't like billard balls, it's not like one will have a unseeable to the eye dent in it or tiny hole in the center or something. They are fundamentally physically identical, the only difference is that they have a different history, i.e. they've been at different places at different times. So it seems to me you're defining "sameness" in such a way that by definition no two things can be "the same", as they'd basically have to occupy the exact same space at the exact same times, thus making it actually one object. I guess if you subscribe to the branching universes theory then this might be interesting, but otherwise I don't see the utility of this definition and I don't agree with it. *shrugs*

1) I don't care about relativity either, other than clarifying why my argument relating relativity (special relativity) and quantum are sound. Like I said, it's not about you, it's about scientific rightness . 2) I'm not sure what your argument is then. You basically admitted your own arguments support quantum physic's viewpoint...I'm fine with that ;P My point was that even if the concept of velocity or position doesn't apply to certain cases, but Heisenberg's principle still does in its other interpretation. 3) I put 'refine' in parenthesis for a reason. Yes, a new theory will likely replace quantum, perhaps string theory, and by 'refine', I don't mean it will further prove quantum, but, as I've said many times, but the point is that it is not likely to drastically change our current effective view of things we have comfortable results in, like quantum didn't change our effective views about billard balls and collisions on a macroscopic scale for example. Why would I argue against it? I've been arguing for it since it supports my general argument that the uncertainty principle and its implications about indeterminacy are here to stay, regardless of what new theory comes along. 4) Information is constantly changing, due to probabilistic causation. The uncertainty principle not only implies that we can't predict the future, but it also implies we can't fully explain the past. At no point can there be concrete information. We can't conclude A causes B that causes C, because we cannot know for certain that B was caused by A, B might have been caused by Z. Every layer of probability gives us more possibilities, more information to consider. No my statement was an effort to encourage a different view point and open-mindedness. I.e. if someone was arguing "the world is flat, therefore...", I would argue that the world is not flat and encourage them to try to re-evaluate their beliefs with this new information. As I've stated, I'm not trying to "win the argument", I'm fighting for scientific rightness ;P.

I chose fermions exactly because the exclusion principle gives a logical conclusion to the argument . They are the same in all ways except that they do not occupy the same quantum state. And they cannot occupy the same quantum state exactly because they are identical in every other way. So if you say that they must occupy the same quantum state to be identical, you are admitting identical bosons that occupy the same quantum state are the same, since the principle defines everything else as the same. That is the answer .

An evil demi-god puts everyone in the world under his mind control powers and they all serve him as peaceful, will-less slaves. "I have come set you free...from freedom." (Hey it's okay for him to be a jerk as long as he's a sexy jerk ;P) I wish for a cure for cancer to be discovered within the next year...and will not cause a zombie apocalypse (yes, I've seen Legend ).

Um...I was attacking your points...but in a way that was mainly building my case, since my goal is usually to elucidate what is scientifically right, not to show others are wrong...summarizing my points: 1) Your point about my point about relativity was incorrect as you were citing a different form of relativity than I was, general relativity has to do with the bending of space time and stuff (and honestly, I'm not that familiar with it), whereas special relativity has to do with the effects/implications of moving at relativistic speeds, which was what I was referring to, and is tied in nicely with quantum physics to achieve the best empirical results. 2) Heisenberg's principle does fit the examples you claimed it did not fit, if you use the energy/time form. The mathematical principle can be (and is) interpreted as either you cannot know either the position/momentum OR the energy/time of a particle/wave. 3) Regardless of what new theory is ultimately correct, it probably will not refute/disprove the uncertainty principle since the vast majority of the time new theories 'refine' the results of existing theories for situations that the old theories are not good for and reduce to the existing model/equation for things that already the older theories already are good describers of. 4) The argument "If we had all the information, we could predict everything that happens, hence the world is deterministic" is wrong because the premise is wrong. Thanks for admitting my arguments are reasonable . I don't think it's weird that the big bang did not have a cause. It would make sense for it to be the random event that precipitated the universe being the way it is. I enjoyed it too...a good debate with an intelligent, articulate person is always fun .

http://en.wikipedia....usion_principle In layman's terms, like two equally attractive women, they try to avoid each other ;P.

Pauli would say so ;P.

First of all, don't assume I'm talking about general relativity. What I refer to, especially in terms of the influence of relativistic speeds, is special relativity, which has been tied with quantum mechanics (by Dirac), and it is that model that gives the best results and is generally accepted. Einstein himself was a proponent of quantum, he accepted the uncertainty principle and that it resulted in implications of indeterminacy, but he thought the theory was incomplete, and somewhere in completing it he would find something that would allow for determinacy. He never did. Second, sure there are some extreme cases in which things like "position" or "speed" do not seem to apply, but for the waveforms of real objects, whether it be an electron or a wave on the beach, these things do apply, or "fit". Also, I used position/speed pair since that's the most famous one, and easiest to see why it implies physical uncertainty, but the other pair, energy/time, which does make sense for the waves in question. The mathematical conclusions of Heisenberg hold for all waveforms, even if they are not physically meaningful for extreme, non-physical cases. Agree that physics is incomplete, and an unifying theory is needed. However, the wave-particle duality is not "peacemaking", or trying to explain results after the fact, but an essential and key concept in QM. Many of the theories (which resulted in such excellent experimental results) were derived specifically based on this duality. Yes, there are other theories, i.e string theory, and maybe one of them is the correct one. But the thing is, none of the theories I know of overturn quantum's validity on what it is applied to or the uncertainty principle. If we think about it, Newtonian physics were 'good' for centuries, until they discovered microscopic particles and realized the models they had failed on that scale. Quantum and relativity don't overturn the validity of Newtonian physics on macroscopic phenomena, but incorporates a new 'layer', so to speak, one which explains the new phenomena while preserving Newton's equations for macroscopic objects at non-relativistic speeds (since the equations reduce to Newtonian equations on that scale). Of course, I can't be certain , but I would hazard to guess that any new theory would similarly reduce to the quantum model in the observed cases. There are plenty of experiments that prove that particles do exist, albeit they are not necessarily exactly what we think they are at the moment. They might be strings or some other thing we can't envision *shrugs*. Our understanding of microscopic phenomena is constantly changing, but very rarely is what is known overturned, but instead, it is refined. Whatever the truth is, quantum physicists aren't going to be like "OMG we were completely wrong", but instead, like..."aha, that explains it! And that reduces to our model in these cases..." On determinism, a quote from Heisenberg:In the sharp formulation of the law of causality-- "if we know the present exactly, we can calculate the future"-it is not the conclusion that is wrong but the premise. --Heisenberg, in uncertainty principle paper, 1927 The key thing about the uncertainty principle is that it is NOT a limitation of technological ability or anything like that, but a fundamental rule of existence, like "matter can be neither created nor destroyed, only changes forms". Sure you can conjecture all you want about "well, if matter could be created or destroyed, then..." and it would be interesting, but the conclusions cannot be applied to the world we live in, since the premise is untrue. Saying "if we could know the position and velocity (or energy and time) of all particles/waves..." is basically something like a paradox, since you can't know both. And I seem to recall someone saying paradoxes aren't useful...;P On randomness: where does the reverse causality end? If we trace the causality back to the big bang, then what? Okay, so if the big bang send particles/waves out with certain velocities and energies and you would say that caused everything else, but what caused them to have those exact parameters? (And please don't say God XP)

Well, it seems that is the case already, from a social science perspective: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting Also, I didn't specify they had to take a test...can't genies make IQ sniffing dogs ;P? Okay...I found a cheat sheet... Yes, I definitely wish for a Pokeball that works on strangers' pets .

Sorry to crash my ship into the party, but @phil: the achievements are hilarious ! Have you played the Achievement Unlocked games (i.e. if you haven't, you should )?

Okay, but it's twenty times as expensive. Hmm...what's an interesting wish... ...okay, I wish there was a threshold IQ for people to vote for president of the US, congress, governors etc.

Uh...they are dead by many definitions, and in many portrayals, i.e. their heart doesn't beat and there are many lines in vampire movies/novels etc playing on their being dead. Sure, you could argue they're alive, but I thought the point of this was to come up with any reasonable response to 'corrupt' the wish. @phil: you are now a cockroach. Different enough? I wish the new Thor movie was out already .

Err...correction, please ignore the frequency stuff on Heisenberg...(wow I am getting really tired if I'm mixing the energy equation with the uncertainty principle ) ...I mean Heisenberg's principle is that uncertainty says that (uncertainty in speed)*(uncertainty in position) > (planck's constant)/2, which is on the order of 10^-34 in joules so unless you care about and/or can observe the speed and/or position of wave on the beach to the accuracy of 10^-34 then you won't notice its effects. (Or you could use any of the other forms...momentum, energy, etc.)

Einstein's attempts to come up with alternative explanations that would reconcile quantum with determinism were refuted (such as 'local realism'). And no, it's not the limit of our minds or our ability to process the information, it's the limit of the information itself. I.e. if you can't know where the particle is and how fast it is going at the same time, you cannot predict where it will go. I'm not sure about chaos theory and whatnot, but the things I think your analysis is missing: the failure of classical mechanics at relativistic speeds and the wave-particle duality of matter. The wave nature of things on the order of particles is exactly why you can't look at them as billard balls. You can model macroscopic things in terms of classical mechanics, on the scale of which the effects of the wave nature are negligible. But it is exactly due to the fact that those models fail at the microscopic level and relativistic speeds that quantum physics was discovered/theorized in the first place. Similarly, the waves of the ocean do not travel at relativistic speeds ;P. I.e. the things you say "do not fit" do fit, but their effect is so small on the macroscopic scale that they are negligible, as their effects on phenomena are proportional to ((speed of wave)/(speed of light))^2 (in most cases), so for waves on a beach (presumably moving at far sub-relativistic speeds), it has pretty much no observable effect. Heisenberg's principle says the uncertainty is >(planck's constant)*(frequency). Planck's constant is very small (O~10^-34 in joules), so unless the frequency is very high, the uncertainty is very small. For things of non-relativistic speeds, frequency is very small, so that the uncertainty is negligible, particularly to the ability of human observation (i.e. watching a wave on a beach). Take for example the billard balls, the rules you think govern them, based on classical mechanics, are not 100% accurate, but are accurate to like 99.99999999999% on that scale (okay, that's just a guess, not an actual calculation ), and hence sufficient for any purposes any person would ever need them for, but if you change the billard balls into particles moving at speeds for which ((speed of wave)/(speed of light))^2 is no longer negligible, then they no longer can be sufficiently characterized by those rules. Yes, it is difficult to visualize, especially the wave-particle duality, but that is essential in understanding uncertainty and indeterminacy. Sure, if you know how much force, friction, mass, etc of a billard ball you can predict its motion, and if you know the forces on a wave you can predict its motion, but can you visualize a billard ball that is a wave or a wave that is a billard ball (note: NOT a billard ball moving in a wave-like motion, that is not what the wave-particle duality is about)? You are right about Heisenberg's principle being derived based on the nature of waves, and it applies to real things, not just our understanding of them, because it is fundamental to the nature of waves, and particles are waves. Sorry about 'father', 'feather', but my point was that the question "What is the weight of a father/feather" is still not a yes/no question . How much wood could a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood? What is the meaning of life? Where will I be in 20 years? Is the cat alive or dead? All questions for which a meaningful answer cannot be inferred, but I still would say they make sense. *shrugs*

Ha, I like those...that song is pretty catchy . How about some chicken jokes...everyone likes chicken, eh? Why did Brown's chicken cross the road? Why did Schrodinger's chicken cross the road? Why did Einstein's chicken cross the road? Why did Pauli's chicken cross the road? Why did L'Hopital's chicken cross the road? Why did Bernoulli's chicken cross the road? Why did Pascal's chicken cross the road?

Oh right, I should add a wish, sorry... umb...I wish for a Death Note .

Yeah, this probably should be in games, riddles and puzzles and stuff general can be solved, open ended stuff usually goes elsewhere. 2881lihp (There, go back to the the dimension you came from ;P) You are a vampire and are constantly stalked by screaming "tween" girls who mistake you for the guy from Twilight.

Hey! Don't attribute Pascal's arguments to me . I was summarizing Pascal's argument, as I understand it. Obviously, from the fact I argued against Pascal's Wager, I disagree with him . And yes, as I mentioned, that was only one of my arguments, the one that was pertinent in regards to "considering all the possibilities", which my post was in response to.

Hmm..hmm...if by "the interpretations some apply to it" you mean the existence of non-deterministic processes that are widely accepted by renowned physicists (including Richard Feyman)... Out of curiosity, what do you make of Brownian motion? And the question does make sense; everyone one who read it knows clearly what it means, and it's clearly a yes-no question, unlike ("what is the weight of a feather")...the beauty of it is in those things and IMO flexing creativity muscles is just as valuable as flexing logical ones. Yes, yes, losing sleep is bad...so you should be warned now...in a battle of wills, I always win ;P.

...And you don't know what state/country etc the numbers are for . I wish Sherlock Holmes really existed.

Really? I'd say the opposite. In fact, I think I did...(in an essay I wrote in college). One of the major problems about Pascal's conclusions is that he doesn't take into account all the possibilities. To summarize, his argument is: Probability God exists > 0 Amount of happiness you gain from following God = infinity Hence expected value of following God is infinite happiness at a relatively small cost in this lifetime One of my arguments was: Probability that a different god exists, that will condemn you to infinite suffering if you follow the wrong god > 0 (or multiple such gods, for that matter) Hence countering the infinite benefit of following God (the Christian God if I remember correctly, which was what Pascal was espousing)