... excellently put :a-ok: ... I, too, am waiting to see if quantum probability can in any sense be called "real" or if it's just a lack of enough/right information/interpretation ...

Here is a great example the best one that has ever been made other than my private one.

Its called "nieghours" this quiz was made up by Albert Einstein and according to him 98% will not solve it.

There is a row of five houses, each having a different colour. In these houses live five people of various nationalities. Each of them nurtures a different beast, likes different drinks and smokes different brand of cigars.



Who has fish at home?

1. The Brit lives in the Red house.
   
2. The Swede keeps dogs as pets.
   
3. The Dane drinks tea.
   
4. The Green house is on the left of the White house.
   
5. The owner of the Green house drinks coffee.
   
6. The person who smokes Pall Mall rears birds.
   
7. The owner of the Yellow house smokes Dunhill.
   
8. The man living in the centre house drinks milk.
   
9. The Norwegian lives in the first house.
   
10. The man who smokes Blends lives next to the one who keeps cats.
    
11. The man who keeps horses lives next to the man who smokes Dunhill.
    
12. The man who smokes Blue Master drinks beer.
    
13. The German smokes Prince.
    
14. The Norwegian lives next to the Blue house.
    
15. The man who smokes Blends has a neighbour who drinks water.
    

Lack of variables or unknown information or reactions is what creates probability. For if all variables, information, or reactions where known, then you could say for 100% what will happen under a given set of conditions, and therefore it would be a FACT that under conditions (A) result (B) will allways happen.

Therefore anything below 100% is a probability/chance and not a fact.

With the riddle above people have created a chart which points to the german as the person who has fish at home, yet this is still a probability that the german is the person that owns the fish, therefore there is still a probability that the german dose not have fish at home.

He said that 98% people dont get this....

Well thats the clue to the riddle, no matter how high the probability, the answer will never be a fact or 100% chance to be true, due to the lacking variables and information given in the riddle.

Yet there is only one answer that is a fact and has a higher percent probability than all other answers.

=-(The person who has the fish at home, has the fish at home, and therefore there is a 100% probability that person has the fish at home.)-=

(*note this is also why he had said only 2% will answer this riddle correctly and 98% will not)

The riddles answer lies within the answer its self. (Basicaly you dont need to know which person has a fish at home, when you know for a fact that a person has a fish at home)

It simply points out the major flaws in probability, and thats the fact that probability is probability, and not a fact.

(*note yes, there is a probability that a fact is not a fact, but then it would not be a fact, and just another probability that is interpeted as a fact.)

(:detective:*note its a fact that a fact is a fact.)

Neighbors - Brain Teasers ForumHere's where you can see the 98% peoples answer.

I have already tried that riddle, but ran out of patience Though I have the impression the one I tried made a different question, so I think it must be one of those things that got utterly distorssed... how to know wich is the real one?

I agree with you, probability only exists then there is unknow information, if everthing that can affect an outcome is know then there is no probability. Regarding the quantum world, the behavior of quantums might seen randow now but maybe one day someone will invent a teory explaing their behavior with smaller pieces, teory wich will require even smaller pieces wich will be, at the moment, considered to act at randow

my head hurts....98%er is me..charts..i know it not the brit..ill keep trying..

Probability is a modeling system that requires two critical components:

1) a denominator
2) an expression of confidence

The larger your denominator, the larger your confidence in the reliability of the numerator. And the more generalizable your denominator, the more likely you are to achieve a comparable numerator if you repeat your study.

This is a big oversimplification, but the point is that it's a system that allows us to extrapolate a finding based on a finite survey.

My daughter the maths geek tells me to use tiles..she has done it...tiles for the houses the ciggies the pets etc.

Regular triangles, squares and hexagons are the only bidimensional geometric shapes that can be perfectly fit... I hope your rooms are shaped like that

But, well... back to topic... if anyone has something to add, cause I dont right now

I read about quantum this and that but can never find the actual proof of its theories in terms i can understand..is it just me?

I should amend what I said above: what I was really discussing was the root of statistics, though statistics is very closely associated with probability (and in fact is more or less a formal way of expressing probabilities as determined by empirical measures).

no teory about the nature of atoms/the subatomic world is proven, even the most widely accepted nowadays is just one that happens to make sense and worked so far... for example: if there is one room where you keep throwing ballons from outside and they all pop and fall to the floor, you can suppose that there are nails all over the roof... maybe the truth is that the roof is super hot, but the result is the same, so you can take your teory as true until you get a result that disproves it.

If your statement is true for the subatomic world, then it's also true for the rest of science. There is plenty of empiric evidence. If you don't regard it as "proven", then you must apply the same assessment to any other science.

Indeed nothing can be proven as absolute, but the atoms and subatomic world are especially, lets say, "uncertain" because we arent (rough, surreal example) saying that they are balls because they look like a ball or fell like a ball, like we would say of a ball, we are saying that they are balls because their behaviors we can detect and measure suggest they are balls... but they may be poligons with an immense number of sides.

I think a better way to put it may be this: They are probally unlike anything we can imagine, but since we cannot see then, we have to imagine then as things we know, such as balls... thats why they are less certain than other things.

I doubt it. I would think we'd see them the way electrons are taught so precariously in grade nine, as if they are planets or something stupid like that.

Well, science has made a simple concept very complex by the word they use to define it aka "quantum", which just the basic unit of certain quantities, according to the quantum theory, which is Planck's concept of energy consisting of minimum indivisable particles called quanta basicaly radiant energy is emitted or absorbed only in quanta or photons, each with an energy in ergs of 6.6624 x 10-27 times the frequency of the radiation in cycles per second.

Yet, quantum mechanics deals with the mechanics of the phenomena which explains in what conditions the "quantum" "theory" is true and not true.

So basicaly the quantum theory tells what the atomic, molecular, ect changes will be, and the quantum mechanics are the mechanics of the phenomena which the quantum theory holds true.

(*note an example of a quantum--> A photon is the quantum of electromagnetic radiation.)
(*note an example of a quantum mechanic--> A atomic and molecular changes)
(*note an example of a quantum theory--> "The Quantum Theory Of Heat Capacity" Is a theory which explains the decrease of specific heat at low temperatures to a value below its classical values on the basis of energy quantization.)

This kind of methods used by modern science, I truly dont use, due to the fact that its to wordy and common people have problems relating to it, and therefore it is useless to me...

( And due to the fact Ive created a much more simplistic method that I use for meany other concepts and information/law creation.)

Sadly most QT's have a probability that under the same repeating conditions, that the same predicted reaction will not happen, even if the QM's are completly the same, this could be a due to unknown variable or a known variable that is really a randomly changing variable and its just unknown that it is, or that its just a random occuring variable that randomly occures in the QM's of the QT, and therefore the probability is even more shady that the QT will happen under the known QM's of the QT.

It's not that QT's are false, its just they are flawed due to the lack of infomation about the QM's of the QT, which is why probability is a big thing when using this form of system.

So the "proof" takes time to prove, its allways a matter of fine tooning and trail and error to debug the rule's, to make them a fact and not a theory. Yet alot of things cannot be observed past the point of one's own means or life span, thereore it can never be truely known if a random variable will occure in a QT's QM's.

"yea Ill stop here Or this might go on and on and on for awhile"

So, no its not just you, its just the wording of people's QM's and QT's that make it that way, just try to think of it all in your own words and terms and I insure you the basic concept of it will reveal its self, and then you could prove or disprove other's QT's with great ez.

So how confident can i be in the claims QM make? I can not understand it so the claims i read are gobbledegook...I know its my problem but it worries me that so few realy understand it, so in the main it lies out of normal debate.I read that a pendulum when it reaches the point of maximum energy and is at rest ..by QM it disappears into infinity...Now for me that appears crazy but as i cant comprehend the science behind it i cant deny it..Do you understand my problem? Is it theory driving the model or is the model driving the theory..

Try understanding what Rene Descartes meant with "I think, therefore I am", if you havent done that yet. It will help a lot

I think that you need to change your methods of accepting/reffuting ideas, it will save you a lot of grief... what if you come across a nutshell right now?

Thanks but im not grieving...a nutshell.. ill put it on the stove and wait for it to smell..sorry but how do you argue against a certain claim you have not sufficient knowledge of?:perplexed:

I think we have got a huge misurestanding here: grief is a feeling between sorrow and anoyance, thought I never really checked on a dictionary. Nutshell is a crazy person, or... a nutshell.

If i come across a crazy person he would see me as a reflection of himself...I love crazy people they have no logic as we know it , they inspire me..souls without chains..