Probability

@Holiday20310401,

What I meant is: If you dont deny what you dont comprehend the logic behind of, you might be persuaded into thinking some crazy thing is true by a crazy person Smile

I believe insanity is not lack of logic, but an altered perception of reality... they arent stupid, they just see flying pigs where they shouldnt Smile

There is a documentary called "what the bleeb do we know?" in youtube about quantum mechanics and some other interesting things, it helps understanding it a lot... be carefull thought to not mix parts of it with the sequel, wich is called "What the bleed do we know? Down the rabbit hole".

@manored,

manored wrote:

What I meant is: If you dont deny what you dont comprehend the logic behind of, you might be persuaded into thinking some crazy thing is true by a crazy person

Ah i see what you mean ...there is difference between a nutty scientific theory supported by the establishment and a nutter in the pub..I know a nutter in the pub but is the accepted science being scrutinized enough by the likes of me??

@Holiday20310401,

If you really try to understand but fail, assuming its not due to lack of knowledge in other areas, such as the meaning of terms, and assuming you are getting the information from reliable sources, then I would say that yes. But if you really cant make a sense of it even under those conditions its safe to not believe, science changes all the time anyway Smile

@manored,

manored wrote:

If you really try to understand but fail, assuming its not due to lack of knowledge in other areas, such as the meaning of terms, and assuming you are getting the information from reliable sources, then I would say that yes. But if you really cant make a sense of it even under those conditions its safe to not believe, science changes all the time anyway

I would not mind if certain scientists had an open debate among themselves on the value of certain aspects of QM and the claims it makes...my worry is the kings brand new suit..is it an illusion ? It appears to come down to so many unknown variables ..what in the hell does that mean? Theory after theory is built on this magical word QM how relevant is it ?

@xris,

Teories will always end up in a ton of unknow variables, there is always the tiny bit of something inside the tiny bit of something that you dont know what is Smile

@No0ne,

No0ne;37650 wrote:

Who has fish at home?

The Brit lives in the Red house.

The Swede keeps dogs as pets.

The Dane drinks tea.

The Green house is on the left of the White house.

The owner of the Green house drinks coffee.

The person who smokes Pall Mall rears birds.

The owner of the Yellow house smokes Dunhill.

The man living in the centre house drinks milk.

The Norwegian lives in the first house.

The man who smokes Blends lives next to the one who keeps cats.

The man who keeps horses lives next to the man who smokes Dunhill.

The man who smokes Blue Master drinks beer.

The German smokes Prince.

The Norwegian lives next to the Blue house.

The man who smokes Blends has a neighbour who drinks water.

I have adequately answered the question according to the offered data, and I didn't even need the list.
My neighbor's daughter has a fish at home.
Point being that there was no proviso that the list following the question was relevent at all, much less that the 'answer' must be limited to the list.

Holiday20310401;37478 wrote:

I just came to wonder, how does one go about empirically proving probability?
Is it simply enough to measure the probable outcomes of a system to prove there is a probability even if all variables are accounted for?

In newtonian physics there is no probability if all variables and their influence can be accounted for.

'Probability' is no more than a mental concept, 'thoughts'. If thoughts are 'proven', so is the notion of 'probability'.
It is not possible to know all variables/possibilities, ever.
Even standing in their house, looking at the fish, not having all possible data, all possible variables/context, I can still only call the very presence of the fish right before all these senses!, a 'probability'!
Further, not knowing all the variables, any 'value' of probability cannot be clearly derived; a 'stone knives and bear skin' pragmatic tool that 'kindasorta' works, locally, at times...

'Probability' 'probably' is a feature of man's basic need for stability and security in an unstable and insecure world. A feature, perhaps, of emotional and psychological processes and needs. To feel in 'control', 'prediction' is akin to 'creation', from many Perspectives.
The necessary 'components' of the notion of 'probability math' requires the 'view' from a linear Perspective. There are many other Perspectives. The whole necessary 'relationship/interrelationship' of this to that is a feature of Perspective, some Perspectives.

The whole notion of 'proof', itself, is a fallacy, scientifically. Science doesn't 'prove', it 'disproves'. Something that cannot YET be disproven, is TENTATIVELY accepted as a working 'theory', always available for examination and refutal, thus, 'disproof'.

Understanding what I'm saying is bound to leave you feeling disoriented and uneasy. All those emotional supports being exposed for what they are, egoic 'beliefs', 'images', not 'Omniversal Reality' but very local and temporally limited mental processes (which is, of course, part of 'Reality'), basically, a necessary and acceptable 'veil' appearing to seperate you (egoic image) from the 'horror' of the abyss....

"To escape one's illusions is to plunge headlong into chaos!" -Iota

Science/math built to support and bolster our emotional needs is always questionable in it's motives and 'beliefs'. It ain't as innocently 'objective' as the old school would (desperately) have you believe. Reality is what our tools are built to detect. The 'tools' don't 'measure' whats already 'there'. A yardstick is a feature of a 'yard'. No 'measurment device' (yardstick, eyes, etc..) no 'reality' of 'length' or 'light'.

@xris,

xris;37844 wrote:

Theory after theory is built on this magical word QM how relevant is it ?

It isn't a 'magical word', it's a whole new understanding of existence! A whole new 'magic'!
Over 1/4 of the Amerikkkan economy has been based on quantum theory, and rapidly growing. People's world-views will have to alter to accomodate our new understandings of existence.

@manored,

manored;37722 wrote:

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.

The nature of the observations may seem abstract to us because we are laypeople, but that doesn't make them any more uncertain in scientific terms.

Quote:

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.

We CAN see them. Just not with our eyes.

@manored,

manored;37848 wrote:

..there is always the tiny bit of something inside the tiny bit of something that you dont know what is

Actually, the tiny tiny tiny bit/feature of 'the universe' that you might perceive is only the minutest feature of the entirety of the universal 'iceberg' of the moment that floats, silently, beneath your awareness.

@xris,

xris;37743 wrote:

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.

The same is true of medical science for laypeople, only it's worse because there are all manner of half truths and lies and quackery and propaganda on the internet. Believe me that the average person (even bright people with advanced degrees in related fields) have NO idea of how medical information is generated or its strengths and weaknesses.

And yet it somehow gets people to entrust their lives to everything from fad diets and herbs all the way up to surgeons and FDA approved medications.

So how confident are you in that medication you decided to take that one time... or that medication you decided NOT to take that one time?

You CAN become informed about anything given enough effort -- but you can't sit there passively in an armchair and assume that because few people understand something that it must be weak.

@Holiday20310401,

"Death to Aedes!" -Malaria
*__-

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

The nature of the observations may seem abstract to us because we are laypeople, but that doesn't make them any more uncertain in scientific terms.

We CAN see them. Just not with our eyes.

I found a even better way of putting this: The more information we get about something that we manage to understand, less we need to imagine... your idea of a ball you are seeing is more similar to the real thing than the idea of a ball you are making out of some intruments telling you that some minuscle particle is ball-shaped. This means that affirming a ball you are seeing is a ball has greater chances of being correct than affirming something that instruments tell you that behaves like a ball is a ball. Sorry for before having stated that seeing something leaves no room for imagination and unprecision, that was a mistake.

nameless wrote:

Actually, the tiny tiny tiny bit/feature of 'the universe' that you might perceive is only the minutest feature of the entirety of the universal 'iceberg' of the moment that floats, silently, beneath your awareness.

This is kind of what I meant Smile

Wot, death treats already? This discussion is going to fast... Smile

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

Reality is what our tools are built to detect. The 'tools' don't 'measure' whats already 'there'. A yardstick is a feature of a 'yard'. No 'measurment device' (yardstick, eyes, etc..) no 'reality' of 'length' or 'light'.

Well yes there is no absolute means of measuring something but then what do you call a quantum?

Is it possible to measure a quantum with a lower scale? That defies what a quantum is. And is it possible to measure a quantum as a fraction of something else when quanta imply eachother.

Then again I have no clue, but say you have a stream of photons and you can measure how many photons there are, but if you have the one photon, how do you measure the stream knowing there is a stream of them.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;37894 wrote:

Well yes there is no absolute means of measuring something but then what do you call a quantum?

A 'quantum' is a discrete 'self contained' packet of information. All moments of existence are 'quanta', all existing synchronously. The smallest 'slice' of 'time' is a 'quantum' of 'time', a Planck moment. Every universe at every moment is a quantum universe; a discrete, stand alone, complete 'packet' of information.
One photon is a quantum 'event'.

Quote:

Is it possible to measure a quantum with a lower scale?

By definition, there is nothing divisible possible in a quantum 'particle'. There is no further division of 'time' possible, than a Planck moment, that can still maintain coherency. 'Planck scale', by definition, is 'it'.... until something else comes along, perhaps. *__-

Quote:

And is it possible to measure a quantum as a fraction of something else when quanta imply eachother.

A quantum size remains steady. You can see a bunch of 'photons', whether as fireworks or a sunset, etc... but what your mind does with them, the photons remain discrete quanta that do not change. Nothing ever changes. Everything is always different; new moment, new quanta.

Quote:

Then again I have no clue, but say you have a stream of photons and you can measure how many photons there are,

I don't think that is possible. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
Individual photons cannot be measured, there is no yardstick small enough to measure an information wave.

Quote:

but if you have the one photon, how do you measure the stream knowing there is a stream of them.

There are no linear streams in a synchronous existence. There is the 'appearance' of 'streams' to certain Perspectives, which might well find some way to 'measure' what they perceive. You can 'measure' the tape of a movie if you stretch it out, frame by frame, like a snake, like you watch it. Reality is those 'frames, that are universes, and they are in a big heap, all piled together at the same 'time'. Some Perspectives look through that heap and due to 'angle' see a 'movie'. Other Perspectives see a pile of frames in no particular order. There are many possible Perspectives. Some try to measure the 'arrow of time', but it is a 'relic of Perspective', and not an accurate reflection of the totality of existence, at the moment, Now!
Stream measuring instruments invariably find/manifest a 'stream' to 'measure'. We find what we seek.

@nameless,

So you who dont sit passively and claim to know QM... Can you tell me if the claim by QM that oscillating particles disappear into infinity at certain times in their cycle is in your opinion correct and if it is can you explain the best way you can..WHY THAT IS.

@Holiday20310401,

As far as I know quantum mechanics assumes that everthing is happening all the time everwhere (something like that) and that the act of observing causes the possibilities to condensate into just one for some reason, that is the reality we see... so you could pretty much say that the feet of the chair you are sitting now is a bunch of infinity that will become a feet again then you touch or look at it Smile

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

new moment, new quanta.

Yes, but it doesn't imply indeterminacy.

nameless wrote:

I don't think that is possible. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
Individual photons cannot be measured, there is no yardstick small enough to measure an information wave.

Perhaps the reason we have a wave and a particle is the wave makes the particle coherent.

nameless wrote:

You can 'measure' the tape of a movie if you stretch it out, frame by frame, like a snake, like you watch it. Reality is those 'frames, that are universes, and they are in a big heap, all piled together at the same 'time'.

Well if you have only 1 frame of a stack of film then if each film is not precisely the same, should there not be inevitably a way of figuring out how long the film is? If every single frame was the same, they all imply eachother, then it would not matter how long the film was, but the result of measuring how long it was would be completely random. So in order for the mind to compensate for this redundancy, all quanta are connected to eachother via a wave to the perceiver until the perception becomes not that of the film but just of the single frame of the film.

@manored,

manored wrote:

As far as I know quantum mechanics assumes that everthing is happening all the time everwhere (something like that) and that the act of observing causes the possibilities to condensate into just one for some reason, that is the reality we see... so you could pretty much say that the feet of the chair you are sitting now is a bunch of infinity that will become a feet again then you touch or look at it

So do you actualy know or are you spoofing?.does anyone one on this forum know anymore than i ? This charade of QM and its assets are being put up for explanation and its ignored..Come on tell me..answer my question..please..

@xris,

xris wrote:

So do you actualy know or are you spoofing?.does anyone one on this forum know anymore than i ? This charade of QM and its assets are being put up for explanation and its ignored..Come on tell me..answer my question..please..

What I said is, as far as I know (I am not especially interested in quantum mechanics, so I do not read much about it, so I am not very reliable), the basis of quantum mechanics: Everthing exists evertime everwhere. Now I do not know what specific part of the teory of quantum mechanics explains that concept of a pendulum becoming infinity in some points of the tragetory.

@xris,

xris;37956 wrote:

This charade of QM and its assets are being put up for explanation and its ignored..Come on tell me..answer my question..please..

If you want to learn about this "charade" of quantum physics, then why don't you ask on a physics forum instead of a philosophy forum? You really think that stumping us is going to illuminate the strengths and weaknesses of quantum science?

Furthermore, if you are a doubter of quantum science, then you'd best find an alternative way to explain technologies from engineering to medicine that are based purely on quantum science. :nonooo: MRI, CT, hemodialysis, pharmacology, protein and enzyme chemistry, etc, are ALL practical applications of quantum physics.

If you're actually interested in pursuing this, I'd suggest you go to some more erudite sources and then report back to us. I just did a search in JSTOR and came up with 15,000 individual research articles using the search term "quantum physics". Even a search of PubMed, which is a medical directory, revealed more than 200 articles when "quantum physics" is the keyword.

So if you have doubts about the relevance or evidence basis behind quantum science, there are places you can go to REALLY see what all that hubub is based on. After all, why would you reject something without being informed first?

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know