dare: there are no such things as paradoxes...

[hayze99]

schroedingers feline?

this was about some quantum biz and it was solved, right?
i don't remeber the details, just it was about some complicated mechs and mambo-jumbo about nothing after all...

if you could sum it up in a few simple sentences i'll most probably figure it out, if not i might not have the scientific expertise to solve it
try me out though...

1. The preconception in quantum physics that a system with a random chance of being in 2 different states, will be in both of them at the same time until they have been observed.
2. Throw a cat in a box, with a radioactive isotope connected to a flask of poison. Once radioactive decay reaches a certain point, the flask is broken and the cat dies. The decay of a radioactive isotope is 100% random
3. Thus, the flask being broken can happen at any random time, so the cat can die at any random time. He can't be observed since he's in a box. Thus, the cat is both dead and alive at the same time.

Regardless, it's meant to be a thought experiment to understand the basics of quantum physics, considering that a lot of the presumptions here only actually hold true at a quantum level.

Technically, it isn't a paradox. It's just an unresolved state. The cat isn't both dead and alive at the same time - we just don't know whether it is alive or dead.

I know you've got a science degree, so I probably shouldn't argue.

But I thought it was just a metaphor for the way that quantum particles work - i.e a photon being both a wave and a particle until you observe it, when it finally decides to become one state or another.

It's just a thought experience based on treating quantum object the same as classical objects. There's nothing literal about it.

[dubmatters]

How about traveling back in time and killing yourself?

Even Stephen Hawking thinks that is a paradox. Thus preventing time travel to the past

I'll believe him over some chump on here.

you can't travel in something that doesn't exist, like the past or the future. it's like travelling on planet mambo-jumbo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOezD5zguQo

[bass hertz]

the answer is speed. This is how computer process works. You visualize the word turtle and think its going to move slow. But imagine if each incremental movement's speed was doubled each time.

[alien pimp]

schroedingers feline?

this was about some quantum biz and it was solved, right?
i don't remeber the details, just it was about some complicated mechs and mambo-jumbo about nothing after all...

if you could sum it up in a few simple sentences i'll most probably figure it out, if not i might not have the scientific expertise to solve it
try me out though...

1. The preconception in quantum physics that a system with a random chance of being in 2 different states, will be in both of them at the same time until they have been observed.
2. Throw a cat in a box, with a radioactive isotope connected to a flask of poison. Once radioactive decay reaches a certain point, the flask is broken and the cat dies. The decay of a radioactive isotope is 100% random
3. Thus, the flask being broken can happen at any random time, so the cat can die at any random time. He can't be observed since he's in a box. Thus, the cat is both dead and alive at the same time.

Regardless, it's meant to be a thought experiment to understand the basics of quantum physics, considering that a lot of the presumptions here only actually hold true at a quantum level.

Technically, it isn't a paradox. It's just an unresolved state. The cat isn't both dead and alive at the same time - we just don't know whether it is alive or dead.

I know you've got a science degree, so I probably shouldn't argue.

But I thought it was just a metaphor for the way that quantum particles work - i.e a photon being both a wave and a particle until you observe it, when it finally decides to become one state or another.

It's just a thought experience based on treating quantum object the same as classical objects. There's nothing literal about it.

i say the photon is a tiny poney before you observe it, but since it changes as soon as it gets observed, i can't show it to you

[kay]

I know you've got a science degree, so I probably shouldn't argue.

But I thought it was just a metaphor for the way that quantum particles work - i.e a photon being both a wave and a particle until you observe it, when it finally decides to become one state or another.

It's just a thought experience based on treating quantum object the same as classical objects. There's nothing literal about it.

Argue away, I haven't got a physics degree!

You're correct, Schrodinger's Cat is a thought experiment used to demonstrate some of the basic concepts in quantum mechanics. However, it does not describe a paradox. What it does do is illustrate that until an object is observed, it remains as a state of possibilities. Observation collapses the wave function, and the state of the object becomes "fixed". There is no paradox involved. The thing that seems paradoxical is that quantum theory flies in the face of everything we observe with our naked eyes, ie something either is or isn't. Not both is and isn't.

With regards Zeno's paradox, the proposed solution is that there is a minimum length to which space can be divided. Imagine a chain made up of links. You can halve and halve and halve the length of the chain until you get down to a single link. After that point, you can no longer halve it. Think of space in the same way. This smallest length is usually called the Planck Length. Once you look at the paradox in this way, the paradox resolves itself.

I think that apparent paradoxes are caused by having an incorrect frame of reference, or a failing in logic. This includes moral paradoxes because morality does not necessarily have anything to do with logic. And morality is also very dependent on the frame of reference.

[alien pimp]

I know you've got a science degree, so I probably shouldn't argue.

But I thought it was just a metaphor for the way that quantum particles work - i.e a photon being both a wave and a particle until you observe it, when it finally decides to become one state or another.

It's just a thought experience based on treating quantum object the same as classical objects. There's nothing literal about it.

Argue away, I haven't got a physics degree!

You're correct, Schrodinger's Cat is a thought experiment used to demonstrate some of the basic concepts in quantum mechanics. However, it does not describe a paradox. What it does do is illustrate that until an object is observed, it remains as a state of possibilities. Observation collapses the wave function, and the state of the object becomes "fixed". There is no paradox involved. The thing that seems paradoxical is that quantum theory flies in the face of everything we observe with our naked eyes, ie something either is or isn't. Not both is and isn't.

With regards Zeno's paradox, the proposed solution is that there is a minimum length to which space can be divided. Imagine a chain made up of links. You can halve and halve and halve the length of the chain until you get down to a single link. After that point, you can no longer halve it. Think of space in the same way. This smallest length is usually called the Planck Length. Once you look at the paradox in this way, the paradox resolves itself.

I think that apparent paradoxes are caused by having an incorrect frame of reference, or a failing in logic. This includes moral paradoxes because morality does not necessarily have anything to do with logic. And morality is also very dependent on the frame of reference.

kay once again!
i'd only polish some corners on the cat problem: the object itself is in no state of multiple possibilities, only our knowledge about it is, this is where they try to confuse us to build up this con science as quantums seem to me so far

[64hz]

why would there be 'con science'?
thats just self defeating, the aim of science is to find models for what is actually going on, not to pull the wool over peoples eyes.

[alien pimp]

why would there be 'con science'?.

a con science can gather funds for nothing, to give you just one reason for it to exist

thats just self defeating, the aim of science is to find models for what is actually going on, not to pull the wool over peoples eyes.

science and con science are 2 different things (i'd say even opposed), and judging con science by science criteria is self-defeating actually. con science only defeats science, not itself

[64hz]

why would there be 'con science'?.

a con science can gather funds for nothing, to give you just one reason for it to exist

boom, that one reason is more than enough.
i wasnt challenging you btw, just genuinely curious

[alien pimp]

why would there be 'con science'?.

a con science can gather funds for nothing, to give you just one reason for it to exist

boom, that one reason is more than enough.
i wasnt challenging you btw, just genuinely curious

no worries!
and even if you were, i love challenges, they keep life entertaining and they can test the truth

[hayze99]

I know you've got a science degree, so I probably shouldn't argue.

But I thought it was just a metaphor for the way that quantum particles work - i.e a photon being both a wave and a particle until you observe it, when it finally decides to become one state or another.

It's just a thought experience based on treating quantum object the same as classical objects. There's nothing literal about it.

Argue away, I haven't got a physics degree!

You're correct, Schrodinger's Cat is a thought experiment used to demonstrate some of the basic concepts in quantum mechanics. However, it does not describe a paradox. What it does do is illustrate that until an object is observed, it remains as a state of possibilities. Observation collapses the wave function, and the state of the object becomes "fixed". There is no paradox involved. The thing that seems paradoxical is that quantum theory flies in the face of everything we observe with our naked eyes, ie something either is or isn't. Not both is and isn't.

With regards Zeno's paradox, the proposed solution is that there is a minimum length to which space can be divided. Imagine a chain made up of links. You can halve and halve and halve the length of the chain until you get down to a single link. After that point, you can no longer halve it. Think of space in the same way. This smallest length is usually called the Planck Length. Once you look at the paradox in this way, the paradox resolves itself.

I think that apparent paradoxes are caused by having an incorrect frame of reference, or a failing in logic. This includes moral paradoxes because morality does not necessarily have anything to do with logic. And morality is also very dependent on the frame of reference.

I was never claiming it to be a paradox - just explaining it. It's confused because of when people say that a proton is both a wave and a particle at the same time, which seem to be opposed, but the fact is that they're neither one or the other - as you've said it's just a state of possibilities. Just simplifying what you just said.

What you say about the planck length and zeno's paradox is extremely interesting. However, I think that planck length is only the smallest length we know to exist with the knowledge we have, looking at gravity and light and all that jazzy stuff. I think if Zeno's paradox is to stay in a platonic space, since it never would be practically existent at all, the length could still be cut smaller and smaller an infinite amount of times. The second you take it into the practical world it's limited by the smallest space we know to exist right now (which I think will keep shifting).

Another paradox is the algebraic equation.

1x0 = 0
2x0 = 0

thus

0x1 = 0x2

divide by zero:

(0/0)x1 = (0/0)x2

thus:

1=2

But it relies on the fact that you can divide by zero in the first place (which by certain logic is in fact possible)

And one dealing with infinite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_ ... rand_Hotel

Basically, a hotel with infinite rooms, and infinite guests. Another one arrives; can he be accommodated. No, because it's full, but yes, because it's infinite. Then it gets a bit crazy talking about rooms sliding all over the place and chunks being taken out and so on.

and more on infinite: http://www.suitcaseofdreams.net/Infinity_Paradox.htm, explaining the previous thing.

And check out this geezer for more on infinite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor

The dude ended up scrawling thousands of books of mathematics that nobody else could understand. He would end up in insane asylums, come out, live a normal life, then start writing maths in books again until he ended up in a mental hospital once more; repeat x 100. He eventually killed himself.

This documentary outlines some of it, it's incredible:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4649921614#

[volcanogeorge]

I know you've got a science degree, so I probably shouldn't argue.

But I thought it was just a metaphor for the way that quantum particles work - i.e a photon being both a wave and a particle until you observe it, when it finally decides to become one state or another.

It's just a thought experience based on treating quantum object the same as classical objects. There's nothing literal about it.

Argue away, I haven't got a physics degree!

You're correct, Schrodinger's Cat is a thought experiment used to demonstrate some of the basic concepts in quantum mechanics. However, it does not describe a paradox. What it does do is illustrate that until an object is observed, it remains as a state of possibilities. Observation collapses the wave function, and the state of the object becomes "fixed". There is no paradox involved. The thing that seems paradoxical is that quantum theory flies in the face of everything we observe with our naked eyes, ie something either is or isn't. Not both is and isn't.

With regards Zeno's paradox, the proposed solution is that there is a minimum length to which space can be divided. Imagine a chain made up of links. You can halve and halve and halve the length of the chain until you get down to a single link. After that point, you can no longer halve it. Think of space in the same way. This smallest length is usually called the Planck Length. Once you look at the paradox in this way, the paradox resolves itself.

I think that apparent paradoxes are caused by having an incorrect frame of reference, or a failing in logic. This includes moral paradoxes because morality does not necessarily have anything to do with logic. And morality is also very dependent on the frame of reference.

With respect to the "nothing exists until it's observed" part, it's worth noting that observation does not imply you have to look at it. If an object has a mass, then by gravitational field theory it's affecting everything else in the universe (with mass) gravitationally, therefore its effects are being observed, so it must exist in a definite state.

Obviously this breaks down for a photon etc... but it's a point worth making.

Also with regard to infinity:

Let x=0.99999999999999999...9 (0.9 Recurring)

100x = 99.999999999999999...9

100x - x = 99x therefore 99x = 99.99999999999999...9 - 0.999999999999999999.9

so 99x =99, therefore x =1

so therefore 0.9 recurring is equal to 1

[hayze99]

I know you've got a science degree, so I probably shouldn't argue.

But I thought it was just a metaphor for the way that quantum particles work - i.e a photon being both a wave and a particle until you observe it, when it finally decides to become one state or another.

It's just a thought experience based on treating quantum object the same as classical objects. There's nothing literal about it.

Argue away, I haven't got a physics degree!

You're correct, Schrodinger's Cat is a thought experiment used to demonstrate some of the basic concepts in quantum mechanics. However, it does not describe a paradox. What it does do is illustrate that until an object is observed, it remains as a state of possibilities. Observation collapses the wave function, and the state of the object becomes "fixed". There is no paradox involved. The thing that seems paradoxical is that quantum theory flies in the face of everything we observe with our naked eyes, ie something either is or isn't. Not both is and isn't.

With regards Zeno's paradox, the proposed solution is that there is a minimum length to which space can be divided. Imagine a chain made up of links. You can halve and halve and halve the length of the chain until you get down to a single link. After that point, you can no longer halve it. Think of space in the same way. This smallest length is usually called the Planck Length. Once you look at the paradox in this way, the paradox resolves itself.

I think that apparent paradoxes are caused by having an incorrect frame of reference, or a failing in logic. This includes moral paradoxes because morality does not necessarily have anything to do with logic. And morality is also very dependent on the frame of reference.

With respect to the "nothing exists until it's observed" part, it's worth noting that observation does not imply you have to look at it. If an object has a mass, then by gravitational field theory it's affecting everything else in the universe (with mass) gravitationally, therefore its effects are being observed, so it must exist in a definite state.

Obviously this breaks down for a photon etc... but it's a point worth making.

Also with regard to infinity:

Let x=0.99999999999999999...9 (0.9 Recurring)

100x = 99.999999999999999...9

100x - x = 99x therefore 99x = 99.99999999999999...9 - 0.999999999999999999.9

so 99x =99, therefore x =1

so therefore 0.9 recurring is equal to 1

Sheeeeeit. Has anyone found any fallacies in that? Seems pretty tight.

EDIT: Seems that the same problem is as with the one I posted - mixing infinite with rational numbers.

http://polymathematics.typepad.com/poly ... y_it_.html

[alien pimp]

I know you've got a science degree, so I probably shouldn't argue.

But I thought it was just a metaphor for the way that quantum particles work - i.e a photon being both a wave and a particle until you observe it, when it finally decides to become one state or another.

It's just a thought experience based on treating quantum object the same as classical objects. There's nothing literal about it.

Argue away, I haven't got a physics degree!

You're correct, Schrodinger's Cat is a thought experiment used to demonstrate some of the basic concepts in quantum mechanics. However, it does not describe a paradox. What it does do is illustrate that until an object is observed, it remains as a state of possibilities. Observation collapses the wave function, and the state of the object becomes "fixed". There is no paradox involved. The thing that seems paradoxical is that quantum theory flies in the face of everything we observe with our naked eyes, ie something either is or isn't. Not both is and isn't.

With regards Zeno's paradox, the proposed solution is that there is a minimum length to which space can be divided. Imagine a chain made up of links. You can halve and halve and halve the length of the chain until you get down to a single link. After that point, you can no longer halve it. Think of space in the same way. This smallest length is usually called the Planck Length. Once you look at the paradox in this way, the paradox resolves itself.

I think that apparent paradoxes are caused by having an incorrect frame of reference, or a failing in logic. This includes moral paradoxes because morality does not necessarily have anything to do with logic. And morality is also very dependent on the frame of reference.

With respect to the "nothing exists until it's observed" part, it's worth noting that observation does not imply you have to look at it. If an object has a mass, then by gravitational field theory it's affecting everything else in the universe (with mass) gravitationally, therefore its effects are being observed, so it must exist in a definite state.

Obviously this breaks down for a photon etc... but it's a point worth making.

Also with regard to infinity:

Let x=0.99999999999999999...9 (0.9 Recurring)

100x = 99.999999999999999...9

100x - x = 99x therefore 99x = 99.99999999999999...9 - 0.999999999999999999.9

so 99x =99, therefore x =1

so therefore 0.9 recurring is equal to 1

Sheeeeeit. Has anyone found any fallacies in that? Seems pretty tight.

EDIT: Seems that the same problem is as with the one I posted - mixing infinite with rational numbers.

http://polymathematics.typepad.com/poly ... y_it_.html

1-0,9999...9 = 0,000...1 = the smallest positive number
nothing can be added further without reaching the value 1

same thing, zero and infinite are theoretical concepts never encountered in this universe so far
in the real world, zero = non-existence, you can't mix and operate existent nr. with non-existent
as for infinite - even mathematically it fails in many occasions if i'm not wrong...

[64hz]

i dont know what fucks me up more, thinking of zero or thinking of infinity.

[alien pimp]

i dont know what fucks me up more, thinking of zero or thinking of infinity.

this is how cantor went nuts
but i don't think any engine or technical invention used the infinite in the calculations that lead to it... and if they used zero, it was like a figure, not number

[decatetron]

Anyone know of the barber paradox?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber_paradox

[Frodo Bassbins]

opening scene of The departed jack nicholson is talking to a young boy and asks him "do you do well in school"? the boy nods his head yes. jack nicholson then says
" i did to, they call that a paradox" i never understood this line of the movie and i have watched this movie many times its one of my favourites , maybe you could explain?

[volcanogeorge]

i dont know what fucks me up more, thinking of zero or thinking of infinity.

They should really fuck you up the same as they define each other.

[alien pimp]

Anyone know of the barber paradox?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber_paradox

this one is truly bollocks, to the point where it's insulting for any average intelligence!
why would the barber be assimilated to the other people when he's the one an only one in the town who shaves others? replace him with a barber from another town and the thing works!
not to mention they jump right away from "It seems reasonable to imagine" to an implacable rule! let's see first if it's truly that reasonable and then we call it a rule. too many overrated mediocrities are looked up to in the "intellectual" arena
this whole shit is like: let's invent a broken car and then prove it's not working

Suppose there is a town with just one male barber; and that every man in the town keeps himself clean-shaven: some by shaving themselves, some by attending the barber. It seems reasonable to imagine that the barber obeys the following rule: He shaves all and only those men in town who do not shave themselves.

Under this scenario, we can ask the following question: Does the barber shave himself?

Asking this, however, we discover that the situation presented is in fact impossible:

If the barber does not shave himself, he must abide by the rule and shave himself.
If he does shave himself, according to the rule he will not shave himself.