You wouldn't recognize a question-begging infinite regress if it bit you on the tuchus, woild you? (Rhetoruc question, Mr. D-K.) — 180 Proof

I even answered it for you 180booze! Hidden variables to stop the regress and send it backwards.

Exactly! Wigner's friend and all that. Only hidden variables offer a realistic escape. Objective collapse.

In QM by "observer" I understand measurement apparatus (re: interaction of different systems).and not "consciousness — 180 Proof

Then you understand it wrongly. That's exactly what not is meant. An observer is always conscious. An apparatus stays in superposition till an observer looks at it.

The very definition of a paradox is that it can be resolved. The true paradox, that is.

Classical logic has to use Occam's broom — Agent Smith

What about Occam's shaving gel? Makes the razor run smooth... Shave those needless hairs away! Smoooooth.....

For example, if there is an infinite number of points between any two points — Metaphysician Undercover

It's the question if this is the case.

The problem with paradoxes, basically contradictions — Agent Smith

Paradoxes seem to contradict expectation. On solving them, they're not paradoxal anymore.

That's because each mental model of Reality is abstract & fragmentary, derived from a limited perspective and shaped by personal biases. — Gnomon

True. But that doesn't mean you can't consider them objective reality. You gotta think something is real. Other people see something different as real. There as many objective realities as there are people and animals.

So VP are as real as real particles which are as real as my fingers tapping. :wink:

No genes or memes, nor God or laws of nature, can tell me what to do or how to think.

Memes, knowledge is memetic (oui?), are active i.e. they exhibit intentionality, like all life - — Agent Smith

Memes are screaming for procreation like genes? A curious case, dear Watson...

His radical theory to explain this correspondence is that those states become mathematically identical when taken to their limits

It shows, again, the connection between zero (zero entropy at the start) and infinity (maximum entropy of the photon/neutrino gas at the end).

Really appreciate his ideas. Information ontology is one of the more sensible interpretations of quantum physics to my mind — Count Timothy von Icarus

What have zeroes and ones gotta do with QM? The zeroes and ones are nowhere to be seen in a wavefunction. You can represent the wavefunction by ones and zeroes, as information on a computer chip.

Total disorder (an ultra hot gas) is essentially the same as a totally ordered one. You need very little to know the whole state. In that sense is the beginning the same as the end. But the interesting things happen in between. Medium order.

What was your question again?

Especially flights of fancy about God proven by Quantum Mechanics — Tom Storm

Ha! It's God luring behind the wavefunction...

Maybe it's all farted in existence accidentally. The farter apologized to their fellow gods for that... "prrrrr... bang!" "Sorry guys!"

It's an aphorism - it's not meant to be taken as a law of physics — Tom Storm

Thinking about laws of physics is often a sign of mental illness. As an aphorism, that is.

Maybe there is an element of randomness that brought the laws into existence, — ToothyMaw

In fact there is. Every new big bang spawns a different universe. But where does the element of randomness come from? If all gaps are closed, what else can be concluded than gods created it? There are gods of the gaps but also gods after the gaps. Not filling the gaps but creating the stuff we have gaps about.

You are being very stupid for someone with such a great vocabulary. — ToothyMaw

Ha! :up:

Because it's tantamount to asking whether a circle can be squared. — 180 Proof

A circle can in fact be squared. Take four points between thumb and finger, and stretch the curved lines straight. Now that's philosophy!

They in fact are. But there is an intelligence needed to bring that eternal infinity into existence. The laws themselves are to dumb for that.

Why does the universe need an original cause rooted in supernatural creators? — ToothyMaw

Because laws of nature can't create themselves.

Gods weren't created. They have always existed. Why should they be created? How can you research this?

Then where did we and the universe come from? Even when eternal?

We have no reason to believe that God exists. — ToothyMaw

Isn't the fact that we and the universe exist proof?

"If" they exist? How else can it be?

Why should God be omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent monster in the first place?

Memes, knowledge is memetic (oui?), are active i.e. they exhibit intentionality, like all life - they seek hosts to multiply in and mutate under selection pressure, transforming themselves into powerful ideas that then metastasize, like malignancies, infecting the whole of humanity. I hope the relationship is symbiotic, fingers crossed. — Agent Smith

That relationship depends on the idea and the ideas used by the majority and the people these ideas blossom in. I have done some research on this about two particular ideas in physics. I asked why the ideas of preons, hidden variables, and black holes as dark matter are unpopular in physics (while having the potential to solve many fundamental problems). The usual irrational reactions. Closing of the question without any good reason why. It's the way the majority thinks that counts. Deviating ideas should be avoided or wiped under the carpet. I don't like this feature which ideas have given to their hosts in order to secure themselves.

The gods live in a similar world as ours. With animals, mountains, stars and seas. An eternal world which they (re)created. If we can't lift huge stones, they can't. Being omnipotent is being omni-impotent, for what should you do with infinite possibilities? They are bound just like us. The difference being that they have the power of creation. Which they used to create the universe.

You seem to mix bits from RQM, Copenhagen, and Bohmian mechanics — noAxioms

"Seem" indeed, because I don't mix them. I just say there are hidden variables. Unfashionable, exciting lots of irrational underbelly feelings, just as the existence of preons. They are not metaphysical but physical.

as if classical physics is the more fundamental of the two. — noAxioms

You see hidden variables as classical variables? Don't think so. They are non-local. Classical variables are local, except maybe tidal forces but they can be considered in arbitrary small regions of space. Maybe space itself is made of hidden variables. I don't see what Napoleon or Casar have to do with QM.

Bohm's efforts seem a desperate attempt to explain quantum mechanics in classical terms as if classical physics is the more fundamental of the two.
The interpretation ( — noAxioms

"Desperate"... Typical. Bohm was called names by his contemporaries. But he was right.

If anyone was desperate, it was Everest. Or Rovelli, for that matter, but he shows some signs of intelligence.

There are no hidden variables in RQM, and humans do not play any preferred role.
— noAxioms
How do you know there are no hidden variables?
— EugeneW
I didn't say there are no hidden variables — noAxioms

Okay. That's all I asked. Which means they offer an explanation. In BQM, the wavefunction just collapses. As a matter of fact, experiments can be done to discern if they exist or not.

Gods made us, the world, and all creatures in the image of their world. Which means they are not omnipotent because no creature is. They have an extra power. The power of creation.

— apokrisis

Our body lies between the brain world and the physical world. What if the self is just the body?

Material processes can never explain consciousness. They lack the vital element, namely consciousness itself.

Yeah, I never understood how scientists could say that processes are reversible — Harry Hindu

Not one process in the universe is reversible. That's an idealization. All processes are irreversible. These processes constitutes time. The reversible clock measures them. The clock is an idealization too. The only thing that can't be assigned a direction are virtual particles and exactly these are involved in constituting irreversible processes, i.e. processes with a temporal direction.

I have searched for lil D-ker. Is it Crosby?

If you understand the wavefunction, then you should understand this. If you put cards parallel to the screen (in the double slit experiment) you would see the wavefunction (as on the screen). I don't think the particle travels on all paths at once. It rather jumps from one to the other, within the confines of the wavefunction the wavefunction accompanied the particle.

Constant improvement of human beings, via science/growth, at the cost of the rest of the whole cannot be improvement is what socialist don't seem to get. — ChatteringMonkey

Well, it depends. Economic growth leads to disaster. It depends on how much of the natural world you fuck up. If you use smaller and fewer instruments, it will not go wrong. I think we are perfect as we are. No need for improvement. Maybe build a super large particle accelerator. To prove preons. Costs 100 billion only.

which has earned the right to and can be trusted with 'stewardship' of the Earth, endeavour for around 10,000 tears — universeness

10 000 tears... Very appropriate in this thread. :wink:

Great words, by the way! Men have survived 2 000 000 years. They will survive another. Im curious how it looks in 2 000 000 000 years!