patrick.net

curious2 says

Dan, reading the comments posted by you and marcus, I realize that I was very lucky in my math teachers, and alas not always as lucky in my science teachers. I hope someday you might consider teaching science.

And take a massive paycut?

Seriously, teaching should be virtualized anyway so that all persons have equal and unfettered access to education regardless of age, economics, or geography.

curious2 says

I hope someday you might consider teaching science.

I'm good, but Feynman was better.

Dan8267 says

Seriously, teaching should be virtualized anyway so that all persons have equal and unfettered access to education regardless of age, economics, or geography.

There is Khan Academy.

Dan8267 says

Put simply, the idea that uncertainly means that a property takes on all possible values simultaneously is utterly meaningless if you also add that once that property has any effect on the universe it is no longer "all possible values" but some particular value. What have you really added to the understanding of quantum mechanics? What phenomenon are you explaining? What would be the difference between a universe in which the Copenhagen Interpretation operated and one in which it didn't? The answer: nothing.

The above seems to imply that there are no experiment in which a particle is in fact at different places at the same time, and observed to be so.
But there are such experiments.

Dan8267 says

And please, don’t misinterpret the experiment as so many do as believing that the cat really is both dead and alive. That is not the right answer.

So what is your interpretation? How do you eliminate the possibility that the cat is both dead and alive?

Dan8267 says

Fortunately, there is a simple equation that describes how much error our attempts to measure something will introduce. It's called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and it calculates a maximum error

Also your previous thread tries to conflate the uncertainty principle with the minimum measurement error, since any observation would necessary affect the subject.

This is not what this principle is about. The uncertainty is an inherent property of a system described through a wave function. It's not just a question of measuring it. The system simply does not have a tangible state like macro level systems seem to have.

freak80 says

There is Khan Academy.

http://www.wRnSnfiUI54

Heraclitusstudent says

The above seems to imply that there are no experiment in which a particle is in fact at different places at the same time, and observed to be so.

But there are such experiments.

That's one interpretation of the Double-Slit Experiment. It is not mine. But that's off topic for this thread. If you want to discuss, we can open a scitech thread.

Heraclitusstudent says

How do you eliminate the possibility that the cat is both dead and alive?

Common sense, just like Schrödinger did. Do you honestly believe that the cat could, even in principle, be both alive and dead at the same time? If so, then I doubt we have enough common ground in our perceptions of reality to discuss the situation.

Heraclitusstudent says

Also your previous thread tries to conflate the uncertainty principle with the minimum measurement error, since any observation would necessary affect the subject.

This is not what this principle is about. The uncertainty is an inherent property of a system described through a wave function. It's not just a question of measuring it. The system simply does not have a tangible state like macro level systems seem to have.

The very definition of the Uncertainty Principle is

That's what the Uncertainty Principle means. Physics comes first. Philosophy comes second. You are putting the cart before the horse.

You might want your philosophy to correct, but your philosophy is not the laws of physics regardless of whether or not it is correct, useful, or interesting. Everything in physics is tangible by definition. That's why it's called physics as in the physical.

I'm not going to get into a nomenclature debate. If you want to talk physics, you have to use the language of physics, mathematics, not philosophy.

Dan8267 says

Heraclitusstudent says

How do you eliminate the possibility that the cat is both dead and alive?

Common sense, just like Schrödinger did. Do you honestly believe that the cat could, even in principle, be both alive and dead at the same time?

Physics comes first. Philosophy comes second. Physics doesn't say anything about the cat being alive or dead. So I honestly believe I can't know. And I don't know how you know.

Applying "common sense" to quantum physics is a dangerous endeavor, to say the least.

Dan8267 says

I'm not going to get into a nomenclature debate. If you want to talk physics, you have to use the language of physics, mathematics, not philosophy.

This is not a nomenclature question. And this is not philosophy. This is theoretical physics. The uncertainty principle arise theoretically from a system being described as a wave function. This is independent of any interaction or measurement.
Your conflating it with the observer effect is a confusion.

Dan8267 says

That's one interpretation of the Double-Slit Experiment. It is not mine.

This is not an interpretation. This is how the equations actually explain what is observed in this experiment.

Heraclitusstudent says

Physics comes first. Philosophy comes second. Physics doesn't say anything about the cat being alive or dead. So I honestly believe I can't know. And I don't know how you know.

Applying "common sense" to quantum physics is a dangerous endeavor, to say the least.

The point, my dear, of Schrödinger's cat is that we're applying common sense to macro-behavior, not the quantum world.

If you honestly believe that the cat even might be both alive and dead simultaneously, then you'll have to deal with that dilemma on your own. Nobody else does. Everyone else understands that the cat is either alive or dead regardless of whether or not we know the answer.

Heraclitusstudent says

Your conflating it with the observer effect is a confusion.

http://www.G2y8Sx4B2Sk

Trust me, I'm not the one here who is confused.

Heraclitusstudent says

Dan8267 says

That's one interpretation of the Double-Slit Experiment. It is not mine.

This is not an interpretation. This is how the equations actually explain what is observed in this experiment.

I would go into details on this, but given the difficulties in communication we seem to be having, there would be no point.

Obligatory:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_woo

Dan8267 says

If you honestly believe that the cat even might be both alive and dead simultaneously, then you'll have to deal with that dilemma on your own. Nobody else does.

What BS. A majority of physicists do accept the many worlds interpretation, in which the cat is indeed both dead and alive, including Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman.

Dan8267 says

I would go into details on this, but given the difficulties in communication we seem to be having, there would be no point.

In other words "I was wrong but no way I will admit it".

I actually thought you knew something about quantum mechanics but looks like you're just a crackpot who's just talking with more aplomb than Marcus.

Heraclitusstudent says

the many worlds interpretation

There is a difference between positing a multiverse (where in some universes the cat is alive and in other universes the cat is dead) and saying that the same cat in the same universe is both alive and dead throughout the same extended period of time. Here on this earth, over the course of an hour, the cat is either alive or dead or first alive and then dead.

Heraclitusstudent says

In other words "I was wrong but no way I will admit it".

You're free to believe any delusion you want. I'm free to lose respect for you when you make incorrect assumptions about what goes on in my mind.

curious2 says

There is a difference between positing a multiverse (where in some universes the cat is alive and in other universes the cat is dead) and saying that the same cat in the same universe is both alive and dead throughout the same extended period of time. Here on this earth, over the course of an hour, the cat is either alive or dead or first alive and then dead.

Semantics. The MWI states there are 2 overlapping quantum states that encompass the entire cat, both have an objective reality, and that is what we are talking about: the quantum properties extend to macro objects.

And there is nothing in quantum physics that says this cannot be the case. The only thing that is asserted and that can be empirically verified is that if you open the box, then, to you as an observer, it will appear like the dice is thrown and either the cat is alive or the cat is dead. What you think happened in-between (or after) is just interpretations not physics.

Who cares about all of this quantum stuff? Unless one is an actual quantum physicist working in the field, what's the point of speculating?

The rest of us have to get up, go to work, eat, and sleep and live in the "macro" world where common sense still works (most of the time).

I was reading this during a break at work today, and someone I have on ignore posted this:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_woo

Which was interesting. I'll admit, I read the tao of physics 30 plus years ago. But I continued being curious about quantum mechanics, and have stayed curious and have yet to put enough time in to it.

The thing I would say about quantum mechanics is just how interesting and bizarre reality turns out to be. Although I don't know that it can actually be extended to macro world that we live in. Shrodengers cat is just a simile right ?

Years ago, when I was studying MAth and some physics too, I found the following to be especially non intuitive (if it's true).

Supposedly, quantum mechanics tells us that there is a non zero probability that if I hit my hand against the table or a wall, repeatedly, that there is anon-zero probability that my hand could tunnel in to the wall or table. (it is 99.99..........999% space after all, at the micro level).

That is, supposedly there is very very very very small (but still) non zero probability of that happening.

And yet if I were to randomly select a real number, the probability that it's a rational number is ZERO.

The second one of these facts that the math tells us is believable to me(but stange), because of how infinitely times as many irrational numbers there are than rational. But the idea that my hand tunneling through a table or wall is more likely that my being able to select a rational number, if a real number is selected ? This is surprising.

(for non-math people the rational numbers include the integers and all the fractions. So the number line is as infinitely filled with rational numbers as you can possible imagine. You could put the best computers to work just generating billions of rational numbers per hour between 0 and .000000000000001 from now until when the sun dies. And yet there are still infinitely times as many irrational numbers in that same interval)

Far more surprising is our real world and some of the observations that have been made using well designed tools. Even without Math, if reality at the micro level tells us that when you are observing,...what photons do in certain situations is way different than when you are not observing, how bizarre is that ?

Jumping back to the macro level, I'll just share an observation. On the one hand, I do not think that quanum mechanics applies on the macro level. On the other hand, I'll just share this. It's easy to accidentally collapse Dan's wave function. That is, once you start thinking he's an asshole, it becomes true.

marcus says

It's easy to accidentally collapse Dan's wave function. That is, once you start thinking he's an asshole, it becomes true.

The stupid always view the intelligent as assholes. It's called having an inferiority complex. The sad thing is that the stupid could become more intelligent if they just started listening to the intelligent.

marcus says

I was reading this during a break at work today, and someone I have on ignore
posted this:

Marcus, if you're secure in your beliefs you wouldn't have me on ignore. You wouldn't give a shit what I think or what the folks at RationalWiki think.

I don't think you even understand why marcus has you on ignore. It isn't because of him caring what you think or not. He just doesn't want to get sucked in to talking to people that have proven themselves to not be worth the time.

And I believe he said that he liked that rationalwiki page on quantum woo.

You probably wonder whether this is marcus' account at work. Otherwise how would I know so much about his reasons ?

Let's just say I think I know. I've read many of his comments, including ones where he talked about why he ignores some. I think he tends to respect others, even idiots. So he's too likely to get involved in pointless arguments if he didn't use the ignore function.

I've seen extremely intelligent and secure people on this site that ignore nobody. And there are several regulars who are very intelligent and secure who ignore a lot of people, just like marcus does.

It's an ego flaw for you to think others would be like you, if they had their act together. This is something you have in common with Dan.

Ok, so I'm not worth the time.

freak80 says

Ok, so I'm not worth the time.

Don't feel bad. If a fifth of the people on this site aren't insulting you, then you're not writing anything important. The truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident.

If you write anything worth reading, they'll be people in the first two stages trying to tear you apart. That's how you can identify whose opinions aren't worth shit.

humanity says

I don't think you even understand why marcus has you on ignore. It isn't because of him caring what you think or not. He just doesn't want to get sucked in to talking to people that have proven themselves to not be worth the time.

That's a very charitable and demonstrably false interpretation. Marcus pretends to ignore people but uses a separate browser to stalk them, launches into baseless emotional tantrums of false accusations, goes out of his way and totally off topic to insult them in threads where he is the "Moderator", etc. (Among his favorite accusations is calling everybody racist - btw, he's white.) He is obviously not trying to save time.

humanity says

You probably wonder whether this is marcus' account at work. Otherwise how would I know so much about his reasons ?

Let's just say I think I know.

Well, in that last bit, you do begin to sound like him, and it would be just like him to create a separate ID to engage the people he's obsessed with while still pretending to ignore them. His balloon avatar sums him up perfectly: he's a fragile airhead with only the thinnest thread connecting him to the planet, and he needs to keep his ego inflated while at the same time trolling for fights and running away in a deranged game of tag. If he feels - somehow, in his own little world - that you've hurt his feelings, he'll tag you and run back to ignore as if that were a grownup response. Even among children, his behavior would be considered childish.

He says that he teaches math and silences students who are in "awe" of him, but if he is in fact a teacher then I suspect they fear inadvertently setting off one of his baseless explosive tantrums and having it sully their "permanent record". If they were to speak, they would probably say something like "we are shocked, not awed." But in his little world, in the real or imaginary classroom where those kids are at risk of his wrath, he is God, and he's got used to that, and he hates anyone who dispels that self-perception.

curious2 says

Marcus pretends to ignore people

That's just it. Marcus "ignored" me but quickly responded to my post.

That wasn't the first time.

You mean this wasn't real?
http://www.c0AdtgFbqOc

freak80 says

Since most of us are atheists, and beating up Marcus is of limited interest, why don't you propose something more interesting, like the nature of knowledge, or the merits of the Copenhagen interpretation?

Visualize your soul as a collection of subatomic mass that has a strong bond with the ultraverse; vibrations that some may call harmony pervade the very essence of humanity. By quieting the mind and being open to experience, we can transmorgify the appearance of reality into perception of the true reality.

(How am I doing?)

thunder,

That wasn't my quote, that was from heraclitusstudent...

thunderlips11 says

(How am I doing?)

It's a great impression of New Age bullshit :-)

thunderlips11 says

Visualize your soul as a collection of subatomic mass that has a strong bond with the ultraverse; vibrations that some may call harmony pervade the very essence of humanity. By quieting the mind and being open to experience, we can transmorgify the appearance of reality into perception of the true reality

California 1977.

Does anyone know the name of the man who was speaking at 5:48, I would like to hear more of his lectures.

Michael Shermer is speaking after him.

cvos says

Does anyone know the name of the man who was speaking at 5:48

Sam Harris

cvos says

Does anyone know the name of the man who was speaking at 5:48, I would like to hear more of his lectures.

The speaker's name is Sam Harris. He is a neuroscientist and science author.

The scene you referenced is from The God Debate II: Harris vs. Craig. I've included the whole video below.

The second annual God Debate features atheist neuroscientist Sam Harris and Evangelical Christian apologist William Lane Craig as they debate the topic: "Is Good From God?" The debate was sponsored in large part by the Notre Dame College of Arts and Letters: The Henkels Lecturer Series, The Center for Philosophy of Religion and the Institute for Scholarship in the Liberal Arts.

http://www.yqaHXKLRKzg

Dan8267 says

The scene you referenced is from The God Debate II: Harris vs. Craig. I've included the whole video below.

Here is a transcript. Sam Harris refutes the argument that atheists "are closed to some remarkable experiences that religious people have."

That argument seems a bit silly anyway, because religious people are missing out on what they might otherwise be doing with the time they spend in church, for example they could be reading a new book instead of the same one over and over again. My favorite response though is the list of weird foods. Years ago, the NY Times had an interesting article on the evolution of weird foods, including fish left to rot in soil for a few days. The hypothesis was, human populations evolved with these foods as a way of identifying in-group and out-group, like in WWII American soldiers trying to identify friend vs foe would ask questions that only Americans would know the answers to. (For example, Who won the world series five years ago?) Religion serves the same function, i.e. a set of beliefs that no one else would know or accept. People missing out on the joy of a particular belief system are in the same position as people who miss out on the enjoyment of rotten fish.

Thank you Dan and curious.

freak80 says

thunder,

That wasn't my quote, that was from heraclitusstudent...

Oops, my bad

Atheists don't believe in themselves.

carrieon says

Atheists don't believe in themselves.

?

freak80 says

carrieon says

Atheists don't believe in themselves.

?

Evidently we're gods. I guess that explains why all those women I've bedded kept saying "Oh god!". Don't worry, I won't let it go to my head.

hehhehheh

marcus says

Jumping back to the macro level, I'll just share an observation. On the one hand, I do not think that quanum mechanics applies on the macro level. On the other hand, I'll just share this. It's easy to accidentally collapse Dan's wave function. That is, once you start thinking he's an asshole, it becomes true

Dan8267 says

The speaker's name is Sam Harris. He is a neuroscientist and science author.

Some people believe in threads resurrection.

Btw, while we are here, Sam Harris has written a book called: " Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion".

Just thought Dan would want to read that.

Heraclitusstudent says

Btw, while we are here, Sam Harris has written a book called: " Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion".

Just thought Dan would want to read that.

From the Amazon.com description and synopsis on the back cover, it sounds like Harris is using the term "spiritual" to mean psychological, not supernatural. If so, then essentially he's espousing the same ideas that I do.

However, this is not what the public thinks when they hear the word "spiritual" even though many of them use the word spiritual as a marketing term for psychological.

Make no mistake. I find the natural world literally awesome, awe-inspiring. In fact, I find the natural world to be far more incredible than fools who believe in the supernatural, precisely because I don't need to give credit to the supernatural for what nature has done by itself. This is true respect for nature. To invoke the supernatural is to disrespect nature by stating that it is incapable of doing what it has accomplished. I sincerely doubt that Sam Harris would disagree with this.