A truly HORRIFIC tsunami picture

Mxsmanic wrote:

The very existence of Ehrenfest's Theorem says you are wrong. They
don't "assume it" -- they have proven it.

The theorem doesn't prove that.

Yes, it does. Sadly, I can't do your reading comprehension for you.

Note the conspicuous lack of the words "conscious", or even
"observer".

It's hidden in the words "can be known," "physical observable,"
"physically measurable," and so on.

You are now reading what isn't there at all. Clue: your fantasies are
not reality.

The only way to distinguish unambiguously between the observer and
the
observed is by making the observer conscious. Otherwise they are the
same thing, and so one cannot exercise upon the other an action of
which
it is incapable until so acted upon itself by that other.

As I stated (and as you predictably ignored, and will of course ignore
again), even if all of your new-age claptrap was correct, the
"observers" are either subject to the dictate of QM itself (ie, there
is no distinction between observer and observation, to use your kooky
terminology), or they are not. If they are, then they must be
microscopic, and you have the problem of identifying these "microscopic
consciousnesses". If they are not, then QM as elucidated in any
physics textbook can't say anything about them at all -- thus your
demands that it do so are without merit.

The word "observable" has a precise technical meaning that you are
clearly ignorant of.

All the "technical meanings" are contrived to avoid recognizing the
above.

QM was born in mathematics. Some yoyo newage fruitcake reads about
"observables" (had they been called "quantifiables" or even "zitnorts",
would the nitwits have noticed QM at all?) and elaborates a huge
fantasy.

But of course, all of this is, as you say, just a conspiracy.

And even if "observable" can be construed to mean "conscious
observer
observing", the plain fact that there are other, completely
equivalent,
versions of QM that do not use the standard observable formalism
basically says you are full of it the "need" for "conscious
observers".

Which version of QM is correct?

Since they make exactly the same predictions, both are. Once again,
this is common knowledge in physics circles. The only people who are
having problems are the half-educated nitwits like you.

And even if "conscious observers" are a requirement, and
that the only possible form of QM required wave-function collapse
etc,
Ehrenfest says that QM is for microscopic stuff.

No, Ehrenfest says QM is easier to see in microscopic stuff, which
isn't
the same thing (and it was already rather obvious).

You need to read the theorem again. Derive it, actually. The notion
is qualitatively similar to the laws of equilibrium thermodynamics, in
that for small ensembles, the laws are regularly violated, but very
rapidly -- as ensemble size N increases -- they "take hold" and do not
let go. The likelihood of observing a violation of the second law, for
example, is non-zero for even a piece of barely visible dust, but so
wickedly, superly, incredibly small as to be effectively zero.
(Similarly, common microscopic effects like tunnelling ain't gonna
happen to macroscopic objects...)

Basically, in addition to being supremely ignorant of QM you don't even
know where your ill-considered ideas actually lead. To wit: nowhere.
This is classic new-age neo-religious bull****. How much mis-education
does it take to believe that physical reality does give a **** about
what you think? This is a key question, since the very notion is
ultimately the core stupidity of the religious, new-age, "conscious
observer" bull**** you are spewing.

writes:

Yes, it does.

Because you say so? Actually looking at it does not tell me this, so
why should I believe your unsupported assertion?

You are now reading what isn't there at all. Clue: your fantasies are
not reality.

Is there a difference?

As I stated (and as you predictably ignored, and will of course ignore
again), even if all of your new-age claptrap was correct ...

Nothing I'm saying is particularly "new-age."

... the
"observers" are either subject to the dictate of QM itself (ie, there
is no distinction between observer and observation, to use your kooky
terminology), or they are not.

They are not. As conscious entities, they are independent of the
physical universe, and thus they can exist without being observed.

If they are not, then QM as elucidated in any
physics textbook can't say anything about them at all ...

Conventional science does not address or acknowledge consciousness,
since it is a metaphysical phenomenon and science describes only the
physical world (the world that can be observed).

QM was born in mathematics.

That's perhaps the most serious problem with it.

Some yoyo newage fruitcake reads about
"observables" (had they been called "quantifiables" or even "zitnorts",
would the nitwits have noticed QM at all?) and elaborates a huge
fantasy.

What physicists discovered with quantum mechanics had been known to some
people for a very long time. But scientists have to discover things for
themselves before they'll acknowledge them.

But of course, all of this is, as you say, just a conspiracy.

There is no conspiracy.

Since they make exactly the same predictions, both are.

Ah? In order for them both to be correct, there must not be any
objective reality.

Once again, this is common knowledge in physics circles. The
only people who are having problems are the half-educated
nitwits like you.

Not really. I have it all pretty clear myself. But many scientists
must engage in a sort of doublethink to avoid facing some of the
metaphysical questions raised by some domains of modern science. The
more they learn, the worse this will get, of course.

You need to read the theorem again. Derive it, actually. The notion
is qualitatively similar to the laws of equilibrium thermodynamics, in
that for small ensembles, the laws are regularly violated, but very
rapidly -- as ensemble size N increases -- they "take hold" and do not
let go.

No, thermodynamics doesn't work that way.

The likelihood of observing a violation of the second law, for
example, is non-zero for even a piece of barely visible dust, but so
wickedly, superly, incredibly small as to be effectively zero.

It is non-zero. That's the important point to retain.

The chances of winning the lottery are effectively zero. Therefore no
one has ever won the lottery. Find the error.

(Similarly, common microscopic effects like tunnelling ain't gonna
happen to macroscopic objects...)

They are very improbable. They are not impossible, and saying that they
will never occur is very risky.

Basically, in addition to being supremely ignorant of QM you don't even
know where your ill-considered ideas actually lead. To wit: nowhere.

They lead to many things, but most of them are outside of conventional
science, and all too often this also means they are outside the ability
or will to comprehend of many scientists and others of like mind.

This is classic new-age neo-religious bull****.

It has nothing to do with "new-age" or other "new" ideas.

How much mis-education does it take to believe that physical reality
does give a **** about what you think?

Physical reality is not conscious, and thus cannot care about what I
think.

This is a key question, since the very notion is
ultimately the core stupidity of the religious, new-age, "conscious
observer" bull**** you are spewing.

The key questions are the ones that many scientists avoid the most.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote:

writes:

Yes, it does.

Because you say so? Actually looking at it does not tell me this, so
why should I believe your unsupported assertion?

As I said: your inability to read is your problem, not mine. Educate
yourself.

You are now reading what isn't there at all. Clue: your fantasies
are
not reality.

Is there a difference?

Are you really this stupid?

As I stated (and as you predictably ignored, and will of course
ignore
again), even if all of your new-age claptrap was correct ...

Nothing I'm saying is particularly "new-age."

Apparently you are.

... the
"observers" are either subject to the dictate of QM itself (ie,
there
is no distinction between observer and observation, to use your
kooky
terminology), or they are not.

They are not. As conscious entities, they are independent of the
physical universe, and thus they can exist without being observed.

Then, as I concluded, you are in no position to make any demands of QM.

What, then, is your point? (Right: none.)

If they are not, then QM as elucidated in any
physics textbook can't say anything about them at all ...

Conventional science does not address or acknowledge consciousness,
since it is a metaphysical phenomenon and science describes only the
physical world (the world that can be observed).

Baseless assertion.

QM was born in mathematics.

That's perhaps the most serious problem with it.

You inability to understand is the problem. Fortunately, your problem.

Some yoyo newage fruitcake reads about
"observables" (had they been called "quantifiables" or even
"zitnorts",
would the nitwits have noticed QM at all?) and elaborates a huge
fantasy.

What physicists discovered with quantum mechanics had been known to
some
people for a very long time. But scientists have to discover things
for
themselves before they'll acknowledge them.

Baseless assertion.

But of course, all of this is, as you say, just a conspiracy.

There is no conspiracy.

Context free comment. In addition to an idiot, you are a liar as well?

Since they make exactly the same predictions, both are.

Ah? In order for them both to be correct, there must not be any
objective reality.

The two theories are equivalent: they make the same predictions.

Basically, your position is lost and you don't know it. Game, set,
match -- and you complain there is no more balls. Checkmate, and yet
you try and make a move. Is there a better definition of "stupid"?

Once again, this is common knowledge in physics circles. The
only people who are having problems are the half-educated
nitwits like you.

Not really. I have it all pretty clear myself. But many scientists
must engage in a sort of doublethink to avoid facing some of the
metaphysical questions raised by some domains of modern science. The
more they learn, the worse this will get, of course.

You appeal to a faulty science of your own construction -- a strawman.
I attempt to correct you. Now the goalposts are shifted: science is
now not important.

Stupid, liar, and intellectually dishonest.

You need to read the theorem again. Derive it, actually. The
notion
is qualitatively similar to the laws of equilibrium thermodynamics,
in
that for small ensembles, the laws are regularly violated, but very
rapidly -- as ensemble size N increases -- they "take hold" and do
not
let go.

No, thermodynamics doesn't work that way.

Ignorant ****.

The likelihood of observing a violation of the second law, for
example, is non-zero for even a piece of barely visible dust, but
so
wickedly, superly, incredibly small as to be effectively zero.

It is non-zero. That's the important point to retain.

The chances of winning the lottery are effectively zero. Therefore
no
one has ever won the lottery. Find the error.

You are the error. The probabilities in question are far, far, lower.
How long do you think you have to wait for all the molecules in the air
in your room will rush simultaneously into one corner. Go ahead,
compute it.

(Similarly, common microscopic effects like tunnelling ain't gonna
happen to macroscopic objects...)

They are very improbable. They are not impossible, and saying that
they
will never occur is very risky.

They will never happen in the lifetime of this universe. Get back to
us if you find yourself spontaneously breathing vacuum. Until then,
yours is ignorant drivel.

Basically, in addition to being supremely ignorant of QM you don't
even
know where your ill-considered ideas actually lead. To wit:
nowhere.

They lead to many things, but most of them are outside of
conventional
science, and all too often this also means they are outside the
ability
or will to comprehend of many scientists and others of like mind.

Of course, now that you are proven to be wrong on all counts, you
retreat into la-la land. Your inability to comprehend is, once more,
your problem, not "many scientists".

This is classic new-age neo-religious bull****.

It has nothing to do with "new-age" or other "new" ideas.

Everything you have said is decades old, found in the usual suspects
blather.

How much mis-education does it take to believe that physical
reality
does give a **** about what you think?

Physical reality is not conscious, and thus cannot care about what I
think.

Apparently it didn't take much for you...

This is a key question, since the very notion is
ultimately the core stupidity of the religious, new-age, "conscious
observer" bull**** you are spewing.

The key questions are the ones that many scientists avoid the most.
You are in no position to complain about "avoiding questions", sirrah.

writes:

Apparently you are.

How so? I'm not familiar with this "new-age" system of which you write.
What parallels do you see?

Then, as I concluded, you are in no position to make any demands of QM.

I'm not demanding anything of QM, I'm explaining it.

What, then, is your point?

See above.

Baseless assertion.

Actually, it's proven, not merely asserted. Consciousness _is_ a
metaphysical phenomenon.

The two theories are equivalent: they make the same predictions.

Making the same predictions does not make two theories equivalent. Only
one can actually correspond to reality; the other is simply wrong.

Epicycles made accurate predictions, too, but they did not correspond to
reality.

You appeal to a faulty science of your own construction ...

I do not appeal to science, which does not address the greater
metaphysical reality. And what I describe is not of my construction,
although I did independently reach certain conclusions also reached by
others on my own.

The probabilities in question are far, far, lower.

It doesn't matter how low they are. What matters is that they are not
zero.

They will never happen in the lifetime of this universe.

They are _unlikely_ to happen, which isn't quite the same thing.

Of course, now that you are proven to be wrong on all counts, you
retreat into la-la land. Your inability to comprehend is, once more,
your problem, not "many scientists".

If you invert the sign here, do you notice that the conclusions are the
same?

Everything you have said is decades old, found in the usual suspects
blather.

Actually, it's thousands of years old. The metaphysical aspects of
reality were actually known _first_; conventional science began to
describe physical reality much later.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote in :

Actually, it's proven, not merely asserted. Consciousness _is_ a
metaphysical phenomenon.

Oops - nothing in physics is proven yet as far as I know. It
is all about theories and usefullness of the theories. So -
how come metaphysic things are proven?

The two theories are equivalent: they make the same predictions.

Making the same predictions does not make two theories equivalent. Only
one can actually correspond to reality; the other is simply wrong.

Oh yes - if two theories makes exactly the same predictions - both
are equally valid. One of the theories might be less complex or more
beautiful. But that does not change the fact that both are equally valid.

Epicycles made accurate predictions, too, but they did not correspond to
reality.

Epicycles made accurate predictions about a part of the reality. So,
they were a valid theory for that part. Unfortunately other parts
did not meassure up as good. So - we had to give the old theory up.
Good thing - the current view on celestial mechanics is not only
more accurate - it is also simpler.


/Roland

Roland Karlsson writes:

Oops - nothing in physics is proven yet as far as I know.

Who said anything about physics? The metaphysical reality of
consciousness is a fact ... but it's not part of physics, which does not
address metaphysical reality (physics stops at physical reality, as the
name implies).

So - how come metaphysic things are proven?

In this specific case, because we all have direct experiential proof of
the reality of consciousness ... because we are all conscious. The mere
fact of being conscious is proof that consciousness is real, and the
fact that it cannot be observed is proof that it is metaphysical (the
physical world is defined by observation--anything that cannot be
observed, in practice or in theory, does not exist physically).

Oh yes - if two theories makes exactly the same predictions - both
are equally valid.

Both may be equally plausible, but only one can be correct. So it
depends on what you mean by "valid." If you mean valid = describing
reality, a theory may or may not be valid, no matter how accurately it
makes predictions.

Epicycles made accurate predictions about a part of the reality. So,
they were a valid theory for that part. Unfortunately other parts
did not meassure up as good. So - we had to give the old theory up.
Good thing - the current view on celestial mechanics is not only
more accurate - it is also simpler.

And it's also incomplete.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Then, as I concluded, you are in no position to make any demands of
QM.

I'm not demanding anything of QM, I'm explaining it.

You can't explain what you clearly do not understand.

Baseless assertion.

Actually, it's proven, not merely asserted. Consciousness _is_ a
metaphysical phenomenon.

Baseless assertion. You can't even define the word, let alone prove
anything about it.

The two theories are equivalent: they make the same predictions.

Making the same predictions does not make two theories equivalent.
Only
one can actually correspond to reality; the other is simply wrong.

And you are a clueless dweeb. Models are not reality.

Epicycles made accurate predictions, too, but they did not correspond
to
reality.

We reject competing models on predictive power combined with bayesian
reasoning, not upon whether the model "corresponds to reality". For
the simple reason no one knows what the underlying reality is. Many
idiots -- religious nutcases of some form or another -- say otherwise
of course. The joke is on them though.

You appeal to a faulty science of your own construction ...

I do not appeal to science, [...]

A funny thing to say for someone who purports to offering
"explanations" of QM.

The probabilities in question are far, far, lower.

It doesn't matter how low they are. What matters is that they are
not
zero.

You are completely clueless.

They will never happen in the lifetime of this universe.

They are _unlikely_ to happen, which isn't quite the same thing.

These events will _NEVER_ happen.

Actually, it's thousands of years old. The metaphysical aspects of
reality were actually known _first_; conventional science began to
describe physical reality much later.

"To refute the solipsist or the metaphysical idealist all
that you have to do is to take him out and throw a rock at
his head: if he ducks, he's a liar." -- Edward Abbey
I have the rock. Name the place and time.

Mxsmanic wrote:

In this specific case, because we all have direct experiential proof
of
the reality of consciousness ... because we are all conscious. The
mere
fact of being conscious is proof that consciousness is real, and the
fact that it cannot be observed is proof that it is metaphysical (the
physical world is defined by observation--anything that cannot be
observed, in practice or in theory, does not exist physically).

If "consciousness" can't be observed, as you state, then there can't be
any "experiential proof". Because if there was such proof, it would
constitute an observation, which you claim is not possible.

P.S. I still have the rock. Name a place and time and I'll put you to
the ultimate test of your idiot beliefs.

writes:

If "consciousness" can't be observed, as you state, then there can't be
any "experiential proof".

Well, yes, there can--in fact, the two are mutually exclusive. We have
experiential proof of our own consciousness; we _experience_ it, so we
don't have to _observe_ it. Everything else in the universe is
observed; we cannot experience anything except our own consciousness.

Science addresses only that which can be observed, and the physical
world is the world addressed by science. So, since consciousness cannot
be observed, it has no physical existence. At the same time, we have
direct experiential proof that consciousness exists--its reality cannot
be doubted. And so consciousness is a proven metaphysical reality.

Because if there was such proof, it would
constitute an observation, which you claim is not possible.

No, it would not. I think, therefore I am. The experience of
consciousness is the proof of consciousness. No observation is
necessary (or possible).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

writes:

You can't explain what you clearly do not understand.

How can you be sure that I'm the one who doesn't understand?

Baseless assertion. You can't even define the word, let alone prove
anything about it.

I've already explained why consciousness is a proven metaphysical
reality, by simple deduction.

We reject competing models on predictive power combined with bayesian
reasoning, not upon whether the model "corresponds to reality". For
the simple reason no one knows what the underlying reality is.

Then perhaps we should spend more time looking for the underlying
reality, and less time worrying about predictive power and bayesian
reasoning.

A funny thing to say for someone who purports to offering
"explanations" of QM.

There's more to reality than science. QM is one example of metaphysics
impinging on physics.

These events will _NEVER_ happen.

You cannot say that with certainty.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.