BF2S Forums God's Plan?

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

I don't buy into the idea that we'll never be able to solve that problem.

If I know the rules by which everything in the universe operates. And I know that the universe is deterministic. Then I can first measure the velocity. Then later measure the position. And work everything else out from there.

You just fundamentally violated the uncertainty principle. You can't just think it really hard to make it happen.

The uncertainty principle mostly applies only if the universe is non-deterministic.

It ALWAYS applies.

It's just on a normal scale its effects are so small to be negligable BUT THEY ARE STILL THERE.

You have to think in terms of probability - not determinism.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Spark wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

I don't buy into the idea that we'll never be able to solve that problem.

If I know the rules by which everything in the universe operates. And I know that the universe is deterministic. Then I can first measure the velocity. Then later measure the position. And work everything else out from there.

But it would have changed in that time.

And there is an upper limit to the accuracy with which you can measure something. As FM said, the uncertainty principle: you cannot measure accuracy OR velocity with absolute accuracy, and the more accurately you measure one, the other will become more uncertain. That is a fact of the universe as concrete and basic as, say, entropy.

One can not measure them both with absolute accuracy at the same time.

If I measure the speed of a particle at time t, then it's location at time t+1, and I know how the particle behaves at all times, then I can calculate the position at time t, or the speed at time t+1.

The theory exists because when you measure either the velocity or the position you change the other. Your data at t is irrelevant at t+1.

Spark wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

One can not measure them both with absolute accuracy at the same time.

If I measure the speed of a particle at time t, then it's location at time t+1, and I know how the particle behaves at all times, then I can calculate the position at time t, or the speed at time t+1.

The theory exists because when you measure either the velocity or the position you change the other. Your data at t is irrelevant at t+1.

Not necessarily true, but basically yes. (It's not true that measurement alters the system. There are ways to measure that do not affect the system being measured - i.e. entaglement)

Negative. The funny thing about entanglement is that whatever you do to one particle effects the other. In a very mysterious, maybe there are supernatural beings kind of way. In this way you can observe what a particle is doing and assume that its entangled particle was behaving the same way to essentially get two t measurements, but you are not breaking the principle because you are not measuring the same particle.

Spark wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

One can not measure them both with absolute accuracy at the same time.

If I measure the speed of a particle at time t, then it's location at time t+1, and I know how the particle behaves at all times, then I can calculate the position at time t, or the speed at time t+1.

The theory exists because when you measure either the velocity or the position you change the other. Your data at t is irrelevant at t+1.

Not necessarily true, but basically yes. (It's not true that measurement alters the system. There are ways to measure that do not affect the system being measured - i.e. entaglement)

N.B. At this level of discussion it would be easier to consider all particles to either be waves or be fully described by them. That way instead of position and velocity, you get position and wavelength - much easier to describe.

@Spark: The point is that I don't believe the probabilistic wave-nature theory of the universe is going to turn out to be correct.

@FM: If I know all the rules, those rules include those that determine how my observations have changed the particle.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle wrote:

In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that locating a particle in a small region of space makes the momentum of the particle uncertain; and conversely, that measuring the momentum of a particle precisely makes the position uncertain.

Only if the wave nature of matter is correct.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

@FM: If I know all the rules, those rules include those that determine how my observations have changed the particle.

My good sir they do not. If you determine with 100% accuracy the position, you know nothing about its momentum, and then when you test momentum to 100% accuracy, you know nothing about the position. It's not that you didn't measure the position at that time, it's that you changed the position so that you cannot know where it is.

You can believe all you want about the universe, but don't bring it into a scientific discussion. These are the rules that so far the scientific world have agreed the universe is most likely governed by, in lieu of a better model, and you can't say everyone else is wrong just because. That sounds rather...religious.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

@FM: If I know all the rules, those rules include those that determine how my observations have changed the particle.

My good sir they do not. If you determine with 100% accuracy the position, you know nothing about its momentum, and then when you test momentum to 100% accuracy, you know nothing about the position. It's not that you didn't measure the position at that time, it's that you changed the position so that you cannot know where it is.

You can believe all you want about the universe, but don't bring it into a scientific discussion. These are the rules that so far the scientific world have agreed the universe is most likely governed by, in lieu of a better model, and you can't say everyone else is wrong just because. That sounds rather...religious.

The point is, that I don't believe the science. I understand it. But I don't believe it.

The known laws of physics are only the rules we know so far.

And I believe we will discover that some of those rules are wrong.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

@FM: If I know all the rules, those rules include those that determine how my observations have changed the particle.

My good sir they do not. If you determine with 100% accuracy the position, you know nothing about its momentum, and then when you test momentum to 100% accuracy, you know nothing about the position. It's not that you didn't measure the position at that time, it's that you changed the position so that you cannot know where it is.

You can believe all you want about the universe, but don't bring it into a scientific discussion. These are the rules that so far the scientific world have agreed the universe is most likely governed by, in lieu of a better model, and you can't say everyone else is wrong just because. That sounds rather...religious.

The point is, that I don't believe the science. I understand it. But I don't believe it.

The known laws of physics are only the rules we know so far.

And I believe we will discover that some of those rules are wrong.

It will do until we get something better. So far Copenhagen is by far the best we have, it has been proven time and time and time again. All the other interpretations are merely coming up with different explanations for Copenhagen's predictions (which have been astonishingly accurate)

Spark wrote:

Plus, the way I thought of it, the reason you cannot be absolutely certain about a measurement is because you can only be a certain as the wavelength of your instrument. Absolute certaininty (and determinism) only comes from something with zero wavelength... and so collapses that house of cards.[/b]

That is only the accuracy of the instrument, which is irrelevant to the uncertainty principle. Even with perfect instruments, the uncertainty principle stands, period.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/uncer.html wrote:

This is not a statement about the inaccuracy of measurement instruments, nor a reflection on the quality of experimental methods; it arises from the wave properties inherent in the quantum mechanical description of nature. Even with perfect instruments and technique, the uncertainty is inherent in the nature of things.

edit:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

@FM: If I know all the rules, those rules include those that determine how my observations have changed the particle.

My good sir they do not. If you determine with 100% accuracy the position, you know nothing about its momentum, and then when you test momentum to 100% accuracy, you know nothing about the position. It's not that you didn't measure the position at that time, it's that you changed the position so that you cannot know where it is.

You can believe all you want about the universe, but don't bring it into a scientific discussion. These are the rules that so far the scientific world have agreed the universe is most likely governed by, in lieu of a better model, and you can't say everyone else is wrong just because. That sounds rather...religious.

The point is, that I don't believe the science. I understand it. But I don't believe it.

The known laws of physics are only the rules we know so far.

And I believe we will discover that some of those rules are wrong.

Not much point in the discussion then is there? I like to at least learn about the current models, you're waiting for the next big thing...have fun with that.

edited above

Spark wrote:

The confusion of whether light is a wave or a particle far predated QM. But QM explained both phenomena properly.

No, QM describes how the wave-particle duality may exist.

It is only a model and models only describe, they do not explain.

And in doing so, they create way way more questions than they answer.

For example - how does a 'wave function' 'collapse'?

usmarine wrote:

when you put money in the collection plate this sunday, i want you to think of this story.  or at least remember these words.

"Unable to help herself because of her cerebral palsy, she wasted away from malnutrition and maggot-infested bedsores that ate her flesh. She died alone on a putrid mattress in her mother's home, the floor covered in feces. She was 14 but weighed just 42 pounds."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080802/ap_ … th_charges

well its sunday.  please remember to give extra money to the man in the clouds this week.  because this is truly good work.

Vilham wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

God's knowledge of our choices in our lifetime does not eliminate free will.  His provision of salvation indicates love.  More discussion tomorrow.

Doesnt change the fact that he knows you are going to hell before you are born and thus created man to breed suffering, still makes him an evil bastard.

Still fits though.  In the OT God is a complete cunt, Jesus is the more laid back guy (atleast how he behaves, you could argue that the whole hell thing, which is specific to the NT is worse).  As, after the crusifiction, he says, forgive them father for this (indicating he is ever so slightly pissed).

Does God being a bastard mean he doesnt exist?

Martyn