The problem with Evil

Prawnapple

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
461
fek, dunno how I missed this.

I get your point.
So an observed particle acts like matter when observed and acts like a wave when not observed.
Determinism states, as I understand it, that the observed effect will always have been caused because of the cause and effect principle.

As human beings, we are living breathing observer effects which means that we literally collapse the universe around us into a known state.
The only state that we know, is a manifested reality. I can see why determinism is so popular, pretty much how water is seen as natural to fish.
This state is our water.

However, I have a couple of questions regards to this:
1) Time - Other than our own experiences of moving "forward" in time, what is to say that the direction we are really going is forward? Because determinism seems to rely heavily on the past - present - future directionality of Time.
2) What determines the direction in time we are traveling in?
3) Does unobserved matter interact with observed matter?
"an observed particle acts like matter when observed and acts like a wave when not observed."

Particles are just fluctuations in the quantum field. It's not a wave when you're not looking. It's always a wave as it's moving through spacetime. When the wave is observed, you see a particle. If you're lucky of course. "it travels as a wave and interacts as a particle"

I believe that it's only the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation of QM that tells us that when you're not observing then things act differently. However, this interpretation is becoming outdated and less excepted consistently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation this is where you should be looking. I would suggest checking in on the differences between the two.

"Tend towards" 50% != 50%
What causes the variations in the measurements?
Not sure, was hoping @Techne may be able to answer this.
 
Last edited:

zophas

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
583
I am sorry that I am not capable of contributing to your discussion, but I would like to let you guys know that I am enjoying this thread very much. All the links have taken me far and wide. It all sounds like magick to me. Too bad only kids and fools still believe in magick.
 
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,850
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-universe-as-cosmic-dashboard/

One of the weirdest theoretical implications of quantum mechanics is that different observers can give different—though equally valid—accounts of the same sequence of events. As highlighted by physicist Carlo Rovelli in his relational quantum mechanics (RQM), this means that there should be no absolute, observer-independent physical quantities. All physical quantities—the whole physical universe—must be relative to the observer. The notion that we all share the same physical environment must, therefore, be an illusion.

Such a counterintuitive prediction—which seems to flirt dangerously with solipsism—has been clamoring for experimental verification for decades. But only recently has technology advanced far enough to allow for it. So now, at last, Massimiliano Proietti and collaborators at Heriot-Watt University, in the U.K., seem to have confirmed RQM; as predicted by quantum mechanics, there may well be no objective physical world.
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
10,689
Such a counterintuitive prediction—which seems to flirt dangerously with solipsism—has been clamoring for experimental verification for decades. But only recently has technology advanced far enough to allow for it. So now, at last, Massimiliano Proietti and collaborators at Heriot-Watt University, in the U.K., seem to have confirmed RQM; as predicted by quantum mechanics, there may well be no objective physical world.
Of course the poor innocent people pushing this view wants everybody to think this true. I think that is probably the funniest mind virus infecting people that think they are intelligent.
 
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,850
Of course the poor innocent people pushing this view wants everybody to think this true. I think that is probably the funniest mind virus infecting people that think they are intelligent.
Not really; the observer can be counted as the sum of observations, which is to say that the world cannot be meaningfully divorced from the observer or the observation, which is to say that the object cannot be defined in a manner that removes the observer from the definition.

Why is that a problem, exactly? You are not one of those who thinks of consciousness as an epiphenomenon, are you? It's not your inclination to expunge the subject from the picture, is it?
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
10,689
Not really; the observer can be counted as the sum of observations, which is to say that the world cannot be meaningfully divorced from the observer or the observation, which is to say that the object cannot be defined in a manner that removes the observer from the definition.

Why is that a problem, exactly? You are not one of those who thinks of consciousness as an epiphenomenon, are you? It's not your inclination to expunge the subject from the picture, is it?
The problem is getting everybody to believe that their little truths about reality is no more true than anybody else's. You want people to accept a universal objective truth while denying them the possibility of having objectively true beliefs.
 
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,850
The problem is getting everybody to believe that their little truths about reality is no more true than anybody else's. You want people to accept a universal objective truth while denying them the possibility of having objectively true beliefs.
No, you are shifting the goalposts when you equate objectivity to universality, and imo you are also creating a false dichotomy when you oppose universality to relativism because frankly I don't buy into the idea that universality is necessarily synonymous with absoluteness. The fact of the matter is that you cannot account for perspectivity itself without also including the concept of a relationship into the description, and there is simply no way to describe a relationship in non-relative terms. It seems to me that you want to proceed as if one can deal with absolutes alone by talking only in terms of how absolutes relate to themselves.
 
Top