It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Xtraeme
We all work on varying probabilities day-in and day-out.
Originally posted by dviper785
Originally posted by Xtraeme
We all work on varying probabilities day-in and day-out.
Probability. Quantum theory (don't say it's fake - researchers at Yale created a functional quantum computer chip that can solve simple algorithims, google it)
tells us that nothing in the universe is 100% certain, therefore it is physically impossible for 100% of everyone to agree on a certain thing becuase of probability and quantum physics. ... Basically, its physically impossible for 100% certainty, thats why only 5 out of 6 agree.
Originally posted by Xtraeme
Originally posted by dviper785
Originally posted by Xtraeme
We all work on varying probabilities day-in and day-out.
Probability. Quantum theory (don't say it's fake - researchers at Yale created a functional quantum computer chip that can solve simple algorithims, google it)
You do realize you're advocating that nothing is 100% true, yet you're promoting quantum theory as though it is. Sorry had to say it.
tells us that nothing in the universe is 100% certain, therefore it is physically impossible for 100% of everyone to agree on a certain thing becuase of probability and quantum physics. ... Basically, its physically impossible for 100% certainty, thats why only 5 out of 6 agree.
Things can be 100% deterministic inside of a specific domain using explicit constraints. For instance your computer works day in and day out because the MOV, ADD, SUB operations on the processor behave exactly the same way, every time. The only time this isn't true is when the processor starts to fail due to age, heat, or other external stimuli like an electrical surge. Thus this caveat represents the constraint.
Likewise in math we can build on past knowledge using corollaries because abstract proofs have been demonstrated to continue to hold in a particular domain (human knowledge) despite being built on core axioms that have no proof and are simply self-evident. No one contests the identity axiom B = B.
As a simple test get 6 people together and ask them, "Does B = B?"
The assertion that it's physically impossible for 100% certainty should be viewed as a mathematical limit. Sometimes we approach so close the two are virtually the same despite their still being an underlying constraint that makes it hold 100% of the time. Removing the constraint it might instead represent 99.9999999999999999...% accuracy rounded up, which still presents enough accuracy to say it's reliably true.
Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Very interesting conversation to say the least but that wasn't exactly what
I was getting at the idea that those that dissent can help provide a chance to possibily view the "big picture" on something. Not just our own limited viewpoints.
Well, more or less.
[edit on 15-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]