perhaps not a GOD, but definitely a GAP

this is the tiny piece of child's play that haunts the dreams of physicist and mathematician.

at first, it appears that this is a statement of the English language. but if English were the only system used in the statement's evaluation, we will have to simultaneously admit its legitimacy and illegitimacy.....exploding the computer parsing it. but, your mind does not explode. to resolve its painful simplicity, your mind makes an appeal to a system outside of English.....a system which is capable of unifying something which is both true AND false. (more info: here)

tell me: what system? you are the one that is using it, so surely you must be able to define it......right?

the answer to this question, and the appeal to a "outside system", is identical to the central problem in the push and pull between classical and quantum physics. in order to understand the profound importance, let us look at the problem of counting numbers.


(image source)

does 0.999999999.... = 1.0 ?

no one will argue that we do not live in a world of countable things. but where, exactly, at the tiniest level imaginable, is the boundary between my apple and the table it sits on?

after just a moment of pondering we realize the futility of the question. we, yet again, make an appeal to a system outside of (and much larger than) the apple/table....draw a line....and state quite simply that the boundary is.....riiiiiiiiiiiight THERE!
TADA! we now have a "thing". (image source)


the method used by modern physics, known as Renormalization, is not any more sophisticated than your own resolution to the problem: they simply draw a line, and .9999 becomes 1.

When describing space and time as a continuum, certain statistical and quantum mechanical constructions are ill defined. To define them, the continuum limit has to be taken carefully.

"ill defined"?!

you mean, like a statement that is at once true AND not true? yeah buddy, you better be real careful when taking that limit.....you might accidentally (or conviniently?) leave out the most important part!


there sure are a lot of bizzare and unanswered questions around here:
- what is the definition of "observer" in quantum mechanics?
- entanglement, faster than light communication, nonlocality
- superposition (ill-formed true/false statement)
- a bajillion extra dimensions and exotic string-like beasts
- the indistinguishability of particles (re: entropy)
- ....hey. where did all that extra (dark) energy go?
- consiousness (appeal to a system outside of...)

i do not have an infallible answer to any of these, but i would bet my life that they can be found......


......riiiiiiiiiight THERE!



thanks for reading.

You just wrinkled my brain.

reply to post by tgidkp


Nice thread. The statement 'the statement is not in english' is not in english. Is an issue of logic, we can believe the outlying statement, but we see that the statement it is describing is in english and does make sense according to the english language, so that leads one to conclude that the outlying statement is false. Falseness is basically a lie. I am not writing in english right now. Thats a lie, you dont have to believe the logic of the sentence structure if the logic = something that is not true. Language and subsequently logic is tautological (maybe). A=A because A=A. This sentence is in english because this sentence is in english. This sentence is in english but im telling you its not, do you believe me, or is there truth beyond my feelings,opinions,thoughts and level of honesty?

I personally believe that the universe is an exact way. That there is objectivity, truth. That the universe = the universe, and we are false if while attempting to discover what the universe = we claim it is anything other then the universe. Now I dont entirely believe that, because there could be many aspects regarding the truth about the universe that are not possibly knowable or deducable from this point in time and space, and especially while existing within the universe. This doesnt mean all those truths do not exist, and were not necessary for the history of history, it just means that while discovering what the universe = there are truths which are not observable. This is obvious when we think about the existence of philosophy, math, and the laws of physics, all details of the universe that are not blatantly observable. I dont think anyone would state that math and the laws of physics, our knowledge there of, is complete, there for there exists more hidden truths that we are currently not aware of. This is all obvious, and I went off on a tangent. I originally just wanted to say I believe the universe is exactly a certain way. Therefor there is no disagreeing, there is no opinions or beliefs, there is only one science, and it is the discovery of truth, anyone who cares in the least about truth and science is on the same team, if they are not working together with open minds to discover the real truth, and mutually understand all viewpoints, they are wrong.

The nature of energy, and therefore movement and time is one of the hardest issues. Because when trying to think of arguing the objectivity of the universe the best beginning of an argument I can think of is to say: Imagine you had the power to pause the universe. If we think of energy and matter as quanta, the universe would be an exact quantity and quality, it would have exactness, we would be able to explore this paused universe on every scale, and see all that is really there, press play for a planck second, then pause again, and note all the changes. Whats left out of this, is the nature of energy, of velocity, angular momentum, vibration. if the universe was paused and we looked at a rippling wave, how would we interpret the existence of that wave, how would we quantify its energy? how could we trace back the source of its energy, and the source of that energy, to the first source of energy. What would fields be in this picture, photons, magnetism? Space? what would an electron appear like in this paused scenario? How would the fields appear, higgs field, EM field?

OP, would you mind I post my 2 posts from the other thread, regarding superposition and entanglement, to see if anyone (or yourself) wants to attempt to discuss?

tgidkp:

...it appears that this is a statement of the English language. Yet, if English was the only system used in the statement's evaluation, we would have to simultaneously admit its legitimacy and illegitimacy, exploding the computer parsing it. However, your mind does not explode. To resolve its painful simplicity, your mind makes an appeal to a system outside of English, a system which is capable of unifying something which is both true AND false.

That system is translation, by which a set of laws can be defined to determine if the statement is indeed in English or some other language...the computer itself does not need to explode. Does La déclaration «La déclaration n'est pas en anglais 'est pas en anglais present us with the same problem?

The problem is about the validity of veracity, what is verifiable, and are we able to accept that knowledge as the ultimate truth? The answer is both yes and no (lol), because we can never encapsulate all the different environments and variables in which we could conduct our experiment of verification. A verification in one environment encapsulating all the known variables for that environment, may give a different result of verification in another environment using different variables, whilst the knowledge gained in both circumstances retains equal validity. It would seem there are no 'absolutes' in nature, and therefore, no ultimate truth?

reply to post by ImaFungi

This sentence is in english but im telling you its not

the focus of that example is better understood in terms of well-formedness, which is a requirement to be a valid statement in any language.

however, the content of the statement circumvents that well-formedness. such a statement would literally turn a computer bonkers. it has also turned many a mathematician bonkers....because there is no systematic solution to the problem.

This doesnt mean all those truths do not exist

the purpose of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, which the statement is intended to model, is that there can NEVER be enough 'truths' in the universe to account for the universe. at some point, EVERY systematic and logical method will need to make that 'appeal to a system outside of' itself.

that is what makes it so aggravating: truth can never be self-consistant.

it has been proven.

Id like for you to define photon in this manner. We have a photon creator (a gun looking thing) in a vacuum sealed box, with a double slit in front of it, and then the boxes wall behind. The only way to truly understand and imagine the scope of the dilemma, is to ponder what im about to ask. Imagine that you are pure mind/spirit/god (nothing exists just the laws of physics as they are and that vacuum box set up), and you can see every plancks length space in that box, and im outside the box with a remote control, that when I press the remote control the gun will create a photon. In this scenario your mind is also like a remote control, though it is master over time, every instance of time that exists (change in a system, change of energy) is viewable by you, so I press the button and you watch a photon created in the slowest motion possible, the slowest frame rate, step by step, everything that physically occurs for a photon to be created. What are you viewing? what is going on? in that gun, at the tip of that gun, and every possible step from the tip of the gun, to the photon interacting with the most immediate space at the tip of the gun, and beyond.


Entanglement and superposition are intimately linked. Superposition has to do with our ignorance of a particles state without observing it. Entanglement has to do with our ignorance of 2 particles states without observing them, and only knowing what one and the others states are after observing one.

Like I said I have not been convinced of the mechanism of how this magic trick works, so I refuse to believe it is magic. Entanglement to my mind seems like, you have a red and blue ball in your hand; you are holding them behind your back one in your left hand one in your right. To my ignorant perspective, there is a 50% probability that the ball in your right hand is red, and 50% it is blue, and same for your left hand. So from my perspective is the ball in your left hand superposition of red and blue, and the same in your right hand? Then you show me the ball in your right hand, and it is red. Is it logical for me to claim that the ball in your right hand was blue and red, and only when you showed it to me it turned red, and sent and instant non physical signal FTL to the ball in your other hand to tell it, it must be blue. And what do you know, when you show me the ball in your other hand, its blue!

This is a simple version of schrodingers cat that equally shows the silliness of the theory of superposition and entanglement.

I have no problem with FTL information transfer, superposition, and entanglement existing in this universe, I have no stake in the outcome, it doesnt bother me, and I dont care. What I do have a problem with, is believing in something that has a chance of not being true. So until I hear at least one, hopefully multiple, logical theories of how superposition, and entanglement possibly can occur I must withhold my faith in its validity.

reply to post by tgidkp


The reason it messes with computers, because computers dont know about lying, or how to discern lying. They take all information as truth, as in it exists, therefore it exists, there fore it is truth, therefore it is truth. So if you tell a computer "This statement is not true", it will have a problem. Did you get what I mean about lying? You writing in english, that a statement made in english, is not written in the english language, is a lie on your part, because/and its false. The computer can only believe you using the logic it is programmed to understand. So it is being forced to believe something that contradicts its logic, given to it by its logic, and truth, which it has always accepted as truth.

reply to post by ImaFungi


and yet, the primary mode of investigation into our universe is to seek out these 'truths' and 'rules' in order to find out what "really exists". science thinks that the universe is a machine. it is not a machine. it is dynamic. your ability to resolve the paradoxical statement is proof of this.

this dynamism is the heart and soul of quantum theory....whether or not you believe in such things as souls.

ImaFungi:

Entanglement to my mind seems like, you have a red and blue ball in your hand; you are holding them behind your back one in your left hand one in your right. To my ignorant perspective, there is a 50% probability that the ball in your right hand is red, and 50% it is blue, and same for your left hand.

Actually, with regard to entanglement, both balls will show the same colour wavelength, irrespective of which ball you show first. That's the point about entanglement, the sharing of the same state of condition, that somehow one ball is able to communicate its condition to the other ball, so that the other ball exhibits the same condition. This is what the debate is all about, how quantum states seem to circumnavigate classical laws of physics.

The two-slit experiment is stated as showing the wave-particle duality of the photon. When a single photon is fired towards the two slits, in classical terms, we would expect the single photon to pass through one of the slits, but it doesn't do this, because interference patterns at both slits seem to show that the single photon goes through both at the same time. Somehow, by some unknown function, the single photon smears itself out to go through both slits at the same time.

Waht does a single photon look like?

reply to post by ImaFungi


there is one tiny hiccup in your magic trick entanglement....

Then you show me the ball in your right hand, and it is red.

you have artificially introduced a source of intelligent behavior into the story. conversely, modern physics has yet to graduate from 'billiard-ball' modelling....and yet, these billiard balls appear to be conforming to patterns which (as you have pointed out) would be easily explained through some type of intelligent behavior (however rudimentary).

billiard balls ought not to make wavefunctions.

but they do.

reply to post by tgidkp


The statement is incorrect because it IS in English.

Where is the problem?

reply to post by arpgme


the problem is that you had to use a system *other than* english to come to that conclusion.

reply to post by tgidkp


What is your solution then?

Have you gotten any further than identifying a gap in materialism?

With respect to quantum entanglement the observer has a choice, to observe the phenomenon or not to observe it. In one case classical mechanics wins (the cat lives), in the other quantum mechanics takes over and the proverbial cat is splattered (as in the wave form generated).

Materialist simply refuse to admit that there is something inherent to the individual that makes this possible.

They insist that there must be some other mechanism at play but to suggest the observer actually was responsible for the change is considered Heresy.The idea that this is possible opens up an enormous can of worms for materialist.

This because if it is true the observer is actually affecting quantum states. In other words the official statement is "We doe not know what is happening but it certainly has nothing to do with humans intervening in quantum states".

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


If choice exists, as it is believed to, it must be immaterial by default - otherwise, it must be predetermination - in which case, choice is superstition.

Fun for thought:

Do we choose to make quanta behave the way it does when observed?

Does quanta choose?

If you are a large pile of quanta with choice, what is the smallest unit of quanta with choice and which pile of quanta gets to choose?

reply to post by Bleeeeep


oh dear.

this is not the first time I have authored a thread intending to uncover a profound truth which, by the time Ive finished writing, I have managed to muddle all relevance and profundity.

I may feel up to giving it another whack tomorrow ...but I've gotta bail for the evening.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


What if truth is infinite and therefore in every aspect of existence there is a truth?

Can bushes burn without burning??

reply to post by tgidkp


This thread isn't about a dynamic reality vrs a material reality?

The realization that no truth is set in stone because truth is ever changing?

The gaps we already know about... what is your solution to them? Why is it this way?

reply to post by Kashai


I would say there is an infinite amount of subjective truths, but there is only one truth per subject.

Yes, bushes can burn without chemical decomposition. Anything is possible, but once it becomes so, it is so (truth).

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
If you are a large pile of quanta with choice, what is the smallest unit of quanta with choice and which pile of quanta gets to choose?

The smallest quanta has absolute choice. The vast vast majority of quanta choose to make "similar" (mutually sustaining) choices in order experience a higher order than themselves.

/namasalute