How does Evolution explain Male and Female - Why are there two sexes Creating Genetic Variations ?

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: AlienView

I imagine there's more gene diversity generated from sexual dimorphism and two genders than self-fertilisation by individual organisms. There are exceptions, like Mr Seahorse, but overall nature has favoured two genders which points to it being the most effective way of transferring genes from a wider pool.

I don't disagree with that, but I wonder if 2 is good, why don't we have 3, 4 or 6? Wouldn't even more dimorphism be good? Plants are pretty good at it.

(note: partial sarcasm in the question )

a reply to: luthier

Ok. Quantum walks:

Quantum walks are motivated by the widespread use of classical random walks in the design of randomized algorithms, and are part of several quantum algorithms. For some oracular problems, quantum walks provide an exponential speedup over any classical algorithm.[1][2] Quantum walks also give polynomial speedups over classical algorithms for many practical problems, such as the element distinctness problem,[3] the triangle finding problem,[4] and evaluating NAND trees.[5] The well-known Grover search algorithm can also be viewed as a quantum walk algorithm.

en.wikipedia.org...

The paper would seem to be about using the random nature of quantum physics in quantum computing. Random number generator on steroids? But I can't get past the abstract. I mean, I can see the whole paper, but I can't get past the abstract.

Are we talking about male quanta or female quanta?

a reply to: Phage

You would be correct..

And go back to my initial posts about the observer and how we are adjusting the observations.


I guess I am skipping around pretty quick but assuming you understand the base concepts of what I am referring. Quantum mechanics are used all the time in chips. However the people using the equations dont usually understand where the fit in the model or what they could mean for the nature of reality. Which is an actual topic scientist work on. You could just look through the schedule at the university of Chicago or like I said the weizzman institute.

I was referring to spinor matrices earlier and that would take a bit to back track on and explain of the reference wasn't good or understood.

Male and female are a design that has been used. We dont know if synthetic forces on evolution will have unintended consequences in the long run, But there is a perceivable future where it's no longer necessary depending on the knowledge of gene editing and cybernetics.

a reply to: luthier

Base concepts yes.
Word salad no.

And go back to my initial posts about the observer and how we are adjusting the observations.

We aren't. Our observation interferes with what is being observed. No adjustment.

a reply to: Phage

That is like explaining inches by using a continent.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: luthier

Base concepts yes.
Word salad no.

And go back to my initial posts about the observer and how we are adjusting the observations.

We aren't. Our observation interferes with what is being observed. No adjustment.

Correct!

But who is the observer? - Where is the observer? - When is the observation? - The exact time!

In what absolute and definable reality - Doesn't exist - And if it existed a millionth of second past
it has now changed - From the moment the so called Big Bang occured - Time began to unroll in a ceaseless
irrevocable manner - All views of so called reality and observations of it are now relative
- There is no absolute provable reality - And no absolue observation is possible of an ever changing
matrix - Welcome to the Matrix


“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist,
or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.”
― Max Planck, The Universe in the Light of Modern Physics

“If you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change”
― Max Planck

originally posted by: Phage
Trouble is, he still doesn't get it.

What part of my analysis was incorrect? Sure my conclusion is subjective, but what about the objective aspects of the experiment that I described do i "not get"?

originally posted by: AlienView


But who is the observer? - Where is the observer? - When is the observation? - The exact time!

In what absolute and definable reality - Doesn't exist - And if it existed a millionth of second past
it has now changed

This is beautifully demonstrated by the delayed-choice quantum experiments. The experimenter can even retroactively effect the particle-wave behavior. It's astounding.

a reply to: cooperton

What part of my analysis was incorrect?

You did not explain how it was determined which slit the particle went through. You don't understand that the particle cannot be "observed" without interfering with it because something has to interact with it in order for there to be a detection. You probably still don't. You still think that it was photons which were detected passing through the slit. How were those photons detected?

This is beautifully demonstrated by the delayed-choice quantum experiments.

I'm sure you have a very firm grasp on those experiments as well. Can you give us a synopsis?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cooperton
I'm sure you have a very firm grasp on those experiments as well.

Why are you so sour? It is painfully unpleasant to converse with you.

The delayed-choice experiment is further proof that the act of measurement is the foundation of the change. When the incident of the photon is viewed after the slits (delayed choice) the photons retroactively begin behaving like particles instead of a wave. This indicates it was not simple interference, but the act of measurement itself that is causing the change, because simple interference would not retroactively change the photon's behavior.

The same goes with observing entangled particles. Observing one particle instantly causes an effect on it's entangled counterpart - this effect can occur faster than the speed of light, further proving it could not be caused by simple interference.

a reply to: cooperton

The delayed-choice experiment is further proof that the act of measurement is the foundation of the change. When the incident of the photon is viewed after the slits (delayed choice) the photons retroactively begin behaving like particles instead of a wave. like particles instead of a wave.

Observing one particle instantly causes an effect on it's entangled counterpart - this effect can occur faster than the speed of light, further proving it could not be caused by simple interference.

Let me give you a hint so maybe you can work a little harder on understanding the experiment. The latter has something to do with delayed choice experiments. But you got what it "proves" wrong.

But you still haven't explained how the the photon is "viewed" in the double slit experiment. That's sort of important.

a reply to: cooperton

You avoided answering the question. Rather you went right to the ad hominem (calling him sour, and unpleasant. You did the same to me a number of times, when you could not keep up).

When someone goes to the ad hominem vs reason, as you just have. I question your veracity in the matter

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

You avoided answering the question. Rather you went right to the ad hominem (calling him sour, and unpleasant. You did the same to me a number of times, when you could not keep up).

When someone goes to the ad hominem vs reason, as you just have. I question your veracity in the matter

He gives condescending remarks on my ability to grasp experimental data. It's annoying. The majority of my post was demonstrating why it was observation, and not any interference from the machine, that causes the anomalous behavior in the particles. When you observe Particle A of an entangled pair of particles A&B, you immediately discover the state of Particle B, this information is disseminated instantly - even if the entangled particles are vastly far away from each other. This is the nature of quantum physics.

Wave function collapse is caused by "observation". I know this is hard for nihilists to accept that they have meaning in the world, but it is what the empirical data shows.

a reply to: cooperton

When you observe Particle A of an entangled pair of particles A&B, you immediately discover the state of Particle B, this information is disseminated instantly - even if the entangled particles are vastly far away from each other. This is the nature of quantum physics.

Correct. Sort of. But it will do.

Wave function collapse is caused by "observation".

The wave function "collapses" when a photon interacts with something. Another particle. On the macro scale that could be a wall, an eyeball, a leaf.

Watch this it reviews that, and covers what you think you're talking about.

originally posted by: Phage
The wave function "collapses" when a photon interacts with something. Another particle. On the macro scale that could be a wall, an eyeball, a leaf.

But in the double slit and eraser experiment it is the measurement that causes the particles to behave as particles or waves. That's why I can't agree that a leaf, or a house plant as the guy says in the video, is capable of causing this same experimental change in the double slit experiment. As if putting a houseplant next to the double slit would cause the photons to behave like particles instead of a wave? That is a silly assertion. It just seems like stubborn nihilism where people don't want to admit that consciousness/observation/measurement/whatever-you-want-to-call-it is an integral part of particle physics.

As the guy said in the video, the universe is "onto us". Waveforms collapse when they are being measured. It is a repeatable, observable fact, where the only variable is whether or not it is being measured.

a reply to: cooperton

But in the double slit and eraser experiment it is the measurement that causes the particles to behave as particles or waves.

The measurement makes it behave as a particle. Yes.

But once again, how is that observation done? You seem to be missing the importance of that. A particle cannot be "observed" without interfering with it. A wall will interfere with the particle when it runs into it. "Observing" an electron by shooting photons at it, will interfere with it.

And observing (interfering with) an entangled particle will "interfere" with its twin.

To observe/measure a golf ball (electron), you need to throw a tennis ball (photon) at it.

What happens when the tennis ball hits the golf ball?

Super simple stuff

Coomba98

a reply to: coomba98

It's eigenstate is determined?

a reply to: Phage

Phage,

Eigenstate is a new word for me. What's the layman's explanation?

Is the meaning of 'It's eigenstate is determined' due to the photon interaction?

Coomba98

a reply to: coomba98

It's a quantum term for the state of a particle. Which cannot be determined until you do something to the particle.

Like that cat that was dead and alive.

I was being a little facetious.

a reply to: Phage

Phage,

All good, still learned something.

Cheers

Coomba98