Is your perception of the world really true?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 40035
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ProfessionalMackem said:
Watch that cartoon I put up earlier on mate, Dr Quantum has a few good clips which helped me get my head round it. Here's another about Flatland


Then there's a few more trippy ones.

Start with "Imagining 2nd dimension" then move through them all. Mind will be frazzled.

Click to expand...
I will mate at work atm so will have to watch tonight.
 


niceonemarra said:
is your perception of the world really true...... always a sign of a genious.


Your stupid. I like that.
Click to expand...

I can see why you would.

sadders said:
Our perception of the world around us is probably very individualized to each persons translation of the information you receive.

All your senses essentially feed a stream of electrical impulses to your brain which then tries to make sense of what it is receiving. There are huge gaps in the information the brain receives which it fills with a best fit model.
Click to expand...

Richard Dawkins summed it up by saying we only see "medium sized" things, We can't see very small things (atoms) or very large things (the Universe).
 
niceonemarra said:
is your perception of the world really true...... always a sign of a genious.


Your stupid. I like that.
Click to expand...
:lol::lol::lol::lol:

ProfessionalMackem said:
Watch that cartoon I put up earlier on mate, Dr Quantum has a few good clips which helped me get my head round it. Here's another about Flatland


Then there's a few more trippy ones.

Start with "Imagining 2nd dimension" then move through them all. Mind will be frazzled.

Click to expand...
Have you read Edwin Abbott's Flatland? Fantastic book about the premise in that video.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"It is not the consciousness of man that determines his existence but rather his existence that determines his consciousness." Karl Marx
 
SYB_DC said:
That's a vast overstatement of the observer effect, and the sentience of the observer doesn't matter - inanimate instruments cause observer effects all the same.
Click to expand...
This is closer to the truth.

ProfessionalMackem said:

Any excuse to hoy Dr Quantum up. Love his vids...
Click to expand...

No offence mate, I applaud your scientific curiousity, but that video is absolutely dogshite. It's lied to you mate. If you believe that, then you lack the basics sorry to say. You've been badly misled.

It'd be wrong of me not to help out a fellow sci bro in his time of need.

I could try (I did try, for over an hour, and I couldn't) to explain it all in a single post, but I can't, so I won't.

Instead, I'll let Leonard Susskind explain it...


Watch the first 30 mins a few times. It'll roughly explain particles, momentum, de Broglie, whatever, with some basic equations and formulas, and particularly, the double-slit experiment. It's nothing too hard. Even if the maths gets too advanced, you'll still learn the concepts/laws/patterns/whatever and get a new understanding of QM, and, you'll level-up mofo.

He has a series of Stanford lectures on YT that I highly recommend to everyone. Start at his 'Classical Mechanics' lectures if needs must.
 
SYB_DC said:
It doesn't matter. Other than through chaos theory, the maker of the instrument doesn't affect the phenomenon observed. It's only the person who puts them there. And your argument about sentience is nonsensical: under that line of reasoning, every single inanimate object is sentient (and bizarrely, animate objects are implied to be non-sentient).

The universe would be almost exactly the same without sentient observers, because the size of the sentient observers is so minuscule relative to the universe that they do not affect it on any meaningful level. There would be no cognitive output collating the values of the energies into a sensible form for a human, but that's just one expression of the interpretation of the energies anyway - it has no fundamental bearing on what the energies themselves are.
Click to expand...
For a subject almost entirely based in logic, it seems (to me at least) that physics almost drifts into the realms of philosophy at times.
 
Dagzd1973 said:
This is closer to the truth.



No offence mate, I applaud your scientific curiousity, but that video is absolutely dogshite. It's lied to you mate. If you believe that, then you lack the basics sorry to say. You've been badly misled.

It'd be wrong of me not to help out a fellow sci bro in his time of need.

I could try (I did try, for over an hour, and I couldn't) to explain it all in a single post, but I can't, so I won't.

Instead, I'll let Leonard Susskind explain it...


Watch the first 30 mins a few times. It'll roughly explain particles, momentum, de Broglie, whatever, with some basic equations and formulas, and particularly, the double-slit experiment. It's nothing too hard. Even if the maths gets too advanced, you'll still learn the concepts/laws/patterns/whatever and get a new understanding of QM, and, you'll level-up mofo.

He has a series of Stanford lectures on YT that I highly recommend to everyone. Start at his 'Classical Mechanics' lectures if needs must.
Click to expand...

Ive watched most if not all of Dr Susskinds lectures marra. He is topper. Thanks for the attempt to bring me out of the clouds. But I'm alright where I am bud. ;)

That video isnt dogshit btw, its final conclusion is just one interpretation of QM,

You might need a brush up mate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics
 
Hulkenburger said:
For a subject almost entirely based in logic, it seems (to me at least) that physics almost drifts into the realms of philosophy at times.
Click to expand...

Absolutely it does mate. Anyone who wants to just stick to maths (even though its awesome) and stuff they can "see" or "measure" has their head in the sand imo.
 
Fred Basset said:
This is a really good read folks. A really enjoyable thread. However, one thing is nagging away at me; if we view reality differently, how come we all agree that The Lads are f***ing shite?

Let's see some maths or tin foil applied to that one.
Click to expand...

:lol:
We've had some seriouso f***ing curse put on us mate. Or our creator is a stinking mag.:eek:
 
ProfessionalMackem said:
Absolutely it does mate. Anyone who wants to just stick to maths (even though its awesome) and stuff they can "see" or "measure" has their head in the sand imo.
Click to expand...
It's far more interesting when it gets to this 'advanced' stage for lack of a better term, the stuff I learnt at school was simple and mundane. It's also far more difficult to grasp without delving into research admittedly.
 
Dagzd1973 said:
(SAFC) + Grayson/Short + Neemoney = Jack Rodwell.

Newton's seventh law mate. Basic physics.
Click to expand...

Cheers mate. However, surely if we all see things differently there is someone out there that sees Rodwell as 'canny good'. If that is the case, where does deranged fit into your equation? Now, there must be that one person out there as we are paying his wages.
 
ProfessionalMackem said:
Ive watched most if not all of Dr Susskinds lectures marra. He is topper. Thanks for the attempt to bring me out of the clouds. But I'm alright where I am bud. ;)

That video isnt dogshit btw, its final conclusion is just one interpretation of QM,

You might need a brush up mate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics
Click to expand...
It's not at all I'm sorry to say. It's absolute bullshit. It doesn't even get the basics right mate.

In order to measure the position of a particle (ie which slit it went through) you need to hit it with a force equal to Δx, but if you hit a particle with a force equal to Δx, it localizes the particle. Before you localized the particle it existed as a wave, or a "cloud distribution", but when you measured it, you localized it.

That's why, when you don't measure the slits you get the interference pattern, and when you do measure the slits you get 2 stripes.

A wiki ain't gonna help me mate. :lol: I was genuinely trying to offer you advice. That video is ridiculously bad.
 
Last edited:
Dagzd1973 said:
It's not at all I'm sorry to say. It's absolute bullshit. It doesn't even get the basics right mate.

In order to measure the position of a particle (ie which slit it went through) you need to hit it with a force equal to Δx, but if you hit a particle with a force equal to Δx, it localizes the particle. Before you localized the particle it existed as a wave, or a "cloud distribution", but when you measured it, you localized it.

That's why, when you don't measure the slits you get the interference pattern, and when you do measure the slits you get 2 stripes.

A wiki ain't gonna help me mate. :lol: I was genuinely trying to offer you advice. That video is ridiculously bad.
Click to expand...

:lol:

You're just putting fancy words and symbols to what the vid and me is saying mate. ;)

Dont take it personally marra but I think you might be one of the people that I refer to in post 52, apologies if not.

No offense but why do people take the stance that my way is right and yours MUST be wrong? I might believe in a different interpretation of QM than you. That doesn't mean one is more right than the other yet. .

I like the von-neuman-wagner interpretation. Yet you wont hear me slagging off the rest though. Take heed lol

Now dont get me wrong I know why you are getting your knickers in a twist. Everyone who knows about the differing interpretations do when I speak to them. Like all the other interpretations of quantum mechanics (QM), the VNW is only an interpretation of the formalism of QM. It is not a different theory with different empirical predictions. All interpretations of QM are empirically indistinguishable. That is, they are empty of empirical content. They relate instead to how we interpret, or give meaning to, the same formalism. Put another way, an interpretation is a non-empirical philosophical overlay upon the scientific formalism. Only the formalism makes quantitative predictions that can be empirically tested.

Another problem with VNW is define consciousness. In a scientifically rigorous way. No one has ever done that, since it is a philosophical question. Consciousness is not a thing. It is an abstract concept. So the idea of testing an interpretation of quantum mechanics involving consciousness is meaningless. There is a good reason why most scientists don't take that interpretation seriously. It borders on the nonsensical. But I dont, Because I have a open mind

Frankly it doesn't matter which (if any) interpretation is correct. They are just attempts to explain processes for which ordinary human language is inadequate.

Quantum-scale processes have been going on since the big bang. There is nothing special about human measurements except that the electrons are in a detector rather than in a star. We can't directly observe quantum phenomena anyway. There are always intermediate processes which are actually doing the "measurement" and causing what we call "wavefunction collapse". Quantum phenomena are weird and often counter intuitive, could they be magic? Maybe, probably not.

But I still want to believe.........................
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top