LinuxQuestions.org
Welcome to the most active Linux Forum on the web.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


View Poll Results: You are a...
firm believer 211 29.89%
Deist 21 2.97%
Theist 27 3.82%
Agnostic 136 19.26%
Atheist 311 44.05%
Voters: 706. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 07-29-2020, 05:36 AM   #9316
hazel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 4,487
Blog Entries: 11

Rep: Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570

Ah, the bouncing universe! But I got the impression that was out of fashion these days.
 
Old 07-29-2020, 06:07 AM   #9317
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: ...uncanny valley... infinity\1975; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US( + travel,) Earth( I wish,) END BORDER$!◣◢┌∩┐ Fe26-E,e...
Distribution: any GPL that works well on my cheapest; has been KDE or CLI but open... http://goo.gl/NqgqJx &c ;-)
Posts: 3,974
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354
Words are made up. Dinosaurs died and supposedly a better lifeform came of it? We need to go, to make the world a better place...

So opinions, that is religions, are a good thing!

Last edited by jamison20000e; 08-01-2020 at 01:21 PM.
 
Old 07-30-2020, 03:34 AM   #9318
business_kid
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Ireland
Distribution: Slackware & Android
Posts: 11,669

Rep: Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel
Sorry? Where did I say that? I didn't even mention gravity in my last post.
Sorry. Paragraph 2, post#3311. You & I most have been posting about the same time. You didn't mention gravity, but with your 'phase change' I presumed it because a 'phase change' in gravity was the only thing that made sense to me. If you meant something else, I stand corrected and mystified.
 
Old 07-30-2020, 04:53 AM   #9319
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 2,952

Rep: Reputation: 3004Reputation: 3004Reputation: 3004Reputation: 3004Reputation: 3004Reputation: 3004Reputation: 3004Reputation: 3004Reputation: 3004Reputation: 3004Reputation: 3004
Re: Follow Up

Business_kid : "Enorbet, Infinity is more than an abstract concept or a mathematical tool, but it's not a concept we can easily grasp."

Enorbet: "Proof please... or even ANY evidence this is so."

Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
I offer no proof. That was an opinion. You're welcome to disagree, and I'm sure you will. I've been a public speaker, and you soon notice what points an audience (even an 'educated' or 'scientific' one) loses or absorbs. Once the numbers go much over a billion, points are lost on most people. The classic example is the difference between numbers like 9^420 and 9^421, or 10e420 & 10e421. You'll have to reach for a calculator to work out ho much bigger 9^420 is than 10e421. Then you can't scale it in place, line you can between $3000 & $4000. People don't grasp these larger numbers - especially scientists, who assert most positively that they do, like you probably will. You can put the numbers in a calculator, but you assess them in a much poorer fashion The proof of that is the astronomical odds they accept as having actually happened without any difficulty, whereas the reality is that they are accepting impossibilities and misleading themselves.
Actually we agree that really large numbers are difficult to grasp which is why QM is so hard to grasp - We have no frame of reference. Long before the theory then discovery supporting the KT Extinction event came about I had read about how some cataclysm had wiped out the dinosaurs some 65,000,000 years ago. Even at 9 years old I wondered if that was even accurate to plus or minus 1.0% which is pretty damned accurate to a 9 year old yet that would be a span of 1,300,000 years.

Many thousands of generations missed the event. So did it occur in say 64,013,959 or 66,010,009? Considering our lifespans have no commas the lack of reference should be obvious.

It's all too easy to just spout off "googolplex" and even handle computations with such numbers but that's exactly because Mathematics is an abstract construct. We don't need to relate perception to all of the beaches on Earth to calculate with reasonable accuracy that all those grains of sand would fill a volume of 700,000,000,000 cubic meters or that the most distant galaxy now observed is 32,000,000,000 light years away and each of those light years are themselves 1.88 x 10^23 miles. Easy to say... Impossible to grasp... still worthwhile... still measurable.

Infinite distance is NOT measurable... it's the ultimate moving target, which is why I don't think it qualifies as "more than an abstract". It's just another example of how I'm bound by measured evidence, and you leap to judgment... and we'll never know who is right... but there are calculable odds.
 
Old 07-30-2020, 06:04 AM   #9320
hazel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 4,487
Blog Entries: 11

Rep: Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570
Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
You didn't mention gravity, but with your 'phase change' I presumed it because a 'phase change' in gravity was the only thing that made sense to me. If you meant something else, I stand corrected and mystified.
You're not the only one! I find quantum theory completely mystifying too. But apparently it allows a (sufficiently small) vacuum to exist in more than one state, and to spontaneously change from one state to another. When this happens, it releases a huge amount of energy, somewhat like a substance condensing from a gas to a liquid, hence the metaphor of a "phase change". The point I was trying to make is that the laws which allow this are just as much part of the universe as the point vacuum itself.
 
Old 07-30-2020, 06:40 AM   #9321
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: ...uncanny valley... infinity\1975; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US( + travel,) Earth( I wish,) END BORDER$!◣◢┌∩┐ Fe26-E,e...
Distribution: any GPL that works well on my cheapest; has been KDE or CLI but open... http://goo.gl/NqgqJx &c ;-)
Posts: 3,974
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354
Or (like infinity existing in the #1) words made-up to grasp at them within this point of time.

Laws sometimes change... unless you fall off the edge of earth.

Last edited by jamison20000e; 08-01-2020 at 01:22 PM.
 
Old 07-30-2020, 04:05 PM   #9322
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 2,952

Rep: Reputation: 3004Reputation: 3004Reputation: 3004Reputation: 3004Reputation: 3004Reputation: 3004Reputation: 3004Reputation: 3004Reputation: 3004Reputation: 3004Reputation: 3004
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamison20000e View Post
Or (like infinity existing in the #1) words made-up to grasp at them within this point of time.

Laws sometimes change... unless you fall of the edge of earth.
Good point... as long as we don't take it to extremes. For example, though somewhat widely held especially by religious dogma, it was never consider "Law" that the Earth is flat or had an edge one could fall from. Laws also change in varying degrees. Phlogiston wasn't a Law but many thought it was and it has been completely falsified and discarded. Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravity have not been discarded but just refined according to Locality. They are still in use, just not everywhere for everything but within the confines of some limitations they are quite accurate.

My understanding is that Infinity is and will always be a useful abstract concept and construct in Mathematics, but useless and probably non-existent in the material world.
 
Old 07-31-2020, 04:16 AM   #9323
business_kid
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Ireland
Distribution: Slackware & Android
Posts: 11,669

Rep: Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet
My understanding is that Infinity is and will always be a useful abstract concept and construct in Mathematics, but useless and probably non-existent in the material world.
Agreed. But in the context of the origins and future of the Universe it has to be reckoned with, going back, and going forward. That's where material explanations are found wanting imho.

@hazel: Teams of scientists actually have built tiny quantum "computers" in laboratories. These, if scaled up, have unparalleled processing power. Admittedly, they throw the word "computer" around fairly freely. The thing is, though, the physics shows it is impossible to scale quantum computers up to useful size or processing power.

At one stage, I found myself trying to explain quantum phenomena to unscientific folks. I used the example of Newton under his tree. In a quantum world, half of the time the Apple might fall on his head. But some of the time, the apple wouldn't fall, or fall, then disappear. Sometimes he'd disappear, and reappear to find himself sitting on the apple. And once or twice the tree would disappear, he'd fall back, and the apple would land on his privates :-). The illustration gets the uncertainty across .
 
Old 07-31-2020, 04:48 AM   #9324
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 2,952

Rep: Reputation: 3004Reputation: 3004Reputation: 3004Reputation: 3004Reputation: 3004Reputation: 3004Reputation: 3004Reputation: 3004Reputation: 3004Reputation: 3004Reputation: 3004
Were you trying to confuse people, business_kid? The "Copenhagen Gang" was entrenched in existentialism and even outright negativity and it is plastered all over their interpretations of QM. The very idea that things and events are altered by the act of observing is absurd. Scientists who discredit Copenhagen ask "What sort of observation does that include? All Animals with sense organs or just humans? Machines? How about displaced in Time as in Forensics AFTER the event has occurred but the event "left footprints"? There is considerable evidence that Shrodinger himself denied Copenhagen and the "cat in the box" experiment was partly to demonstrate how silly it was. Appasrently it sort of backfired or they didn't get the joke, but then it is possible they never got any joke... glum lot that they were.

Things are by no means intuitive at the Quantum scale but the Math works and QM is the single most effective tool Science has ever created for predicting outcomes at those scales. No other theory has it's impressive track record. If you'd like to grasp QM as interpreted by those who reject Copenhagen, simply stick with Fields, and check out some Sean Carroll. Lee Smolin is amazing but far too dense and difficult for most folks. I can barely grasp half of his Math. Sean is articulate and has such a firm grasp that he can explain QM painlessly to any moderately educated person, and the Math backs him up. Don't get lost in "Spooky action at a distance" or overextending the weight of Probability.
 
Old 07-31-2020, 09:57 PM   #9325
ntubski
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Distribution: Debian, Arch
Posts: 3,572

Rep: Reputation: 1885Reputation: 1885Reputation: 1885Reputation: 1885Reputation: 1885Reputation: 1885Reputation: 1885Reputation: 1885Reputation: 1885Reputation: 1885Reputation: 1885
Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
The thing is, though, the physics shows it is impossible to scale quantum computers up to useful size or processing power.
Citation needed. Here's a couple of links to some articles talking about skeptic positions on quantum computers: There's no argument there saying that "physics shows it is impossible".
 
Old 08-01-2020, 04:27 AM   #9326
hazel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 4,487
Blog Entries: 11

Rep: Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
Were you trying to confuse people, business_kid? The "Copenhagen Gang" was entrenched in existentialism and even outright negativity and it is plastered all over their interpretations of QM. The very idea that things and events are altered by the act of observing is absurd. Scientists who discredit Copenhagen ask "What sort of observation does that include? All Animals with sense organs or just humans? Machines? How about displaced in Time as in Forensics AFTER the event has occurred but the event "left footprints"? There is considerable evidence that Shroedinger himself denied Copenhagen and the "cat in the box" experiment was partly to demonstrate how silly it was. Apparently it sort of backfired or they didn't get the joke, but then it is possible they never got any joke... glum lot that they were.
So what is the alternative? Many worlds? A universe in which every possible outcome occurs in some world or other but only our observations can determine which of those worlds we are currently in? There was a TV show recently called Devs which used this idea. At one point, someone who badly wanted a job was told to stand on the rail of a bridge, from which he would very probably fall to his death. But there would be a world somewhere in which he didn't fall and in that world he would get the job. If he didn't do it, he wouldn't get the job in any world. So he climbed up onto the rail and fell and that was the end of him.
 
Old 08-01-2020, 10:56 AM   #9327
DavidMcCann
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Jul 2006
Location: London
Distribution: PCLinuxOS, Xubuntu
Posts: 5,579

Rep: Reputation: 1994Reputation: 1994Reputation: 1994Reputation: 1994Reputation: 1994Reputation: 1994Reputation: 1994Reputation: 1994Reputation: 1994Reputation: 1994Reputation: 1994
As well as the Copenhagen interpretation and the multiple-worlds approach, there's always Bohm's idea that physics is actually deterministic but we cannot ever show it — a theory that Pauli called "a cheque that cannot be cashed". Personally, I'd go for the instrumentalist approach — physical theories are just predictive mathematical models based on experience and have nothing to tell us about the actual nature of reality. Dirac famously refused to discuss interpretations, regarding the topic as a waste of time.
 
Old 08-01-2020, 11:13 AM   #9328
hazel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 4,487
Blog Entries: 11

Rep: Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMcCann View Post
Personally, I'd go for the instrumentalist approach — physical theories are just predictive mathematical models based on experience and have nothing to tell us about the actual nature of reality. Dirac famously refused to discuss interpretations, regarding the topic as a waste of time.
Fine, but it knocks the crutches out from under Enorbet's position that you shouldn't believe in God because there's no way of showing that He exists. If there's no way of showing anything about physical reality either, and science merely consists of using models that work in practice regardless of what (if anything) they represent, then why not believe in God, which also works in practice for most of the people who do it?

Last edited by hazel; 08-01-2020 at 12:18 PM.
 
Old 08-01-2020, 11:43 AM   #9329
business_kid
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Ireland
Distribution: Slackware & Android
Posts: 11,669

Rep: Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntubski
Citation needed. Here's a couple of links to some articles talking about skeptic positions on quantum computers:
I don't think so. A scaled up quantum computer is needed!
 
Old 08-01-2020, 01:30 PM   #9330
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: ...uncanny valley... infinity\1975; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US( + travel,) Earth( I wish,) END BORDER$!◣◢┌∩┐ Fe26-E,e...
Distribution: any GPL that works well on my cheapest; has been KDE or CLI but open... http://goo.gl/NqgqJx &c ;-)
Posts: 3,974
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354
Why else would "god" types* worry about artificial intelligence, other than (and\or from) ours? Same reasons. Assassinate much? We teach also made up the word preach... I'm going to the beach! ⛱
 
  


Reply

Tags
bible, censorship, christ, christian, determinism, education, faith, free will, god, human stupidity, humor, islam, jesus, magic roundabout, mythology, nihilism, peace, pointless, polytheism, poser, quran, religion, virtue, war, zealot


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Religion (no linux in this thread, sorry) Calum General 16 07-11-2016 01:48 PM
The touchpad "tapping" questions answers and solutions mega-thread tommytomthms5 Linux - Laptop and Netbook 4 10-30-2007 06:01 PM
What is your religion? jspenguin General 9 04-25-2004 01:28 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:09 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration