Story Comments
Posted by: Radiofreeeuropa 11 months, 3 weeks ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The universe of Quantum Physics is a strange and beautiful place.
Reply
And you are at the center of the eye of the storm.
Up is down.
A mathematical equation that requires human consciousness as a major factor in it's solution.
The Tao?
Or Superstrings?
Or are they the same?-
100%
Eagle_Eye11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Quantum Physics is the Universal Energies equation....it made me understand the universe
Reply
Sting theory, awesome!
Are they the same, I have an idea that they work together.
This can get really deep......I have to reflect on it a bit to further grasp
"Neural nets--
webs spun of the fine fabric of the universe
whose threads reveal their composition
to be of webs of even finer fabrics of universes ad infinitum...
echoes and reflections,
gradients of reverberating colors;
blending seamlessly in a pallet of nothingness,
(Pitch black and white light! Which is all colors? Which is none?)
creating a painting of eternity for we casual observers to perceive,
at least peripherally;
kind of reminds me of my acid trips in the 60's-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
String theory is sort of it's own thing I believe but it attempts to unify quantum mechanics and gravity (gravity, one of the forces we easily can observe has been a nightmare to fit into physical theories!)
Reply
I believe pondering quantum physics is possibly just as "expanding" as psychedelics in terms of opening the ol' doors of perception!
Don't try this at home kids!
That was a little poetry sort of...inspired by theoretical physics ...molecular mysticism... and the big note theory!-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm not a physicist, nor do I even play one on tv. Though my daughter is, and I can generally hold my own in conversations with her or her fellow researchers. I'd like to think my interest in seeking the truth of the nature of things had something to do with her path...but I'm just a hobbyist. I believe since quantum mechanics is a set of principles underlying the most fundamental known description of all physical systems; that string theorists, who are seeking the nature of the most fundamental "thing" are part of the quantum research as well.
Reply
Though in a quantum universe, I don't know...the obvious is often not so! -
100%
Beau789011 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Excellent post, Radio! Very well done. Some great stuff there about the hermaneutic nature of scientific, philosophical and cultural thought. (And the first example I've seen in a long time of an acceptable use of the term "paradigm shift.")
Reply
To the point of arriving closer to a full explanation of reality, I suspect you're right that the further quantum physicists (or cosmologists, going the other direction) investigate, the more questions arise, in an infinitely recursive discovering of new and unexplained phenomena. Much like your example of zooming in or out of graphic depictions of fractals.
That's not to say such study is useless, though...to the contrary, I believe it's all about the discoveries made and new forms of modeling created during the process of investigation. -
-
-
-
100%
alakazam11 months, 3 weeks ago
-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
IF A MAN ALONE IN THE WOODS SPEAKS...
Reply
The question was raised: "If a man alone in the woods speaks, and his
wife cannot hear him, is he still wrong?"
I have considered this question in light of the principles of Modern
Physics and offer my thesis, dedicated to my wife, who anchors me in
reality.
In the year 1900 Max Planck discovered that the energy of light is
quantified. In 1905 Albert Einstein used Planck's Constant to write the
theory of the Photoelectric Effect, that light behaves as a particle
when it comes to energy transfer. Louis de Broglie proposed that
particles can have a wave nature and this fact was later verified.
These discoveries led Neils Bohr to propose a radical theory of the
atom, which was partially successful in explaining the emission spectra
of the hydrogen atom. Neils Bohr was compelled to introduce the
Principle of "Complementarity," that light is both a particle and a
wave.
The modern theories were extended when Max Born showed that the
distribution of energy was a function of probability. Further, Warner
Heisenberg wrote the Principle of Uncertainty, which says that it is
impossible to determine the exact location of an electron and the vector
direction of its momentum at the same time.
This was followed with the master stroke penned by Erwin Schrodinger.
Using the "Psi function" of Quantum Mechanics, Schrodinger could map the
"wave field" of any particle, thus giving us a theoretical explanation
for the structure of an atom and the entire periodic table of the
elements.
The Quantum mechanics predicts that a wave of a single frequency would
stretch out to infinite proportions, the superposition of a narrow range
of frequencies produces a standing wave function which can be localized
to a much more precise location. Thus the electron and its position
within an atom becomes a cloud of probability.
From this I infer that there are such states as being right and being
wrong, within certain parameters of uncertainty. Applying the Psi
function, the more vague the statement of the man the greater the
probability of him being correct. The narrower and more specific his
utterance the greater the likelihood of his being wrong.
Also, the Principle of Complementarity assures us that if a man alone in
the woods speaks, and his wife can not hear him, he is BOTH right and
wrong until he comes out of the woods.
In the analogy of Schrodinger's Cat, the cat in the box is both dead and
alive until someone opens the lid. The act of observing the phenomenon
determines the outcome.
Thus, the inevitable conclusion is that it doesn't matter what the man
says only his wife can determine whether or not he is correct.-
100%
alakazam11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sound does not exist without hearing.
Reply
Sound is as much a product of observation as anything can be.
It is a product of the mind in response to a sensed pressure wave.
A tree falling when no one is there to hear makes no sound.
Just a pressure wave in the air that has gone unnoticed and unsung...it is as if the event never was.-
-
100%
slate11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sound does not exist without hearing.
Reply
Ah but the sound waves are still there are they not?
Just as the pressure wave of the tsunami is there before it hits the shallows and the sea rises and comes into shore with it's devastation, whether eyes see see it or not. The unseeing and un-hearing is still devastated by the force of the unseen and unheard pressure wave.
Man doesn't have to perceive things for them to exist.-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 3 weeks ago
-
-
100%
alakazam11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The waves are not sound until interpreted as such by the brain responding to their action upon the tympanic membrane. Sound is a product of the mind.
Reply
Is there a pressure wave in the air? ...yes. Is it sound? ...no
The waves will act in the same manner upon any acoustic membrane. Would those waves pushing upon an audio speaker equal sound...no...it would generate an electrical current but there would be no incidence of what humans perceive as "sound".-
ybdogsctComment removed: Spam
-
100%
slate11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That may be scientifically true, but even when not heard the waves are still there,,,,, that's my point.
Reply
The wind is blowing the grass in my back yard, I can't hear the wind, but I see the grass moving because of it. If I wasn't here to chronicle this would the wind not exist?
-
-
100%
Beau789011 months, 3 weeks ago
-
100%
alakazam11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"caught up in semantics." ??? Maybe, but I don't think so.
Reply
You do bring up an interesting point about whether light exists without observation...does anything?
What is sensed as sound...unlike light, travels by compressing a medium. It is dependent upon that medium in order to be observed.
Light is a completely different form of energy.
Light can travel in a vacuum...light exists not only as a wave but also as a particle.
Can you "see" electricity? (sometimes you can, but you do not have to be able to see it for it to kill you) It is an electromagnetic wave the same as light. What about the low infrared or far violet end of the spectrum? They are unobservable by the human eye...yet you will still cook if exposed to enough of either.-
100%
Beau789011 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No doubt your grasp of physics far exceeds mine...but aren't light wave/particles as a form of energy similar to the pressure waves slate and I think of as sound?
Reply
The question of whether anything exists without being observed brings up an interesting (to me, anyway) philosophical topic. Our own experiences of what we perceive are altered by the way we process the stimuli that causes those perceptions. Does that mean there's no objective reality and that we all live in separate worlds? Some people hear voices no one else can. Do those voices exist in reality? How do we know if the color I call yellow looks the same as the one you do? And as Wittgenstein noted, what does it mean for me to say "I have a headache"? You certainly couldn't argue with me that I don't, since for me to make that remark simply describes my own experience, which you cannot share or directly observe. So how can we even communicate about the world, if it only exists in our own perceptions?-
-
100%
alakazam11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Similar in the sense that under certain conditions they will both propagate as a wave.
Reply
Here is an example of the difference between the two.
If a tree fell in a vacuum would it make a sound ?...the answer is emphatically no. There would be no "sound" wave because there would be nothing for the energy of the event to compress. There would be nothing audible to be observed at any level
If a source of light were present in that same vacuum you could see the tree fall. The light would propagate irrespective of the environment.
So that begs the question that if the tree is in a dark vacuum does it exist at all...under those conditions we don't know if there is a tree or not.
I have to agree with you about the subjectivity of perception. I think the level of awareness varies from individual to individual and agree that even when we are all looking at the same thing there is no certainty we all "see" the same thing.
As to HOW we actually communicate...whew...I dunno. Think about all the ways we communicate without using any words to do so.-
100%
Beau789011 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My belief is that there's some innate empathetic response triggered when we attempt to communicate about our own experiences that allows us to believe they're being shared.
Reply
It must be quite lonely in Wittgenstein's world...probably even more so ever since he died. -
Neutral
HannibalBarca11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Newton said "for every action there is a reaction" so a tree in a vacuum falling may not create sound, but maybe some other phenomena that is yet to be discovered is present.
Reply
Sounds to me in a way like trying to light a match at the bottom of a pool of water, cause it won't light does that mead there is no fire ??
But then again, I am not into science as deep as this thread is.
As for the man in the woods speaking and maybe him still being wrong (according to the better half) there is also this thought : A man sits in his living room and his wife comes out of the kitchen and gives him chit, what did he do wrong....He made the chain to long.....lol
-
-
-
100%
kobzikov11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The word "sound" has multiple definitions, alakazam. Picking one does not negate others. If there is no agreement on which definition is under discussion, then there is no communication possible, just people talking past each other about different things.
Reply
For instance, first two definitions of the word "sound",
1. the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.
2. mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 ft. (331 m) per second at sea level.
One of these definitions requires a mind, the other does not. If you can't decide which one is being used by a speaker I suggest using Principle of Charity.-
100%
alakazam11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh...I am not arguing the point out of any ill will.
Reply
The thread is about subjectivity and observation...I am just rolling along with an idea.
I would hope no one has been offended...it certainly was not my intent.
But for the sake of argument, definition #2 is particularly used to mean those vibrations composed of frequencies capable of being detected by ears.
Is a 10 cycle wave a sound?-
-
-
Neutral
kobzikov11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I didn't mean to imply that you were arguing out of ill will and I apologize if that's how I came off. I was simply saying that it is important to make sure that participants in a discussion are discussing the same thing in order for communication to take place as opposed to people talking past one another.
Reply
Though even if we were to suppose that sound is mechanical vibrations of a particular range of frequency, which I see no problem with, such as those detectable by human ears that does not actually require an observer of any kind. Simply defines mechanical vibrations within a certain range of frequencies as "sound" without observer entering into the picture.
One more thing that I wanted to add, although I imagine you probably know this. The reason observation is important when talking about phenomena at elementary level is because the act of observation has an effect on the experiment. At subatomic level we can't really look at an electron or photon or other subatomic particles, I think, without affecting the particles, because we look with other subatomic particles. I think usually with a photon stream.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
lvrofwolves11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
RFE, LOL, before I even read the story I thought of that very same question...
Reply
The question was raised: "If a man alone in the woods speaks, and his
wife cannot hear him, is he still wrong?"
Thus, the inevitable conclusion is that it doesn't matter what the man
says only his wife can determine whether or not he is correct.
BUT only if she knows he spoke, if she doesn't know, in all probability he is still wrong, it's just she doesn't know it.
If human eyes do not see something, does it still exist? for the humans no, for the something, and in reality yes. We do not have evidence of everything that has ever existed....so many ifs and buts and it's 8am, maybe I should be fully awake before I start intentionally sending my brain into such pondering chaos. -
100%
jaern11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not if a tree falls on him. Now the question becomes, if a tree falls in the woods and there are no survivors, did it make a sound? ;)
Reply
Thanks for a most enjoyable read with my morning coffee. I shared your websites link w/ a few friends. -
100%
Progressive11 months, 3 weeks ago
-
100%
kobzikov11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think I will defer to Paul Erdos on the issue,
Reply
Since "women are "bosses"" and married men are captured slaves. Women are always right. It comes with territory.
That's probably why Erdos never married.
-
-
-
100%
DarkWizard11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
RFE,
Reply
I concur with others here who have deemed this article above par (ok...quite amazing!).
You have a penchant for posting articles that delve into both the history behind the thoughts and actions we are playing out and into the alternative thinking on the realities we base our perceptions on.
"Reality is an undivided wholeness."
I believe that we are unable to mathematically lock down predictions because we don't understand the relationships between the "whole" and its "parts." This is because the variables we put into the mathematical equation are not bound by the laws of said equation.
Truly, an alchemist (or a Wizard) has a better chance of predicting the future because he/she is not bound by the restriction of incomplete rules and understands that "chaos" will play a apart in most outcomes that are not just theoretical.-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It struck me (like a lightning bolt) that quantum mechanics "justifies" alchemy in ways chemistry can not! And it's statistical extrapolations model Taoist thinking as well.
Reply
Talk about becoming one with the universe!
All notes lead to the same song.-
100%
DarkWizard11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA - "If we could show the entire fourth dimensional object for each function, we would see all of the possible solutions to that function. But, there is no way to accurately depict a 4D object in 3D space, much less on a 2D computer screen, so fractal generators render the second dimensional cross-sections or "slices" of those fourth dimensional objects."
Reply
One of the reasons it is hard to understand reality as an undivided wholeness is because we cannot stand back from this phenomena and observe it in 4D. And, even if we could, we'd have to be able to comprehend seeing the implications of multiple alternatives. -
-
-
-
loading ...
People Who Liked This Comment (15)
Ciera-Marie
DarkWizard
BronxBomber
jordan11
gamahuche
alakazam
mntnman444
lvrofwolves
flyonthewallzz
CRYMTYPHON
memestryker
smithichie
Progressive
KinseyBlatxPeople Who Didn't Like This Comment (0)
No one voted this comment negatively.
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.