Re: Proving, with physics, the impossibility of falling off a log.


to <megami@ML.usagi.org>
from "Brian P. Henson" <otaku@gate.net>
subject Re: Proving, with physics, the impossibility of falling off a log.
date Fri, 3 Jul 1998 00:43:28 -0400
>Well I say the cat is neither merely alive or dead,


The theory of Schroedinger's Cat, results in this...

Befor opening of Box --->

Cat is Alive. Cat is Dead

After opending of Box ---->

Cat is Alive. Cat is not Dead.

or

Cat is not Alive. Cat is Dead.

:)

>but if you chose to "observe" and open Shrodinger's box,
>you'd have a half-dead, half-alive, totally radioactive and 100% pissed
>off nuclear cat on your hands.


No, no, no, after you observe it's either a live, radioactive, pissed of cat
or a dead, radioactive, REALLY pissed off Cat.

>And assuming that just because no-ones around that the tree doesn't make
>a noise when it falls is bloody stupid: I mean, "what makes you so sure?".


Actually the question is, "If a tree falls and there is no one there to hear
it, does it make a sound?"

The answer by the way, is no.
Yes, there REALLY is an answer, see if you can figure out the why, if you
can't I'll explain it, and then give you the really tough question.

>Assuming that a phenomenon does not exist independent of observation
> is like assuming that you are the only "real" being in the universe, and
>that all other beings, objects and the like are merely highly advanced


Actually it would be more akin to the uncertainity principle, it's probably
there, but you can't be sure until you look.  You're throwing ego into by
assuming the belief of being real, which is a logical fallacy.  You can't
assign human ego to inanimate objects, since observation could also include
collision with another object, etc... of course, that would just prove to
the objects that each other exist, wouldn't do a person too much good.

>"Putting your 'faith' in pyhsics" is, as I beleive Terry Pratchett once
>said, "like beleiving in the postman". You know he's _out_ there, but you
>never see him......


You see him all the time, you just don't recognize him is the problem. Every
time you turn on your computer, if quantum physics didn't work, your
computer wouldn't either.

>Sorry, I find the concept of exclusiveness to be one of the sillyier ideas
>come up with by "modern" science.


Personally , I would have to say a better description would be probablities.

>I mean, what RELEVANCE does theorys like this have? Really, "when you get
>right down to it"? I'm at a loss for an explaination.


Immediate example, what do you think makes the components of you computer
work?
If you answer, quantum mechanics, you are right!

>(Newcomer also feels that the "laws" of physics, like the law of Gravity,
>aren't so much "laws" as _guidelines_ that have always proven to be the
>case _UP UNTIL THIS POINT_ . I feel no one can say with absolute cetainty
>that, however unlikey the occurence, that ceterus parubus, that a rock,
>when dropped from a height, that has, up untill now always fallen down
>that it won't, when dropped once more, fall upwards.


Talk to any real Physicst and they will agree with you on that. The Laws of
Physics just explain things the best way we are CURRENTLY able to and they
change all the time, constantly. Course the basics have remained the same
and stable mostly, but the more complex, esoterics, that are beyond you're
average physics high school or college course are much more difficult,....
more fun too.


Brian P. Henson
otaku@gate.net
OMG WebRing
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/1640/amgring.html



Search field Search string

archive list

unauthorized access prohibited
MLtools V3.1 Copyright (c) Usagi Labs