|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Parson Atreides
Ahrendee Mercenaries
Legacy Rising
131
   |
Posted - 2012.08.18 02:39:00 -
[1] - Quote
Sha Kharn Clone wrote:Prove its not
Learn to Burden of Proof |
Parson Atreides
Ahrendee Mercenaries
Legacy Rising
131
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 02:56:00 -
[2] - Quote
Drake Gro'Dar wrote:Viewing the server determines its value of on or off. Check Schr+¦dinger's cat. Lol thats what I look at when servers are down lol
I never understood the concept of Schrodinger's cat from a philosophical perspective. I understand that it can be one or the other until you check, but it certainly can't be both at the same time. The concepts of life and death are contradictory, meaning something can't be an instance of both at the same time.
It would be like saying it's both raining and not raining outside at the same time in the same place--it's literally impossible based on definitions alone. |
Parson Atreides
Ahrendee Mercenaries
Legacy Rising
131
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 03:24:00 -
[3] - Quote
Drake Gro'Dar wrote:Ask a waitress to surprise you and cook you whatever she wants and put it in a box, now until you open the box any thing on the restaurants menu could be in the box( and the crazy part is they all are) until you open the box then you have seen it so you set the results. It really deals with particles but in a multiverse theory it works on any unknown.
That (underlined) would be the part I deny. As you say, it could be anything (on the menu) in the box, but to say it's all of them doesn't make any sense to me. You're saying it's both the vegetarian burger and the chicken sandwich (and everything else on the menu) at the same time? wut |
Parson Atreides
Ahrendee Mercenaries
Legacy Rising
131
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 03:31:00 -
[4] - Quote
Suanar Daranaus wrote:Parson Atreides wrote:Drake Gro'Dar wrote:Ask a waitress to surprise you and cook you whatever she wants and put it in a box, now until you open the box any thing on the restaurants menu could be in the box( and the crazy part is they all are) until you open the box then you have seen it so you set the results. It really deals with particles but in a multiverse theory it works on any unknown. That (underlined) would be the part I deny. As you say, it could be anything (on the menu) in the box, but to say it's all of them doesn't make any sense to me. You're saying it's both the vegetarian burger and the chicken sandwich (and everything else on the menu) at the same time? wut Untill you open the box, yes! Get it?
I understand the individual words, but not the concept. It's impossible based on definitions--did those just stop becoming important when I woke up this morning? |
Parson Atreides
Ahrendee Mercenaries
Legacy Rising
131
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 03:34:00 -
[5] - Quote
Dane Stark wrote:Parson Atreides wrote:Drake Gro'Dar wrote:Ask a waitress to surprise you and cook you whatever she wants and put it in a box, now until you open the box any thing on the restaurants menu could be in the box( and the crazy part is they all are) until you open the box then you have seen it so you set the results. It really deals with particles but in a multiverse theory it works on any unknown. That (underlined) would be the part I deny. As you say, it could be anything (on the menu) in the box, but to say it's all of them doesn't make any sense to me. You're saying it's both the vegetarian burger and the chicken sandwich (and everything else on the menu) at the same time? wut Their potential exists in the box - you are trying to think of things in a Newtonian model (which means the object has already been realized) - think of it as all the stuff to make any of those things is in the box, but they will come together to form one of the options when someone observes (tests) it
Then I'd probably question the use of the word "is". To say something "is", to me, says it exists as "this" and "not that". If you want to say "their potential", which I'm fine with, then you should use the phrase "could be X, Y or Z" which I'm also fine with. But to say it "is" everything just doesn't make sense to me. I guess if we're using different definitions of "is" then it works out (though we already have words for what you want that definition to be, it's "could be"). |
Parson Atreides
Ahrendee Mercenaries
Legacy Rising
131
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 03:41:00 -
[6] - Quote
Drake Gro'Dar wrote:It's all quantum theory, it's been well known in the scientific community since the 30's with guys like Einstien and Schrodinger. I just looked it up on Wikipedia a few moths ago cuz I saw something on it on tv.
Yea I never was into science that much...I guess that's why I majored in Philosophy. I'm always up for a good discussion though. |
Parson Atreides
Ahrendee Mercenaries
Legacy Rising
131
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 03:53:00 -
[7] - Quote
Dane Stark wrote:could be is fine and you are right - most of the time - these actual science debates are screwy due to lack of common reference but then again, what isnt these days - but a war of semantics. I just want to point out that the concept of every option being calculated (in this case every dish has been created) at some point. So, in the many worlds theory, one of each path exists simultaneously with different outcomes depending on the state of the variables when you observe it or solve it
The answer domain for what's in the box is all states of the menu
Well then it seems, even if we do accept the many worlds theory, that the question falls into a sort of equivocation trap. In other words, when we say "possibility X is this and that and that, etc" we're using different definitions of "is" (before and after we check the box). Unless we want that definition to include every possible other world and all events/objects therein.
And once we do that, it seems all epistemic (knowledge-based) claims become meaningless, because even once you saw the cat as alive or dead, let's say alive, couldn't you also say the cat is dead (again, if we use the definition of "is" that includes all possible other worlds) because in another world it is, in fact, dead? Once you allow for that, all statements become meaningless since their exact opposite or any other variations would be true too. |
Parson Atreides
Ahrendee Mercenaries
Legacy Rising
131
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 03:59:00 -
[8] - Quote
Dread Katak wrote:Parson Atreides wrote:Dane Stark wrote:could be is fine and you are right - most of the time - these actual science debates are screwy due to lack of common reference but then again, what isnt these days - but a war of semantics. I just want to point out that the concept of every option being calculated (in this case every dish has been created) at some point. So, in the many worlds theory, one of each path exists simultaneously with different outcomes depending on the state of the variables when you observe it or solve it
The answer domain for what's in the box is all states of the menu Well then it seems, even if we do accept the many worlds theory, that the question falls into a sort of equivocation trap. In other words, when we say "possibility X is this and that and that, etc" we're using different definitions of "is". Unless we want that definition to include every possible other world and all events/objects therein. And once we do that, it seems all epistemic (knowledge-based) claims become meaningless, because even once you saw the cat as alive or dead, let's say alive, couldn't you also say the cat is dead (again, if we use the definition of "is" that includes all possible other worlds) because in another world it is, in fact, dead? Once you allow for that, all statements become meaningless since their exact opposite or any other variations would be true too. So you're saying that you poisoned his cat.
In some other world I did, apparently. Sorry mang. |
Parson Atreides
Ahrendee Mercenaries
Legacy Rising
131
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 04:01:00 -
[9] - Quote
Dane Stark wrote:Parson Atreides wrote:Dane Stark wrote:could be is fine and you are right - most of the time - these actual science debates are screwy due to lack of common reference but then again, what isnt these days - but a war of semantics. I just want to point out that the concept of every option being calculated (in this case every dish has been created) at some point. So, in the many worlds theory, one of each path exists simultaneously with different outcomes depending on the state of the variables when you observe it or solve it
The answer domain for what's in the box is all states of the menu Well then it seems, even if we do accept the many worlds theory, that the question falls into a sort of equivocation trap. In other words, when we say "possibility X is this and that and that, etc" we're using different definitions of "is". Unless we want that definition to include every possible other world and all events/objects therein. And once we do that, it seems all epistemic (knowledge-based) claims become meaningless, because even once you saw the cat as alive or dead, let's say alive, couldn't you also say the cat is dead (again, if we use the definition of "is" that includes all possible other worlds) because in another world it is, in fact, dead? Once you allow for that, all statements become meaningless since their exact opposite or any other variations would be true too. sort of - but we are not changing the rules [dynamic systems equations] so its not meaningless per se, its more just playing out all possibilities. It gets crazy to think about - that's for sure - but yes - in my model "is" represents the complete "is" fun stuff 
"Complete is" meaning all possibilities? How do you function in life : /
You'd have to constantly be saying "in this world" or something, heh. |
Parson Atreides
Ahrendee Mercenaries
Legacy Rising
131
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 04:12:00 -
[10] - Quote
Aighun wrote:Parson Atreides wrote:Dane Stark wrote:could be is fine and you are right - most of the time - these actual science debates are screwy due to lack of common reference but then again, what isnt these days - but a war of semantics. I just want to point out that the concept of every option being calculated (in this case every dish has been created) at some point. So, in the many worlds theory, one of each path exists simultaneously with different outcomes depending on the state of the variables when you observe it or solve it
The answer domain for what's in the box is all states of the menu Well then it seems, even if we do accept the many worlds theory, that the question falls into a sort of equivocation trap. In other words, when we say "possibility X is this and that and that, etc" we're using different definitions of "is" (before and after we check the box). Unless we want that definition to include every possible other world and all events/objects therein. And once we do that, it seems all epistemic (knowledge-based) claims become meaningless, because even once you saw the cat as alive or dead, let's say alive, couldn't you also say the cat is dead (again, if we use the definition of "is" that includes all possible other worlds) because in another world it is, in fact, dead? Once you allow for that, all statements become meaningless since their exact opposite or any other variations would be true too. And that is why there are so very many worlds in the multiverse. Each observation causes another version of the multiverse to come into being. All statements do not become meaningless, all statements just become one more version of "the world" in the multiverse. Totally different from quantum flux.
They do become meaningless, at least in this world. Take any statement. Now take its exact opposite. According to this theory, both would have to be acceptable unless you want to say the "is' we use before we see the cat is applied to all possible worlds, whereas the "is" we use after we see the cat applies to only this one. That's what I was getting at with the equivocation. If you're going to use different meanings for the same word in the same context, we should probably just use "could be" before we see the cat, and "is" to refer to everything in this world.
Either that or you'd have to specify "in this world" after every statement.
Drake Gro'Dar wrote:I like the discussion on what "is" means. But when you see the cat it can no longer be alive and dead because seeing it defines it. It is only both when it is unseen and so undefined.
Same explanation as above. You're using "is" in the first sense (before you see the cat) to mean every possible world and "is" after you see it to mean only this world. Why not just use two different words/phrases? To use the same word makes me believe it's the same meaning. |
|
|
Parson Atreides
Ahrendee Mercenaries
Legacy Rising
131
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 04:13:00 -
[11] - Quote
Mispost and I don't know how to delete. |
Parson Atreides
Ahrendee Mercenaries
Legacy Rising
131
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 04:24:00 -
[12] - Quote
Drake Gro'Dar wrote:In a way it is the same word. While the cat is unseen it "is" both alive and dead because it's still at an unknown state and then once you see it, the cat is whatever you observed it as. The hard part isn't the word "is" the hard part is understanding that the cat can be both alive and dead in the same space in the same version on the world and only upon observation does it become what you see when the box is opened.
Then I guess I'll never get it, because if you want to say it is both alive and dead at the same time, in this world, then to me that statement is just gibberish. The definitions don't allow it to be both at the same time in the same place. It just seems to me that you're talking about potential, in which case we should be using the words "could be".
And I'm not entirely sure it's a question of semantics, because it appears as if people are fine with accepting the contradiction. |
|
|
| |
|