DC Tom Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 I still think it's bordering on sematicuteness. The cat is either dead or it is not dead, regardless of whether I can see it or not and regardless of whether one believes that one scenario can be some percentagey combination of separate scenarios. Well....I suppose the cat could by dying, but it is still technically alive until death. Nope, the cat is literally in a mathematical superposition of a dead state and an alive state...reason being, the atomic nucleus in question is in such a superposition of states (decayed/not decayed), and cannot be demonstrated to be either one until observed. In fact, the atom (and cat) is in both states simultaneously, and the act of observing it forces it into one state or the other. That's actually proven fact, demonstrated by experiment (not with a cat)...the double-slit experiment with an electron gun. You fire a single electron at a time at the slits, the electron acts like a wave and goes through both slits at the same time, and creates an interference pattern on the target. You put a detector on the slits to see which one it goes through, and the electron suddenly acts like a particle and goes through one or the other slit, and causes a scatter pattern on the target. The act of observing literally collapses the superposition of states and determines the path of the electron. I've actually done that experiment. It's kind-of freaky the first time you see it. Like I said...physics can get really, really weird sometimes.
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 Nope, the cat is literally in a mathematical superposition of a dead state and an alive state...reason being, the atomic nucleus in question is in such a superposition of states (decayed/not decayed), and cannot be demonstrated to be either one until observed. In fact, the atom (and cat) is in both states simultaneously, and the act of observing it forces it into one state or the other. That's actually proven fact, demonstrated by experiment (not with a cat)...the double-slit experiment with an electron gun. You fire a single electron at a time at the slits, the electron acts like a wave and goes through both slits at the same time, and creates an interference pattern on the target. You put a detector on the slits to see which one it goes through, and the electron suddenly acts like a particle and goes through one or the other slit, and causes a scatter pattern on the target. The act of observing literally collapses the superposition of states and determines the path of the electron. I've actually done that experiment. It's kind-of freaky the first time you see it. Like I said...physics can get really, really weird sometimes. Is that the same experiment that was used as an example for future camouflage ?
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 Is that the same experiment that was used as an example for future camouflage ? Probably not...though I can see how it might be related. But honestly, I don't even know what "future camoflauge" you're talking about.
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 I suppose the computers you are all on just "evolved" from the metals and plastics it's made from then. Is that the best you have to offer this conversation? A poorly constructed metaphor?
WisconsinBillzFan Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 Is that the best you have to offer this conversation? A poorly constructed metaphor? I'm just pointing out how silly it is to say that there is a creation without a creator.
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 Probably not...though I can see how it might be related. But honestly, I don't even know what "future camoflauge" you're talking about. Let me see if I can remember where I saw or read that ... you seemed to have described it to a tee...or, I may have misunderstood what you wrote. I'll get back with it.
IDBillzFan Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 Again, He COULD have. And also, that is MY interpretation as best as I am able to understand it. I'm not a professional, just a guy tryying to follow as best I can. Sorry to jump in here, but you're singing the wrong song on the wrong board. You're trying to explain and rationalize a personal relationship, commitment, understanding and interpretation you have of and with God -- as learned and studied in The Bible -- to people who are breaking things down in 1s and 0s, Xs and Os, black and white, real and imagined, etc. The belief you have is yours, and you came to your beliefs (and probably continue to come to your beliefs) based on your own personal leap of faith. The problem you're running into is that most of the people you are having this discussion with have not made that leap of faith. From there, you have people like DC Tom, who at least gives respect to your faith, all the way down to the Big Cats who not only have no respect for your faith, but find it ridiculously easy to mock. It's your call to keep moving forward, but like I said; your belief is personal and custom to your leap of faith. Trying to explain it to people who have no understanding, empathy or interest in that leap of faith is a lot like trying to teach a pig to sing; if frustrates you and pisses off the pig.
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 The problem you're running into is that most of the people you are having this discussion with have not made that leap of faith. From there, you have people like DC Tom, who at least gives respect to your faith, Not entirely fair. Just because I'm a dedicated empiricist doesn't mean I don't understand faith. It just means my faith in empiricism excludes any faith I might have in...faith itself, really. You imply that because I don't share faith, I somehow don't understand or denigrate it. Not true. The simple fact is that any and all knowledge requires some sort of faith (in my case, faith in empiricism), and I don't ask Joe to share that any more than he asked me to share his. Doesn't mean, though, that we can't discuss and understand each other's positions. Even if he is an idiot.
IDBillzFan Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 You imply that because I don't share faith, I somehow don't understand or denigrate it. Sorry. That wasn't my intention. I was trying to explain that he could at least have a respectful conversation with you, unlike someone like Big Cat, who goes out of his way to denigrate it just because he somehow thinks he's so much wiser than everyone else. But in the end, in lieu of having a conversation exclusively with you, he's best having the conversation elsewhere because this board is a horrible, horrible place to admit you believe in God for any reason whatsoever.
DrFishfinder Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 Nope, the cat is literally in a mathematical superposition of a dead state and an alive state...reason being, the atomic nucleus in question is in such a superposition of states (decayed/not decayed), and cannot be demonstrated to be either one until observed. In fact, the atom (and cat) is in both states simultaneously, and the act of observing it forces it into one state or the other. That's actually proven fact, demonstrated by experiment (not with a cat)...the double-slit experiment with an electron gun. You fire a single electron at a time at the slits, the electron acts like a wave and goes through both slits at the same time, and creates an interference pattern on the target. You put a detector on the slits to see which one it goes through, and the electron suddenly acts like a particle and goes through one or the other slit, and causes a scatter pattern on the target. The act of observing literally collapses the superposition of states and determines the path of the electron. I've actually done that experiment. It's kind-of freaky the first time you see it. Like I said...physics can get really, really weird sometimes. Bold: That's my point, I think. It's mathematical. Borrowing from the "faith" posts, I would have to say that (in my case), many things postulated as "scientific fact" have in fact, been accepted thusly, until proven wrong. Which leads me to say that I have a healthy skepticism of science and "scientific fact". A scientific agnostic, if you will (even if you won't). I do not blindly accept scientific facts and findings that are contrary to my mewlingly idiotic perception of what makes sense to me, as mewling idiots are wont to do. I do not atheistically deny their existence or their truth, just reserve the right to say, "I don't know." Much the same as you and the payload for the Big Bang. I read about the double-slit experiment (skimmed at the speed of smell is more like it). I came away with the vague notion that somehow the 2 different sets of observation hardware had something to do with the 2 observed outcomes of the anomaly. Or maybe that's what I read into it. Maybe the Hadron Collider will turn what we think we know, inside out.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 Sorry to jump in here, but you're singing the wrong song on the wrong board. You're trying to explain and rationalize a personal relationship, commitment, understanding and interpretation you have of and with God -- as learned and studied in The Bible -- to people who are breaking things down in 1s and 0s, Xs and Os, black and white, real and imagined, etc. The belief you have is yours, and you came to your beliefs (and probably continue to come to your beliefs) based on your own personal leap of faith. The problem you're running into is that most of the people you are having this discussion with have not made that leap of faith. From there, you have people like DC Tom, who at least gives respect to your faith, all the way down to the Big Cats who not only have no respect for your faith, but find it ridiculously easy to mock. It's your call to keep moving forward, but like I said; your belief is personal and custom to your leap of faith. Trying to explain it to people who have no understanding, empathy or interest in that leap of faith is a lot like trying to teach a pig to sing; if frustrates you and pisses off the pig. Excellent post, and well-delivered. That being said, I don't mind talking about it or reading the reactions. As I mentioned, it's an expectation of the believer to share the story and it's one that I enjoy.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 Even if he is an idiot. Aw, c'mon, Tom. Gimme a hug. Really. It's group therapy day.
Alaska Darin Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 Excellent post, and well-delivered. That being said, I don't mind talking about it or reading the reactions. As I mentioned, it's an expectation of the believer to share the story and it's one that I enjoy. You remember that the next time a Witness or Krishna tries to tell you about their Flying Spaghetti Monster or a Muslim nutto calls you an infidel.
John Adams Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 You imply that because I don't share faith, I somehow don't understand or denigrate it. Not true. The simple fact is that any and all knowledge requires some sort of faith (in my case, faith in empiricism), and I don't ask Joe to share that any more than he asked me to share his. Doesn't mean, though, that we can't discuss and understand each other's positions. blzrul, is that you?
OCinBuffalo Posted April 8, 2010 Author Posted April 8, 2010 Wow, you've got some fugged up misconceptions and some twisted logic up in there. The point, apparently, is that you don't like lefties, but did we really need to invoke Darwin to illustrate this? You are all over the map and about to fall of the edge of the Earth. Wrong. There are 0 misconceptions. The new Liberal talking point is to run around and call free market enterprise "social Darwinism". No misconception there. Therefore, I am not the one invoking Darwin, they are. No misconception there. I have no idea why they are invoking Darwin, you need to ask them if we really need to invoke him. Misconception? Nope. Bah, I knew you wouldn't get it.
The Big Cat Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 Wrong. There are 0 misconceptions. The new Liberal talking point is to run around and call free market enterprise "social Darwinism". No misconception there. Therefore, I am not the one invoking Darwin, they are. No misconception there. I have no idea why they are invoking Darwin, you need to ask them if we really need to invoke him. Misconception? Nope. Bah, I knew you wouldn't get it. Because some people see a separation between man and beast! The beast world is dominated by Darwinism, and hence the negative connotation. We're meant to be civilized, yes? Is this starting to make sense?
John Adams Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 Wrong. There are 0 misconceptions. The new Liberal talking point is to run around and call free market enterprise "social Darwinism". No misconception there. Therefore, I am not the one invoking Darwin, they are. No misconception there. I have no idea why they are invoking Darwin, you need to ask them if we really need to invoke him. Misconception? Nope. Bah, I knew you wouldn't get it. For the record, I'm totally OK with social Darwinism. Will the dumb and lazy people please go extinct already?
outsidethebox Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 Elitist schmuck. Why is your magic book any more magic than mine? I guess you will find out when you die?
OCinBuffalo Posted April 8, 2010 Author Posted April 8, 2010 Because some people see a separation between man and beast! The beast world is dominated by Darwinism, and hence the negative connotation. We're meant to be civilized, yes? Is this starting to make sense? But civilized '= lazy, selfish, or any justification for bad behavior, poor parenting, demanding money you are "entitled" to instead of earned, lack of respect for oneself or others, or any of the other crap. in fact, all of those things are the exact opposite of "being civilized". Only barbarians think that its ok to take other people's stuff, because other people have something they don't, and, because they can. Is that starting to make sense? By removing the consequences for "weakness", or, "inability to adapt to one's environment", we are enabling bad behavior, not stopping it. Most liberal policies treat the symptoms...but also have a causal effect on the disease. In this way, liberals act exactly like the pharmaceutical companies they supposedly despise. They never cure the cause of the disease, but, they will always charge us lots of tax money to keep treating it. For the record, I'm totally OK with social Darwinism. Will the dumb and lazy people please go extinct already? See, and the single left-leaner exception proves the rule.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 You remember that the next time a Witness or Krishna tries to tell you about their Flying Spaghetti Monster or a Muslim nutto calls you an infidel. Don't know too many jihadists. Same for Witnesses or Krishna's but I'll tell them about Christ, too. If they listen,great. If not, no problem.
Recommended Posts