Is The Uncertainty Principle Incompatible With Determinism?

Because they are two... different... problems...

Particle-wave duality is an idea that has been around for a while. The uncertainty principle in relative terms is a newer idea.

The uncertainty principle would only have been thought up in a world where particle duality was in fact "a thing". That's as close as you'll get.

The particle-wave nature of light is one thing. The uncertainty principle is another. Nowhere except in this conversation do others confuse the two.

 

6 episodes....have fun....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UV_X2B5OK1I&list=PLzkT-JDFYfnaeux7buYZc_5KEwjBltjRQ

 

Brian Greene is the man!

 

Physics team discovers mathematical equations linking Wave-Particle Duality and Quantum Uncertainty Principle, revealing they are perhaps different manifestations of the same thing:

https://uwaterloo.ca/stories/quantum-physics-breakthrough-scientists-solve-100-year-old

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141219/ncomms6814/full/ncomms6814.html

Even a broken clock is right twice a day

 

It just seems obvious that they would be connected anyway.

And in October of 2014, it was discovered that DNA is a Crystal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etnj8G1rOFw

And also was discovered was that life can exist everywhere as you can cook up your own DNA within 18 hours. This video goes in depth into how a Scientist did this. The Universe is a "field" of DNA potential in other words, and a Crystal.

 

Didn't one of you geniuses in the think tank come up with the answer yet? I am counting on you.
In the meantime, throwing things into the pot for further thought..

here is a classic children's story about an Indian boy that made such an impression on me in childhood.......The tigers whirling round and round chasing each other's tails until they turned into butter did....Perhaps that is what we are doing, or on a large scale...perhaps that is what our universe is doing....chasing the tails of other universes or its own.

Perhaps we are just an experiment in a petri dish, too....



fantastical, whatever it is....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgaxiSOc6Jk

 

I do understand what I am saying and no my words do not carry any weight as to the ultimate nature of things. None of our words do or can.

 

I listened to the story. Perhaps we are tigers.

 

Answer for what?

My main question to the thread was clarified and answered on page 3 by Eerily.

Your most recent question doesn't take a genius to know there are tons and tons of groups, ranging from federal agencies to non-profits, addressing environmental issues.

 

Pardon me, then, G, most sincerely. I misunderstood.....that is what happens in one's own world sometimes. I did contemplate making a new thread in the science section,. I should have done that.

 

Your bad for thinking I care about your opinion? No, dear boy! By Peter's Grave, no! Of course I care deeply about your opinion! If I'm the only person here who cares about others' opinions deeply, then this is my thread. Why not?

All I have really added to the conversation is that if you're trying to understand the nature of everything, you're trying to understand the nature of yourself. But who you are doesn't fucking boil down to quantum physics or anything else. There is no comparison between you and an equation. You're two different things, no matter how great the equation is. You can't just write some shapes and tell me "That there's reality." It's bullshit. All of it. I still enjoy it, though, don't get me wrong, and have the greatest respect for quantum physicists and their wonderful minds.

 

To me, "nature" is a word like "universe". It encompasses and described all things that exist anywhere and everywhere.

Why you would need to say "ultimate nature" is beyond me.

Perhaps you mean to say "Super-Natural"?

Their syntax is similar, and they are both superfluous so it fits. Yes that is semantics but the only other way to say what I'm trying to tell you is that you are multiplying variables unnecessarily. Your equation is needlessly complicated, ect.

I mean think about it......You're using words to tell us that words do not carry any weight.

Your argument is self-defeating.

Maybe that's why we started talking about self-esteem. lol....

 

Oh, I'm thinking of nature as in the way something behaves. I'm not talking about the woods and mountains and what have you.

We're always looking for the nature of things. How something really is. And there is a quest to discover the ultimate nature of things, in case you didn't know. I am saying the quest is futile.

You are completely misunderstanding what I am saying, and more over, I would say you seem dead set on misunderstanding what I'm saying.

I'm not merely talking about words being frail. But I feel my argument has been made enough for the time being, unless you truly are interested in the debate. Why point out that nothing can possibly describe, as you would call it, nature? Because people are honestly searching for a solution that describes everything.

I am trying to do a courtesy, actually, and just simply point out that this is not where it's at. It's never going to be where it's at. It's futile. As has been shown by the Uncertainty Principal and the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics, but as you can see for yourself if you'll just give the world the mystery it deserves. Why are we trying to strip the world of its mystery? It's almost perverse, in a way, but also hopeless, so I have the luxury of not being really concerned.

I don't know what my argument has to do with my self-esteem. Just because I admit that I am not looking for a solution where there is none? I am helping us all to focus. There are things that can be done; nevermind the things that can't.

 

At the very least we can accumulate practical applications which are the fruits of our "hopeless" endeavors.

Your computer, and your healthcare for instance. I'm not saying any of those things matter, because "why"? Right?

But then again, why not?

Why should you suffer when an alternative exists? Why should you not discover even more alternatives?

There is no true reason to do anything at all. But there is no reason to not do anything either.

Unless you place desire in the same realm as reason.

 

The system can never be put in a finite vacuum to find out whether determinism exists, but a finite person expressing what they are without doubt can be called deterministic.

 

I don't think there is a difference between the infinite system and a finite person. I think the finite person is a temporary expression of the infinite.

I feel like everyone is saying that we cannot know ourselves.

I am satisfiedwith inference.

 

To heeh2: A person can know their self, but only through being. Inference is based on a past event while being is the actual event. There is no uncertainty in being.

Freewill is an imaginary scenario where a choice is to be made some time in the future. When the moment comes the choice is made, but in the present moment everything is deterministic. There aren't two realities.

 

Practical applications are all the fruits of a hopeless endeavor? I don't think so. Figuring everything out has only been the agenda of a few. Others have understood that such a task is impossible. What are the applications of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity? Because he certainly appreciated the majestic mystery of the cosmos.

Have I been repeating the question "Why?" like a child so that you would assume my whole philosophy boils down to the question "Why?" I'm not asking why. I'm asking "What?" as in "What is this?" Well what is this, really? Is it on occasion just an afternoon on the beach, for instance, or is it always the equivalent of a mathematical equation? I do declare sometimes it's just an afternoon on the beach and it has nothing whatever to do with physics.

What alternative to suffering exists, I would like to know. Show me this world you have conceived of that can exist free from all suffering.

 

Practical applications are all the fruits of a hopeless endeavor? I don't think so. Figuring everything out has only been the agenda of a few. Others have understood that such a task is impossible. What are the applications of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity? Because he certainly appreciated the majestic mystery of the cosmos.

Have I been repeating the question %2