The previous post attracted a comment which incensed me greatly. The comment was about probability and quantum mechanics, and made dubious claims.
What the reader failed to state at any time was this:
"Suppose normal everyday objects obeyed the Laws of Quantum Mechanics".
And the person went on to describe a "marble-in-box" puzzle where the marble could have been been anywhere.
IT DOESN'T MATTER!!!! In normal everyday life, there is NO quantum mechanics!!! Quantum Mechanics was invented to explain normal everyday life when it got very small!
To those people who want to apply these rules to everything they see, let them. They will fail. There is a video out called "What the (bleep) do we know?" that claims everything is just an illusion because of Quantum Mechanics. Is it a vision by scientists, known and respected throughout the community? NO! it is a video made by doctors (neuro surgeons), philosophers, psychiartrists and other thinkers who claim they know Quantum Mechanics better than those who actually use those laws.
The best example of what I call to be the "Quantum Fuzziness" is Shrodinger's Cat (see the post "Wanted - Dead or alive"). He invented the Cat just to show everyone how silly it is to take Quantum Mechanics beyond the realm it was invented for.
Sadly, some people still believe that when they go to the store to buy an apple, there is a distinct probability that they will instead, buy a 14-toed giant sluglike marsupial Mexican Bandit instead.
On the planet Oohhuhuhooompha.
In subjunctive tents.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Fuzzy Logic
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Well, I'm one of those who believe that paradox can be explained with the many universe approach, so, from my point of view, the experiment doesn't show anything of silly...
ciao
"Quantum Merchanics is only relevant at very small scales".
We are not talking about the marble itself here but we're actually talking about it's physical 'existence' . In other words, we are talking about the 'knowledge' of where the marble could be. The 'fuzziness' occurs not because of the material occupation of the marble but because of the 'uncertainty' of where it might actually be. Now approve this comment and then challenge it's validity! The challenge is equally open to the other readers as well.
I challenge it's validity because you mention the uncertainty of where the marble IS. I assumed you meant a real marble. Indeed, we all did.
There is no doubt where it is on the macroscopic scale, Sir, because the uncertainty of where the marble is in the real world, is measurable only by your "boxes". There is no doubt that the marble exists because you put it there.
As to "where" it is, you cannot change it's position merely by looking at an empty box.
But on the small scale it is as you described.
But you did not say how small your "boxes" were.
Did you ever study quantum mechanics, or did you just arrive at this "conclusion" all by yourself?
1) "..... because you mention the uncertainty of where the marble IS".
Please don't put 'thoughts' in my mind (just the way people put words in our mouths).
2) "As to "where" it is, you cannot change it's position merely by looking at an empty box"
What do you mean 'you cannot change it's position', when the 'position' itself is uncertain?
3) "There is no doubt that the marble exists because you put it there".
Where is "there" ?
4) Did I ever study Quantum Mechanics?
Well, I am not inclined towards too much of wordplay. At what level do you want to challenge me? Just let me know.
I don't care where a valid statement comes from...whether it's from you or from myself or from anyone else. What's important is that the statement is universally valid. I think this comment deserves approval, too. So, the challenge is still open. Thank you Aki!
P.S. Please don't debate just for the sake of it.
I will not debate just for the sake of it.
Quantum Mechanics works out how "quanta" work.
Not marbles.
Thanks for a good laugh you two. To be honest, I thought the marbles to be a thought experiment, just like Schro.'s Cat. I was chatting as I was reading the original comment, so gave it no deep thought then or even at this moment. However, I think it is possible to say the marble has a definite place. Do you know why? ha ha ha It is because we are discussing it, so it has a logical reality within the discussion (or thought). That's my way of saying to argue here is silly. You might wish to go back to the original topic and discuss it without analogy, though. If that is possible.
Besides, if we are going to discuss either of your qualifications, my guess is neither of you have the credentials to back up anything you say on Fuzzy Logic. To wit, neither of you have degrees in that area. Am I right? Meaning you are not experts, so stop pretending you are.
Dave is right about limits, but sometimes educated people talk like they have no limits. That is when they become dangerous. Remember Socrates, who said: "If I know anything, I know that I know nothing." But feel free to argue, if you two think we will gain anything from this. I come here looking for good arguments. Note, I said, "good arguments". Oh well, I know I am limited, so what is a good argument, anyway? Thanks for allowing me to babble on this quabble.
Wyman,
"...my guess is neither of you have the credentials to back up anything you say on Fuzzy Logic"
I have never mentioned anything about Fuzzy Logic in my comments though I can tell quite a few things about it.
"Meaning you are not experts, so stop pretending you are".
Don't you think you have made an unwarranted judgement by saying that?
"You might wish to go back to the original topic and discuss it without analogy,though"
Analogies make explanations simple.
Dave,
"You clearly know much more than l do (l haven't studied) but l clearly know my limits much better than you know your's"
When you admit that I know much more than you do, don't you think it's unfair to comment on my knowledge about my own 'limits'?
"...let Akiko win' this debate and allow her to improve your knowledge further"
Akiko is already a winner the moment she decided to maintain a wonderful blog like this :) I'll be happy to learn from her or from anyone who comments on the posts here.
"I don't care where a valid statement comes from...whether it's from you or from myself or from anyone else".
When I said that, I really meant it. I am not a big believer of "qualifications". I always believed that anyone who can think carefully and systematically is qualified enough. I also don't believe that any knowledge has a limit. The more we know, the more we have to know. So, learning is a continuous process. Only those who have stopped learning think they have learned enough and vice versa. I have great respect for passionate learners. So, keep learning and smiling and stop judging! We can't be sure of anything unless we think we know enough.
The post was not about Fuzzy Logic, though (that is a different field). It was about someone trying to apply quantum mechanics to the real world, which is impossible, and in THAT area I really ought to be qualified, even if I do not possess a degree in it, assuming one can get a degree in quantum mechanics.
PoChip:
This is all said for fun. The word "guess" qualified what I said, but it brought a response as though I never used the word. Then when I used the words "not experts", you did not ask, "Am I an expert" before replying to this point and forgot that you told me what your field is. Finally,as simple as analogies may make explanations, they are also known to complicate things, which often leads to analogies for the analogies, so I was suggesting both of you go back to the original subject, then find a way to make things simple without analogies. I admit this leads to a lot of hard work, if the subject is that important to you, but demands great clarity as you go. This forces you to put yourself in the other person's place in search of clarity. Obviously, your analogy was misconstrued to be something you say it wasn't, therefore your analogy did not fulfill your own definition for what an analogy should do.
That was for fun, nothing personal. Just trying to point out how easy it is to miss what's really being said.
As for Quantum Mechanical events applied to the real world. I think I read somewhere that this has been postulated as a real possiblity. However, I do not wish to open that can of worms. Thank you.
I think you may be referring, Wyman, to the ability now of manufacturing a "macroscopic quantum particle", known as a Bose-Eintein condensate.
This thing seems to have to ability to exhibit quantum effects on a macroscopic scale.
Note I said "macroscopic scale", and not "real world". By this I mean is a B-E condensate of the real world?
It has the property that if you hit it one end, it 'flips over' quantum mechanically at the other 'instantaneously'.
I realised these things could be created in the lab long before they were observed, and my question was - if we could stretch one from here to Alpha Centuri (about 4 light years away), notwithstanding the engineering difficulties, and hit it here, would it 'flip over' at our nearest star instantanously, and if it could (this could one day be physicslly done in the lab using atomic clocks), how do we resolve it with special relativity, if indeed it IS information travelling faster than the speed of light? Enlight me, Pottie Dip, please.
Well, Special Relativity Theory doesn't say anything about 'particles' (Tachyons) already traveling at superluminal speeds. Tachyons are a theoretical prediction (E.C.G.Sudarshan et al.,).
And what if "you hit it one end, it 'really' 'flips over' quantum mechanically (or otherwise) at the other....'instantaneously'"?
Action-at-a-distance is still inexplicable (theoretically)...IF it really works. At the moment, all I can say is that Vodka mixes really well with mango juice (as well)! :P
Would it be plausible to posit that a 5th. or greater dimension may be involved here, allowing for the instantaneous flip? Or seemingly, even stranger, this is a type of dimensionless point or timeless entity (lacking time, if certain features of QM can lack time as a component)? Just thought I would throw a couple of farfetched ideas out there for you since I have no reputation to lose. Then too, Simone's thinking is being overlooked by all of us.
Post a Comment