Guardian Soul

I finished it an hour ago. :C All of my tears. Episode 26 was the best.

ROW ROW FIGHT THe POWER

1/100. <:

Thank you. xD
Pfft, no where closer from the last time we spoke. Finished the trial where Natsuhi was accused of killing everybody. v: I decided I would continue soon, and Erika is nuts.

Hell yeah One Piece avatar

Ah, good.


----------
To understand the wave function, you first need to understand what superposition is. Superposition tells us that a particle or system can exist in an indefinite (or definite) number of states. Until we look at a system, it exists in all of those states simultaneously, and to the degree determined by the amount of energy in the system and the energy of the states and the number of states and other factors. This condition is described by the wave function, which defines the states and their energies. Once we look at the system, however, the wave function collapses and the superposition of states is replaced by the system achieving a single defined state. This is known as collapsing the wave function. The wave function in Schrödinger's cat for example would be the state of the cat. Is it alive or dead? We can't know until it's observed and until it is, both states exist simultaneously. But once you do open up the box, the wave function collapses and it assumes one of the two states, dead or alive. Schrödinger's cat is just a thought experiment though but it gets the general idea across. The wave function collapse is observed in microscopic systems. Light for example travels in both waves and particles and we've got experiments to show that both are true. But until we observe the light, it's both simultaneously. By observing it, the wave function collapses and it becomes either a particle or a wave. Like Robert Anton Wilson said in the one video you showed me: "It looks as if the damn light is waiting to see how we're going to do the experiment and then decide which way it's going to travel".
----------
That will do nicely. However, that does not seem to greatly affect our ability to make practical use of patterns in the universe. In the end it does not matter if the light is both at the same time so long as we can accurately predict which it will be when we look at it in a certain way.

I understand the first part, but not the second.


----------
Well I'm no quantum mechanist so bear with me here. The easiest way to sum it up would be with Schrödinger's cat. You've most likely heard of it. To elaborate, Erwin Schrödinger's thought experiment involved a cat sealed inside a box with a Geiger counter attached to it. Inside that Geiger counter is a small amount of radioactive substance. The box is set up so that when the radioactive substance decays, a device smashes a vial of toxic gas, killing the cat inside. The thing is, after an hour, until the box is open, there is no way to determine whether the cat inside is alive or dead, thus allowing the cat to be both alive and dead. Once we open up the box, however, the wave function collapses and the superposition of states is replaced by the system achieving a single defined state. This is known as collapsing the wave function.
----------
What is the wave function, then?

And, the way you explain it, you are simply saying, "We haven't seen it as alive or dead, so it can be both." You are not explaining why it can be both well enough.

Ah, it has been a long time.


----------
Bah, I can't believe I forgot to respond to this. Sorry but I've been distracted by various things or a little unmotivated as well. >_>;
----------
It's fine.


----------
You are somewhat right when you say that these things can be measured. Your argument is very similar to Laplace's demon which is "if someone knows the precise location and momentum of every atom in the universe, their past and future values for any given time are entailed; they can be calculated from the laws of classical mechanics" which would be possible if the whole universe was strictly deterministic. And a lot of scientist did believe that if you couldn't predict something with certainty then you just needed more information to form a deterministic theory. But this is inherently incompatible with quantum mechanical theories where chance is very much a big thing.

Let's take the Uncertainty Principle, for example, which states that exact measurements of positions and momentum may not be defined and observed together with more than a given precision. For example, assume that the initial momentum of all of the atoms that make up a coin have been accurately calculated by measuring their mass, the force applied to them, and the length of time each was subjected to that force. Then to measure their positions after they are no longer being accelerated would require another measurement to be done by scattering light or other particles off of them. But each such interaction would alter their momentum by an unknown and indeterminable increment, degrading our knowledge of its momentum while augmenting our knowledge of its position. Because of this we can never truly reach 100% accuracy and thus there is uncertainty which allows leeway for indeterminism.

I'll agree though that the determinism we have, while not the strict, necessary, logical determinism, is adequate enough to provide us with a predictable and orderly world. Although this only applies to macroscopic objects and structures. Even then this doesn't mean that the strict determinism is true and it would be fallacious to believe so. Just because some things can be determined, it doesn't mean that all things can be.
----------
I am afraid that I do not follow your meaning. When you say, "But each such interaction would alter their momentum by an unknown and indeterminable increment," what interaction are we talking about, and why can't it be measured?


----------
>points towards the Uncertainty Principle.

There's also the collapse of the wave function, in which the state of a system upon measurement cannot be predicted.
----------
I also do not understand this at face value. What is the wave function, and how does it collapse? Please explain it in detail.

I take way too much time when answering questions for the QT.
So in case you saw my post before I edited, do check it again to see the answers lol.

/yawn

So much VMing...


----------
I kind of don't want to have this discussion in the Spam Zone. But if you want, we could bring this over to the Discussion section. I find the topic to be pretty interesting.
----------
I leave that up to you.


----------
Well you got the gist of it, I guess. I'll flesh it out a bit. Indeterminism is the concept that events (certain events, or events of certain types) are not caused, or, to be more specific, not caused deterministically by prior events. It is the opposite of determinism and related to chance .

Causality and indeterminism aren't mutually exclusive though. I don't deny that causes exist. I just maintain that the only causes that exist are of a type that does not constrain the future to a single course which determinism implies.

If we were to look at causation deterministically, then that would mean that if A causes B, then A must always be followed by B. But we don’t know that for certain. For example, I could punch you right now. Now what would your response be? You could retaliate; you could walk away; you could yell “Why the **** did you punch me?!”; etc. The fact that these other options are open shows that things aren’t set in stone like determinism would have you believe, no? We only know that A probabilistically causes B if A's occurrence increases the probability of B. It is possible for everything to have a cause but that doesn’t mean that every cause leads to a single inevitable effect.

Might add more later. Today's been meh. I'm not really motivated at the moment. xD
----------
Ah, but that relies on ignorance rather than a scientific or logical position. In reality, I am not able to react in any way but the way in which I end up reacting. The closer circumstances get to a specific event, the closer the probability of that event happening approaches one. Your argument is similar to an argument about flipping coins. You would argue that you could get either side from a coin toss. This is incorrect.

The reason why people flip coins in order to win bets is because they are not able to predict the outcome on the fly. If they were able to measure the amount of force used, the angle at which it was tossed, the density of the air, and so on, then it would cease to be chance and they would stop using it for decisions. It is hard to deny that these things can be measured and that the result of a coin flip can be predicted with perfect accuracy. Am I wrong? Every event that takes place has a probability of one by nature of having happened. It is just a matter of finding out what brought the event about. That is what I have learned throughout my life.

I would have to see evidence to the effect that you cannot predict every single event with enough knowledge of the circumstances. An experiment or induction that demonstrates indeterminism, perhaps? I would be extremely interested in such a thing.

Oh, but then you have quantum mechanics. Let's see what you can come up with. I'm interested.

I know you were kidding foo'. You take me way too seriously.

Yeah I saw your questions xD Naw they were good, thanks for doing it. I actually expected a lot more awkwardness from you, but this is good haha.

Didn't you get a new computer? >_> I'd get worried if it burst into flames when it's still brand new.
Also, did you get Sonic yet?

And by the way, go ask your questions for the staff podcast already >|

This sounds about right.

[/SPOILER]

No, I'm just messing with you. It is too small in my opinion anyway.

Your avatar is the same as my profile header on Tumblr. What are you trying to pull here?!

/bans you for working with P.