Dubstepforum.com

alien pimp wrote:

64hz wrote:schroedingers feline?

this was about some quantum biz and it was solved, right?
i don't remeber the details, just it was about some complicated mechs and mambo-jumbo about nothing after all...

if you could sum it up in a few simple sentences i'll most probably figure it out, if not i might not have the scientific expertise to solve it
try me out though...

hayze99 wrote:

alien pimp wrote:

64hz wrote:schroedingers feline?

this was about some quantum biz and it was solved, right?
i don't remeber the details, just it was about some complicated mechs and mambo-jumbo about nothing after all...

if you could sum it up in a few simple sentences i'll most probably figure it out, if not i might not have the scientific expertise to solve it
try me out though...

1. The preconception in quantum physics that a system with a random chance of being in 2 different states, will be in both of them at the same time until they have been observed.
2. Throw a cat in a box, with a radioactive isotope connected to a flask of poison. Once radioactive decay reaches a certain point, the flask is broken and the cat dies. The decay of a radioactive isotope is 100% random
3. Thus, the flask being broken can happen at any random time, so the cat can die at any random time. He can't be observed since he's in a box. Thus, the cat is both dead and alive at the same time.

Regardless, it's meant to be a thought experiment to understand the basics of quantum physics, considering that a lot of the presumptions here only actually hold true at a quantum level.

hayze99 wrote:

alien pimp wrote:

64hz wrote:schroedingers feline?

this was about some quantum biz and it was solved, right?
i don't remeber the details, just it was about some complicated mechs and mambo-jumbo about nothing after all...

if you could sum it up in a few simple sentences i'll most probably figure it out, if not i might not have the scientific expertise to solve it
try me out though...

1. The preconception in quantum physics that a system with a random chance of being in 2 different states, will be in both of them at the same time until they have been observed.
2. Throw a cat in a box, with a radioactive isotope connected to a flask of poison. Once radioactive decay reaches a certain point, the flask is broken and the cat dies. The decay of a radioactive isotope is 100% random
3. Thus, the flask being broken can happen at any random time, so the cat can die at any random time. He can't be observed since he's in a box. Thus, the cat is both dead and alive at the same time.

Regardless, it's meant to be a thought experiment to understand the basics of quantum physics, considering that a lot of the presumptions here only actually hold true at a quantum level.

lloydnoise wrote:this is some next dickhead ting

Helix [Delay] wrote:I always lie.

abelard wrote:

lloydnoise wrote:this is some next dickhead ting

collige wrote:

Helix [Delay] wrote:I always lie.

You lie sometimes, but not all the time.

If you do lie all the time, then that statement is not a lie.
If you don't, then that statement is a lie.
Either way, you speak the truth at least once and lie at least once.

stappard wrote:

alien pimp wrote:

2manynoobs wrote:fighting for peace?

that's an oximoron, if i remember correctly the term, not a paradox
so many people use this word quite frequently but so few know what it means apparently

I would disagree with 'fighting for peace' being an oxymoron. The phrase 'fighting for peace' contains nothing that could be considered oxymoronic (e.g. 'a capitalist communist'). 'fighting for peace' must be considered paradoxical because of the means contradicting the aim. Certainly not oxymoronic as far as I can conceive.

kay wrote:

hayze99 wrote:

alien pimp wrote:

64hz wrote:schroedingers feline?

this was about some quantum biz and it was solved, right?
i don't remeber the details, just it was about some complicated mechs and mambo-jumbo about nothing after all...

if you could sum it up in a few simple sentences i'll most probably figure it out, if not i might not have the scientific expertise to solve it
try me out though...

1. The preconception in quantum physics that a system with a random chance of being in 2 different states, will be in both of them at the same time until they have been observed.
2. Throw a cat in a box, with a radioactive isotope connected to a flask of poison. Once radioactive decay reaches a certain point, the flask is broken and the cat dies. The decay of a radioactive isotope is 100% random
3. Thus, the flask being broken can happen at any random time, so the cat can die at any random time. He can't be observed since he's in a box. Thus, the cat is both dead and alive at the same time.

Regardless, it's meant to be a thought experiment to understand the basics of quantum physics, considering that a lot of the presumptions here only actually hold true at a quantum level.

Technically, it isn't a paradox. It's just an unresolved state. The cat isn't both dead and alive at the same time - we just don't know whether it is alive or dead.

Helix [Delay] wrote:I always lie.

mikey g wrote:thees a few obvious one's that have been missed

chicken or the egg??

paradox of niilism - that the absence of meaning seems to be some sort of meaning

also to state paradoxes don't exist seems to ignore all the moral paradoxes we find ourselves in. That is unless one is omnipotent. but that raises a different paradox - the omnipotence paradox - " addressing the question of whether the existence of an omnipotent entity is logically possible. The paradox states that if a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task it is unable to perform, and hence, it cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if it cannot create a task it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do."

dubmatters wrote:How about traveling back in time and killing yourself?

Even Stephen Hawking thinks that is a paradox. Thus preventing time travel to the past

I'll believe him over some chump on here.

xarcane wrote:So... are you going to solve the Zenos paradox or not? It's been used for millenia to demonstrate the fallibility of logic, so it seems like a good place to start for you. How is it that logically speaking Achilles should never be able to pass the turtle, but from what we perceive in reality we know he does.

xarcane wrote:How about the Zenos paradox?

Achilles wants to race a turtle, and he is twice as fast as the turtle, so he gives the turtle a big headstart. By the time he reaches the starting line, the turtle has moved half that distance. By the time he reaches where the turtle was when he was at the starting line, the turtle has moved half his distance again. When he reaches that point the turtle has moved half his distance again...

Go on logically like this, and Achilles should never be able to overtake the turtle, because every time he reaches the point where the turtle just was, the turtle should have moved half that distance again. Yet we know that in reality that he will be able to overtake it. Explain.