Dubstepforum.com

thats hilarious

alien pimp wrote:that's what i'm saying, observation as we conceive it today - an intellectual activity confined in our brain - is hardly suspect for changing particles behaviour.

I think there's a little more to the concept of "observation" than that. A camera watching the two-slit experiment acts as an observer, doesn't it?

I'd quite like to get my head around exactly what constitutes observation before trying to tackle the implications of it...

But props on that last paragraph defending your traffic lights!

Magma wrote:

alien pimp wrote:that's what i'm saying, observation as we conceive it today - an intellectual activity confined in our brain - is hardly suspect for changing particles behaviour.

I think there's a little more to the concept of "observation" than that. A camera watching the two-slit experiment acts as an observer, doesn't it?

I'd quite like to get my head around exactly what constitutes observation before trying to tackle the implications of it...

But props on that last paragraph defending your traffic lights!

what me and you think about it it's irrelevant, what's important is what is the generally accepted and stated definition
if the code is not known by all parts in communication, communication fails so far the code is in the dictionaries

dr ddd wrote: thats hilarious

i could say the same about some of your ideas, but i choose different

no offence alien pimp - it just made me laugh, nothing personal.

nothing like the convolutions of an intense discussion on traffic lights to put a smile on your face....

they're not my ideas necessarily- just one side of a debate i'm happy to argue either side

safe

alien pimp wrote:

Magma wrote:

alien pimp wrote:that's what i'm saying, observation as we conceive it today - an intellectual activity confined in our brain - is hardly suspect for changing particles behaviour.

I think there's a little more to the concept of "observation" than that. A camera watching the two-slit experiment acts as an observer, doesn't it?

I'd quite like to get my head around exactly what constitutes observation before trying to tackle the implications of it...

But props on that last paragraph defending your traffic lights!

what me and you think about it it's irrelevant, what's important is what is the generally accepted and stated definition
if the code is not known by all parts in communication, communication fails so far the code is in the dictionaries

What are you actually trying to say here? That there's no point in amateurs like us even having this conversation or that there is no correct definition of "observation" to be found anywhere?

no man, i'm saying the definition of these terms is not negotiable, between us or anyone else claiming they use English language as a code for their communication

Don't think observation, think interaction
Visual observation is also photonic interaction

alien pimp wrote:no man, i'm saying the definition of these terms is not negotiable, between us or anyone else claiming they use English language as a code for their communication

lets continue this conversation in maths as communication then? it's incredibly liberating i swear

your hypothesis is based on the presumption that we all are actually here.

dr ddd wrote:

alien pimp wrote:no man, i'm saying the definition of these terms is not negotiable, between us or anyone else claiming they use English language as a code for their communication

lets continue this conversation in maths as communication then? it's incredibly liberating i swear

if you teach me how, i'd be happy to give it a try

Stenchman wrote:your hypothesis is based on the presumption that we all are actually here.

here is by definition where we are

but where is here?

a queef finds its own space

alien pimp wrote:no man, i'm saying the definition of these terms is not negotiable, between us or anyone else claiming they use English language as a code for their communication

That's why we, as a species, use the languages of physics, philosophy and mathematics to do it. Your point seems to rely on the idea that because you've not taken the time to educate yourself on how to communicate about these ideas, then nobody else should have either?

alien pimp wrote: observation as we conceive it today - an intellectual activity confined in our brain - is hardly suspect for changing particles behaviour.
the hypothesis that observation generates such forces that puts it in line with gravity is hardly supported by anything, but if it does it goes along my lines: we're physically interfering in the observed system

You're using the term observation to mean thinking. You're also talking about experiments as closed systems, there are no closed systems except in pure mathematics (and apparently economics, chortle chortle).

alien pimp wrote: OBSERVATION EXCLUDES INTERVENTION BY DEFAULT

Could you explain this, I don't understand how perception is non-physical?

unforunately alien pimp it's not quite that simple- it took me 3 years of A level maths and physics, 4 years of a theoretical physics degree and 4 years of a theoretical and experimental particle physics Phd focusing on beyond the standard model phenomenology (mainly because i believe even the most beautiful theory anyone can think of means zilch unless you can actually relate and test it in the real world) to get to that point. Worth it though, every brain dribble, pulled out hair and penny of debt i'm still in, go for it-it's a hell of a lot more rewarding than arguing on a music forum, you get to argue in papers and conferences with people who speak the same language and come out with just as preposterous and outrageous, hilarious ideas thing is - sometimes, they're right or at least making the first step in a great direction. And you get to contribute to finding a new idea or path or philosophy that the vast majority of people can then come to "believe". Openmindedness and peer review and debate is the key to finding a better solution.

as a start:

banana = banana,
banana != banana +/-(dbanana/dt), if dbanana/dt != 0 or if i eat the banana



Actually, i now quite like that idea that i know the traffic light is red or not because if i dont, over time, i get squished by speeding metal and i'm DEAD. This changes the reference frame and means the flow goes the other way, i observe the observee and it has an affect on me but, then of course there is a probability that the street's been cordoned off for G20 protestors and no cars are allowed down the street, so maybe i'm not dead.

all of you mainly missed the point!

in the world of ISO standardisations you think maths is a variable and interpretable language or what?

even if we accept multiple definitions of a term, you can swap these as you please inside the same demonstration

it's gotta be one and the same all along
if you have a better one, please link me to that definition and let's all start using that

they don't have a totally parallel language as you think, and when they do they use to mention that, but it's basically the standard language as defined mostly by the dictionaries.
"language pf physics" is mostly a metaphor taken literally in an earlier post, it's describing mostly an approach, not a language. Physics language is part of the standard language. Vector is not an esoteric word, it's in some dictionaries and it's "standardized"

so fuck multiple standards in the same conversation!

Funky Stanton wrote:

alien pimp wrote: OBSERVATION EXCLUDES INTERVENTION BY DEFAULT

Could you explain this, I don't understand how perception is non-physical?

can you explain how you got to the idea i said perception is non-physical?