Dubstepforum.com

Funky Stanton wrote:

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).

I'm not using observation as you say, i use it as defined above by some dictionaries

If experiments are not closed systems, that means the observation is not the only thing that might interact with the particle, therefore its not the only one to be suspected for changing particle's attitude as these guys say, then again: faulty science

alien pimp wrote:

Funky Stanton wrote:

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).

I'm not using observation as you say, i use it as defined above by some dictionaries

If experiments are not closed systems, that means the observation is not the only thing that might interact with the particle, therefore its not the only one to be suspected for changing particle's attitude as these guys say, then again: faulty science

of course it's not the only thing that can act on it or interact with it... the whole point of experiment is you work out all of this and find supporting proof for your theory, rather than just say it's so... and account for it. You have systematic effects and statistical effects within the experiment, as well as systematic and random effects outside of the "experiment" (if you're looking at it as a black box system) and a good scientists takes all of these into account. repeat, repeat, repeat and do some very good data analysis and repeat, repeat, repeat....... rule them out - work out whats going on.

you get to a point where your experiment may well contradict your original idea and then you have to consider something else. or maybe you come up with some strong evidentiary support your idea is correct for now.

btw, in reference to the earlier points you made on my logical or "non-logical" argument, i'm sure you're aware that philosophy logic is essentially founded on concepts of probability, causality and validity?

dr ddd wrote:

alien pimp wrote:

Funky Stanton wrote:

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).

I'm not using observation as you say, i use it as defined above by some dictionaries

If experiments are not closed systems, that means the observation is not the only thing that might interact with the particle, therefore its not the only one to be suspected for changing particle's attitude as these guys say, then again: faulty science

of course it's not the only thing that can act on it or interact with it... the whole point of experiment is you work out all of this and find supporting proof for your theory, rather than just say it's so... and account for it. You have systematic effects and statistical effects within the experiment, as well as systematic and random effects outside of the "experiment" (if you're looking at it as a black box system) and a good scientists takes all of these into account. repeat, repeat, repeat and do some very good data analysis and repeat, repeat, repeat....... rule them out - work out whats going on.

you get to a point where your experiment may well contradict your original idea and then you have to consider something else. or maybe you come up with some strong evidentiary support your idea is correct for now.

btw, in reference to the earlier points you made on my logical or "non-logical" argument, i'm sure you're aware that philosophy logic is essentially founded on concepts of probability, causality and validity?

so, if you can summarize for me, why is observation the only suspect in the 2 slits experiment?

Observation collapses the wave function ?

http://pollywannacracka.blogspot.com/20 ... lapse.html

maybe it is, but the key word in my question is "only"
then "how?" remains to be answered...
i'd give these a few more years of research at least, before i'd jump on conclusions like some of the enthusiasts in the videos. or maybe i need myself more info, but from what i've scooped so far nothing and nobody fixed my doubts.
maybe somebody will come up with the quote that solves it all at some point

very nice reading anyway

reality
as yet & naturally,
trap-fleeing from science?
other truths, however untrue,
truth-filled.
Personal experiences,
only fractions shared,
rolling towards me,
with clouds over sea.


I am drawn to the horizon.

new reality sandwich related social networking site
http://evolver.net/

http://www.realitysandwich.com/

Parson wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYAlJ4dr ... re=related

if what they say in that vid, that emotions = vibrations = linked to the phisical stuff then it is possible to make robots who can feel emotions...

or am i off drifting too far ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7guEBTW6 ... re=channel

respect..

on the other hand there's people who think particles have free will
which would be a bigger hit than internet if true
http://kk.org/ct2/2009/03/particles-have-free-will.php

pls be true