chbare Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 (edited) He was countering another dopey analogy similar to the starving philosopher video above. You may be confusing what a physicist really said about this philosophy. Arthur Eddington, a famous astrophysicist who was able to validate Einstein's theory of general relativity did talk about this statement, but ultimately stated that the moon would be around even if humanity were to no longer exist. There may not be creatures to call the object an object, the moon, Luna or other such name, but it would exist nonetheless. Again, I think some of the issues stem from not appreciating the wave like aspect of these particles. The linked videos may help you out. This is a series of videos I did where I used a programme called Atom in a Box that solves the Schrodinger equation for an electron in a Hydrogen atom. By the second video I pose a question that often = mind blown. A wise man once told me something that generated a large amount of clarity for me: "Quit looking at the electron like it's a phucking particle!" Apparently, I cannot attach all five files... Edited September 30, 2012 by chbare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief1C Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 I think that we think that we exist, but we don't really exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DwayneEMTP Posted October 1, 2012 Author Share Posted October 1, 2012 I won't be able to see the vids for a month, or a little bit more...no way to make it happen here...But thanks for posting, on everyone's behalf... And thanks also for the above explanation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief1C Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 I was self medicating after a trip to the bakery, I have no idea why I wrote that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFIB Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 I won't be able to see the vids for a month, or a little bit more...no way to make it happen here...But thanks for posting, on everyone's behalf... And thanks also for the above explanation! We can't let you just say goodbye and ride away into a cannibal infested horizon without tossing us a bone on your conclusion! So where is the bone? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard B the EMT Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 The only physics that I use, and part of the reason for the existance of the EMT City, is that two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. Vehicle drivers at intersections continually try to disprove that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chbare Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Joking aside, there is truth to that statement. Particles with mass obey something called the Pauli Exclusion Principle, for the most part. This says that no two Fermions can occupy the same quantum state. However, when it comes to two vehicles crashing, you actually deal with electrostatic forces long before getting close enough to worry about the exclusion principle. On a side note, the extreme "pressure" produced by the exclusion principle is what keeps massive objects such as brown dwarfs and neutron stars from collapsing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaisu Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Awareness is simply the meta state that arises from an increasingly complex self-referential loop. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DwayneEMTP Posted October 3, 2012 Author Share Posted October 3, 2012 Awareness is simply the meta state that arises from an increasingly complex self-referential loop. No idea what that means, so I'm simply going to reply..."Screw you." That should cover it.. (Good to see you here ol' girl!) We can't let you just say goodbye and ride away into a cannibal infested horizon without tossing us a bone on your conclusion! So where is the bone? Not sure. I'd forgotten much of what Chris had explained, and didn't understand much of it until he explained it. So for now I'm going with "particles are not aware, in fact are not even particles, so therefore there is no universal awareness." Why? Because chbare says so and that's good enough for me. :-) I am grateful for the conversation! Where does the layman go Christopher for additional reading? Interesting reading, as I'm not likely to be invested enough to make it through dry books with tons of mathmatics above my ability. And what the hell happened to Beibs? I was hoping that he and Chris would disagree on something here...that would be a fun debate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFIB Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 And what the hell happened to Beibs? I was hoping that he and Chris would disagree on something here...that would be a fun debate! I know, where is he. I have been dragging my feet on a senario waiting for him to show up but I guess I am going to have to wrap it up without him. You are welcome as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts