Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Introducing Me.


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 PersonalPronoun

PersonalPronoun

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 06 February 2015 - 06:04 PM

Hi all. I'm new here.
I'm not educated beyond high school, except for my own reading.
My favorite physicist is John Wheeler.
I find Q.M. To be very fascinating, and quite inspiring.
My favorite interpretation is the M.W.I.

I read many articles about science in my news magazine.
It was a recent article about superposition, that I read last night, that prompted me to look for a science forum.
It seems to me that superposition is Unfalsifiable, and I have a question in relation to that, and shrodinger's cat. I'll post it in the appropriate sub forum.

Well, that's my introduction. I look forward to enjoying science with you.
  • JMJones0424 likes this

#2 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1241 posts

Posted 07 February 2015 - 02:33 AM

Welcome, and thanks for taking the time to introduce yourself.  I, too, am far less educated than I like to admit.  Luckily, for the both of us, there are people here that are both willing to share their formal education and able to provide support for their positions other than mere appeals to authority.

 

I'm curious, since you've said your favorite physicist is Wheeler, what your opinion is on Wheeler's "it for bit" hypothesis.  To me, it seems that the conclusion is decidely deterministic, which doesn't sit right to me in a realm where quantum mechanics is a reality.  But I readily admit that I may be missing the point.



#3 Eclogite

Eclogite

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1477 posts

Posted 07 February 2015 - 03:29 AM

I'd like to welcome you to the forum. (See what I did there. :))



#4 PersonalPronoun

PersonalPronoun

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 07 February 2015 - 06:53 AM

Welcome, and thanks for taking the time to introduce yourself.  I, too, am far less educated than I like to admit.  Luckily, for the both of us, there are people here that are both willing to share their formal education and able to provide support for their positions other than mere appeals to authority.
 
I'm curious, since you've said your favorite physicist is Wheeler, what your opinion is on Wheeler's "it for bit" hypothesis.  To me, it seems that the conclusion is decidely deterministic, which doesn't sit right to me in a realm where quantum mechanics is a reality.  But I readily admit that I may be missing the point.


First, thanks for your friendly response.
Second, I'm about to give a good example of how uneducated I am in science.

I think you'll find that uncertainty doesn't disprove determinism.
Uncertainty speaks more to the fact that we are unable to understand all the variables of an event by observing it a single time. 
Furthermore, it is my understanding that each event observed is a one-off event. Once the event is completed, we can't go back and observe it again. 
That doesn't disprove determinism, but only our failing to get all of the information.

So, in answer to, "it from bit" I love the idea. 
In my opinion, it explains the mind. 

We are a living, thinking part of the universe, just like our brains are a living, thinking part of our bodies.

The universe is a body. All of the thinking parts of the universe are it's mind.

Anyway, that's the short version. 
Thanks for asking! 

#5 PersonalPronoun

PersonalPronoun

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 07 February 2015 - 06:59 AM

(See what I did there. :))

I thought I saw it, but I am now uncertain.
Lol. Thanks for the welcome!