InfiniteNow Posted April 18, 2006 Report Share Posted April 18, 2006 Which one do you think is a more accurate description of reality? Copenhagen Interpretation (where wave functions collapse and other states turn into "ghost" worlds) Many-Worlds Interpretation (where the numbers involved make my head want to explode) Other... please elucidate. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay-qu Posted April 19, 2006 Report Share Posted April 19, 2006 other, where everything is determined! ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted April 19, 2006 Report Share Posted April 19, 2006 other, where everything is determined! :phones:I agree Jay, I am also a determinist............................Infy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted April 19, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 19, 2006 What is, if any, the difference between determinism and fatalism? (Although, perhaps this question warrants it's own thread.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay-qu Posted April 19, 2006 Report Share Posted April 19, 2006 I would say that determinism is a scientific explanation for fatalism. All the molecules in the universe are traveling with a velocity and have a certain position (or quantum waves and such) doesnt matter if this is indeterminable by ourselves, it still is. So there is only one way that it can all play out, down to how the molecules in out brain interact to make decisions, its not like we are powerless to make our own decisions because of fate, its just that there is no other possible way we could have made the decision. sorry thats gotta be one of the harder things to explain through a computer, hope it all make sense.. :)P.S This is in my opinion, and a very humble at that! :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qfwfq Posted April 20, 2006 Report Share Posted April 20, 2006 What is, if any, the difference between determinism and fatalism?There is, although somewhat subtle. Imagine the situation of sitting on a bench, suddenly you are warned by nearby people that a huge concrete block is falling from the top of the skyscraper above. You look up and there's no doubt that you are exactly in it's path and there's no way the breeze is going to affect its course enough to avoid your bench. Suppose you believe in determinism. Should you leap up and hop away? Suppose you believe in fatalism. Should you leap up and hop away? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted April 20, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2006 Suppose you believe in determinism. Should you leap up and hop away? Suppose you believe in fatalism. Should you leap up and hop away?Damn... I don't like either choice. Is there a third option, like I spontaneously teleport into a women's locker room in Miami or something... :hihi: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Bang Posted April 20, 2006 Report Share Posted April 20, 2006 I may be a determinist too if someone can show that the total number of possible events in the universe is a finite number. If it is a finite number it will probably be larger than a googaplex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDMclean Posted April 21, 2006 Report Share Posted April 21, 2006 I'm kinda confused about the different interperations, I however do know this:I am an imdeterminist, I see things far to complex for a simple X velocity and y position. I know there are things that are Absolute values like the speed of light but things that vary with Space-time and such aren't so hard. A particle "chooses" to exist in a given place at a moment. My greatest question is not how but why? Why does the Wavicle "decide"? Further what makes it "decide"? (Oh my question is ment for another thread but I'm hoping it will help someone help me figure out what my interpetation is.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkain101 Posted April 21, 2006 Report Share Posted April 21, 2006 Precisely, Try this out for size and see where it leads you. When the spare time permits you try to be conscious of your consciousness, if that properly describes it.A consciousness is a consciousness is a consciousness.... When you become a consciousness that is concirned with understanding why it has a consciousness you end up in a paradoxal like situation as to why existence, exists... It will take some awakening like moments. The purpose is to show how more confusing / important / difficult it is to wonder why things are/work than it is to wonder how things are/work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted April 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2006 I'm kinda confused about the different interperations, <...>I'm hoping it will help someone help me figure out what my interpetation is.)Well, I'm still walking myself through the material and am quite novice, but my current (and basic) understanding is: With the Copenhagen Interpretation, all possibilities exist until you measure it. The system needs an observer to make it real, ala Schroedinger's Cat (this may not be the best language to make it clear. If not, please accept my apologies). Once it's been observed, all other possibilities go away (which was my reference to "ghost" worlds), and the wave function collapses. Thus, the infinity of other possibilities just vanish and one true world is left... the world which was measured. With the Many-Worlds Interpretation, it basically incorporates everything from the Copenhagen Interpretation, but instead of collapsing wave functions and ghost worlds, states that at every quantum moment decisions are made and all possibilities exist. Like a fork in the road (go left or go right). While in one system the choice might be to go right, Many-Worlds states that simultaneiously another "world" opened up where the choice was to go left. This happens over and over again at each quantum level possibility, and has done so throughout eternity... When one begins to contemplate the size of the universe and the age of the universe, and then all the possible possibilities in every given moment, you realize why I said the numbers make my head want to explode. More votes would be great so I could have more confidence in the final percentages. Thanks for those who have contributed. I also realize that polls and math might not be the best bed buddies, but realize this is more of an opinion question. Cheers. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDMclean Posted April 21, 2006 Report Share Posted April 21, 2006 So the many-worlds incorporates the Copenhagen Interpretation? So that Though I may observe this particular reality there are super-powers more realities possible and happening simutaniously to me (This relative observe of universe, u, me of this parallel, not me' of relative universe, u')? If that's the case then I suppose that I subscribe to the Many-Worlds theorm then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Bang Posted April 21, 2006 Report Share Posted April 21, 2006 The speed of light is only fixed to an observer, from the perspective of the photon it's velocity is infinite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted April 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2006 The speed of light is only fixed to an observer, from the perspective of the photon it's velocity is infinite.Are you in the right thread? :naughty: http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/6191-photons-have-no-time.html Cheers. :hihi: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racoon Posted April 21, 2006 Report Share Posted April 21, 2006 I'm voting Copenhagen, dude. 'Cuz like they make the best chewing tobacco, yuh know?? Like 'um? all that QM stuff is pretty righteous man...:hihi:nice thread homes. :hihi: Is it 4:20? I might be in the wrong thread brother. :naughty:or right thread wrong time.;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Bang Posted April 21, 2006 Report Share Posted April 21, 2006 I was referring to Kick's statement about the speed of light being an absolute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qfwfq Posted April 26, 2006 Report Share Posted April 26, 2006 You could have quoted that statement! ;) Which post was it in? So the many-worlds incorporates the Copenhagen Interpretation?I wouldn't say so, at all. They are two different interpretations, as different as Copenhagen is e. g. from Bohm's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.