Reality

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
sevens
Posts: 707
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:24 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Reality

Post by sevens »

In a world where 1+1 did not equal 2, A=A would still hold true. The abstract thought principle would have to correspond with the physical reality: A=A. 'It is what it is.'
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Reality

Post by David Quinn »

analog wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr>Since you also assert that there is no ultimate difference between thought and [physical]reality, then there is also some unknown abstract principle, that somehow invalidates A=A in that specific world of all possible worlds, where 1+1 does not equal 2.<hr> This sentence doesn't make any sense to me. Does anybody else understand it? The second half doesn't seem to have any logical connection to the first half.

At the risk of repeating myself, my assertion that there is ultimately no difference between thought and physical reality was made in the context of their existence. They are both identical in they exist in a causal fashion and lack inherent existence. But at the same time, their form and attributes clearly differ. So your sentence above, apart from not making any internal sense, rests on a deluded interpretation of my views.


Quote:Quote:<hr>[Total]Knowledge is incomplete. One cannot be certain that any particular absolute holds for all possible worlds.

Absolutes must hold by definition for complete and closed systems of reasoning. Where knowledge is incomplete, the absolutes become provisional postulates-stipulations.<hr> As I say, there are some absolutes for whom the "complete and closed system of reasoning" embraces the whole of Reality, which means they are necessarily valid in all possible worlds.

I'm starting to lose interest in you because all you are now doing is repeating the same old tired scripture over and over as though it were a mantra. If you don't start dealing with the actual reaoning I have provided, this conversation will soon end. As it stands, I'm starting to feel as though I am talking to a fundamentalist Christian.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Reality

Post by David Quinn »

seven wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr>In a world where 1+1 did not equal 2, A=A would still hold true. <hr> Yes, but only if the current definitions of 1, 2, etc, were changed.


Quote:Quote:<hr> The abstract thought principle would have to correspond with the physical reality: A=A. 'It is what it is.'<hr> This is only true for philosophic principles, not mathematical ones. What matters in mathematics is whether the internal logic of a mathematical operation is flawlessly executed or not. The happenings of the physical world are irrelevent to this.

Of course, this means that some mathematical systems are useless when it comes to mapping the physical world or extracting empirical information from it. But that's another issue entirely. Their internal truth remains unaffected, regardless.

From a philosophic perspective, the best form of abstract logic is the kind that is both internally true and necessarily applicable to utterly everything in existence. This is what skilled philosophic reasoning is all about - unconvering those deep logical truths which are universal in nature. In my experience, it's a pretty rare talent.

sevens
Posts: 707
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:24 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Reality

Post by sevens »

David,

Since we were addressing a philosophical problem, and a very elementary mathematical analogy (that would be directly observable in X's physical reality), I connected 'the inhabitant of X's foreign/unique abstract thought principle' with the 'inhabitant of X's foreign/unique observable physical reality.' Thus, arriving at A=A.
analog57
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:20 am

Re: Reality

Post by analog57 »

Quote:Quote:<hr>
Since you also assert that there is no ultimate difference between thought and [physical]reality, then there is also some unknown abstract principle, that somehow invalidates A=A in that specific world of all possible worlds, where 1+1 does not equal 2.

David Quinn:

This sentence doesn't make any sense to me. Does anybody else understand it? The second half doesn't seem to have any logical connection to the first half.
<hr>


Wake up DQ...

Quote:Quote:<hr>

DQ uttered:

Even if we were transported into a world in which the physical act of adding two objects together somehow produced three objects, it still wouldn't falsify the truth of 1+1=2. All it would mean is that there was an unfamiliar physical occurance happening.
<hr>

:lol :lol :lol

First, DQ boldy and brazenly states that it does not matter if there exists worlds where 1+1 does not equal 2. Obviously DQ does not realize that in order for 1+1 to equal 2, 1 must first equal 1.

1=1

1+1=2

Therefore A=A where 1+1=2

So if Mr. DQ asserts that it is possible for a world to exist where 1+1 does not equal 2 because there may be some PHYSICAL PRINCIPLE going on that we don't understand, AND DQ also asserts that there is no ultimate difference between thought[abstract principles] and physical reality[nature] then the physical principle, where 1+1 does not equal 2, also means that A=A does not hold for that particular world.

Does A=A hold for all possible worlds?

Say that there exist a multiplicty of worlds where A=A is an absolute truth and necessity. Then there may exist some worlds where A=A is not an absolute but varies, such, that A does not always equal A.

So there is a logical difference between aspects of the ALL, which is made up of all possible worlds, or all possible universes to be more precise. So there would be universes that are inconsistent with other universes in the same system, called the ALL. Consistency is different from inconsistency:

A = [A=A]

B = [A=not-A]

A or B but not both

But then there may be levels of uncertainty, where exclusivity may not always hold and we have both A and B

That seems to point towards a limitation in knowledge, where knowledge will always be incomplete or uncertain.

Uncertainty remains, therefore we probably cannot be absolutely certain, with respect to complete certainty and complete knowledge for all possible worlds.






User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Reality

Post by David Quinn »

analog wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr>Does A=A hold for all possible worlds?

Say that there exist a multiplicty of worlds where A=A is an absolute truth and necessity. Then there may exist some worlds where A=A is not an absolute but varies, such, that A does not always equal A.<hr> This only shows that you don't really understand what A=A means. If a particular thing exists in a particular world, then it will necessarily be what it is and not something else. There is no way around this. It is inherent in the very nature of existence itself. Thus, there is no possible way for A not to equal A.

I think you are being blinded by your own ideology - which, funnily, enough, just happens to be identical to the current ideology of modern society. It is causing you remain blind to a simple and obvious truth which is right before your very eyes.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Reality

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Analog,Quote:Quote:<hr>
A = [A=A]

B = [A=not-A]

A or B but not both<hr>
A xor B means you're back to a logical reality where A does not equal B, only possible to assert when you're letting the dreaded A = A back in as a condition, making B obviously flawed, which invalidates the logic you attempt to apply.
Quote:Quote:<hr>But then there may be levels of uncertainty, where exclusivity may not always hold and we have both A and B<hr>
How would we ever observe these 'levels' or measure its effects on a 'level' operated by A = A, without breaking logic as a whole? And without an intact logic, how would you reason this?
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Reality

Post by David Quinn »

He's doubting for the sake of doubting, without any good reason to do so. It's like a mental twitch which involuntarily springs into action the moment anything enters his field of vision. There is no intelligence or rationality involved, just a deep-seated desire to avoid reaching out and grasping truth.

This kind of extreme doubting has evolved into being because it creates a convenient refuge from the rigours of consciousness. Like the Christians who instinctively dive into the Bible into order to avoid individual responsibility and conciousness of truth, twitching cuts into the logical process before it starts to gather momentum and become dangerous. The fact that everyone else is also twitching in this manner - for it is the current fashion in intellectual circles - makes him feel even more safe and secure.

What an age we live in! An age in which involuntary mental twitching is regarded as the wisest and most intelligent action possible.
User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: Reality

Post by Matt Gregory »

David wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>There is no intelligence or rationality involved, just a deep-seated desire to avoid reaching out and grasping truth. <hr>
I don't think that statement is very convincing. Surely everyone appreciates truth when they see it. I think truth is just a casualty of another thought-preventative measure. The way I see it, it's about ideas and how they can be arrived at. Ideas come like water out a faucet. You can either turn it on and let whatever is in there flow out of it, or you can turn it off. The difference between ideas and water is that there is much wider variety of ideas than there is water, so there are good ideas, bad ideas, clever, dumb, pleasing, disturbing, everything. The problem is that people suffer for their bad ideas, so they cut off the fountain. This effectively annihilates consciousness of truth because the only way to reach it is through a series of ideas.

I'm speaking from the perspective of a creative person. I think that for someone to create something truly great then, unless they're super-talented and naturally honed in on the goal, they have to generate ideas and try them out to see if they're any good. They have to be willing to tentatively accept good or bad ideas, because until they've gotten where they want to be, they won't be able to judge between the good and the bad. A bad idea could turn out to be good when taken to completion and vice versa.

In short, I think people are only afraid of bad ideas and the failure associated with them.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Reality

Post by David Quinn »

Matt,

Quote:Quote:<hr>I don't think that statement is very convincing. Surely everyone appreciates truth when they see it.<hr>To my mind, it's a courage issue. To leave the crowd behind and reach for the truth with one's own mind takes some guts. It requires faith in one's own ability to know truth directly. I believe that analog is reluctant to take that step, prefering instead to regurgitate what the crowd says. His fear of knowing truth is quite palpable.

I agree that many people are afraid of bad ideas, but they can also be afraid of good ideas because of their logical implications and the ethical demands they make. The common saying, "Ignorance is bliss", didn't materialize for no reason.
Edited by: DavidQuinn000 at: 6/26/05 14:56
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: Reality

Post by Sapius »

David wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>As an abstract truth, 1+1=2 is necessarily true in all possible worlds. As long as the current definitions of 1, 2, +, and = remain the same, it can never be falsified under any circumstances.

It doesn't matter what kind of physical structures a particular world might have, the abstraction of 1+1=2 will always remain unaffected. Even if we were transported into a world in which the physical act of adding two objects together somehow produced three objects, it still wouldn't falsify the truth of 1+1=2. All it would mean is that there was an unfamiliar physical occurance happening.<hr>

Well, again, my take on this would be....

What has 1+1=2 or 1+1=3 as a whole complex formula got to do with the basic fact of identification of each character which is A=A? I just don't see the relevance!?

If at any point 1+1=3, then either 1 would Not be defined as ONE, or 3 would Not be defined as THREE in that world. Or, 1 would be defined, as 1.5, or 3 would be defined as 2. That is, IF you want to illogically apply the core "Definitions" of one world to another.

For example, if I see a RED rose, and a bee experiences the same rose as VIOLET, it still does not violate the basic A=A principle, because irrelevant of whichever world, one first differentiates, identifies, in our case we can also define, the core thing as experienced according to their own worlds. You cannot apply the experiences of one world to another, but the core principle of A=A still remains the same and is applicable to every-which-world.

Now the question arises, what is the Real color of the rose? Which would be the world of God, and whatever color that he experiences, so be it, for it does not matter to me nor my world, but it still remains as A=A as a basic principle in his world. All Worlds are not ONE, only Reality is ONE, and that is the Totality of All that there is, and that ONE does not apply to individual illusory worlds. Yet another way to see how a human mind is capable to see through other worlds, logically, being well aware of the illusion of his own world.

A=A has nothing to do beyond experiencing the basic identity of a thing as experienced or defined in any particular world, but it stays true for all possible worlds, without which, there is no experience of awareness, or consciousness, or existence.

analog57
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:20 am

Re: Reality

Post by analog57 »


Quote:Quote:<hr>

David Quinn wrote:

This only shows that you don't really understand what A=A means. If a particular thing exists in a particular world, then it will necessarily be what it is and not something else. There is no way around this. It is inherent in the very nature of existence itself. Thus, there is no possible way for A not to equal A.
<hr>



We both agree that A=A must hold for certain systems of reasoning. But A=A cannot hold for all possible worlds. For example, it does not hold for quantum mechanics. Kiss your precious absolutes goodbye old chap :lol

<a href="http://www.marxist.com/science/logicand ... 20World</a>

Quote:Quote:<hr>
The uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics cannot be applied to ordinary objects, but only to atoms and subatomic particles. Subatomic particles obey different laws to those of the "ordinary" world. They move at incredible speeds, 1,500 metres per second, for example. They can move in different directions at the same time. Given this situation, the forms of thought which apply to everyday experience are no longer valid. Formal logic is useless. Its black and white, yes-or-no, take it or leave it categories have no point of contact with this fluid, unstable and contradictory reality. All we can do is to say that it is probably such and such a motion, with an infinite number of possibilities. Far from proceeding from the premises of formal logic, quantum mechanics violates the Law of Identity by asserting the "non-individuality" of individual particles. The Law of Identity cannot apply at this level, because the "identity" of individual particles cannot be fixed. Hence the lengthy controversy over "wave" or "particle." It could not be both! Here "A" turns out to be "not-A," and "A" can indeed be also "B." Hence, the impossibility of "fixing" an electron’s position and velocity in the neat and absolute manner of formal logic. That is a serious problem for formal logic and "common sense," but not for dialectics or for quantum mechanics. An electron has both the qualities of a wave and a particle, and this has been experimentally demonstrated.
<hr>










Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: Reality

Post by Sapius »

Quote:Quote:<hr>That is a serious problem for formal logic and "common sense," but not for dialectics or for quantum mechanics.<hr> Who says that logic or common sense could not evolve just like everything else!? It depends on the information available up to any particular time.


Quote:Quote:<hr>An electron has both the qualities of a wave and a particle, and this has been experimentally demonstrated.<hr> So what is the problem then!? Why can't we name it 'wavpart' since we experience it so and hence define it accordingly? I hear that the dictionary is being updated regularly.

There is something called 'male', and something called 'female', and something called 'unisex'. Why does the word 'unisex' not baffle us?

analog57
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:20 am

Re: Reality

Post by analog57 »


Quote:Quote:<hr>

Sapius wrote:

So what is the problem then!? Why can't we name it 'wavpart' since we experience it so and hence define it accordingly? I hear that the dictionary is being updated regularly.

There is something called 'male', and something called 'female', and something called 'unisex'. Why does the word 'unisex' not baffle us?
<hr>




<a href="http://www.marxist.com/science/logicand ... dentity</a>

Quote:Quote:<hr>
The so-called law of identity is, in fact, a tautology. Paradoxically, in traditional logic, this was always regarded as one of the most glaring mistakes which can be committed in defining a concept. It is a logically untenable definition which merely repeats in other words what is already contained in the part to be defined. Let us put this more concretely. A teacher asks his pupil what a cat is, and the pupil proudly informs him that a cat is—a cat. Such an answer would not be considered very intelligent. After all, a sentence is generally intended to say something, and this sentence tells us nothing at all. Yet this not very bright scholar’s definition of a feline quadruped is a perfect expression of the law of identity in all its glory. The young person concerned would immediately be sent to the bottom of the class. Yet for over two thousand years, the most learned professors have been content to treat it as the most profound philosophical truth.

All that the law of identity tells us about something is that it is. We do not get a single step further. We remain on the level of the most general and empty abstraction. For we learn nothing about the concrete reality of the object under consideration, its properties and relationships. A cat is a cat; I am myself; you are you; human nature is human nature; things are as they are. The emptiness of such assertions stands out in all its uncouthness. It is the consummate expression of one-sided, formalistic, dogmatic thinking.<hr>







Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Reality

Post by Kevin Solway »

analog57 wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr>quantum mechanics violates the Law of Identity by asserting the "non-individuality" of individual particles. <hr>

It is not possible to have the non-individuality of individual particles. That is a contradiction in terms.

A thing is either individual or non-individual, depending on how you conceive of it. It can't be both at the same time.

Quote:Quote:<hr>The Law of Identity cannot apply at this level, because the "identity" of individual particles cannot be fixed.<hr>

The fact that you are speaking of "individual particles" means that you are indeed fixing their identity. If you didn't, you wouldn't be able to speak of them.


Quote:Quote:<hr>Hence the lengthy controversy over "wave" or "particle." It could not be both!<hr>


That's right. And for the same reason it is not possible to have the non-individuality of individual particles, as I mentioned above.


Quote:Quote:<hr>Here "A" turns out to be "not-A," and "A"<hr>

No. A particle is a particle, and a wave is a wave. That's all the law of identity says.

Something that is sometimes viewed as a wave, and other times as a particle, is something that is sometimes viewed as a wave, and other times as a particle.

The law of identity necessarily always holds.


Quote:Quote:<hr>hence, the impossibility of "fixing" an electron’s position and velocity in the neat and absolute manner of formal logic.<hr>

Pure logic is not concerned with uncertain empirical matters, such as the position of a thing in space.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Reality

Post by David Quinn »

analog wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: This only shows that you don't really understand what A=A means. If a particular thing exists in a particular world, then it will necessarily be what it is and not something else. There is no way around this. It is inherent in the very nature of existence itself. Thus, there is no possible way for A not to equal A.

analog: We both agree that A=A must hold for certain systems of reasoning. But A=A cannot hold for all possible worlds. For example, it does not hold for quantum mechanics. <hr> It does indeed hold for quantum mechanics, as I demonstrate below:


Quote:Quote:<hr> The uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics cannot be applied to ordinary objects, but only to atoms and subatomic particles. Subatomic particles obey different laws to those of the "ordinary" world. <hr> Translation: Subatomic particles differ from objects in the ordinary world. Why? Because their identities differ. Why? Because the identity of the quantum particle equals itself and not anything else. A=A.


Quote:Quote:<hr> They move at incredible speeds, 1,500 metres per second, for example. They can move in different directions at the same time. Given this situation, the forms of thought which apply to everyday experience are no longer valid. <hr> Translation: Their form differs from the form of objects in the ordinary world. Why? Because their identities differ. Why? Because the identity of the quantum particle equals itself and not anything else. A=A.


Quote:Quote:<hr> Formal logic is useless.<hr> I have just applied formal logic to the quantum realm. The author of this article has just applied formal logic to quantum realm. Clearly, the above assertion is false.


Quote:Quote:<hr>Its black and white, yes-or-no, take it or leave it categories have no point of contact with this fluid, unstable and contradictory reality.<hr> And anyone who disagrees with this black-and-white statement is an ignoramus of the highest order!


Quote:Quote:<hr> All we can do is to say that it is probably such and such a motion, with an infinite number of possibilities. <hr> The author is now engaging in hyperbole. The quantum realm doesn't contain any more possibilities than the ordinary world does.


Quote:Quote:<hr>Far from proceeding from the premises of formal logic, quantum mechanics violates the Law of Identity by asserting the "non-individuality" of individual particles.<hr> No, these particles merely have a different kind of identity. If they had no identity at all, then they wouldn't have any form or existence and we wouldn't be able to talk about them.

And so the article goes on. All of it very superficial and naive. You're going to have to far better than this, analog. Remember that no matter what you point to in the world as a refutation of A=A, it will always have an identity of some kind and thus will always conform to A=A. There is no way around this. Open your mind to this great truth and accept it.

analog57
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:20 am

Re: Reality

Post by analog57 »

Quote:Quote:<hr>

ksolway wrote:


It is not possible to have the non-individuality of individual particles. That is a contradiction in terms.

A thing is either individual or non-individual, depending on how you conceive of it. It can't be both at the same time.
<hr>

Wake-up or remain in your blissfull ignorance ;)

<a href="http://www.physlink.com/Education/askex ... 444.cfm</a>

Quote:Quote:<hr>
As an example suppose we set up a double slit diffraction experiment such that we decrease the intensity of the incident light so that on average only one photon at a time is striking the screen. This will produce the effect of single photon diffraction because at the time each photon passes through the slits there are no other photons around with which to interfere. But when this experiment is carried out we still arrive at the results we would expect if we used a high intensity beam and many photons were striking the screen at once. So as the single photon’s wave function passes through the slits it is diffracted and interferes with itself. In this experiment it is shown that a single photon does produce a diffraction pattern, which is the same as what one would expect from numerous photons, but it takes many photons striking the screen before the pattern can be observed.

<hr>

A photon appears to be both a smeared out non-local probability wave AND a discrete local particle, simultaneously.

A is B at the same time. A = B

A = not-A












Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: Reality

Post by Sapius »

analog wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>All that the law of identity tells us about something is that it is. We do not get a single step further.<hr>
True, to take a step further you have to start thinking, but have you thought about how without the basic law of identity you cannot take a further step? For example, thinking about something.
analog57
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:20 am

Re: Reality

Post by analog57 »

Quote:Quote:<hr>

DQ wrote:

Translation: Subatomic particles differ from objects in the ordinary world. Why? Because their identities differ. Why? Because the identity of the quantum particle equals itself and not anything else. A=A.

<hr>


DQ appears to be saying that if a particle is also simultaneously a probability wave then it has its own unique identity? for example, P=PW

let P = A

PW = not-A

P=PW = [A=not-A]

[A=not-A] forms a unique identity, according to David Quinn. But really when A=not-A the logic breaks down and becomes meaningless. A different type of logic is required to transform the former Aristotelian logic into something that is consistently interpretable.




User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Reality

Post by David Quinn »

analog posted:

Quote:Quote:<hr>The so-called law of identity is, in fact, a tautology. Paradoxically, in traditional logic, this was always regarded as one of the most glaring mistakes which can be committed in defining a concept. It is a logically untenable definition which merely repeats in other words what is already contained in the part to be defined. Let us put this more concretely. A teacher asks his pupil what a cat is, and the pupil proudly informs him that a cat is—a cat. Such an answer would not be considered very intelligent. After all, a sentence is generally intended to say something, and this sentence tells us nothing at all. Yet this not very bright scholar’s definition of a feline quadruped is a perfect expression of the law of identity in all its glory. The young person concerned would immediately be sent to the bottom of the class. Yet for over two thousand years, the most learned professors have been content to treat it as the most profound philosophical truth.

All that the law of identity tells us about something is that it is. We do not get a single step further. We remain on the level of the most general and empty abstraction. For we learn nothing about the concrete reality of the object under consideration, its properties and relationships. A cat is a cat; I am myself; you are you; human nature is human nature; things are as they are. The emptiness of such assertions stands out in all its uncouthness. It is the consummate expression of one-sided, formalistic, dogmatic thinking.<hr> I view this as an admission of defeat. The strategy has changed from an attempt to falsify the universality of A=A to that of declaring such a universal truth to be empirically useless.

The truth of A=A is exceedingly useful because (a) it demonstrates, even to low-grade thinkers, that there are absolute truths which apply universally to all possible worlds, and (b) it goes to the core of all logic, perception and existence. It is an extremely significant piece of information for those who are perceptive enough.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Reality

Post by Kevin Solway »

Quote:Quote:<hr>www.physlink.com/Educatio.../ae444.cfm<hr>

The web page doesn't say anything relevant to what we are discussing.

We conceive of a thing acting like a particle or like a wave, or acting like a particle and wave at the same time. But we cannot conceive of a thing to be both a particle and a wave at the same time, since a particle and a wave are different things, by definition.

That's why the law of identity is beyond challenge.

Quote:Quote:<hr>A photon appears to be both a smeared out non-local probability wave AND a discrete local particle, simultaneously.<hr>

That's right, yet it is not possible to conceive it to both a particle and a wave at the same time. It must be one or the other.

Unless of course we change the definition of "particle" to allow it to be a wave, or change the definition of "wave" to allow it to be a particle. In that case a thing could be both a particle and a wave at the same time.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Reality

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

Quote:Quote:<hr>But really when A=not-A the logic breaks down and becomes meaningless. A different type of logic is required to transform the former Aristotelian logic into something that is consistently interpretable.
<hr>
I don't believe that there is any logical system that will allow A to be equal to not-A. When you remove the principle of self-identity, you can literally prove anything (or in your terminology: 'make the world consistently interpretable').
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Reality

Post by David Quinn »

analog wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: Translation: Subatomic particles differ from objects in the ordinary world. Why? Because their identities differ. Why? Because the identity of the quantum particle equals itself and not anything else. A=A.

analog: DQ appears to be saying that if a particle is also simultaneously a probability wave then it has its own unique identity? for example, P=PW <hr> No, I'm saying the reason why PW doesn't equal P (or indeed any other object that we are familiar with in the ordinary world) is because PW=PW.


Quote:Quote:<hr> let P = A

PW = not-A

P=PW = [A=not-A] <hr> No, A=A, P=P, and PW=PW.


Quote:Quote:<hr>[A=not-A] forms a unique identity, according to David Quinn.<hr> No, according to me, PW is a unique entity compared to P, just as P is a unique entity compared to PW.

There can be no such thing as A=not-A, as it doesn't have any meaning.


Quote:Quote:<hr>But really when A=not-A the logic breaks down and becomes meaningless. A different type of logic is required to transform the former Aristotelian logic into something that is consistently interpretable.<hr> I grant that different scientific tools are needed for the quantum realm, but I put it to you that these tools still require the use of ordinary deductive logic. It is ordinary deductive logic, along with empirical observation, which informs us that different scientific tools are needed in the first place. It is ordinary deductive logic which constructs these scientific tools, governs their implementation and interprets their results. You can't do anything in this world without using ordinary deductive logic. It underpins everything we do and every thought we have.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Reality

Post by David Quinn »

mookestink wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr>I don't believe that there is any logical system that will allow A to be equal to not-A. When you remove the principle of self-identity, you can literally prove anything (or in your terminology: 'make the world consistently interpretable').<hr> Exactly. It would be impossible to prove anything at all without the use of A=A.

Moreover, nothing can ever be perceived without A=A, and nothing can ever exist without A=A. It is fundamental to everything.

This is why watching Analog trying to prove his assertions by pointing to the existence of various things in the world is so amusing. He doesn't realize that he is affirming and reaffirm A=A along every step of the way. It's like watching someone looking everywhere for his glasses, not realizing they have been on his head the whole time.
analog57
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:20 am

Re: Reality

Post by analog57 »

Quote:Quote:<hr>

ksolway wrote:

...yet it is not possible to conceive it to both a particle and a wave at the same time. It must be one or the other.
<hr>

That appears to mean the human mind is limited because physical contradictions cannot be conceived.

For example, it is impossible to conceive of a square-circle. The proposition seems absurd.

But the results of experiments show that some physical process is occurring, where a quantum entity leaves a physical signature corresponding to a wave, and a particle, simultaneously.


Locked