Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Life
»
"Breaking' the randoM patTern
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Actually @Wakanyugi, I had thought of Nash, but then I realized that though others couldn't see the patterns he was seeing, it doesn't follow that the patterns weren't there.
So in a sense you baited yourself. Good point, Tycho. But let me ask you. If something can not be perceived in any way does it still exist? As for Nash, I agree he could have been seeing things that he could not communicate to anyone else, which drove him crazy. Which reminds me that the most brilliant Kenyans are not to be found in University but in Mathare and Kamiti or their equivalents. If it is some thing, then it can always be perceived in some way. And if it is no thing, then it exists but can't be perceived in any way but of itself. I disagree Tycho. Seeing as we live in an imagined (observer created) reality, then our power to perceive has to be one limit of that reality. Ergo, - Schrodinger's cat - it does not exist until it is perceived. There must be more perceivers than humans. And some of the other perceivers may not trust in human logic. Of course. The Schrodinger wave equation does not talk of humans at all, but measurement (and who/what does the measurement is irrelevant). I think the important point is, every perceiver perceives pattern in their own way, some radically different from others. What we end up with is an approximate agreement of perceived pattern, a consensus reality if you like. Which is why, when some people (who will remain unnamed) talk about about absolutes, I tend to think they are out to lunch.  Schrodinger can only talk to humans. Even if a dolphin is part of the conversation. That's an absolute. Don't get all het up. Just because you can't speak or understand Dolphinese is no reason to paint those gentle creatures into a conceptual corner. Old Schrodinger talked to humans yes but about more than humankind, including cats. You must admit that mathematically resolving that philosophical conundrum "If a tree falls in the forest and no one..." was quite a feat. By saying 'Dolphinese' you've created a 'conceptual corner'. Don't forget Schrodinger was an 'illusionist'. I did not make this up. The mission of 'speakdolphin' research is stated as: "To significantly expand communication between humans and dolphins." Dolphinese, it seems, is a pretty complex language that uses sounds as pictures. And yes, old Schrodinger was an illusionist. But unlike you (stuck in illusory absolutes), he recognized reality as an illusion and set out to prove it. "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Actually @Wakanyugi, I had thought of Nash, but then I realized that though others couldn't see the patterns he was seeing, it doesn't follow that the patterns weren't there.
So in a sense you baited yourself. Good point, Tycho. But let me ask you. If something can not be perceived in any way does it still exist? As for Nash, I agree he could have been seeing things that he could not communicate to anyone else, which drove him crazy. Which reminds me that the most brilliant Kenyans are not to be found in University but in Mathare and Kamiti or their equivalents. If it is some thing, then it can always be perceived in some way. And if it is no thing, then it exists but can't be perceived in any way but of itself. I disagree Tycho. Seeing as we live in an imagined (observer created) reality, then our power to perceive has to be one limit of that reality. Ergo, - Schrodinger's cat - it does not exist until it is perceived. There must be more perceivers than humans. And some of the other perceivers may not trust in human logic. Of course. The Schrodinger wave equation does not talk of humans at all, but measurement (and who/what does the measurement is irrelevant). I think the important point is, every perceiver perceives pattern in their own way, some radically different from others. What we end up with is an approximate agreement of perceived pattern, a consensus reality if you like. Which is why, when some people (who will remain unnamed) talk about about absolutes, I tend to think they are out to lunch. Schrodinger can only talk to humans. Even if a dolphin is part of the conversation. That's an absolute. Don't get all het up. Just because you can't speak or understand Dolphinese is no reason to paint those gentle creatures into a conceptual corner. Old Schrodinger talked to humans yes but about more than humankind, including cats. You must admit that mathematically resolving that philosophical conundrum "If a tree falls in the forest and no one..." was quite a feat. By saying 'Dolphinese' you've created a 'conceptual corner'. Don't forget Schrodinger was an 'illusionist'. I did not make this up. The mission of 'speakdolphin' research is stated as: "To significantly expand communication between humans and dolphins." Dolphinese, it seems, is a pretty complex language that uses sounds as pictures. And yes, old Schrodinger was an illusionist. But unlike you (stuck in illusory absolutes), he recognized reality as an illusion and set out to prove it. If there's communication then there's a concept and if there's a proof then there's an absolute.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Or another way to look at it @Wakanyugi is ask, 'what's wrong about having an illusory absolute if all is illusory?' And, 'why should @Wakanyugi's understanding of what @tycho is saying be equal to what @Wakanyugi understands about Schrodinger?'
In terms of ideas you're such a hypocrite!
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
tycho wrote:Or another way to look at it @Wakanyugi is ask, 'what's wrong about having an illusory absolute if all is illusory?' And, 'why should @Wakanyugi's understanding of what @tycho is saying be equal to what @Wakanyugi understands about Schrodinger?'
In terms of ideas you're such a hypocrite! There you go! Getting your nickers all in a twist again. At this rate I shall have to ask Mula Alphadoti to declare a fatwa on you. Schrodinger's ridiculous thought experiment is not subject to my interpretation. It has been spoken of by many and if you find my understanding different from the norm, say it. Why are you so desperate to cling to an absolute that, even you seem to agree, does not exist? "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Or another way to look at it @Wakanyugi is ask, 'what's wrong about having an illusory absolute if all is illusory?' And, 'why should @Wakanyugi's understanding of what @tycho is saying be equal to what @Wakanyugi understands about Schrodinger?'
In terms of ideas you're such a hypocrite! There you go! Getting your nickers all in a twist again. At this rate I shall have to ask Mula Alphadoti to declare a fatwa on you. Schrodinger's ridiculous thought experiment is not subject to my interpretation. It has been spoken of by many and if you find my understanding different from the norm, say it. Why are you so desperate to cling to an absolute that, even you seem to agree, does not exist? Hahaha! So you're saying that your interpretation is the standard, the 'orthodox'? The 'norm' as you've put it? So again, I ask, 'What's wrong about clinging to an illusion, if all is an illusion?' Just answer this first. Or do you need, or perhaps do I need, to regurgitate a 'norm'? Lol. This, incidentally leads to a pattern. Can you see the illusion?
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
|
|
|
Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Life
»
"Breaking' the randoM patTern
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|