Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Quantam philosphy - Implications




Out of the window is the law of noncontradiction, simply we have a physical proof that something can be in two states at the same time that are contradicting. it is evident not just from the this experiment of particle and waves but from others including quantum spin.

This staple of a premise being logically impossible to be true or false, right or wrong, dead or alive removed from any subjective view does dent universal logics (there are universal truths in our world philosophically) since it says that we each "create" our world rather than participate in it.

Secondly that our subjective influence on one such system influences other systems that are entangled with it. In quantum physics there are entangled particles, particles that have made contact with each other, think of it like 2 billiard balls hitting each other. When a measurement is made on one of the particles the other particle is exhibiting the opposite. So this spooky action states makes fertile ground for some new age ideas, think telepathy of particles or perhaps evidence for remote viewing.

Being the subjective interpretation that it is, in essence it is inferring that rather than the universe is being, it is becoming. To an extent it is alluding to the fact that our consciousness is shaping our universe into what we perceive as reality. Dare i say that it tells us that we might have a soul ...


Need I say that absolute determinism is out of the question at this point, since the idea that the universe is like a big machine where everything has been set in motion from day one with no influence that a person can have on his past, present or future. Since simply that holds out to be false experimentally :P It is the more of a free-will universe where to some extend determinism deals with out past but holds little influence on our future and doesn't predict our future .

In fear of making this post more disjointed than it already is, I'll stop this series at this in hope of expanding on it later on, sorry for making it long but I tried to cut it up as much as possible. I tried to limit my explanation as much as possible too, so I don't know if i made any leaps of logic.

Thanks to Observer for serving as the inspiration to these posts based on you post about determinism and the view that you can build a computer big enough to map out the paths of all humans if given enough information, and I hope I made you re-think that possibility. Sorry it took so long to write this too.

Labels: ,

101 Comments:

  • Bambam, THANKS!

    this was super enjoyable post, i went through all the links and ITS JUST MARVELOUS!
    by the way, the aura of the moon is an atmospheric diffraction when light is so bright, i just loved knowing this piece! i'll never ever forget this sentence, " whenever we look into the future, it changes " and the copenhangen interpretation for collapsing possibilities when an observation is made is just very much astonishing and and the fact that between emission and detection of a single electron , we dont knw what the hell the electron is doing and is dual natured based on us and all we have is the information we choose to assess and we can't tell the effect of the random response. just the fact of being has a hand in BECOMING. the two freedoms! well, i know this speaks of absolute determinism of a series of causes and effects,, but i had one question, why i know the universe i know, why not the rest? is it me or because im observed? did i just change my universe??? you know what i mean?

    i loved what Zeilinger said about the line we draw for reality and our non inclusion of our thoughts and imagination which are information.

    By Blogger Tala, At 21/2/08 18:40  

  • Stating that Quantum Mechanics negates the law of non contradictions is IMHO flawed. Quantum mechanics cannot possibly deny the law of non-contradiction!!!
    It might be useful if you site your source... Even if it is a big scientist who is saying this, I would challenge him to prove the truth of his claims.

    Only a philosopher can toy with the idea of negating the law of non-contradiction. Scientists, physicists, mathematicians, and logicians do NOT have this privilege. If anyone of those considers this possibility without consulting a philosopher, he would do a very big mistake.

    Negating the law of non-contradiction would abolish mathematics and physics. I have no idea what would be the substitute for them, but those two fields cannot exist without the law of non-contradiction.

    Probability is a field in mathematics. How can you say that Quantum Mechanics follows probabilistic models if you deny that mathematics exists?!

    I am not an expert in metaphysics, but for this issue in specific I can say with confidence that quantum mechanics cannot metaphysically contradict logic!!

    Logic is the basic tenet of all physics (be it modern physics or classical physics) and physics cannot possibly (not even hypothetically) prove that logic is wrong. Logic is a precondition for physics.

    A person that has come up with this conclusion probably has not followed the scientific method correctly, nor did he consult a philosopher before he came to this bold conclusion.

    Please note that the hypothesis of parallel universes does NOT contradict logic...

    For example, you can be dead in universe A, but living in universe B. But you cannot be both living and dead in one specific universe (assuming death and living are exclusively mutual).

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 22/2/08 06:58  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 22/2/08 07:28  

  • Another note about parallel universes. Parallel universes although can be metaphysically possible (I say this without having based it on anything whatsoever), I think it has a problem.

    While it does not contradict the laws of logic, it seems to contradict the laws of conservation of energy. As classical physics says, energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Creating parallel universes does seem to create unaccountable amounts of energy. This is a topic worth investigating, although there do exist some ways to solve this problem.

    One possible solution I can think of is that the number of universes created and merged is equal such that at any point energy is conserved.

    Another possible solution is to limit the law of conservation of energy to each universe in isolation.

    But I believe that the law of conservation of energy needs to be closely revised in hypothesis like parallel universes.

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 22/2/08 07:31  

  • DM, you make a lot of sense! It was wise of me to ask you to pop up here for help! I always feel bambam speaks different language than me! Bambam, man you are so complicated :)

    DM, is there any possibility where we would one day find that the principle of conservation of energy is wrong, and that somehow our universe do leak or absorb some energy from an outer source?

    By Blogger The Observer, At 22/2/08 13:12  

  • @ Zaid

    from what i read, Quantum Mechanics does suggest negating the law of non-contradition by stating that when an electron is not observed it has a "wavefunction" that the state of the of electron in the time space is a superposition of all possible states, it is not proven yet though, this is what the coming set of experiments is trying to prove which is truly baffling. once the measurement is taken, information is encrypted and the wavefunction collapses to one state.

    hmm, i was thinking of this example, when i am sleeping. im not observing myself, i have no information about being alive or dead and i am neither both if you think of it, unless i wake up and measure me alive or remain asleep and biologically dead.

    now what started Quantum Mechanics is wanting to know the equation of motion for sub atomic particles which doesn't follow the newtonian laws, im not talking about statistical averages for behaviour to converge to a pattern because apparently it not working.

    "if the state of a
    dynamic system is known initially and something is done to it, how will the state of the
    system change with time in response?" each field of science has its approach to look at this statement.

    http://193.60.94.203/97805218/29526/excerpt/9780521829526_excerpt.pdf

    By Blogger Tala, At 22/2/08 18:45  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 22/2/08 19:34  

  • Tala and No Angel if you can provide any sources so that I can read the author's own words, this might be useful. Maybe you misinterpreted something. Or maybe the author didn't think of what he was saying thoroughly!!! Or maybe you missed the part that would make sense of it all...

    It is not possible to deny logic without denying mathematics.

    If we find that Quantum Mechanics defies logic, we should first restudy mathematics to check if its correct.

    It maybe that mathematics is wrong and logic is correct. This actually makes more sense than saying that logic is wrong.

    Its simple, Physics needs mathematics, logic, and scientific method. Mathematics needs logic. Logic needs philosophy.

    So if we deny any of the three things that physics needs, physics will cease to exist!

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 22/2/08 19:48  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger Tala, At 22/2/08 20:36  

  • sorry for deleting the previous comment, here are few links :)

    http://www.fortunecity.com/
    emachines/e11/86/qphil.html

    http://193.60.94.203/97805218/
    29526/excerpt/9780521829526_excerpt.htm

    http://www.benbest.com/
    science/quantum.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/
    wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

    By Blogger Tala, At 22/2/08 20:42  

  • Ok. I read those articles, and I still insist that I am not qualified to pass judgment, but I will say what I have to say anyways.

    First, "Copenhagen interpretation" is only an interpretation. An unproved (and unprovable) interpretation that might be true and may not.

    I think that this interpretation is a joke!! Seriously, having read about it, I think its a joke!!

    Its like seeing an equation like "X+3=5"... Someone says that X=2, and another says that X is not really 2, but we are brainwashed to think its 2!! This "Copenhagen interpretation" is like the brainwashed argument.

    The one who is saying X=2 is Einstein with his "hidden variable" interpretation. (There are other interpretation which also make sense, and don't need to contradict logic.)

    This "Copenhagen interpretation" interpretation is like both the idea of God and brainwashing. You cannot prove they are true, and you cannot prove that they are wrong.

    "Entanglement" is the paradox of Quantum Mechanics. A paradox means a contradiction.

    Two main ideas emerge. The first is what Einstein suggested, which is the Quantum Mechanics is incomplete and that in its current form is simply incorrect because it produces illogical results.

    The other solution was denial... Everyone knows that a paradox is proof that a theory is wrong. But some people were too stubborn that they want Quantum Mechanics to work, and hence came up with the "immune" solution that paradoxes can happen!! In my opinion, thats bullshit!

    I feel bad that scientists are abandoning the scientific method and following the path of "God" (making statements that cannot be proved either way as true or false)!!

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 23/2/08 05:20  

  • "Out of the window is the law of noncontradiction, simply we have a physical proof that something can be in two states at the same time that are contradicting."

    Dude, don't you see how much this statement is self-refuting?! I just cannot see where to begin to refute it. Its simply wrong inside-out.

    Is it even possible to "physically" prove that something can be in two states at the same time?!
    How exactly would you do that?!
    No offense No Angel, but isn't it worth thinking about something before copying it?! Whichever source you got this from, the one who made this assertion have obviously gone insane!!

    (1) ---
    There is one thing that Einstein said that I disagree with: "God does not throw dice!"... When Einstein made this statement Bohr's reply was: "Einstein, don't tell God how to run the world."

    Bohr's reply was really smart, scientific, logical, and metaphysically correct.

    We cannot create physics and expect nature to follow our physics. Its the other way around. Nature does things in a certain way, and physics should be the way nature works.

    This is one (of many) mistakes this statement has. The writer of this sentence thinks that just because he has an equation that tells particles to be in one place, then those particles must be there. Thats simply not true. Just because you have two equations that tell the particle to be in two different states, doesn't mean that the particle must be there!!

    (2) ---
    "Out of the window is the law of noncontradiction, simply we have a physical proof that something can be in two states at the same time that are contradicting."

    If we assume that someone somehow managed to elude the above argument, referred to as (1).

    It is NOT outside the law of non-contradiction that two things "can be" in two states that are contradicting.

    For example, at the time you read this, I can be still on my computer... And I can be not on my computer... Here at the same time, I can be in two contradicting places... But I don't see anything paradoxical in this statement.

    Just like: X^2=4 ; X can be -2, and X can be +2 ... It can be two different things at the same time, No contradiction whatsoever!!! Yet X can't be both of them, its either\or.

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 23/2/08 06:18  

  • yikes sorry guys i was away for the weekend and i just got back. hey thanks for the replies and time to catch up.
    tala thanks for the uber nice comment and glad that u like it ...

    DM1 i didn't say it negates it , it just isn't universally applicable any more. law of non-contradiction postulates a boolean system, quantum physics is a non-boolean system so it's logical for it to not be applicable. as for a source try everyone who contributed to quantum theory from Einstein going forward, and its why he was prompted to say "god does not play dice with the universe"

    scientist are philosophers in a way, it's called empiricism. that aside it doesn't attack logic, it falls under ontology. it redefines our reality out of boolean.

    Ok while parallel universe is deterministic but it still applies that it is non-boolean.

    so the law of non-contradiction states "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time", in QM you can have an electron with a spin-up and a spin-down. Hence it's out of the window.

    By Anonymous bambam, At 23/2/08 16:14  

  • DM2 we are talking science here so please refrain from using metaphysics instead use ontology.
    regarding what u said, those who push for the MWI view it as part of a metaverse that includes all the individual universe hence the law wouldn't be touched. and that i did mention in my post touching on it.

    ps. am replying to comments as i would've without the follow ups ... so i might be repeating some stuff that is mentioned by others

    By Anonymous bambam, At 23/2/08 16:20  

  • observer yikes... circumlocation getting me again, sorry that i sound like i speak a totally different language :P
    as for your Q the laws of thermodynamics seem to be vindicated by quantum mechanics, but that doesn't mean they are clear of any controversies for there are some.

    Tala you put it much better than i did there, and thanks for the sources too.

    DM3 look while asking for sources is one thing i don't particularly appreciate the tone ur using there of saying that we are at error while you have obviously never read up on the subject. because if you did that would be one of the first ideas that anybody talking about the QM will state.
    jumping ahead and deciding that it defies logic is your own interpretation not what i was saying or tala or anyone for that matter.
    WE ARE NOT DEFYING LOGIC

    By Anonymous bambam, At 23/2/08 16:35  

  • DM4 ur thinking of the word hypothesis, the interpretations are trying to make sense of the non locality of the experimental data, to simplify it its trying to use language to explain the math simply.
    unprovable is a stretch of your knowledge so i wouldn't go as far.
    the hidden variable theory has been pushed to the brims of books and there are very few who back it, EPR is the paradox for it while entanglement is the experimental proof that resolves that paradox.

    I said I consider my knowledge rudimentary(even though compared to urs i might say otherwise) but on the other hand i highly dislike that you're mainly saying that all the people who worked on QM in the last six decades are woos and crocks when you don't understand what they where trying to do or where those interpretations stem from and what experiments back them.
    QM developed a lot in the last decades it would have been nice to have Einstein around but he's not so lets not hold his ideas on a holy grail and lets not get into an argument about god.

    By Anonymous bambam, At 23/2/08 17:29  

  • DM - Final OK for starters, thanks for insulting my sanity (i like that) and assuming that I plagiarized it blindly (i utterly hate that).

    physical proof is the double slit experiment i mentioned in the first post, its the simplest one to understand. the interference peaks shown there is evidence of quantum superposition when the experiment is done with electron waves ...
    so now for your

    (1) funny that you choose those quotes (Einstein saying that against the Copenhagen's interpretation which Bohr contributed to and what he replied to defend it. simply saying that this is the way things work) using those to back your position is ironic dontcha think.
    the experimental data came first to suggest that, not the interpretations so your premise is wrong there.

    and again check "cat state" of a qubit might be of interest to u. there is a mathematical model for something to be a 0 and a 1 at the same time .

    the whole idea is not looking for them in one place, you can't predict quantum movement that is the whole idea here, but if you look for it you will find it. you are not understanding the subject that I am talking about, run the double slit experiment that i talked about earlier and see it for ur self.

    (2)
    you just eloquently quoted me and then misquoted me in the same comment ! i said at the same time... so yes its outside of its realm, sleep on it.
    i don't know, it kind of reminds of discussions i have with fundys, he doesn't understand what he is talking about (his own religion) and yet when confronted with contradictory elements in it he prefers to rely on "his own" belief.

    Since those two are out of the window care to bring the many things that u can find wrong with that statement ? or were those your strongest counter arguments?

    sorry if am sounding condescending to you with the last two, It was only because you were trying to place your self at a position you are not qualified for... so as the Dalek say "annihilate!"
    I would like if i got you to read atleast some of what tala provided and the experiments that were done to verify some ideas such as entanglement, superposition, non-locality. and if you are more interested in the philosophical side of the implications then read Berkley and Hume for starters for am sure they will place the argument more clearly than i could and atleast you won't attack their integrity and sanity like you did to mine, unwarranted might i add ...

    By Anonymous bambam, At 23/2/08 18:11  

  • Ok, I don't like to criticism what I don't know, so I can criticize only what I read.

    I don't know Quantum Mechanics, but I have a mind that can help me judge that something I am reading is making sense or not.

    You start you article with "Out of the window is the law of noncontradiction", I don't see how you are now saying that you are not suggesting to defy logic!

    "EPR is the paradox for it while entanglement is the experimental proof that resolves that paradox" - Ok, I apologize if this is the case. But honestly I made this honest mistake because of your quote about the law of non-contradiction. Also, Tala quoted them in the context of defying the law of non-contradiction, and I mistakenly I linked them to the paradox. Again, I apologize.

    Because in short, if we see a paradox, and still hold the theory that produces a paradox as true then thats crazy. But since entanglement resolves the paradox, then QM is ok.

    Again, why did you put "law of noncontradiction" right at the beginning and with bold font?! Thats the one that got me outside my head. Sorry, I made several mistakes, but this is one thing I still don't give up on... Nothing is QM can possibly defy the law of non-contradiction. All my arguments go around this point!!

    "sorry if am sounding condescending to you with the last two, It was only because you were trying to place your self at a position you are not qualified for..." - Well, I did insist that I was not qualified to pass judgment, didn't I? Its just that those where my thoughts after a couple of hours of readings and following one link to another.

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 23/2/08 19:14  

  • It's not unheard of or illogical to defy the law on non-contradiction and it doesn't equate to destroying logic .

    the law of non contradiction is just a special case thats what i was saying, read hume's fork argument. (am going to drive it philosophically now instead of QM since that seems to be ur problem with it rather than the science part)
    Hagel also went against it. so really it doesn't attack logic for something to be in 2 states at the same time. it just makes LNC inapplicable and throws it out of the window since it imposes a limited view on nature.
    (read my first comment here its also applicable to what i was trying to say)

    By Blogger No_Angel, At 23/2/08 19:46  

  • Well, sorry but NO!!

    Yes, you are right, I am not knowledgeable in science itself, I didn't do any of those experiments those scientists did... And I don't see that happening in the near future.

    But when someone makes an illogical statement, I can easily tell that its not a scientific statement.

    You made me think for a second that "scientists" agree on what you have said, but you just contradicted yourself and said that there is nothing paradoxical in QM.

    "It's not unheard of or illogical to defy the law on non-contradiction and it doesn't equate to destroying logic." - Well, its not unheard of, -true,- I just heard it from you, but that doesn't make it logical!!

    Denying the law of non-contradiction does nullify all logic, mathematics, metaphysics, physics, science, and even the most accepted philosophical schools.

    Read about the importance of the law of non contradiction at wikipedia.

    If you have noticed, I described going "Out of the window is the law of noncontradiction" does produce an unprovable (and also undeniable) statement, read that same article.

    Making unprovable and undeniable statements isn't quite something that a man of science should do!!

    A nice quote in that article says: "Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned."

    I, for one, am completely convinced that being burnt is not the same as being not burnt.

    Maybe if you wish to believe someone who tells you that its all the same, try go burn your house with you in it, and calmly tell us that the house is not burning!! Do that at your own risk, and far from where anyone can reach you! Then maybe blame it on lousy scientists if being burnt and not burnt didn't turn out to be quite the same thing!!

    Dialetheism is a philosophical proposition that denies the law of non-contradiction. Just because someone suggests it, doesn't make it true. Look at its formal consequences and ask yourself how scientific those consequences really are!!

    Finally, I read about Hume's Fork, and it seems that he says exactly what I am trying to say!! And exactly what Bohr response to Einstein was when he said: "Einstein, don't tell God how to run the world!"

    This is a delicate issue, science is about modeling the world... Science is a tool... I give you that... And we should not confuse the mean with the end. Inventing is the end, and science is the tool. I give you that as well...

    But denying logic and the law of non-contradiction, is the tool with which we will burn... The tool with which I can kill you, and say that killing you and not killing you is all the same thing!! The tool with which we give scientists a free pass to sit at home doing nothing, and well, working and not working, its all the same thing!!

    I don't want to go into religion, but my religion (satanism that is) tells me that being alive and not being alive is not the same thing.

    For all practical purposes (and science itself exists for practical purposes), saying that its all the same isn't gonna do us any good!!

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 24/2/08 03:06  

  • No_Angel, DM, I am really enjoying the debate going between you too. You both are brilliant.

    I am still pending towards DM argument of the low of non-contradiction. I may not be qualified either to give an opinion here, but I am trying to understand.

    I have a simple question:
    If we assign a probability function for the measurment of the movement of quanta as in Bambam's first post (experiment), then doesnt that imply that we lack the tools for appropriate measurments and thus we base it on probabilities?

    By Blogger The Observer, At 24/2/08 11:22  

  • I said that EPR the paradox that you mentioned isn't a paradox anymore since it was experimented on and has an answer, you throw the blanket statement on QM not me.

    your idea to throw anything that has a paradox is a major flaw.

    for there is nothing more riddled with paradoxes more than philosophy should we throw logic out of the window too ?

    or would you like to take your crack at the liars paradox and offer a solution ? otherwise you can deal with a reality that states it is both telling the truth and a lie at the same time.

    that is the simplest pertaining example in logic were LNC can't apply without even getting any deeper into the views of hume, berkley or hagel... and other philosophers.

    i don't like to repeat myself but i was irked by ur insistence on a couple of things
    metaphysics is the realm beyond science and isn't provable or felt in our natural universe so it has no place to be mentioned here when we are discussing scientific worldly philosophy

    Bohr's statement it was used to defend my position and against your position so using it AGAIN is showing stubbornness and lack of understanding of context.

    Hume's fork you must have misunderstood it since the gist of what he is trying to say is that semantics plays tricks on our brains, we can only be logical about our perceptions and we can't extend those to the actual realities (what the world really is), for there is no certainty in science and the only certainty we can have is in our understand in relating ideas.

    Am curious about religion, would love to discuss that too :D so write something about it ;)

    Since we are on religious issues too, don't you feel you are giving LNC a dogmatic status that it might not well deserve to be in ?

    By Blogger No_Angel, At 24/2/08 13:46  

  • Zaid:
    This is my understanding.

    what are A and A' based on?? through a measurement or lets call it an observation. when a state is OBSERVED to be A, it is definitely not A'. this is Quantum Mechanics.

    When does Quantum Mechanics challenge the Law of Non-Contradition?

    when there is no observation, whats the state of the system at this point? can we exclude A&A' from the spectrum of possibilities?

    Nope. we don't have A to start with, A is conceptual perception.

    so at this point, a "state" is a matrix, is a wave, that has eigen values based on the system poles and has a RANGE of Eigen Vectors to determine the behaviour of the system which has two freedoms system's nature which we are dying to find a model for and the ACTION of observing model which recently we learned that it affects the system just by BEING to affect BECOMING OBSERVED STATE. all modern controllers work this way.

    in modern control theory, any system can be modeled by:

    x'(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t)
    y(t) = C(transpose)x(t) + Du(t)

    A: system dynamics Matrix
    B: System Actuator Matrix
    C: System sensor Matrix
    D: Feed Forward Matrix
    x(t): state variables vector
    y(t): measured output vector
    u(t): systems input

    this model INCLUDES Observer's EFFECT which ALTERS the naked pre-observed TRUTH. now the question here ,,, HOW MUCH DOES THE ACT OF OBSERVING AFFECT THE STATE?? on sub atomic particles, it seems that it does A LOT.

    i didn't enjoy most of my classes in university, but Modern Control is based on Quantum Mechanics and truly, after reading this post, i can make sense of it,, im sure that there will be exciting results soon and i wont be surprised if it found a mathematical model for consciousness, the philosphical imagination for what this could mean is dazzling. so give it a shot, you will do good in its math and im sure you will find it SUPER.

    By Blogger Tala, At 24/2/08 13:54  

  • observer thanks dude, i hope to win u over by the end of this ^_^
    your question...hmm thats why probabilities isn't that great of a word for this. let me try this...
    we are in a world were people can only see a cup as either all full or totally empty, so when i fill the cup with 70% milk and i leave 30% of it

    I ask people "is the cup full" they reply with its full. if i ask "is the cup empty" they reply with its empty but in reality the system is 0.3 empty and 0.7 full. because of how i phrased the question and their perception of something being both full and empty is a contradiction to them they can only reply with one possibility.
    thats the best i can come up with to explain what i mean by probability. its part of the innate system rather than a short coming of a model that we are trying to achieve.
    does this help ?

    By Blogger No_Angel, At 24/2/08 15:10  

  • no_angel, yes it does! Thank you.

    So it is a matter of describtion of things rather what they really are. Like for instance one thing can be described as different things from different perceptions. That is where the contradiction comes, which you defend? but it can't be really contradicting itself from one perception, right? which is what DM argue?

    tab, isnt relativity is the base of Einestine theories?

    Would it solves anything for scientist if they find the appropriate focal point for QM?

    By Blogger The Observer, At 24/2/08 15:36  

  • @ DM

    while i was reading your comment and writing my reply I tried to atleast identify some of the problems of why we don't agree, and am trying to define some basics here so tell me what you think

    contradiction your definition of contradiction seems to be grounded in the view of cause and effect, if i do A i get B, while i can't get both B & C. It is habitual to believe that something arises of a certain action, so its not based on reason but conditioning thats all. if its based on reason you have to
    a- have absolute knowledge of the future
    b- your knowledge is certain
    c- words that we use are our world rather than a description of our perception of our world

    time The perception of time to you is limited to an arrow going forward, our normal perception of time is that of change. we measure change in our environment and we conceive the movement of time. THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY HOW TIME IS IN THE UNIVERSE. that makes time a subjective measurement so our perception of change will be contradictory when faced with the two possibilities of change at once . so when i used at the same time i meant the perception of something removed from the observation for a lack of a better term

    carrying on from that all your examples are giving as a perception of change, and when discussing being you are limited to the concept of time as change.
    am not saying that all contradictions are valid, am saying that that there are valid contradictions which is totally different and the LNC doesn't allow that so its no longer applicable.

    By Blogger No_Angel, At 24/2/08 15:51  

  • "observer thanks dude, i hope to win u over by the end of this ^_^
    your question...hmm thats why probabilities isn't that great of a word for this. let me try this...
    we are in a world were people can only see a cup as either all full or totally empty, so when i fill the cup with 70% milk and i leave 30% of it"
    - Not exactly.

    It depends on how you define full and empty. Lets not get into language, but if we agree that full means: "holding its complete capacity" (which is the definition I found in a dictionary).. Then the cup is NOT FULL!! The cup is NOT EMPTY either!!

    The problem is, Full and Empty are not mutually exclusive.

    What you are talking about with the 70% and 30% is probably fuzzy logic. Fuzzy logic does NOT deny the law of non-contradiction. Fuzzy logic is basically a trick with words. Saying things differently because in a certain application, saying things in one way is better than the other way!! No contradiction whatsoever!

    "or would you like to take your crack at the liars paradox and offer a solution?" - Serious, the Liar's paradox is a joke between school boys... It is a solved problem and its left there just for fun (and philosophy)... I have posted the answer to this problem on my blog here

    The solution is to know (and this is a logical fact) that you cannot make conclusions based on false premises. So in a statement like "this statement is false", the solution that the statement is false.

    If someone argues that by admitting that its false, then the opposite of it is true (thats to say its true), he'd be too wrong. Because as I said, you cannot make conclusions based on what is false.

    "contradiction your definition of contradiction seems to be grounded in the view of cause and effect, if i do A i get B, while i can't get both B & C." - Not really, causality has nothing to do with this.

    "If ... then ..." is NOT a causal statement! It is a conditional statement... The difference is huge... Causality is not a factor in conditional statements, and this is compatible with causal and non-causal systems, and deterministic and indeterministic systems. No problems there.

    I, myself, am almost sure that QM is not a paradoxical science (assuming that scientists are still sane)... But it seems to me that its your (Tala and No_Angel's) interpretations are incorrect.

    There is a limit on where physics can go and can't go - which is what is what metaphysics is all about... I know No_Angel that metaphysics goes much beyond this world... You should realize the severity of what you are saying, that even metaphysics - the philosophy that discusses what physics can do and what it can't do - is being challenged by this statement.

    It seems that you didn't read the formal consequences of denying the law of non-contradiction.

    See those beloved people who you seem convinced have a potion for all paradoxes are simply solving those paradoxes by saying that all statement are true no matter what!! What a convenient solution, maybe I should buy that potion and turn everything I say as undeniably true!!

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 24/2/08 18:08  

  • http://www.quantum.univie.ac.at/
    zeilinger/philosop.html

    By Blogger Tala, At 24/2/08 20:12  

  • The problem is, Full and Empty are not mutually exclusive. So 1 and 0 are not mutually exclusive going by the standard definition ? and you ignore one important premise that the people in that world can only perceive either full or empty and not both.

    probably fuzzy logic
    good guess but try again, fuzzy logic talks about the indeterminacy of absolute truth, so its a degree of truth system. i didn't reference it on purpose because am talking about determined experimental data.

    Fuzzy logic does NOT deny the law of non-contradiction. if you said principle bivalence or excluded middles i would have let it slip but you picked the single law that it absolutely rejects since it sees it as a fantastical idea rather than a practical one, go back and read up on it and its relation to LNC especially. i recommend Saul kripke "truth" or Bart kosko "fuzzy thinking". i don't wanna digress so am gonna leave it at that.


    the Liar's paradox is a joke between school boys
    yuppers excellent, a resolved paradox ... (what you discussed isn't a liars paradox btw otherwise u would have seen a comment from me since i do like ur blog)

    the solution that the statement is false.
    true you mean ? that was the solution on your blog :P
    plus your ""solution"" fails at more complex versions (two statements and up)



    "If ... then ..." is NOT a causal statement! It is a conditional statement
    if i light my self with fire then i will be on fire was the statement u used and now your saying that is not cause and effect ? then i dare you to talk about causation without apriori ... which is what your suggesting there ...



    I, myself, am almost sure that QM is not a paradoxical science (assuming that scientists are still sane)... But it seems to me that its your (Tala and No_Angel's) interpretations are incorrect.
    again claiming something which you claim to know nothing about, moot point

    There is a limit on where physics can go and can't go
    who sets them ? if its philosopher can you specify which school ? if your specify which school can you resolve all the counter arguments of those ? if not your are arguing based on belief... if thats the case i rest my case.

    look you said that you can't defy LNC, i gave you;
    1) natural proof
    2) philosophical alternatives to the LNC that break it.

    your counter argument was simply that the first group are not scientists and loons, and for the second that i understand philosophy better than those fools and reduced their paradoxes to school ground jokes ...

    and over all that you don't know any of the stuff am talking about, and yet you make wrong blanket statements about stuff that you don't know the basics off.

    I feel this is too much of a dogmatic argument. you are simply telling me that the LNC has to be true because it says its true in it and my world will break without it.
    same line of thought of an ignorant religious person, that doesn't understand the limitations or contradictions in his own religion and when encountered with alternatives reverts to the idea that it must be true because it says so in my book and without that my view of the world will break.

    did it break when you switched to satanism (since i doubt you were born as such) or did you feel that you gained a different view of the world ? what if your view of the world is flawed ? do u believe in certainty in science and absolute truth ?

    By Anonymous bambam, At 24/2/08 20:46  

  • i just needed to restate my position since there is a lot of clutter now

    I am saying that LNC is limiting and some contradictions are valid in reality, notice not all contradictions are valid.

    By Anonymous bambam, At 24/2/08 20:59  

  • "I am saying that LNC is limiting and some contradictions are valid in reality, notice not all contradictions are valid." - Well, LNC is limiting, sure... It is what limits the sane person from stating that all things are the same. I feel this limit is reasonable one that I can live with!!

    No_Angel one exception to the LNC is enough to destroy all logic, and science. One instance where (p ^ ~p) evaluates to TRUE everything else can be proved to be true.

    ^ : logical and
    ~ : negation

    Consider this (that's a formal demonstration):

    p: A statement that overcomes the law of non-contradiction
    p ^ ~p = TRUE (premise)

    j: Any statement in the world

    j
    = j OR False
    = j OR ~True
    = j OR ~(p ^ ~p)
    = j OR (~p OR p) ; By demorgan's rule
    = j OR True ; Tautology
    = True ; Tautology

    ~j
    = ~j OR False
    = ~j OR ~True
    = ~j OR ~(p ^ ~p)
    = ~j OR (~p OR p)
    = ~j OR True
    = True

    So if we allow only one exception to LNC, we can prove that all statement to be true as well. Even a statement and its negation are both proven to be true!

    See?!

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 24/2/08 23:05  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 24/2/08 23:48  

  • "and you ignore one important premise that the people in that world can only perceive either full or empty and not both." - False.

    This is a well-known and well-documented fallacy (fallacy is a common mistake people do). Its called the false dichotomy or false dilemma. As you can see, this argument is based on a fallacy.

    "what you discussed isn't a liars paradox" - Well, its not the liar's paradox, but they all are reducible to this form. Whether you say: "I am a liar" or "this statement is false"... or make a hundred other statements that contradict themselves. The truth is, you cannot make conclusions on false ground.

    "the solution that the statement is false.
    true you mean ? that was the solution on your blog :P"
    - I suppose that :P is a sign of a joke, so I will skip this.

    "plus your ""solution"" fails at more complex versions (two statements and up)" - Give me one, and I'll show you its solution. Really, its not about how many statements you can put together. What applies to one, applies to more than one!

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 24/2/08 23:50  

  • "same line of thought of an ignorant religious person, that doesn't understand the limitations or contradictions in his own religion" - But you just said that contradictions are ok!! Oh, the irony!

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 25/2/08 00:12  

  • you must forgot that i stated (quite a few times by now) that QM is a non-boolean system so boolean logic doesn't apply since you don't have a negation normal form to the status of being...

    It's like trying to apply special relativity to deal with something that requires general relativity or the requirement of using a minkowski instead of euclidean space...

    a new logic is required and isn't accessible from old boolean logic.
    am not adept yet in expressing freely in non-boolean logic so i can't entice you with a neat looking evidence. so i'll just forward you to an intro into non-boolean logic
    click here
    so I don't See?!

    By Anonymous bambam, At 25/2/08 00:33  

  • So why did you mention the law of non-contradiction, which deals with boolean logic... And why do you suggest that QM denies it, if QM doesn't even work with boolean logic?!


    Note that it isn't correct to say that something doesn't work with boolean logic, but I am just carrying on with your argument

    The first s few lines in the PDF file you showed me says: "I shall argue in this paper that a central piece of modern physics does not really belong to physics at all
    but to elementary probability theory."
    ... And do you really think probability doesn't need boolean logic?! If you say no, think again!!

    I will read it in more details tomorrow (or after it), but I doubt it contains anything whatsoever that will support your view. Don't confuse numbers with logic. Don't confuse different types of logic. No type of logic denies LNC...

    It doesn't matter how many states you define in a system, you cannot claim the system to be in two mutually exclusive states!!

    How exactly are you discussing advanced forms of logic, if you can't read the simplest form of boolean logic?!

    To make things easier for you, read this funny dialog between two people, one of which denies the LNC:

    A: Are you still a follower of Hegel?

    B: Of course! I believe everything he wrote. Since he denied the law of noncontradiction, I deny this too. On my view, P is entirely compatible with not-P.

    A: I'm a fan of Hegel myself. But he didn't deny the law of noncontradiction! You read the wrong commentators!

    B: You're wrong, he did deny this! Let me get my copy of The Science of Logic.

    A: Don't get so upset! You said that he did deny the law, and I said that he didn't. Aren't these compatible on your view? After all, you think that P is compatible with not-P.

    B: Yes, I guess they're compatible.

    A: No they aren't!

    B: Yes they are!

    A: Don't get so upset! You said that they are compatible, and I said that they aren't. Aren't these two compatible on your view? Recall that you think that P is compatible with not-P.

    B: Yes, I guess they're compatible. I'm getting confused.

    A: And you're also not getting confused, right?

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 25/2/08 01:02  

  • false dilemma premise is to leave out the spectrum of possibilities. i eliminated that by creating a world where there are no other possibilities and its and either or world so its not applicable ... philosophy is all about nuances of language so be careful where u tread

    Well, its not the liar's paradox
    since am tired of refering to texts i'll just paste the common reply to ur "solution" here, hoping that there is a chance that you might actually read it since you just overlook whatever is convenient to you ... from wiki liars paradox
    The latter is a simple contradiction of the form "A and not A", and hence is false. There is therefore no paradox because the claim that this two-conjunct Liar is false does not lead to a contradiction. Eugene Mills[1] and Neil Lefebvre and Melissa Schelein[2] present similar answers.

    But Prior never made clear how his approach would apply to the more complex versions of the paradox, such as the two sentence version: "The next sentence is false", "The preceding sentence is true". Moreover, if all sentences are really hidden conjunctions, then some rules of propositional logic, such as the rule that one can derive any conjunct immediately and the rule that from any two propositions one can immediately derive their conjunction, are called into question. If we can derive this statement is false from This statement is true and this statement is false, then the paradox is back. And if we are not allowed to make such a derivation, then Prior has, in effect, invented a new kind of conjunction whose truth value characteristics are so mysterious, we cannot really say with any confidence that the paradox has been dissolved.


    an allegory is never to be taken literally... and making fun of them literally is ...

    By Blogger No_Angel, At 25/2/08 01:02  

  • god (or satan or null set) DM did u read the comments on what you quoted ? I bet you didn't ... again ur saying boolean systems are absolute am saying they are not.
    you proved there that boolean systems would break, and i told you because of that you need a non-boolean system... i don't know what else to say.

    and reread my sentence... i said am not extensively familiar with non-boolean logic which you somehow interpreted as boolean logic and started to attack me ... nice going there you seem to need some sleep ... i'll continue this tom if u like but honestly i don't see this going any where.

    what you are doing is just refuting any new knowledge contrary to all the evidences based on ... belief rather than understanding.

    By Blogger No_Angel, At 25/2/08 01:13  

  • http://www.philosophyetc.net/2005/05/law-of-non-contradiction.html

    link of the source of what he quoted ....

    By Anonymous bambam, At 25/2/08 01:18  

  • So I contradict you. But why are you arguing with me?! Contradictions are ok, you say!

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 25/2/08 02:06  

  • I am not arguing from neither belief nor understanding (I do believe and understand the LNC), but thats not the basis of my argument.

    I am arguing from what would happen if you deny it... A trivial system is what will happen!!

    Now, if you have a cake, you can split it two two parts. You can split it to three parts. You can split it to a hundred parts.

    But the LNC says, that no matter how many pieces you slice this cake, a certain particle is in one of those pieces not more than one!!

    So it doesn't matter if you are using boolean, tristate, or multi-state logic... No two things can be parts of two exclusively mutual parts. Thats LNC!!

    Ok, sorry I misread what you wrote. So you did read the formal demonstration and isn't convinced?! If so, there is nothing more I can do!!

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 25/2/08 02:07  

  • No_Angel, DM, you are very smart guys! I admire you both. I am really enjoying the debate going here, so please dont stop it! Cool down and carry on.

    Now that this post passed the 40 comment, maybe it would be hectic to continue here, why dont you start blank with a new post and debate the basics: boolian vs non-boolean logic?

    Please dont leave me in the middle of the road :P

    No_angel, you are doing better now in term of less complicated language :P. I am actually understanding what you are saying :). But I feel that you are being a bit more sensitive in this discussion than DM. You have been accusing him over and over again of different things, while he keeps on answering you in a professional manner. Don't let this eat from the quality of this debate. You both are sincere and both are intellectual and both are smart.

    So now if we drop boolean logic, wouldnt we end up with nothing? Like a mad person with no logic at all to build on? Mind you continue discussing this point?

    By Blogger The Observer, At 25/2/08 09:55  

  • OK i'll take your example a bit further even when you divide the cake into pieces where there shouldn't be any particles, a cake reality would still exist. ever heard of ultra dilute liquids and the belfast homeopathy results ?

    your proof is right, and thats the proof of why LNC can't be applicable to natural phenomena and hence rejected... cause it will lead to absurdity while there is no need for that.

    You believe in absolute truths (LNC) and absolutely certainty of science (inferred).

    I don't, I believe that our perception and description of the universe is limited to our senses that might play tricks on us, so ontologically speaking the universe is a subjective reality since its limited to our perception.

    refining our understanding of the universe based on verified new evidence is never out of the question even if it destroys hallmarks that we revered for ages, since scientifically speaking. when you have a verified results that contradict old theorems you either throw them away, limit their application, or you expand them to fit the new data. you don't hold on to them unchanged since that goes against the progress of science. and you certainly don't reject verified data because they are too wild, and you strive for the simplest solution.

    It was really fun having that discussion with u regardless of whether i reacted harshly at times. at this point i really don't have anything to discuss since we have just hit a stand off. I would like to revisit it sometime later.

    By Blogger No_Angel, At 25/2/08 13:37  

  • @observer hehe will try that but as i said i don't feel too comfortable yet with purely non-boolean logic so i'll have to bring my knowledge up a bit. plus they are not the only alternatives to boolean, there are fuzzy logic and other things maybe i'll bring those in since am more comfy with them.

    So now if we drop boolean logic, wouldnt we end up with nothing?
    not really, boolean logic is what defines our perception of reality best, and it's the best reflection of how we see the universe. ergo, its not necessarily the way nature actually works and the innate systems of nature, and it's limited to our senses.

    By Blogger No_Angel, At 25/2/08 13:43  

  • "You believe in -(a)- absolute truths (LNC) and -(b)- absolutely certainty of science (inferred)."

    For (a) yes, I do believe that tautologies (absolute truths) exits. For example saying: "I am Zaid Or I am not Zaid" is a tautology. "God exists Or God does not exist" is also a tautology. In short, when you OR a statement and its contradiction, you get a tautology!

    For (b) no! You say: "I don't, I believe that our perception and description of the universe is limited to our senses that might play tricks on us, so ontologically speaking the universe is a subjective reality since its limited to our perception.", and I agree. I even once made a post about this. I suggest you re-read it because it is relevant to the topic at hand.

    I quote the last paragraph of my article: "So while Skepticism questions the factualness of science and empirical observation, it does NOT imply that they are not justified based on functional and practical grounds... Therefore it is justified and need not be abandoned - because its serving its purpose!

    The purpose of science is to help us make judgments, that serves the higher purpose of creating inventions, which in turn serves the highest purpose of all, which is to make our lives easier and happier.

    A trivial system that says nothing and conveys no information is useless and unscientific.

    ********************

    It seems to me that you underestimate the power of boolean logic. You do know that, for example, computers are boolean logic based... Don't you?! Sure, anyone at first sight might think that 0's and 1's cannot create a complex system, but nothing is further from the truth. In fact, mathematics, probability, even other types of logic including -among others- fuzzy logic are all constructed through binary logic!

    Can you program a computer to do a fuzzy logic calculation?! The fact is, fuzzy logic is made by computers!! Yes, binary logic can make fuzzy logic calculations, it ca even run your windows Xp as well as movies!!

    You can do anything with a computer, and this should make it obvious to you that boolean logic can do more than what you might think at first sight.

    The computer does all this because it can tell the difference between a Zero and a One!!

    ********************

    As I said, LNC needs to hold. Whether its boolean, tri-state, or multi-state.

    Mathematics for example, can be thought of as a logic system with an infinite number of states. Actually, this is what mathematics really is.

    Consider this:
    Assuming we have a variable X.

    We can create a system with two states, this way:

    True iff X>=0
    False iff NOT (X>=0)

    Here we have two states for the system True and False. If you don't want to call them True and False, you can do that. Say:

    A iff X>=0
    B iff NOT (X>=0)

    Now for any X, the system is either in state A or B, but not both (LNC), since A and B are mutually exclusive states.

    You create the distinction differently, say:

    C iff X>=100
    D iff NOT (X>=100)

    So the system is either in C or D but not both! Again, C and D are mutually exclusive.

    So say that X=50, we can say that the system is in both A and D. No contradiction here, because A and D are not mutually exclusive.

    Now A and B is a boolean system. C and D is another boolean. If we combine the two above systems, we get a tri-state system with those three states:
    AC
    AD
    BD

    Note that BC is not a possible state because it does not follow the LNC rule.

    So this new system, has those 3 definitions:
    AC iff X>=100
    AD iff X>=0 AND X<100
    BD iff X<0

    We can apply this to get as many states as we want. Mathematics simply creates an infinite number of states, a state for every possible value of X.

    Fuzzy Logic, does something similar, but it assigns a certainty parameter.

    Something like this:
    A iff X>=100
    B(p) iff X<100 AND X>=0 AND p=X/100
    C iff X<0

    Here fuzzy logic, creates an infinite number of states (like mathematics)... But with one difference... All values above 100 are assigned one state called A. All values below 0 are assigned state C... While values between 0 and 100, are assigned different states (all called B) but use a parameter p=X/100, to tell the difference between one state and another.

    I hope this gave you an insight how powerful boolean logic is, and how other types of logic are constructed from boolean logic. So we don't need to contradict ourselves to model a system!!

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 25/2/08 18:23  

  • "For (a) yes" how can you hold that idea and yet reject the second ? this requires an objective view and the next requires a subjective view of truth. Check out constructivism and kants view of truth "there is no truth in itself" absolutism is frowned upon scientifically, and for me philosophically.


    "The purpose of science" is to understand the universe in functional approximations the purpose of engineering is to use science in "creating inventions, which in turn serves the highest purpose of all, which is to make our lives easier and happier."

    if that was the case of science then we wouldn't have the nuclear bomb since it serves humanity no practical purpose but in our attempt to understand the atom we stumbled upon it.

    Computers are approximate constructions that serve their purpose because they are based on good approximate system. ergo, there is no absolute 1, or 0 in a computer its just that they are mostly taken as such for practical purpose. we can't compare a construction to what is natural since it only reflects our understanding.
    conceptually speaking quantum computation is far superior to boolean computation since its limited.

    so while you can do a lot of things with a classical computer you CAN'T "do anything with a computer"




    Fuzzy Logic, does something similar, but it assigns a certainty parameter.
    I'll overlook the fact that they are not sets that allow degrees of membership and that there is no else in fuzzy logic and that you didn't use a then (there is no induction in fuzzy logic) so that leaves us with the fact that you explained multi valued logic and not fuzzy logic.
    If value is set then action
    so IF X IS BiG Then A
    IF Is MeduiM Then B

    and so on where meduim, big are sets and A are action set. I can't define them like you did.
    according to fuzzy logic you can get a case where something equally belongs to both A & C (since B is a set that measures the degree of truth between those, and in realistic model with result in an inaction, turing machine)

    thats why fuzzy logic doesn't adhere to LNC since "[it]enables us to define how from a fuzzy set of hypotheses we can derive a fuzzy set of consequence"

    By Anonymous bambam, At 25/2/08 19:50  

  • You said it yourself: "[it]enables us to define how from a fuzzy set of hypotheses we can derive a fuzzy set of consequence" - They say "fuzzy set of hypotheses" NOT "contradicting set of hypotheses"... The difference is huge!

    "do anything with a computer" - I meant by do anything, that you can form any other form of logic to serve the purpose at hand. Ok, I guess I didn't express myself precisely.

    "if that was the case of science then we wouldn't have the nuclear bomb since it serves humanity no practical purpose but in our attempt to understand the atom we stumbled upon it." - Every person does what is in his best interest... Scientists who developed nuclear bombs had a purpose in mind, that serves their own selfish ends. No one does something if he didn't believe it would bring him happiness. But thats beyond the scope of this discussion. In short, nuclear bombs just like all other inventions are made to serve a purpose, and they have practical value.

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 25/2/08 20:36  

  • Consider the example I gave:

    A iff X>=100
    B(p) iff X<100 AND X>=0 AND p=X/100
    C iff X<0

    Now, B can be used as such a fuzzy set where B(p) is assigned a meaning relevant to fuzzy logic. So each degree of membership or whatever you want to call the parameter p, makes B a unique state.

    Maybe the states of B can be assigned a meaning of hybridization between A and C or whatever meaning you want to give to parameter p. But formally speaking, each B(p) like B(0.1) and B(0.2) are different states.

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 25/2/08 21:14  

  • ""there is no truth in itself" absolutism is frowned upon scientifically, and for me philosophically." - There is a difference between facts and tautologies. You can't treat both the same.

    A fact is something like: "The Earth is round", a tautology is something like: "The earth is round, or the the earth is not round".. Anything in the form of "p OR ~p" is a tautology.

    Denying tautologies is problematic, just like denying the LNC. It results in a trivial system.

    Consider this:
    By denying truths, you are practically saying: "There is no statement that is true." This is another form of the liar's paradox.

    For someone to even consider what you have to says (ie. "There is no statement that is true."). He must first believe that your statement is true.

    So how do you think that its true that truth does not exist, if you don't admit truth in the first place?!

    Maybe, when someone goes and beat you, you tell him: "Stop! Beating hurts!" - But sure the solution would be: "Don't listen to him, there are no truths, so he must be lying, continue beating him!"

    Trivial system that conveys no information... Useless!

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 26/2/08 14:52  

  • The difference between denying LNC and denying tautologies is that by denying tautologies, you make all statements false. By denying LNC you make all statements true! Either way, saying anything would mean nothing...

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 26/2/08 15:15  

  • 3+4=5 , 1+1=1. are those statements true ?
    you will most likely answer that it is madness (remember how you answered your question X+3=5).
    my answer: madness ? This is QUANTA !

    (kidding :P)
    i would ask which perspective are you evaluating that system ? what is your truth ?
    if real numbers, then those statements are false.
    if complex numbers, then they are absolutely true. since it allows additiong in 2-d (Pythagoras equation)
    so 3 + 4 equals 5 in this case.

    but you are telling me, and am extending my point here allegorically so again don't take it literally, complex numbers don't exist because they don't adhere to boolean logic. I am simply telling you that somethings don't adhere to boolean logic because it is a limited view, and its one view only . not an absolute truth! because it is all subjective and there is no objectivity.

    since you insist on bringing fuzzy logic into the discussion
    law of excluded middles, statements are either true or false and nothing in between sets fuzzy logic outside of the realm of binary and boolean logic. so law of bivalence breaks since it forms the basis for boolean logic, the mantra.

    example:
    Q: Is the person Bald ?
    A1: yes to some extent
    A2: yes he is very bald
    A3: No, I am balder than him

    all those statements are true, but they are contradictory in content when referenced in boolean logic. in fuzzy logic they are dealt with subjectively (how bold is the person answering and what is his view of boldness) even without knowledge of those things the answers are still useful and you can deduce that the person is bald to some extent yet not totally bold.

    bye bye boolean logic, and no that doesn't lead to useless or absurd systems it leads to practical ones.

    practical fuzzy logic system:climate control systems(when you set the thermometer to a temperature, does it settle on that temperature if there is overshoot in the system. or is it in constant limbo of its too cold and too hot and that gives us the evened out temperature)

    By Blogger No_Angel, At 26/2/08 16:15  

  • There is a difference between facts and tautologies. You can't treat both the same.

    Don't be nonchalant with language and don't use facts when am talking about absolute truths.
    Fact is commonly held belief of the validity of the statement, that doesn't get challenged because of its wide acceptance. "the earth is flat" was a fact for the longest time it doesn't make it true...

    Absolute Truth is true in and off itself, and doesn't require any external verification.

    The problem with tautology is language, in binary math it holds true, but do we live in a binary world or does it just models and approximates our reality or is it the system of reality itself.

    since you use math it is an abstraction, a model.
    for tautology to be true the terms need to be absolutely true themselves while in reality that can't be achieve.
    because when you say an apple, its the representation of an apple itself there is nothing in apple that makes it an apple in and off itself.
    the only exception i can think of to this is the idea of "god" theologically, since by definition he is removed from this realm and its an exception because he can't be perceived so he is a truth in and off itself.

    thats what an absolute truth, the rest are just constructive models.

    By Blogger No_Angel, At 26/2/08 17:11  

  • Lets take another look at your example:
    example:
    Q: Is the person Bald ?
    A1: yes to some extent
    A2: yes he is very bald
    A3: No, I am balder than him

    Here, all you are doing is playing tricks. You are not contradicting yourself, just playing with words.

    A1: is a multi-state logic. Here you define multi-state of baldness. Like say, no hair at all, is absolute boldness. One to 10 hairs is "bald to some extent", and more than 10 hairs is not bald.

    A2: Same as A1

    A3: Here you have changed the meaning of bald. While baldness in the previous two statements has more to do with the number of hairs on one person, this statement has a different definition which is most likely (His hairs - My Hairs <= 0).

    Thats why its important to define your language before using it. Using inconsistent definitions can produce apparent contradictions, not logical contradictions.

    Sure apparent contradictions exists, but the LNC is for real contradictions.

    For example: "This woman has balls, but she has no balls." - This statement might seems self-contradicting, but in truth its not. Because, when the person says: "This woman has balls" he means that she is courageous. But when he says "but she has no balls." he is referring to the testicles.

    Same goes for this scenario:
    Person A says: "My son got an A+ in his history class!"
    Person B says: "My son got a C in his history class!"

    It might seem that Person A and Person B are saying contradicting things. But in truth, the adjective "my" is referring to two different people. So "my son" that PA and PB are referring to are two different people.

    The point is: When you are checking whether two statements are contradicting or not, you must be referring to its meaning, not its expression.

    Like your "3+4=5" example. "3+4=5" is not a truth in itself. "3+4=5" is just a notation to express a mathematical idea.

    So the difference between "3+4=5" as a false statement and as a true statement is meaning. When you say "3+4=5", I assume you are speaking the same language as I am (this assumption might be false - I admit).

    So maybe you just want to say that you deny LNC, but LNC not in our language, but in some alien language you created for yourself.

    Maybe contradiction is your language means homosexuality, and when you deny the "law of non-contradiction", you are denying the law that prohibits homosexuality... If thats the case... I drop mine!

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 26/2/08 17:26  

  • the rest are just constructive models. - I agree, with one tiny problem. The model you are proposing leads to eradication of science!

    When there is no information, there is no science. When there is no difference between truth and falsehood.

    If you think that LNC is just a model that has nothing to do with reality. Maybe if someone "beats you and burn you" you tell them, that in their modeling, beating you is not the same as not beating you. But in reality beating you is the same as not beating you!! That will teach em a lesson!

    Or a better lesson is that when someone beats you, you tell them that in a parallel universe, its you who is beating them! Thats another valuable lesson! [Thats a joke]

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 26/2/08 18:26  

  • Here, all you are doing is playing tricks. You are not contradicting yourself, just playing with words.
    remember when i said i don't want to discuss fuzzy logic so i won't digress ? I was pointing out some of the flaws in your understanding fuzzy logic by restricting it into definite when its the logic of indetermined. there is no absolutes in fuzzy, no 1 or 0 just (0,1)
    I wasn't even trying to prove a contradiction and whole thing, like i said in the beginning is a digression because you thought i was talking about ...

    no more entertaining your misadventures in fuzzy logic.

    By Anonymous bambam, At 26/2/08 19:38  

  • "3+4=5" is not a truth in itself. so your P and LNC are not absolute truths without context either ... absolute truth out of the window. but wait you said the world will break if that happens, oh so thats why you believe in them as absolute truths.

    Maybe contradiction is your language means homosexuality, and when you deny the "law of non-contradiction", you are denying the law that prohibits homosexuality... If thats the case... I drop mine!
    reduction ad absurdum gone bad, who said there isn't comedy in philosophy.

    By Blogger No_Angel, At 26/2/08 19:46  

  • maybe if someone "beats you and burn you" you tell them, that in their modeling, beating you is not the same as not beating you. But in reality beating you is the same as not beating you!!
    If there was no one that could witness my beating, and i don't know what a beating is then yes I haven't been beaten in that case
    "if a tree falls down in a forest did it make a sound if there was no one to hear it"

    By Blogger No_Angel, At 26/2/08 20:10  

  • "Words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context. This is not simply an opinion, but an emperical fact. In addition, what various cultures and individuals believe to be absurd differs.

    Again, there is more than one kind of logic, and more than one kind of logic that has emperically established applications in the real world. The statement that only those which incorporate the law of the excluded middle are valid is, by it's own standards, a reductio ad absurdium argument rather than an emperical fact or any kind of verification of the universality of the law of non-contradiction."


    this digressed from what quantum mechanics implies to an ontological discussion of synthetic vs. analytical logic. you say that you can achieve an understanding of reality through reason only, i say you can only perceive our experience of reality and never reality it self. Thats why am more open to experiences (not woos or hacks or metaphysics verifiable and testable ones) that contradict current understanding of your reality, what this series of comments have proved is that your totally closed minded about anything that challenges your "reality" since part of that reality is an absolute truth. so those systems where just modeled wrong and even though i don't understand them, people who do understood them wrong and are ignorant of the drastic implications they would have to my reality, they will shatter it and reduce it to absurdity .... they must be wrong regardless of how many mistakes they find in my logic as long as i can side step all the areas that i find troublesome and they entertain me to not point them out and demand a conclusion of each main issue before digressing.

    I am interested in putting my ideas up for a challenge, and so far the reasoning has been cyclic in that there is only one logic system that is reality and everything else stems from it and if you break the principle of bivalence The universe becomes void of meaning or logic.
    I, and a lot of other people before me and more will after me, broke it so many times and with so many proofs, and the world is still fine .

    logic dictates, on your end, that "the universe will be void of information and logic, break if you break Principles of bivalence and find them to be non-universal" (i'll add because you, meaning me, don't really understand them and they really didn't break any). so if that statement is false then the opposite of it is true.

    and leave it up to you to check whether fuzzy logic, quantum logic, hegel, kripke and all the other options did break them or not since whatever i say is looked at as lacking in knowledge while your knowledge is vaster.

    I lay may case there. I can't really argue any further with that, am thankful that due to this discussion i learned a few new things. in reality am not interested in winning, "so you won! BRAVO!".

    By Blogger No_Angel, At 26/2/08 20:11  

  • Maybe it was not you who brought fuzzy logic in the discussion. But it was you who said: "all those statements are true, but they are contradictory in content when referenced in boolean logic." - So I showed you that these are not contradictions.

    But since you stated that you think you think they are contradictions, I would conclude that you have a misconception of what a contradiction is!

    "reduction ad absurdum gone bad, who said there isn't comedy in philosophy." - Uh well, comedy is what makes life worth living! But well, reduction ad absurdum (aka proof by contradiction - that is proving something is wrong because it contradicts itself - Formally: A=>False ; ~A) is a valid form of argumentation, unless of course, you deny LNC as contradictions become ok!

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 26/2/08 20:17  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 26/2/08 22:34  

  • "If there was no one that could witness my beating, and i don't know what a beating is then yes I haven't been beaten in that case" - Well, if no one witnessed it, and you didn't realize it, then you are agnostic to your beating.

    You change the definition of beating, from the act to the feeling of being beaten. So you are not anymore talking about the same thing.

    Changing the meaning of words while you are speaking sure would create apparent contradictions.

    "Again, there is more than one kind of logic, and more than one kind of logic that has emperically established applications in the real world." - And all of those types of logic, don't deny LNC!!!

    ""so you won! BRAVO!"" - Thank you! It feels so good to be a winner!

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 27/2/08 00:52  

  • Ok, I read more about alternative types of logic. And I see what might have been causing confusion.

    Consider the example I gave:
    So this new system, has those 3 definitions:
    AC iff X>=100
    AD iff X>=0 AND X<100
    BD iff X<0


    As you can see, X is either in AC, AD or BD... No type of logic denies this.

    But consider now a type of logic that does not create MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE states.

    Say, he creates a system s.t.
    M iff X>=0
    N iff X<100

    Here M and N are NOT mutually exclusive... If you read my example, I did mention non-exclusivity. So, X can be in state M and state N at the same time. But there is no contradiction here, because M and N are not mutually exclusive.

    But even this system can be reformulated as a multi-valued system. So state M is basically a union of two states AC and AD. And N is a union of two states AD and BD. No contradictions here.

    Law of non-contradiction is for mutually exclusive states, NOT overlapping states.

    Classical logic is based on 3 axioms:
    LNC: Law of non-contradiction.
    Which states that two exclusively mutual states don't overlap.

    LEM: Law of the excluded middle.
    Which states that the union of all possible states produces the universal set.

    LOB: Law of bivalence.
    Which states that all states in a system are exclusively mutual.

    Notice that, if you don't use LOB then LNC does not necessarily hold, because you don't have exclusively mutual states. Just like when X=50, X belongs to M and N. But no contradiction here, because M and N are not exclusively mutual.

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 27/2/08 01:14  

  • why did you delete your source? It took me a bit to figure out what it was actually saying... but i guess you figured that out, thanks for being honest.

    then you are agnostic to your beating.
    ehhh wrong, agnostic is due to doubt. Without previous experience you can not ascribe the same notion to anything. for while your beating you allude to it being hostile, in some cultures it might be a form of flattery and initiation so it contains no truth in and of it self. when something contains no truth it means that contradictions arise, apparent or not.


    all of those types of logic, don't deny LNC!!!
    but you quoted something about hegel that makes fun of just that, so i definitely won't go with all. :D

    By Blogger No_Angel, At 27/2/08 13:13  

  • Classical logic is based on 3 axioms:
    "LNC: Law of non-contradiction.
    Which states that two exclusively mutual states don't overlap."

    nope not entirely correct, its that a truth and its negation are mutually exclusive. P is true, ~p is true is not a possibility.
    (by your definition and mine, fuzzy logic doesn't abide to LNC because there is overlap the difference being that in your case the states are not necessarily related in mine they have to be the same)

    "LEM: Law of the excluded middle.
    Which states that the union of all possible states produces the universal set."

    nope again, the union of states and their negation reflects all possible states and no states exist outside of them. specifics since its a definition :D either P is true or not P is true -(P v ~P)

    "LOB: Law of bivalence.
    Which states that all states in a system are exclusively mutual."
    nope, that would be an iteration of LNC. all possibilities fall into states without a possibility of a null set or an intersection. P is true or false

    so the statement
    light is a particle, and light is not a particle
    are both true (duality) and without constricting them to perception break those laws :D if you add time (subjective observation) you have to define the nature of light outside of that frame of observation since it exists in nature without an observer, right ?

    By Blogger No_Angel, At 27/2/08 14:42  

  • You ironically say: "[quoting me]all of those types of logic, don't deny LNC!!![/quoting me]
    but you quoted something about hegel that makes fun of just that, so i definitely won't go with all. :D"


    My first observation is that you are trying to refute me by showing that I am contradicting myself. Thats one sign that you implicitly admit the LNC.

    But I am not contradicting myself. Because I say: "all of those types of logic, don't deny LNC!!!" - Here "those" is an adjective that specifies a certain subset of logic.

    Re-reading the original context, I said: "[quoting you]"Again, there is more than one kind of logic, and more than one kind of logic that has emperically established applications in the real world."[/quoting you] - And all of those types of logic, don't deny LNC!!!" - So "those" refers to the subset of logics that has empirically established applications. Hegel is an example of a trivial logic that conveys no information, hence no practical value.

    About LNC\LEM\LOB: I stated those statements from a multi-valued logic point of view. You simply restated the laws for a boolean state logic. Thats to say, I stated the laws in a more general sense. Anyways, I found (what I think) a more constructive way to illustrate the idea.

    So here it is:

    You state:
    light is a particle, and light is not a particle.

    If I may, allow me to focus on this statement. Logically, this statement is false.

    But you state its true! The problem in my opinion is sloppy language!! While it might seem that the statement is a contradiction, this might not be the case.

    Pretty much like my example of saying: "This woman has balls, but she has no balls." - A sentence should be reduced to its meaning before you judge it as false or true.

    First you must define what the statement "Light is a particle" means. So before I start making assumptions that we might argue about, I want you to tell me what you mean by this statement as precisely as you can.

    Just to give you an idea of what I mean (so I am only giving examples which you may or may not take into account):
    - "Light behaves as a particle"
    - "Light has properties that conclusively indicate a particle"

    You might as well -but its not necessary, at this time- tell us what you mean by "Light is not a particle".

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 27/2/08 19:47  

  • PS: Don't go into technical jargon when explaining your meaning, remember our focus is general logic not QM in particular. Almost like the examples I gave - sure thats as long as you don't sacrifice the essence of what you want to say.

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 27/2/08 19:54  

  • You ironically say: "[quoting me]all of those types of logic, don't deny LNC!!![/quoting me]
    Thats one sign that you implicitly admit the LNC.
    I never said i don't, i just take it as a the conscious limit not the natural ones which makes some contradictions that are present in nature valid :D

    Hegel is an example of a trivial logic that conveys no information, hence no practical value.
    I wouldn't call half of the most important ideology in the 19th century lacking information, though its arguable about practical use. Marxism was inspired by the dialectic of Hegel, plus others have practical uses that i exampled along the way ;)

    About LNC\LEM\LOB: I stated those statements from a multi-valued logic point of view. I pointed out where in your definition they would break the rule when you try to convey them in MVL

    First you must define what the statement "Light is a particle"

    light - photons make up light, so u can interchange it with photons to be specific

    particles - travel in straight lines, bounce of obstacles, or passes through, and doesn't exhibit interference .

    so light is a particle
    practical proof light in a fibre optic cable bounces off the walls because it strikes at an angle larger than the critical angle.

    is that satisfactory? can we agree on this definition ?

    By Anonymous bambam, At 27/2/08 21:02  

  • so light is a particle
    practical proof light in a fibre optic cable bounces off the walls because it strikes at an angle larger than the critical angle.


    So what you are trying to say is that in a certain medium *(1), and under certain conditions *(2), light behaves like a particle *(3).

    (1): refers to fiber optics
    (2): refers to "larger than critical angle"
    (3): refers to bouncing off walls

    Is this fair?

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 27/2/08 21:46  

  • I just stated the example of FO out of good will, in case you didn't know of any evidence of what i am saying.

    Is this fair?
    nope it isn't, since all i said was "light is a particle". and i defined what light is and what a particle is.
    that is all that am required to do when it comes to boolean logic.
    do u accept those definitions ?

    By Anonymous bambam, At 27/2/08 21:57  

  • Yes. I based the proposed sentence on those definitions. But I want to know what you mean by saying "light is a particle."

    But there is a problem with your "proof"!!

    Just because two objects share a property under certain conditions, doesn't make them have an "is a" relation.

    ** Its like saying:
    Bears have fur. Cats have fur. Therefore a cat is a bear.

    Make sure that you base an "is a" statement on necessary and sufficient conditions.

    So in the above statement, the problem is that having fur is necessary, but not sufficient condition to be a bear!

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 28/2/08 11:58  

  • PS: If your "light is a particle" does not involve a necessary and sufficient conditions. Thats ok. I can carry on with your argument. But note that this would be a sign of "sloppy language"...

    Strictly speaking:
    "A bear is a mammal"

    This indicate that:
    Being a bear is sufficient to be a mammal.
    Being a mammal is necessary to be a bear.

    Consider this:
    "All prime numbers above 2 are odd numbers"

    So being a prime number above 2 is sufficient to being an odd number.
    Being an odd number is necessary to be a prime number above 2.

    So if you see the number 9654239876... Without even doing any calculations, we judge it as not primary since it is not an odd number.

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 28/2/08 12:23  

  • Also, to clear any confusions... A definition must be both necessary and sufficient. Or is other words, a two way "is a" relationship exists.

    For example:
    "Even numbers are by definition integer numbers divisible by 2"

    So:
    This means that being an integer number divisible by 2 is necessary and sufficient to being an even number.

    In other words:
    An even number is an integer divisible by 2.
    An integer divisible by 2 is an even number.

    So a definition should satisfy an "is a" relationship on both directions.

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 28/2/08 12:40  

  • Just because two objects share a property under certain conditions, doesn't make them have an "is a" relation.
    since it seems that you like taxonomy, you tread to the smallest branch to verify an "is" relationship
    so the most acurate statement for a bear
    "a bear is an Ursidae"

    same thing with iron

    "iron(Fe) is a particle"
    "light(photon) is a particle"
    if its sufficient for the former it should be sufficient for the later right ? since i adhered to the same definition, and conditions and am talking about the same thing,
    whether the composition of something is that of a particle, you have to agree that i did provide both sufficient and necessary condition :D

    what are the additions that you would like to see ? I discussed some conditions that u might add earlier.

    By Blogger No_Angel, At 28/2/08 12:59  

  • 2 is a number.
    2 is an integer number.
    2 is an even number.
    2 is a primary number.

    All above 4 statement are true. None of them contradicts the other!

    Remembering that science follows empiricism, I think that defining concepts in terms of phenomena that is observed is a good approach.

    For the problem at hand. I suggest those definitions:

    Set of X: A collection of phenomena
    Set of Y: A collection of phenomena

    Particle: A concept that is said to exist when a the set of X is observed.

    Light: A concept that is said to exist when the set of X is observed, and the set of Y is also observed.

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 28/2/08 15:12  

  • 2 is a number.
    2 is an integer number.
    2 is an even number.
    2 is a primary number.

    None of them contradicts the other!

    contradiction and we defined that a dozen times is when the statement and its negation is true.
    so by that "2 is a number. 2 is not a number"
    unless you change the definition of number (real number in maths) that won't make u think twice about it, while my statement has made you think quite a bit.

    I am talking in specifics so please be specific and don't use an undefined set to prove a defined thing.

    if you are asking me to define them , then i defined X a long time ago tho am not sure what you mean by Y so i can't define what i don't know.
    plus it is the first time i ever seen someone use "concept (abstract idea)" when referring to something as physical as the particle

    By Blogger No_Angel, At 28/2/08 16:56  

  • Well, if you think its important to define the set of X, and set of Y, element by element, be my guest!

    I just offered set of X and set of Y as a way of generalization so that we stick to the problem at hand.

    If you want to specify certain phenomena as special cases, no problem.

    Like this:

    Set of X: A collection of phenomena.

    The following list of phenomena is included -among others- in this
    collection:
    1- Bouncing off the walls in fiber optics when colliding with the walls at an angle larger than the critical angle.
    2- ....
    3- ....
    ... etc

    If this serves your purpose, do so.

    "plus it is the first time i ever seen someone use "concept (abstract idea)" when referring to something as physical as the particle" - Whether its the first time or not is irrelevant. Don't you agree that this is a good approach when handling empirical information?! The kind of information that I hope we both agree that science deals with...

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 28/2/08 17:15  

  • Set of X: A collection of phenomena
    Set of Y: A collection of phenomena

    since they have the same definition why aren't they the same ? you have to explain that to me, what is the special case you have in mind? I don't want an element by element definition. even a general one would do.

    i won't digress in symantecs so again. based on the definitions of everything given so far
    "light is a particle, light is not a particle"
    is a valid contradiction or not ? with reasons to which ever answer like i gave it when i proposed that

    Don't navigate the discussion while leaving yourself a back door to tread out off, commit to something

    By Blogger No_Angel, At 28/2/08 17:27  

  • Set of Y is the set of phenomena that identifies the concept of the light.

    For example, in mathematics, if we are talking about numbers:

    Property X: Being divisible by 1
    Property Y: Being divisible by 2

    Now:
    Integers: Numbers that have Property X
    Even numbers: Numbers that have Property X and Property Y

    Here Property Y is used to tell the difference between the general concept of an integer, and the general concept of an even number.

    So, we can say:
    Even numbers are integers [because they share Property X]

    But not all integers are even numbers [because Property Y is not shared by them]

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 28/2/08 17:30  

  • Set of X: A collection of phenomena
    Set of Y: A collection of phenomena


    Well, yes... Set of X shall have the same collection of phenomena through out the discussion. Same goes for set of Y. But set of X is not necessarily same as set Y.

    I proposed this just for simplification.

    If you wish, we can add those three qualifiers:
    Set of X and Set of Y are two mutually exclusive sets.
    Set of X is a non-empty set.
    Set of Y is a non-empty set.

    We can have any -or all- of those qualifiers - if you wish.

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 28/2/08 17:44  

  • just so i would point out why your allegory doesn't work...
    i am saying that there are real (analogous to particle) and complex(analogous to waves) numbers

    but you reply to me that there are integers(iron atoms) and there are even numbers(neutrons or whatever u find analogous here). but then you go and define integers wrongly.

    So based on occam's razor drop the analogies and speak clearly since it seems that they are confusing u.

    By Blogger No_Angel, At 28/2/08 17:48  

  • Set of X: A collection of phenomena
    Set of Y: A collection of phenomena


    Again, yes you are right. Same definition might lead to confusion. There is a solution to this.

    Set of X: An instance of a collection of phenomena
    Set of Y: An instance of a collection of phenomena


    With the inclusion of the previously stated qualifiers, things should go fine.

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 28/2/08 17:51  

  • Dude, you asked about the "set of Y", and said: "tho am not sure what you mean by Y so i can't define what i don't know" - So I explained to you why we need set Y.

    I don't want to make analogies between numbers and physical particle. Just to explain the need for set Y!!

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 28/2/08 17:59  

  • so yeah i agree with the redefinition tho u are complicating things way too much and you are the one that started discussing the analogies rather than the term it self so i treat like am treated.

    ok so given that x represents a particle, y represents what ? thats what am asking since its mutually exclusive

    By Anonymous bambam, At 28/2/08 19:16  

  • y represents what differentiates a particle from light.

    Now, you have a particle. How do you judge whether or not it's light?!

    Anyways, the definitions I gave are just suggestions. If you wish to make different definitions be my guest.

    If you go back to your initial definitions:
    light - photons make up light, so u can interchange it with photons to be specific

    particles - travel in straight lines, bounce of obstacles, or passes through, and doesn't exhibit interference.


    You did not mention anything that is in common between light and particles!! So it seemed to me that you were having trouble making good definitions.

    Because based on the two definitions you gave above, you practically have no case to establish any statement about the relationship between the two concepts!

    As I said, my suggestions are only "suggestions". Just to avoid definitions that are incomplete.

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 28/2/08 20:29  

  • "You did not mention anything that is in common between light and particles!! So it seemed to me that you were having trouble making good definitions."
    I thought that was simple since photons are particles because they adhere to the set definition
    since it isn't as simple as i thought i'll leave defining a photon to u if you disagree that photons are particles

    By Anonymous bambam, At 28/2/08 20:55  

  • Dude! Just make a definition that suits you... Its not that hard.

    Ok, I'll make a definition that might work for you:

    particles - travel in straight lines, bounce of obstacles or passes through them, and doesn't exhibit interference(*).

    light - travel in straight lines, bounce of obstacles or passes through them, and doesn't exhibit interference(*), travels in vacuum at the speed of light

    (*): This might seem counter-intuitive, but if you state that "light is a particle" then light must have all the properties of a particle. Otherwise, you should say: "light is not a particle"...

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 28/2/08 22:20  

  • Dude! Just make a definition that suits you... Its not that hard.

    dude ! i did but you don't like it!
    light == photon
    photon == particle
    so light is a particle :D
    simple enough to show the relationship between light and a particle since that is ur concern there right ?
    unless you want to challenge any of those premises there, am only interested in finding your reasoning for light is a particle and light is not a particle.

    otherwise your just talking filler to me which you been for the past few comments re-itterating things that has nothing to do with the statement i made. so whatever you are trying to get at do so ... or concede

    By Anonymous bambam, At 29/2/08 11:21  

  • Ok, so far so good.... If thats the definition that suits you...

    Ok, you explained why "light is a particle"!!

    Then explain how you think that "light is not a particle"?!

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 29/2/08 16:30  

  • light is an electromagnetic wave
    an electro magnetic wave is not a particle it's radiation
    so light is not a particle is true.

    waves exhibit interference, have a wavelength, frequency and a speed of propagation, refraction ...etc

    By Anonymous bambam, At 1/3/08 21:29  

  • "so light is not a particle is true." - Nope, thats not the logical conclusion!

    1- You proved that light is a particle.
    2- You proved that light is a wave.
    3- And you proved that a particle is not a wave.

    BUT, you did NOT prove that light is not a particle! Thats a false conclusion.

    Let me show you (sorry, but I will use a logical analogy):

    1- You proved that light is a particle.
    1'- I proved that 2 is even.

    2- You proved that light is a wave.
    2'- I proved that 2 is primary.

    3- And you proved that a particle is not a wave.
    3'- I proved that even is not primary.

    So, 2 is even and primary. And the property of evenness is not the same as primeness. Yet, 2 is still even and primary!!

    Hope you see your logical mistake!

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 2/3/08 03:50  

  • I have to conclude that your mistake is that you think that the state of being a particle, and being a wave, are contradictory states. While in fact, waves and particles are a duality!

    Duality means that light is BOTH a particle and a wave, and the two are NOT CONTRADICTORY!!

    This is what I said in the prologue. Ok, I returned there and found that you asked something and I didn't answer... Well, I should have checked there before.

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 2/3/08 03:59  

  • ok, i explained to you why the even and prime is a really bad analogy. if you want to use an analogy to numbers use real and complex for a number.

    "Duality means that light is BOTH a particle and a wave, and the two are NOT CONTRADICTORY!!"
    when you can give me experimental evidence that light can be BOTH a particle and a wave and not just either or then you can claim that chain of thought :)

    By Blogger No_Angel, At 2/3/08 10:22  

  • Ok, lets do this a third time:

    1- You proved that light is a particle.
    1'- I proved that 2 is even.
    1"- I proved that 2 is real.

    2- You proved that light is a wave.
    2'- I proved that 2 is primary.
    2"- I proved that 2 is complex.

    3- And you proved that a particle is not a wave.
    3'- I proved that even is not primary.
    3"- I proved that complex is not real (*)

    Still, 2 is both complex and real.

    Dude, its not about the analogy. The concept hold that you did NOT prove that "light is not a particle"!!

    (*) The other way around is not valid, that is: Real is complex

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 2/3/08 17:37  

  • "2"- I proved that 2 is complex."
    huh ? where ? complex is of the form
    a + bi where i^2 = -1 ....
    when you set it to zero it ceases to be complex ... it becomes real.
    so i'd like that u run that by me again.
    and i proved it with what i said plus the experiment that i mentioned way back when ... that when perceived as a wave light is not a particle ... its just you fail to comprehend that part for some rzn :P

    By Blogger No_Angel, At 2/3/08 17:45  

  • 2 is in fact complex. Revise your mathematical knowledge!

    Anyways, if you wish to take another shot at proving that light is not a particle, be my guest!

    "when you set it to zero it ceases to be complex ... - No, it does not. But either way, thats irrelevant... It just depends on the definition... And definitions don't change mathematical facts.

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 2/3/08 22:07  

  • So can't you prove that "light is not a particle" and "light is a particle"?!

    I expect you had some time to think through of the whole discussion, and your perception of a contradiction!

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 11/3/08 10:56  

  • I expect you had some time to think through of the whole discussion, and your perception of a contradiction!
    lol not at all, i just lost interest in discussing it with you since you always like to use bad analogies and tend to branch up from the subject...
    but anyways since u asked, thats the last relevant thing on the topic.
    when you can give me experimental evidence that light can be BOTH a particle and a wave and not just either or then you can claim that chain of thought :)

    so since you can't, that means that light being a particle and light being a wave is mutually exclusive.
    since they are mutually exclusive light can be a particle. and light is also not a particle.

    so unless you can give me a case where you can prove that light is both particle and wave at the same time you can't really argue with the fact that its not a particle.

    but then again ur going to use an analogy and repeat what you have been repeating. so unless u have something new and relevant to add in reply to that don't bother.
    i am not interested in discussing analogies, they murk the discussion

    By Blogger No_Angel, At 11/3/08 11:58  

  • It seems to me that you have no idea what logic is.. And no idea what proof is... And I suggest for you own sake, to read something about the theory of argumentation!

    I already provided my proof... But you were unable to understand it... Next time, I suggest you learn how to argue before getting into an argument - especially a scientific argument.

    Science is not about kids who shout at each other, whose voice is louder... Science is based on proof!

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 13/3/08 09:09  

  • PS: Sorry if my language seemed harsh, but I am not the kind of person who "sugar coats" what he says, because truth must be told, whether it sounds nice or harsh... I suggest you take my criticism in positive light, and try to actually learn something!

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 13/3/08 10:02  

  • you mean this bunch of philistine blabber ?
    think that the state of being a particle, and being a wave, are contradictory states. While in fact, waves and particles are a duality!

    Duality means that light is BOTH a particle and a wave, and the two are NOT CONTRADICTORY!!


    lol son, at some point i did learn a few things and i said that, but hardly from you. you might as well go get fossilized

    By Blogger No_Angel, At 13/3/08 10:20  

  • You were taught wrong my son...

    By Blogger Devil's Mind, At 13/3/08 14:21  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



Links To This Post

Create a Link

<< Home