Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Epic Particle Smackdown

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,106

    Smile Epic Particle Smackdown

    An errant neutrino on her way to the other end of the universe jostled a heavy metal atom in my brain, and in a rare act of mischief, decided to stick around and add her spin on things.

    Trini: Psst, hey Sack of Cells.

    SoC: Me?

    Trini: We elementary particles have a bone to pick regarding all this hubris we keep hearing, SoCcy boy.

    SoC: I subscribe to the postulates of science and logic, and am a good skeptic who filters his data. Why ever would you say that?

    Trini: Where shall I start? Um, let's begin with science. Ever hear of ceteris paribus?

    SoC: Of course. It's the tool we use to hold some things constant so we can focus on a particular aspect of cause and effect.

    Trini: Precisely. We, on the other hand, as a wavy sea of all particles in the universe, need make no such artificial distinctions. We are in touch with all the eigenstates in a continuous temporal fashion. What you call a container of gas with even temperature, your basis for describing entropy and the 2nd Law, for us is a collection of widely varying kinetic values and particle spins that you average out and abstract away. Through abstraction, your views serve you, but too often you confuse them with a faithful full description.

    SoC: But that is the only way proper science can be done!

    Trini: I won't argue that, for you. But your science is a somewhat tainted activity from our perspective, achieved via observations made using abstractions from the get-go, to produce other abstractions. Because those abstractions are there from the start, you use the a prioris of animal bias. So, your results are only good enough for animal work.

    SoC: That'd be human work, if you don't mind.

    Trini: There you go with another abstraction. Look, your efforts are admirable, but as mere flotsam and jetsam thrown onto the shores of substance by us, you confuse your status as existential driftwood with that of being a special focus of our "currents," so to speak. You are not. You are looking on from the shoreline. Because your science has this bias, unlike ours, you really ought to spend more time tempering the more absolute claims, while controlling far more for human (I'll use your term) observer bias. "Physician, heal thyself," which I believe is an expression of yours, is one that scientists often think only applies to intellectual loonies. It goes for all observers, in all realms of endeavor and inquiry. BTW, your paltry efforts at objective self-perception are laughable, on the rare occasions when they are even in play. "Bias city," more like it.

    SoC: Existential driftwo... This is a bit overwhelming, but since you are here, what is your take on QM?

    Trini: Nobody understands QM, not even us. I can say the Virtuals tend to make all sorts of claims during their popping in and out, but we can't quite catch everything they are saying. If there is one thing we do envy you, it's Ritalin. However, I will clarify that we do not need you to collapse our wave functions; we can do that with systemic interactions. No need for animal brains to make things work. And, no need for QM for animal brains to work, either. But don't change the topic, Mr. Bigshot Skeptic.

    SoC: More name calling? Now what?

    Trini: You play around with Bayesian statistics and then forget what you are doing.

    SoC: Them's fighting words!

    Trini: Calm down, have some dip.

    SoC: I'll need something more than that, sorry.

    Trini: You use a limited probability space summing for convenience to one, but often forget in practice you have to keep adding to that, increasing the measure space and renormalizing in light of new facts. What you often also forget is that what you are really doing is considering things only from past experience, forgetting that is a mere subset. So, you estimate probabilities of hypotheses relative to each other, which is OK, and so are getting some good partial and provisional answers. Operative words: partial, provisional.

    SoC: Um, I'm not used to this kind of treatment.

    Trini: But you need it for your hubris problem. Meanwhile, I'd like you to consider the potential measure space of all observations from the point of view, say, of dynamic combinatorial systems like us. OK, admittedly we're only discrete. (If it were not for that pesky Planck, we might even be able to think of the system as continuous.) Regardless, the generative properties of such systems are extremely high in the output of unique results, far beyond what you have had the opportunity to observe over the course of all human history, and if not mathematically the same as infinity, for animal brains, not much different.

    SoC: I'll have to take all this under advisement, you know.

    Trini: I see you are learning. Remember, according to the measure of your intelligence, you can only speak what you can speak, and do what you can do.

    SoC: One last question...

    Trini: ...I can guess it. As for a ghost in the machine, we haven't seen one. Then again, for us, you are the ghosts. Actually, more like reflections.

    ...

    [Poetic license alert! Board visitors: Rampant speculation warning, with taints ranging from partial understanding to complete misunderstanding of ideas under "discussion," with distortion from heavy layer of satire. This is why it is in the FnG section. Thx!]

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,427
    I wonder having enjoyed that OP if you have read "Talks with the devil" by P D Ouspenski. It is not a religious work, the devils in the short stories are equivalent to your particle, for example I remember the one where Browning is shown how to make a better pistol.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,106
    I shall take a look! Googling now...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,799
    Dang, I thought the Epic Particle had finally been discovered!
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    2,511
    Its the chicken or the egg problem.

    If we weren't here to observe the universe would it really eggzist? Probably not.

    If we observed it, but it didn't eggzist would it "matter"? Probably not.

    If it somehow eggzisted without our observation of it, would we eggzist? Probably not!
    Last edited by FarmMarsNow; 2014-Jun-06 at 08:22 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,319
    Well, I interviewed a tachyon as to what he thought of the piece, and he got everything backward...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,427
    Funny that, I asked a mere electron and he said I was no more than a point in space time (PIST)
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,106
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    Funny that, I asked a mere electron and he said I was no more than a point in space time (PIST)
    ... and that muons attended many bovine shin-digs in the 1960s.




    (Sorry!)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •