Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Quantum Physics / Quantum Mechanics

Rate this topic


Praxus
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was just reading something about the issue. It said that since 1/infinite = 2/infinite then if you cancle out the two infinities you get 1=2. I didn't quite understand what they meant.

Those are usually joke mathematical examples to show 1=2, or some other nonsense. They are usually not meant to be taken seriously, since they always involve an illegal operation. But, regardless, what does that example have to do with quantum mechanics? From where are you reading this?

Thanks for the clear and VERY concise answer:)

Well, nothing can violate the law of identity, so there really is not much to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are usually joke mathematical examples to show 1=2, or some other nonsense. They are usually not meant to be taken seriously, since they always involve an illegal operation. But, regardless, what does that example have to do with quantum mechanics? From where are you reading this?

On another forum someone said that A=A has been disproved by Quantem Mechanics. I looked it and that example is the only thing I found. As you can tell I know nothing about Quantem Mechanics.

This is where I found it...

http://www.ebtx.com/ntx/quantum.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On another forum someone said that A=A has been disproved by Quantem Mechanics. I looked it and that example is the only thing I found. As you can tell I know nothing about Quantem Mechanics.

One main difference between you and the person who wrote what you read is that you know that you are ignorant of the subject, but the same cannot be said for him. The internet is marvelous but the amount of disinformation propagated is enormous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find your pettiness in pointing out someone's minor errors utterly ridiculous.

;)

Why is everyone focusing on "uterly rediculous" while never mentioning "Quantem Mechanics" ? This is an unfair discriminatory practice! I demand reparations!

;)

(Confucius say: Man who misspell word on forum need thick skin!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe he wrote Quantem mechanics? How in mighty shit is that possible.

(I'm just trying to point out something other ridiculous than rediculus, so that Capitalism Forever is pleased. But if I was to be serious, this is a rather good topic.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it true that Quantem Mechanics has proven that something can be and not be at the same time?

I find this notion to uterly rediculus.

It is, for the obvious reason that proof itself presupposes and requires the Law of Identity and Non-Contradiction. If they weren't (self-evidently) true, you couldn't prove anything! So, to say that QM (or anything) disproves the Laws of Logic is a flat-out contradiction in terms. It is, as you say, utterly ridiculous.

Fred Weiss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is, for the obvious reason that proof itself presupposes and requires the Law of Identity and Non-Contradiction. If they weren't (self-evidently) true, you couldn't prove anything! So, to say that QM (or anything) disproves the Laws of Logic is a flat-out contradiction in terms. It is, as you say, utterly ridiculous.

Fred Weiss

What about non-euclidian gemometry? Isn't that said to disobey the law of non-contradiction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about non-euclidian gemometry? Isn't that said to disobey the law of non-contradiction?

Anyone who makes such a claim does not understand either geometry or logic, or perhaps both. Non-Euclidean geometry is a perfectly valid part of mathematics that is meant to apply to a different sort of mathematical space than does standard Euclidean geometry. There is nothing contradictory in that, anymore than it is not contradictory for a baker to make both cookies and bread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the so called Self-Reference, like "Liar Paradox" and "Russels Paradox"?

Despite how these silly self-referential statements are presented by noted "philosphers" or "logicians," they have nothing to do with the epistemological issues of truth or fact. They are usually self-contradictory and unconnected to reality, as in the so-called liar paradox. There is a whole category of such self-referential statements, and they usually amount to nothing more than gobbledygook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I took a quick look and I think you got in over your head. Some of the things being said are not as bad as you think, and some are a lot worse than you imagine. I'll be away for most of the day but if I have a little time when I return I might check in there and, depending on where things stand then, perhaps make a response. Have fun in the meantime. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...