Praxus Posted August 27, 2004 Report Share Posted August 27, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted August 27, 2004 Report Share Posted August 27, 2004 Is it true that Quantem Mechanics has proven that something can be and not be at the same time? No. I find this notion to uterly rediculus. Not only that, but it is also utterly ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praxus Posted August 27, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2004 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. Thanks for the clear and VERY concise answer:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted August 27, 2004 Report Share Posted August 27, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praxus Posted August 27, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted August 27, 2004 Report Share Posted August 27, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted August 27, 2004 Report Share Posted August 27, 2004 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. Well, I find your spelling utterly ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praxus Posted August 27, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2004 Yes I know I should spell check it, but to be honest I didn't feel like doing it at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoyd Loki Posted August 27, 2004 Report Share Posted August 27, 2004 Is it true that Quantem Mechanics has proven that something can be and not be at the same time? Yes, it has. And, no it hasn't. Why are you asking that question, dude?!?! Sorry, I wasn't for a moment. And, I was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Release Posted August 27, 2004 Report Share Posted August 27, 2004 Well, I find your spelling utterly ridiculous. I find your pettiness in pointing out someone's minor errors utterly ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AwakeAndFree Posted August 27, 2004 Report Share Posted August 27, 2004 When somebody tells me about QM disproving the laws of logic, I answer: "In the good old days, when a theory contradicted the laws of logic, we would say that it is illogical, not that it disproved logic." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted August 27, 2004 Report Share Posted August 27, 2004 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!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praxus Posted August 27, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2004 LOL;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted August 27, 2004 Report Share Posted August 27, 2004 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.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted August 27, 2004 Report Share Posted August 27, 2004 I'm just trying to point out something other ridiculous than rediculus, so that Capitalism Forever is pleased. Hm, thanks for your thoughtfulness, although I had monetary reparations on mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted August 27, 2004 Report Share Posted August 27, 2004 "In the good old days, when a theory contradicted the laws of logic, we would say that it is illogical, not that it disproved logic." That's very good. May I use it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Weiss Posted August 28, 2004 Report Share Posted August 28, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praxus Posted August 28, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2004 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted August 28, 2004 Report Share Posted August 28, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AwakeAndFree Posted August 28, 2004 Report Share Posted August 28, 2004 That's very good. May I use it? You can use it, of course, as long as you don't pretend you just made it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praxus Posted August 28, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2004 What about the so called Self-Reference, like "Liar Paradox" and "Russels Paradox"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted August 28, 2004 Report Share Posted August 28, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I. Kant Posted August 28, 2004 Report Share Posted August 28, 2004 There is nothing contradictory in that, anymore than it is not contradictory for a baker to make both cookies and bread. OH, come one, every one knows cookers make cookies and bakers make bread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praxus Posted August 29, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 29, 2004 I need help... http://militaryaffairsboard.com/showthread...35038#post35038 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted August 29, 2004 Report Share Posted August 29, 2004 I need help... http://militaryaffairsboard.com/showthread...35038#post35038 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.