26 Jul 2009, 1:20 pm
26 Jul 2009, 1:22 pm
sartresue wrote:
People who live on earth should not throw stones
topicI am reading a book by Leonard Susskind entitled The Black Hole War and in this book he talks about the concept of causality at the Quantum level as meaningless. Typical average aspie reading.
I am still reading and rereading it, in order to understand. Thank goodness I am visual. The average nonautistic person with only high school science could not understand the concepts he discusses. This book, though, would be too easy for you, at your level.
Actually, I am trying to use the concept of correlations to heal the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. According to quantum mechanics, if I throw a dice, it will land on one side with probability 1/2 and the other with probability 1/2, PERIOD. Quantum mechanics insists that there is NOTHING hidden to answer why this side and not the other, which is oen of its problems. According to my correlation theory, however, there are two parallel universes: in one of them it landed on one side, in the other on another, so both sides are "fairly treated".
The way my correlation theory explains probabilities is this. I can take one of the parallel universes, and look at a behavior of a particular piece of dice throughout its entire life in the universe. If it landed more than 51% on one of the sides then this "global correlation" is forbidden, which means that this entire version of parallel universes does not get to be realized. On the other hand, as long as it landed between 49% and 51% on each side, it is "allowed", which means that if nothing else that is "forbidden" occurs in this version of parallel universes, it gets realized.
NOTE: I am fully aware that even between 49% and 51% there are different probabilities for different exact percentage. BUT THAT DOES NOT MATTER. As long as all the correlations present in a given version of parallel universes are "allowed", that version gets realized, PERIOD. Since every single "allowed" version of parallel unvierses imaginable gets realized, the underlying principle is absolute certainty, and probabilities don't play any role at all. What DOES gets sacrificed is locality: I have to look at the entire universe to determine whether it is "allowed' or "forbidden" which means that physics is highly non-local; but it still avoids quantum probabilities.
26 Jul 2009, 1:22 pm
26 Jul 2009, 1:27 pm
26 Jul 2009, 1:28 pm
26 Jul 2009, 1:32 pm
26 Jul 2009, 1:36 pm
26 Jul 2009, 1:39 pm
No 
Science is not universal: you have to learn it to understand it.
But if I want to do some kind of prehistorical painting, I can do it without learning - especially the foot or the hand prints, they are easy to draw.
I will use modern and chemical inks of course but I don't need to be educated about it.
PS: Thank you for your patience and your kindness, your patient kindness 
, to answer me in a way that I can understand what you mean to say.
26 Jul 2009, 1:51 pm
zena4 wrote:
No
Science is not universal: you have to learn it to understand it.
But if I want to do some kind of prehistorical painting, I can do it without learning - especially the foot or the hand prints, they are easy to draw.
I will use modern and chemical inks of course but I don't need to be educated about it.
PS: Thank you for your patience and your kindness to answer me, your patient kindness in a way I can understand you.
Science is not universal: you have to learn it to understand it.
But if I want to do some kind of prehistorical painting, I can do it without learning - especially the foot or the hand prints, they are easy to draw.
I will use modern and chemical inks of course but I don't need to be educated about it.
PS: Thank you for your patience and your kindness to answer me, your patient kindness
in a way I can understand you.Well, you do need some knowledge, you have to have knowledge on how "foot" and "hand prints" look like to draw them. You are jsut a lot more likely to obtain that knowledge than the konwledge about science since, being human, your senses of sight smell and touch are more exposed to the former than to the latter, but that is still relative, just not to culture but to humantity as a while.
But then again, I do see your point that science is relative too. In fact, quite beyind the fact that you have to learn it, human mind was the one who came up with it. People simply ASSUEMD that things they experienced by smell, sight and touch are applicable to electrons (hence we imagine them as a pice of stone that is probably "rigid" or wave travelling IN space that is to be "seen" or other picture that appeals to our senses). So I guess that might be an argument in favor of relativism of ALL of our puruits -- arts or science alike.
26 Jul 2009, 4:27 pm
26 Jul 2009, 4:30 pm
