Could Zeno's paradoxes be linked to quantum mechanics?
User comments:
[2012-04-24 11:01:54] nickharvey7 - It was a pleasure! ...
It was a pleasure! Thanks for the comment! I am an artist and therefore outside of the scientific community so any help promoting this theory will be gratefully welcomed. Please SUBSCRIBE, share with your friends and add to your favorites. It would be nice to start a chain reaction of information a kind of quantum revolution!
[2012-04-24 03:30:48] railroaz - Thanks for the info ...Thanks for the info Geico lizard
[2012-03-18 20:24:44] nickharvey7 - Thank for the very ...Thank for the very nice comment!!! But Man will always have the unfathomable and the infinite if our Universe is a true infinity. No theory will be able to explain everything there will always be an infinite number of questions to answer!
[2012-03-17 20:35:08] DekalbBlues - Very interesting! ...Very interesting! "So walk I on uplands unbounded, and know that there is hope, for that which thou didst mold out of dust to have consort with things eternal." -- Anon, from one of the Dead Sea scrolls. "Be subtle that you are invisible. Be so mysterious that you are intangible. Then you will control your rival's fate." -- Sun Tzu, from his Art of War. "Man needs the unfathomable and the infinite just as much as he does the small planet which he inhabits." -- F. Dostoevsky (attributed).
[2012-03-04 16:24:03] MrTrda - yourself what I and ...yourself what I and many others have clamed, then I am afraid you will be always trapped in the position of the three blind men feeling one part of the elephant and "claiming" the elephant is "this, or that".
[2012-03-04 16:22:23] MrTrda - I should have said, ...I should have said,"subtle and not so subtle truths." Sometimes the whirlwind of truth will pick you and your previous thought beliefs up and smack you right down on your back. Thats how I learned! This is what is meant in the parable "Rich man - getting to heaven, like getting through the eye of a needle" -rich in thought, beliefs etc. Only the ASC will surely clear that right up. If you have no intention of using the Plant teachers as a tool to see for
[2012-03-04 16:18:01] MrTrda - First and foremost, ...First and foremost, however are the various camps experienced in the the Mystic Altered State. For some reason (which I won't get into here) this state allows us experiential access into these subtle truths about the actual nature of the universe. Armed with the critique of pure reason and the mastery of mystic metaphor we have many accounts of what the universe is actually "like". Hellenistic Greece was exemplary in this.
[2012-03-04 16:12:01] MrTrda - Like I said, *Maybe ...Like I said, *Maybe, maybe not*. That's as far as we can go. Surely, you do not think that a few "smart guys" got together and figured out the nature of time and the universe with some clever equations! "this equals that, so the universe is like this." Ha! We are "children in a library" grasping at information. I side with the camp that has thousands of adherents coming from many different angles trying to grasp this truth.
[2012-03-04 13:16:23] nickharvey7 - Nature and time is ...Nature and time is not whimsical in this theory, but formed by a physical process 'quantum Mechanics'. The quantum wave particle function Ψ represents the forward passage of time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π itself. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w- function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
[2012-03-04 04:15:54] MrTrda - Therefore, nature ...Therefore, nature might be or might not be indeterminate, whimsical, etc. This is a big difference, the difference between brain-killing lust for mystification, and respect for reason.
[2012-03-04 04:15:05] MrTrda - Bohm points out ...Bohm points out what I aim to amplify: Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle does not say: We know that the particle has no fixed [position & vector].It does not. (Therefore, nature is indeterminate, whimsical, etc.) It actually says:We can't know for certain whether the particle has a fixed [position & vector].It might or might not.
[2012-03-03 10:42:17] nickharvey7 - In everyday life we ...In everyday life we have a sphere of uncertainty that we can use to change our position and momentum as part of a creative process. And in Q M we have Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π with uncertainty of position and momentum in the shape of a sphere 4π. It is sad that we did not have these equations when we thought the world was flat!
[2012-03-03 10:41:48] nickharvey7 - In everyday life we ...In everyday life we have a sphere of uncertainty that we can use to change our position and momentum as part of a creative process. And in quantum mechanics we have Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π with uncertainty of position and momentum in the shape of a sphere 4π. It is sad that we did not have these equations when we thought the world was flat!
[2012-02-26 22:17:47] MrTrda - I ...I characteristically reject the notion that science ought to be guided by an assumed pre-theoretical commitment to upholding the freewill assumption
[2012-02-26 22:17:11] MrTrda - Does the one ...Does the one coherent QM hidden-variables model require abandoning the freewill assumption? Bell says it does, but I trust no connections these distorters of science claim to make. At least, Bell's train of reasoning does certainly reveal the extra-scientific nature of some of his main motives that he mixes into his notion of science and reason, including, as Double points out, his notion of what science is *for* and what its goals are. As a kind of determinist,
[2012-02-26 22:16:22] MrTrda - -- the path of ...-- the path of unreason and gleeful embrace of mystification, the path of magical mind-over-matter, the path of free will, rejecting a comprehensible, deterministic hidden-variables model out of hand, for reasons having nothing to do with science. I don't necessarily agree with any reasoning in the theories of QM physicists -- I completely abandoned trust in them, with a sense of deep betrayal, the moment the professor favorably presented Copenhagenism to my class.
[2012-02-26 22:15:07] MrTrda - Was this "science" ...Was this "science", we had in the 20th Century? After Relativity, Physics wasn't actually science at all, it's been something else -- science driven by and used for extra-scientific commitments and constraints. Science was treated as the queen of the domains, Physics was treated as the queen of the sciences, and QM was treated as the queen of Physics, yet look which path those quasi-scientists chose
[2012-02-26 22:14:34] MrTrda - People talk about ...People talk about how science was discovered to ultimately be nonrational, but that is a completely debatable and unfortunate dominant historical accident: science, or not science at all but rather scientists, chose Copenhagenism, choose to reject hidden variables, kicked out and insulted Einstein, ignored Bohm, and then finally admitted the good sense of hidden variables only to reject it as unacceptable because of violating the freewill assumption.
[2012-02-26 22:13:19] MrTrda - My goal is to find ...My goal is to find the simplest coherent worldmodel that explains the relation between time, will, personal control, and the experience of ego-death. Forking futures and multiple branching universes is unnecessarily complicated. My approach is "first-things-first", and the first worldmodel we should define is the simplest one. Only after we acknowledge that most basic worldmodel should we go on to discuss more complex models.
[2012-02-26 22:12:47] MrTrda - I disagree - It is ...I disagree - It is "uncertain" from *our* perspective - The universe is not inherently uncertain by virtue of this fact. When we thought the world was flat, that did not make it so. I do agree that physics "the queen of the sciences" is our best method of speculating how our universe behaves. But we must employ reason. Once we start assuming things it crosses the fine line into metaphysics.
[2012-02-26 15:20:37] nickharvey7 - Yes I could be ...Yes I could be wrong this is only a theory! I acknowledge that you have a valid argument! But this is only because we have uncertainty built into our everyday life. I believe the whole point of physics is to explain the physical world of our everyday life. What do you think physics is for?
[2012-02-26 14:42:02] nickharvey7 - In this theory we ...In this theory we have a universal process formed by the quantum wave particle function. We see and feel this process as the flow of time. Consciousness is the most advanced part of this process and can perceive it as past, present and uncertain future. Consciousness is always in the "moment of now" because time and consciousness are linked, with superposition of the wave function forming meditation!
[2012-02-26 05:29:36] MrTrda - No, we assume it's ...No, we assume it's a cat. We jsut don't see the whole picture.
[2012-02-26 05:29:04] MrTrda - He wanted to show ...He wanted to show that the universe in the micro and macro level follows "laws" yes - That is rational thinking, as opposed to irrational thimking that says "we cannot 'measure' the particle, therfore we 'can't' measure the particle. If we see a cat walk behind a fence - we see it's head first and then body and then tail - same thing if it walks back. Do we then assume it is a head which causes a body and then cause a tail?
[2012-02-26 04:50:07] MrTrda - -one that you just ...-one that you just previously said "you'd never heard of before"!!! It shows me your unwillingness to discuss this issue by stating that.. "He could not find it because he believed in this illusion". You don't even know what I'm arguing about (apparently) you throw up strawman arguments and completely ignore most of my comments - because in your head your right. Prove to me what he argues is an "illusion".
[2012-02-26 04:45:16] MrTrda - I mean sure ...I mean sure Einstein believed that the particle can at some level be measured, but that is a far cry from trying to use Physics as an explaination everyday life! Far from it, you have confused what I am talking about here with Newtonian physics. And, yes, he could be wrong and so could everybody else (you included) that's a given. But you completely ignored my acknowledgement of many different sources all agreeing on the same thing. This is a valid argument
[2012-02-25 18:40:27] MrTrda - with ASC and yet ...with ASC and yet still confirm the findings makes this threory even more compelling. Ie. The ego is an illusion, Everything is one, Time is an illusion, the past/present/future exist at any given point when viewed from a 4 Dimensional perspective - which superceedes our 3 Dimensional perspective. This was descibed Metaphorically - allegorically in the past but it all points to these common truths.
[2012-02-25 18:36:35] MrTrda - OSC as many ...OSC as many Philosophers as well as Physics (as I am sure you are aware) has shown that our five senses are very poor at painting an accurate picture of 'how' the universe is in actuality. Unless the subject acquaints him/herself wit the ASC it is all theory and speculation. I take solace in the testimony of the people and cultures well accustomed to the ASC and what wisdom they have to share with us. The fact that modern scientists and philosophers who are not familiar
[2012-02-25 18:24:58] MrTrda - Huh? You have it ...Huh? You have it completely mixed up. The [past/present/uncertain future] is how our Ordinary State Consciousness (OSC) 'feels' and associates reality to be like. Tenseless Time Theory is completely counter intuitive. It isn't until we are in the Altered State Consciousness (ASC) by way of meditation, chemically induced (the most ergonomic method) or other various methods, that we perceive the universe to be Static/Tenseless.
[2012-02-25 15:26:54] nickharvey7 - Yes he said this! ...Yes he said this! But he could be wrong! I believe the biggest mistake of physics was not to try and explain why we have a past, present, and uncertain future. Einstein worked to the end of his life to try and find an objective understanding to quantum physics that fits in with the reality of our everyday life. He could not find it because he believed in this illusion.
[2012-02-24 16:42:36] MrTrda - Do a simple Google ...Do a simple Google search to see how many philosophers/physicists etc. fall under the heading of Determinists - Hard/Soft/Compatibilists/Illusionists - all just differing degrees of the belief that there is no such thing as metaphysical libertarianism. And it is frustrating to see clever people try to explain that their "theory" is right because "science" backs it up. Go drop some heavy doses of LSD and tell me how much "free-will" you think you have.
[2012-02-24 16:42:26] MrTrda - Do a simple Google ...Do a simple Google search to see how many philosophers/physicists etc. fall under the heading of Determinists - Hard/Soft/Compatibilists/Illusionists - all just differing degrees of the belief that there is no such thing as metaphysical libertarianism. And it is frustrating to see clever people try to explain that their "theory" is right because "science" backs it up. Go drop some heavy doses of LSD and tell me how much "free-will" you think you have.