flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > sleepsleep's vitally important things

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 94, 95, 96 ... 251, 252, 253  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 9000
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
YONG wrote:
Furs wrote:
Hence assuming it was created, it must have had a reason.
Really?

Particle-antiparticle pairs get created and then instantly annihilated all the time via quantum fluctuations. What is the reason or purpose behind such creations (and annihilation)?
Wink

my six sense told me, one of it is a shadow for another one, Wink
like how the tree shadow when there are light source, tree gone, shadow of tree gone too, Laughing

there probably should be an equivalent light source in particle situation, Laughing

YONG wrote:
instantly annihilated all the time

one of it should vanished faster than another one, instantly sounds like same moment, Laughing

25th July 2017
- i tried a different data plan add-on tonight,

- it cost RM 1, quota of 1GB from 1am till 7am, speed if so so, roughly 100 kilobytes / seconds and below 400 kilobytes / seconds, i am not using lte phone yet, just hotspot my old phone,

- this one is more useful than the 64k(bits)ps plan yesterday for the whole day,

- 8 bytes / second, maybe this is the real speed to send data from earth to pluto? idk
Post 24 Jul 2017, 21:11
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1492
Furs
YONG wrote:
Really?

Particle-antiparticle pairs get created and then instantly annihilated all the time via quantum fluctuations. What is the reason or purpose behind such creations (and annihilation)?

The big bang could have been a large-scale quantum fluctuation, in which the vast majority of the created particle-antiparticle pairs got annihilated. Yet, a "tiny" fraction of the matter and antimatter pairs got separated, and thus could not annihilate each other immediately. Thanks to the rapid expansion of space within a short period time, the imbalance of matter and antimatter could be maintained. Billions of years later, at a hidden corner of the universe, intelligent life-forms, made of matter, came into existence and began to wonder the reason or purpose behind the "creation" thing.

Wink
But those aren't creations, that's just a bad english term (yes, I know it is used by people, but people don't use the most logical words to express things), those are conversions. According to Quantum Field Theory (which is the most successful), they're not even conversions either, just exciting different fields.

The Big Bang could have been anything really. Yet there's no conceivable way for the laws of physics that enable the Big Bang to have come into existence by themselves. So if not the Big Bang then something higher "up the ladder" so to speak had a reason. Well to be fair, it is statistically unlikely to even have only one creator (meaning it must have been created itself before it created this), but I'm keeping it simple.
Post 24 Jul 2017, 23:08
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
ManOfSteel wrote:
For now let's just be humble ...
Exactly! One of the forum members should stop thinking he is a superhero and stop using "Superman" as his handle! He can't fly, can he?

Wink
Post 25 Jul 2017, 02:26
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
sleepsleep wrote:
one of it should vanished faster than another one, instantly sounds like same moment, Laughing
When a particle and its antiparticle collide, the two vanish together at the same moment and energy is released.

Wink
Post 25 Jul 2017, 04:00
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
But those aren't creations, that's just a bad english term ...
Not capitalizing the starting "e" is bad English, I know!

Wink
Post 25 Jul 2017, 04:03
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
According to Quantum Field Theory (which is the most successful), they're not even conversions either, just exciting different fields.
Then, how come the quantum field would get excited randomly? What is the reason or purpose behind such constant changes in the quantum field?

Wink
Post 25 Jul 2017, 04:07
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1492
Furs
What do you mean randomly? An electron + positron (example) always result in photon.

With fields, it's two excitations in the electron/positron field (they could be in the same field but with an extra property associated with each, though; not sure if that's true or not) that give rise to an excitation in the electromagnetic field (and consequently you lose the excitation in the original fields).

I mean, how is this any different than say, water waves? Of course, water is made up of molecules, but that's beside the point of the analogy. Fields are like an "ether" and particles are just such excitations in the ether, just like water waves are not a "tangible" thing themselves, just excitations of the underlying water. (of course the ether doesn't truly exist, as fields are a property of space-time itself, not of a "substance", it's just useful for an analogy)

When water waves arrive at an obstacle, some of them get lost and converted to other waves (i.e. sound waves, or vibrations in whatever they hit, all of which are waves). Others get reflected and bounce back. Not different than waves in one field being converted/transferred to another field. This is the same with electrons losing energy by emitting photons.

Note that at no point any of the excitations get "created". All that happens is one excitation moves to another field. There's no created or lost energy or whatever, only converted.

If you mean the randomness of quantum mechanics, it's simple; it could be explained by the fact that all "particles" are actually waves in the field. That's why the double slit experiment works. Why some particles end up in one part randomly and others in another? Just like with water waves, their state is not uniform. We don't (can't!) know all the exact properties of a wave in a field at a specific point in time unless we live outside the Universe.

If you track a particle (or a point in the wave), moved by a water wave, you will end up taking one of the double slits -- it seems random, since you can't go through both (as an individual "thing" on the wave), but it could be an illusion only. Of course you end up taking one of the slits because of specific conditions and properties of the wave and the particle you track at that exact time. It doesn't mean the wave did not go through the other slit. It means only the point you tracked didn't.
Post 25 Jul 2017, 10:37
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
What do you mean randomly?
I mean that the location of the occurrence of the excitation in the quantum field is random.

Now, tell me, if you can, the reason or purpose behind such a random excitation, please.

Wink
Post 25 Jul 2017, 12:27
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1492
Furs
I don't know what you mean? There's nothing random about the source itself, only what you observe and it's because, by observing it, you interact with whatever you wanted to observe (subatomic "particle" in this case), thus you influence the field. You can't see a field's wave properties and a particle's position at the same time. The position seems random since you don't have enough information (it is impossible for someone/thing inside the Universe).

Imagine you cannot "see" water waves (no light reflects on them etc), but you can some object on them by interacting with the object. You can "feel" the object but when you do that, you alter its course. If you want to know the object's precise position, you can't know any of the wave's properties. How can you? You've no idea where is the "bottom", or what the phase is, or frequency. The less you know about the object's precise position, the more you can see about the wave's characteristics (which is what moves the object) by observing it over a longer period. Of course, any observation will "modify" the object's properties itself (position, etc) so you can't really rely on taking a million snapshots and then piecing them together to achieve satisfactory answer for everything.

To briefly answer your question: it's not random, the reason is just unknown because we don't know the properties of everything (we are not meta-brains or supernatural beings outside of the physical system which can observe but not interact with it; I'm not saying that supernatural beings exist, I'm only using the usual term for them like ghosts and stuff like that -- i.e. exist and observe but not interact with the world; we can't do that).

While not a perfect analogy, think of computer software pseudo-randomness. It's not actually random and the "reason" the function spits out a specific number is because of the initial seed which had a reason being input (if it was say, 123456789, then the reason must've been the lazyness of the developer). As a being inside the computer, you cannot know the seed, unless you also know the algorithm and all other variables at conception so you can extrapolate.

As a developer outside the Universe (computer)? Just debug it and find out the seed in RAM... to me that's what omniscience means. It doesn't mean you know every single bit in existence, but that you can know it if you want to. A developer has full control over the bytes/bits of any program he develops, but we all know, nobody actually memorizes so many bits/bytes unless the program is like 1kb in size or something. Wink
Post 25 Jul 2017, 14:15
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17467
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Furs wrote:
I don't know what you mean? There's nothing random about the source itself, only what you observe and it's because, by observing it, you interact with whatever you wanted to observe (subatomic "particle" in this case), thus you influence the field. You can't see a field's wave properties and a particle's position at the same time. The position seems random since you don't have enough information (it is impossible for someone/thing inside the Universe).

Imagine you cannot "see" water waves (no light reflects on them etc), but you can some object on them by interacting with the object. You can "feel" the object but when you do that, you alter its course. If you want to know the object's precise position, you can't know any of the wave's properties. How can you? You've no idea where is the "bottom", or what the phase is, or frequency. The less you know about the object's precise position, the more you can see about the wave's characteristics (which is what moves the object) by observing it over a longer period. Of course, any observation will "modify" the object's properties itself (position, etc) so you can't really rely on taking a million snapshots and then piecing them together to achieve satisfactory answer for everything.

To briefly answer your question: it's not random, the reason is just unknown because we don't know the properties of everything (we are not meta-brains or supernatural beings outside of the physical system which can observe but not interact with it; I'm not saying that supernatural beings exist, I'm only using the usual term for them like ghosts and stuff like that -- i.e. exist and observe but not interact with the world; we can't do that).

While not a perfect analogy, think of computer software pseudo-randomness. It's not actually random and the "reason" the function spits out a specific number is because of the initial seed which had a reason being input (if it was say, 123456789, then the reason must've been the lazyness of the developer). As a being inside the computer, you cannot know the seed, unless you also know the algorithm and all other variables at conception so you can extrapolate.

As a developer outside the Universe (computer)? Just debug it and find out the seed in RAM... to me that's what omniscience means. It doesn't mean you know every single bit in existence, but that you can know it if you want to. A developer has full control over the bytes/bits of any program he develops, but we all know, nobody actually memorizes so many bits/bytes unless the program is like 1kb in size or something. Wink
I think that is the best answer I've seen for an analogy of the quantum behaviour.
Post 25 Jul 2017, 22:57
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 9000
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
revolution, welcome back on earth, Wink

26th July 2017
- about to reach august soon, you see, everything is fast!

- Once Google’s youngest employee, this woman just unveiled a new search company that might make Google worried

- skip the search, directly set up the result for users, push any logic into it, a new yahoo! Wink

- https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/25/facebook-is-hiring-a-human-ai-editor/

- enjoy oxygen and take care, Smile
Post 25 Jul 2017, 23:48
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
I don't know what you mean?
How come you always do not understand my meaning? Or are you just trying to avoid the real question?

Rolling Eyes
Post 26 Jul 2017, 02:44
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
... by observing it, you interact with whatever you wanted to observe (subatomic "particle" in this case), thus you influence the field. You can't see a field's wave properties and a particle's position at the same time.
I know the uncertainty principle very well. In fact, I, a couple of years ago, even pointed out some recent "amendments" made by researchers on the principle:

https://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?p=185290#185290
https://futurism.com/heisenberg-uncertainty-might-be-wrong/

Wink
Post 26 Jul 2017, 02:50
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
To briefly answer your question: it's not random, the reason is just unknown because we don't know the properties of everything ...
As you mentioned, we do not know everything. Then, how come you would argue that there MUST be a reason or purpose behind the "creation" thing?

Rolling Eyes
Post 26 Jul 2017, 02:53
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
sleepsleep wrote:
- about to reach august soon, you see, everything is fast!
Yeah, it is about time to pay next month's rent. My savings are shrinking at an alarming rate!

Sad
Post 26 Jul 2017, 05:52
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
sleepsleep wrote:
- Once Google’s youngest employee, this woman just unveiled a new search company that might make Google worried
Nope, the new search company can't do any harm to Google. But the never-ending EU fines can.

Refer to:

Alphabet warns investors that more EU fines against Google may be coming
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/25/alphabet-warns-more-eu-fines-vs-google-may-be-coming.html

Wink
Post 26 Jul 2017, 05:56
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1492
Furs
YONG wrote:
How come you always do not understand my meaning? Or are you just trying to avoid the real question?
No, most people don't understand Quantum Mechanics at all and just go by buzzwords with "random" -- thus they think the randomness happens in different places (or all of them), so the question was for you to clarify what exactly you think is random about it. (since depending on what the answer is, I can give an answer why that is perceived as random, or why it's not even true, etc)

YONG wrote:
As you mentioned, we do not know everything. Then, how come you would argue that there MUST be a reason or purpose behind the "creation" thing?

Rolling Eyes
Because it's more statistically possible? e.g. my question to you, if something was ever created (that we know of) without a reason. No matter your belief, the Universe must have been created at some point -- and by Universe I mean the entire laws of physics along with it. Even if time was created along with it. It's just much more illogical to assume it "always existed" just as someone claiming God "always existed" as cop out.

Another example (not true right now, so it's just hypothetical): say we find out how to create a Universe ourselves in the future. What are the chances that we, ourselves, weren't created just like that? Infinitesimal.

Yeah, it could be possible we're "first!" Universe, just like it could be possible that the flying pink unicorn is our God (this isn't meant as sarcasm or irony, since it's definitely possible).

Not being able to know something and claiming that it doesn't exist is the same as claiming it exists, because both are claims. (not that this isn't about belief, it's about claims -- believing it doesn't exist is perfectly fine and logical).

Imagine someone saying something like There is nothing beyond the observable Universe. Doesn't that sound so idiotic since it has no proof at all? It's literally impossible knowledge with our current means -- so why excuse such claims of knowledge?

I don't see the randomness in Quantum Mechanics as any different; it's "impossible" knowledge because we cannot observe something without altering it, but it makes sense. For the Universe it definitely makes sense for there to be stuff outside of observable one, even just 1 atom. It just does.
Post 26 Jul 2017, 12:47
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
Because it's more statistically possible
Nope, I don't think so.

Quantum fluctuations in void, emptiness, or whatever we call it, always exist. Creation via the large-scale version of such fluctuations is way more likely to be reasonless.

Wink
Post 26 Jul 2017, 13:33
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
Imagine someone saying something like There is nothing beyond the observable Universe. Doesn't that sound so idiotic since it has no proof at all?
It is one of the many possibilities. Yet, such a scenario is very unlikely to be true because it implies that we are exactly at the center of the (observable) universe.

Assuming that we can go instantly to the edge of the observable universe, the most likely scenario is that we are going to see a very familiar "universal" picture because our galaxy is very common and does not occupy any special "spot" in the cosmos.

Wink
Post 26 Jul 2017, 13:48
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1492
Furs
YONG wrote:
Quantum fluctuations in void, emptiness, or whatever we call it, always exist. Creation via the large-scale version of such fluctuations is way more likely to be reasonless.

Wink
I don't think you understand the fact that space (well rather spacetime, but let's keep it at space) was created itself (in the Big Bang). It's not particles that I'm talking about. It's about the fabric of the Universe itself -- spacetime and its laws of physics -- when I refer to creation. Quantum fluctuations did not exist because there was no space, and no time (as we know it). So the chance of random fluctuations creating spacetime is zero since it makes no sense.

If you think of it as computer program, it's not the data I am talking about (particles and whatever), it's the code that allows the simulation to run.

YONG wrote:
It is one of the many possibilities. Yet, such a scenario is very unlikely to be true because it implies that we are exactly at the center of the (observable) universe.
I don't see how that is any different than thinking we're at the center of "creation" (i.e. the first ones to have come into existence via the Big Bang, hence no prior "creator", while we can be "creators" ourselves). Exactly my point.

YONG wrote:
Assuming that we can go instantly to the edge of the observable universe, the most likely scenario is that we are going to see a very familiar "universal" picture because our galaxy is very common and does not occupy any special "spot" in the cosmos.
Yeah, same if we were able to escape this Universe (or simulation), likely we'll just realize we're not anything "special" and that our creator (if one exists) was created himself by who knows how many chains of Universes. And yes that means we were created, just like he/she/it was created and so on. (or we could be the first, just like we could be the center of the Universe, but that's unlikely)

Instead of, you know, believing we're the first like you imply (meaning we weren't created by a creator). You used the word "likely" (I presume statistical), yet you think we're the "first" to be able to create worlds?
Post 26 Jul 2017, 14:13
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 94, 95, 96 ... 251, 252, 253  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.