Heisenberg's uncertainty principle & the nature of the universe?

[TheChadd]

Premise 1: I am a sentient being, as a sentient being I 'observe' the universe and accept a particular view on the nature of things.
- Supported by 'I think; therefore I am'

Premise 2: I 'believe' there are other sentient beings, with different views on the nature of things.
- Supported by empirical observation and desire for this to be so

Premise 3: Reality is indeterminant until observed, when it becomes resolute
- Supported by the Schroedinger's Cat hypothesis, Heisenberg's uncertainty principal

Premise 4: A system cannot create anything new, it can only reflect the nature of itself.
- Supported through empirical observance of nature, logical reasoning.

Premise 5: Since the universe is built out of observer dependent, intangible probability waves, it follows that the universe is itself observer

Conclusion: Since sentient beings (observers) have conflicting views on the nature of reality, and since reality itself is indeterminant until observed, it holds that these conflicting views allow for contradictive truths, based on perception.

If you can prove an observer independent reality (which you cannot; because of the uncertainty principal) then I will accept that the universe is non-contradictive.

[Piscivore]

Premise 3: Reality is indeterminant until observed, when it becomes resolute
- Supported by the Schroedinger's Cat hypothesis, Heisenberg's uncertainty principal
This one is wrong.

Premise 5: Since the universe is built out of observer dependent, intangible probability waves, it follows that the universe is itself observer
The first part is wrong. Also, it is a premise and a conclusion. And the second part does not follow- there could be an observer we don't know about.

If you can prove an observer independent reality (which you cannot; because of the uncertainty principal) then I will accept that the universe is non-contradictive. HOWEVER, since the universe is meant to exist within nothing, is filled with magical 'energy' that makes **** happen and since I've seen multi-coloured luminescent patterns fill the sky and traveled through hyperspace without moving, I am prone to question the validity of my senses and the rationality of anything.
That's just a new bunch of assumed premises.

[PingOfPong]

Premise 3: Reality is indeterminant until observed, when it becomes resolute
- Supported by the Schroedinger's Cat hypothesis, Heisenberg's uncertainty principal


People do this alot. That is, I read essays and fiction in which the Heisenburg uncertainty principle is twisted around into a meaning which is the opposite of what the principle really says. Your biggest hint should have been that you used somthing called an uncertainty principle as a supporting argument for a sentence that contains the word resolute.

Science isn't truly objective (IMHO). It's all about confidence levels. I work in a technical field where I see the utility of science on a daily basis so I share in the confidence that real scientists have for their method. Science is only objective in the sense that it requires that one let go of personal bias. If you don't do that, real science might steamroll your beliefs with facts and logic.

[wollery]

The uncertainty principle only applies to quantum particles, and is a statement of the ability to measure the position and momentum of a particle accurately, placing a lower limit on the accuracy with which both can be measured simultaneously.

It is also unrelated to the Schroedinger cat thought experiment, which is a demonstration of the "collapse of the wavefunction" interpretation of QM, which again, applies only to quantum effects.

Your premises are flawed, and so is your conclusion.

[Wowbagger]

Independently verified, empirical facts are not good enough?

Premise 1: Without some form of reliable, independent reality: technology would not work.

Premise 2: Your computer works....

[bobrayner]

Independently verified, empirical facts are not good enough?

Premise 1: Without some form of reliable, independent reality: technology would not work.

Premise 2: Your computer works....
How can you be sure that premise 1 is true? ;)

[drkitten]

Premise 4: A system cannot create anything new, it can only reflect the nature of itself.


This premise is also (obviously) false. Two hundred years ago, there was a forest where my house now stands. I assure you that I don't live in a tree, the house is new. A person -- a part of the system -- created a new house where before there were just trees.

A hundred years ago, there were no computers to use to write messages. Someone -- a part of the system -- created a new model of information processing out of thin air and abstraction, and someone else -- another part of the system -- instantiated that model in a new type of material (doped silicon) that had never existed before.

[roger]

Schrodinger's cat was intended to show how absurd it is to consider macro objects indeterminate. Of course the cat is either definitively dead or alive - we just lack the knowledge until we open the box. This is one of the most misused ideas by armchair philosophers everywhere.

(for the physics of it, the cat itself collapses the waveform - too many particles there to not collapse it - and it has nothing to do with consciousness - remove the brain and the result would be the same).

[phantomb]

Yeah, I know a few people who keep insisting that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is some kind of natural law. I'm no physicist (so tell me if I've got it wrong), but my usual response is to point out that in no way does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle prohibit me from metaphorically closing my eyes, picking up a pen, and randomly guessing the position and momentum of a particle and getting it right.

[jadey]

Yeah, I know a few people who keep insisting that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is some kind of natural law. I'm no physicist (so tell me if I've got it wrong), but my usual response is to point out that in no way does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle prohibit me from metaphorically closing my eyes, picking up a pen, and randomly guessing the position and momentum of a particle and getting it right.

I'm not a physicist either, but I believe that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle prohibits you from knowing whether you got it right.;)

[TMiguel]

This principle has been widely misunderstood, it’s about the fact that you can not know for sure until you actually look at it, but then if you look at it you are interfering whit it and so it is not anymore the way it would if you didn’t.
In other words you can never know for sure, so we can not discard any possibility and study the system like anything happens because any of them are equally valid to happen. Of course only one of them will but you can never know.

[phantomb]

I'm not a physicist either, but I believe that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle prohibits you from knowing whether you got it right.;)

That's right, you could never check to see whether both of your guesses were correct (which is what the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is all about). What I meant was I've heard people talk about it as if it meant that you could never know both pieces of information (not never find out, never know), which makes no sense.

[Nick227]

Premise 1: I am a sentient being, as a sentient being I 'observe' the universe and accept a particular view on the nature of things.
- Supported by 'I think; therefore I am'

Your statement above is not supported by materialism imo. See perhaps "Descartes Error" by Antonio Damasio.

Nick

[The Man]

If you can prove an observer independent reality (which you cannot; because of the uncertainty principal) then I will accept that the universe is non-contradictive.

So you are requiring a universe you would perceive as contradictive (observer independent and the uncertainty principle) in order to alter your perception to become “the universe is non-contradictive”?

[The Man]

Independently verified, empirical facts are not good enough?

Premise 1: Without some form of reliable, independent reality: technology would not work.

Premise 2: Your computer works....


How can you be sure that premise 1 is true? ;)


My lawnmower wasn’t working yesterday; I began to question reality, but decided to clean the spark plug instead. If I’m ever going to have a good cause to get myself a new lawnmower I really need to keep questioning reality more.

[firestorm]

I think 'observation' itself is an illusion. We've over defined ourselves. We're 99.9% blind to whats really going on on all levels of reality and sense about as much as rocks.

[Dancing David]

Premise 1: I am a sentient being, as a sentient being I 'observe' the universe and accept a particular view on the nature of things.
- Supported by 'I think; therefore I am'

Okay, but you are many things other than thinking, all of them part of a body.

I am pink there I am SPAM.


Premise 2: I 'believe' there are other sentient beings, with different views on the nature of things.
- Supported by empirical observation and desire for this to be so

Yes. Observation of behaviors denoted as indicating the precense of sentience.


Premise 3: Reality is indeterminant until observed, when it becomes resolute
- Supported by the Schroedinger's Cat hypothesis, Heisenberg's uncertainty principal

No, not at all.

Schroedinger admted to the falsity of the thought experiment due to the macro nature of the cat. It is a critique of the superposition of the Copenhagen interpretation.

HIP (Heisenberg Indeterminancy principle) states there are limits on data obstainable through interactions.

Wave forms are indeterminate, but they are wave forms.

Photons sure look like they left their source 2.5 million years ago when I look at the Andomeda galaxy.


Premise 4: A system cannot create anything new, it can only reflect the nature of itself.
- Supported through empirical observance of nature, logical reasoning.

define new, i would hate to agree to the premise that life did not eveolve.



Premise 5: Since the universe is built out of observer dependent, intangible probability waves, it follows that the universe is itself observer

Nope. The universe does not give a dead rat's patootie what we think. In fact most of medern physics points out that fact. It is counter intuitive.

There is no need for the observer.


Conclusion: Since sentient beings (observers) have conflicting views on the nature of reality, and since reality itself is indeterminant until observed, it holds that these conflicting views allow for contradictive truths, based on perception.

yes and no. there is no such thing as truth or falsity, those are only semantic signals constructed by humans. All thoughts are equally true and equally false. Some have a higher probability of predicting the behavior of reality than others.

Perception itself is not valid many times.


If you can prove an observer independent reality (which you cannot; because of the uncertainty principal) then I will accept that the universe is non-contradictive.

Why don't you prove your premise first,

1. An observer is needed by the universe.


indeterminancy means something other than wave forms not existing until they intersect with other wave forms.

the universe does not care what we think.

[RandFan]

Jeez, you know, I'm just not sure.

[TMiguel]

Jeez, you know, I'm just not sure.
That is exactly what this is all about.

[bruto]

- Supported by.... desire for this to be so.


You lost me there.

[RandFan]

That is exactly what this is all about.I have my doubts.

[Elizabeth I]

Okay, but you are many things other than thinking, all of them part of a body.

I am pink there I am SPAM.

Well, for a whole lot of people it's unfortunately true to say, "I am pink, therefore I spam."

[Wowbagger]

How can you be sure that premise 1 is true? ;) Actually, it was my premise 2 that was fallacious. How would I know if his computer actually worked? ;)