• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

oops...
5 5

Started by Sigur Ros,

274 posts in this topic

Axe Elf

Axe Elf

Posted
Posted
On 4/24/2022 at 4:44 PM, kav said:

And there's still that married bachelor thing to address.

That's what I was addressing.  A bachelor is defined as an unmarried man.  Therefore, it is logically impossible to be a married bachelor, because logic must conform to the Law of Non-Contradiction:  "a statement and it's denial cannot both be true at the same time and in the same way."

So if you want to have a married bachelor, you have to discard logic and operate in the world of the irrational, where I am not equipped to converse with you.  So if you want to continue talking illogically, I'm afraid I won't be joining you.

On 4/24/2022 at 4:42 PM, kav said:

The main component of intelligence is being able to recognize and admit being wrong.  This is due to no learning is possible otherwise.  Most everyone will not be able to do this, and that is why most everyone's IQ is in the 100 range.  Your analysis of circles, both mathematical, and real, are incorrect.

So you're saying you're not that intelligent?  Don't be so hard on yourself; let's wait and see if you learn from this first.  If you do, then by your own definition, you're more intelligent than if you don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kav

kav

Posted
Posted
On 4/24/2022 at 2:49 PM, Axe Elf said:

That's what I was addressing.  A bachelor is defined as an unmarried man.

I guess you didnt read what I wrote.  Different states have different laws on what constitutes marriage.  Go back and reread.

On 4/24/2022 at 2:49 PM, Axe Elf said:

So you're saying you're not that intelligent?  Don't be so hard on yourself; let's wait and see if you learn from this first.  If you do, then by your own definition, you're more intelligent than if you don't.

Most boardies know I have never shied away from admitting I was wrong.  I have done it multiple times.  Boomerang fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Axe Elf

Axe Elf

Posted
Posted
On 4/24/2022 at 4:54 PM, kav said:

Go back and reread.

Ok...

...Yep, still a contradiction.

You might want to go back and reread the Law of Non-Contradiction:  "a statement and it's denial cannot both be true at the same time and in the same way."

You can't use mulitple definitions of "married" that are true under different sets of circumstances at the same time.

Logically, a married bachelor cannot exist; the only ones that can exist are irrational, and I won't discuss anything irrational with you, as I don't feel qualified in that arena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MAR1979

MAR1979

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 4/24/2022 at 4:53 PM, kav said:

In calculus and analytical geometry, a circle has infinite corners.
So the answer is yes, you can draw a circle with corners.  
You can also have a married bachelor, as different states have different laws on common law marriage.  Married in one state, bachelor in another.
To be more specific, such a person can stand at the state line between 2 states with different laws, one foot in one state, one foot in another.  He stands there, a married bachelor.
Some states, like California, will recognize a common law marriage from another state, but not all of them.

In Schrodinger's imaginary experiment, you place a cat in a box with a tiny bit of radioactive substance. When the radioactive substance decays, it triggers a Geiger counter which causes a poison or explosion to be released that kills the cat. Now, the decay of the radioactive substance is governed by the laws of quantum mechanics. This means that the atom starts in a combined state of "going to decay" and "not going to decay". If we apply the observer-driven idea to this case, there is no conscious observer present (everything is in a sealed box), so the whole system stays as a combination of the two possibilities. The cat ends up both dead and alive at the same time. Because the existence of a cat that is both dead and alive at the same time is absurd and does not happen in the real world, this thought experiment shows that wave function collapses are not just driven by conscious observers.

Einstein saw the same problem with the observer-driven idea and congratulated Schrodinger for his clever illustration, saying, "this interpretation is, however, refuted, most elegantly by your system of radioactive atom + Geiger counter + amplifier + charge of gun powder + cat in a box, in which the psi-function of the system contains the cat both alive and blown to bits. Is the state of the cat to be created only when a physicist investigates the situation at some definite time?"

Edited by MAR1979
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kav

kav

Posted
Posted
On 4/24/2022 at 3:19 PM, MAR1979 said:

In Schrodinger's imaginary experiment, you place a cat in a box with a tiny bit of radioactive substance. When the radioactive substance decays, it triggers a Geiger counter which causes a poison or explosion to be released that kills the cat. Now, the decay of the radioactive substance is governed by the laws of quantum mechanics. This means that the atom starts in a combined state of "going to decay" and "not going to decay". If we apply the observer-driven idea to this case, there is no conscious observer present (everything is in a sealed box), so the whole system stays as a combination of the two possibilities. The cat ends up both dead and alive at the same time. Because the existence of a cat that is both dead and alive at the same time is absurd and does not happen in the real world, this thought experiment shows that wave function collapses are not just driven by conscious observers.

Einstein saw the same problem with the observer-driven idea and congratulated Schrodinger for his clever illustration, saying, "this interpretation is, however, refuted, most elegantly by your system of radioactive atom + Geiger counter + amplifier + charge of gun powder + cat in a box, in which the psi-function of the system contains the cat both alive and blown to bits. Is the state of the cat to be created only when a physicist investigates the situation at some definite time?"

The problem here is Schrodinger missed the obvious-the cat is the observer-there is no paradox.  
Unless one believes we all exist in separate universes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kav

kav

Posted
Posted
On 4/24/2022 at 3:34 PM, JC25427N said:

And in my Universe, Peter Parker is the one true spider-man :manhero:

Miles Morales and his UF4 be damned

(worship)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kav

kav

Posted
Posted
On 4/24/2022 at 4:24 PM, AJD said:

But not, apparently, calculus and limits.

well his IQ can be expressed in scientific notation.
1.00 x 10^2

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Axe Elf

Axe Elf

Posted
Posted
On 4/24/2022 at 6:24 PM, AJD said:

But not, apparently, calculus and limits.

Actually, yes, calculus is a rational system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kav

kav

Posted
Posted
On 4/24/2022 at 4:38 PM, JC25427N said:

Much of calculus actually concerns itself with the irrational:canofworms:

(worship)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
5 5
Go to topic listing