Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If a tree falls
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 46 of 99 (274409)
12-31-2005 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by 1.61803
12-31-2005 8:11 AM


Re: Yes it makes a sound.
Do this thought experiment: You are in a vacuum. I drop a large Cymbal in the room. Did it make a sound?
Since there's no medium to transport the vibrations of the object, there's no sound. No air, no vibrations, no sound.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by 1.61803, posted 12-31-2005 8:11 AM 1.61803 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Yaro, posted 12-31-2005 2:09 PM Ben! has replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 47 of 99 (274410)
12-31-2005 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by riVeRraT
12-31-2005 12:22 PM


Re: A miracle
If it is happening that way, then my next question is, does that sound exist? And if it does, does it exist without the sound waves?
It just depends on how you're using the word "sound" here. There's no oscillatory vibrations in your brain like those in air. The brain's a different kind of beast.
Look at it this way. There's lots of ways to hear things. They all involve some activation of auditory parts of your brain. The most common way is for a sound to interact with your ear, which (as Yaro described previously in this thread) goes through some neural processing and eventually activates auditory regions of your brain.
But like I said before in response to Yaro, you can activate the auditory parts of your brain through other means--auditory imagery (thinking about sounds), electrical stimulation (using some electric devices to stimulate the brain, and things like epileptic siezures.
There are lots of ways to have the conscious sensation of hearing something.
Not sure if that answers your question.
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by riVeRraT, posted 12-31-2005 12:22 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by riVeRraT, posted 12-31-2005 3:14 PM Ben! has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 48 of 99 (274418)
12-31-2005 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Ben!
12-31-2005 1:14 PM


Re: Yes it makes a sound.
AH!, but what if you drop the symbol, and your brain imagines there is a sound! ... ooo boy...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Ben!, posted 12-31-2005 1:14 PM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Ben!, posted 12-31-2005 2:13 PM Yaro has not replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 49 of 99 (274420)
12-31-2005 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Yaro
12-31-2005 2:09 PM


Re: Yes it makes a sound.
Oh, it happens all the time. We fool ourselves with our expectations of what will happen. We hear things that never were there.
In fact, I think I read a paper that studied exactly this phenomenon--the "sound" of a silent video of hammering. There was a clear change in auditory activation.
Good thinking Yaro.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Yaro, posted 12-31-2005 2:09 PM Yaro has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 50 of 99 (274429)
12-31-2005 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Ben!
12-31-2005 1:20 PM


Re: A miracle
I guess in other words, we just really don't know yet. We are only starting to know.
But it clearly defines the difference bewteen hearing a sound, and an actual sound wave.
I wonder if you could ever imagine a sound, without ever actually hearing one before.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Ben!, posted 12-31-2005 1:20 PM Ben! has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 51 of 99 (274517)
12-31-2005 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Ben!
12-30-2005 9:30 AM


Re: Perception and you
Ben responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Cm is defined theoretically, not perceptually: It is the C-major chord with the third dropped by a half-step (augmented is the major with the fifth dropped a half-step and a diminished is the major with both the third and the fifth dropped a half-step.)
You gave a relative definition, which shows nothing. If C-major is defined perceptually, then C minor would be too. C-major can be defined as the sound vibration at 65.4Hz * 2^n, where n is an integer.
Yes and no. I had assumed some understanding of music theory upon the part of anybody following along. A above middle C is defined as the tone having precisely 440 Hz. It wasn't always defined as such. It varied between 400 and 450 Hz during the 18th and 19th centuries. Setting A above middle C to 440 Hz was suggested in 1939 and was adopted by the ISO in 1955 (it is ISO standard 16.)
In the chromatic, diatonic scale, the rest of the notes are defined off of the definition of A above middle C, but there are different methodologies to do so. Equal temperament divides the octave range into 12 equal intervals. There's also meantone temperament and well temperament (used for J.S. Bach's "The Well Tempered Clavier").
However, it doesn't really matter how C is defined so long as it is. Even without any actual sound to listen to, a major chord is the root plus major-third plus minor-third. The minor chord reduces the middle tone by a half-step and thus flipping the intervals between notes: root plus minor-third plus major-third. While "C" may be considered perceptual (though there are methods to define it physically), major and minor chords are defined theoretically.
quote:
quote:
Red is defined theoretically, not perceptually: It is the range of photons with wavelengths between 625 and 740 nm.
You're using "defined" here as if the definition you gave is sufficient to define red. Absolutely not.
Excuse me? You mean all my chemistry and physics texts that define red as such are in some sort of error?
quote:
It's only one of the definitions. The other is consciousness-based.
Ah, but here's the thing: Most every human defines "red" to be the exact same wavelength. If you take a color chip set that has representative samples of most every shade of red imaginable and put them to someone who speaks a language that has a color term for "red" (not all languages do) and ask him to pick out the one that most typifies the color "red," the same chip gets picked by most everyone.
quote:
Clearly the word "red" was first defined as consciousness-based;
Yes, but only in response to a physical phenomenon. The photon was red before there was a person to call it "red."
One of the most interesting aspects of the development of language among humans is the fact that color terms fall into a fairly regimented pattern. Every langauge that has only two pure color terms has those terms being "black" and "white." If the language has three pure color terms, that third color is always "red." And remember, they all define "red" in the same way. Note, people who speak only a two-color language aren't incapable of seeing or talking about other colors. Instead, those other colors are defined in terms of objects much in the way English uses a reference to the stone turquoise to refer to that particular shade of pale, greenish blue, or by modifying other terms such as the way English refers to lighter shades of blue as "baby blue" or "powder blue" or "sky blue" as opposed to lighter shades of red having its own color term, "pink."
After "red" comes either "yellow" or "green/blue" Five colors has if you had "yellow," you pick up "green/blue" and if you had "green/blue," you pick up "yellow." Six has "green" and "blue" splitting apart. After that, things get complicated.
quote:
our knowledge that the conscious "red" in "normal" circumstances correlates with the range of frequencies you described is much newer than the word (it's definitely not before Maxwell's time.
True, but we were reacting to a physical phenomenon: The photon was red before we called it "red."
quote:
I'd copy/paste a definition for red, but the dictionaries I use don't bother giving the scientific definition. They only give the consciousness-based one.
You should try again: Dictionary.com's definition of "red" uses the scientific one as the very first one:
1.a. The hue of the long-wave end of the visible spectrum, evoked in the human observer by radiant energy with wavelengths of approximately 630 to 750 nanometers; any of a group of colors that may vary in lightness and saturation and whose hue resembles that of blood; one of the additive or light primaries; one of the psychological primary hues.
quote:
But anyway, the proof is in the pudding; the consciousness-based "red" is the one we use every day in our english language. Very few of us have access to the wavelength-based definition via our senses (and would be considered abnormal). Instead, we only have conscious access to downpath processing of color information. And our language reflects that.
But that's the thing, we all are going off of the same definition, across languages, across cultures. Around the world, everybody understands what "red" is. When asked to pick the most representative sample of what the color "red" is, all humans pick the same wavelength.
quote:
The consciousness-based red is the only one we have access to.
But it's based on a physical pheonomenon and is triggered by the same wavelength to everyone. The photon was red before anybody was around to call it "red." The actual word used to describe it is irrelevant.
quote:
You can't possibly eliminate that definition; otherwise, you've removed the everyday power and utility of the word. The scientific definition is but one definition of red.
True, but irrelevant. Color divisions are arbitrary, yes, but just because something is arbitrary doesn't mean it isn't real. We're back to the common creationist/fundamentalist fallacy that without god, there is no such thing as morality as if atheists would just as soon kill you as look at you. The rules of Monopoly are completely arbitrary and were made by humans and even change from game to game, but they are very real. Break them and you're cheating.
quote:
quote:
No, because taste and odor cannot be defined physically, per se. The perceptions of taste and odor are based upon chemical reactions. Unlike light which has a discrete unit known as a "photon" and sound which has a discrete unit known as a "waveform," there is no discrete unit of taste or odor. A molecule is not a "taste-on" or an "odor-on."
Now this surprises me. First, your request for "discrete units" is ... out of nowhere. There are no "discrete units" for measuring light or sound;
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
There is no such thing as a photon? There is no such thing as a waveform? I made those terms up?
quote:
they are done via the analog Hz scale.
Irrelevant. A photon and a waveform exist, do they not? A photon has a frequency, does it not? A waveform has a frequency, does it not? Why does it matter what scale we use to measure it?
quote:
We've put some arbitrary labels on those scales to define ranges as colors, but those arbitrary labels are available in tastes and odors as well--tart, sweet, salty, etc.
No, not really. There are only five receptors on the human tongue: Sweet, salt, sour, bitter, and umami. What makes them trigger is a physical structure that causes them to fit in the receptor. That's why artificial sweeteners work: They have a physical structure that allows the molecules to fit into the sweet receptor on the tongue. The rest of the molecule can be shaped differently than other "sweet" things so long as it has the appropriate shape somewhere along its morphology that is physically capable of fitting into the receptor. Smell is similar though with a much broader range of molecular shapes that can be detected.
Compare this to photons or waveforms: There is only one. If the photon is of 700 nm, then it is 700 nm everywhere (and let's not get disingenuous about relativistic motion...assume an inertial reference frame.) A waveform of 440 Hz is A above middle C. You can't get another frequency to mimic 440 Hz while not being 440 Hz.
quote:
What gives us the ability to do these mappings, and create scientific definitions of words created to describe conscious states is a correlation between a conscious state and a scientifically measurable state. The real question is, do such states exist.
If they are scientificially measurable, then they do exist.
quote:
If you had read up on the olfactory system, you would have read that we have on the order of thousands of discrete odor receptors. The chemical reactions of those receptor cells can, just like for light, be described scientifically. Odors can be defined as different combinations of those discrete receptors.
Taste is basically the same.
But you've got it backwards. The smell and taste receptors are reacting to a shape. That's why artificial odors and flavors work: They mimic the shape of the "real thing" without actually being it. Thus, rather than there being a discrete molecule that can be considered the odor or flavor, there are many.
quote:
I'd suggest that the real answer why we haven't added scientific definitions to taste and odors is because there's both been no easy technology to do so, and no call to do so. I am pretty confident that the technology, and the call, will both come in time.
You don't know much about the artificial flavoring or perfume industries, do you? They have done exactly that. Walk into a perfume-makers shop and you will find the sample oils separated by odor classification.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Ben!, posted 12-30-2005 9:30 AM Ben! has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 52 of 99 (274519)
12-31-2005 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by cavediver
12-30-2005 3:50 PM


Re: Observation
cavediver responds to me:
quote:
Since when is "yellow" defined like that?
Since physics started studying the concept in depth. It's defined as such in all of my chemistry and physics textbooks.
And then, of course, there is the International Commission on Illumination (or CIE) which is the authority for defining color.
quote:
quote:
Every frequency of light has a color.
It does? And what would be the colour of a 10m wave?
Ten meters? That's VHF.
"Color" is a reference to the frequency/wavelength of light. Since every photon has a frequency/wavelength, then every photon has a color. Don't confuse the fact that we have not named every single wavelength with a unique color term to mean that it doesn't have a color.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by cavediver, posted 12-30-2005 3:50 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by cavediver, posted 01-01-2006 5:19 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 53 of 99 (274521)
12-31-2005 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by 1.61803
12-30-2005 5:07 PM


Re: Yes it makes a sound.
1.61803 responds to me:
quote:
quote:
What is "a disturbance of air forming waves which affect the surroundings as a pressure differential": if not the definition of "sound.
Good point....except that there is the physical definition of sound, and the mental definition. I am sure you know the difference.
Yes, but the mental definition is irrelevant. Hallucinations and imaginations cause people to hear sounds that aren't there. The question isn't whether or not you hear a sound. The question is whether or not the TREE MAKES sound. Therefore, the only definition of "sound" that makes any sense is one that removes you from the equation since we're concerned about what the tree is doing, not you.
quote:
The tree falling in the absence of a receiver makes sound waves. But to hear the sound requires a tympanic membrane and associated neurological hardware and software.
Indeed. And the question is whether or not the tree made sound, not if the tree was heard. Hearing and sound are not the same thing.
quote:
Without such there is no way to interpret the soundwave as sound data.
Who said anything about interpreting it? The question is whether or not the tree made any sound, not what kind of sound it made.
quote:
quote:
Did the sun shine before there was anybody there to see it? By your logic, there is no such thing as light unless there is somebody there to see it.
Good point.....except the phenomenon of visable light requires a mechanism to observe it.
No, it doesn't. That's the entire point: Even if there is nobody there to see it, the sun still shines. In fact, the overwhelming majority of photons given off by the sun are never seen by anybody on earth. Are you claiming they don't exist? Those photons "require a mechanism to observe it" before they can exist?
quote:
What you see as the sun or a star as it exist static is meaninless because there is no means to make that observation. All we see is a electromagnetic field or a quantum interaction from the local field and our retina absorbing energy from the field to our eyes and causing a change to the local field.
All sensory perception is that way. Are you wandering down the road to Cartesian Doubt?
quote:
We affect reality by our observation.
No, we don't. And don't be disingenuous and start quoting the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to me. It doesn't mean that. You aren't a subatomic particle interacting with another one. The sun emitted those photons that are entering your eye about 8 minutes ago. Your observation of them doesn't change anything about the sun. Sensory perception is a passive process: Stimuli comes to you, you don't get to go to it. Observation happens after the emission of stimulus, not before.
quote:
And did the sun shine before there was a lifeform to observe it. No it did not shine, it eminated electromagnetic radiation
Huh? What is "eminated [sic] electromagnetic radiation" if not the definition of "shine"?
Why are you playing these semantic games?
quote:
I do understand your points though...do you understand mine?
No. It sounds like you want to play games rather than discuss the issue with sincerity.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by 1.61803, posted 12-30-2005 5:07 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by 1.61803, posted 01-01-2006 10:17 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 54 of 99 (274525)
12-31-2005 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by 1.61803
12-31-2005 8:11 AM


Re: Yes it makes a sound.
1.61803 responds to riVeRraT:
quote:
quote:
I am sure there are frequencies that no creature can hear, but it would still be sound.
Yes it would be soundwaves, but the word sound infers that something heard it.
No, not at all. That's the entire point of the question: Is there sound if there is nobody there to hear it?
quote:
If it is inperceptable then how can one say they hear a sound?
Excuse me? Who said anything about hearing the sound? The question is not if you heard it. The question is if the tree made it. You aren't a part of the question.
Did the TREE make any sound? How does your presence affect the tree's behaviour with regard to the motion of the air and the earth?
quote:
The question posed is if a tree falls in an empty forest does it make a sound? NOT if a tree falls in a forest does it produce soundwaves in a frequency that can could be heard.
Huh? Only vibrations between 20 and 20,000 Hz are "sound"?
quote:
You are in a vacuum. I drop a large Cymbal in the room. Did it make a sound?
Within the cymbal, yes. The cymbal is vibrating and sound, by definition, is the vibration of molecules. That sound won't travel anywhere outside the cymbal, however, because there is no medium for the sound to travel through in a vacuum.
quote:
Then In a normal room I ask you to tell me what sounds you can hear or if there is any sound while a ultrasonic device is ocillating.
We're back to your seeming claim that only vibrations between 20 and 20,000 Hz are "sound."
quote:
The barrier as you call it was a coined term during a moment in time when aeronautical engineers where trying to make jets travel at a speed that soundwaves travel. It has nothing to do with sound.
Yes, it does. It has everything to do with sound. Sound is a vibration of the medium. As such, there is a maximum speed the waveform can travel through that medium. That speed changes with respect to the makeup and temperature of the medium. The speed of sound near the surface of the earth is not the same as the speed of sound 30,000 feet above it.
quote:
But I do not see anyone recording the best of compilations of they're liver.
Huh? Sound is only sound if it is interesting to listen to?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by 1.61803, posted 12-31-2005 8:11 AM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 55 of 99 (274527)
12-31-2005 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by riVeRraT
12-31-2005 12:22 PM


Re: A miracle
riVeRraT writes:
quote:
Oh BTW, rhain is incorrect in saying that there is no sound in space, because if there is no sound in space, then there is no sound on earth either.
The correct statment would be that sound waves cannot travel in an absolute vacum.
Space is not an absolute vacum, and sound can travel in space. Not only that but if 2 objects collide in space, sound waves will reverberate through them, hence making sound in space.
Thus showing you didn't read what I wrote.
I was talking about space, not the objects within space. Obviously if you set up a vibration within an object, there is sound within that object. However, that object is not space.
What on earth do you think "There is no medium for the vibration to pass through" means?
And while you are technically correct that space is not a perfect vacuum, it is the height of disingenuousness to claim that sound in space is akin to anything we might experience. The amount of energy required to set up a coherent waveform in interstellar medium is not trivial.
Do you like playing games?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by riVeRraT, posted 12-31-2005 12:22 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by riVeRraT, posted 01-02-2006 12:19 AM Rrhain has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 56 of 99 (274585)
01-01-2006 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Rrhain
12-31-2005 10:14 PM


Re: Observation
Since physics started studying the concept in depth. It's defined as such in all of my chemistry and physics textbooks.
Well, not in any of mine, nor those that I have helped edit, nor have I ever taught any of my students such absurdity.
"Color" is a reference to the frequency/wavelength of light.
No it is not. It is a meaningless concept outside of the visible range. Colour is neither a synomym for frequency nor wavelength.
As an astrophysicist I never used nor heard use of nor saw written in any journal the word colour being used to describe any part of the elctromagnetic spectrum outside of the visible range. To do so would be utterly confusing. As a mathematical physicist I never used nor heard use of nor saw written in any journal the word colour being used to describe an attribute of a photon. To do so would be utterly confusing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Rrhain, posted 12-31-2005 10:14 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Rrhain, posted 01-02-2006 1:50 AM cavediver has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 57 of 99 (274594)
01-01-2006 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by riVeRraT
12-31-2005 12:34 PM


Re: Yes it makes a sound.
Do this thought experiment: You are in a vacuum. I drop a large Cymbal in the room. Did it make a sound?
quote:
Of course it made a sound.
Are you sure?
Remember, there's no air in a vacuum, thus no air molecules, thus...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by riVeRraT, posted 12-31-2005 12:34 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by cavediver, posted 01-01-2006 7:41 AM nator has not replied
 Message 63 by riVeRraT, posted 01-02-2006 12:31 AM nator has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 58 of 99 (274600)
01-01-2006 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by nator
01-01-2006 7:12 AM


Re: Yes it makes a sound.
Are you sure?
Remember, there's no air in a vacuum, thus no air molecules, thus...
Yes, of course it does...
and no, it most definitely does not...
What are we using to define sound?
The cymbal obviosuly makes no vibrational air waves as there is no air. No sound. The cymbal itself will set up compression waves within its own structure by virtue of the collision with the floor. Sound.
Forgive the use of Wikipedia but it serves a purpose here:
quote:
Sound is vibration, as perceived by the sense of hearing.
Wiki on sound
quote:
In more technical language, sound "is an alternation in pressure, particle displacement, or particle velocity propagated in an elastic material" (Olson 1957)
Wiki on sound
quote:
series of mechanical compressions and rarefactions or longitudinal waves that successively propagate through media that are at least a little compressible (solid, liquid or gas but not vacuum).
Wiki on sound
quote:
A pressure wave with a frequency detectable by the human ear (approximately 20Hz to 22kHz.)
A dictionary of science to hand
quote:
sensation caused in the ear due to vibration of surrounding air or other medium
Oxford English
quote:
the sensation produced through the organs of hearing
Other dictionary
So, Rrhain may have the final divine answer to "what is sound", but for the rest of us mortals, the word sound carries too many meanings to have any hard and fast definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by nator, posted 01-01-2006 7:12 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by 1.61803, posted 01-01-2006 7:54 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 78 by riVeRraT, posted 01-02-2006 4:27 PM cavediver has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 59 of 99 (274789)
01-01-2006 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by cavediver
01-01-2006 7:41 AM


Re: Yes it makes a sound.
LOL.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by cavediver, posted 01-01-2006 7:41 AM cavediver has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 60 of 99 (274826)
01-01-2006 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Rrhain
12-31-2005 10:31 PM


Re: Yes it makes a sound.
Hello Mr. Rrhain,
There are several theories in regards to reality:
The Copenhagen interpretation #There is no deeper reality
The Copenhagen interp # reality is created by observation
The Quantum reality of undivided wholeness
The quantum reality of many worlds
quantum reality of neo realism
Conciousness created reality
quantum Duplex world
Oh, and the Rrhain interpretation
You emphatically state that observation does not affect reality. If this is correct then why is it everytime I observe one of your sarcastic post I feel the urge to pimp slap you? Just kiddn.:}

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Rrhain, posted 12-31-2005 10:31 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Rrhain, posted 01-02-2006 1:59 AM 1.61803 has replied
 Message 77 by riVeRraT, posted 01-02-2006 4:19 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024