We've asked nicely twice... but now we have to close comments on this post. You are welcome to continue it on the message board http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/talk/ under the General Discussion thread, since it is not a financial topic.

Do you suspect that perhaps the majority of people that visit this site, might be sick and tired of seeing comments about this crap? I am. I personally want to read about economic ideas, and the interesting commentary that other readers will provide ^on those topics^. The Communist in me (perhaps thats our common ground) thinks, hey, the needs of the many should outweigh the needs of the few here.

Dictator Pete says: "seriously, get a blog!"

PS You forgot facist.

Why comment when you obviously do not read, and are reacting from some unresolved fear or unfounded presumptions that change will ruin everything for you, there is no other way that your behaviour can be rationalised.

Noone is forcing you to read this. You free to come and go. But continuing to make such comments and not actually engage is mindless.

depending on the number of variables input, and the need to accept a certain degree of hidden variables, that will determine the difference between the artificial and the natural, as Bohm suggested and as Everett confirmed.

The bias of rationalising everything as stochastic process is misleading and particularly when applied to cognitive science which has taken the lead from AI, to determine apprehension of NI, natural intelligences.

This is a spurious process of investigation that defers NI to AI for confirmation.

And yes, moving could be good, there is much to talk about.

If this page gets much longer we may run into some technological problems.

From the DR

Let's leave what I'd "like" to think or what I'd "prefer" out of this, since it is irrelevant. I have always been open-minded to science, regardless of whether I "like" the results or not.

What I'm saying is that, while quantum mechanics provides a better understanding of the physical world, it averages out on the macro level to the point where it is insignificant. To use your pendulum analogy, the pendulum will keep swinging consistently (classically) regadless of what happens at the quantum level. While the pendulum is still made up of an uncountable number of particles, they lose their "unpredictibale" behavior on a larger scale and become predictable classically. If I throw a rock, I can predict with much certainty what will happen without having to crunch a billion quantum equations to arrive at the result, because the probability waves are insignificant on a macro level. Similarly, while we can talk about quantum mechanics in the global warming debate, we can classically make predictions without having to account for random wave distributions on the quantum level.

Oh and to answer your question of whether the pendulum "stops", I would have to say yes, it does. Since the definition of "stop" implies the classical meaning, which is that the perceived velocity is 0. However, if we choose to break down the definition we would run into several problems. First, relativity doesn't allow for the word "stop" as all velocity is relative and thus you cannot have 0 velocity, or any definite velocity. Next, perception is relative in our minds, as everything we see is based on a frequency of our eyes (frames per second), so we never actually "see" motion, we just see a series of frozen snapshots that must convey zero motion by definition. Furthermore, you are correct that on the quantum level it is impossible to "stop", not to mention that it is also impossible to know for certain the velocity and position.

You appear to be saying, "I like being a classicist. I like status quo." At least it is my perspective from your last comment.

Classical consistency is wrong! Why? Dialectic is wrong!

By comparison quantum~consistency is better: it's based upon perpetual change where classical consistency is based upon classical 'state.'

Do you want to thing-k 'state?' Would you rather think change?

I (Doug) am trying to help you see that.

For example, it is a classical view that we can only thing-k about reality as objectively stopped (possibly linear-motion stoppable).

What I am attempting to do is show you how quantum~think~king is superior to (above, more highly evolved than) classical-thing-king. That's all.

Classical-thing-king is just what forced classical 'mechanics' to assume wave functions have to collapse. Classicists had to collapse quantum waves to stop them so that they could think about them CONsistently.

But collapsing a quantum wave zeroes h-bar! (Turns off quantum~reality.) It is an act of classical convenience and classical dialectical CONvention.

It is an quantum~epiphany to fathom that quantum waves NEVER collapse, NEVER stop, rather wave perpetually: THAT's real! (Our sun could not 'live' >billions of years were it classical. A photon could not travel billions of light years were it classical. Think about that!)

I am saying that we cannot stop quantum reality: I intend to say we cannot zero h-bar for our own CONvenience and with a desire to be classically 'CONsistent.'

Classical science is quantum science with h-bar zeroed, but classical science isn't real, nor is classical 'CONsistency' real. That is why I tried to help you see that.

As an example, ask yourself if a pendulum stops at end of its swing? When you push your kid on a playground swing, if your kid actually stopped at end of each pendulum's swing arc, what physically would your child feel? (Classical science assumes said pendulum 'stops' at each extreme of its swing. Actually it doesn't! Why?)

I hope this makes sense to you. If not, keep pushing back.

Best,

Doug.