NIMETHIBITISHA: Dunia haipo, ni unaota tu!
NIMETHIBITISHA: Dunia haipo, ni unaota tu!
- Thread starter Exorcist
- Start date
Yaani umesema kweli kabisa,nadhan huyu Ndugu ana tatzo kwenye ubongo
descarte
JF-Expert Member
- Apr 1, 2013
- 1,213
- 296
Would you
wouldTE="Exorcist, post: 9290474, member: 212273"]If you want to walk 10 feet you have to walk 5 feet first. Before you can walk 5 feet you have to walk 2.5 feet first. Before you can walk 2.5 feet you have to walk 1.25 feet first.
and so on.
Before you move 1 inch you have to move 0.5 inch first. And then 0.25 inch.
and so on.
before you move 1 micron you have to move 0.5 micron first.
whatever distance you move you have to move half that distance first.
Forever. Think of the smallest distance you can half it. It's infinite. And you can't move through an infinite number of spaces in a finite time. Therefore all movement is impossible. Therefore the physical world can't exist.
you cant deny that
you just cant
also see EVIDENCE[/QUOTE]
would you qoute the source of your post in order to avoid plagiarism.
You need to be honest to acknowledge the idea of someone. This is typical academic theft.
wouldTE="Exorcist, post: 9290474, member: 212273"]If you want to walk 10 feet you have to walk 5 feet first. Before you can walk 5 feet you have to walk 2.5 feet first. Before you can walk 2.5 feet you have to walk 1.25 feet first.
and so on.
Before you move 1 inch you have to move 0.5 inch first. And then 0.25 inch.
and so on.
before you move 1 micron you have to move 0.5 micron first.
whatever distance you move you have to move half that distance first.
Forever. Think of the smallest distance you can half it. It's infinite. And you can't move through an infinite number of spaces in a finite time. Therefore all movement is impossible. Therefore the physical world can't exist.
you cant deny that
you just cant
also see EVIDENCE[/QUOTE]
would you qoute the source of your post in order to avoid plagiarism.
You need to be honest to acknowledge the idea of someone. This is typical academic theft.
descarte
JF-Expert Member
- Apr 1, 2013
- 1,213
- 296
That
That's implication of logic, you seem to lack the knowledge on pure logic
Ighombe
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 12, 2014
- 1,181
- 675
mkuu naomba ufafanue hapo .Umeniacha kidogo.
mtoto wa mjini
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 18, 2010
- 1,754
- 898
cc:Kiranga
Aqua
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 23, 2012
- 1,657
- 1,231
Mkuu hii tabia ya kutoa link,tunajikuta tumevaa ndala wakati watu wamepiga suti si nzuri.Dont take it serious!
Attachments
Aqua
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 23, 2012
- 1,657
- 1,231
wakati nasoma kuna kipindi niliona shule/elimu ni kama imani,ukiamini/kukubaliana na unachofundishwa unaweza kufanikiwa.Ukisindwa kukielewa unaonekana mjinga.Kuhusu dunia kuwa oval,kuna kitabu nilisoma miaka mingi kwamba kama dunia ingekuwa flat,fikiria meza kubwa,shika tochi mulika juu ya meza.Kama dunia ingekuwa flat basi jua lingekuwa linaonekama mara moja maeneo yote ya dunia na kusingekuwa na time difference kati ya maeneo na maeneo.Kusingekuwa na maeneo ya dunia unakuta wakati huku ni mchana kwa wengine ni usiku,hii kitu haiwezekani kama dunia ni flat.
reason nyingine ya dunia kuwa oval in shape,ukiwa kando ya bahari kama kuna meli itaondoka kuelekea mbali,kama dunia ingekuwa flat meli hiyo ilitakiwa iendelee kuonekana hata ikiwa mbali kwa kutumia darubini,lakini meli hupotea kabisa.Hii inaonyesa dunia siyo flat.Kwa evidence hizo mbili nilikubaliana na hiyo concept mimi binafsi kwamba dunia siyo flat.
reason nyingine ya dunia kuwa oval in shape,ukiwa kando ya bahari kama kuna meli itaondoka kuelekea mbali,kama dunia ingekuwa flat meli hiyo ilitakiwa iendelee kuonekana hata ikiwa mbali kwa kutumia darubini,lakini meli hupotea kabisa.Hii inaonyesa dunia siyo flat.Kwa evidence hizo mbili nilikubaliana na hiyo concept mimi binafsi kwamba dunia siyo flat.
Bennie 369
JF-Expert Member
- Aug 9, 2015
- 713
- 534
Hapo mwanzo kulikuwepo na neno... naye neno alikuwepo kwa Mungu na akafanyika mwili hivyo basi akakaa nasi... na bila ya neno hakuna kilicho fanyika... naye neno ni Mungu!
FRANCIS DA DON
JF-Expert Member
- Sep 4, 2013
- 38,920
- 44,970
The link has been fixed, ngoja ni paste page yote hapa
FRANCIS DA DON
JF-Expert Member
- Sep 4, 2013
- 38,920
- 44,970
A Cybernetic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
Ross Rhodes
RhodesR@BottomLayer.com
AbstractThis paper surveys evidence and arguments for the proposition that the universe as we know it is not a physical, material world but a computer-generated simulation -- a kind of virtual reality. The evidence is drawn from the observations of natural phenomena in the realm of quantum mechanics. The arguments are drawn from philosophy and from the results of experiment. While the experiments discussed are not conclusive in this regard, they are found to be consistent with a computer model of the universe. Six categories of quantum puzzles are examined: quantum waves, the measurement effect (including the uncertainty principle), the equivalence of quantum units, discontinuity, non-locality, and the overall relationship of natural phenomena to the mathematical formalism. Many of the phenomena observed in the laboratory are puzzling because they are difficult to conceptualize as physical phenomena, yet they can be modeled exactly by mathematical manipulations. When we analogize to the operations of a digital computer, these same phenomena can be understood as logical and, in some cases, necessary features of computer programming designed to produce a virtual reality simulation for the benefit of the user.
© copyright 1999-2001 by Ross Rhodes.
Ver. 2.0 July 11, 2001
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/argument/Argument4.PDF
[1]
The matter was further complicated in the 1920s when it was shown that objects -- everything from electrons to the chair on which you sit -- exhibit exactly the same wave properties as light, and suffer from exactly the same lack of any medium.
The First Computer Analogy. One way to resolve this seeming paradox of waves without medium is to note that there remains another kind of wave altogether. A wave with which we are all familiar, yet which exists without any medium in the ordinary sense. This is the computer-generated wave. Let us examine a computer-generated sound wave.
Imagine the following set up. A musician in a recording studio plays a synthesizer, controlled by a keyboard. It is a digital synthesizer which uses an algorithm (programming) to create nothing more than a series of numbers representing what a sampling of points along the desired sound wavewould look like if it were played by a "real" instrument. The synthesizer's output is routed to a computer and stored as a series of numbers. The numbers are burned into a disk as a series of pits that can be read by a laser -- in other words, a CD recording. The CD is shipped to a store. You buy the CD, bring it home, and put it in your home entertainment system, and press the play button. The "music" has traveled from the recording studio to yourliving room. Through what medium did the music wave travel? To a degree, you might say that it traveled as electricity through the wires from the keyboard to the computer. But you might just as well say it traveled by truck along the highway to the store. In fact, this "sound wave" never existed as anything more than a digital representation of a hypothetical sound wave which itself never existed. It is, first and last, a string of numbers. Therefore, although it will produce wave like effects when placed in your stereo, this wave never needed any medium other than the computer memory to spread itself all over the music loving world. As you can tell from your CD collection, computers are very good at generating, storing, and regenerating waves in this fashion.
Calculations from an equation [here, y = sin (x) + sin (2.5 x)] produce a string of numbers, i.e., 1, 1.5, 0.4, 0, 0.5, 1.1, 0.3, -1.1, -2, -1.1, 0.1, and 0.5.
These numbers can be graphed to create a picture of the wave that would be created by combining (interfering) the two simple sine waves.
By analogizing to the operations of a computer, we can do away with all of the conceptual difficulties that have plagued physicists as they try to describe how a light wave -- or a matter wave -- can travel or even exist in the absence of any medium.
[2] Both the "how" and the "why" of this process can be addressed through the metaphor of a computer which is programmed to project images to create an experience for the user, who is a conscious being.
The "how" is described structurally by a computer which runs a program. The program provides an algorithm for determining the position (in this example) of every part of the image, which is to say, every pixel that will be projected to the user. The mechanism for transforming the programming into the projection is the user interface. This can be analogized to the computer monitor, and the mouse or joystick or other device for viewing one part of the image or another. When the user chooses to view one part of the image, those pixels must be calculated and displayed; all other parts of the image remain stored in the computer as programming. Thus, the pixels being viewed must follow the logic of the projection, which is that they should move like particles across the screen. The programming representing the parts of the image not being displayed need not follow this logic, and may remain as formulas. Calculating and displaying any particular pixel is entirely a function of conveying information to the user, and it necessarily involves a "change" from the inchoate mathematical relationships represented by the formula to the specific pixel generated according to those relationships. The user can never "see" the programming, but by analysis can deduce its mathematical operation by careful observation of the manner in which the pixels are displayed. The algorithm does not collapse into a pixel; rather, the algorithm tells the monitor where and how to produce the pixel for display to the user according to which part of the image the user is viewing.
The "why" is problematical in the cosmic sense, but is easily stated within the limits of our computer metaphor. The programming produces images for the user because the entire set up was designed to do just that: to present images to a user (viewer) as needed by the user. The ultimate "why" depends on the motivation of the designer. In our experience, the maker of a video game seeks to engage the attention of the user to the end that the user will spend money for the product and generate profits for the designer. This seems an unlikely motivation for designing the universe simulation in which we work and play.
[3] If you were to study an individual quantum unit from a collection, you would find nothing to distinguish it from any other quantum unit of the same type. Nothing whatsoever. Upon regrouping the quantum units, you could not, even in principle, distinguish which was the unit you had been studying and which was another.
The complete and utter sameness of each electron (or other quantum unit) has a number of consequences in physics. If the mathematical formula describing one electron is the same as that describing another electron, then there is no method, even in principle, of telling which is which. This means, for example, that if you begin with two quantum electrons at positions A and B, and move them to positions C and D, you cannot state whether they traveled the paths A to C and B to D, or A to D and B to C. In such a situation, there is no way to identify the electron at an end position with one or the other of the electrons at a beginning position; therefore, you must allow for the possibility that each electron at A and B arrived ateither C or D. This impacts on the math predicting what will happen in any given quantum situation and, as it turns out, the final probabilities agree with this interchangeable state of affairs.
[4] Imagine the letter "t." On the page you are viewing, the letter "t" appears many times. Every letter t is exactly like every other letter t. That is because on a computer, the letter t is produced by displaying a particular set of pixels on the screen. You could not, even in principle, tell one from the other because each is the identical image of a letter t. The formula for this image is buried in many layers of subroutines for displaying pixels, and the image does not change regardless of whether it is called upon to form part of the word "mathematical" or "marital".
Similarly, an electron does not change regardless of whether it is one of the two electrons associated with the helium atom, or one of the ninety-two electrons associated with the uranium atom. You could not, even in principle, tell one from another. The only way in this world to create such identical images is to use the same formula to produce the same image, over and over again whenever a display of the image is called for.
Zeno's paradoxes offer a rigorously logical examination of this concept, with results that have frustrated analysts for millennia. In brief, Zeno appears to have "proved" that motion is not possible, because continuity (smooth transitions) between one state and the next implies an infinite number of transitions to accomplish any change whatsoever. Zeno's paradoxes imply that space and time are discontinuous -- discrete points and discrete instants with nothing in between, not even nothing. Yet the mind reels to imagine space and time as disconnected, always seeking to understand what lies between two points or two instants which are said to be separate.
The pre-computer analogy. Before computer animation there was the motion picture. Imagine that you are watching a movie. The motion on the screen appears to be smooth and continuous. Now, the projectionist begins to slow the projection rate. At some point, you begin to notice a certain jerkiness in the picture. As the projection rate slows, the jerkiness increases, and you are able to focus on one frame of the movie, followed by a blanking of the screen, followed by the next frame of the movie. Eventually, you see that the motion which seemed so smooth and continuous when projected at 30 frames per second or so is really only a series of still shots. There is no motion in any of the pictures, yet by rapidly flashing a series of pictures depicting intermediate positions of an actor or object, the effective illusion is one of motion.
The computer analogy. Computers create images in the same manner. First, they compose a still image and project it; then they compose the next still image and project that one. If the computer is quick enough, you do not notice any transition. Nevertheless, the computer's "time" is completely discrete, discontinuous, and digital. One step at a time.
Similarly, the computer's "space" is discrete, discontinuous, and digital. If you look closely at a computer monitor, you notice that it consists of millions of tiny dots, nothing more. A beautifully rendered image is made up of these dots.
The theory and architecture of computers lend themselves to a step-by-step approach to any and all problems. It appears that there is no presently conceived computer architecture that would allow anything but such a discrete, digitized time and space, controlled by the computer's internal clock ticking one operation at a time. Accordingly, it seems that this lack of continuity, so bizarre and puzzling as a feature of our natural world, is an inherent characteristic of a computer simulation.
Point IV(A).
[5]Even "flashes across the void" is a bit misleading, because "flashing" implies movement, however quick, and "across" implies distance traveled, however empty. In fact, non-locality simply does away with speed and distance, so that the cause and effect simply happen. Contrary to common sense or scientific sensibility, it appears that under certain circumstances an action here on earth canhave immediate consequences across the world, or on another star, or clear across the universe. There is no apparent transfer of energy at any speed, only an action here and a consequence there.
Non-locality for certain quantum events was theorized in the 1930s as a result of the math. Many years were wasted (by Einstein, among others) arguing that such a result was absurd and could not happen regardless of what the math said. In the 1960s, the theory was given a rigorous mathematical treatment by John S. Bell, who showed that if quantum effects were "local" they would result in one statistical distribution, and if "non-local" in another distribution. [6]
More than any of the bizarre quantum phenomena observed since 1900, the phenomenon of non-locality caused some serious thought to be given to the question, "What is reality?" The question had been nagging since the 1920s, when the Copenhagen school asserted, essentially, that our conception of reality had to stop with what we could observe; deeper than that we could not delve and, therefore, we could never determine experimentally why we observe what we observe. The experimental proof of non-locality added nothing to this strange statement, but seemed to force the issue. The feeling was that if our side of the universe could affect the other side of the universe, then those two widely separated places must somehow be connected. Alternative explanations necessarily involved signals traveling backward in time so that the effect "causes the cause," which seemed far too contrived for most scientists' tastes. Accordingly, it was fair to ask whether apparent separations in space and time -- I'm in the living room, you're in the den -- are fundamentally "real"; or whether, instead, they are somehow an illusion, masking a deeper reality in which all things are one, sitting right on top of each other, always connected one to another and to all. This sounds suspiciously like mysticism, and the similarity of scientific and mystical concepts led to some attempts to import Eastern philosophy into Western science. Zukav, in particular, wants desperately to find a direct connection between science and Buddhism, but he would concede that the link remains to be discovered.
Note that the experimental results had been predicted on the basis of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics, and not from any prior experiments. That is, the formal mathematical description of two quantum units in certain circumstances implied that their properties thereafter would be connected regardless of separation in space or time (just as x + 2 = 4 impliesthat x = 2). It then turned out that these propertiesare connected regardless of separation in space or time. The experimentalists in the laboratory had confirmed that where the math can be manipulated to produce an absurd result, the matter and energy all around us obligingly will be found to behave in exactly that absurd manner. In the case of non-locality, the behavior is uncomfortably close to magic.
The computer analogy. The non-locality which appears to be a basic feature of our world also finds an analogy in the same metaphor of a computer simulation. In terms of cosmology, the scientific question is, "How can two particles separated by half a universe be understood as connected such that they interact as though they were right on top of each other?" If we analogize to a computer simulation, the question would be, "How can two pictures at the far corners of the screen be understood as connected such that the distance between them is irrelevant?"
In fact, the measured distance between any two pixels (dots) on the monitor's display turns out to be entirely irrelevant, since both are merely the products of calculations carried out in the bowels of the computer as directed by the programming. The pixels may be as widely separated as you like, but the programming generating them is forever embedded in the computer's memory in such a way that -- again speaking quite literally -- the very concept of separation in space and time of the pixels has no meaning whatsoever for the stored information.
[7] That is, if the math can be manipulated to produce some absurd result, it will always turn out that the matter and energy around us actually behave in exactly that absurd manner when we look closely enough. It is as though our universe is beingproduced by the mathematical formulas. The backwards logic implied by quantum mechanics, where the mathematical formalism seems to be more "real" than the things and objects of nature, is unavoidable. In any conceptual conflict between what a mathematical equation can obtain for a result, and what a real object actually could do, the quantum mechanical experimentalresults always will conform to themathematical prediction.
Quantum theory is rooted in statistics, and such reality conflicts often arise in statistics. For example, the math might show that a "statistically average" American family has 2.13 children, even though we know that a family of real human beings must have a whole number of children. In our experience, we would never find such a statistically average family regardless of the math, because there simply is no such thing as 13/100ths of a child. The math is entirely valid, but it must yield to the census-taker's whole-child count when we get down to examining individual families. In quantum mechanics, however, the math will prevail -- as though the statistics were drawn up in advance and all American families were created equally with exactly 2.13 children, nevermind that we cannot begin to conceive of such a family. To the mathematician, these two situations are equivalent, because either way the average American family ends up with 2.13 children. But the quantum mechanical relationship of the math to the observation does not make any sense to us because in our world view, numbers are just symbols representing something with independent existence.
[8] Since quantum theory describes the world perfectly -- so perfectly that its symbolic, mathematical predictions always prevail over physical insight -- the equivalence between quantum symbolism and universal reality must be more than an oddity: it must be the very nature of reality.
This is the point at which we lose our nerve; yet the task for the Western rationalist is to find a mechanical model from our experience corresponding to a "world executed in symbols."
The final computer analogy. An example which literally fits this description is the computer simulation, which is a graphic representation created by executing programming code. The programming code itself consists of nothing but symbols, such as 0 and 1. Numbers, text, graphics and anything else you please are coded by unique series of numbers. These symbolic codes have no meaning in themselves, but arbitrarily are assigned values which have significance according to the operations of the computer. The symbols are manipulated according to the various step-by-step sequences (algorithms) by which the programming instructs the computer how to create the graphic representation. The picture presented on-screen to the user is a world executed in colored dots; the computer's programming is a world (the same world) executed in symbols. Anyone who has experienced a computer crash knows that the programming (good or bad) governs the picture, and not vice versa. All of this forms a remarkably tight analogy to the relationship between the quantum math on paper, and the behavior of the "quantumstuff" in the outside world.
Great Neck, New York
May 2, 1999
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
| Back to Top |
| Back to The Notebook of Philosophy & Physics |
Kurt godel
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 11, 2017
- 319
- 174
Nimeipenda hii aisee ume express theorem moja ya kwenye number theory ila in a primitive way.Ila unatakiwa kujua kuwa hapo umezama kwenye realms za pure mathematics mkuu purely elegent abstracts.Huko unakutana Na infinity zaidi ya moja in which zote one infinity is greater than the other.Math ya kwenye physical world ni approximation ndo maana kuna triangles zenye a=1 and b=1 Na zina exist smoothly bila kuona effects za irrationality kwenye diagonal ya √2
ubongomweusi
Member
- Feb 9, 2017
- 7
- 3
Filam ya matrix
Juma chief
JF-Expert Member
- Jun 6, 2016
- 2,764
- 2,366
sasa hilo BICHWA LA HABARI na habari.. ina maana ulikosa maaneno ya kama ulivyoelezea kwa lugha hiyo....
FRANCIS DA DON
JF-Expert Member
- Sep 4, 2013
- 38,920
- 44,970
Baada ya kupitia content za hiyo post namba 54 nimepata jibu. Ni kwamba 'time and space are quantized', hii inamaana ya kwamba kuna kipimo cha mwisho kabisa cha chini cha 'muda'(time) na 'nafasi(space) ambapo havigawanyiki tena chini ya hapo. Hapa ni sawa na kusema kama 'xy' ndio kipimo cha chini kabisa kinachowezekana cha space time basi huwezi kuwa na 0.5xy wala 0.4xy au kiwango kingine chochote ambacho sio whole, ila tu unaweza ukawa na xy,2xy,3xy,3xy...and so on. Hivyo hiyo hoja ya ku-move 'an infinitely small distance before you move any distance' inakuwa invalid