A question about discreteness (just don't hit the table too hard for being off-topic) - page 8

New comment
 
Sorento:

If you've already separated them in the question - should I argue?

;)


Separated, or still linked by the word "system"?

If I could separate them, they would fly in different directions, but they are circling so nicely around a common centre of mass...

As I split you up, I'll tie you up! :)

So is this connection, the mysterious, gravitational one - or is there a known sort of electromagnetic one - is it discrete? Perhaps that would be a more accurate formulation.

I just don't believe in discreteness, otherwise the world would fall apart. I mean, my heel somehow knows about the star Proxima... but that's metaphysics, I understand, laugh if you like, I'm not sorry.

Discreteness is simply a requirement of the human mind - it needs to break in order to then restore unity. We ourselves are discrete, we separate ourselves from space, we drink beer in ourselves and then pour it into a friend... :)

 

Nilog:

I just don't believe in discreteness, otherwise the world would fall apart.

It's already beyond comprehension.
 
Swetten:
This is already beyond comprehension.



So I ask you to explain: what are the discrete components related to? At the very beginning I wrote. It would be beyond understanding that they are not connected, but somehow stick together, at least in time.

Your "fi!" doesn't explain anything, including yourself. I beg to differ.

 
Nilog:



So I'm asking for clarification: what are the discrete components involved? I wrote it in the beginning. It would be beyond comprehension that they are not connected, but somehow stick together, at least in time.

Your "fi!" doesn't explain anything, including yourself. I beg to differ.

I would be glad to, but, you see, I haven't made a penny on forex yet.

How dare I give you advice?

Believing in something is for the church.

You'll get help there.

 
Swetten:

I'd love to, but, you know, I haven't made a ruble on forex yet.

How dare I give you advice?

Believing in something is for the church.

You can get help there.

You wondered if you could give me advice and then you gave it in the next line.

How very feminine of you. :)

 

One possible answer: discrete, yes, but not self-sufficient. That is, there are still some properties, meta-properties, which do not allow existing matter to go nowhere. Though again, the question is, where is this metadata repository? What holds it together?

The easiest way to put me in the puddle from the start of this thread is to point out that discreteness and continuity are just abstractions of our minds, a way of cracking a nut to see what's inside. Not even interesting. You can argue with yourself.

 
Nilog:

One possible answer: discrete, yes, but not self-sufficient. That is, there are still some properties, meta-properties, which do not allow available matter to fly away into nothing. Though again the question is, where is this metadata repository? What holds it together?

The easiest way to put me in the puddle from the beginning of this thread is to point out that discreteness and continuity are just abstractions of our minds, a way of cracking a nut to see what's inside. Not even interesting. You can argue with yourself.

Read some popular book on quantum mechanics, preferably a recent one, since quantum entanglement effects have been more or less studied only in recent years. In short, the idea is this. Any two physical objects (be they elementary particles or any other systems, including macroscopic ones), ever having interacted suddenly with each other, never again "forget" about it. After that, no matter how many years have passed, if you do something with the first part, it will affect the second part - even if the parts are no longer interacting. This is the fundamental property of all systems without exception: their constituent parts interact with each other, and once this interaction has begun, the constituent parts can never be considered as separate objects. The relevant physical phenomenon is called "entanglement". This is not some speculative theory, but an experimentally proven fact.
 
alsu:
Read a popular book on quantum mechanics, preferably a recent one, since quantum entanglement effects have been more or less studied only in recent years. In short, the idea is this. Any two physical objects (be they elementary particles or any other systems, including macroscopic ones), ever having interacted suddenly with each other, never again "forget" about it. After that, no matter in a million years, if you do something with the first part, it will affect the second part - even if the parts are no longer interacting. This is the fundamental property of all systems without exception: their constituent parts interact with each other, and once this interaction has begun, the constituent parts can never be considered as separate objects. The relevant physical phenomenon is called "entanglement". This is not some speculative theory, but an experimentally proven fact.

I thought someone would bring in the Podolsky-Rosen phenomenon... non-locality and other phantasmagoria... You obviously have no idea who you're talking to, Alsou...
 
Nilog:

I thought someone would bring in the Podolsky-Rosen phenomenon... non-locality and other phantasmagoria... You obviously have no idea who you're talking to, Alsou...
Really? I'd like to hear a pro's opinion.
123456789
New comment