A man claims to store multiple movies on 64kb

[Johan1951]

From: Cyberman

How is this "dead and alive at the same time" supposed to fit into the real world?

Obviously, the cat can be either dead or alive - it can´t be both at the same time, these terms contradict each other.

Once I look into the box and see the cat´s alive, I KNOW it´s been alive all the time - because it´s next to impossible it´s been resurrected.

--

As for the tree - why shouldn´t it make a noise? It doesn´t make noises for us, so it won´t care if someone´s listening or not.

[Johan1951]

From: Virus

Cyberman wrote:
How is this "dead and alive at the same time" supposed to fit into the real world?

probably it's more funny if you apply it to bits, instead of cats (can't use a cat to run XviD, anyway ). Example: a couple of quantum bits can be at the same moment into a combination of four different "states", indicated with <00>, <01>, <10> and <11>, that is, all the combinations at the same time. If you perform a logic operation on those quantum bits (e.g. a NOT) you'll get all the four results at once. You only need to extract the result you want (I still haven't understood how you're supposed to extract only the result you want from a quantum register with all the states merged, but hey, I'm not a physicist )

This huge, intrinsic level of parallelism should be the main point behind quantum computers. So huge that with them you'll be able to break whatever cryptographic system is currently used, no matter how long the key you choose. I've heard that some of these experimental quantum machines are already working (with registers just 4 or 5 bits wide and very simple algebraic operations). There's still a long, long way to come before the MPAA can use them to prevent our backups

[Johan1951]

From: Didée

Cyberman wrote:
As for the tree - why shouldn´t it make a noise? It doesn´t make noises for us, so it won´t care if someone´s listening or not.

Are you sure of that. How _can_ you be sure of that.

One just cannot port those quantum behaviours into the "real world". That would be the same as saying "an electron can appear either as a wave or as a particle. Therefore, my pencil possibly can appear as a wave as well." - It makes no sense to look at it this way.

To shorten a long story: guys, don't raise sciences to a religeous state. Natural sciences are good and all, but they will never lead to the truth behind. The're just a tool, and nothing more. And each tool has its specific scope of usage, but is pretty worthless outside that scope ("a screwdriver comes handy for screwing screws, but one should not try to saw any wood with it").
The problem is that their basic set is not complete. If the basic set is not complete, one cannot extrapolate those other parts of reality that are dependendant on the missing elements of the basic set - especially if it is falsly assumed that the incomplete basic set was complete. And the mathematical way of abstraction won't help anything, either. It is griping much too short. Mathematical abstraction only enables exrapolations within the span of its given premisses. One can endlessly find "new" relations by doing math - but only those that are describeable by math at all. Describing "Love" through math has little prospect of being successful. Very little.
Also, Physics in last instance is based on man's expectancy. But again, man's expectancy has little to do with the true nature of things. In the expectation of a "smallest particle" being present, the hunt will go on forever, and whatever the physicians will find, will be dividable once more (here, the "string theorem" was an astonishingly good approach - however, it has become pretty silent in that area). Within physics, time is nothing more than a vector. But a vector always can be reversed, and in fact physics has little problems with reversing time. However, in practice it doesn't work all that well. Or gravity. It's one of the most basical things around us, each baby has to learn it is there, and how to deal with it. But physic is rather clueless. Any theory of particles transmitting a "tearing" force can't work out for several reasons. The new theory of omnipresent particles transmitting a pushing force, and gravity being the result of materia shielding these particles, doesn't work out on large magnitude. And Albert's explanation of gravity not being a property of materia but of bowed space, gives some nice visualizeable models - but it doesn't offer any explanation where the force emerges from. And actually, what is "force" after all? There are so much models, so much formulas to describe everything. But there are very little explanations. Take two magnets, bring them so close to each other that you feel the force, and then look at it and try to describe whats *really* going on there. We have no explanations. Last instance of the double gap experiment - miracle. The experiment of amplifying an electromagnetic impulse by transmitting it through inert gas - miracle. Virtual particles - miracle. Latest modification of the doubled photone experiment - miracle.

No, I would not put much hope in sciences to explain the world. They may explain that world that arises out of their rules. But they will not explain the world that IS. We need completely new sciences for that - and brains that are not bounded to the expectations of what seems to lie obviously before the eyes.

The nature of things is not of that kind we use to think it would be. Not at all. It is completely different.

In other words:

The tree falls quietly. Not noiseless, but quietly.

[Johan1951]

From: Neo Neko

Didée wrote:
No, that's not what the quantum theorist would postulate.
There is not a 50/50 chance that the cat is dead. According to quantum mechanics, the cat is 50% dead, and 50% alive.

You can't be 50% dead and 50% alive. Just like you can't be 50% here and 50% there at the same time. A particle can only be in one place at one time. But untill we observe or measure the position the particle has the potential to be in more than one place. Just as the cat has the potential to be either alive or dead but not both. This is a basic principle for quantum mechanics and explains how light can be composed of particles that wave.

Didée wrote:
Another one:
Assume a tree is falling in a forest, but miles and miles around there is no living being present that could hear something.
Does the tree make some noise when it falls, or does it fall in perfect silence?

No one can say they have personal knowledge of such situations. But we know for a fact the laws of physics do not caese to exist when no one is observing. And since the phenomina of a tree making a sound when falling is easily explainable using physics. We can indeed be sure that a falling tree does indeed make a sound regardless if anyone is there to observe it or not.

[Johan1951]

From: Soulhunter

Assume a tree is falling in a forest, but miles and miles around there is no living being present that could hear something.
Does the tree make some noise when it falls, or does it fall in perfect silence?

Same opinion as Neo Neko here...

If you would know all the variables, you could even calculate the exact dB of the tree impact !!!

Bye

[Johan1951]

From: StephanV

Didee is right, although he explained it wrong. Quantum mechanics suggests that by an equal chance of possibilities (life and death), both are true until the observation is made. Of course, the only way too confirm this is to *not* make the observation/measurement, which is also a nice paradox in itself.

About the tree:

Every assertion about something we do not observe, is just pure speculation. We only *assume* it makes sound, because trees falling make sound when we are around. But of course, pure assumption is not enough to be sure that the tree actually makes sound. At least, according to Bohr. (there are quantum scientists who disagree with this view BTW)

But - of course this is all just theory anyway.

[Johan1951]

From: TheReal

Assume a tree is falling in a forest, but miles and miles around there is no living being present that could hear something.
Does the tree make some noise when it falls, or does it fall in perfect silence?

I think this philosophical question was asked in a time where there wasn't physical certainty about moving objects causing sound waves. The question is still asked today in philosophy seminars at university but I think it's a bad example. Although there might be the slightest possibility that one tree in one case won't make any sounds, but, as said before, we know that the laws of physics don't cease to exist when no human is around (or do we? ... I still think it's a nonsense question, there are better philosophical questions than this...)

[Johan1951]

From: Eb

Tree falls in a perfect silence when it falls in a pure vacum.

eb

[Johan1951]

From: B0b0b0b

This reminds me of the informal ongoing contest at comp.compression (I think) where the moderator offers some nominal prize if you can compress to any extent, some amount of random data.

So this one guy offers a solution where he splits the random data into a number of files and encodes some of the data into the file names and tries to claim the prize.

Hi-larious.

[Johan1951]

From: Soulhunter

Eb wrote:
Tree falls in a perfect silence when it falls in a pure vacuum.

But the tree is in a forest, and it produces oxygen, no...

Bye