|
On July 10 2013 23:21 Rassy wrote:Well let me ask you differently then, what evidence do you have that there was a big bang (i do believe in the big bang theory btw, but some verry smart and famous physicians do not) If you asume that time slows down, starting from a point far in the past, then you can get all the doppler effects. You can even explain the witnessed acceleration of the "expansion" with this, by asuming that the deceleration of time increases. You can say i spew bs, and maybe i am. But then it should be realy easy to shoot a hole in my example and make me shut up  If you do not understand enough of the big bang theory or the doppler effect to do this, then i have no problem with that but then you should also not claim that the big bang theory has been proven without anny reasonable doubt wich it definatly is not. Annyway: i didnt come in here to fight so i dont know what more to say.
The number of actual physicist that dispute the Big Bang can be counted on one hand. The Big Bang theory is widely accepted because it is certainly the best way to discribe how the universe currently is according to what humans have observed in the universe. If you want to dispute something so fundimental you are going to have to at least link a paper or article or something.
Also, are you saying that you can account for the acceleration of the universe by saying that time has slowed throughout the entire universe for its whole existence? Not only would this not have the Doppler effect unless time were changing uniformly in the universe reference frame, you would have to also dispute special relativity. Also, even if that did dispute the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, it would not dispute the Big Bang because it does not hint on the acceleration. Before the acceleration was discovered we still thought the universe started with a Big Bang, just that the expansion was deccelerating.
|
On July 10 2013 23:21 Rassy wrote:Well let me ask you differently then, what evidence do you have that there was a big bang (i do believe in the big bang theory btw, but some verry smart and famous physicians do not) If you asume that time slows down, starting from a point far in the past, then you can get all the doppler effects. You can even explain the witnessed acceleration of the "expansion" with this, by asuming that the deceleration of time increases. You can say i spew bs, and maybe i am. But then it should be realy easy to shoot a hole in my alternative explanation for the doppler effect and make me shut up If you do not understand enough of the big bang theory or the doppler effect to do this, then i have no problem with that but then you should also not claim that the big bang theory has been proven without anny reasonable doubt wich it definatly is not. Annyway: i didnt come in here to fight so i dont know what more to say.
The big bang has been proven. Look into cosmic microwave background radiation.
Almost nobody in cosmology or physics doubts the big bang. I don't know where you're getting that info from.
|
Rassy, I'm not saying this to be a smart ass, it's simply driving me nuts when I read your posts.. It's physicist, not physician. A physician is a medical doctor. Also: many and very.
|
On July 10 2013 15:36 Leafty wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 12:04 wherebugsgo wrote:
also, neurons individually are definitely on the scale to be affected by quantum events. The answer to the question "Are neurons affected by quantum mechanical phenomena" is certainly yes. Whether or not this translates over to larger scale nervous systems is another question entirely, though. I'm not making any claims about the brain and whether its behavior is noticably affected by quantum mechanics-that is far out of the scope of my expertise. (although from what I've read on the topic it's actually a matter of debate among scientists. Stuff like quantum cognition seems quite interesting, though I haven't had the time to really look at it) Most defnitely no. A neuron is on the scale of micrometers while quantum mechanics happen at atomic scale (tenths of nanometers). So you have at least 3 orders od magnitude that separate them, so no, quantum mechanics effects are not seen at a neuron scale.
The synaptic cleft is 20 nm, which is small enough for QM effects to be apparent. QM effects are not only apparent at tenths of nanometers, unless you're suggesting that ion gates and other small-scale physical phenomena that affect the functions of neurons are not affected by QM...which, in all honesty, is laughable.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/#3.2
The field is relatively new from my understanding.
|
On July 11 2013 01:45 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 15:36 Leafty wrote:On July 10 2013 12:04 wherebugsgo wrote:
also, neurons individually are definitely on the scale to be affected by quantum events. The answer to the question "Are neurons affected by quantum mechanical phenomena" is certainly yes. Whether or not this translates over to larger scale nervous systems is another question entirely, though. I'm not making any claims about the brain and whether its behavior is noticably affected by quantum mechanics-that is far out of the scope of my expertise. (although from what I've read on the topic it's actually a matter of debate among scientists. Stuff like quantum cognition seems quite interesting, though I haven't had the time to really look at it) Most defnitely no. A neuron is on the scale of micrometers while quantum mechanics happen at atomic scale (tenths of nanometers). So you have at least 3 orders od magnitude that separate them, so no, quantum mechanics effects are not seen at a neuron scale. The synaptic cleft is 20 nm, which is small enough for QM effects to be apparent. QM effects are not only apparent at tenths of nanometers, unless you're suggesting that ion gates and other small-scale physical phenomena that affect the functions of neurons are not affected by QM...which, in all honesty, is laughable. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/#3.2The field is relatively new from my understanding.
The information transfer across the synaptic cleft is probably not too concerned with the whims of the sub atomic particles in individual atoms due to QM effects. Vessicles carrying chemicals pass across and even diffuse around the synaptic cleft in relatively large volume compared to single atoms. The deliberate release of neurotransmitters is probably enough to mask any effect caused by particular atoms behaving oddly due to QM.
I didn't study QM though so maybe that's terribly wrong
|
On July 10 2013 17:33 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 02:36 Reason wrote:
Has it not been discussed repeatedly that determinism and free will are not mutually exclusive?
Again this all depends on your definition of free will... Well yes, I was in a huge discussion about it, however, I think it's pretty obvious from the topic development that when we use the term "free will", we pretty much have to restrict ourselves to it in the methaphysical sense, which is indeed mutually exclusive with determinism (that's pretty much the whole point). I mean, I'm a compatibilism myself in a sense that I consider the choices we make real choices and we are always forced to take responsibility for them, even though metaphysically, the factors leading us to the choice was out of our control. What I was getting at with my post though was more that he said "deterministic but not PREdetermined" even though a deterministic system will always be predetermined by definition, since the same initial state always has to produce the same output, meaning if you know the whole initial state, you will always be able to predict the output.
I know this is a recurring discussion in this thread, but I am not tired of it yet and maybe you are neither... What possible meaning of 'control' do you have in mind which indeterminism can grant you, but determinism can't? To me, on the contrary, it seems quite plausible that the highest state of 'control' in the decision making process one could ever hope for can only be achieved in a fully deterministic world, since here causes do not underdetermine effects. How could indeterminism help to improve the situation?
It seems to me that there is this cognitive illusion that as a rational agent in an indeterministic world, one could somehow change the future, while in a deterministic world this would be impossible. But this is nonsense on stilts.
|
You can represent neurons relatively well classically, but no, I would say it's not possible to completely accurately represent what happens at the synapse of a neuron purely with classical physics.
Like I said before, on the scale of the brain it most probably does not matter, but if we're going to break down the processes that govern decision making down to the level of individual cells and things like ion gates, then I would consider it a pretty bold statement to say that you can completely ignore QM. The field as it applies to neuroscience is relatively young, though things are becoming quite interesting really really quickly.
|
On July 11 2013 02:56 wherebugsgo wrote:
You can represent neurons relatively well classically, but no, I would say it's not possible to completely accurately represent what happens at the synapse of a neuron purely with classical physics.
Like I said before, on the scale of the brain it most probably does not matter, but if we're going to break down the processes that govern decision making down to the level of individual cells and things like ion gates, then I would consider it a pretty bold statement to say that you can completely ignore QM. The field as it applies to neuroscience is relatively young, though things are becoming quite interesting really really quickly.
quick question, I understand your point that things are unpredictable at the quantum level, but how does this unpredictable nature of fundamental particles eventually lead to the predictability of classical physics?
Isn't there a disconnect here?
|
On July 11 2013 03:05 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:56 wherebugsgo wrote:
You can represent neurons relatively well classically, but no, I would say it's not possible to completely accurately represent what happens at the synapse of a neuron purely with classical physics.
Like I said before, on the scale of the brain it most probably does not matter, but if we're going to break down the processes that govern decision making down to the level of individual cells and things like ion gates, then I would consider it a pretty bold statement to say that you can completely ignore QM. The field as it applies to neuroscience is relatively young, though things are becoming quite interesting really really quickly. quick question, I understand your point that things are unpredictable at the quantum level, but how does this unpredictable nature of fundamental particles eventually lead to the predictability of classical physics? Isn't there a disconnect here?
Yes, I think we're still working on that one 
|
On July 11 2013 03:05 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:56 wherebugsgo wrote:
You can represent neurons relatively well classically, but no, I would say it's not possible to completely accurately represent what happens at the synapse of a neuron purely with classical physics.
Like I said before, on the scale of the brain it most probably does not matter, but if we're going to break down the processes that govern decision making down to the level of individual cells and things like ion gates, then I would consider it a pretty bold statement to say that you can completely ignore QM. The field as it applies to neuroscience is relatively young, though things are becoming quite interesting really really quickly. quick question, I understand your point that things are unpredictable at the quantum level, but how does this unpredictable nature of fundamental particles eventually lead to the predictability of classical physics? Isn't there a disconnect here?
Yes, there is. We have yet to unify classical mechanics and quantum mechanics.
But as a simple way of understanding it, you can have "random with a 55% chance of outcome X" so that while there is a set probability of an event occurring, any given instance is random. Law of large numbers suggests that for most situations, on a macro scale things will become predictable.
|
On July 11 2013 03:09 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 03:05 biology]major wrote:On July 11 2013 02:56 wherebugsgo wrote:
You can represent neurons relatively well classically, but no, I would say it's not possible to completely accurately represent what happens at the synapse of a neuron purely with classical physics.
Like I said before, on the scale of the brain it most probably does not matter, but if we're going to break down the processes that govern decision making down to the level of individual cells and things like ion gates, then I would consider it a pretty bold statement to say that you can completely ignore QM. The field as it applies to neuroscience is relatively young, though things are becoming quite interesting really really quickly. quick question, I understand your point that things are unpredictable at the quantum level, but how does this unpredictable nature of fundamental particles eventually lead to the predictability of classical physics? Isn't there a disconnect here? Yes, I think we're still working on that one
lol, well I feel like our definition of unpredictable just means not understood. But I know nothing about QM, so can't say much more than that.
|
On July 11 2013 03:09 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 03:05 biology]major wrote:On July 11 2013 02:56 wherebugsgo wrote:
You can represent neurons relatively well classically, but no, I would say it's not possible to completely accurately represent what happens at the synapse of a neuron purely with classical physics.
Like I said before, on the scale of the brain it most probably does not matter, but if we're going to break down the processes that govern decision making down to the level of individual cells and things like ion gates, then I would consider it a pretty bold statement to say that you can completely ignore QM. The field as it applies to neuroscience is relatively young, though things are becoming quite interesting really really quickly. quick question, I understand your point that things are unpredictable at the quantum level, but how does this unpredictable nature of fundamental particles eventually lead to the predictability of classical physics? Isn't there a disconnect here? Yes, I think we're still working on that one
I guess a naive explanation would be that those quantum level effect are so far from our classical physic and there is so many of them that they tend to balance themselves out.
For example, if I would do an action depending on the result of a roll of a 10 sided dice, but I roll 1 million of them and take the average, my action wouldn't be so random wouldn't it ? (even assuming a dice roll is random for the sake of the example).
That's kinda how I imagine it, but someone can probably correct me on that.
|
I dont know much about quantum physics either, but know this, it goes in against all the laws humanity has found out so far about the behavior of the universe on all other scales.
just a quick thing about the big bang aswell: Above is stated that its widely accepted by most of the higher learned physicians, but thats because we are biased by what we Do know. There is also a LOT that we don't know yet. Now its commonly accepted to use the "theory" of big bang, so we can find out more things based on that theory, although i think that in 10 years looking back, we'll see that everything is different then we agreed on or accepted, but we just couldnt know without what we know in 10 years.
Something being accepted by the majority doesnt mean its right.
There will new laws of physics found out and it all will totally change our world view trust me.
Let's just say we think we know a lot, but in the future it turns out we still know sh*t. every new discovery gives birth to 10 new questions, untill eternity (or untill the human race is deceased).
I kinda bumped in on this discussion so no idea iof im just repeating stuff, but reading 60+ pages of scientific knowledge is a bit too much for me im afraid
|
On July 10 2013 23:21 Rassy wrote:
Well let me ask you differently then, what evidence do you have that there was a big bang (i do believe in the big bang theory btw, but some verry smart and famous physicians do not)
What do physicians have to do with the big bang theory? lmao physicians
|
On July 11 2013 03:27 nickyboy909 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 23:21 Rassy wrote:
Well let me ask you differently then, what evidence do you have that there was a big bang (i do believe in the big bang theory btw, but some verry smart and famous physicians do not)
What do physicians have to do with the big bang theory? lmao physicians
This is an international forum community, and sometimes things are messed up a bit in translation. No need to harp on it like a grinning child.
|
On July 11 2013 03:34 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 03:27 nickyboy909 wrote:On July 10 2013 23:21 Rassy wrote:
Well let me ask you differently then, what evidence do you have that there was a big bang (i do believe in the big bang theory btw, but some verry smart and famous physicians do not)
What do physicians have to do with the big bang theory? lmao physicians This is an international forum community, and sometimes things are messed up a bit in translation. No need to harp on it like a grinning child.
Yeah, let's see you discuss this (or anything) in Dutch
Feel free to give your take on things too...
|
On July 11 2013 03:34 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 03:27 nickyboy909 wrote:On July 10 2013 23:21 Rassy wrote:
Well let me ask you differently then, what evidence do you have that there was a big bang (i do believe in the big bang theory btw, but some verry smart and famous physicians do not)
What do physicians have to do with the big bang theory? lmao physicians This is an international forum community, and sometimes things are messed up a bit in translation. No need to harp on it like a grinning child.
I might play too much Magic the Gathering because when you said grinning child I thought of...
![[image loading]](http://depblog.weblogs.us/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/GrinningDemon.jpg)
The brain is a bit wonky in that way isn't it?
|
It's true that there isn't a unified theory between QM and everyday phenomena...yet.
But this doesn't suggest at all that things on a macroscopic scale need to appear the same way they do at smaller scales. On a macroscopic scale a lot of the classical properties of matter are just a consequence of the quantum mechanical properties of the smaller parts, typically the QM properties of electrical charges.
Although it is quite interesting that with some superconductors and superfluids you can observe QM effects on a macroscopic scale. (things at very low temperatures tend to display QM behavior)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroscopic_quantum_phenomena
|
For me the issue has always been the seeming inability to describe free will other than in terms of negatives. Not deterministic. Not random. At best free will seems to be the measure of how decision inputs are weighted., which doesn't free us from determinism.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On July 11 2013 03:47 wherebugsgo wrote:It's true that there isn't a unified theory between QM and everyday phenomena...yet. But this doesn't suggest at all that things on a macroscopic scale need to appear the same way they do at smaller scales. On a macroscopic scale a lot of the classical properties of matter are just a consequence of the quantum mechanical properties of the smaller parts, typically the QM properties of electrical charges. Although it is quite interesting that with some superconductors and superfluids you can observe QM effects on a macroscopic scale. (things at very low temperatures tend to display QM behavior) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroscopic_quantum_phenomena
This is a cool example of a macroscopic quantum mechanical effect: + Show Spoiler +
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
