 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gromit
Velociraptor
![]()
Joined: May 20, 2006
Posts: 490
Location: In Cognito
|
 Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 4:00 pm Post subject: Re: Can a logically inconsistent universe exist? |
 |
|
| abstrusemortal wrote: | Light has a wave-particle duality as does everything. Even a baseball. Both cannot exist as one in a visual image.
Light has two different faces. A particle face; and a wave face. Young's double slit experiment confirms the wave part. Photoelectric effect; Compton's effect confirm the particle side, etc... |
I think the photoelectric effect shows both, because the energy of the electrons depends on the frequency of light.
Having thought a bit about Willard's argument and yours, I agree with you that it is simply wrong to try to impose the categories wave and particle. The equations of quantum mechanics give coherent descriptions of what happens in, for example, the double slit experiment, so I count that as no contradiction, even if what happens doesn't fit into intuitive categories.
slowmutant, can you give an example of a contradiction in physics? |
|
| Back to top |
|
twoshots
A sun that never sets
Joined: Nov 27, 2007
Posts: 1768
Location: NJ
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ToadOfSteel wrote: | Here's a paradox for you: What is the simplest reason for Occam's Razor to exist?
PS: come to think of it, the fact that so many paradoxes (sp?) exist is proof that the universe is fundamentally inconsistent. |
Occam's razor, like logic, is a human construct. Paradoxes are symptomatic of poorly thought out constructs, just as inconsistency is a product of human language. |
|
| Back to top |
|
lau
Quinquaginta Novem! Male Gee-knee-us + silly bits.
Joined: Jun 18, 2006
Age: 59
Posts: 7004
Location: Somerset UK
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 6:11 pm Post subject: Re: Can a logically inconsistent universe exist? |
|
|
| ToadOfSteel wrote: | ...
Too bad you can't make a cat fly by strapping buttered toast to its back... |
Wow! Someone else who knows the origin of the strange sound reported to emanate from UFOs.
_________________
Oregano, n: The ancient Italian art of pizza folding.
Laws:
Ogden: The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.
Oliver: Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.
Osborn: Variables won't; constants aren't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ToadOfSteel
Extremist Moderate
Joined: Sep 24, 2007
Age: 20
Posts: 2369
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| No, that's a theremin... |
|
| Back to top |
|
D1nk0
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 12, 2007
Age: 29
Posts: 1589
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| twoshots wrote: | | ToadOfSteel wrote: | Here's a paradox for you: What is the simplest reason for Occam's Razor to exist?
PS: come to think of it, the fact that so many paradoxes (sp?) exist is proof that the universe is fundamentally inconsistent. |
Occam's razor, like logic, is a human construct. Paradoxes are symptomatic of poorly thought out constructs, just as inconsistency is a product of human language. |
I seriously call this into question-that logic is just a human construct rather than the basis of reality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
abstrusemortal
Toucan
Joined: Feb 08, 2007
Posts: 286
Location: DC/VA area
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 11:00 pm Post subject: Re: Can a logically inconsistent universe exist? |
|
|
| Gromit wrote: | | abstrusemortal wrote: | Light has a wave-particle duality as does everything. Even a baseball. Both cannot exist as one in a visual image.
Light has two different faces. A particle face; and a wave face. Young's double slit experiment confirms the wave part. Photoelectric effect; Compton's effect confirm the particle side, etc... |
I think the photoelectric effect shows both, because the energy of the electrons depends on the frequency of light.
|
no, the photoelectric effect is proof of the particle side. The wave theory predicts that the intensity is proportional to the energy of light while the particle side predicts the frequency part:
E = hf
_________________
Uninvention Convention |
|
| Back to top |
|
Izaak
Squeeky Bathtime Companion
Joined: Jun 11, 2007
Posts: 1154
Location: Perth, Western Australia
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 11:41 pm Post subject: Re: Can a logically inconsistent universe exist? |
|
|
| LoveableNerd wrote: | | Izaak wrote: | That problem isn't physics. It's Philosophy. More specifically Metaphysics. Aristotle was the first to outline this aspect, and it is called the Law of Identity.
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Identity.html
As such it is an Axiom. A self-evident truth at the foot of all knowledge. It is proved evidenced each time you do a more complex proof in mathematics. But there is no way to prove the axiom itself. You must assume it (or not) as it stands with the evidence coming from the fact that (as your knowledge of an entity improves) you discover it has no contradictions. That the Law of Identity holds at ALL times. And that apparent contradictions are only an indication of our misunderstanding or lack of knowledge about an entity. |
As the above posters alluded to, the Law of Identity breaks down at the quantum level. According to the Law of Identity, a car can be red or blue, or both red and blue but not at the same time and place. However, a photon is both a wave and a particle at the same time. |
I don't think the Law of Identity breaks down. A photon is still a photon no matter how we might perceive it. Whatever we think about it, the Law of Identity states that: A photon is what it is, and it isn't anything else.
Then again, I am no physicist. A photon may very well be a photon AND something else at the same time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
abstrusemortal
Toucan
Joined: Feb 08, 2007
Posts: 286
Location: DC/VA area
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 3:33 am Post subject: Re: Can a logically inconsistent universe exist? |
|
|
| Izaak wrote: | | LoveableNerd wrote: | | Izaak wrote: | That problem isn't physics. It's Philosophy. More specifically Metaphysics. Aristotle was the first to outline this aspect, and it is called the Law of Identity.
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Identity.html
As such it is an Axiom. A self-evident truth at the foot of all knowledge. It is proved evidenced each time you do a more complex proof in mathematics. But there is no way to prove the axiom itself. You must assume it (or not) as it stands with the evidence coming from the fact that (as your knowledge of an entity improves) you discover it has no contradictions. That the Law of Identity holds at ALL times. And that apparent contradictions are only an indication of our misunderstanding or lack of knowledge about an entity. |
As the above posters alluded to, the Law of Identity breaks down at the quantum level. According to the Law of Identity, a car can be red or blue, or both red and blue but not at the same time and place. However, a photon is both a wave and a particle at the same time. |
I don't think the Law of Identity breaks down. A photon is still a photon no matter how we might perceive it. Whatever we think about it, the Law of Identity states that: A photon is what it is, and it isn't anything else.
Then again, I am no physicist. A photon may very well be a photon AND something else at the same time. |
the only entity that knows what a photon is, is a photon (and God of course).
All of these models are "logical constructions" (Betrand Russel). They have validity so as long as they work well with nature.
_________________
Uninvention Convention |
|
| Back to top |
|
LabPet
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 05, 2007
Posts: 1738
Location: Alaska
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 3:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wave particle duality does exist; reciprocal functions.
I think the discrepency lies, in practical terms, with how this duality is interpreted. For ex: The bunning Hypothesis: "Succesive adjustments of photoperiod phase will quickly results in a math between circadian cycle & the impoased extneral cycle." Then, I wrote, ....ryegrass is acutely adept at adaptation.
This applies to physics - photosynthetically (Krebs Cycle, and Citric Acid Cycle), photons are perceived as particles. However, photons have wave properties as given by mathemathical properties/chem. So, the duality is real. This is in fact the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Instrumentation uses photons with assumption of wave theory (theorectical), whereas in practicality (like photosynthetic Photophil phase), the circadian rythym recognizes photon as particulate.
_________________
same nightmare, different nap
Lab Pet, therapist slayer
Lab Pet's video: Autism is Synonymous with Science: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYelVlA7kDw |
|
| Back to top |
|
Escuerd
Blue Jay
Joined: May 02, 2008
Age: 24
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 9:53 am Post subject: Re: Can a logically inconsistent universe exist? |
|
|
| Willard wrote: | | Gromit wrote: | In mathematics, a theorem can be disproven by showing it would lead to a contradiction. A theorem can be proven by showing that there would be a contradiction if it were false.
I am fairly confident that the physical universe must be free of contradictions, that if ever there is a grand unified theory of physics, it can't have contradictory rules that say both that something must happen and can't happen. But I couldn't prove that the universe must be logically consistent in this way. Is there a proof? |
Light is made up of particles.
Light is made up of waves.
Light is not made of waves of particles.
All of these statements are true. Schroedinger's Cat showed us that the universe is not necessarily without internal contradictions. |
Don't confuse models of reality with reality itself.
Waves and particles are both outdated models for light's behavior each of which works in a restricted domain. We currently have a better model than either of those that encompasses both aspects, but doesn't correspond exactly to anything in our intuitive experience.
The quantum mechanical model could be included or not under "particle" and/or under "wave" depending on how restrictive the definitions of these terms are. But it can't both be "made of particles" and "not made of particles" without exploiting some ambiguity on what qualifies as a particle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Escuerd
Blue Jay
Joined: May 02, 2008
Age: 24
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 9:59 am Post subject: Re: Can a logically inconsistent universe exist? |
|
|
| LoveableNerd wrote: | | As the above posters alluded to, the Law of Identity breaks down at the quantum level. According to the Law of Identity, a car can be red or blue, or both red and blue but not at the same time and place. However, a photon is both a wave and a particle at the same time. |
First you have to establish that "red" and "blue" or "wave" and "particle" are both well-defined, and mutually exclusive. Otherwise no logical contradiction has been demonstrated. The vagueness of natural language leaves room for things that are intuitively contradictory, but logically compatible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Escuerd
Blue Jay
Joined: May 02, 2008
Age: 24
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 10:23 am Post subject: Re: Can a logically inconsistent universe exist? |
|
|
| Gromit wrote: | In mathematics, a theorem can be disproven by showing it would lead to a contradiction. A theorem can be proven by showing that there would be a contradiction if it were false.
I am fairly confident that the physical universe must be free of contradictions, that if ever there is a grand unified theory of physics, it can't have contradictory rules that say both that something must happen and can't happen. But I couldn't prove that the universe must be logically consistent in this way. Is there a proof? |
Is there a proof that the universe is non-contradictory? Sure, I'll give you a proof by contradiction. 
More seriously, I don't see any way one could prove it. It's sort of fundamental to the concept of "truth."
I can think of little as fundamental as this concept.
If the truth is out there, then the universe is non-contradictory. If the truth is not out there, well, then I guess we can't trust if-then statements anyway, so why bother?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
Odin
Supreme Genius
Joined: Oct 13, 2006
Age: 22
Posts: 1885
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Light (and everything else) is neither particle nor wave, but something totally different that has elements of both a particle and a wave, it is excitations of a quantum field. Quantum fields are similar to the fields of classical mechanics except that energy is quantinized, and this quantization is what leads to all the kinds of quantum weirdness. This is because quantization causes the energy to be expressed in discrete bits, and thus you have particles with associated "probability waves" instead of classical waves.
_________________
My Blog: http://selzshaven.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
wolphin
Velociraptor
Joined: Aug 16, 2007
Posts: 440
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| D1nk0 wrote: | | twoshots wrote: | | ToadOfSteel wrote: | Here's a paradox for you: What is the simplest reason for Occam's Razor to exist?
PS: come to think of it, the fact that so many paradoxes (sp?) exist is proof that the universe is fundamentally inconsistent. |
Occam's razor, like logic, is a human construct. Paradoxes are symptomatic of poorly thought out constructs, just as inconsistency is a product of human language. |
I seriously call this into question-that logic is just a human construct rather than the basis of reality. |
Formal logic settles this fairly nicely, even. Model theory talks about "reality" and proof theory talks about "human constructs". Tarski and Godel demonstrated most of the connections between the two (and where they fail to connect) |
|
| Back to top |
|
mouapp
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 21, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 677
Location: probably not WP
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 3:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
i've never understood deductive reasoning, i can only see inductive reasoning
life is not like a programing language where you start off knowing an absolute set of rules, science demonstrates this perfectly, we are figuring it out as we go along and logic is what we have been using to do it
but i don't think you can logically rule out the possibility that logic itself is flawed
_________________
http://www.last.fm/user/mouapp/
Maybe I don't know either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
