CERN discovers FTL particle (possibly)

[Guest Super lurker ultra V12]

my best friend is a physicist and he's telling me this is bullshit

 

skepticism at its best lol

[chenGOD]

It's not like it's the first mass extinction we've ever faced.

depends what 'we' means. If it means the collectivity of homo sapiens, then yes it's the first.

 

The Earth. So I guess while "Our" world is coming to an end - (assuming by our you meant mankind's) is more accurate (although a bit presumptuous to call the world ours) it's not the end of the world. And there's certainly no guarantee that we won't be around to see how things work out.

the extinction event we're facing now is also not considered a major extinction event, rather a lesser one.

[Guest Babar]

[Guest Babar]

*muuuust ressisst*

*muuuuuust resssist*

 

glah

 

 

It's not like it's the first mass extinction we've ever faced.

depends what 'we' means. If it means the collectivity of homo sapiens, then yes it's the first.

 

The Earth. So I guess while "Our" world is coming to an end - (assuming by our you meant mankind's) is more accurate (although a bit presumptuous to call the world ours) it's not the end of the world. And there's certainly no guarantee that we won't be around to see how things work out.

the extinction event we're facing now is also not considered a major extinction event, rather a lesser one.

 

 

 

We're living in the scientist age, and we think there is an absolute external reality, from which we can deduce what is true and false, what is good and bad. This is a time where people blindly follow the opinion of specialists that get their knowledge from powerful symbolic languages and feed it back to the community in the form of natural language – without even having a theoretical framework that explains how this translation should be done. (I'm not saying what these specialist say is wrong, i'm questioning).

[Cryptowen]

Man, 2011 was a lot cooler back when we had time travel

[chenGOD]

*muuuust ressisst*

*muuuuuust resssist*

 

glah

 

 

It's not like it's the first mass extinction we've ever faced.

depends what 'we' means. If it means the collectivity of homo sapiens, then yes it's the first.

 

The Earth. So I guess while "Our" world is coming to an end - (assuming by our you meant mankind's) is more accurate (although a bit presumptuous to call the world ours) it's not the end of the world. And there's certainly no guarantee that we won't be around to see how things work out.

the extinction event we're facing now is also not considered a major extinction event, rather a lesser one.

 

 

 

We're living in the scientist age, and we think there is an absolute external reality, from which we can deduce what is true and false, what is good and bad. This is a time where people blindly follow the opinion of specialists that get their knowledge from powerful symbolic languages and feed it back to the community in the form of natural language – without even having a theoretical framework that explains how this translation should be done. (I'm not saying what these specialist say is wrong, i'm questioning).

 

define "think"

[goDel]

define "define"

 

 

[Guest Babar]

oh it's pretty simple, it's abo ./

 

 

 

 

[GORDO]

barman says...

 

"sorry, we don't serve neutrinos"

 

...

 

a neutrino enters a bar.

 

Neutrino. Knock Knock.

[kcinsu]

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/gadgets/man-arrested-at-large-hadron-collider-claims-hes-from-the-future-49305387/

 

 

Guys says he's from the future, trying to stop the LHC, gets thrown in a mental hospital, and mysteriously disappears!

 

Jazz?

 

[spratters]

I guess he found his time machine power unit.

[azatoth]

Also posted on 1 of April 2010.

[kcinsu]

God dammit.

[Guest Babar]

Quantum Linguistic Statistics (there is something about zipf in this paper, unfortunately, I can't read it).

 

Quantum Linguistics

 

Quantum Linguistics: To Catch the Passing Wave.

Asserts there is a need for new metaphors to illuminate reciprocal relationship between language and consciousness. Argues that consciousness, experienced in language, is quantum effect which acts on wave-like qualities to create particles, observed bodies of finite mass. Proposes and explains position of quantum linguistics to describe language-consciousness relationship.

 

 

From Sentence to Concept, a Linguistic Quantum Logic

 

Quantum aspects of semantic analysis and symbolic artificial intelligence

 

 

 

 

 

done with the troll : serious question now.

 

I watched a conference by Etienne Klein about time (some physicists think time does not exist !)

and at one point in his speech he introduced the notion of CPT symmetry (Charge - Parity - Time).

I don't want to talk about CP symmetry/assymetry etc …

 

I'm trying to understand what CPT is about

 

It was established in the last century that our world and its mirror image do not behave identically. This is known as Parity (P) violation. There are two other important (discrete) symmetries, C (particle-antiparticle swapping) and T (time reversal - like running a movie backward); it was proven by Pauli and others that the simultaneous inversion of P, C and T leave physics laws unchanged. This is called the CPT theorem. If the CPT theorem holds, the particle and its antiparticle must have equal masses.

 

acknowledged.

 

One can demonstrate this symmetry by asking the following question. Suppose you had a movie of some physical process. If the movie were run backwards through the projector, could you tell from the images on the screen that the movie was running backwards? Clearly in everyday life there would be no problem in telling the difference. A movie of a street scene, an egg hitting the floor, or a dive into a swimming pool has an obvious "time arrow" pointing from the past to the future. But at the atomic level there are no obvious clues to time direction. An electron orbiting an atom or even making a quantum jump to produce a photon looks like a valid physical process in either time direction. The everyday "arrow of time" does not seem to have a counterpart in the microscopic world–a problem for which physics currently has no answer.

 

mmmh . . .

 

Tell me if I'm correct:

Let's suppose we are confronted to a F fact. and that I apply C, P, and T symmetry transformation to a X proposition describing/refering-to this fact.

 

newX = C(P(T(X)))

 

is newX equal to X ?

 

Could someone provide a simple example formulated with ONE sentence to which are successively applied C, P and T transformations ? (please provide one sentence per transformation). Present the output sentence and conclude.

Thanks.

[BCM]

X MARKS THE SPOT

[luke viia]

new x = particle-antiparticle swapping as a function of time reversal like running a movie backward as a function of parity violation as a function of x?

 

 

and F is a fact which X refers to

 

how about you add some actual quantities into this equation and maybe someone can actually make sense of what your new VCR transformer is equal to

 

(suggested ans: imhotep is invisible)

[goDel]

 

Could someone provide a simple example formulated with ONE sentence to which are successively applied C, P and T transformations ? (please provide one sentence per transformation). Present the output sentence and conclude.

Thanks.

 

I don't think a sentence which behaves according to natural grammar can be swapped in time. Not necessarily, to say the least. There might be an example. But it wouldn't hold as a general law, like in the quantum sciences. Just like entropy in the natural sciences, i guess. You might want to formulate a quantum grammar in order to have a successful example. Whatever the hell that would entail... :S

[Guest Babar]

yes.

My post is confusing. Forget the sentence shit. Just present me facts (sentences can go fuck themselves). But try to keep the expression of it simple (one sentence only would be welcomed).

 

As for quantum grammar

http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/files/3185/SS08SadrzadehM.pdf

 

there are a few stuffs about machine-translation in this I think

http://deposit.ddb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?idn=965581020&dok_var=d1&dok_ext=pdf&filename=965581020.pdf

 

 

And yes I think the CPT method can be applied pretty well (i suppose i found one example).

But it's not really working everywhere.

 

Two months ago I sent a mail to some chick to ask her if she wanted to meet. And I got a reply one hour ago. Basically she says : "sorry for not answering you sooner, but i'm overbooked, that's why we can't meet" (of course this is not explicit).

This is some shady behavior. Wouldn't she just ignore me if she didn't want to meet ? huh ?

I have the feeling there are some quantum fluctuation in this situation, in this girl, in her vagina, so basically what I'm trying to do is decyphering what the anti-chick wants.

 

The anti-me reasonably thinks there are all the newtonian stability in that situation [the one from the quote], out of that anti-girl, out of her vagina, so in all complexity, what the anti-me is trying to do is to encrypt what the chicks does not want. Would the anti-me just harass the anti-chick if he wanted no to meet ? huh ? This is some clear behavior. Basically he says : "thank you for asking me this late since i'm unoccupied, that's why we can meet (of course this is not implicit). My anti-me will send a reply in one hour from now. And in two months my anti-me will receive a mail from this specific anti-chick (whose purpose is) to answer him she does not want to break up.

 

W I N

[modey]

[Guest Super lurker ultra V12]

pretty much

[Guest Centurix]

Thread makes an appearance. Looks like the LHC may have found Higgs at 125GeV. There's rumours of an announcement soon.

 

http://blog.vixra.org/2011/12/02/higgs-rumour-anaylsis-points-to-125-gev/

[Guest Babar]

a

Z`DÉ

[Guest Babar]

yeah yeah

walk away

 

tl,dr-ers can can go eat a bag of dicks.

 

 

1.2 A scientific account of meaning

In professional as well as in lay communities, science is too often taken in a very limited (and arguably conceited, as we shall see) sense that science is a theory about naive external and objective reality in Nature.4 In this view, Nature is passive and mechanistic. It is

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

therefore very often argued that the meaning-giving human beings, equipped with all their consciousness, artistic creativity, free will, and moral judgment, “naturally” can not be a part of passive and mechanistic Nature. This leads many to believe that a new scientific account of meaning is impossible right from the start5. But this does not have to be the case. Let us see why.

To clear the matter up a bit, let us consider what “scientific account” means anyway. We have just encountered our first question of meaning. And I hope the following discussion will shed some light on what a scientific account of meaning would look like. Now, as far as “an account of meaning” (call it X) is concerned, a scientist is a person who believes in and strives for intelligible accounts of meaning (an intelligible account is an explanation one finds persuasive and rational). Moreover, a scientist is a naturalist, at least when she practices her profession. A naturalist is a person who believes that in the realm of discussion there is no account other than those found in Nature6. Armed with these concepts, we can reformulate our target as

a naturalist intelligible account of meaning.

At this moment, an objection to the possibility of this account can be largely attributed to the belief that Nature is passive and mechanistic. For many, this position seems to be the only choice, for Nature seems to consist of matter and matter follows the Law of Nature

1.2. A SCIENTIFIC ACCOUNT OF MEANING 7

without exception; but human beings seem to be able to “break the law.”7 In this sense, one could say matter is passive and objective but mind is active and subjective. If this view is correct, a naturalist has to answer this question:

why are mind and matter so different in that mind is active and subjective but matter is not?

Convinced that the pre-condition of this question is correct (i.e. matter and mind are inherently different), an antagonist of the naturalist intelligible account of meaning has a point. This renders the question untouchable, because it does not need any further explanation (it can be taken as it is). Nevertheless, this question sounds quite similar to a question a` la Newton: why are earthly bodies and heavenly bodies so different in that an apple falls but the moon floats? — remember the properties of heavenly bodies were an untouchable scientific question in the Middle Ages. For Newton, it turns out that the question has a simple answer: the moon does fall, so does the apple, and indeed so does everything. Asserting that, the age-old Aristotelian tenet of differentiating celestial from terrestrial body falls apart! Would the answer to the question above be the same? — that matter (indeed the physical world as a whole) is active too?! Or, alternatively, the mind is also passive and our subjective intuition is only delusion?! If it is the second case, we end up with another theory of zombies, and the reader should stop reading right away because nothing makes sense anymore. On the other hand, if it is the first case, we have to revise our conventional way of thinking of objectivity. This is a monistic view8 of the universe relying on the refutation of Cartesian dualism. At this point, it seems to me that a “better” naturalist intelligible account of meaning must be a genuine monist theory.

The monistic approach to mind and matter is not a new idea. In fact, it can perhaps be traced all the way back to Democritus’ theory of atoms and his stance as a panpsychist.

 

8 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

In the era of classical physics and rationality, however, monism has given way to Cartesian dualism [9] and lost its influence Although seldom explicitly taught, Cartesian dualism is still deeply embedded in the way classical physics is presented. It remains the case even as the crucial argument of Ren ́e Descartes (1596–1650) — the concept of God has deteriorated ever since. Ironically, an extreme form of materialism (disguised as a sort of monism, although it is not, as we shall see) has emerged from Cartesian dualism.

To see how deep-rooted Cartesian dualism is in the alleged monist materialism, let us consider the orbit of Pluto as an example. The orbit of Pluto is presented in the textbook as a movie-clip in the eye of an external observer — in the “God’s view,” so to speak, although Pluto’s period of revolution is much longer than the life expectancy of today’s human and it has not even completed a single revolution since its discovery. So from human’s view, the observation (or the experiment) is not even finished yet. What we have is only a firm belief that Pluto will follow its course pretty much like Earth follows its course. (It is very likely the case, but it is a belief nevertheless, therefore qualitatively different from absolute objectivity.) In fact, it is only from the “God’s view” — and indeed, one needs very strong faith in it — that a naive (viz. objective) materialism can emerge. Since objectivity must be established by an external observer, the observer can not be a part of the universe — which, by definition of monism, must include everything. Now it is clear that the absolute observer is the subjectivity being smuggled in. Consequently this can not be a genuine monism. In fact, this is one of most important motivations for us to shift our interest from ontology to epistemology and see the whole matter from inside out. A consequence of this shift is the so-called positivism. But a naive positivistic view of Nature cannot work either.

Thanks to the standard textbooks of sciences, today many students of science hold a naive positivistic stance that the purpose of science is to “model natural phenomena as closely as possible”. That is, to offer predictions of natural phenomena as accurately as possible. This seems to be an epistemic approach. But the naivety lies literally in this view, because it begs for a model and an objective standard of “closeness.” It is nevertheless dualism in disguise. The implicit dualist stance will become clearer if we pose the following two questions: who is modeling? and to what is the model considered close? For one thing,

1.3. QUANTUM THEORETICALLY SPEAKING 9

there must be the absolute objectivity (the matter in Nature) to which scientific theory (in the mind of scientists) can model and the numerical prediction can approach. For another, the concept of model itself tears up the universe into what is modeling and what is being modeled. In fact, this view of separability has been subject to question in modern physics and in a way has motivated the epistemic approach to science.

Let us begin with the fundamental question posed by quantum theory. Indeed, it can be argued that a sort of proto-mind must be embedded in the sub-atomic phenomena which are not separable from their physical properties (in a quite obscure and indirect way, however). For one thing, in quantum mechanics, the observer — this is extended by a set of measurement instruments that obey classical mechanics — may play a crucial role and influence the experiment outcomes dramatically. In certain experimental arrangements, for example, an electron will shy away from a particular property if it “knows” that it is being watched (see Section 3.2 for details). In these cases, the absolute objective view has to be modified, if not given up. In a sense, quantum objects have some mind-like properties which make a monistic approach to mind and matter attractive again. Observing this fact, the qualitative question above is not justified and should be transformed to a quantitative one:

in which situations should we talk about an object is matter-like and/or mind- like?

This will be a crucial question addressed in this thesis. And indeed, quantum mechanics offers a handy formalism not only for physical objects but also for mental “objects.” This will comprise the basis of our naturalist intelligible account of meaning.

 

 

from Quantum Computation and Natural Language Processing : Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades am Fachbereich Informatik der Universita ̈t Hamburg

 




The way quantum mechanics was invented has a character that is unique in the history of physical theories: it emerged (approximately between 1900 and 1935) of a real small crowd of contributions of different authors: Bohr, Planck, Einstein, de Broglie, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Born, Pauli, von Neumann, Dirac. And I probably forgot a lot. But these contributions - some of which emerged parallelly, almost without interacting - were all essential, but highly dissimilar, each original and very creative. They finally assembled in a perfectly coherent whole. Yet it would be difficult to attribute this alignment to a specific person, as monitored within the individual mind, by a kind of process that anyone can reach through introspection. As such, we are inclined to attribute to Newton the coherence of the data known in his time about the movement of macroscopic bodies, Maxwell or the alignment of data known in his time on the electric and magnetic phenomena, etc. .

This suggests a hypothesis: those who got down to the task of representing microsystems and their states in a way that can be tolerated by both the essence of Newtonian mechanics and that of the macroscopic theory of electromagnetic fields , found themselves faced with a situation COGNITIVE who at the time, was certainly unusual to the point that the innovation effort required exceeded the ability of a single intelligence. And even the capacity of a single genius. But then this singular cognitive imposed more or less implicitly restrictions so stringent that they have acted as a common mold that ensured a high degree of unity between the results of different approaches.

This is the cognitive situation who orchestrated the construction of quantum mechanics.

Placed on a supra-individual, inter-subjective level, it replaced and implicitly controled the conceptually unifying logic that usually works explicitly within a single innovative. Pervasive in a way external and neutral, it acted as an organizer and a co-ordinator.

 

mioara mugur schatcher, in le tissage des connaissances.

 

So you bunch of sleepers, stop thinking you have a good grasp en quantum mechanics. Some of you maybe have more or less knowledge about its mathematical formalism, but you don't understand shit about its Depths. Even people who spend their life studying QM are not assured to get a good intuition about it. And you think you do ? Faggots.

I can't believe no-one provided an answer to my question. You band of ignoring pricks. Stop thinking that neutrino shits are interesting. They are not. What's interesting is what's behind it, and you certainly are not formulating it, with that stupid blind following-behavior of yours. Know why ?

 

Spoken Tao is not eternal Tao. Spoken name is not eternal name.

The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the enduring and unchanging name.

quotes from Quantum Computation and Natural Language Processing : Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades am Fachbereich Informatik der Universita ̈t Hamburg

 

You don't get interested in quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics gets interested in you. It's not up to you to decide ; and even though it hasn't happened yet, you're already all old men to me. Old men living in the era of jazz.

 

You totally missed the fact that someone on this board embarked on the quantum boat. Fair enough. I don't need you. You need me.

 

*sails off to new shores*

[azatoth]

Why keep filling this thread with this off-topic drivel? Start your own thread about your quantum linguistics and whathaveyou.

[Guest Babar]

last chance

 

 

A philosophy-prone reader may notice that this view is not without question. To clear this issue a bit, let us take a short excursion to the philosophical problem of quantum mechanics. First of all, the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics is a language10 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

(mathematics) and its interpretation is about the physical meaning of the language. Indeed, the tool with which we talk about physical meaning — language, is such an intimate part of us that we cannot tell the difference between the meanings the utterances confer and the “empty words” used to convey it. Unfortunately, this confusion manifests itself in quantum mechanics as well. As far as the meaning of quantum mechanics is concerned, the interpretations of quantum mechanics are not only diverse but also obscure [10], for quantum mechanics itself is in some way inconsistent and paradoxical. More specifically, the paradox is deeply buried in the coexistence of classical objects which are not subject to uncertainties, and micro-objects, with the former measuring the latter. In a way, this paradoxical coexistence manifests itself as “a puzzle of two languages” [11]. In quantum mechanics we need an everyday language with which we can communicate with each other unambiguously — this is strengthened by the language of classical physics; and a formalism that can only predict the result stochastically — this renders the “reality” pointed to by the symbols in the formalism inherently ambiguous.

 

...

 

 

In fact, it points out that language must play a crucial role in quantum mechanics, for it is in language (mathematics) that the laws of quantum mechanics are formulated and it is in language that the confusion, and paradox, etc. manifest themselves. Moreover, it is in the language “at the higher level” that the consistency is restored. We should note, however, that this hierarchy cannot go infinitely upwards, because we need an account from within (hierarchy is always a view seen from without). This suggests that it is unlikely to have an adequate account of quantum mechanics without an adequate account of language. Interestingly, seen from within, quantum mechanics may also offer a good formalism to analyze the problem of language.