[N0B0DY]

Fair enough, but is it fair to say that the whole would remain unchanged regardless of how it is rearranged?

[Tina]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY Fair enough, but is it fair to say that the whole would remain unchanged regardless of how it is rearranged?

No - not fair to say "whole remains unchanged" because finite matter is fixed in "quanity" but changing/re-arranging/re-cycling particles constantly.

This is why "happiness" is just as possible as "saddness" but things are "humanly arranged" in this world to provide much more saddness than happiness.

[Ravi]

Originally Posted by Tina Ravi, I'll respond fully to your last post tomorrow but in the meantime don't call in the Physicists - OMG not the Physicists 12:00 am Australia

waiting....
btw, why not physicists in the quest for the theory of "everything"?

[Tina]

Originally Posted by Ravi waiting.... btw, why not physicists in the quest for the theory of "everything"?

Sorry Ravi will post response in about 15 mins

[Tina]

Originally Posted by Ravi Tina, thanks for the warm welcome. "good" and "bad".... two different kinds of sensations in our mind? So how do we say that the same sensations are not perceived by other organisms? I have seen street dogs furiously chasing vehicles.... May be they too have the sensation of "good" and "bad" created in their mind. So instead of "humans", we may now say "the mind" caused "evil" to exist. isn't "existance" always "with respect to" the "perceiver"? Any physicists out there? perhaps you can give us some ideas on the role of the "perceiver" in some of the latest findings about what the universe is made up of?

Animals are purely instinctive creatures - they act according to a rationale that does not require deliberation...they follow urges that instinct dictates. The cars are not a thing of nature and consequently are dangerous for a dog who is urged to chase threatening moving objects presumably to scare away.

An animal (I am convinced) cannot make moral value judgements in terms of "good and bad" . It can only do what instinct has dictated for its survival. Sadly the dogs must now attempt to survive in a dangerous mechanical world.

Ideas of "good and bad" are human value judgements with which we interpret all human experience - everything is organised in terms of belonging to either the good or the bad group...and the determinations of what is actually "good or bad" ultimately arbitrary.

And finally - why no physicists? In Toequest there are many theories and there is much physics and quantum mathematics that could be downloaded on these pages - but i think this would just complicate things at this stage.

But let us consider the Quantum Cat in the box:
It is actually dead = (X)
Actually Not dead = (-X)

But because we cannot know until we open the box - we say the cat is in a state of Superposition (the we don't know state)

This can be expressed as

-(X) ^ -(-X)

That is the cat is not necessarily dead nor is it necessarily not dead - it is in the third state which we can call the Neutral ie Not (+) nor (-) but (O) until the truth of the cats fate is truely known.

I'm raving a bit but I better just post and hope for the best!

[Profpat]

Tina isn't it time you quit your PT and give us your answer so we are able to debate it?

Best to all,

Pat

[Tina]

Originally Posted by Profpat Tina isn't it time you quit your PT and give us your answer so we are able to debate it? Best to all, Pat

Profpat - does PT mean what my mind thinks it does?

[N0B0DY]

"That is the cat is not necessarily dead nor is it necessarily not dead - it is in the third state which we can call the Neutral ie Not (+) nor (-) but (O) until the truth of the cats fate is truely known."

Yeah, this here is what I was looking for, Tina. Good stuff.

The "O" would be representative of the whole, and the superpositions and eventual outcome can only manifest in a finite model of the universe. Otherwise, the universe would remain in its absolute state of superposition.

[Tina]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY "That is the cat is not necessarily dead nor is it necessarily not dead - it is in the third state which we can call the Neutral ie Not (+) nor (-) but (O) until the truth of the cats fate is truely known." Yeah, this here is what I was looking for, Tina. Good stuff. The "O" would be representative of the whole, and the superpositions and eventual outcome can only manifest in a finite model of the universe. Otherwise, the universe would remain in its absolute state of superposition.

Sorry but I did not understand your conclusion and I'd like you to explain it a bit better for me.

Physicists have a slightly differant slant on superposition.

The ideas here on superposition and the quantum cat are derived from Protheory by member (Protheory) Protheory asserts that:

All things can be explained in terms of a dynamic between positive(+) negative (-) and neutral (0) potentials

[N0B0DY]

Same idea, Tina. You gave a quantum scenario so it pertains to quantum superposition, with +-1 eigenvalues unknown (non-existent) and a zero vector representative of the state of the cat until the energy and position are observed.