The observer effect is very clear, that a subjective consciousness alters the results of the experiment. That interpretation was shown not to be true by experiments specifically designed to test this hypothesis. The "observer" is any part of the environment which interacts with the system in a thermodynamically-irreverable way. http://www.danko-nikolic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Yu-and-Nikolic-Qm-and-consciousness-Annalen-Physik.pdfTaken together, the existing experiments suggest clear conclusions regarding the predictionswe derived. All predictions have been falsified. The existence of interference patterns depends solely on whether the “which-path” information is in principle obtainable [11,20,33–35].Whether such information is registered in consciousness of a human observer, one can conclude, is irrelevant. Consequently, this conclusion leaves no other option but to reject the collapse-by-consciousness hypothesis. Ok. I'm going to roll over on this as I'm not nearly qualified to wade through that study in detail. I am curious however as they mention human consciousness being the variable - is that correct? It would be interesting to see where the line is between self aware human/ non self aware animal/ inanimate object/ measuring device. In any case, I doubt this will be the end of the story. |
|
|
|
The double split experiment does not prove that reality is not objective. It proves subatomic particles behave in ways we don't fully understand.
I guess we are just going to go around in circles on this because I just don't think you understand what this experiment confirms. The observer effect is very clear, that a subjective consciousness alters the results of the experiment. We understand this perfectly well. |
|
|
|
so no concensus? no one knows what the fuck going on. Ok so sideways forever again
STABILITY! keep dreaming lol |
|
|
|
Not knowing where something is does not make it unreal. You're the one claiming things are not real unless we observe them. I'm simply saying that quantum mechanics is not relevant to the notion of an objective reality, especially when we are speaking of dealing with people as they really are. A better phrasing would have been irrelavent (not real) - and you confirmed it. How do you reconcile a split in the type of reality based on it's size? I dont see where objective comes in anywhere - actually I believe I just posted a link to a study which proved that reality is not objective. (also just for the record, you are now posting a link to a video, not a study... I will however indulge and watch it  ) |
|
|
|
As it stands now
Yeah, as it stands now when Bitcoin Foundation is still new and still needs to establish itself. But once it does that and it has some significant funding available to fund PR propaganda you and I both know the ignorant masses will never dissent. I mean just look outside to politics for an example. And any fork will get crushed with smears and propaganda and marginalized into irrelevance. Again look outside to an example in politics. If I know one thing about the bitcoin community, it's that they are maybe the most paranoid/ distrusting of traditional media/propaganda than any other. I see your argument, but I think you have to consider the context. Also, let's consider a worst case scenario: Bitcoin's code is co-opted by some terrible corporate interest and a new fork was created. The mainstream was slow to catch on, but the conscious, early adopters saw the issue, with the mainstream slowly moving towards the new fork. I'm sure you can see who benefits from the new fork. Once adoption is clear for one e-currency, barriers to adoption will be MUCH lower for the next one for both merchants and users. It's important to be clear about your attachment. Is it to bitcoin - or to the benefits that bitcoin brings? |
|
|
|
It's important to think about how the centralization comes about. There is voluntary centralization and forced upon centralization. The Bitcoin economy has many points of voluntary centralization already and there will be more of them in the future. I don't see that as a major problem. What we need to avoid is the latter.
Lets be precise shall we? Yes the Bitcoin economy has voluntary points of centralization, and that's perfectly fine because all these centralized points will get removed the second they misbehave and can't make a profit anymore. But Bitcoin itself, as a protocol, until 3 days ago had no points of centralization, especially not such that aren't dependent on profits to exist. Please provide a reasonable way how this self admitted self imposed spokesperson, policy setting, business vetting, intertwined with corporate interest body can be rid of in the future should it misbehave? It can't. If corporate interest throw enough money at it, it can stay around forever, no competition can touch it. And that's a crucial difference between voluntary for profit centralization around Bitcoin and a self asserted centralization of Bitcoin itself. You and I both know that the minute the "corporate interests" do something that goes against the interest of the community, is the same minute bitcoin is forked (probably much earlier than that actually) and the community goes with the new fork. As it stands now, the intermingling of these interests are nothing but a good thing as they help with adoption of the currencies by the mainstream. |
|
|
|
|
Yes, I think we can all agree that it will stabilize eventually... but achieving the market cap necessary in order for this to take effect? This could be 15-20 years from now.
|
|
|
|
 lmao  This. lol adam |
|
|
|
Because the uncertainty ceases once you get above the subatomic level. My salt shaker (and all the salt, for that matter) is always in the same place, unless someone moves it. I can say with utmost certainty exactly where it is. When I open the cabinet door, the salt does not spring into existence exactly where I left it.
So by this logic, everything below the subatomic level is not real? If time is 2 dimensional, then the subatomic particle can be in a specific point (not a probabilistic wave) but because it is moving in that other dimension of time as well, and we only perceive one, what we see is an uncertain universe. In other words, if something seems random, it's probably just following rules more complex than you understand.
This is the part where I ask you to provide a study proving what you are referring to. The double slit experiment is the single most widely reproduced experiment in physics (maybe in all of science) and the outcome is therefore established. Not once have I heard of the outcome you are referring to. |
|
|
|
Let me put it this way: If reality were truly subjective, the experimenter could choose which slit the particle went through. Or the experimenter could pick whether the cat has died or not when he opens the box. But he can't. The particle detectors discover which slit the photon went through. The experimenter discovers whether or not the radioactive material has decayed when he opens the box. In other words, yes, the tree does indeed make a sound. A falling tree will displace air whether or not there is someone there to register that against their eardrums.
Just because reality is subjective, does not mean that you have control over that reality... This experiment proves that whatever we perceive turns to "matter"... everything else is simply waves of possibility. No, it proves that Light travels in a probabilistic wave, or that there is a second dimension of time. I say again: quantum mechanics is not relevant to this discussion. It's not just light, its matter (they were firing electrons). Why isnt quantum mechanics relavent? Because it doesnt fit the newtonian worldview? What the hell does time have to do with anything? |
|
|
|
Let me put it this way: If reality were truly subjective, the experimenter could choose which slit the particle went through. Or the experimenter could pick whether the cat has died or not when he opens the box. But he can't. The particle detectors discover which slit the photon went through. The experimenter discovers whether or not the radioactive material has decayed when he opens the box. In other words, yes, the tree does indeed make a sound. A falling tree will displace air whether or not there is someone there to register that against their eardrums.
Just because reality is subjective, does not mean that you have control over that reality... This experiment proves that whatever we perceive turns to "matter"... everything else is simply waves of possibility. |
|
|
|
You wouldnt understand it anyway If you so want to find the studies yourself, then pay for them (yes you have to pay for access to journals) and get them yourself. The info is there. Do with it as you please.
I think you mean: "You wouldn't understand it anyway." When attempting to insult someone's intelligence, spelling, grammar, and yes, punctuation, count. So far you've directed me to watch a movie, and now a PBS show. The only studies presented (thanks, Vampire) have found no evidence to support your silly theory. So, rather than pointing at the internet and saying "it's there, find it yourself," How about you direct me to the journal it's in? All I've ever asked for is a link to the study. I'm not trying to insult anyone, its a fact that this shit is extremely difficult for our monkey brains to comprehend. Here is a link to a lecture on the double slit study, which specifically says that there is no such thing as an objective reality: http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec13.html"This is an extreme break from the idea of an objective reality or one where the laws of Nature have a special, Platonic existence." |
|
|
|
Bid wall is going up alot, but noone wants to move the needle jut yet
that means keeping bids high? how much volume to move the needl Need 4,700 btc to get over 12.5, from there and nearly 20k btc to get over 13. Not chump change. But the interesting thing now is that the bid wall is not so pathetic as it has been over last few weeks. I think once the bid wall approaches the level of where the ask wall is, people will start to get impatient and put in market orders. |
|
|
|
|
Bid wall is going up alot, but noone wants to move the needle jut yet
|
|
|
|
Longer term exponential confirming...  What you did there you can do on any chart. This really confirms nothing, sorry  Try =) |
|
|
|
Longer term exponential confirming...  |
|
|
|
The squirrel feels nothing but the need to hoard moar.  At worst based on existing trend, we are looking at around 11.5. Unless this trend changes, holding is going to be better than selling in the long term. you see that trend line says we should be at 11 11.5 is just the baseline (ie the pont of super strong resistance/ turning point), everything above that is where it's still an upward trend =P |
|
|
|
The squirrel feels nothing but the need to hoard moar. At worst based on existing trend, we are looking at around 11.5. Unless this trend changes, holding is going to be better than selling in the long term. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
