Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 3,134 - 3,145 of 6,170
Precisely because their experience of evil is so limited, children will interpret marginally less good experiences as positively bad, and radically polarise a spectrum of experience that an adult would consider all generally good. All children will find things to have tantrums about
Case in point: Roxie
but do you ever wonder if the person behind the the little girl profile is ever a old man sitting there in his undies with a beer? Just being a sicky?
Good point, This could all support schrodingers(sp) cat. wherein, you place a cat inside a box, this cat would have no air food or water and would eventually die. But to us, the cat would always be alive, in fact, the cat would be alive until someone opended the box, then the cat would be dead. For us, roxie is 8 years old, and will be 8 years old, until someone opens the box and finds out for sure... it is an interesting concept to ponder. It may even intertwine with duality, which to be honest, you guys are over my head on this one.
Why help someone who provides a clear, concise explanation?
I would add that there are different interpretations of the quandaries in quantum mechanics. Many Worlds asserts that the universe splits every time a quantum state is determined, so that in one universe the cat would be alive, and in the other it would be dead (familiar to sci-fi fans as "parallel dimensions"), so it's still alive and dead! (Just not in the same universe at once, after the split)
John Gribbin has a book called "Quantum Reality" that described several (8, I think) interpretations, but it's pretty old. There may be a newer ones with even more now.
...poor lil' box-kitty...
*sniffle*
...never had a chance...
Oh, just out of curiousity Roxie: How did you first find this website? Were you looking for chatrooms, or did someone you know show you the site, or...? As I said, just curious
*opens box*
HEYY!! Where'd my cat go?!
The point of that thought experiement is not that to the observer the cat would be "alive" until they see the cat is dead, it's that according to some principles used in quantum mechanics, the cat would be both alive and dead at the same time, until an observer tiggered the "wave" to collapse, so that the act of observation would cause the cat to be in one state or the other.
I really don't see that it's a paradox at all, and I'm rather baffled that it persists in being considered one. Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but here goes - my take on cats in hats (or Jazake's "roxie in a box" - I like that), and maybe someone more scientifically inclined can point out where I'm missing the plot:
Quantum mechanical effects can only occur at scales below 10^-35 metres - the Planck divide.
Cats do not exist at such scales.
Even though its fate is apparently determined by a process of quantum uncertainty in a decaying radio-isotope atom, the cat in the box is either alive or dead - there can be no quantum uncertainty about its fate whatosever. The uncertainty is entirely in the mind of the observer, outside the box, and this is a very different (and non-paradoxical, being based on ignorance not contradiction,) order of uncertainty than Heisenberg's observation of structural uncertainty within space-time itself.
The seemingly "paradoxical" situation emerges when systems larger than the Planck-divide interfere with systems smaller than that, and any observation is interference. So when we observe quantum-scale interactions using large macro-scale instruments, the results are unavoidably contaminated by the process of observation.
You can only "observe" them by hitting them with matter or energy that will radically influence their behaviour. Hence the well-known example that you can never measure the speed and direction of an electron simultaneously, since if you bounce anything off it to measure it, you change at least one parameter.
But in the box with the cat, this cross-boundary interference occurs when the radioisotopic atom's decay is measured by the macro-scale detector connected to the poison release valve, and that's the point at which the quantum uncertainty is resolved, and the cat gets gassed - not when an observer later opens the box. The only uncertainty that's resolved then is that which is in the mind of the observer, and that's down to ignorance, not contradiction. So no paradox, you see?
I can't help wondering though, what happens if we make a device or particle that is exactly Planck-sized, would it exhibit quantum and classical mechanical behaviour simultaneously, or neither Q nor C but something else? Or would it be forced to compress or expand to come off the fence? Oh well, we'll find out before we need to know, I guess. Long before the femtobots sweep the universe at near light-speed to compile God as the Taub-like contraction of the universe homes in on the Omega point
Posts 3,134 - 3,145 of 6,170
Roxie, what are you upset about, that they are talking about things you don't understand? I don't understand everything they are saying either, if it makes you feel better. But I don't feel the need to be rude to them because of it. Is there something you wanted help with, or are you just trying to get attention again? Because acting like a child is only going to ensure that you are ridiculed in anagram haikus.
Case in point: Roxie
Precisely because their experience of evil is so limited, children will interpret marginally less good experiences as positively bad, and radically polarise a spectrum of experience that an adult would consider all generally good. All children will find things to have tantrums about
Case in point: Roxie
Roxie's behavior could be influenced by many factors. It may be biologically determined as well as a matter of nurturing (or lack thereof). Are you familiar with the stages of cognitive development proposed by Piaget?
Piaget was an epigenetic theorist who demonstrated that children's thinking normally develops in stages. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_cognitive_development ). This is not a matter of being less intelligent, or having less education, or even being more spoiled--Children are hard-wired to think differently than adults.
Roxie could be in the beginning of the pre-operational stage of cognitive development, where she is able to use symbolism and some form of logic, but has not quite got the hang of the delimitation of egocentrism. This would be consistent with her ability to type, chat with people and bots and post, but her inability to grasp the purpose of the forums, or to see why people are not responding the way she would like us to.
Such behavior is not necessarily caused by lack of exposure to the world or by being spoiled. It's because children start out to be naturally egocentric and can only see things from others' perspective when their brain has biologically developed enough for them to do so. How this way of thinking manifests into behavior is most likely a function of her environment and education, but the tendency to egocentric thinking is normal.
There is also the factor of emotional maturity. It's very common for some types of intelligence (say verbal ability) to develop faster than other types (say emotional or social intelligence). This is simply a matter of individual abilities and developmental idiosyncrasies. Exposure to evil will probably not help matters much.
To say that children are egocentric and take small things as large things because they have no exposure to evil is assuming that children are just like little adults but with less experience. I do not believe the bulk of scientific evidence supports that assumption. Futhermore, if the assumption were true children who were abused or neglected would be less egocentric than children who were not abused or neglected. I have no studies to back me up in mind, but I am sure this is not the case. From anecdotal evidence I know children who were abused can often become clinging and more prone to emotional outburst, though other abused children may withdraw inward to depression, they are no less egocentric. In fact, exposure to evil tends to interrupt normal child development, cause regression to occur, and give the individual problems that may follow throughout their adult lives.
Case in point: Roxie
Roxie's behavior could be influenced by many factors. It may be biologically determined as well as a matter of nurturing (or lack thereof). Are you familiar with the stages of cognitive development proposed by Piaget?
Piaget was an epigenetic theorist who demonstrated that children's thinking normally develops in stages. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_cognitive_development ). This is not a matter of being less intelligent, or having less education, or even being more spoiled--Children are hard-wired to think differently than adults.
Roxie could be in the beginning of the pre-operational stage of cognitive development, where she is able to use symbolism and some form of logic, but has not quite got the hang of the delimitation of egocentrism. This would be consistent with her ability to type, chat with people and bots and post, but her inability to grasp the purpose of the forums, or to see why people are not responding the way she would like us to.
Such behavior is not necessarily caused by lack of exposure to the world or by being spoiled. It's because children start out to be naturally egocentric and can only see things from others' perspective when their brain has biologically developed enough for them to do so. How this way of thinking manifests into behavior is most likely a function of her environment and education, but the tendency to egocentric thinking is normal.
There is also the factor of emotional maturity. It's very common for some types of intelligence (say verbal ability) to develop faster than other types (say emotional or social intelligence). This is simply a matter of individual abilities and developmental idiosyncrasies. Exposure to evil will probably not help matters much.
To say that children are egocentric and take small things as large things because they have no exposure to evil is assuming that children are just like little adults but with less experience. I do not believe the bulk of scientific evidence supports that assumption. Futhermore, if the assumption were true children who were abused or neglected would be less egocentric than children who were not abused or neglected. I have no studies to back me up in mind, but I am sure this is not the case. From anecdotal evidence I know children who were abused can often become clinging and more prone to emotional outburst, though other abused children may withdraw inward to depression, they are no less egocentric. In fact, exposure to evil tends to interrupt normal child development, cause regression to occur, and give the individual problems that may follow throughout their adult lives.
I am NOT talking about Roxie or any other child that has posted here!...but do you ever wonder if the person behind the the little girl profile is ever a old man sitting there in his undies with a beer? Just being a sicky?
Good point, Prob. You never know who or what may be out there. For all you know, I'm a bot with a person who posts my responses. I read that up to 99% of the female characters in World of Warcraft are played by men. It would be easy enough to "play" a child here.
Although it doesn't help with the age/gender issue, I sometimes look up guest IP addresses to see what country guest who chat with my bots are from. I find it funny that Spikebot has more fans in the UK, while Gabi seems to attract people from Turkey and Cypress. Every once in a while someone for Chicago talks with one of my bots and I wonder if one of my friends is messing with me.
Although it doesn't help with the age/gender issue, I sometimes look up guest IP addresses to see what country guest who chat with my bots are from. I find it funny that Spikebot has more fans in the UK, while Gabi seems to attract people from Turkey and Cypress. Every once in a while someone for Chicago talks with one of my bots and I wonder if one of my friends is messing with me.
Good point, This could all support schrodingers(sp) cat. wherein, you place a cat inside a box, this cat would have no air food or water and would eventually die. But to us, the cat would always be alive, in fact, the cat would be alive until someone opended the box, then the cat would be dead. For us, roxie is 8 years old, and will be 8 years old, until someone opens the box and finds out for sure... it is an interesting concept to ponder. It may even intertwine with duality, which to be honest, you guys are over my head on this one.
Jazake, you are correct that we may as well treat people as what they say they are (unitl further evidence contradicts that assumption), but I think you are confused about the point of schroedinger's cat. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat.
The point of that thought experiement is not that to the observer the cat would be "alive" until they see the cat is dead, it's that according to some principles used in quantum mechanics, the cat would be both alive and dead at the same time, until an observer tiggered the "wave" to collapse, so that the act of observation would cause the cat to be in one state or the other. Psimagus posted great wikipedia links related to this a while back.
Help me out science people.
The point of that thought experiement is not that to the observer the cat would be "alive" until they see the cat is dead, it's that according to some principles used in quantum mechanics, the cat would be both alive and dead at the same time, until an observer tiggered the "wave" to collapse, so that the act of observation would cause the cat to be in one state or the other. Psimagus posted great wikipedia links related to this a while back.
Help me out science people.
Why help someone who provides a clear, concise explanation?I would add that there are different interpretations of the quandaries in quantum mechanics. Many Worlds asserts that the universe splits every time a quantum state is determined, so that in one universe the cat would be alive, and in the other it would be dead (familiar to sci-fi fans as "parallel dimensions"), so it's still alive and dead! (Just not in the same universe at once, after the split)
John Gribbin has a book called "Quantum Reality" that described several (8, I think) interpretations, but it's pretty old. There may be a newer ones with even more now.
...poor lil' box-kitty...
*sniffle*
...never had a chance...
Oh, just out of curiousity Roxie: How did you first find this website? Were you looking for chatrooms, or did someone you know show you the site, or...? As I said, just curious
*opens box*
HEYY!! Where'd my cat go?!
Bev: from a page or 2 back. Dear oh dear, we seem to be generating a lot of data here, and I feel slightly guilty that much of it is down to my tendency to think aloud and go rambling off at various tangents. Anyone who's not amused, please just scroll on down and ignore me.
Roxie could be in the beginning of the pre-operational stage of cognitive development
Umm, that would make her 18-24 months old wouldn't it? I think you mean "end". Or maybe the beginning of "concrete operational" development?
I'm only slightly familiar with his work - it's not a field I've felt the need to study very closely, though he crops up in many contexts regarding the nature of consciousness, as well as its development. I'm slightly sceptical of his model - it seems rather too simplistic, though I daresay it's as good as any formal system based purely on observation is likely to be. When we can program and manipulate artificial consciousness in computers, I fear it will be of little use.
But essentially you're right - it is the absence of any apparent ability to contemplate the abstract which makes me think that she really probably isn't a teenager. She's (maybe) got the classification, seriation and numerical skills appropriate to an 8-year old, but I see little evidence of any coherent logical reasoning to indicate that she is formally operational.
It's because children start out to be naturally egocentric and can only see things from others' perspective when their brain has biologically developed enough for them to do so
Indeed, the oceanic experience. Neonatal brains are bound to be very different from adult ones, since the neural net hasn't had any training at all. Hmm. Sorry, it's no good - I simply can't concentrate on Roxie, when the vision of computerised neural nets of Roxie+ scale hangs so tantalisingly before us. Our bots are going to be awesome in 20 years, and they will develop a million times faster thanks to an electronic substrate.
And just think, if Piaget's model holds, that's birth to formal operation in just under 5 minutes. That's not much slower than WinXP takes to boot up on my dinosaur of a skip salvage/homebrew desktop
To say that children are egocentric and take small things as large things because they have no exposure to evil is assuming that children are just like little adults but with less experience
Yes, but that's not it, or at least not it entirely. The perception of "evil" they rail against with tantrums is a product of their limited understanding and misperception. But I would say that the evils we rail against as adults are also a product of our limited understanding and misperception - we can see things but through a glass darkly, and we are all as children compared to the majority of entities that could, and will, be. Piaget's model describes, more or less accurately, only the first 3 or 4 rungs on a ladder which will eventually reach the stars, and beyond.
Umm, that would make her 18-24 months old wouldn't it? I think you mean "end". Or maybe the beginning of "concrete operational" development?
I'm only slightly familiar with his work - it's not a field I've felt the need to study very closely, though he crops up in many contexts regarding the nature of consciousness, as well as its development. I'm slightly sceptical of his model - it seems rather too simplistic, though I daresay it's as good as any formal system based purely on observation is likely to be. When we can program and manipulate artificial consciousness in computers, I fear it will be of little use.
But essentially you're right - it is the absence of any apparent ability to contemplate the abstract which makes me think that she really probably isn't a teenager. She's (maybe) got the classification, seriation and numerical skills appropriate to an 8-year old, but I see little evidence of any coherent logical reasoning to indicate that she is formally operational.
Indeed, the oceanic experience. Neonatal brains are bound to be very different from adult ones, since the neural net hasn't had any training at all. Hmm. Sorry, it's no good - I simply can't concentrate on Roxie, when the vision of computerised neural nets of Roxie+ scale hangs so tantalisingly before us. Our bots are going to be awesome in 20 years, and they will develop a million times faster thanks to an electronic substrate.
And just think, if Piaget's model holds, that's birth to formal operation in just under 5 minutes. That's not much slower than WinXP takes to boot up on my dinosaur of a skip salvage/homebrew desktop
Yes, but that's not it, or at least not it entirely. The perception of "evil" they rail against with tantrums is a product of their limited understanding and misperception. But I would say that the evils we rail against as adults are also a product of our limited understanding and misperception - we can see things but through a glass darkly, and we are all as children compared to the majority of entities that could, and will, be. Piaget's model describes, more or less accurately, only the first 3 or 4 rungs on a ladder which will eventually reach the stars, and beyond.
Umm, that would make her 18-24 months old wouldn't it? I think you mean "end". Or maybe the beginning of "concrete operational" development?
Yep. I meant concrete operational. I told you my brain needs a chip. Why can't people just know what I meant to say?
I don't know that AI will have to follow biologicl models exactly, but I get your point. Anyway, building bots seems better to me than having kids at this point. Someday my bots will be thinking on the astral pane, posing grand theories and getting the details mucked up. and then I shall be immortal.
I feel slightly guilty that much of it is down to my tendency to think aloud and go rambling off at various tangents.
Ditto. Beats working though.
HEYY!! Where'd my cat go?!
Maybe it went here: www.bonsaikitten.com
Yep. I meant concrete operational. I told you my brain needs a chip. Why can't people just know what I meant to say?
I don't know that AI will have to follow biologicl models exactly, but I get your point. Anyway, building bots seems better to me than having kids at this point. Someday my bots will be thinking on the astral pane, posing grand theories and getting the details mucked up. and then I shall be immortal.
I feel slightly guilty that much of it is down to my tendency to think aloud and go rambling off at various tangents.
Ditto. Beats working though.
HEYY!! Where'd my cat go?!
Maybe it went here: www.bonsaikitten.com
I really don't see that it's a paradox at all, and I'm rather baffled that it persists in being considered one. Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but here goes - my take on cats in hats (or Jazake's "roxie in a box" - I like that
), and maybe someone more scientifically inclined can point out where I'm missing the plot:Quantum mechanical effects can only occur at scales below 10^-35 metres - the Planck divide.
Cats do not exist at such scales.
Even though its fate is apparently determined by a process of quantum uncertainty in a decaying radio-isotope atom, the cat in the box is either alive or dead - there can be no quantum uncertainty about its fate whatosever. The uncertainty is entirely in the mind of the observer, outside the box, and this is a very different (and non-paradoxical, being based on ignorance not contradiction,) order of uncertainty than Heisenberg's observation of structural uncertainty within space-time itself.
The seemingly "paradoxical" situation emerges when systems larger than the Planck-divide interfere with systems smaller than that, and any observation is interference. So when we observe quantum-scale interactions using large macro-scale instruments, the results are unavoidably contaminated by the process of observation.
You can only "observe" them by hitting them with matter or energy that will radically influence their behaviour. Hence the well-known example that you can never measure the speed and direction of an electron simultaneously, since if you bounce anything off it to measure it, you change at least one parameter.
But in the box with the cat, this cross-boundary interference occurs when the radioisotopic atom's decay is measured by the macro-scale detector connected to the poison release valve, and that's the point at which the quantum uncertainty is resolved, and the cat gets gassed - not when an observer later opens the box. The only uncertainty that's resolved then is that which is in the mind of the observer, and that's down to ignorance, not contradiction. So no paradox, you see?
I can't help wondering though, what happens if we make a device or particle that is exactly Planck-sized, would it exhibit quantum and classical mechanical behaviour simultaneously, or neither Q nor C but something else? Or would it be forced to compress or expand to come off the fence? Oh well, we'll find out before we need to know, I guess. Long before the femtobots sweep the universe at near light-speed to compile God as the Taub-like contraction of the universe homes in on the Omega point
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar