Recent content by Daisyroots

Hello, I posted the following at #26 without response: "Hi mieral. It seems to me that, given the circumstance of a collapsed wave function, whether it's an objective collapse or a collapse induced by measurement, sentience is required to objectify the resultant. Wouldn't you say that that, ie...

Dear Demystifier, may I please ask, did you intend the latter part of this statement (from your #22) to read: 'that even when WdW Hamiltonian is zero matter is present'. It's just that I can't make sense of it with the wording as it stands. But that may be down to me not having the requisite...

Yeah, for me the thinking side of things tends to be a little bit more involved than that, though it it doesn't leave it out. For me objective existence (such as, I think, you describe) is only a part of the equation. I can't leave out the sentient beings doing the work of...

Hi mieral. It seems to me that, given the circumstance of a collapsed wave function, whether it's an objective collapse or a collapse induced by measurement, sentience is required to objectify the resultant. Wouldn't you say that that, ie. the requisite sentience, is a connecting factor? The...

Thanks, Demystifier, for bothering with such a 'Luddite' as I must present. In the terms of such as myself, I suppose that what you say above, particular with regard to WdW Hamilton at zero, could be translated as: whether or not a wave function happens to have collapsed, there is still (and/or...

Thank you very much for your patience and trouble, weirdoguy.

I can imagine. Thanks rootone.

Hi rootone. Yes I can see how that works. It's just that I wonder about the validity (and/or utility) of a unidirectional infinity, if you see what I mean.

Demystifier, let's assume for a moment that one of the definitions proved correct, let's say for argument's sake your perhaps preferred and chosen 'eigenvalue of the Hamiltonian'. Would matter, in your view, then equate to its terms? Or is it simply a fact, period, that matter doesn't, as you...

Is this to say that we know what matter is? But aren't all the mathematical symbols effectively abbreviations? Can't each one of them be literated (or perhaps the expression should be literalised)? If not, then how did you yourself come to comprehend them? I'm not being facetious, weirdoguy...

I'm not so sure, Comeback, though I can see why you might suppose it. It has many successes under its belt in the form of partial proofs of theories. For example many fabulous scientific developments are directly attributable to quantum theory and to the extent that each one of them works they...

Thanks you Comeback (and weirdoguy). I'll bow out. It seems to me we all want to know how the thing (the world) works, but regardless the language employed (maths, 'the word' or whatever) we incline towards delving deeper and ever deeper into a correspondingly ever more confined space, and in so...

But does anything even look like 'doing the job'? I mean, for example, if we'd have dreamed 30 years ago that we'd have had anywhere near the computing capacity to examine the issues, using modeling etc., that we have today, wouldn't we have actually thought that we'd have got somewhere (other...

Thanks. If we can say what matter is not, ie. as you say it is not (simply anyway) energy, can we say what it is?

Any takers for #3?