(March 31, 2014 at 7:38 pm)archangle Wrote: you didnt answer the question.

You feel sorry for people yet you clearly don't know enough to claim that.

do you think the universe may be alive? and what is your evidence for that claim?

We're part of the Cosmos and we're alive!

(March 31, 2014 at 11:19 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(March 31, 2014 at 7:38 pm)archangle Wrote: you didnt answer the question.

You feel sorry for people yet you clearly don't know enough to claim that.

do you think the universe may be alive? and what is your evidence for that claim?

We're part of the Cosmos and we're alive!

this is fine. And proves my point.

Then why feel sorry them? I mean because you don't think like them doesn't mean they are flat out wrong. Yeah sure, when need to "have THIS or THAT purpose" more than we know that can be weird

I am addressing the part about "smart atoms". Like "Polaris" atoms may look special because of how the system is working from our place on earth. Pantheist, in a very general way, are saying that we're made of pieces and alive. Maybe the universe as a whole is made of pieces and alive. It is not a crazy idea. People at MiT are looking at us as a data set within a data set.

If that seems like trolling ... then I would look in the mirror and be honest with what I should be telling people. Especially if they younger or "less smart". Its better just to say "I don't know " sometimes.

(March 31, 2014 at 6:36 pm)sven Wrote: Yes. Lem is a great writer. Solaris is one of my favourite books.
It's been an interesting thread but I think I'm done for now. Peace!

Just read it not too long ago, I was really pleased how much better I liked it than the movies. I thought it was brilliant in many ways.

(March 31, 2014 at 11:39 am)rasetsu Wrote:

(March 30, 2014 at 6:56 pm)archangle Wrote: They can't measure its location because the particle they use to "measure" is close enough in size to the measrued particle that they can go anywhere when the hit eachother. Like trying to throw a stream of baseballs to find another baseball.

But if you use a auto bb gun to "see" a truck. You would know exactly where it is and where it is going.

Wikipedia Wrote:Historically, the uncertainty principle has been confused with a somewhat similar effect in physics, called the observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems. Heisenberg offered such an observer effect at the quantum level (see below) as a physical "explanation" of quantum uncertainty. It has since become clear, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems, and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects. Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology.

compton

delta is not change in. It is uncertainty in T and P because of waving.

The assumption is that to "see" we use photons. To get a small wavelengh to "see" electron we are forced to use high energy.

Why let facts get in the way of opinions anyway.

(April 2, 2014 at 8:11 am)archangle Wrote:

(March 31, 2014 at 11:39 am)rasetsu Wrote:

compton

delta is not change in. It is uncertainty in T and P because of waving.

The assumption is that to "see" we use photons. To get a small wavelengh to "see" electron we are forced to use high energy.

Why let facts get in the way of opinions anyway.

I have no idea anymore what this discussion is actually about. What are we arguing for/against?

(April 2, 2014 at 8:22 am)Alex K Wrote:

(April 2, 2014 at 8:11 am)archangle Wrote: compton

delta is not change in. It is uncertainty in T and P because of waving.

The assumption is that to "see" we use photons. To get a small wavelengh to "see" electron we are forced to use high energy.

Why let facts get in the way of opinions anyway.

I have no idea anymore what this discussion is actually about. What are we arguing for/against?

I am replying to two posts.

He commented "... they sure look like smart atoms to me ....". and he felt sorry for "them"

So I was trying to see how much he knew to make that claim. I didn't want to assume anything. So I pointed to life and waving to address the misunderstandings I thought I saw. Maybe I misunderstood him. Maybe the exchange of scientific idea's could help us.

His final answer proved my first assumption was right (again).

Then the other guy that I quoted posted a "wiki" response while I was answering the question " ... how do they know if they can't see them (atoms) .... " Really? but again I didn't want to assume anything so I asked a question. I figured, what the heck, maybe I learn something.

but in the end ...

same ol' same ol'