Belief/evidence

Your statement is false.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wrong. There can never be true and not true at the same time. There can never be neither true/not true at the same time.

Observers do not make truth. Truth is never dependent on perception. Perception is dependent on truth. The claim that truth exists in the mind is completely backwards and incorrect. Truth does not exist in the mind. It is absurd to claim that truth exists in the mind. The mind is compelled to conclusions of truth. But truth is independent of these conclusions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes there can be true and not true at the same time. If there wasn't ... no computer would do anything useful.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

if something seems true sometimes and false other times, it means that not enough context was given

 

I see we don't have many fans of fuzzy logic here...

 

The only context something can be true and false at the same time is in the context of irrationality. True and false are either/or qualities of a matter. It can only be one or the other. And it must be one or the other.

There is no such thing as a matter that is both true and false at the same time. Everytime I state this, people like to argue by presenting matters without regard to the phrase "AT THE SAME TIME".

 

I guess digital computers like the one lixluke is using must be irrational. That is, if lixluke happens to be the current global authority of logic.

There is such a thing as a 'matter' that is true or false, because of other 'things' about the matter which are also 'true or false' - at the same time.

Do we need to define what time is, and what "at the same time" means?

There's this "system clock" thing computers have that deals to time.

 

you really have no idea what you're talking about

 

Who doesn't? The masked man with no name?

 

something cannot be true and false at the same time. that is a contradiction.

give me a specific example of something that is both true and false at the same time

 

When you say "something" can you be more specific?

An example of something which is true (because it's false simultaneously - which also means "at the same time"), is something called a quantum CNOT gate. This observation of a true and a false state existing together, is only possible in QM as discrete states. Otherwise we have philosophy with which to create 'examples' of such things.

 

Welcome to the world of Quantum Mechanics and all the joys it brings.

From what I understand, for example, when a photon hits your eyes, until that point it could have travelled in ANY direction from the source to get to your eye - albeit with some routes being more probable than others.
However, until it hits your eye / or is observed, it exists as if having passed through every one of those routes, and it is only in the action of being observed (i.e. the wavefunction collapses) that the actual route it took is determined. Or something like that.

The possible routes it could have taken would be referred to as eigenstates, and the interaction of the particle with the physical world (e.g. observation) causes the wave form collapse and the reduction to just one of those eigenstates.

So until it is observed, it is quite accurate to say that the answer of "did it pass through this point?" is both true and false at the same time.

It is not as simple as just saying "we do not know which route it took until it is observed" - it does exist in every route until observed.

Or at least that's as I understand QM... or part of.
I might be wrong, though, and someone better versed in even the rudiments of the subject could probably help clarify.

 

If, as you say, it exists in every route until observed, then the answer of "did it pass through this point?" is not, as you say, both true and false at the same time. The answer is simply true right?

And I mean that the answer is true for the time period of until it is observed as highlighted in bold above.

 

But to say it did pass through point X, and did pass through point Y, is to give it the unenviable attribute of it being in two places at the same time.
Which it wasn't.

It both exists and does not exist at points X and Y, with certain probabilities for each according to its wave function.
Observation then causes the wave-function to collapse to a specific state.

So until observation, it might be more accurate to say that "it exists 30% / does not exist 70% at point A, it exists 50% / does not exist 50% at point B, and exists 20% / does not exist 80% at point C" etc - but across the (in)finite possible states.

So perhaps I was not quite clear in explaining my understanding.

Anyhoo - I should probably stop discussing QM as I can only scratch the surface before it turns my mind to jelly.
Consider this food (inaccurate or otherwise) to mull over rather than having any categorical substance.

 

Well actually, QM (especially the Copenhagen interpretation of it) states that the photon does exist in point x and y until observed! In fact as you said:

then you agree with this interpretation whether you knew it or not

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Is there any other meaning i can take from this sentence?

 

Sorry, the Copenhagen 'rules' say that nothing at all can be said about "the photon", until it does hit an eye or a detector.

The rules say we can't assume any 'definite' state for any quantum, only about what can be observed of any quantum state.

 

Well, that's just the agnostic version of the CI. In fact, there are many sub-interpretations

 

Disease: I presume you have heard of the Schrödinger's Cat paradox?

 

"true" and "false" don't refer to actual truths and falses, it refers to the state of the qubit. being in a superposition does not violate the rule that things cannot be true and false at the same time.

 

Ah, that's only true when a 'state' is observed; you're saying superposition isn't the same as "true and false at the same time"?
What if you take into account that a quantum process has to be reversible?