Deeper than primes

[The Man]

Your principle of superposition is not real superposition, because it is based on strict identities.

That principle makes no such assertions, stop lying Doron.

Real superposition is not less than superposition of identities.

Your “superposition” is not any superposition simply by your own assertion, stop lying Doron.

Again, stop lying first of all to yourself.

I never started.

 

[epix]

I doubt much here will help Doron, as that particular reference was directed at you the question you should be asking is did it help you. Given your assertion “look at the diffraction and the absence of frequency of EMR as a factor in the effect” the answer would appear to be ‘no, it didn’t’.

The former part of your post directly disputes that latter. Please epix, don’t start getting like Doron and directly contradicting yourself, nor assuming that since you simply choose you focus on wavelength, or just length in general, that the cited relation becomes somehow irrelevant. The inverse of frequency (Hz) is cycle period usually designated as t and measured in seconds. A light second is a measure of distance equal to about 299,792,458 meters. So 1 Hz, or one second for a cycle of a wave of light equals 299,792,458 meters. Reduce that by one meter and you get a distance of .999999996664 light seconds or 1.000000003336 Hz, meaning an increase of .000000003336 Hz for each meter decrease. Certainly more difficult to work in Hz and bit less intuitive as they are inversely related (decreased length per cycle means increased cycle per unit time) but certainly not something that “cannot be adjusted by unit called Hertz”. We tend to focus on aspects that are easier to work with and usually help to make things more intuitive. However, this by no means precludes us from working in whatever aspects the relations permit no matter how difficult or unintuitive they may seem.


Before you mentioned the wavelength as “beef of the laser technology -- to sneak through some obstacles without diffracting the beam.” and other references of a similar sort that tend to make me think that the fact that the wavelength (and wave’s vector of travel) is perpendicular to the opening, may not be clear to you. Is that the case?

Doron pasted a diffraction pattern resulting from a perpendicular setup, like this one: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/diffraction/basicdiffraction/
So I simply stay with the basic concept. You can see that the answer to one of the principle inquiry into the diffraction effect doesn't include the frequency, namely the position of secondaries where sin(angle) = wavelength/distance. When the subject involves this topic
http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/audio/fmq.html
the wavelength doesn't come often to the surface even though frequency and wavelength are closely related, as you said.

The laser beam is a well-suited medium to study the principle effects of diffraction. Which one would you chose?
http://www.laserglow.com/S53
There is a variety offered, such as 435 nm Blue, 501 nm Green, 556 nm Yellow, and so on. The manufacturer uses the wavelength, not the frequency to make the distinction and that's because of the assumed application of the device.

If you want to study proteins, then ordinary microscope won't do -- you need to buy one that emits EMR of a wavelength that is shorter than the one of the visible light, but the ideal condition of perpendicularity wouldn't materialize under these conditions. So other consideration has to be taken into account, but none of them concern the one that you have been discussing with Doron. Maybe I was late when the shift toward "single and singular frequencies" left the topic of diffraction and entered another one. Only Doronetics can provide a seamless transition from single and singular frequencies to negative dimensions of objects (measured in Hertz per dimension, I guess.)

 

[doronshadmi]

That principle makes no such assertions,

And this is exactly the reason of why it is not real superposition, which is not less than superposition of identities.

stop lying Doron.

Open your strict-only realm, in order to realize that it is nothing but some particular case of Distinction.

As long as you avoid it, you are lying to yourself.

 

[doronshadmi]

That is not where your contradiction lies.

You are invited to explicitly show your claim about my contradiction.

The stage is yours.

 

[doronshadmi]

About one thing we are sure: Enough with the prevailing straight-jacket approach of “Shut up and calculate!”

( http://a-c-elitzur.co.il/uploads/articlesdocs/photon5(2).pdf )

 

[jsfisher]

You are invited to explicitly show your claim about my contradiction.

The stage is yours.

I already did back in the same post where I made the accusation. There's only four sentences of yours there, Doron, and you can eliminated the first since it is just an irrelevant pointer to work by your current-favorite crank. It's not like the contradiction is camouflaged or anything like that.

 

[doronshadmi]

I already did back in the same post where I made the accusation. There's only four sentences of yours there, Doron, and you can eliminated the first since it is just an irrelevant pointer to work by your current-favorite crank. It's not like the contradiction is camouflaged or anything like that.

0 apples - 1 apple = -1 apple

-1 apple is the absence of 1 apple, and it is not Nothingness.

Your left-only hemisphere community actually uses induction by ignoring the spatial right hemisphere aspect of a one comprehensive framework that is not less than verbal\spatial reasoning.

For example, let's look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7392225&postcount=16031.

Your reply in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7392562&postcount=16032 clearly demonstrates how your induction is limited only to left-only hemisphere, which has no ability to understand that no branch of that tree actually reaches to any other branch of that tree, even if there are infinitely many levels of that tree.

This understanding can't be achieved unless Spatial\Verbal(Symbolic) aspects are used as a one comprehensive framework (which is not your Verbal(Symbolic)-only half-brain case).

Once again, you can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7426118&postcount=16171 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7426018&postcount=16169 but it does not prevent from you to air your "bla bla ..." http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7426067&postcount=16170 ill view.

 

[doronshadmi]

The Man you asked about intermediate states between one open slit pattern and two open slits pattern ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6023758&postcount=10102 ).

Please read http://dolevim.org/shahar/Files/DisserTeXion.pdf (at least chapter 4):

4.1 Introduction

Nearly always, measurement is regarded as a single event, whereby the superposition of many possible states gives its place ("collapses") to one state. In reality, however, there can be many intermediate stages in the measurement process, stages that only change the eventual probabilities without yet giving a definite result [WZ79, BSCK92, KB92, DNR98]. In the following chapter I will discuss a procedure for partial measurement and its implications.

Partial measurement modifies the quantum state, turning a state of superposition not into a definite outcome but into a greater probability for one. Partial measurement occurs when only part of the wave function is transferred to the detector. Its roots lie at the end of the 1970's [WZ79, Bar80] when a two-slit like experiments were shown to extract partial knowledge about the particle's path in a price of partial blurring of the interference pattern.

No matter if photons with different energies are used in the "which-way" detector, or not, the fact is that partial measurement is actually possible, and Organic Number's DS (Distinction States) are useful in order to measure the changes of the intermediate patterns on the screen detector.

 

[epix]

Help yourself. Have an apple.

There are no apples in the basket. Not even one.

Well, zero apples in the basket doesn't mean that you can't take one apple from it. Let me explain . . .

0 apples - 1 apple = -1 apple

-1 apple is the absence of 1 apple, and it is not Nothingness.

 

[doronshadmi]

For more details about the spectrum between being wave or being particle, please look at http://www.atomwave.org/rmparticle/...topic/decoherence refs/englert visibility.pdf

 

[doronshadmi]

[qimg]http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_514/1277040727u0TIyH.jpg[/qimg]
Help yourself. Have an apple.

There are no apples in the basket. Not even one.

Well, zero apples in the basket doesn't mean that you can't take one apple from it. Let me explain . . .

I ate the last apple.

In that case please give me 1$.

I do not have any money.

In that case your bank account has -1$, because you owe me that 1$.

 

[jsfisher]

I already did back in the same post where I made the accusation. There's only four sentences of yours there, Doron, and you can eliminated the first since it is just an irrelevant pointer to work by your current-favorite crank. It's not like the contradiction is camouflaged or anything like that.

0 apples - 1 apple = -1 apple

-1 apple is the absence of 1 apple, and it is not Nothingness.

So, you again attempt to evade your contradiction by trying to distract everyone with physical impossibilities.

Your left-only hemisphere community actually uses induction by ignoring the spatial right hemisphere aspect of a one comprehensive framework that is not less than verbal\spatial reasoning.

And you continue to accuse everyone else of the failings that are uniquely yours.

Oh, by the way, I see you have as little understanding of mathematical induction as your crank hero.

Be that as it may, there is still that contradiction looming. It renders your entire latest aside meaningless. Care to go back, instead, to showing how any of Doronetics is actually useful for anything (other than hand waving)?

 

[The Man]

Doron pasted a diffraction pattern resulting from a perpendicular setup, like this one: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/diffraction/basicdiffraction/
So I simply stay with the basic concept. You can see that the answer to one of the principle inquiry into the diffraction effect doesn't include the frequency, namely the position of secondaries where sin(angle) = wavelength/distance. When the subject involves this topic
http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/audio/fmq.html
the wavelength doesn't come often to the surface even though frequency and wavelength are closely related, as you said.

The laser beam is a well-suited medium to study the principle effects of diffraction. Which one would you chose?
http://www.laserglow.com/S53
There is a variety offered, such as 435 nm Blue, 501 nm Green, 556 nm Yellow, and so on. The manufacturer uses the wavelength, not the frequency to make the distinction and that's because of the assumed application of the device.

[qimg]http://www.lbl.gov/images/MicroWorlds/EMSpec.gif[/qimg]

If you want to study proteins, then ordinary microscope won't do -- you need to buy one that emits EMR of a wavelength that is shorter than the one of the visible light, but the ideal condition of perpendicularity wouldn't materialize under these conditions. So other consideration has to be taken into account, but none of them concern the one that you have been discussing with Doron. Maybe I was late when the shift toward "single and singular frequencies" left the topic of diffraction and entered another one. Only Doronetics can provide a seamless transition from single and singular frequencies to negative dimensions of objects (measured in Hertz per dimension, I guess.)

I doubt Doron was ever really on the topic of diffraction. Perhaps it was just something that he might call ‘real diffraction’ while claiming it does not involve diffraction.

Again you still seem to have a singular focus epix and that singular focus in no way negates the stated relation that you evidently do not dispute.

So I’ll give it just one more try before abandoning you to your own predilections.

Look at any radio and you will find the tuning indication by frequency. A long time ago that was a dial that one would use to tune the radio. At the other end of that dial was a wiper that would swipe across a coil changing the effective length of that coil as the dial was turned (and the radio tuned to a resonate frequency). So while you may still be late, the direct relations of frequency to length (whether it be wavelength or the length of a coil) still remain even if you just want to focus on length.

 

[The Man]

And this is exactly the reason of why it is not real superposition, which is not less than superposition of identities.

Well thank you for admitting that your assertion “it is based on strict identities” was false. Unfortunately, you are still left with your own assertions that your “superposition” does not use the principle of superposition and thus not any kind of superposition. So as long as you keep referring to your “superposition” as any kind of superposition you are just lying. I’m sure most here understand why you just want to use the word ‘superposition’ without its meaning, so you can attempt to conflate your nonsense with quantum superposition. Again unfortunately as you assert your “superposition” does not use the principle of superposition and quantum superposition does, that attempted conflation is also just a lie, simply by your own assertion.

Open your strict-only realm, in order to realize that it is nothing but some particular case of Distinction.

As long as you avoid it, you are lying to yourself.

Stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning and lying onto others.

 

[The Man]

The Man you asked about intermediate states between one open slit pattern and two open slits pattern (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6023758&postcount=10102 ).

No I didn’t, this is the question I asked…

Have you found that “additional experiment” you referred to yet?

Please read http://dolevim.org/shahar/Files/DisserTeXion.pdf (at least chapter 4):

So are you claiming this philosophical dissertation is about or cites the experiment to which you were referring?

Please show specifically where that experiment is referenced or cited in this philosophical dissertation.

No matter if photons with different energies are used in the "which-way" detector, or not, the fact is that partial measurement is actually possible, and Organic Number's DS (Distinction States) are useful in order to measure the changes of the intermediate patterns on the screen detector.

Fine, then show how you calculate those patterns, those ‘changes’ (with your Organic Number's DS) and the measured quantitative experimental evidence agreeing with your calculations, or stop just trying to lie about the usefulness of your ‘ON’ BS.

 

[epix]

So I’ll give it just one more try before abandoning you to your own predilections.

Look at any radio and you will find the tuning indication by frequency. A long time ago that was a dial that one would use to tune the radio. At the other end of that dial was a wiper that would swipe across a coil changing the effective length of that coil as the dial was turned (and the radio tuned to a resonate frequency). So while you may still be late, the direct relations of frequency to length (whether it be wavelength or the length of a coil) still remain even if you just want to focus on length.

I never said that there is no "direct relation of frequency to length" even though I would use "direct relation of length to frequency," given your example of radio tuning where this procedure/function sets independent variable as meter (or milimeter in particular) and dependent variable as Hertz.

In the effect of diffraction, it is also the wavelength that is the functional parameter. It doesn't really matter now, coz Doron frequently changes subjects and now we are discussing at length negative apples.

 

[doronshadmi]

So, you again attempt to evade your contradiction by trying to distract everyone with physical impossibilities.

So again you don't distinguish between negative value and Nothingness.

Oh, by the way, I see you have as little understanding of mathematical induction as your crank hero.

Well it is your crank hero, and your left-hemisphere-only reasoning uses induction exactly as your crank hero, because all you get is the symbolic expression (for example 0.111...₂) by totally ignore the spatial expression, exactly as you do in the following case:

Let's look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7392225&postcount=16031.

Your reply in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7392562&postcount=16032 clearly demonstrates how your induction is limited only to left-only hemisphere, which has no ability to understand that no branch of that tree actually reaches to any other branch of that tree, even if there are infinitely many levels of that tree.

This understanding can't be achieved unless Spatial\Verbal(Symbolic) aspects are used as a one comprehensive framework (which is not your Verbal(Symbolic)-only half-brain case).

 

[doronshadmi]

So are you claiming this philosophical dissertation is about or cites the experiment to which you were referring?

Please show specifically where that experiment is referenced or cited in this philosophical dissertation.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7501131&postcount=16290

Fine, then show how you calculate those patterns, those ‘changes’ (with your Organic Number's DS) and the measured quantitative experimental evidence agreeing with your calculations, or stop just trying to lie about the usefulness of your ‘ON’ BS.

Your strict-only BS can't get that the spectrum between single-silt pattern and double-silts pattern is the transition between Non-locality (wave) and Locality (particle) properties of wavicles, which is characterized by the distinction degree of positions, where strict positions are defined by strict ids and non-strict positions are defined by non-strict ids, exactly as done by ONs.

Schrödinger equation ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger_equation ) which stands at the basis of QM totally misses that relation between symmetry and non-strict distinction and asymmetry and strict distinction (as shown by ON) because this equation is based on variables with strict identities (it is closed under the asymmetry of strict distinction and so are the measured quantitative experimental results, which are calculated by this equation).


The paradox of the heap ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox ) is a direct result of using induction by strict ids.

This paradox stands also at the basis of the transition between macro and micro systems.

ONs actually solve this paradox because by Uncertainty x Redundancy Distinction Trees (URDT) the transition between the macro and the micro is based directly on the very essence of Distinction, where strict distinction (as used by Schrödinger equation or standard induction) is nothing but some particular case of URDT.

it is the best match to reality (experimental evidence) that we currently have.

It is the best match to reality as it is observed by community of Verbal (left-hemisphere) only skills.

This current state is going to be changed when both hemispheres (spatial and verbal) are combined into a one comprehensive scientific theoretical\experimental framework.

 

[doronshadmi]

It doesn't really matter now, coz Doron frequently changes subjects and now we are discussing at length negative apples.

Nonsense.

I say exactly the opposite, negative values are not equivalent to Nothingness, ( you don't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7501260&postcount=16291 ).

 

[doronshadmi]

John McCrone ( http://www.dichotomistic.com/logic_vagueness_1.html ) and me are "mindly related".