What happens after death?

[failedALIAS]

Bridge, winning the thread with every post he makes.

[BAndrew]

IF electrons behaves as waves
AND
IF electrons behaves as particles
THEN electrons behave as particles and waves

That's exactly the problem. How can something be a single particle and at the same time behave like a wave(!)?

Double slit experiment:

Procedure: "Send" 1 single electron particle at a time to hit the screen
Result: The electron is not a particle but a wave!

Isn't that a logical contradiction?

[Adrianis]

That is a logical conclusion. It doesn't matter whether any of the premises are true, or based on fact or material evidence, it is logical by nature of the process. I don't believe it is true, but I do believe that it is a logical conclusion. That is Formal logic, not Boolean logic - Boolean Logic defines true/false statements and is more directly related to mathematics

But what do we gain by examining whether it is logical based on the premises? I know where that can be useful - when you know the premises and the conclusion, such as in programming. It is not useful when trying to prove that something is rational.

BTW, don't the two overlap somewhat? I'm not an expert, but the if p and r and z then q examples which you have been giving are Boolean statements right? If this is true, and this is false, and this is true, then this is true.

And I apologize for my poor example, which was made in some haste. I could reword it so it is more solid logically, but the point is abundantly clear.

Before anything else I realise I made a really stupid mistake in using the IF...THEN keywords, because they are very much part of Boolean logic, so you are absolutely right to point that out. If you take away those words the structure still remains, I'm sorry for that but I hope you understood the point of it. As it stands, it's an extraordinarily poor example of Boolean logic because it doesn't offer any alternative conclusions. Without those words it's a decent (i hope) example of formal logic, though the previous examples were far more concise, just irrelevant to the thread.

But what do we gain by examining whether it is logical based on the premises? ... It is not useful when trying to prove that something is rational

We gain the knowledge that it is logical, as opposed to illogical. However, something being logical or illogical doesn't really say anything in and of itself, so for the purpose of this discussion, we gain absolutely nothing. We can only find out if a conclusion is factual by examining the premises used, but if we find that the premises are factual then the conclusion must be factual, by the nature of the structure, because it requires that the premises automatically lead to one definite conclusion.

If the conclusion is not drawn directly from a combination of the premises, then the conclusion is illogical. This then means that we can only say something is illogical if all the premises are available to us. But critically, it does not matter if the premises are based on fact, that only matters if you want to know if the conclusion is factual. Rational thought, as far as I understand it, relies on evidence and fact to make deductions.


(Your example was fine, and the point was clear. Mine was also very much rushed, I can only hope that mine was equally clear)

[Nice]

there should be a subject in which Bridge, Bandrew and yourcomputer all disagree with eachother. It would be fun to watch them debate xD

[Adrianis]

IF electrons behaves as waves
AND
IF electrons behaves as particles
THEN electrons behave as particles and waves

That's exactly the problem. How can something be a single particle and at the same time behave like a wave(!)?

Double slit experiment:

Procedure: "Send" 1 single electron particle at a time to hit the screen
Result: The electron is not a particle but a wave!

Isn't that a logical contradiction?

The reason it's logical is in the content of my other posts, I think it's better for everyone's eyes if I don't repeat it again
In short, it is logical but that doesn't make it factual

To answer the first question, just go to this link, because I don't think I could properly explain it. Read the overview, the first couple of paragraphs are fairly understandable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit...t#Overview
tl;dr - they just are, that is how it behaves, they are both because experiments show it

[BAndrew]

The reason it's logical is in the content of my other posts, I think it's better for everyone's eyes if I don't repeat it again
In short, it is logical but that doesn't make it factual

To answer the first question, just go to this link, because I don't think I could properly explain it. Read the overview, the first couple of paragraphs are fairly understandable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit...t#Overview
tl;dr - they just are, that is how it behaves, they are both because experiments show it

Firstly, I never claimed that they don't behave both as waves and as particles, quite the contrary. If experiments show that they do then we don't have much of a choice - It's a fact.

I don't quite understand why it's logical. It's not like the example you gave
->
"IF Betty is a cow
AND
IF All cows are Ungulots
THEN Betty is an Ungulot"


Instead I think of it like this:
John yesterday was a man (particle)
Today John is a woman (wave)
So John is both a man and a woman. (particle + wave)

The logical procedure is correct as you take 2 facts (which may or may not be true) and you end up with a conclusion. The problem is that the conclusion contradicts itself.

A more Mathematical approach:
x=1
x=2
so x = 1 and x = 2 at the same time

If you want, we can talk with private messages instead of posting and confusing the other members with an unrelated discussion.

[Bridge]

I am certain I am at least 50% wrong, but quantum theory suggests that in some cases it is more useful to think of particles as waves because in order to ascertain their position you must waive the ability to ascertain their momentum (Uncertainty principle). The result is that for particles where you must know the momentum, like electrons, thinking of them as waves means you can know their momentum and somewhat accurately predict their position, because waves are regular. But there is no such thing as a a single particle being a wave, is there? I thought that waves were a collection of particles, uniformly spread.

Is that right? As I said, I am not confident of my knowledge of particles.

[BAndrew]

I am certain I am at least 50% wrong, but quantum theory suggests that in some cases it is more useful to think of particles as waves because in order to ascertain their position you must waive the ability to ascertain their momentum (Uncertainty principle). The result is that for particles where you must know the momentum, like electrons, thinking of them as waves means you can know their momentum and somewhat accurately predict their position, because waves are regular. But there is no such thing as a a single particle being a wave, is there? I thought that waves were a collection of particles, uniformly spread.

Is that right? As I said, I am not confident of my knowledge of particles.

You have a mistake. There is something called Uncertainty principle (as you very well said) which says that you can't know both the momentum and the position of a particle/wave (I think it generally applies to any object). If you know the momentum then you can't know the position and vice versa. You can only work with probabilities.

A particle can't be a wave. It's two different things, but intrestingly an electron, just as light behave both as particles and as waves. For example:
electron (particle)- electromagnetic wave (wave)
photon (particle)- light wave (wave)

A wave is not necessarily a collectrion of particles.

[Bridge]

Gonna have to brush up then.

[Adrianis]

Spoiler below!

The reason it's logical is in the content of my other posts, I think it's better for everyone's eyes if I don't repeat it again
In short, it is logical but that doesn't make it factual

To answer the first question, just go to this link, because I don't think I could properly explain it. Read the overview, the first couple of paragraphs are fairly understandable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit...t#Overview
tl;dr - they just are, that is how it behaves, they are both because experiments show it

Firstly, I never claimed that they don't behave both as waves and as particles, quite the contrary. If experiments show that they do then we don't have much of a choice - It's a fact.

I don't quite understand why it's logical. It's not like the example you gave
->
"IF Betty is a cow
AND
IF All cows are Ungulots
THEN Betty is an Ungulot"


Instead I think of it like this:
John yesterday was a man (particle)
Today John is a woman (wave)
So John is both a man and a woman. (particle + wave)

The logical procedure is correct as you take 2 facts (which may or may not be true) and you end up with a conclusion. The problem is that the conclusion contradicts itself.

A more Mathematical approach:
x=1
x=2
so x = 1 and x = 2 at the same time

If you want, we can talk with private messages instead of posting and confusing the other members with an unrelated discussion.

Ok I see what you're saying, it's difficult to answer... The conclusion doesn't contradict itself, I think, because it must be both a particle and a wave if it behaves as a particle and a wave. I think breaking it down as you do with the 'x = 1 and x = 2' example is over simplifying, it's too far removed from what's actually going on, though I think you make a valid point. If I knew more about quantum mechanics, I could probably answer you better. As Bridge says, time to brush up