What happens after death?

[BAndrew]

Spoiler below!

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

The example I gave might indeed be over simplifying, but I think you got my point. The only thing that bugs me and the reason why I see it as a contradiction is because a particle and a wave are two different things (not completely unrelated, but different). A wave is more close to the concept of energy while a particle is more close to the concept of matter. It's not logical to be both of them. I don't know how to explain it. It's like saying that you are both a table and a human. Is that a logical conclusion?

Also keep in mind that just because we don't have a logical explanation right now doesn't mean that there isn't any.

[PutraenusAlivius]

Most people who have experienced NDE's (Near-death Experience) said that they saw white creatures, a tunnel with light, flashback of their entire life, talk to spirits, etc.
You see, these are just hallucinations made by your dying brain. The areas that are affected and could cause these hallucinations are the [1].
Since all of our senses are malfunctioning, faulty information are send to our brain. The brain mis-interpret these faulty information that goes to the parts mentioned above.

[Streetboat]

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.

It's called a superposition, and it was the first completely observable (i.e. not just a postulation) phenomenon that denies empiricism's control of the physical world. Einstein invented the double slit experiment as a thought experiment that was intended to be somewhat of a joke. He thought the idea of quantum physics was absolutely ridiculous, and boom, it happened 100% of the time.

By the way, the argument

Spoiler below!

"IF Betty is a cow
AND
IF All cows are Ungulates
THEN Betty is an Ungulate"

is a formal fallacy. Betty being an ungulate simply because she is a cow and all cows are ungulates is an undistributed middle; Betty is merely a cow. You don't call all bovines ungulates, you call them bovines, which is a characterization of bovine nature. It's like saying "all monkeys stand upright; all humans also stand upright; therefore, all monkeys are humans". Just because monkeys and humans have a similar genus doesn't mean they should be lumped into the same classification.

My own personal opinion on life and death, however, do not currently exist. I haven't experienced enough life to know what death means. All I know right now is that I would make people who love me very, very sad, so I would prefer to remain alive.

[Bridge]

By the way, the argument

Spoiler below!

"IF Betty is a cow
AND
IF All cows are Ungulates
THEN Betty is an Ungulate"

is a formal fallacy. Betty being an ungulate simply because she is a cow and all cows are ungulates is an undistributed middle; Betty is merely a cow. You don't call all bovines ungulates, you call them bovines, which is a characterization of bovine nature. It's like saying "all monkeys stand upright; all humans also stand upright; therefore, all monkeys are humans". Just because monkeys and humans have a similar genus doesn't mean they should be lumped into the same classification.

I think you are mistaken. A quick google search of examples of undistributed middle fallacies contradicts what you're saying. If he were really using a fallacy of the undistributed middle, then the example would sound as such:

IF Betty is an Ungulate
AND
IF All cows are Ungulates
THEN
Betty is a cow

As far as I can tell, his example is logically sound.

Betty is a cow: Betty ∈ Cows
All cows are Ungulates: Cows ⊆ Ungulates
Therefore, Betty ∈ Ungulates.

I see no problems with this.

EDIT: Fixed.

[BAndrew]

+1 Bridge

[Adrianis]

By the way, the argument

Spoiler below!

"IF Betty is a cow
AND
IF All cows are Ungulates
THEN Betty is an Ungulate"

is a formal fallacy. Betty being an ungulate simply because she is a cow and all cows are ungulates is an undistributed middle; Betty is merely a cow. You don't call all bovines ungulates, you call them bovines, which is a characterization of bovine nature. It's like saying "all monkeys stand upright; all humans also stand upright; therefore, all monkeys are humans". Just because monkeys and humans have a similar genus doesn't mean they should be lumped into the same classification.

My point was to point out that logic isn't about the topic 'making sense'. It's purely about the form, the fact that the classification is factually inaccurate is irrelevant unless you want to take the conclusion as factual, even then your conclusion can still be logical if your premises are correctly arranged

A wikipedia example of the form that an undistributed middle fallacy takes is this
All Z is B
Y is B
Therefore, Y is Z

Here B is the middle term and it is not distributed in the major premise All Z is B
In that form my argument would look like...

All Cows(Z) are ungulates (B)
Betty(Y) is an ungulate(B)
Therefore Betty(Y) is a Cow(Z)

But that wasn't my argument, this was...

All Z is B
Y is Z
Therefore, Y is B

All Cows(Z) are ungulates(B)
Betty(Y) is a Cow(Z)
Therefore, Betty(Y) is an ungulate(B)

Here Z is the middle term and is correctly distributed in the major premise All Z is B

[BAndrew]

If betty (Y) is a cow (Z) and every cow (Z) is an ungulate (B), then betty (Y) is an ungulate (B)

Also notice what Bridge said:

Betty is a cow: Betty ∈ Cows
All cows are Ungulates: Cows ⊆ Ungulates
Therefore, Betty ∈ Ungulates.

Betty ⊆ Cows ⊆ Ungulates
Betty ∈ Cows ∈ Ungulates

I made a Vietta Diagram, it might help you understand it:



Another similar example:

All Z(integers) are R(real numbers)
2 is a Z(an integer)
2 is a R(Real number)

the following is of course incorrect:

All Cows(Z) are ungulates (B)
Betty(Y) is an ungulate(B)
Therefore Betty(Y) is a Cow(Z)

EDIT: WAIT I AM CONFUSED! I don't know who said what! But whatever, I told you my opinion.
EDIT2: OK after reading carefully, I agree with Bridge and Adrianis

[Bridge]

Never mind, edited my post instead.

[Nice]

this thread is all about math now

[Streetboat]

Well then. I stand corrected. I guess it sounded similar in my mind to a logical fallacy my dad's lawyer friend had taught me about and I was all "ooooooooh tricksy".