₦airaland Forum

DaddyCoool:
Mention one pathological lie I've told

You don't tell me what to do. The stupid lies you've told on this thread have been pointed to you over and over. Did you take accountability for them then? No! So why should I expect you to take accountability for them now?

Our posts are still here for people to read, and they will read to arrive at their conclusions. As for you, you can keep deceiving yourself. You have not provided ANY SINGLE EVIDENCE that the universe is magical and you know it. But keep on lying to yourself if it helps sleep well at night.

Assassin's Creed 1
PS3

DaddyCoool:
Maxindhouse you see how the gentleman is calling me a pathological liar without equivovation, and a coward? (And by the way I told you to read Matthew 12:34 and 23:33, and get back to us. What happened?)
All because I was able to show him that thoughts and prayers do have effect on physical reality. And I made clear this is mainly based on people's testimonies and direct observation NOT scientific formulars. Uri Geller could not only bend spoons with his thought but people watching him on TV found they could do same AND he helped win a crucial game by using his thought to bend a crucial penalty just outside the goalpost!
Examples abound of people using their mere thought to do all sorts of things.
So my dear oga it is NOT everything you argue. Somethings are too well-established to be argued about!

Are you not a pathological liar? Have you not lied countless times on this thread over trivial bullshít? Are you not telling lies right now?

DaddyCoool:
Maxindhouse you see how the gentleman is calling me a pathological liar without equivovation, and a coward? (And by the way I told you to read Matthew 12:34 and 23:33, and get back to us. What happened?)
All because I was able to show him that thoughts and prayers do have effect on physical reality. And I made clear this is mainly based on people's testimonies and direct observation NOT scientific formulars. Uri Geller could not only bend spoons with his thought but people watching him on TV found they could do same AND he helped win a crucial game by using his thought to bend a crucial penalty just outside the goalpost!
Examples abound of people using their mere thought to do all sorts of things.
So my dear oga it is NOT everything you argue. Somethings are too well-established to be argued about!

So what is stopping you from bending spoons? Or moving mountains? What are your limitations?

We can talk about my gun again if you want. Let's put your hypothesis to the test then?

Nonsense and ingredients. Continue deceiving yourself.

kingxsamz:
Okra soup, pomo and fufu.

Enjoyment wan kpai some people for this country. 🤧

DaddyCoool:
You lost because you set yourself too tall and order - to debunk long proven things. And because you're arguing with a more knowledgeable person.

You were primarily out to prove that thoughts don't affect physical reality - a long settled observation. See below
Ciao!

As usual, you know I'll bring it all back to how it all started. Below is just one of the numerous rubbish you asserted without any proof. I know you'll want to distance yourself from this claim below because you're a pathological liar who can't get her story straight. 🙄

Now read yourself here:

DaddyCoool:
Magic is everywhere around you but you don't know how to access it. Infact the whole universe is magic
If you somehow totally believe something has happened the universe will make it happen!
As Christ said, if you have faith enough, you will tell a mountain to move and the universe will make it do just that. It's all magic

Now let us use the screenshot you posted and juxtapose it with this post here to find out just how dishonest you are.

You started out this discussion claiming that the universe operates based on magic. It's clearly stated above. But after LordReed and I started heckling you, you then redacted your original claim subtly and started suggesting that the universe is illogical and using QM as your proof of that fact.

The concepts you are citing from Google AI are scientifically grounded, so how can they be evidence of magic? 🤔

The placebo effect and others in the picture only work within the limits of the brain's chemistry and perception. Having positive thoughts can be good for your health, but we already know they operate within an understandable scientific framework. Definitely not the same as magic, which involves the alteration of objective physical realities. The latter is where your argument was leaning towards and yes, that was the argument I set out to burst.

You already knew this, and that's why you opted for a more minimalist assertion when LordReed challenged your claim. You were too cowardly to stick to one argument because you didn't want to get found out, so you kept shifting the goalposts all over the pitch. But at the end of the day the joke is on you because after all the back and forth, we have now established that there's a scientific basis behind many occurrences in the universe. And you still have no evidence that the universe is magic. 💁🏽

When the chips are down, you're worse off now, than when you started this debate, and you still have no proof that thoughts can affect our external reality. So like I said, we can leave it that, but if you want to keep making yourself look stupid, then be my guest.

DaddyCoool:
This man! Didn't I just tell you that anything can be made or seen as probabilistic including our very existence. See the rest of my post below.


As for other points, refer to my previous post. You haven't refuted any of the points. You haven't told us why it is logical that at an arbitrary speed (which happens to be the speed of light) speed stops increasing! Nor how Isaac Newton observing a phenomena that conforms with everything all around us is same as observing a phenomena that is at variance with everything all around us, ETC.

That thoughts can affect physical reality have been demonstrated time and again. Even pendulums. You can Google it.

In conclusion I'd advise you let this go because you can't win it - because you're out to disprove things that are long settled: thoughts DO affect physical reality, classical physics IS deterministic, QM IS probabilistic, speed of light is arbitrary just as having it as speed limit of the universe - unless we're in a simulation and that is the maximum processing speed of the processor! ETC!!!

I've already seen your updated post and nothing has changed. Still the same lies and mendacity you're engaging in, pretending as if you have any evidence for your dumb claims when you don't and this thread has revealed in great detail that you don't.

I only needed to debunk the rubbish you posted and I've done just that. Your fakse pretensions about proving your point, like the other things you've created out of your imaginations, do not constitute the reality. You tried to claim that thoughts create reality and when pressed for proof, you failed to deliver. 🤷🏽

We can leave it at that, but if you want to keep making a fool of yourself, I'm always game. 🤧

DaddyCoool:
This man! 70-year-old man!😅
Genius (maxindhouse come see what I called him o. Nobody here has ever called anybody retard), that is NOT what is being discussed. See below what we're discussing. Anything can be made or seen as probabilistic including whether we actually exist. See below and study it well. Why do I always end up spoon-feeding you?!

As for other points, refer to my previous post. You haven't refuted any of the points. You haven't told us why it is logical that at an arbitrary speed (which happens to be the speed of light) speed stops increasing! Nor how Isaac Newton observing a phenomena that conforms with everything all around us is same as observing a phenomena that is at variance with everything all around us, ETC.

That thoughts can affect physical reality have been demonstrated time and again. Even pendulums. You can Google it.

In conclusion I'd advise you let this go because you can't win it - because you're out to disprove things that are long settled: thoughts DO affect physical reality, classical physics IS deterministic, QM IS probabilistic, speed of light is arbitrary just as having it as speed limit of the universe - unless we're in a simulation and that is the maximum processing speed of the processor! ETC!!!

Nothing profound said. No evidence presented. No new insight.

I'm not surprised sha.
I already know you'll twist, contort and lie till the bitter end. 🤦🏽

DaddyCoool:
This man! 70-year-old man!😅
Genius (maxindhouse come see what I called him o. Nobody here has ever called anybody retard), that is NOT what is being discussed. See below what we're discussing. Anything can be made or seen as probabilistic including whether we actually exist. See below and study well. Why do I always end up spoon-feeding you?!

Since we are now settling for Google AI, then 2 can play your puerile game.

Like I told you before, know your cognitive limitations before you set out to embarrass yourself so thoroughly.

DaddyCoool:
All this long talk is not necessary my dear. You're arguing something you have already admitted and is written everywhere - regular physics is DETERMINISTIC while QM is PROBABILISTIC!! In regular physics you can predict FOR SURE whether the cat would be dead or alive. In QM your act of opening the box and observing the cat is what determines whether the cat is dead or alive. Your act of observing the cat is what "forces" the cat into being alive or dead. This can never be so in regular physics. I hope now you get it. I hate having to spoon-feed you everything.

This of course leads to Many-Worlds Interpretation, which suggests that every quantum measurement (observation, thought) results in a split of the universe into multiple realities. From this it is not far-fetched to extrapolate that our thoughts can affect things. If you believe strongly enough that the cat is alive, you'd land in the reality where the cat is alive when you observe it!

As for my statement you quoted from the beginning of the thread, I then went ahead to explain many times I meant "illustrate", that QM can't prove anything in the macro world. But you keep going back to the original statement. That's dishonesty sir.

About the speed of light, you only stated what happens. The question is WHY? Why that particular arbitrary speed??
And you don't think it is illogical from our everyday perspective that the speed of light is constant for all observers, regardless of their motion? That no matter how fast you're going you can't add any extra speed to the light shining from your vehicle?

In that Newton letter, the difference is that in QM what they're trying to rationalize contradicts normal, everyday macro reality AND also doesn't lead them to knowing for sure whether the cat would be dead or alive before it is observed - because observing is what causes it to be dead or alive!

All those words you mentioned can be interchangeably used with "illogical" FOR OUR PURPOSES HERE!!! You keep missing that phrase - "for our purposes here"!!

Back to speed of light, bottom line, you have no answer as to why that illogicality exists - the illogicality of the universe having an arbitrary speed limit - the speed of light. Or will you also say it is logical but only "counterintuitive"! How can it be logical that the speed of something does not increase no matter how fast you're traveling with it??!

The more I engage with you, the lesser respect I have for you. I thought you were better than Dtruth, Righteousness and all these other psychos that run around these parts of NL. I really thought you were different.

Classical physics looks deterministic when you're in the classroom and you're doing your cute little assignments and projects. But when you step out into the real world with all the messy variables and external net factors and all the uncertainties that prevail therein, your so-called deterministic regular physics will encounter certain phenomena once in a while that will make it start looking shaky. So it is not deterministic all through!

This is the singular distinction that you're finding so difficult to absorb into your brain!

As for the Schrodinger's cat, whether you observe it o, Whether you don't observe it o, the state of the cat within the box will remain as it is. So the reality of the cat in the box is independent of your observation. You didn't observe the cat's life or death into reality. It was already dead or alive, you're just finding it out for yourself. If you're not there, other observers will come to the knowledge and come and tell you.

Scientific method exists for this reason: to establish truths independent of human observation.

Your interpretation of the Many-Worlds Interpretation is another example of you being uninformed but arrogant enough to use your ignorance to make judgements about science. Yes, multiple realities are created BUT THE ONLY ONE YOU CAN EXPERIENCE IS THIS PRESENT ONE YOU'RE IN. You cannot navigate to, or between these other realities. And the implications of your observation in this particular reality is meaningless and irrelevant. Your consciousness or beliefs don't have any say in which reality you'll end up in. That's what the Many Worlds concept is about, so grow up and stop thinking you have superpowers. 😭

The reason I keep going back to your original claim is because up until now, you are still deploying QM as evidence that "at core, the universe doesn't follow logical patterns" before using it bootstrap your risible conclusions that you can alter reality with your thoughts.

There's no use lying and trying to distance yourself from that claim, because your entire argument so far has been you latching onto it as your evidence. You can call it "illustration" or any other nonsense you feel like to keep deceiving yourself. But at the end of the day we know exactly what you're doing. And what you're doing is called intellectual cowardice. You started with "QM proves the universe is illogical", to "it only demonstrates illogicality", to "it's only an illustration". The more I keep checking you on your statements, the more your position erodes from outright certainty to just mere suggestions. And then like the deceitful and mendacious liar that you are, you turn around and call me dishonest simply because I quoted your own very words.

The truth of the matter is that you're painfully ignorant on this topic, no matter how hard you try to show otherwise. Like I said before, my knowledge on this topic is not perfect either, but when it comes to the basics, I can confidently beat my chest and say that I know ten times more than you.

Moving on to your speed of light prevarications, the fact that the speed of light is the same (constant) in spite of reference frame, doesn't mean it's illogical. Again, we're back to the basic distinction here: Illogical vs. Counterintuitive. The speed of light constant is logically airtight. Why you ask? Because it's mathematically consistent and verified through experiments. The invariance of the speed of light is perfectly logical when you look at it within the framework of relativity.

Einstein didn't violate logic when he formulated special relativity, even though he defied the traditional intuitive expectations and assumptions of Newtonian mechanics.

When are you going to understand the fact that universe doesn't give a flying fúck about you? Do you seriously expect all phenomena operating at both cosmic and quantum levels to somehow match our human intuitions that we're specifically developed for hunting and running away from predators? Do you know entire position is just an elaborate "argument from incredulity" fallacy?

You asked where scientists invented math equations to resolve things they didn't understand. I gave you a very poignant citing Newton's letter, gravitional attraction, Einstein's special relativity and all that. Now you've taken style to drop that question. Instead you blundered and started talking about how Newton's postulates and equations didn't affect the superposition of the cat in Schrodinger's equation?! How in the fúck did your question transmogrify to that part of the discussion?

You keep darting and leaping about foolishly and aimlessly. Your argument has no direction, you've edited it over and over and over and over again. Whenever one of your nonsense points gets refuted you either repeat it anyway without actually addressing the criticism, or you avoid it all together and latch onto another part of the argument. You're just another prolific religious bullshítter that can't back up anything she says.

Look if you don't know what else to add to the conversation, then with all due respect kindly shut the ever loving fúck up and go educate yourself properly on the subject before coming here to spew more ignorance.

DaddyCoool:
I keep hoping I'm not chatting with a retard of some sort. How many times have I said "everyday logic"?? Where did you see "EVERY SYSTEM OF LOGIC"? Na wa 4 you o.

Oh my days, you're actually thicker than I expected!! 😱

I was making a direct reference to the question I've been asking you in my last 3 responses or more. I've been asking you if QM is illogical according to every system of logic. I even drew up a list earlier for the sake of illustration. Here it is again:

1. Aristotelian logic

2. Classical logic
2a. Propositional logic
2b. First-order logic

3. Extended logic
3a. Modal logic
3b. Higher order logic

4. Deviant logic
4a. Intuitionistic logic
4b. Multi-valued logic
4c. paraconsistent logic

5. Informal logic

You have insisted that QM is illogical, and I asked you if it was illogical according to all the systems above. You're here making it sound like I misunderstood your post when you're the one who's too dense to understand the question. And you even opened your mouth to call me a rétard. 🤣

No problem. Let me break it down for you, since you're even more slower than honey dripping from a frozen spoon.

Whenever you make your vague and pointless allusions to "everyday logic", or the even more stupid "Nairaland logic" to discredit something as "illogical", you're indirectly making the assumption that there's only one type of logic! And that logic is the one you're very familiar with.

So the simple point I'm making is that your everyday logic is NOT the only system of logic that exists. There are many others. Hence the question: IS QM ILLOGICAL ACCORDING TO EVERY SYSTEM OF LOGIC THAT EXISTS?

Can you now answer the god-damned question? 😭

By the way, considering that you thought it was a good idea in your small brain to speak on a topic that you're so criminally ignorant about, I think it's safe to assume who truly merits that "rétard" epithet between the both of us. As far as this topic is concerned, your intellectual bankruptcy is so painfully obvious, and your arrogance in the face of it is so cringe-worthy and disgusting.

DaddyCoool:
So why do you pretend not to understand simple words??

Just go get yourself a mirror already. 🤣

DaddyCoool:
And you were asked to mention in what application E=MC² and others are probabilistic

In measurements.

Although physicists have since validated Einstein's equation in countless experiments and calculations, and many technologies including mobile phones and GPS navigation depend on it, University of Arizona physics professor Andrei Lebed has stirred the physics community by suggesting that E=mc2 may not hold up in certain circumstances.

The key to Lebed's argument lies in the very concept of mass itself. According to accepted paradigm, there is no difference between the mass of a moving object that can be defined in terms of its inertia, and the mass bestowed on that object by a gravitational field. In simple terms, the former, also called inertial mass, is what causes a car's fender to bend upon impact of another vehicle, while the latter, called gravitational mass, is commonly referred to as "weight."

This equivalence principle between the inertial and gravitational masses, introduced in classical physics by Galileo Galilei and in modern physics by Albert Einstein, has been confirmed with a very high level of accuracy. "But my calculations show that beyond a certain probability, there is a very small but real chance the equation breaks down for a gravitational mass," Lebed said.

If one measures the weight of quantum objects, such as a hydrogen atom, often enough, the result will be the same in the vast majority of cases, but a tiny portion of those measurements give a different reading, in apparent violation of E=mc2. This has physicists puzzled, but it could be explained if gravitational mass was not the same as inertial mass, which is a paradigm in physics.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130108162227.htm

Beyond all of that, there are literally no instruments that can determine the value of an object (weight, mass, etc) with absolute precision. If you did physics in secondary school, you'll remember those little class practicals you had to do (pendulum bobs, prisms, placing objects on scales) where you'd take measurements, and calculate and plot graphs?

Do you remember you always had to account for margins of error? Did you bother to ask why?

It's simply because there are too many factors that can mess up the measurement. For instance in your environment. The air currents can affect your measurements. Another one is the calibration of your measuring devices.

DaddyCoool:
Our man does not understand hyperbole. Okay "fixated" if you wish.
I almost didn't use this because I knew you'd misunderstand it. You totally miss the "weird phenomena" aspect

Hyperbole aside, I like how you replaced "obsessed" with "fixation", and patted yourself on the back as if you actually accomplished anything. Or did you forget they're both synonymous? Wait, who's misunderstanding words again? 🤔

DaddyCoool:
Are any of these probabilistic? The answer is a resounding no! Neither are they out to justify any weird phenomena!

Just in case you've forgotten, the particular claim I'm challenging here is your dumbass claim that scientists don't invent equations and come up with constants for those equations to explain strange or weird events, and I've shown you why you're tragically inaccurate there. So this is just you darting and leaping about like a blind frog.

You asked me where scientists came up with constants to tweak with their equations. Now that I've bursted your bubble on that front, you've now jumped on to whether they're probabilistic. Don't worry. Keep jumping until you reach new heights of dishonesty.

In physics, a solid majority of the equations are probabilistic in practice and I've told you why. You can stick your head in the sand for as long as you like. It won't change a thing.

DaddyCoool:
Not my fault you can't present a coherent case.

Case? Since when was I ever presenting a case? Who has the burden proof here? YOU. I'm only here to point out the faults in your dubious claims that QM is evidence that thoughts can create reality. None of your points are sticking and that's why we're still here.

DaddyCoool:
Explain to us how speed of light as speed limit of the universe is logical

https://study.com/learn/lesson/special-theory-of-relativity-overview.html

You do the heavy lifting yourself for once. You can't come up to a debate like this and be woefully unequipped with the relevant facts. Later you will try and finish all of us with the power of irony by opening your mouth to talk about "spoon-feeding", when you're the one revealing your ignorance with every paragraph you type. 😤

Angelfrost:
It seems like a cruel and unusual punishment making Leicester and Southampton keep playing in the EPL...!

I remember for a while it was looking like Leicester City was poised for the top flight. I don't know what happened to them over the past few seasons.

Bruh, already. 🤦🏽

I wonder what led to the discovery of cockroach milk. Some things are better left imagined. 😃

Bannedlargejr:
Chai what a strike. You mean that there’s a possibility of osimhen and lookman not playing at the next World Cup?

Anytime I consider this possibility, my heart go just cut. 🤧

tivhador:
She's fine....I have to HAND it to her

Mad man. 😂😂😂

What's the source of this list?

Anyway it's no surprise that no governor from the South South is on it.

DaddyCoool:
I no longer understand you o. I said EVERYDAY Nairaland logic. "Nairaland" there is just for emphasis, just because that's where we are. The operative word is 'everyday" - "everyday logic". I even gave you an example - if A means the cat is dead, and B means the cat is alive, both A and B cannot be true at same time - á la Schrödinger's cat in QM.

And you're still playing musical chairs with words. I have now told you for the umpteenth time that it isn't illogical. It is only counterintuitive to our evolved macroscopic point of view - which brings us back to the million dollar question you keep ducking: are you saying that these events are illogical according to EVERY SYSTEM OF LOGIC? Are you finally ready to answer this question?

DaddyCoool:
Jeez, I have to spoon-feed you everything!

Don't worry about "spoon-feeding" anybody on this topic because there's clearly no food in your bowl.

DaddyCoool:
Where is the uncertainty in E=MC²? or other classical Physics equations?

I literally just addressed this in the post you quoted: it's in the application of the equation in real life, and not in the equation itself.

DaddyCoool:
I knew you'd be obsessed with that statement (that in classical Physics they usually don't run around trying to invent equations to justify weird phenomena).

Not obsessed. More like annoyed and very much so because it was a baffling and odious statement.

And do you even know the meaning of "obsession"? I genuinely think you have a problem understanding the import or meanings of certain words.

DaddyCoool:
Mention instances where classical physicists were trying to JUSTIFY weird phenomena by inventing math.

Gravitational constant.

Hubbles constant.

Dark matter and dark energy.

Einstein's cosmological constant.

Displacement current in Ampere's circuit law.

Boltzmann's H-theorem.

DaddyCoool:
For example, the speed limit in the universe is the relatively low speed of light. They accept that as another illogical aspect of the universe. In QM they'd invent all sorts of probabilistic math to show why it is logical!

🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽

To knock that your bald and crooked ogo just dey hungry me I swear. 😡

Dilijingsly:
Will you pass or smash her..?

Smash. IDGAF.

DaddyCoool:
Oga sir, classical physics/science is NOT probalistic, QM is! Classical science is deterministic, meaning that given initial conditions, the future state of a system can be predicted with certainty. Never so in QM.

It is deterministic, NOT only with maths and numbers

Yes, everything that does not conform to our limited, everyday logical patterns is illogical from that perspective.

In classical Physics equations like E=MC² are arrived at then verified in observation of the real world. They don't run around adding constants and twisting equations to justify weird phenomena

I used the word "far-fetched". I said that if the universe can be so illogical (counterintuitive, if you wish) at core, it is NOT far-fetched that our thoughts could be impacting the physical world - as has been attested to by so many!

My knowledge on it is incomplete, and yours is!

Yes, our everyday Nairaland logic, not some esoteric, head-in-the-clouds "logic"!

Have some damn shame and stop embarrassing yourself like this. What is Nairaland logic? Can you define Nairaland logic? What's the difference between Nairaland logic and Facebook logic? Please you should really pay more attention to how you use words because they have their meanings for fúck sake. You are making this conversation tedious and bizarre with your absurd choices of words. "Nairaland logic" literally doesn't have a meaning as far as this discussion is concerned.

And it's true that classical physics is deterministic, BUT THAT'S JUST IN THEORY. 😭

When it comes down to actual application, probability is still very much involved because whenever you need to measure or predict any event in the real world, uncertainty automatically becomes a factor.

Oh and this statement from you in particular 💀 -

In classical Physics equations like E=MC² are arrived at then verified in observation of the real world. They don't run around adding constants and twisting equations to justify weird phenomena

- is so offensively ignorant that I can only assume that the reason you don't want to let this argument go is because it will ruin your ego and everything you ever thought you knew about QM. I didn't major in any of the natural sciences because I studied a social science course but even I am aware (from my little knowledge of physics back in secondary school) that science has sooooooo many instances where constants are added just to make the equations match the observations. Like the Gravitational constant (G)? Hubbles constant? The Lambda?

I seriously hope you didn't study physics or any of the other major sciences at all in the higher institution because how the fúck don't you know that scientists tweak equations all the time and add constants to make sense of their research? Christ on a bike, this is getting depressing. 🤦🏽

I'm still waiting for you to tell me which system of logic you're using. And please don't say "Nairaland logic" again because that phrase is the most useless and unhelpful of weasel words.

DaddyCoool:
This is so hilarious I'm speechless! I Honestly don't know where to start😆

You can start anywhere you like. It won't matter anyway because I already know from a brief look that this response will be mid again. 🤷🏽

DaddyCoool:
1. We're talking scientific probability NOT driving to the market! When we do 2+2 in our everyday decimal system, are there a range of possible answers or just one answer??

For crying out loud you're so full of shít. You literally asked me "Is our everyday life probabilistic?", but now in your typical dishonest fashion of post hoc revisionism, you're now claiming you were talking about scientific probability. Are you always an awful liar, or is it only with regards to academic discussions, because I don't understand how someone can be so repeatedly dishonest over and over again. It's making it really hard for me to respect you or take your comments seriously in this conversation.

Coming to your newly edited question about decimal systems, the answer is still a big fat YES.

2+2 = 4 is already defined axiomatically within a closed number system, so it's disingenuous to think that you can compare or apply it to probability distributions. They're not the same thing.

Also, mathematics deals with numbers and shapes (geometry). Those things are abstract. Our physical world deals with observation, hypothesis, experiments and so on. The physical world and the world of maths don't operate on the same level of certainty.

If two of us are playing ludo, and you roll your dice, you'll probably be betting on getting a 6 or at least a 5, since you want to win. Now tell me, from your own perspective, would you call the outcome of this dice roll a certainty or a probability?

DaddyCoool:
2. Like I've said a million times "logical" for our purposes here means "makes sense from perspective of our everyday macro life and follows it's logical pattern". That someone can appear on the opposite side of a wall he shouldn't be able to pass through is ILLOGICAL from our everyday perspective. The logic is: A can't pass through B, therefore A can't appear on the other side of B. Anything beyond that is illogical from our EVERYDAY perspective!

The only thing you've asserted here is that anything that does not conform to your limited imagination is illogical. And it's such a breathtakingly ignorant statement when you consider it in the context of how vast and diverse our universe is and how much we still don't know about it that scientists are still discovering till this very day. So until you put on your big boy (abi big girl) pants and answer my question about which system of logic you're using for your claim, your definition will simply continue to remain worthless, for as many times as you as you want to repeat it. It didn't add up then and it's still not adding up now.

DaddyCoool:
3. Einstein simply viewed QM from perspective of our classical everyday life NOT that he couldn't find some mathematical formulary to justify it

His main concern was the physics behind the whole thing - the non-locality and probabilistic nature of QM. And he was worried because determinism and locality were very fundamental to his work on relativity.

DaddyCoool:
4. In our everyday classical life we don't observe something weird and then start searching for mathematics to justify it. If you twist around enough and add enough constants you can find mathematics to justify anything - instead of just admiting it makes no sense!

And yet this is exactly what scientists do! 😂

They observe strange phenomena and use the scientific methodologies to get a better understanding behind the occurrences they've observed.

The reason we can understand the science behind stuff like rainfalls, hurricanes, thunder and lightning etc is because scientists didn't just sit on their ass and attribute them to magic.

When Newton discovered gravity, he wasn't just fooling around. He was crafting his theories based on patterns he observed.

If scientists didn't come to the knowledge of electromagnetism and semiconductor physics to be able to design laptops and mobile phones, I probably wouldn't even know of your existence, let alone sit here and read your terrible arguments. 🤧

DaddyCoool:
5. I only used QM to illustrate that the tiniest building blocks of our universe behave so weirdly that nobody really knows for sure what's going on (except you!).
I CHOOSE to believe that my thoughts can create reality - which nobody can prove or disprove, it's a matter of belief!

Need I remind you (again) that YOU were the one who sent us tumbling down this endless rabbit hole of baseless arguments when you started claiming with so much confidence that our thoughts create reality? If you want to believe that thoughts create reality, then na you sabi. It's your world, not mine. But if you're going to try and generalize your belief or present it as an objective truth, then you should be prepared to answer for it to the very last detail.

Now ever since I took you to task for that claim (plus your illogicality claim), you've slowly backpedalled and revised your argument over and over again, until you've now pitifully reached the point of claiming mystery to the inner workings of the universe. If you really don't know, then what the fúck are you still dragging in this conversation?

Meanwhile I'm still waiting for you to tell us according to which system of logic is the universe is illogical. Maybe if you can answer that question, then we'll make some progress instead of having us run around in circles for nothing.

DaddyCoool:
6. Nobody fully understands QM but you produce all sorts of mathematical equations to prove you fully understand it and it's all simple and logical!

I never said I fully understood QM. But I know enough to know that your knowledge on it is incomplete.

DaddyCoool:
7. We're talking everyday NL logic - if A means the dog is alive and B means the dog is dead, then A and B cannot be true at the same time!

What of other systems of logic where principles of entanglement and superposition may apply? Are you confident that such systems of logic don't exist? Think carefully.

She talk say na "everyday NL (Nairaland) logic". Nothing wey person no go read for this forum. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Downloaded J2ME recently to play some of my favorite phone games back then, cause nostalgia wan wound me. 😂

Other than that, I'm also playing Assassin's Creed again on PS3 and aiming for 100% completion.

Seun:
I had a long phone chat with an old friend of mine who I previously had a public falling out with. We agreed to disagree about religion and family life, and promised each other not to allow our differences of opinion to be a stumbling block to our friendship anymore.

We also committed to doing business together. I will buy a beautiful duplex from his company and consult them when I need to travel. He will buy 7.5% of Nairaland at a very attractive valuation and become a director of our company so that we can benefit from his vast experience.

It feels so good to be on good terms again! I urge you to follow our example if you're currently not on good terms with any old friend.

Just dey play.

DaddyCoool:
These are some of the most ridiculous posts I've ever read on Nairaland!

Not as ridiculous as your failed attempts to critique them. 🙄

It's obvious you have nothing more to argue on this topic. Both you and your travesty of a position have been found out long ago, but you would rather go down with the sinking ship that admit the painful truth.

DaddyCoool:
I'm sure even Lordreed is scratching his head!😆

Sadly for you, he's not:

LordReed:
Thanks for this. I was more focused on DaddyCoool's insistence that quantum particles only come into existence upon observation, a total misunderstanding of the observer effect. But you are correct, all this should enlighten any objective reader of how misinformed DaddyCoool is on the subject or even more egregiously, deliberately twisting QM principles to give strength to the obviously kooky position.

Learn to speak for yourself and stop making up lies about other people. It's embarrassing. 🤦🏽

DaddyCoool:
You've agreed that QM is probabilistic. Is our everyday life probabilistic?

Absolutely. 💯

When you drive to work in the morning without getting into an accident, you've navigated a probability successfully.

When the doctor listens to your complaints and arrives at a conclusion, he's navigating a probability too.

Weather reports? Probability.

Stock market? Probability.

Do I really need to go on?

Honestly, the fact that you can ask me this type of question and make me have to point out such an obvious banality to you is very saddening.

DaddyCoool:
Is it logical that you can't know both the speed and position of something?

If by logical you mean "necessarily follows from the premise", then the answer is obviously yes. It's just a mechanical consequence of wave mechanics.

DaddyCoool:
Is Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" logical? (Which allows two separated particles to instantaneously influence each other's states, faster than the speed of light!).

Einstein's problem with QM was from his preference or expectation based on what he knew about interacting objects, not with the logical consistency. There's no way he'd have known the logical framework behind that "spooky action". So this question, like the rest of the jargons you've been posting, is dead on arrival.

DaddyCoool:
Not only that, you're treating a probabilistic science as exact! Nobody fully understands QM - except you!

You know, I feel sorry for you that you won't be able to put yourself in I and LordReed's shoes, and fully appreciate the hilarious irony of accusing me of being a know-it-all of QM. Madam, I don't know if you forgot, but YOU are the person who brought up QM, brandishing it like the recipe to the ultimate truth of our universe, and making bold claims without any justification. YOU are the one who keeps demanding binary classifications of quantum events, saying they must either be "logical" or "illogical."

Well, fine then.

Since the universe is so "ILLOGICAL" to you that keep shouting it every 3 seconds, then maybe you can tell us according to which system of logic below the universe is illogical? 🤔

1. Aristotelian logic

2. Classical logic
2a. Propositional logic
2b. First-order logic

3. Extended logic
3a. Modal logic
3b. Higher order logic

4. Deviant logic
4a. Intuitionistic logic
4b. Multi-valued logic
4c. Paraconsistent logic

5. Informal logic

Start with these ones first.

So is it wrong according to all the systems of logic I just listed? Remember who has the burden of proof here, and think carefully before your next response.

🚶🏽🚶🏽🚶🏽

7.

6.