₦airaland Forum

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.

5. QUANTUM TUNNELING
I already addressed it in this response
https://www.nairaland.com/8383051/please-explain-these-adam-eve/9#134792899

4.

3.

DaddyCoool:
To cut to the chase and save everybody time, please enumerate for us one by one how the following quantum properties are LOGICAL in our everyday Nairaland life.
You can start by telling us how it is logical for you to appear at the other side of a wall you shouldn't be able to walk through

I'll just let the the experts do the talking in my next couple of posts with screenshots and links to their sources. If you don't respect my opinion, at least you should respect the opinions of those who have spent years researching these concepts in their field. Also keep in mind the meaning of the word logical as you read.

1. WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Quantum_Mechanics/02._Fundamental_Concepts_of_Quantum_Mechanics/Wave-Particle_Duality#:~:text=This%20relationship%20was%20confirmed%20by,wavelength%20using%20de%20Broglie%20relationship.

DaddyCoool:
Well, NL is a layman's forum. It is not a place of "critical and rigorous thinking". "Illogical" serves us just fine here and conveys the meaning we want it to convey. No need to keep repeating a long word like "counterintuitive"!

Lol. This is the problem with some of you Nigerians. Stubbornly clinging on to a fundamental mischaracterization is not the flex you think it is. 😂

People who actually care for clarity and accurate representation of thoughts and ideas shouldn't be proud of their own misunderstanding. If counter-intuitive is too much of a tongue twister for you, I can give you 4 alternatives that best describe the nature of QM: Unexpected. Surprising. Strange. Weird.

Although I have a feeling that all the words I just mentioned will not go well with the narrative you've been working on for so long in this topic.

If you can accept the fact that the nature of our reality is not defined by your linguistic preferences, then I'm confident you will find inner peace. 🌚

DaddyCoool:
For our purposes here on this thread both words work just fine. We're just trying to convey that QM does not follow our everyday macro logical pattern NOT that it lacks logic in it's own quantum world!

The boundary you're trying to create between "everyday macro logic" and "quantum world logic" simply cannot exist, I'm sorry, because the core principles of logical inference (forming a premise and framework) remain constant under any scale, whether big or small. The only thing that's changing is the physical laws underlying QM. It's really that simple. I'm starting to think this basic concept is far and wide beyond your pay grade. No offense.

DaddyCoool:
You keep trying to play this your word game of "illogical" vs. "counterintuitive". Intuition follows logic, doesn't it? Or is it just based on nothing?
Something can be logical from one perspective but illogical from another. I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU CAN'T GET THAT!!
QM is not confined to maths!
QM can never be logical from our everyday macroscopic world perspective!!

Intuition doesn't always follow logic. In fact most of the time it defies it, and that's because intuition is not based on logical systems, but on our past experiences and cognitive bias as human beings.

I don't know if you're familiar with Carl Jung and his personality theories. Basically, on a surface level they might look similar, but logic and intuition are so dramatically different in the way they function and so trying to define them interchangeably the way you're doing will always be problematic.

So far so good, it sounds like you're slowly coming to realize the outright futility of your position. I mean, I've not read anything from you yet that shows you rejecting the idea that QM clearly operates according to certain math principles or structures, even though they seem counterintuitive in classical physics.

And I never said QM was confined to maths alone. That's just you showing your misunderstanding of my argument.

The only thing that remains to be seen is if you'll finally accept the limitations of your own understanding instead of trying to force your cognitive dissonance into the subject by fire by force. 🤷🏽

And at the end of the day, the laws of physics are not beholden to our subjective opinions, so you can discard that talk about logical perspectives.

DaddyCoool:
There you go again sir.
Now re-write the above post using:
FROM OUR MACRO PERSPECTIVE and we'll see whose argument has illogic as characteristic!

I'll say it again and again, those two words are more different than you think. And that's that. If you can't see how your argument isn't logical, then the joke's on you. Sadly.

DaddyCoool:
Are you just pretending to be obtuse sir?
The most important parts of my statement are:
FOR OUR PURPOSES HERE and
FROM OUR MACRO PERSPECTIVE

Now rewrite your post using those and we'll see who is thicker than a bag of rice!

FOR YOUR PURPOSES, maybe confusing counter-intuitive with illogical is convenient.

FROM YOUR MACRO PERSPECTIVE, maybe anything beyond secondary school physics looks like magic.

But in the realm of critical and rigorous thinking, which is where this conversation is supposed to be taking place, they will continue to remain fundamentally different concepts. And that's that.

Know your cognitive limitations.

From Google, for the sake of emphasis.

DaddyCoool:
Because you keep repeating the stupid statement, "counterintuitive and illogical don't mean exactly the same thing." Who said they did?!

Uhhmmm... You?

By repeatedly conflating the two words, you ARE implying that they mean the same thing. It's not rocket science, m'lady.

DaddyCoool:
Again, FOR OUR PURPOSES HERE, we want a word that means "makes no SENSE or does not follow a LOGICAL pattern from our macro perspective"! Can you please tell us how ILLOGICAL does not fit that bill.
Also tell us how it is logical that a particle would appear on the other side of a barrier it shouldn't pass through or why something applied to a particle has same effect on a particle light years away. How are these logical from our everyday perspective??

Let's try this one more time.

COUNTER-INTUITIVE: When something happens that goes against our intuitions or expectations, because it directly contradicts our daily experience and how we view and understand the world.

ILLOGICAL: No logical coherence or meaning. Something you literally can't make sense of. If it's impossible to make sense of something, then it's illogical.

Here's a hint: it's possible to make sense of QM.

Anyone who isn't thicker than a bag of rice can tell that these two concepts aren't identical. If you're having difficulties telling the difference, then what can I say? The truth is in the pudding. 🚶🏽🚶🏽🚶🏽

LordReed:
Fraud. You claimed you could make anything happen just by thinking about it but when faced with a challenge you've had to modify your position over and over again just so you don’t have actually demonstrate anything. That is full on fraud. LoLz.

I'm done with you, fraud. Bwahahahahahaha!

Exactly. 😂

She boxed herself into a corner with her suspect claims and now she's throwing everything at the wall except the kitchen sink to salvage her sinking position.

DaddyCoool:
AT CORE (tiniest particles which make up everything) the universe is ILLOGICAL (does not make sense nor follow predictable pattern - from our macro perspective!)

Which one is "AT CORE" again? I hope you're not trying to backpedal with style again? Don't forget your claim was "the universe is illogical". You never included this caveat about tiniest particles when I mentioned you the first time. Plus, even at quantum levels, there are discernable patterns and probabilities. If there weren't patterns and logical underpinnings, then quantum computers shouldn't have existed in the first place. 💁🏽

Illogic might not be an inherent characteristic of the universe afterall. It might only just be a characteristic of your argument in this topic. 🤧

DaddyCoool:
See him talking mathematical jargon to confuse people!😆
Bottom line, the particle APPEARS to have passed through a barrier it shouldn't pass through! No one has any way of knowing if it actually passed through the barrier or something else. I read in that site you posted quote "QM is actually magical in relation to the classical context".
See below, one physicist's view

Honestly I only shared that link to make a rhetorical point that you should go there and argue with actual physicists since you're so sure of your claims. I was half-serious, and also half-joking. But I like how you cherry picked a single comment from that thread that seemingly supports your claim but ignored the actual punchline of my reference and let it fly swiftly over your head. Lol.

For the avoidance of any doubt, I'll address the comment you lifted from that thread.

The guy in your screenshot compared quantum tunneling to a low resolution game rendering. Personally I don't think his analogy is accurate because if you actually take the time to read on quantum tunneling, you'll learn that it's not necessarily a glitch in the way that guy described it. It is a mathematically precise phenomenon predicted and confirmed through experiments already carried out. Read the subheading in this wiki titled "Mathematical Discussion":
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling#:~:text=In%20physics%2C%20quantum%20tunnelling%2C%20barrier,of%20a%20finite%20potential%20well.

I'll reiterate again, and as I've just shown you, quantum tunneling is clearly rooted in mathematical formalisms. So you can make the argument that it is counterintuitive since it defies the notions of classical physics, but it is NOT illogical.

Obviously I expect you to come back once again and bicker some more without a convincing counterargument.

DaddyCoool:
You are the one being obtuse sir - forgeting QM is probabilistic. FOR OUR PURPOSES HERE, we want a word that means "makes no SENSE or does not follow a PREDICTABLE pattern from our macro perspective"!! Both "counterintuitive" and "illogical" fit the bill, so we use the shorter word!
No two differently-spelt words mean the same thing in all circumstances!!

Madam if you want to play with words, at least show some finesse about it and stop zigzagging around without a point. Do you think you've said anything profound yet? I'm still waiting for a coherent argument from you because none of what you've said so far has demonstrated the point that you've been desperately trying to make.

And I don't know why you keep stating the obvious. You said "No two different words can mean the same thing in all circumstances". Okay? But I never said anything to the contrary, so who is arguing this with you? 🤨

Yes it is a fact that words have distinct meanings and if anything, you're the only one ignoring those distinctions to prop up your failed position. Your choice of words so far have been sloppy at best, and have only served to obfuscate this conversation even further from when we started it. 🤦🏽

Now she's telling me QM is probabilistic, like anybody following this discussion wasn't already aware. I never forgot about that but well done all the same, Miss Obvious. 🥱

When you're done shining your torchlight under the bright sun for no reason, maybe you can turn it off and make me understand how QM being probabilistic negates what I said about counterintuitive and illogical having two different connotations.

Go ahead. Make my day.

Excellent write-up. ✍🏽

No lies told.

I don't why but before I opened the thread I read it as: Police Arrest One Cow Over Poisoning In Benue 🤣🤣🤣

LordReed:
LoLz. Is.that why none of you have walked on water because it is repeatable? Please when next are you turning water to wine I want a good party. Bwahahahahahaha!

Swear down. 🤣🤣🤣

DaddyCoool:
It is not a question of what I'm familiar with, it is a question of from what perspective we'er talking.
From the perspective of our everyday macro world it is ILLOGICAL and will always be for something to exist only when it's being observed.

Your economics analogy does not apply. For our purposes here we need a word that describes something that doesn't make sense or follow a predictable pattern. Both "illogical" and "counterintuitive" fit the bill

By the way, since you believe the universe is SOOOO illogical, then can you explain how we're having this conversation at this very moment? Or better yet, can you tell us how quantum computers were built or how quantum field theory was developed?

DaddyCoool:
I don't just know how someone can be saying that QM is logical from macroscopic perspective

Still playing musical chairs with your common sense I see. We're playing 3D chess here. Keep up.