i go by the name of . but prefer to call myslf Zaphoermiio(zaph)which is my computer
identity.ive been a nerd all my life.I ama south african living on a baron township but i’ve always been facsinated by the wonders of hacking ,science fiction,& I write poetry.iv’e never had a computer growing up so mind my flawed dexterity.Nevr the less i was suppose to be completing my matric this year but circumstances forced me to repeat grd11.See I have a dream ..of studying in america-ucla(film,television&digital imaging)NEXT YEAR!!!! but the question is how.Which made me wonder
if it is by any chance possible to hack into the SA department of educational qualifications,alter hte result renditons(so my name appears in this year’s newspapers),modify my IGETC & EFLTS scores,
get me an ID,passport, visa,greencard,pay my tuition/semester ..etc all htrough hacking?(after all it si hte computer age isn’t it?)& if it is how could u guys help me?Trust me htis is not just another frail
attempt to live hte american dream ,(i know this might sound a bit corny but I have a dream 4 america.(picture Hollywood meets Silicon valley)Beyond all reasonable doubt iam fucken obssesed with computers i even write raps
about htem making out & stuff……..heres a sample

Note i anthropomorphize(robots)……& it’s a bit abstract too

iron caste flirt alert transversional hand pressure activate hte fabio receptor sensory inflex
re-con hte hackers on cupids hovercraft star trek andromeda in garter belts target identifiied
as Kismet. & you r let me guess come to bother me daddy McAsshole?Uh no!Oh i’m sorry
it’s just that most of you prototype banal simulacrums just make me gag.Ooh! u’r in excessive
heat Hal loves that in fact he’s intrigued by retiscence coz his state of the art automation’ll
delete that programme.Mr puffy pistons incessant eclipse text message chewed by livid spams
more like the kookie bloom Bard.from carbon based queer model 2 color coded component honcho AI smoulder doppleganger maneframe .splice it with a solar panel binary download sci-fi mechanism data but she said :Access denied.though she looks like the mannequins enticed
by rusty juggernauts just give it a month then she’ll be autographing my name on the make up room’s mirror wit crimson lipstick the type that’ll pour u’r groin wit hot cofee when u insult a mathatter then her jenga crockery are all that’s left of u’r modus vivendi.Like nurse! my dental caps need adjusting !Up yourz!!!there’s a monkey wrench on the jumpseat & if u ring that bell once more I’ll………….solder my defective circuits wit u’r autonomous magic touch.That’s when my space needle jumped up scope googled backwardsUh! glitch dimensia technical difficulties
seem to be sensual, fuelling up the transmitters wit mirth I cork barbarella shitholes wit a loose knut jackhammer coz i’m haggle priced i cum wit a satellite wave that’ll fry hakes in ya fridge
So do u still dream of Genie when I cud be u’r Frankenstein made 4 every Victorian dessicated
mansion’s furtive lab where the forlorn hasty stench of decrepitude haunts the lab but if u’r skirt
blows up im’a flash the fang & whistle Dixie .Watch the warewolves dismount from linear parchs
while the vampire’s bicentennial corpse deploys splinters to slit thraot.then up cranks ya gizmo
,beter reboot ryt now b4 Deedee cookie cuts the wires.the mothership sputters afterdark trailor
park trash doll wouser emitts chips in relation to Area 51. my gosh!!!u & u’r starky comments
don’t u ever like stop? but i mean i grow on people!so does fungi!!!no… wait !!!honey! plz!!Look at u pathetic, u wreak a deficiant virus & im’a bout to bunch ya red button Sooo?any last words b4 u self-detonate?Oh of coarse.. I forgot to sequence ya countdown

hook;i slash space monkeys ,ratchet wheel tongue ,spot wolly wit a a snaggle gum fitted ,dentures spat out,head mounted version, zorb out of control to gargle your molars. Body cast over a bladed face amputated chain saw iron fist vitamins for the snail racing championships

plz reply if possible

have heart,I know this world is cruel&,hard&that my dream is probably farfetched
but sometimes I hope that one human out there just one, may understand.
(by all means I’m prepared to face whatever pain & consequences my decision would
Have brought unto me(lock me up in a sanctum,train me ,torture me with food & sleep deprivation till I b’cum the best hacker to my fullest potential)

HOPE!2600

MY FELLOW BRETHREN

Which isn’t to say that there isn’t merit in attacking some of the same problems from the perspective of, say, what to do when no clear apparatus/system distinction can be made; that’s a science question. I just don’t have much time for ‘what does it all mean, man’ questions. I don’t think that they’re without interest, I just think that they’re not science, in general, subjective and also, potentially, unanswerable. It’s not a significant failure if we can’t make a pretty mental picture to explain things; there’s no reason to expect that such a picture exists/can be created (depending on how much of a Platonist you are).

The measurement problem is indeed usually associated with the Copenhagen interpretation. However, it is the poster boy for similar problems in the other interpretations of quantum mechanics. You can compare it to fitting a carpet in a room that is too small: if you flatten a bulge in one place, it will pop up elsewhere. Consistent histories also has its problems.

I don’t object to nondeterministic theories, it is just that we cannot interpret quantum mechanical probabilities as classical probabilities (i.e., a lack of knowledge). Exactly how we should interpret the probabilities in quantum theory remains problematic.

I have heared many theoretical physicists rubbish the foundations of physics community, but so far they have not come up with a consistent, satisfying interpretation of quantum mechanics either (other than the “shut up and calculate” interpretation). Perhaps it will all become clear when we have a theory of quantum gravity, who knows.

The point is that some physicicsts have the tendency to dismiss certain disciplines out of hand (the philosophy of quantum mechanics is a case in point), without any real knowledge of that discipline. In a wider context, philosophers such as Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, etc. have had a profound influence on society, and you’ll find that their thinking was incredibly complex. Just to put it out with the trash because there are a few charlatans around is naive and arrogant.

It pretty much boils down to what is commonly known as the measurement problem: at some point we have to make the cut what we consider quantum and what we consider classical.

That’s not true. See, for example, Victor Stenger’s The Unconscious Quantum: Metaphysics in Modern Physics and Cosmology. It’s a problem with Copenhagen, to be sure, but certainly not all interpretations (such as coherent histories).

it is a theory that tells you how to calculate measurement outcomes, but those measurement outcomes cannot consistently be associated with properties of the underlying microscopic system.

I’m sorry, are you objecting to the fact that QM isn’t deterministic? That’s physics, not philosophy. If and when hidden variables are completely ruled out, it will be by physicists.

Philosophy has a role in interpretation of knowledge. Daniel Dennett, for instance. Rooted in science or math it can be okay. But much of philosophy does seem like a waste of time to those of us in the natural sciences. (And pretty uniquely philosophy, in my opinion. I value art, literature, social sciences, etc. quite highly.)

There are too many people trying to do philosophy of science who don’t understand the science. I’d prefer they left it to those who do.

However, you wrote [that] “measurement outcomes cannot consistently be associated with properties of the underlying microscopic system.” When does this happen?

Whenever the dimension of your Hilbert is larger than 3. It is called the Kochen-Specker theorem, which is related to Gleason’s theorem.

I had a history professor in college who said to me one time (as well as I can remember) “The difference between what I do (history) and what you do (physics) is that for the most part everyone in your field can agree on what the important questions are, you may disagree about the answers, but there isn’t much debate about the questions. In history, however, we can’t even agree on what the important questions are.”

This is a problem, but it is also what makes quantum theory such a fascinating subject.

It was never a valuation. I made it clear that it was my opinion;see the whole of #14. If I considered all else to be worthless and trivial I wouldn’t have been reading about them.
Anyways, does your agreement extend to my response to “assign elements of reality to the objects in the theory is a philosophical nightmare”? That is, I see no problem here as there is no requirement that everything we use in a theory has to have a basis in reality.

Best,
Chinmaya

I like reading about philosophy, literature, politics, criminology,… but none of them pose the intellectual challenge of physics and math [...]

This is not a statement of your personal preference, but a valuation. And with that valuation I disagree.

cheers,
PK

Thank you for your reply.
I do know though that Mathematical Logic is, well, mathematical. Also, at a calculational level Non-relativistic QM is straightforward (well not in all its applications), but we were talking about calculations in physics in general. I see no point in ‘setting people straight’ about their opinions on why they consider their field to be the best: I do consider physics to be most challenging otherwise I wouldn’t be doing it; that doesn’t mean I think everthing else is worthless or trivial. “to assign elements of reality”, from what I can guess from the phrase, doesn’t bother me because there is no requirement that everything we use in a theory we’ve to be able to attach to reality.

For instance:
A pop talk show can measure Sean as a very eloquent and entertaining persona.
A cute chick in a crowded bar can measure Sean as an extremely boring and annoying physicist after having corrected for the initial experimental erroneous measure of fascination.
At the low probability event of a regular person walking past Sean’s office decorated with papers composed of ten+ letter long words, Sean would be classified with high probability as a nerd, especially upon a conversation consisting primarily of ten+ letter long words.

Nerdiness and geekiness are art forms of expression. And yes, after so many decades, this art form is still unappreciated by society and needs fashion icons to stand tall and bold (bald too) and make a statement.

It is funny that the hairstyle introduced and promoted so heavily by Einstein never reached the masses. Ever saw the crazy hair crazy take place?!

You are in the world’s biggest playground for nerds. It is your lifetime opportunity to gather and analyze data to clear the truths and myths about that piece of the social descrepency.

Philosophy does require acute logical thinking but that’s not the challenge. Physics asks of logic but also calculations and that’s what I see as its challenge.

If you W.V.O. Quine you’ll see that philosophy can be highly mathematical. And John Baez just had a post on the desirablility of a philosophical basis for quantum mechanics using category theory.

What do you consider to be most unsatsfactory about the inerpretation of QM?

There are many different interpretations of quantum mechanics (Copenhagen, many worlds, GRW, Ithaka, modal, and so on), and they all have their problems, either conceptual or technical. It pretty much boils down to what is commonly known as the measurement problem: at some point we have to make the cut what we consider quantum and what we consider classical. The problem is that the theory does not tell us where this transition occurs.

This is precisely where the “calculations” are the easy part: there is no ambiguity in how to obtain values for physical observables in experiments. However, to assign “elements of reality” to the objects in the theory is a philosophical nightmare.

I guess you can call all this physics, but I think that would not be fair to all those philosophers working in the field.

I’m not claiming it is not the case, but he’d always struck me as someone who was interested in a wide range of things outside of pure physics – music, art, strippers…

I would say it is _never_ too late for pushing oneself to learn something new and useful.

My own approach, as someone who as a foreigner still struggles to integrate myself into my new cultures, is to accept invitations as often as possible. Pushing myself, even when I can think of a million reasons why “I don’t have time”. I rarely regret those times “to broaden and build “, as they say.

Also, I pay close attention to what I like. so that when I see a smidgeon of that appealing aspect of whatever in my environment, then I follow the trail and see where it leads.

For those living in California, they have it easy. California, being what it is, has a support or social group for everything, even for how to be social…. For example, for the CalTech nerds, the administration tries to help too.

I think you misrepresent both forms of thinking.

First, calling philosophy, literature, history, etc. “the nebuoulous realm of emotions, impressions, etc.” is feeding directly into the misconception about other academic fields that scientists have — namely, that it is fluffy. All of these fields have a rigor that goes beyond how you “feel”. I don’t really understand most of them, becuase I don’t have training in most of them, so I can’t really tell you what that rigor is there… but it is. It’s not all impressions!

Second, we should not forget that inspiriation and aesthetics and intuition play in science. Yes, ultimatley, if you are going to write a paper or make a case, you have to proceed in a systematic way and show that what you are doing follows from the data and what comes before. But many discoveries in science come from intuition or aesthetics. Consider that people think some theories are more “beautiful” than others. It doesn’t make them right — that’s determined by the data and ultimately the systematic process. But it does guide where people put their efforts, and has also proven to be a useful guide. The process of science is not just turning the crank, as it were.