anunusualname

You are being more literal minded than the material requires. Any "observation" is an interaction of one physical system with another. Consciousness is not involved. If one places a dumb non-sentient electron counter at one slit of a double slit rig, it presence destroys the interference effect. It does not matter if the device is being monitored by a conscious party or not. If all that runs counter to our intuitions and "common sense" then so much the worse for our intuitions and common sense. If nature could care it would not give a damn about what we are comfortable with. Ba'al Chatzaf That material you refer to is part of a video entitled "What the bleep do we know?". The video is well intentioned, because it is trying to wake people up & get them to take some personal responsibility for their own mental health. That is super, but it is also telling them that by mere thought alone, we have the power to alter reality. For instance, that by feeling a negative or a positive way towards water, you will affect the structure of the water. Furthermore, the water that you felt negatively towards will resemble polluted water. Need I go on? It would be interesting if it were true, but I don't think it is. I think, as you say, nature couldn't care less what I was comfortable with. Reality is objective, not subjective. I agree that "particle" and "wave" are concepts, but so what? I understand "wave" to describe the movement of particles. I am okay with light being a mysterious phenomenon that I don't understand. I don't understand it. But if you say it exhibits the properties of a wave, then I'm going to ask, "What is waving?" How can you have a wave without a medium? The lecturer in the Double Slit Experiment spends his first, say 15 minutes, talking about how by the concept of "wave", we understand particles moving up & down, back & forth, transferring their motion to the particles nearby. But then for the rest of the video, he is talking about waves as if they could somehow exist independently from particles. Conceptually, that makes no sense. Light is a mystery to me, I don't pretend to understand it. But the question, "particle or wave?" doesn't make sense. It is an erroneous simplification of the problem.

I've just watched the Double Slit Experiment and I learned a bit. I appreciated that he kept things simple. What I didn't like is how often he asked the question "wave or particle?" I don't understand the question. We know waves are moving particles. So, the question is "particles moving in some predefined pattern or particles moving in some other predefined pattern?" It really doesn't make sense to me that we would be saying Newton or this or that guy thought light was a wave and not a particle or a particle and not a wave. I mean, the eye and the ear both detect particles. Whether they are moving in "waves" or not, I don't know. But it is particles. There is no alternative, because particle is almost "thing" and how can there be a non-thing? But it seems like the lecturer thinks that there can be, which is why the conversation eventually comes round to God, in my opinion. All the same, I did learn a bit. I found it enjoyable. I'm going to look at the rest of the links. This is the main reason why I wanted to participate in this forum. Thanks a bunch for these very interesting links, Mr. Kelly.

Yes, you're right. 7^0=the product of a number & its reciprocal. But I'd still like to expand 7^0 to an expression that doesn't make use of exponents. Is that not feasible? That is what Roger was doing, correct? What is his last name, by the way? By what was quoted in the original post, you would understand that 2^2 indicates 1x2x2. Or that when you raise two to the zeroth (or no) power, your solution is one, because what is indicated is 1 multiplied by 2 exactly zero times. Which is to say 1x2x0=1. That makes sense, but I'm not sure that it is valid. Especially when I got to 0^0. Which is to say 1x0x0=1? So, two points. What Roger is quoted as saying seems to me to be wrong. I would however like some way of expressing 7^0 in plain English and without referring to 7^1 x 7^(-1)= the product of inverses. Edit: I was taught early on that 7^2 is "some number of sevens multiplied together". That is the way it was explained, and that is the way it makes sense. However, I suppose as you derive the definition of one expression from another, one can't quite express mathematical expressions in plain English anymore. Still, I'd like to understand math in plain English insofar as possible.

I don't see the problem. Could someone explain it to me? 1^0= One multiplied by 1 raised to no power or not multiplied by itself any number of times. Whereas 1^1= One multiplied by 1 raised to a power of 1 or multiplied by itself one time. It is either 1x1x=1 or 1x1x1=1. I don't know whether or not exponents are actually defined that way, but if they are, I don't see a problem with why each of those produces a product of 1. Edited: I suppose you have to strike out an x. Edited: 7^0=7 then according to my understanding of the definition of exponents given. That is not so, is it? Edited: I see a problem. Edited: OH, you have to strike out two x's. It is either 1^0=1x1x=1 or 1^1=1x1x1 or 7^0=1x7x=1 Edited: So, 7 = 7^1 = 1x7, whereas 7^0 = 1x7 Edited. So, I was being confused. But I think I get it now. ^0 makes sense if you understand an expression like 7 being a simplification of 1x7. The ^0 addresses 1x7, but not 7 itself. That is interesting, but I'm not sure how valid it is. No, wait. 0^0 is undefined? It isn't 1x0 addressed in the same manner as 1x7, which would also make it produce 1? I suppose this still doesn't make any sense to me. Edited: Is math about fudging the equations until you get an answer that you can live with? Edited: Hm, I retract the question. I suppose one has to be careful with one's zeros.

Thank you gentlemen, guys. I feel welcome. This place is unlike some of the other forums out there, isn't it? Hail Atlantis! hehe I'm in California, between Sacramento and San Francisco. There is one or two Indian casinos in every direction and farmland until you get there. I grew up in Davis, home to the famous frog tunnel and other modern marvels. Um, what else can I say? I'm very pleased to be able to participate here. Thanks again. I'm sorry I wasn't quicker to respond. Thanks, Adam. Thanks, Ted. Thanks, Peter. Thanks, Michael. and God bless everyone. I love Anthem and her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

Greetings! My name is Brian. I come in peace. I'm 25 and I want to be an adult when I grow up.