Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Legal Reasoning  (Read 167507 times)

schrödinger

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #310 on: May 13, 2008, 01:45:14 PM »

Similarly, it has been discovered that in addition to their other capabilities, holograms possess an astounding capacity for information storage--simply by changing the angle at which the two lasers strike a piece of photographic film, it is possible to record many different images on the same surface. It has been demonstrated that one cubic centimeter of film can hold as many as 10 billion bits of information. Our uncanny ability to quickly retrieve whatever information we need from the enormous store of our memories becomes more understandable if the brain functions according to holographic principles. If a friend asks you to tell him what comes to mind when he says the word "zebra", you do not have to clumsily sort back through some gigantic and cerebral alphabetic file to arrive at an answer. Instead, associations like "striped", "horselike", and "animal native to Africa" all pop into your head instantly. Indeed, one of the most amazing things about the human thinking process is that every piece of information seems instantly cross- correlated with every other piece of information -- another feature intrinsic to the hologram. Because every portion of a hologram is infinitely interconnected with every other portion, it is perhaps nature's supreme example of a cross-correlated system.

The storage of memory is not the only neurophysiological puzzle that becomes more tractable in light of Pribram's holographic model of the brain. (Karl H. Pribram is an emeritus professor of psychology and psychiatry at Stanford University and Radford University. Board-certified as a neurosurgeon, Pribram did pioneering work on the definition of the limbic system, the relationship of the frontal cortex to the limbic system, the sensory-specific "association" cortex of the parietal and temporal lobes, and the classical motor cortex of the human brain.) Another is how the brain is able to translate the avalanche of frequencies it receives via the senses (light frequencies, sound frequencies, and so on) into the concrete world of our perceptions. Encoding and decoding frequencies is precisely what a hologram does best. Just as a hologram functions as a sort of lens, a translating device able to convert an apparently meaningless blur of frequencies into a coherent image, Pribram believes the brain also comprises a lens and uses holographic principles to mathematically convert the frequencies it receives through the senses into the inner world of our perceptions.

But the most mind-boggling aspect of Pribram's holographic model of the brain is what happens when it is put together with Bohm's theory. For if the concreteness of the world is but a secondary reality and what is "there" is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, and if the brain is also a hologram and only selects some of the frequencies out of this blur and mathematically transforms them into sensory perceptions, what becomes of objective reality? Put quite simply, it ceases to exist. As the religions of the East have long upheld, the material world is Maya, an illusion, and although we may think we are physical beings moving through a physical world, this too is an illusion. We are really "receivers" floating through a kaleidoscopic sea of frequency, and what we extract from this sea and transmogrify into physical reality is but one channel from many extracted out of the superhologram.

This striking new picture of reality, the synthesis of Bohm and Pribram's views, has come to be called the-holographic paradigm, and although many scientists have greeted it with skepticism, it has galvanized others. A small but growing group of researchers believe it may be the most accurate model of reality science has arrived at thus far. More than that, some believe it may solve some mysteries that have never before been explainable by science and even establish the paranormal as a part of nature. Numerous researchers, including Bohm and Pribram, have noted that many parapsychological phenomena become much more understandable in terms of the holographic paradigm. In a universe in which individual brains are actually indivisible portions of the greater hologram and everything is infinitely interconnected, telepathy may merely be the accessing of the holographic level. It is obviously much easier to understand how information can travel from the mind of individual 'A' to that of individual 'B' at a far distance point and helps to understand a number of unsolvedpuzzles in psychology.


The holographic paradigm is rooted in the concept that all organisms and forms are holograms embedded within a universal hologram, which physicist David Bohm called the holomovement. It is an extrapolation of the optical discovery of 2-dimensional holograms by Dennis Gabor in 1947. Holography created an explosion of scientific and industrial interest starting in 1948. Engineer Thomas Bearden describes holograms as "photographic recordings of the patterns of interference between coherent light reflected from the object of interest, and light that comes directly from the same source or is reflected by a mirror. When this photo image is illuminated from behind by coherent light, a three-dimensional image of the object appears in space. The characteristic of a hypothetically perfect hologram is that all its content is contained in any finite part of itself (at lower resolution). Observationally and perceptually, the universe is a hologram and in each part of itself, since all of it can be detected from/in each internal particle."

In 1973, what has come to be known as the Pribram-Bohm Holographic Model was non-existent. But the Seattle think tank, Organization for the Advancement of Knowledge (OAK), lead by Richard Alan Miller and Burt Webb were able to synthesize the work of Northrup and Burr on the electromagnetic nature of the human being with Dennis Gabor's work on optical holograms and come up with a new notion – a holographic paradigm. In "Languages of the Brain" (1971), Pribram had postulated that 2-dimensional interference patterns, physical holograms, underlie all thinking. The holographic component, for him, represented the associative mechanisms and contributed to memory retrieval and storage and problem solving.

However, Miller, Webb and Dickson extrapolated that the holographic metaphor extends to n-dimensions and therefore constitutes a fundamental description of the universe and our electromagnetic embedding within that greater field. It suggested the human energy body or bioenergetics was more fundamental than the biochemical domain. The "Holographic Concept of Reality" (1973) was presented at the 1st Psychotronic Conference in Prague in 1973, and later published by Gordon & Breach in 1975, and again in 1979 in Psychoenergetic Systems: the Interaction of Consciousness, Energy and Matter, edited by Dr. Stanley Krippner. Miller and Webb followed up their ground-breaking paper with "Embryonic Holography," which was also presented at the Omniversal Symposium at California State College at Sonoma, hosted by Dr. Stanley Krippner, September 29, 1973. Arguably, this is the first paper to address the quantum biological properties of human beings -- the first illustrations of the sources of quantum mindbody.

The premise is based in this hypothesis: The organization of any biological system is established by a complex electrodynamic field which is, in part, determined by its atomic physiochemical components. This field, in turn, determines the behavior and orientation of these components. This dynamic is mediated through wave-based genomes wherein DNA functions as the holographic projector of the psychophysical system - a quantum biohologram. Dropping a level of observation below quantum biochemistry and conventional biophysics, this holographic paradigm proposes that a biohologram determines the development of the human embryo; that we are a quantum bodymind with consciousness informing the whole process through the level of information. They postulated DNA as the possible holographic projector of the biohologram, patterning the three-dimensional electromagnetic standing and moving wave front that constitutes our psychophysical being -- quantum bioholography.

Recent development

The Gariaev (Garyaev) group (1994) has proposed a theory of the Wave-based Genome where the DNA-wave functions as a Biocomputer. They suggest (1) that there are genetic "texts", similar to natural context-dependent texts in human language; (2) that the chromosome apparatus acts simultaneously both as a source and receiver of these genetic texts, respectively decoding and encoding them; (3) that the chromosome continuum acts like a dynamical holographic grating, which displays or transduces weak laser light and solitonic electro-acoustic fields. The distribution of the character frequency in genetic texts is fractal, so the nucleotides of DNA molecules are able to form holographic pre-images of biostructures. This process of "reading and writing" the very matter of our being manifests from the genome's associative holographic memory in conjunction with its quantum nonlocality. Rapid transmission of genetic information and gene-expression unite the organism as holistic entity embedded in the larger Whole. The system works as a biocomputer -- a wave biocomputer. Gariaev reports as of 2007 that this work in Russia is being actively suppressed.
Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true.

dru

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: All horses are the same color
« Reply #311 on: May 15, 2008, 01:27:13 PM »




Well, I don't think it's a big deal, 0.9999999999999... is pretty much 1, it's not exactly 1, but it is still very very close to... :)

beni

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #312 on: May 15, 2008, 02:06:03 PM »
Actually 0.999... (infinitely repeating) is equal to 1.  If you don't think so, then find another number that's in between 0.999... and 1.  There aren't any.

revani

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: 'Mother' star goes full frontal for 'Sarah Marshall'
« Reply #313 on: May 19, 2008, 01:30:26 PM »

Sarah Marshall of Glendora didn't get a lot of notice. Until about three weeks ago. That's when hundreds of billboards started appearing in five cities, including L.A. They proclaimed, in black letters scrawled against a white background: "I'm So Over You, Sarah Marshall," "You Suck Sarah Marshall," "My Mother Always Hated You, Sarah Marshall," and "You Do Look Fat in Those Jeans, Sarah Marshall."

The billboards are part of a marketing campaign for the comedy "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," from Universal Pictures, about a dumped boyfriend trying to get over his ex. The animosity toward their fictional namesake has brought the real Sarah Marshalls -- who include an advertising student in Texas, a special-education teacher in Connecticut and a high school senior in Glendora -- an outpouring of concern. "They're everywhere, and they're so annoying," said Sarah Marshall the Glendora student, who lives three blocks from one of the billboards. Adults called her parents to ask if she was the target of a hate campaign. "I wish they specified that it's a movie," she said. Ad student Sarah Marshall of Fort Worth, Texas, one of 276 Sarah Marshalls on Facebook, said: "I got a lot of e-mails and phone calls asking if my boyfriend and I were OK."

But don't expect any sympathy cards from the Universal marketing department.


Here we go

From Ernest Borgnine in "Marty" to Jon Favreau in "Swingers," Hollywood has long portrayed sensitive men humbled at the feet of cold-hearted women. But never has a guy been put down quite like Jason Segel in "Forgetting Sarah Marshall." In his breakout role, Segel reveals his knack for a raw vulnerability that would be depressing if it wasn't so funny.

And "reveals" is the operative word.

In the opening scenes, Segel's character misinterprets the reason for his girlfriend's urgent visit. Instead of a roll in the hay -- and he has completely disrobed in preparation -- Sarah Marshall has come to dump him. Utterly distraught, he doesn't cover up for Marshall -- or for the camera. In several full frontal shots, Segel completely bares himself. The R-rated gag is already the most-talked about scene in the film. It's culled from an experience the 28-year-old Segel -- who wrote "Sarah Marshall" -- had several years ago. He says it's presented "almost verbatim" in the movie. "This naked breakup commenced and, honest to God -- maybe this is part of the problem -- all I kept thinking was, 'This is ... hilarious,' " Segel recalls.

In a recent interview on the set of "How I Met Your Mother," where he is a co-star, the 6-foot-4 Segel is much like his characters suggest he would be: good-natured and a little sheepish. "He kind of has a gentle giant thing going on," says "Sarah Marshall" director Nicholas Stoller, who's also a close friend of Segel's. "His eyes naturally look hurt, but he's not actually a depressed guy. He's a very positive, happy guy." A L.A. native, Segel was "noticed" when Paramount's president of casting happened to be in the audience of his high-school production of Edward Albee's "The Zoo Story," which Segel says he was putting on "for almost no reason at all." After a few small film roles, Segel's career began in earnest when Judd Apatow cast him in "Freaks and Geeks," the revered high school comedy that was canceled in 2000 after one season. It has since established a fervent cult following, and was a foundational experience for Apatow, Segel and much of the young cast, which included Seth Rogen and James Franco. As Nick Andopolis, Segel was both exceptionally earnest and terribly awkward -- trying to impress girls with his 29-piece drum set, for example. In Apatow's next TV show, the similarly short-lived "Undeclared" (2001-2002), Segel played a lovelorn long-distance boyfriend.

"It's always funny to watch Jason get beat up on and suffer," says Apatow, who produced "Sarah Marshall." "He's just fun to watch feel pain and that's always what made me laugh about him." Says Segel: "Judd and I really collided on the idea that, for some reason, I'm able to remain likable while getting awfully close to the creepy line. It's one of my strange skills, so we've definitely cultivated that for 10 years now." After "Undeclared," Segel was out of work until Apatow's fortunes skyrocketed with 2005's "The 40-Year-Old Virgin." On a Thursday soon after the film opened, the two went to a Laker game. Apatow informed him: " 'Listen, I can get movies made now. Are you writing?'" Segel told him about "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," sent him an outline the next day, and received contracts from Universal by Monday. Still shaking his head, Segel says, "It's ridiculous. It's nuts."

In the film, Segel's character attempts to get over Marshall by taking a trip to a resort in Hawaii, where, coincidentally, Marshall is staying with her new boyfriend, a British rocker played by Russell Brand. Many of the supporting roles are filed by Apatow regulars -- Paul Rudd, Jonah Hill, Bill Hader -- but the new love interest, a hotel receptionist, is played by Mila Kunis ("That '70s Show"). It's received strong reviews and been heavily promoted by the studio, thanks largely to Apatow's track record. (It took the No. 2 slot at the weekend box office.) Besides "Virgin," he produced "Superbad" and directed "Knocked Up" -- in which Segel played Rogen's friend, the aggressive and cheesy seducer. "My character in 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall' couldn't be more different than my character in 'Knocked Up,' but sadly, I think there's some of me in both," says Segel. "It really depends on how much I've had to drink." Progressing from bit player to box-office comic star like Steve Carell ("Virgin") and Rogen ("Knocked Up," "Superbad") won't be easy. Segel has faith in the film, though, and besides, he's already swimming in new projects. He's currently filming "I Love You, Man," co-starring Rudd; he's writing a script titled "Five-Year Engagement" that Stoller will direct and Apatow will produce; and he's writing a script with Stoller for a new Muppet movie for Disney. (Segel counts Kermit, "the original Tom Hanks, the everyman," as a major inspiration.) At any rate, Segel doesn't expect to run out of real-life material for his films. "I'm filled with horribly awkward moments," he says. "It's probably why I don't sleep very well."

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/21/film.jasonsegel.ap/index.html


When I first saw the ads I thought for a moment it'd to do with the actress Sara Marshall of Blowfish (1996). Nick Calabrese (Sonny Marinelli) and his brother Gino (Joseph R. Gannascoli) were born and raised in Brooklyn, and they might well have been content to spend the rest of their lives there, but when their grandmother dies and leaves them a vintage automobile, they decide to drive down to Florida to pick it up. However, finding the little town where Grandma lived turns out to be more complicated than they expected, and when they finally do find it, they discover that the car is not the well-maintained showpiece that they were expecting, but a rustbucket on its last legs. What's worse, Nick and Gino's own car gives up the ghost, and they're stranded in the middle of nowhere. While trying to get home, the Calabrese boys meet Melody (Kelly Shea), and Nick starts putting the moves on her. A romance quickly blooms, but high-strung Nick discovers that Melody won't jump when he calls the way his old girlfriends in Brooklyn used to do, and the slow pace of Southern life is about to drive him crazy. But laid-back Gino finds he likes small-town Florida life just fine, and he becomes pals with the huge and largely silent Henry.
The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth.

nmla

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Einstein and the EPR Paradox
« Reply #314 on: May 27, 2008, 02:06:38 PM »

[...] David Bohm regretted the speed with which Neils Bohr tried to resolve the tensions inherent in quantum theory. Within a year of Heisenberg's discovery of matrix mechanics Schrodinger produced his wave equation and Bohr and others quickly demonstrated the mathematical equivalence of the two approaches. Yet both approaches do subtly different things - Heisenberg's matrix mechanics, for example, makes no reference to an underlying or background space. If only the two approaches could have been held in tension, emphasizing both their similarities and differences, Bohm argued, then it may have been possible to develop a much deeper theory, one that transcended conventional notions of space-time and allowed for an intimate connection with relativity.


Here it is an interesting article on the issue:

By the 1920s, it had become clear to most physicists that classical mechanics could not fully describe the world of atoms, especially the notion of "quanta" first proposed by Planck and further developed by Albert Einstein to explain the photoelectric effect. Physics had to be rebuilt, leading to the emergence of quantum theory. Werner Heisenberg, Niels Bohr and others who helped create the theory insisted that there was no meaningful way in which to discuss certain details of an atom's behavior: for example, one could never predict the precise moment when an atom would emit a quantum of light. But Einstein could never fully accept this innate uncertainty, once famously declaring, "God does not play dice." He wasn't alone in his discomfort: Erwin Schrödinger, inventor of the wave function, once declared of quantum mechanics, "I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it."

In a 1935 paper, Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen introduced a thought experiment to argue that quantum mechanics was not a complete physical theory. Known today as the "EPR paradox," the thought experiment was meant to demonstrate the innate conceptual difficulties of quantum theory. It said that the result of a measurement on one particle of an entangled quantum system can have an instantaneous effect on another particle, regardless of the distance of the two parts. One of the principal features of quantum mechanics is the notion of uncertainty: not all the classical physical observable properties of a system can be simultaneously determined with exact precision, even in principle. Instead, there may be several sets of observable properties–position and momentum, for example–that cannot both be known at the same time. Another peculiar property of quantum mechanics is entanglement: if two photons, for example, become entangled –that is, they are allowed to interact initially so that they will subsequently be defined by a single wave function–then once they are separated, they will still share a wave function. So measuring one will determine the state of the other: for example, with a spin-zero entagled state, if one particle is measured to be in a spin-up state, the other is instantly forced to be in a spin-down state.



This is known as "nonlocal behavior." Einstein dubbed it "spooky action at a distance." It appears to violate one of the central tenets of relativity: information can’t be transmitted faster than the speed of light, because this would violate causality. It's worth noting that Einstein wasn’t attempting to disprove quantum mechanics; he acknowledged that it could, indeed, predict the outcomes of various experiments. He was merely troubled by the philosophical interpretations of the theory, and argued that, because of the EPR paradox, quantum mechanics could not be considered a complete theory of nature. Einstein postulated the existence of hidden variables: as yet unknown local properties of the system which should account for the discrepancy, so that no instantaneous spooky action would be necessary. Bohr disagreed vehemently with this view and defended the far stricter Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The two men often argued passionately about the subject, especially at the Solvay Conferences of 1927 and 1930; neither ever conceded defeat.

There have been numerous theoretical and experimental developments since Einstein and his colleagues published their original EPR paper, and most physicists today regard the so-called "paradox" more as an illustration of how quantum mechanics violates classical physics, rather than as evidence that quantum theory itself is fundamentally flawed, as Einstein had originally intended. But the paper did help deepen our understanding of quantum mechanics by exposing the fundamentally non-classical characteristics of the measurement process. Before that paper, most physicists viewed a measurement as a physical disturbance inflicted directly on the measured system: one shines light onto an electron to determine its position, but this disturbs the electron and produces uncertainties. The EPR paradox shows that a "measurement" can be performed on a particle without disturbing it directly, by performing a measurement on a distant entangled particle. Today, quantum entanglement forms the basis of several cutting-edge technologies. In quantum cryptography, entangled particles are used to transmit signals that cannot be intercepted by an eavesdropper without leaving a trace. The first viable quantum cryptography systems are already being used by several banks. And the burgeoning field of quantum computation uses entangled quantum states to perform computational calculations in parallel, so that some types of calculations can be done much more quickly than could ever be possible using classical computers.
T stands for Time.

gent

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Einstein and the EPR Paradox
« Reply #315 on: May 30, 2008, 03:56:24 PM »

Here it is an interesting article on the issue:

By the 1920s, it had become clear to most physicists that classical mechanics could not fully describe the world of atoms, especially the notion of "quanta" first proposed by Planck and further developed by Albert Einstein to explain the photoelectric effect. Physics had to be rebuilt, leading to the emergence of quantum theory. Werner Heisenberg, Niels Bohr and others who helped create the theory insisted that there was no meaningful way in which to discuss certain details of an atom's behavior: for example, one could never predict the precise moment when an atom would emit a quantum of light. But Einstein could never fully accept this innate uncertainty, once famously declaring, "God does not play dice." He wasn't alone in his discomfort: Erwin Schrödinger, inventor of the wave function, once declared of quantum mechanics, "I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it."

In a 1935 paper, Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen introduced a thought experiment to argue that quantum mechanics was not a complete physical theory. Known today as the "EPR paradox," the thought experiment was meant to demonstrate the innate conceptual difficulties of quantum theory. It said that the result of a measurement on one particle of an entangled quantum system can have an instantaneous effect on another particle, regardless of the distance of the two parts. One of the principal features of quantum mechanics is the notion of uncertainty: not all the classical physical observable properties of a system can be simultaneously determined with exact precision, even in principle. Instead, there may be several sets of observable properties–position and momentum, for example–that cannot both be known at the same time. Another peculiar property of quantum mechanics is entanglement: if two photons, for example, become entangled –that is, they are allowed to interact initially so that they will subsequently be defined by a single wave function–then once they are separated, they will still share a wave function. So measuring one will determine the state of the other: for example, with a spin-zero entagled state, if one particle is measured to be in a spin-up state, the other is instantly forced to be in a spin-down state.



This is known as "nonlocal behavior." Einstein dubbed it "spooky action at a distance." It appears to violate one of the central tenets of relativity: information can’t be transmitted faster than the speed of light, because this would violate causality. It's worth noting that Einstein wasn’t attempting to disprove quantum mechanics; he acknowledged that it could, indeed, predict the outcomes of various experiments. He was merely troubled by the philosophical interpretations of the theory, and argued that, because of the EPR paradox, quantum mechanics could not be considered a complete theory of nature. Einstein postulated the existence of hidden variables: as yet unknown local properties of the system which should account for the discrepancy, so that no instantaneous spooky action would be necessary. Bohr disagreed vehemently with this view and defended the far stricter Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The two men often argued passionately about the subject, especially at the Solvay Conferences of 1927 and 1930; neither ever conceded defeat.

There have been numerous theoretical and experimental developments since Einstein and his colleagues published their original EPR paper, and most physicists today regard the so-called "paradox" more as an illustration of how quantum mechanics violates classical physics, rather than as evidence that quantum theory itself is fundamentally flawed, as Einstein had originally intended. But the paper did help deepen our understanding of quantum mechanics by exposing the fundamentally non-classical characteristics of the measurement process. Before that paper, most physicists viewed a measurement as a physical disturbance inflicted directly on the measured system: one shines light onto an electron to determine its position, but this disturbs the electron and produces uncertainties. The EPR paradox shows that a "measurement" can be performed on a particle without disturbing it directly, by performing a measurement on a distant entangled particle. Today, quantum entanglement forms the basis of several cutting-edge technologies. In quantum cryptography, entangled particles are used to transmit signals that cannot be intercepted by an eavesdropper without leaving a trace. The first viable quantum cryptography systems are already being used by several banks. And the burgeoning field of quantum computation uses entangled quantum states to perform computational calculations in parallel, so that some types of calculations can be done much more quickly than could ever be possible using classical computers.


byraze, Einstein never liked Quantum Mechanics. Even though he virtually invented the quantum theory of light, the more he rolled the ideas of quantum mechanics around in his mind, the more he rejected the idea that it was complete -- or even worked at all. He didn't like the idea that the momentum of a particle, if it's position was known, was completely unknowable -- random. He said, "God does not play at dice with the universe." Neils Bohr, one of the greatest physicists working with quantum mechanics, wittily replied, "Quit telling God what to do!" But Einstein wasn't the only one who didn't like the theory. In 1935 he got together with two other like-minded physicists, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, and wrote a famous paper entitled Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete? We now refer to it as simply the EPR Paradox (no wonder, since the other title flows off the tongue so well). It wasn't until 1964, 29 years after the EPR Paradox was published, that serious proof was established that Einstein and friends had good reason to be worried. That was the year John S. Bell published his mathematical proof, a theorem that elegantly proved that if momentum and position were absolute values (that is, they exists whether they were measured or not) then an inequality, now called Bell's Inequality, would be satisfied (Pool). Einstein's position was clear: "I think that a particle must have a separate reality independent of the measurements. That is an electron has spin, location and so forth even when it is not being measured. I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it.

What Exactly is the Problem?

In the EPR paradox, Einstein and friends imagined a scenario that would let you measure, say, both the position and momentum (as an example) of a particle with absolute certainty, a big no-no in quantum mechanics. A perfect example is the case of the neutral pion. A pion is a subatomic particle (very small) that decays into two photons, each with opposite spins. These are difficult concepts to understand, but all you really need to know is this:

- The pion has no spin. Imagine a baseball just sitting there, not spinning. Pretty simple.
- When the pion decays (a common occurrence in the subatomic world) it no longer is a pion. It splits into two photons that shoot away from each other in opposite directions.
- Photons have spin, but these two photons came from a pion with no spin. So, since you know the spin of one photon, you can find out the spin of the other photon because their spins have to add up to no spin at all. Imagine our baseball that was not spinning all of the sudden flies apart into two golf balls, each spinning in opposite directions.

Because the photons came from a single pion, it is said that they are entangled. You'll see what I mean. One of the photons flies to the right. You first measure it's spin along the x-axis with absolute certainty (quite possible). But, alas, quantum mechanics won't let you measure the y-axis spin, since you already know the x-axis spin. So you go to the second photon that flew to the left. You already know its x-axis spin without even measuring it: it is the exact opposite of the other photon. The paradox is this: Can you measure the y-axis spin of the second photon with absolute certainty even though you already know it's x-axis spin without measuring it? Duh, of course you can, says Einstein. How would the second photon "know" you measured the first photon? But quantum mechanics says you can't measure the y-axis spin with absolute certainty. It doesn't matter if the two photons were separated by an inch or 10 miles, the very instant you measure the first photon's x-axis spin, the y-axis spin of the second photon is impossible to measure. Relativity says that the "knowledge" of the measurement of the first photon can only travel the speed of light. But quantum mechanics requires the "knowledge" of the measurement to be instantaneous, because they have been entangled. Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance". If you understood all that, the rest of this is a piece of cake. If you didn't, don't worry, the rest is still interesting (you could always ask a question). So who's right? Ah, how the plot thickens when Bell comes on the scene.

gent

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #316 on: May 30, 2008, 04:13:46 PM »
Bell's Inequality in Detail

To explain away this quirky paradox, some scientists said that there were "hidden variables" that exist in the photons that allow them to behave this way. Hidden variables are variables that we have yet to discover. They would be aspects of each of the photons that are the same, since they were entangled, but that did not depend on the other photon.

Bell proved mathematically that this was impossible with this inequality:

Number(A, not B) + Number(B, not C) >= Number(A, not C)

David M. Harrison, a physicist at the University of Toronto, explains it this way:

Quote
In class I often make the students the collection of objects and choose the parameters to be:

A: male
B: height over 5'8"
C: blue eyes

Then the inequality becomes that the number of men students who do not have a height over 5'8" plus the number of students, male and female, with height over 5'8" but who do not have blue eyes is greater than or equal to the number of men students who do not have blue eyes. I absolutely guarantee that for any collection of people this will turn out to be true.


What does this have to do with quantum mechanics? Here goes: you can shoot photons at a detector that detects the arrival time of the photon, and the photon's energy. If energy and arrival time were absolute values, that is, if the energy and arrival time of the photon exists whether it is measured or not, then the values would have to satisfy Bell's inequality, regardless of hidden variables.

The Punch Line: Does Quantum Mechanics Violate the Inequality?

In experiment after experiment Bell's Inequality is not violated, but instantaneous communication, or "spooky at a distance", seems to occur. If you rule out instantaneous communication, Bell's Inequality is violated. The most interesting experiment was carried out by a physicist at the University of Geneva, Switzerland, Nicolas Gisin in 1997. He split a single photon into two "smaller" photons (which meant they were entangled) and sent them down fiber optic cable in opposite directions. When the photons where about 10 kilometers apart they ran into a detector. Gisin found that even though a large distance separate the photons, something done to one photon at one end very much affected the photon at the other end...instantaneously.

What does this mean?

Let's take a look at assumptions. Here we invent two assumptions:

Quote
All birds have wings.
Everything that has wings flies.

We can conclude from these two assumptions that all birds fly. If we find a bird that has wings but doesn't fly, we know that at least one of our assumptions was wrong. In this case, it's obviously the last assumption (all the birds I know have wings).

It's interesting to know that Bell's Theorem has assumptions, too. They are:

Quote
Logic is valid.
There is a reality separate from its observation.
No information can travel faster than light.

The last assumption is called locality. Locality says that everything that is bound by relativity, everything that can't go faster than light, is local. If something is non-local it is thought to be part of a larger reality.

So which assumption is wrong in Bell's Theorem? Nobody knows.

Logic could be wrong. In 1930, Kurt Gödel proved that any theory proposed for the foundation of mathematics will be either insufficient for mathematics, incomplete, or inconsistent. This was a wild and crazy thing for a logician to do, as it essentially proved that logic was incomplete. There may be no reality separate from its observation. This is where physics melds with philosophy and religion. Could it be that the universe only exists because we are conscious of it? Perhaps we only exist because someone or something is conscious of us? The EPR paradox isn't the only paradox that raises this possibility. Erwin Schrödinger proposed a way to link the classical world that humanity knows to the quantum world of electrons and protons. He proposed that in a closed box one could put a live cat, a vial of poison gas, a geiger counter that smashes the vial if it detects radiation, and a radioactive atom. In an hour, the atom's likelihood of having decayed is 50%. In quantum mechanics, before you measure whether of not the atom decayed, it actually exists in a superstate of both decayed and not decayed. It's not that you just don't know, it's that it actually exists in both states at the same time. Thus, after an hour's time, before you peer into the box to see if the kitty is alive or dead, it must exist in a superstate of both dead and alive. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, did it actually exist at all? Information might be able to travel faster than light. Consider a one-dimensional creature, we shall call him a 1d, that exists on a line. Everything the 1d creature knows is in terms of length and nothing else. Then along comes a two dimensional creature, call him 2d. The 1d can measure the length of the 2d, but isn't aware of anything else. In fact, it's possible for the 1d to measure two lengths for a single 2d, making the 1d think that the 2d exists in two places at once, and in his universe he does! The same could be true for our universe.



The popular press likes to claim that quantum physics allows for faster than light communication of information. So far, physicists have not come to this conclusion. Dr. Ken Caviness, chair of the Physics Department at Southern Adventist University in Tennessee, says this:

Quote
I don't know of anyone in the field who seriously proposes instantaneous communication. On the contrary it seems that despite quantum entanglement information cannot be extracted from the system without some (at most) light-speed exchange of information.

T a s h

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
EMPOWERMENT THROUGH RAPE [SOUTH AFRICA]
« Reply #317 on: June 02, 2008, 04:08:42 PM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDaO7N-JujU&feature=related




In his much-publicized and hashed-over speech on race relations Monday, Barack Obama made a brief reference to the notorious O.J. Simpson murder trial, citing it as an example of the predilection to "tackle race only as spectacle." Less noticed was the elaboration he provided in an interview aired Monday night on ABC's "Nightline" on the question that once so divided many whites and blacks: did Simpson butcher his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her wrong-place, wrong-time friend, Ron Goldman? "You remember when, during the O.J. trial ... black and white culture just had these completely opposite reactions and nobody understood it. I'm somebody who was pretty clear that O.J. was guilty," Obama told "Nightline's" Terry Moran.

He continued: "And I was ashamed for my own community to respond in that way, but I also understood what was taking place, which was that reaction had more to do with a sense that somehow the criminal justice system historically had been biased so profoundly that a defeat of that justice system was somehow a victory." For Obama, the jury remains out on whether he has defused the controversy that enveloped him as attention turned late last week to inflammatory comments uttered over the years by his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.



Black men as savage beasts and killers of White men and rapists of White women.

EMPOWERMENT THROUGH RAPE: THE SEXUAL HOLOCAUST

By Greg Kay

In South Africa, there is a sexual holocaust in progress even as we speak: an orgy of violent rape that dwarfs all other violent crime. This holocaust is a deliberate program of violent sexual assault by one race upon another, and it is called 'interracial rape.' Virtually every case of black-on-white rape is a hate crime - nearly every one, because of the very nature of interracial rape. Certainly, every rape perpetrated by a savage upon a white woman that he has had to leave his black township in order to find would easily meet that definition, and not only for the very real psychological and social consequences to the victim which, in extreme cases, see her cut off from the members of her own society. The reason goes well beyond that. It is often argued that rape is not a sex crime, but a crime of violence or an act of power and control, but interracial rape, while it encompasses all of these motivations, is something more. Interracial, black-on-white rape is also a violent political act - a form of terrorism - the ultimate statement of the black power movement that has disguised itself under the innocuous-sounding banner of 'civil rights.'

Consider this: being able to take to woman or women of someone else and use them for your gratification, as an extension of the basic biological desire to breed that pits rutting animals against one another for the favours of the herd’s females in order to pass on their genes, is the ultimate statement of superiority, and the ultimate denigration to the male or the group to whom the female belongs, as well as to the woman herself. The act demonstrates not only to the victim and her attacker, but also to the kin of both the raped and the rapist that the rapist is the one with the power. In the USA (as it is the world over) both blacks and their liberal white admirers who have laboured endlessly on their behalf in order to raise that race to a useful position of political power all out of proportion to both their numbers and their contributions to society, have long recognized a simple but overlooked fact. Black-on-white rape as a political act is part of the world view of both the radical liberal and the open communist. At the infamous US Jefferson School, among others, it was reportedly taught by Communist historian, Dr. Herbert Aptheker.

At first, the communists there attempted to deny that any black-on-white rapes ever occurred, but when the facts of several cases became too obvious for even them to overlook, the line was changed to suggest that such an act was an un-condemnable and even semi-laudable revolutionary statement by the down-trodden proletariat against the corrupt elite, and was justified as a sort of payback for all of the white-on-black rapes which they claimed had occurred both during slavery and afterwards. To the leftists, the act of such a rape was not nearly as "criminal" as for a white victim to report the act the authorities, thus reinforcing the "racist" status quo. The victim, in radical philosophy, became the oppressor and the rapist the patriot throwing off his shackles. The class of educated blacks, many of whose most notable members were already either openly communist or sympathetic to them, quickly picked up on the concept of rape as a justified revolutionary act. Radical black 'Eldridge Cleaver' said so openly.

Quote
"Rape was an insurrectionary act. It delighted me that I was defying and trampling upon the white man's law, upon his system of values, and that I was defiling his women - and this point, I believe, was the most satisfying to me because I was very resentful. I was getting revenge."


Black sociologist Calvin C. Hernton, in his work "Sex and Racism in America," made the following statements:

Quote
"I am well aware that, like murder, rape has many motives. But when the motive for rape, however psychotic, is basically racial, that is a different matter. I think now that, at one time or another, in every black who grows up in the South, there is a rapist, no matter how well hidden."


The reason for this, he quickly goes on to say, is not the fault of the black, but of the white man, reinforcing the radical philosophy. Although the FBI was inexplicably reluctant to keep records of race in rape statistics for many years, there are other figures out there. Consider the implications of a study done in Washington DC, a city with a black majority, by a Dr. Hayman. Hayman, in the late '60s and early '70s, recorded the racial data of those women who came to the DC General hospital for medical examinations and treatment following reported rapes. His figures are disturbing. In this particular urban area, black on black rape accounted for 76% of all reported cases of violent sexual assault, while white on white rape made up 3%, and white on black rape less than ½%. Astonishingly, black on white rape amounted to 21% of the total, indicating very clearly that urban blacks raped not only at a rate of 97 to 3 in comparison to the urban "white" population (a deceptive figure in itself, since Hispanics are considered white in many reports), but that they are far, far more likely to choose white victims than a white rapist is to choose a black victim.

In the ground-breaking study, "The Color of Crime," the figures show that American blacks in general are 38 times more likely to commit interracial rape than whites (again, with Latin American Hispanics who have a much higher crime rate than ethnic Europeans counted as white.) on a per-capita basis. In fact, even though blacks make up a fairly small percentage of the population, they commit the majority of all interracial crimes, including rape, in actual numbers of crimes. For instance, in 1994, blacks committed 30,000 interracial rapes, while whites (again, including Hispanics) committed only 5,400, despite a population several times larger. These and other studies show conclusively that interracial rape is very much a black on white phenomenon. It leaves one with the question, "Why?" Is it that blacks are simply more culturally or genetically prone to rape than other ethnic groups? That answer is obviously "Yes," but there's more to it. The radical blacks and their leftist defenders have told us the reason, a reason we refuse to accept. Do they know something we don't, namely that we are in a war, not for "equality," as there can never be true and total equality in an integrated society between two groups who are so very different, but a war for the supremacy of the one and the subjugation of the other, with no middle ground and no neutrality? Could it be that the Caucasians, the white race, are in a war for their place in the world and, ultimately, for their very survival, and nobody told them? Or, even worse, could it be that they were told, many times, by voices "crying in the wilderness," but they chose not to hear?

Em Woods

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #318 on: June 04, 2008, 01:29:53 PM »
holy crap you just blew my mind.

tag.
"Anything easy ain't worth a damn" - Coach Woody Hayes

Master Thespian

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #319 on: June 08, 2008, 01:57:17 PM »

In other words, Dundee, the key to success just isn't self-improvement ;)


That's not the point, cen! As each is a self-scripted star in their life story, each also has the power and freedom to pen their own demise. Living according to individual truth considerably reduces the possibility to self-defeat becoming a pattern moment-to-moment, year-to-year, and life-to-life. Not only must WHAT to do and WHY to do be self-determined, but HOW and WHEN too. Individual feelings are the only motivator and motivation that inflames and sustains drive, and returns rewards that are personally meaningful and, therefore, more confidence-building than money and applause. Otherewise, after reasoning and logical convincing, what walks out to try and do is SHOULD. When that happens, success and happiness are not individual, but predicated on the average of all who attempted before. SHOULD not only comes with set rules for doing and limits on reward, but it also requires the input of many to supervise and encourage when enthusiasm flags. IF attained, success and happiness rewards are owed many and spread wide and thin. On the other hand, failure is a burden that's carried by one, though trying and doing involved many. SHOULD always has a record of past successes attached, which more often destroys self-confidence than builds it. DOING FOR SHOULD and DOING FOR MUST are 180-degrees apart in terms of success/failure and happiness/unhappiness. The former is reasoned so unreasonableness becomes the motivation. The latter is decided by MUST which is already unreasonable, so the only motivation available is self. When doing for MUST, happiness is a daily companion straight through to the end, regardless of success.


You go Vigilance!