andrewcellini

my mistake, i accidentally downvoted your post ajb. hopefully someone can correct this.

that is counting to count to three, you have to start at 1 and add 1 twice - > 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 i'm not sure what you're getting at when you say "extensive evidence an animal human language once existed," or why that is relevant.

don't let the work that lies ahead scare you though. stay interested and keep learning about it.

philosophy actually, at least that seems to be what it is conventionally classified under. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

i have no doubt you've read about quantum mechanics and physics. the problem is saying you understand it. at your age that seems unlikely, but i guess you could have taught yourself the necessary mathematics to solve some problems. also what you're reading could just be a pop science journalism interpretation unless you're reading the original papers from peer reviewed journals.

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." - Richard Feynman

work in academia or teach (as in the infographic above). you could become a banker or accountant which might bring in the money more than both of these from the start. or you could get into law. the skills you develop are definitely valuable to being a lawyer. or you could be a journalist or author i'm sure there are others.

sure also measured lengths are frame dependent, which slipped my mind

what about length? or is that still interpreted through theory?

there is no preferred or absolute frame of reference, and there's nothing stopping you from analyzing the system where y = 0 other than it's kind of asinine and not as intuitive. the end of the motion wile's at y = -h or y = h depending on what signs you want to use which affects the sign of the potential energy.

what do you mean by exist?

edit: i've misread something you wrote earlier, my mistake. you referring to contradictions which satisfy LEM as "true contradictions" didn't help lol

yes, as in ctrl-f and search for excluded middle. i think it's the first one that's highlighted that's under the description of classical and quantum logical structure. your invocation of true contradictions is completely irrelevant. i have to ask if you even know what a "true contradiction" in dialetheism is? you seem to be blending aristotelian logic and dialetheism (though aristotle did write about dealing with contradiction in a similar way he did not make a system of logic which followed similar rules). wouldn't that be something different than QM entirely?

this does contradict what he said as he explicitly says: how?

no one in this thread objected with this example. whether or not it could actually be used to argue against LEM applicability in QM i can't say perhaps you can explain why objections actually raised in this thread do no make LEM irrelevant or inapplicable instead of just repeating what your view is. and maybe you can give a quick look over this http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0101028v2.pdf - a difference they note between classical and quantum logic is LEM holds in classical

the logical negation of 1 or "true" is still 0 or "false," regardless of a possible third option. look at the law, it only covers propositions where there are two truth values, 1(true), or 0(false). explain i think it's clear from my posts i am arguing there are more than two truth values to consider when discussing the logic underlying QM.

simply because you have 3 truth values to deal with let's count: you have 1 you have 0 and you have superposition 3 possible truth values. really all that matters (for LEM to not hold) is that we end up with more than 1 and 0 as options well that's clearly not true. i think the problem is peter's interpretation of the LEM, more specifically what a "contradiction" means in this context.

except my conclusion directly contradict yours. would it help to think of superposition of states of a qubit (because it has 1 and 0 involved in the notation)? that is, it's a combination of 1 and 0, it is not just 1 or 0. LEM doesn't hold because it doesn't consider cases where this arises... from the wiki on many valued logic (since you keep referring to aristotles account for other possibilities): "Aristotle admitted that his laws did not all apply to future events (De Interpretatione, ch. IX), but he didn't create a system of multi-valued logic to explain this isolated remark." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-valued_logic that is, he didn't create another logic in order to cover another possibility, or n possibilities even. just because he said that his law is probably not applicable in all cases doesn't mean he had alternatives, and if he had an alternative it would be a "many value" logic.

i don't think "it is sunny" is the logical negation of "it is raining," so i'm not sure how you can apply LEM to it. if your statements were "it is raining" and "it is not raining," then perhaps LEM could be used. you agree to this, correct? then why is QM so special? it has the essentially same issue as you noted with your weather example ("it could be foggy") when it comes to trying to apply the LEM.

peter, how can you reconcile what you've said with what imatfaal pointed out?

we can guarantee good, firm handshakes from carson +1 vote

the law of excluded middle isn't taken to be true in many valued logics, hence "many valued logic." LEM assumes that there are no other possibilities except a statement is true or false. there are no "in between" values or third possibilities. i'm not sure of the "small print" you're referring to. care to share a reference?

i'm not sure how different the facial nerves work in stimulating muscle contraction as other skeletal muscles, so someone more versed in the subject should definitely chime in. when an action potential is propagated to an innervated muscle, acetylcholine is diffused across the membrane of the presynaptic terminal of the axon. when acetylcholine binds to receptors on the muscles, the membrane potential of the muscle cells change (due to the influx of Na+ ions). when the potential in the muscle cells is raised around -50 mV, the sarcoplasmic reticulum releases Ca2+ ions which is key to the function of the contractile proteins (which i frankly don't remember completely enough to talk about specifics). different responses of the muscle depends on which cells are contracting and which aren't.

i think you might be, but it's not like i know about every scientific usage of the word "frequency" that's what i thought the definition of dimensionless was; having no units.

further, there is evidence that it is probably functionally irrelevant. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9907009