Turn on thread page Beta

6th Years and Leavers :: Chat Thread #2 :: Revenge of the Ape watch

  • View Poll Results: Choose one.
    Coca Cola (Sweet & Sticky)
    30.11%
    Pepsi (Cool & Crisp)
    36.56%
    Sex.
    33.33%

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    To interject here:

    Is there any scientific theory which involves the idea of being able to see every single path you can take and the consequence of each path. And being able to determine exactly what path every atom had taken and will take?
    Game theory. I don't know if it can be applied to atoms, though.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pedrobear)
    Literacy. I hate inversions. :sigh: They're not even difficult, perse, just really damn tedious.
    I thought it would be something interesting :sigh:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    So what relation does Laplace's demon have to Game theory?
    According to wiki, quantum mechanics has shown Laplace's demon to be impossible, so who cares? :p:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    So what relation does Laplace's demon have to Game theory?
    That's an impossibility.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ukdragon37)
    I thought it would be something interesting :sigh:
    :awesome:

    Well, I do have a composition I should be working on, if that's any more interesting. 6 bars so far. Do not want. :gah:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pedrobear)
    :awesome:

    Well, I do have a composition I should be working on, if that's any more interesting. 6 bars so far. Do not want. :gah:
    My compositions for Higher were a canon for chamber orchestra and a Christmas carol for a mixed choir. For AH I did a two-part program piece based on the story of "the Tortoise and the Hare". :gah:

    I usually do my compositions over Christmas in one go.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    But an interesting concept nonetheless. :sad:
    Were you asking because you are doing determinism and free will in Higher Philo.?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ukdragon37)
    My compositions for Higher were a canon for chamber orchestra and a Christmas carol for a mixed choir. For AH I did a two-part program piece based on the story of "the Tortoise and the Hare". :gah:

    I usually do my compositions over Christmas in one go.
    ...

    :gah:

    Where on Earth did you get that idea from!?

    I wish I could just do it over Christmas. Infact that's what I did for Higher... but this year the AH people (all two of us :sigh:) have been chucked in with the Higher folk (all ******* 30+ of them :sigh:), whom the teachers are being pretty anal about with regards to deadlines, so that's extended to us as well. It's a hard life.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Joe McElderry :love:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheRabbit)
    I started the Scottish baccalaurate but what with hockey 4/5 times a week, playing 3 instruments in 3 different bands and scouts I couldn't really fit it in.

    For chemistry I am analysing iron tablets, I'm guessing the vitamin c, parecetamol, aspirin and copper coin investigations are taken so you can't do them? Have you looked at the Nuffield chemistry react website?
    I checked the Nuffield website, but they were kinda boring I want to do a synthesis, but paracetemol, aspirin, methyl orange, benzocaine and guaifenisin are all taken, and I don't have a clue about what else you can make.

    Wow that is a busy life you lead! I wish I had more interesting stuff to do lol.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pedrobear)
    ...

    :gah:

    Where on Earth did you get that idea from!?
    I wanted to do a piece using leitmotif with Flute and Piano and I thought that fable fitted in nicely with the idea.

    How's your critical commentary going?

    Oh and having Sibelius really makes your compositions finish a lot quicker :awesome:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    tangent of a curve? what? why put me through so much misery? what did I do to deserve this? pi isnt 180? who cares about f(g(x)) when in a shop? why the hell would i use algerbiac functions to measure an angle? I thought that's what protractors were for? oh wow it's a straight line?

    :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ukdragon37)
    I wanted to do a piece using leitmotif with Flute and Piano and I thought that fable fitted in nicely with the idea.

    How's your critical commentary going?

    Oh and having Sibelius really makes your compositions finish a lot quicker :awesome:
    Very creative!

    We're not even starting it 'til Christmas :sigh: That's why I've been preparing a little on my own. Reading over yours has been very helpful in giving me an idea of what's ahead, though, so thanks again for that.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LuhLah)
    tangent of a curve? what? why put me through so much misery? what did I do to deserve this? pi isnt 180? who cares about f(g(x)) when in a shop? why the hell would i use algerbiac functions to measure an angle? I thought that's what protractors were for? oh wow it's a straight line?

    :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome:
    I see you are taking Higher maths well :p:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pedrobear)
    Very creative!

    We're not even starting it 'til Christmas :sigh: That's why I've been preparing a little on my own. Reading over yours has been very helpful in giving me an idea of what's ahead, though, so thanks again for that.
    The critical commentary was meant to be a bit more... balanced with regards to the two pieces than mine was but my teacher let me pass anyway :o:

    Well I can't help it when one piece is 2 minutes long and the other is more than 10!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheUnbeliever)
    [...]
    Sorry about the delay, had to wait 'til I had some time to go looking for the passage I mentioned. This is not written by me, but it is word-for-word my view on science, and why it is fundamentally limited in what it can hope to achieve.

    So what is a scientific theory? And how are such theories constructed?

    A scientific theory is constructed by experiment, and subsequent abstraction of a model which accounts for the observed facts. The scientist collects a number of particular observations, as many of them as possible, and then goes back to his lab, sits in his chair AND FANTASIZES a model (all models are fantasies) which accounts for the facts. Take for example Newton and his law of gravity. This law was roughly constructed in the following way: we observe that apples always fall downwards from trees. Then we observe that objects, when thrown out of, say, a tower, always fall downwards. Then we make a number of experiments, throwing objects of varying mass from various heights, and recording their velocities, accelerations, etc. as they descend. Then from all these data we ABSTRACT, we INFER, the law of gravitation.

    But this law is not really a "law" nor has it been "proved". For it to be a law it would have to hold true universally, whereas the moment you move away from the surface of the earth it breaks down -- which is to say it doesn't account for our new observations. As for "proof" -- such "laws" can only be "proved" by their continued agreement with observations, but the ACTUAL OBSERVATIONS THEMSELVES depend on the accuracy of our measuring instruments. So in Newton's time, because their instruments were very crude (AND because all their observations were being made on the surface of the earth), they could not see significant difference between theory and observations (not to mention that the margin of "significance" itself is here a proof, a real proof, that the theory is a fiction) -- and since they couldn't see much difference, they assumed their "law" was correct. Then eventually of course Einstein came along, and with his new theory, the general theory of relativity, created a theoretical construct that superceded Newton's, for general relativity accounts for all the observations accounted for by Newton´s theory, AS WELL AS many more.

    Still, however, it does not account for ALL of them.

    Then quantum mechanics came in, and turned out to account for many other observations. Currenly quantum mechanics and general relativity are the two most widely used, and therefore "proved", theories of the physical world.

    But they still do not account for everything. And there is STILL disparity between theoretical predictions and observation, especially since our ability to perform measurements, the accuracy of our observations, in other words, becomes better and better. Quantum mechanics goes as far as to postulate that there is a limit to how far the accuracy of our observations can be improved, because after a certain point the observer, the effect of the subject on the object, must be taken into account, and hence we get to the point of observing observations that we ourselves have created. Thus we know what the observation will be BEFORE WE HAVE OBSERVED IT! It's like being able to predict the future lol!

    To sum up. A theory is A MODEL OF THE WORLD. As a model therefore, IT ONLY EXISTS IN THE BRAIN OF THE SUBJECT WHO CONSTRUCTED IT. For a model to PERFECTLY AND ACCURATELY reflect the world it would have to CONTAIN THE WORLD. But this is impossible because a model exists WITHIN the world, and everything that exists within the world cannot possibly contain it, because it would have to contain itself, and this would be a logical contradiction (a contradiction of the concept 'contain'). Besides, NOTHING can contain the world, because this is the definition of the concept "world": that which cannot be contained within anything: i.e. everything.

    So electrons and quarks and hyperstrings or whatever are merely theoretical constructs, random fictions of scientists, which however, under certain circumstances, can account for observed phenomena, AS LONG AS OUR OBSERVATIONS ARE NOT VERY ACCURATE. The question then is not when a theory is "correct" or "incorrect", "proven" or "false, since all theories are incorrect and false BY THE VERY DEFINITION OF THE CONCEPT "THEORY"! All of these are fictions, but that is not to say that some fictions are not more useful than others. Even a religion is a theory, which, however, is not a very useful one. So Kepler's or Copernicus' systems, though fictions, were more useful in predicting the motions of the planets, than, say the religion of the Vikings or the American Indians. Netwon's theories, though fictions, were more useful in predicting the motions of objects on the surface of the earth than previous theories -- his theories, in other words, were closer to the truth than previous theories, and Einstein's theories were still closer.

    But no theory will every actually REACH the truth, for reasons I have explained. Thus no theory will ever be PROVED, for to be proved it must correspond 100% with observations, and to do that it must CREATE those observations (see quantum mechanics). Only a being such as God could create the perfect theory, the genuinely proved theory, but a being such as God is itself self-contradictory, so it could never exist.
    "So the purposed "theory of everything" is just a pretty idea, and probably the biggest absurdity?"

    To realize how absurd it is consider this: such a theory would be able to predict what you would do before you did it. You would have the prediction before you acted. In which case you could do something else and prove it wrong. The theory of everything would end up being a theory that anyone could prove wrong at any time.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ukdragon37)
    I see you are taking Higher maths well :p:
    Oh I love it! Every time we start a new topic I get so excited and filled with joy! I leave the classroom with such satisfying competence knowing I can do it all. I can't wait until I'm skipping out the exam hall with my A1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    Spoiler:
    Show

    That was painful to write.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I'm bored and everyones making me ngry, rar
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    :console:
    Rep me please cos i'm only 100 things off 2 bright green wunz

    Lol :P
    Hows ucas goingg
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    One day, you'll be drinking Pepsi or sitting constipated on the toliet (:awesome:) and everything you didn't understand will click. And 2 seconds later, everything makes sense.

    Just wait for that eureka moment.
    Why Pepsi? What have Coca Cola ever done to you? Have you got a problem with Coca Cola? Do you want to pick a fight with them?
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.