Is the Large Hadron Collider being sabotaged from the future?

I did find this tho. Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment, often described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects. The thought experiment presents a cat that might be alive or dead, depending on an earlier random event. In the course of developing this experiment, he coined the term Verschränkung — literally, entanglement.[1]

bailey, i agree that we should be wary of anything like this. look at Einstein. he didn't know what he was creating when he invented the atom bomb and ended up regretting it. this seems a little to close to a repetition of history for me too

That's it. So, you should understand my logic then. Without the advent of the internet or, infact, any advanced communicational technology, I wouldn't be aware of your existence; hence, you'd be dead(to me).

@retro

Schrödinger's point was that there's a fundamental problem with the standard collapse formulation of quantum mechanics. One of my old professors, Jeffrey Barrett, has written extensively on this subject (Google him and Schrödinger's cat, or "measurement problem" if you're interested). The experiment was a response to the EPR paper and it was intended to show the absurdity of the relationship between very small objects and their non-linear collapse dynamics with macro objects (like a cat) and their "supposed" standard linear dynamics.

I'm kinda opposed to bailey78 -- I'm all for the LHC, but I don't understand how Schrödinger's cat helps your argument.

You seem to be talking about something closer to Berkeley's immaterialism concerning metaphysics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaterialism

Thanks bbar.

Unfortunately, being analogous is a lost art. Did you read the entire discussion? Either way, I was trying to make the point that bailey's existence would be unbeknownst to me because there probably wouldn't be any communicative tools at our disposal without science.

Sorry bailey! You're not dead. Well, you could be dying as I type this... :(

Yeah, I read it. I agree with you -- without the help of physical science, you and bailey78 probably would have gone your whole lives and never spoken. I just thought Schrödinger's cat was a stretch and it sounded more like an argument for immaterialism. Like if a tree fell, but no one was around to perceive it, it doesn't make a sound. Quantum mechanics is so interesting on so many levels. Have you ever heard of the double-slit experiment? When you read through it, it kinda rings something like immaterialism because particles seem to behave differently when we're looking at them than when we're not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

No I'm not dead but as I type this I am getting closer to death. I do like the cat in a box thing though. I do like science even do my own expearments. now and then. this just looks like something that would be the begening of something bad thats all.

hahahaha.. skynet.. YES

Perhaps the A-bomb won't have disastrous repercussions in the future. Also, the world is fast running out of uranium, and nuclear bombs do have a rather short shelf life.

A nuclear bomb is nothing on the grand scale of the universe.
Observing the very thing that gives mass to every particle in the universe is a very big deal.

But the chances of Higgs being shown in a physical state creating a causality inversion and damage the collider in the past is unlikely... but it isn't impossible.

I'm sure it is just human error as usual.
This is one of the most complicated machines we have ever built, and one of the most expensive too.
Come November when it has to start up again, i am sure it will be fine.
But if we end up nulling the whole universe, i'll buy the beers in Non-space.

It's too bad 'scientists' don't spend more time asking themselves IF they should create something, rather than how to create it.

@S3th

The very essence of humanity is curiosity. Its what drove us to all corners of the world and has given us the technology we are using at this very moment. The whole premise of science is to try and achieve understanding using empirical data and quantifiable evidence. Scientists do for the most part, follow a code of ethics by the way.

Which ones, and when?

Re: "Eminent physicists also thought the universe revolved around the Earth"

You're obviously referring to Medieval scholastics, possibly religious folk, Alchemists etc. None of them qualify as 'eminent physicists' because 1) they are all dead; 2) none were scientists 3) folk like Kepler, Galileo, Newton et al literally invented science and none of them since have believed any earth-centric theory of the universe.

Ptolemy believed the universe revolved around the Earth. It was a valid scientific hypothesis because it accurately described observed phenomena. I think that even Tycho Brahe (Kepler's laws were based on his observations) saw the universe as revolving around the Earth. Then folks like Kepler, Galileo, and Newton came along and said the Universe revolves around the Sun. They were wrong too of course, but their hypothesis more accurately described phenomena. This is the way science works. Just because they were wrong does not mean they were not thinking scientifically.

Science: Religion for common senseless geeks.

Everything about our understanding of the Universe is changing. Even the term Universe we are discovering is innacurate to describe reality. With String Theory it would appear that our so-called Universe, is just one of many multiverses.

The point is, no one has a copyright on the truth.

To think so would just be your ego working overtime!

Using science to disprove the merits of science?

That's the kind of logic you can expect from S3.

Here's a hint, you can't subscribe to string theory if you think scientific methods of analysis are faulty because string theory relies on those methods.

In fact, you can't rely on reality period if you don't think science works.

Turn off your computer, return to the jungle. After all, the whole thing could explode at any minute! Who knows right?

Make sure not to use tools when you get there, because you don't understand the truth behind them.

How does one prove a negative?

We prove negative claims all the time. Take sets A,B, for example.

A = {0,1,2,3,4}
B = {4}

Claim: these sets are not equal.

So, in order to prove the claim, we would just need to prove that these sets are not subsets of each other. Just by looking at each set, it's easy to see that the members are different.

Your speaking of a closed system. Completely different than a large open system. I couldn't prove a 747 won't land on my head sometime today.

You're talking about an inductive argument. Read David Hume and you can't prove any inductive arguments (positive or negative). Read Kurt Gödel and you'll realize that we can't prove anything using an axiomatized model (that's all of mathematics and logic). I don't understand you point.

Except that the example you provided above IS an axiomatized model.

He's right, you can't prove a negative, you can only disprove a positive.

I said that ALL mathematical/logical systems are axiomatizable. And by me using set theory (which invokes axioms) to prove a negative, I am fully aware that Gödel would object by means of his incompleteness theorems. I still don't see your point. If we're allowed to use logic to prove something, then we can prove negatives. I did it above.

And who are you, Karl Popper (scientific method)? He lived long enough to retract just about every dumb thing he said. Think about it -- when you falsify a positive, you are just proving that something is false, which is proving a negative.

Hey guys, also, your claim that "you can't prove a negative" (actually, saladin is the only one who made that claim), is a negative claim in itself. It's the negation of the claim, "You can prove a negative." So if what you're saying is correct (which it is not), then your claim is not provable anyway.

Note: it's NOT raining outside:)

Because proving a negative is not logically the same as disproving a positive in a realistic standpoint.

The language of logic is irrelevant to the reality that logic is representing. Ignore for a second that linguistically, disproving a positive or proving a negative are actually equivalent. Think about what they're asking you to do in REAL terms.

Your claim makes sense with regard to say, the rain example, in which falsifying that it is raining is the same as proving that it is not raining, but in a more complex atmosphere it has problems.

Can you prove that this supposed future interaction is not causing the LHC to break down? Can you prove that invisisble unicorns sent by god are not causing the LHC to break down?

No, all you can do is falsify causes that you can establish. You can falsify that your equipment is acting funny, you can falsify that it's not receiving enough power, etc. etc.

The point being, proving a negative has the same problem as proving a positive, in that it requires a knowledge of the universe that's impossible to fully obtain because it always requires you to make certain assumptions along the way.

Proving that something does not happen requires a hell of a lot more knowledge than disproving that something IS happening.

That's the realistic difference I'm trying to point out.

Otherwise, I agree with you.

No, I can't prove that some future interaction is NOT causing trouble with the LHC, but that's not the claim. The claim is "you cannot prove a negative." That claim is false, and I have already given you examples.

You are wrong (and any paid logic/mathematics professor who has an understanding of logic/metalogic will agree with me) -- in a bivalent system, proving a negative is just as easy as proving a positive.

Here, prove that some future interaction IS causing trouble with the LHC. If you even tried, you would realize that it's just as hard to prove as the negation of that proposition. If you negate every line of any proof in any bivalent system, you will get the same conclusion (as long as you negate it as well).

---

Here: I wrote a quick proof.

P: P v Q
P: ~Q
C: P (by disjunctive syllogism)

or, if we negate everything...

P: ~P v ~Q
P: Q
C: ~P (by disjunctive syllogism)

Same amount of work, both ways.

Again, you're sticking too closely to the LANGUAGE of logic and not its applications to reality.

We're talking about the manufacturing and confirmation of data here, not the rhetoric that connects the facts together.

Of course is a hypothetical example that you've set up to be true (axiomatic as you've conceded) you can disprove a negative.

But it's important to remember that logic's primary purpose is to be DESCRIPTIVE, not PRESCRIPTIVE, to the universe.

When you've deduced something with logic, you haven't used logic itself to determine the truth of the universe, you've set up a falsifiable situation based on the data you've obtained from the universe. The difference is subtle, but important.

In your example, for instance, how can you really prove the premise ~Q?

You seem to be relying on a system of logic that is really introductory, those kinds of proofs have serious problems and relying on them too strongly is ignoring the primary purpose of logic.

The purpose of logic is to create a language human beings can use to make sense of the facts they've gathered about the universe. And that fact that the LANGUAGE can account for proving a negative doesn't mean we can always do that in reality.

Edit : Here, I've thought of a better way to illustrate this to you.

How can you -ever- definitively prove that the future was NOT interacting with the LHC? What would you have to know that would prove beyond the shadow of the doubt that it didn't happen? If it starts working again, could you prove that the future wasn't interfering with it prior to this?

Try this:

P = It's raining.
Q = It's sunny.

Look, I already told you, I believe Hume and I don't think there is anyway you can establish cause between any two events. I also believe Gödel insofar as every axiomatizable system is either incomplete, or undecidable. But, if we're going to try to use it anyway, then as it stands, not only it is possible to prove a negative proposition, it's just as easy as proving a positive proposition. It's built into first order logic via the negation operator.

This is one of the things I studied in school. I can't even remember how many problem sets I've completed, how many books/papers I've read on it, how many essays I've written, how many lectures I've attended, how many hours with professors I've spent, but I can say that you're not going to convince me otherwise. Do I have a problem with a bivalent logic? Yeah, it's probably not correct -- and quantum mechanics has good empirical evidence to suggest this (see Hilary Putnam and his claim of the distributive laws breaking down), but as it currently sits, I can use first order logic to prove a negative just as easy as I can use it to prove a positive.

If you want to have a metaphysical/epistemic conversation on how exactly logic relates to our universe, then that's fine. But, your original claim that you cannot prove a negative is wrong.

EDIT: I read what you've added. It seems to me that you would have trouble proving the negation as well - that is, to definitively prove that the future WAS interacting with the LHC. I think the problem here is we keep crossing back and forth between induction and deduction. You're not going to prove (without criticism) an inductive claim.

Your last point is precisely the thing I want to touch on.

It's not just that inductive claims can't be proven, deductive claims can't be proven either.

I can't prove that the future isn't interfering with the LHC, but such a claim is nearly impossible to deal with and therefore shouldn't really be considered until all other factors have really been either completely or mostly scratched out.

What I'm trying to get across to you is epistemological, because your logic on the ability to prove a negative is irrefutable in its own axioms. I agree that you can prove a negative in that fashion.

The point I'm getting at is that it's not a reliable way to make meaningful claims about reality. When you talk about quantum mechanics possibly undoing all of this, that's what I'm really trying to get at.

The nature of existence is such that we shouldn't rely on that form of logic being prescriptive to the universe. Meaning you shouldn't prove a negative in anything but your own axioms, because it becomes impossible to do when dealing with anything complicated about the processes of the universe. There's too much rooms for error.

So the discussion of logic behind science, I think, should rest far more strongly on logic as a descriptive force rather than one which asserts things about the universe.

Because that seems to be the direction science has been heading in since special relativity.

Hey Erwin...Bury the damn cat already. Its starting to stink.

I think deductive propositions are easier; especially those proofs by definition. You cannot have a square circle, for example. But yeah, like I said before, all you need is Hume and Gödel if you want to knock science down completely.

Since Aristotle (formally), logic has been set forth to describe what we see and then to ultimately reveal the truth. Whatever that means. It would be nice, though, to have a system that asserts certain truths about the universe. You might like to read Charles Peirce. I think you would be interested in his believe revision model of truth. That is, we start with a big set of beliefs, and as time goes on, bad beliefs get thrown out and we get closer and closer to the truth. I think that's really what's going on here. Newton had a theory of gravity, which seemed to work great, but still had a few problems. Einstein comes along and explains those problems with his new theory. But now even that theory cannot explain what we see happening with very tiny particles. And along the way, especially with the transition from classical mechanics (that includes relativity) to quantum mechanics, logic has been challenged. If you think about it, why have a system if it's only going to explain what we already know happens? I think we want a system that is going to tell us stuff that we haven't yet tested empirically (and also backs up what has happened in the past). Who knows, maybe it will never happen for whatever reason, but what we have so far gets up pretty far on pragmatic grounds.

Yeah, that second paragraph is exactly what I mean.

But regarding the first, I don't think logical problems "disprove" science. Problems of logic are just that, linguistic puzzles that we haven't figured out how to work around.

I took a philosophy of science course that talked about all of the logical problems science had, and for a while I agreed with them. But there was one account that stood out as a contradiction in all the reading that I did, how do these logical failures account for the success of science? And this account opened up a whole new door for me.

Just because you can't account for all the details possible in science doesn't mean you can't prove anything on a practical level.

For instance, you can't ever positively prove say the science behind man-made flight. But the fact that there are logical problems with the theory doesn't contradict the fact that the theory has practical results. The plane flies doesn't it? Who cares if you're not entirely sure if the logic is solid?

That, I think, is the main important thing about science.

Aristotelian logic is too limited because it attempts to -prescribe- how the world should work logically, rather then letting the world dictate how logic should work.

The success of science is what should dictate its truth or falseness, not necessarily its ability to empirically prove things (since that's logically impossible).

In short, what matters most is that it works, not the language you use to prove it.

I think my brain just exploded.

Saldin, Bbar...thank you for your debate. I read the entire thing, and I enjoyed it immensely, and learned a lot. thank you again.

....Wow. That was a pretty cool debate going even though it has nothing to do with the topic.

I wouldn't say it has nothing to do with the topic, it's a tangent off of the idea of proving a negative statement.

I.E., prove that something isn't true.