You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #32: Actually [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
Squeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-06-06 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #22
32. Actually
we've been in the realm of the absurd for the last six years. Might as well try and make absurdity work for us for a change.

I compare this idea to the weird, observer-dependent situations that emerge at the quantum level, the kind of thing that spawns the gedankenexperiment known as Schrodinger's Cat. Because you have to go to great lengths even to perceive events at that level, and because the techniques necessary to make those observations are so intrusive that they effect the results, and because the equations that theoretically explain that stuff yield ambiguous solutions to individual cases, Schrodinger says you don't know what's going to happen unless and until you try it.

The upshot of this is that, according to our current understanding of quantum mechanics, reality at the quantum level really is that slippery. And I think that this implies "reality" can be influenced by consciousness. Serious physicists have already proposed this. (The argument I remember was that new subatomic particles had a tendency to emerge just when theoreticians needed them.)

This doesn't necessarily mean that our meditations will make a Diebold machine suddenly countermand its programming and stop registering votes for Republicans, spurious or otherwise. But what it might mean is that errors may break in our favor for a change. For example, a hacked machine intended to go to a Democratic precinct might get rerouted to a Republican precinct instead, where it won't do any extra harm, due to a glitch in the paperwork. Or consider this scenario: assume the code that runs on the machines is burned into e-proms, which I think is likely, and that there's no way to tell which of these chips contains honest code and which contains the compromised version by visual inspection, which I also think is likely. Now consider a surreptitious operation where Republican operatives plant the compromised chips into some of the machines. Let's say such an operative (let's call him Karl) has just opened up a machine and swapped the chips. The good chip is now on the table next to the machine. Just then Karl decides he really needs another cup of coffee (because of course this work is happening in the dead of night). When he gets back, maybe he forgets he already made the swap, and does it again. Now the good chip is back in place!

Did we definitively make that happen with our magical thinking?

Do you insist that everything in the world happens for one and only one reason? Just sayin'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC