The origin of "love"

[OniaPL]

Spoiler: Here is a video on the subject. It is slightly corny though.

ARGH!
This world is too fucked up. Too many questions, and the answers to those questions are questions themselves.
Fascinating, but frustrating.

 

[KingHodor]

According to one Don Draper, "love" was invented by ad designers from New York in order to sell nylon hosiery.

(Seriously though, I'm in the "It's all electrochemical activity in your brain"-camp)

 

[Jonluw]

Spoiler: Here is a video on the subject. It is slightly corny though.

ARGH!
This world is too fucked up. Too many questions, and the answers to those questions are questions themselves.
Fascinating, but frustrating.

Yeah, quantum mechanics can sort of be summed up as:
"Fuck you."
- The universe.

 

[Liham]

A wizard did it.

that is the origin of love, a wizard wasn't getting any, so he made a spell

 

[Hagi]

*shrug*
Nobody knows.
My physics book claims it means the universe is indeterministic, but it is hardly an absolute authority.
It means lots of things. For example that everything might be everywhere at once.
However, when we observe the objects, they pop into only one position. It might mean that different outcomes are possible from the exact same starting conditions.

Say you fire an electron through a slit. It hits a spot on a detector plate behind the slit.
Now reverse the entire universe back to the point where you fire the electron, and fire the electron again. The electron might hit a different spot on the plate.
At least that's how I understand it.

Hrm...

Looking at those things I'm starting to think that the terms deterministic and indeterministic may be insufficient to describe things.

If something is caused by a probability function then it's really a bit of both. That function fully determines the outcome in a causal way, yet it does not determine it to an exact point.

As such I wouldn't call it fully indeterministic as causality still seems intact albeit altered. Neither would it be fully deterministic due to the chance involved.

Then again, might just be my understanding that's insufficient. This is complicated shit.

The notion of a simulation is very interesting though. From the perspective of a programmer it does make sense to only calculate things when observed. But it raises the question of the random function used in the simulation of our universe. The random functions we are capable creating aren't truly random, their output is determined by their past.

If we go by the turning back time in our universe and getting a different outcome that raises the question if time was also turned back in the universe simulating our universe. If it wasn't then the random number generator of the simulation would naturally output a different number which would cause a different outcome in our universe without breaking causality. And even if time was also turned back in the universe simulating ours then the question remains if time was also turned back in the universe simulating that universe and the universe simulating that universe etc.

If we are indeed a simulation then time would need to be reversed in all existing universes for such experiments to have any meaning. Otherwise time hasn't truly been reversed, only partially.

 

[A Satanic Panda]

From what I remember, the feeling love is compiled of chemicals that create the following feelings: Lust, Comfort, and Security. It seems pretty reasonable.

Well... Yeesh... That's quite the mindfuck.

Thanks for that, I enjoy mindfucks.

Won't pretend to fully understand any of that but dang... it's fascinating.

I do wonder though, does that really make the universe indeterministic? Or is it still deterministic but there are causes that we're simply not (yet) aware of.

Stuff like this makes me wonder if our consciousness is linked to that. If electrons have a mind of there own, then does a mindbogglingly high number of them make a human conscious? But why stop at organic matter? Does it make computers conscious? Does it make my house conscious? Does it make the whole universe conscious?

When I say "consciousness" I mean what ever entity that takes our brain chemicals and makes them feelings or sounds, etc. The religious equivalent of a soul I guess.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Love is playing Borderlands coop with your other half.

And then having sex with them.

Have I ever mentioned that I hate you in a very real and meaningful way?

It's hard being me sometimes

 

[Jonluw]

Hrm...

Looking at those things I'm starting to think that the terms deterministic and indeterministic may be insufficient to describe things.

If something is caused by a probability function then it's really a bit of both. That function fully determines the outcome in a causal way, yet it does not determine it to an exact point.

As such I wouldn't call it fully indeterministic as causality still seems intact albeit altered. Neither would it be fully deterministic due to the chance involved.

Then again, might just be my understanding that's insufficient. This is complicated shit.

The notion of a simulation is very interesting though. From the perspective of a programmer it does make sense to only calculate things when observed. But it raises the question of the random function used in the simulation of our universe. The random functions we are capable creating aren't truly random, their output is determined by their past.

If we go by the turning back time in our universe and getting a different outcome that raises the question if time was also turned back in the universe simulating our universe. If it wasn't then the random number generator of the simulation would naturally output a different number which would cause a different outcome in our universe without breaking causality. And even if time was also turned back in the universe simulating ours then the question remains if time was also turned back in the universe simulating that universe and the universe simulating that universe etc.

If we are indeed a simulation then time would need to be reversed in all existing universes for such experiments to have any meaning. Otherwise time hasn't truly been reversed, only partially.

We might never get to know.
In any case, in the example of rewinding the universe, I was making the assumption that we're not a simulation to make the point that different outcomes may come of the exact same starting conditions.

Did you check out entanglement by the way?

I'll try a tiny introduction.
First you need to know that photons can exist in different states, called polarizations.
For this thought experiment we only need to work with three polarizations: vertical, horizontal and 45 degrees, for the sake of simplicity.

There exist filters that only let photons of one polarization through.
We may have vertical filters, horizontal filters and 45 degree filters. Each of these only lets photons with the same polarization as themselves through.
However, we know that if a photon has a 45 degree polarization, it has a, say 50%, chance of passing a vertical or horizontal filter. When it passes through the filter like this, its polarization changes to fit that of the filter.
So a 45 degree photon passing through a vertical filter by chance will become a vertical photon.

We also know that if we excite a... potassium atom, I think it was... it will emit two photons that have the same polarization.

Let's say we place a filter on either side of that atom. Vertical on the left, horizontal on the right.
If the atom emits two vertical photons, only the left one will pass through the filter. If it produces two horizontal atoms, only the right one will.
If it produces two 45 degree atoms though, there should be a 50% chance that the right one passes the filter, and a 50% chance that the horizontal passes the filter.
So there should be a 25% chance of both the right and the left photon passing the filters at once, right? (Forgive me if my math is wrong here. Probability was never a strong field of mine).

Well, turns out that never happens. Ever. No pair of photons will ever pass through both two filters.
It appears that the moment the photon on the left passes through the vertical filter and becomes a vertical photon, the photon on the right also becomes a vertical photon, and a vertical photon can't pass through a horizontal filter.

The photons are interacting. Affect one and you affect the other. Even if they are on opposite sides of the universe, moving away from eachother at the speed of light.

 

[Littaly]

Really, guys? He hands you that title, and we still go to Haddaway?


I am rather disappointed.

That was my first thought too, I was gonna post it, but then I thought I'd better check the thread in the likely case that someone beat me to it. I was right ^^

 

[Hoplon]

Love is playing Borderlands coop with your other half.

And then having sex with them.

Have I ever mentioned that I hate you in a very real and meaningful way?

It's hard being me sometimes

And I weep for you

on topic (no really)

Love is the result of Evolution, hence why it's not really the same in everybody. It allows us to form attachments that can last out the development of a child in to an adult (at least in the physical sense) and when your own life span wouldn't be much more than that it was particularly useful.

or it's something else entirely, but that makes the most sense to me.

 

[Hagi]

We might never get to know.
In any case, in the example of rewinding the universe, I was making the assumption that we're not a simulation to make the point that different outcomes may come of the exact same starting conditions.

Did you check out entanglement by the way?

I'll try a tiny introduction.
First you need to know that photons can exist in different states, called polarizations.
For this thought experiment we only need to work with three polarizations: vertical, horizontal and 45 degrees, for the sake of simplicity.

There exist filters that only let photons of one polarization through.
We may have vertical filters, horizontal filters and 45 degree filters. Each of these only lets photons with the same polarization as themselves through.
However, we know that if a photon has a 45 degree polarization, it has a, say 50%, chance of passing a vertical or horizontal filter. When it passes through the filter like this, its polarization changes to fit that of the filter.
So a 45 degree photon passing through a vertical filter by chance will become a vertical photon.

We also know that if we excite a... potassium atom, I think it was... it will emit two photons that have the same polarization.

Let's say we place a filter on either side of that atom. Vertical on the left, horizontal on the right.
If the atom emits two vertical photons, only the left one will pass through the filter. If it produces two horizontal atoms, only the right one will.
If it produces two 45 degree atoms though, there should be a 50% chance that the right one passes the filter, and a 50% chance that the horizontal passes the filter.
So there should be a 25% chance of both the right and the left photon passing the filters at once, right? (Forgive me if my math is wrong here. Probability was never a strong field of mine).

Well, turns out that never happens. Ever. No pair of photons will ever pass through both two filters.
It appears that the moment the photon on the left passes through the vertical filter and becomes a vertical photon, the photon on the right also becomes a vertical photon, and a vertical photon can't pass through a horizontal filter.

The photons are interacting. Affect one and you affect the other. Even if they are on opposite sides of the universe, moving away from eachother at the speed of light.

Did hear about entanglement. Although, admittedly, most of that is from sci-fi so not sure how much of a basis that has in reality. Mostly quantum communication to explain how one can instantly communicate with another at the other side of the universe (Mass Effect and EvE to name two gaming-related IPs).

Fascinating stuff nonetheless. Difficult to fully wrap your mind around though (if that's even possible).

Raises the question though, what would happen if both those photons hit the filters simultaneously?

The first one to hit seems to change the other and thus the other no longer passes. But what if both of them hit the filter as the exact same instant (assuming that's possibly which it may easily not be considering that the chance of a probability function to hit a real number exactly is 0% as a point has width of 0). But if time is only knowable to a certain tolerance then it should be possible, I think.