Quantumcat

Hi all, may I add my two cents? In the webct page for one of my physics courses (quantum mechanics) we have a discussion going about what exactly is the definition of reality and the place of quantum mechanics in it. Here is my last reply (which I put a lot of effort into writing), maybe you guys might have some ideas on the subject too. Here's a necessary condition for any plausible collective definition of "reality"... and from which we can deduce the inevitable 'non-realist' conclusions of quantum mechanics. The condition also allows us to escape the vacuous and pathological discussions on the acceptance of a precise definition of "reality", prevalent in other threads of this discussion board. Our definition of "reality" or what is "real" must invariably be equivalent to a definition for "existence" or what "exists", as the following (reductio ad absurdum) argument demonstrates: Suppose "existence" is a necessary condition for "reality", but not conversely. That is, suppose that what we define to be real must exist (physically, metaphysically, etc...), but that what exists need not necessarily be defined as "real" (e.g. hallucinations, voices of the schizophrenic mind, etc...). By Russell's Paradox, there does not exist a set of all sets. Thus, the set of all things "real", called it R, whatever our definition of reality may be, cannot be a set of all sets. Hence, there is a larger set in the universe (or possibly beyond) in which R is a proper subset. Moreover then, by the definition of R - the set of all things real - there must *exist* at least one thing that is "not real" in a larger set. Therefore, any realist theory of physics is not complete, since it cannot describe every existing thing. So the mission of modern physics - to conjure up a "theory of everything" of the universe is bound to fail. Whence, physicists should just give up their practice right now. Therefore, in order to halt this disparagement of the pursuit of Physics we (physicists) cannot speak of a notion of reality of a thing without knowing whether or not such a thing exists. That is to say, all things not real must be defined to be non-existent. However, this goes precisely into the interpretation of quantum mechanics we have learnt in class - that what we cannot see cannot be "real" (again, regardless of our definition of "reality") - because we cannot know what exists unless we have the observable evidence. Thus, reality cannot cohesively extend beyond what we can observe to be existing! The choice is clear: accept the consequences of quantum mechanics, or, that a full understanding of the universe is eternally beyond our reach.

I'm a university student studying maths & physics, but I teach french at primary schools for a small after-school activities organisation 3 afternoons a week and work one day a week at a preschool to pay my way through university. I will be either a high school teacher or start a bridge club, or maybe both, when I graduate.

Desalination uses a lot of fuel, but with our gigantic free coal reserves, the water crisis might overtake climate change in national importance and people won't care so much about the continued overuse of coal ... perhaps.

There are prime ministers in Second Life? I have read about that thing in the newspaper, what a load of baloney, some people need to get outside and interact with society :) If there really is technology to make rain clouds form, we could have really used it here over the last yearor two! The drought is forcing people to move and agricultural produce to fall by like 20% over the last few years ... But, in a bizarre turn of events, Newcastle gets a massive storm, flooding the entire city and a wide area around it, including Sydney, and kills a dozen people! And even Canberra, where I live, has been getting rain almost once every three days. It's amazing. But it won't last, and we'll go back to getting 1 rainy day every two months :) Imagine if one day we had to import water to keep our population alive?

Hi fluffy, I know those variations, at the youth week during the summer festival of bridge in january, we had one session of novelty pairs ... it was SO much fun! Each board was a different rule. We had the bid your opponent's contract (e.g. bidding 2S with a spade void, or 1NT with a yarborough ... then pass the cards around clockwise and play your contract with their cards) one where each player is allowed to revoke exactly once but doesn't have to announce it, one where the opposite partner to the one that won the trick leads next, one where there are bowers like in 500 (ranking higher than ace), one where the order of suits is reversed (i.e. 1NT is lowest bid, then 1S ... etc) and some more that I've forgotten ... it was heaps of fun, and we found that the newer players did better than the more experienced ones, since we are less set in our ways and more open to adaptation and change. Also helene, a friend of mine knows that game and I think it's called Oh Hell. (possibly just similar not the same game, but it sounds like it)

Blue until I was ten, now going green ... will probably be all green by the time I'm 30 at this rate. (Dad blue eyes, mum green! Did any other green-eyed people have blue eyes as a child?) Why nonsense? Isn't that what the water cooler is about?

Yeah marlowe, that's what I meant. Having 3♣ not be forcing to game would make some hands difficult wouldn't it? What if your club suit is crappy but you don't have another way to express your hand? If 3♥ if forcing, he has to pass and you play a 6-0 fit with the suit being say KT9, with 20 pts between you, at the three level, when you have a pretty 9 card heart fit available! If 3♥ is forcing, what does 4♥ mean? And what would 3♦ mean by the person who said 1♥? Can it be weak with 5-5, choose a partscore please, or is it forcing (I guess it has to be forcing, being a new suit). Are there any conventions/treatments that mean you don't have to rebid 3♣? It seems to make life difficult for a very weak responder!

What would you have bid though if you held 7 hearts to the ace ten,no other honours, and a void in clubs? Would you have bid 4♥ to shut partner up? (is 3♣ forcing to game?)

Phooey!

I guess since the root of Minus One is imaginary, lawyers might be able to discuss the concept at great length :) On a serious note do you know if encrypted signals are banned in Australia too or just the US? They sound amazing. Of course at the moment I hardly remember to pay attention to any of partner's spots anyhow :rolleyes: but the concept is so interesting to read about. [Edit: the first line is a joke. I don't know if a non-aussie would understand it though]

Wouldn't you have raised to 2♥ if you had three hearts? So responder knows you have two hearts already because you're balanced? If you had five spades and four hearts couldn't you just say 2♥ after the 1NT and if you had five hearts and four spades wouldn't opener have said 1♠ after your 1♥, if you had a spade fit? And what if you would just rather play in opener's clubs than 1 NT? Doesn't make much sense to me. But I've probably just missed the point entirely :)

What is checkback stayman?

I think 6-4 in the majors makes perfect sense: he chose not to pre-empt cause he had support for a major, and he probably has a bit too strong for a pre-empt but not enough to open even with his great shape, maybe 10 pts. If he had hearts only he could just balance with 1♥. Why does this need to be a specific agreement? Doesn't it make sense by itself?

Don't know if someone's already said this (haven't read the whole post), but, my teacher told me to always support with minimum values with three cards if it's possible responder could have a 5 card suit - if it ends there, there's nothing wrong with 7 card fits in a partscore, and if you are going further, responder knows what's what right away and fits are never missed, esp. if there gets to be competition. As long as pards knows you might only have 3 cards and not throw a tanty if you are in 6♠ on 4-3 fit (as happened to me once :) ).

Thank you all for your replies! It is really clearing up some ideas for me (and for many others I imagine). How does your bidding change when you have: 0 diamonds (do you follow the "stop bidding when you see a misfit" rule? If the opps have a fit so do you, but what if its in clubs?) 5 spades and 5 clubs (and the 1♠ bid only promises 4) 6 spades and 6 clubs more clubs than spades

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sat9xxxhxdqxckt9x]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] Bidding goes, 1♦ from partner, 1♥, I said 1♠, overcaller's partner says 2♥, partner passes, so does opp now it's my turn. I chose to say 3♣, partner bid 3♠ all out and made. They make 2♥ according to the other scores. I thought I was just competing for our own partscore but pards said he thought 3♣ was forcing (he had 11 pts for his open with 5♦'s 4♣'s and 2♠'s) Is 3♣ forcing? If it's not what would be a forcing bid if I had a game going hand? What would 3♥ by me mean? or 3♦ given I said 1♠ first? Sorry for this probably very basic question! I haven't been playing long.

In a couple of years when I get to be a decent player, remind me to never, ever, play any tournaments in the US! Sounds like an absolute nightmare.

I didn't know that the ACBL banned more stuff than the ABF (australian bridge federation). That sounds quite interesting. If you are in a top level tournament, why would you need to ban stuff, wouldn't people that are really good recognise all the interesting systems and know defences to them? Or are you just not allowed to play stuff that hasn't been published in the literature before? My partner and I once made up this totally ludicrous system that worked very shakily, as a practical joke on the old ladies at our club, we didn't care whether we did badly. But our friendly director told us it wasn't appropriate :) all that effort and laughing for nothing! Also, I'm curious, is Moscito banned in the US (that's what my teachers play, they tried to explain it to me once when I asked them about it but I was totally bewildered)?

I beg to differ: every single one of my bridge friends, and almost all of the people I know that play bridge, are associated with mathematics in some way. My main teacher is in his second year of a mathematics PhD (majored in mathematics as undergrad) My secondary teacher is in his third year of a chemistry PhD (majored in mathematics and chemistry as an undergrad) My main partner at the club is in his second year of a physics PhD (majored in mathematics and physics as an undergrad) My other partner is doing honours in Astrophysics (majored in mathematics and physics) My main partner's other partner is doing honours in mathematics (mathematics major as undergrad) My boyfriend did an actuarial degree (never became an actuary though, manages a bridge club) though he is too good for me to play with All the random people at the university bridge club study either maths or physics, except for two doing medicine and one doing actuarial studies (which is just maths anyway) And of course there's me, science degree majoring in mathematics and physics. No bridge player I have ever met is studying law or is a lawyer. (the australian national university is the best or second-best university in the country for studying law by the way, it's not because it doesn't offer law degrees!) Maybe it's just a co-incidence?

I see what you mean, if you use up the entry to the board to run the ten, you can't get back later to take the cards you set up. So just hoping that it isn't KQJx makes sense. Why don't you post more questions like this, and once there are three or four replies, then answer the question and explain why the answer is the way it is. (Of course, ban any non-genuine beginners from answering the questions and robbing us of the opportunity to have to think on our own :rolleyes:)

There was a board at my club duplicate a few months ago where every single player bid diamonds except south, who bid the final contract of 6 hearts! W--N--E--S 1♦-2♦-5♦--P P--6♦--P--6♥ The hands were something like: [hv=d=w&v=n&n=sakjt97hakqjt2dc4&s=s3h9843d972cakj32]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv]

The problem is 4-0, so don't cash the ace first and let someone have KQJ, lead the ten and run it, if east covers with the jack put on the ace (and get only 1 loser if west has singleton honour!) if both follow you're fine, or if west shows out then you still get 2 losers. Is that right?

Our teammates were in 5♦. Can't remember if they made 6 or not!

I have a question of my own. In a teams match a month ago or so I got this pretty hand: [hv=s=sakjt9xxhxxdckt98]133|100|[/hv] After partner's pass and RHO's 1♥, I chose 4♠. Am I too strong? Should I have doubled or overcalled just 1♠? Partner had [hv=s=sakjt9xxhxxdckt98]133|100|[/hv] And we made 12 tricks easily (and we were doubled!)

And it's only fair that, the ten being an honour card, that it gets to be denoted with a letter same as the other honours.