HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016035.jpg
1.45 MB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
0
Events
0
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Book page / manuscript page (evidence)
File Size:
1.45 MB
Summary
This document appears to be page 345 of a book or manuscript chapter titled 'Free Will.' The text discusses quantum mechanics, specifically particle spin measurements, the '101 rule,' and the Kochen-Specker Paradox. It uses analogies involving Escher prints and a broken Rubik's Cube to explain scientific inconsistencies. The document bears a Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016035', indicating it was processed as evidence by the House Oversight Committee, likely as part of the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, reflecting his known interest in theoretical physics.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Simon Kochen | Physicist/Mathematician |
Mentioned in the context of the 'Kochen-Specker Paradox'
|
| Ernst Specker | Mathematician |
Mentioned in the context of the 'Kochen-Specker Paradox'
|
| M.C. Escher | Artist |
Mentioned in reference to an 'Escher print' illustrating impossible figures
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| House Oversight Committee |
Indicated by the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016035' at the bottom of the page
|
Key Quotes (3)
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,277 characters)
Free Will 345
to think the Moon is there when I am not looking at it.” But, how can we
test his statement? How can we know something is there without taking
a look? There is a way...
test his statement? How can we know something is there without taking
a look? There is a way...
Let us suppose the particle had a definite spin before we measured
it. Perhaps its spin points at the top left hand corner of the room. Imagine
taking many measurements and seeing what happens. We can point our
hand in any direction: top of the room, bottom left corner, bottom right
corner and so on. Each time we point our hand in a direction we must
get 1, 0 and 1 in some combination (110, 011, 101). The particles are 101
particles and this is an absolute rule.
it. Perhaps its spin points at the top left hand corner of the room. Imagine
taking many measurements and seeing what happens. We can point our
hand in any direction: top of the room, bottom left corner, bottom right
corner and so on. Each time we point our hand in a direction we must
get 1, 0 and 1 in some combination (110, 011, 101). The particles are 101
particles and this is an absolute rule.
Let’s imagine doing the experiment. We fix the spin of a particle
and begin to take measurements, noting the answers as we go. If we get
a borderline condition we obey the 101 rule and give ourselves a 1, 0, 1
reading. As we move our hand to take measurements, a problem begins
to emerge. Every now and again we obtain a measurement that conflicts.
We chose a 1, 0, 1 when we were pointing our index finger towards the
floor, but if we point the finger toward the door, we need that original
middle number to have been a 1 for consistency. (The middle finger is
now pointing in the direction the index finger pointed to for the first
reading.) To fix the inconsistency we can change our original borderline
decision to a 1,1,0. All is well and we continue. But, as we get over 30
measurements, we can’t seem to find any way to make all the 1,0,1s fit
together. After scratching our
head for a while, we realize there
might be no solution. And indeed
there is not. This is the Kochen-
Specker Paradox. The odd shaped
cubes on the building in the
Escher print are an example of
one of these impossible figures.
and begin to take measurements, noting the answers as we go. If we get
a borderline condition we obey the 101 rule and give ourselves a 1, 0, 1
reading. As we move our hand to take measurements, a problem begins
to emerge. Every now and again we obtain a measurement that conflicts.
We chose a 1, 0, 1 when we were pointing our index finger towards the
floor, but if we point the finger toward the door, we need that original
middle number to have been a 1 for consistency. (The middle finger is
now pointing in the direction the index finger pointed to for the first
reading.) To fix the inconsistency we can change our original borderline
decision to a 1,1,0. All is well and we continue. But, as we get over 30
measurements, we can’t seem to find any way to make all the 1,0,1s fit
together. After scratching our
head for a while, we realize there
might be no solution. And indeed
there is not. This is the Kochen-
Specker Paradox. The odd shaped
cubes on the building in the
Escher print are an example of
one of these impossible figures.
An analogy to this problem
is trying to solve a broken
Rubik’s Cube. There is a really
mischievous trick you can play on
someone: reverse two colors on a
Rubik’s Cube. You can easily do
this by snapping one of the edge
blocks out, turning it around and
snapping it back in. When the
colors are already muddled up
this is not obvious. Now give your
is trying to solve a broken
Rubik’s Cube. There is a really
mischievous trick you can play on
someone: reverse two colors on a
Rubik’s Cube. You can easily do
this by snapping one of the edge
blocks out, turning it around and
snapping it back in. When the
colors are already muddled up
this is not obvious. Now give your
1 0 1 puzzle piece
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016035
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document