implications of cause and effect
Dale Kelly
first cause is an effect and requires a cause, so there can be no
absolute beginning
2) you could believe in an infinite linear continuum of cause and effect,
but then you would have to deal with the fact that at the limit of
infinity you have cause or effect, not cause and effect, since cause and
effect is binary, and an unfulfilled continuum
3) cause and effect is cyclical, the last effect is always the first cause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuga
I challenge any evolution punks to prove this is a false dichotomy
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
bul...@bellsouth.net
> 1) you could believe in an absolute beginning and a first cause, but a
> first cause is an effect and requires a cause, so there can be no
> absolute beginning
>
> 2) you could believe in an infinite linear continuum of cause and effect,
> but then you would have to deal with the fact that at the limit of
> infinity you have cause or effect, not cause and effect, since cause and
> effect is binary, and an unfulfilled continuum
>
>
> I challenge any evolution punks to prove this is a false dichotomy
Nuclear decay. HTH, HAND
Boikat
Steven J.
> first cause is an effect and requires a cause, so there can be no
> absolute beginning
>
causes. Traditional western theists assert, contrarily, that one
uncaused first cause must and does exist. Their assertion rests on as
much evidence (indeed, the same sort of evidence: their own
intuitions) as yours does. Meanwhile, quantum physics deals very
successfully with events that do not have "causes" in the sense that
they are the only possible outcome of the exact set of circumstances
in which they occurred. So it is far from clear that you are correct
here.
>
> 2) you could believe in an infinite linear continuum of cause and effect,
> but then you would have to deal with the fact that at the limit of
> infinity you have cause or effect, not cause and effect, since cause and
> effect is binary, and an unfulfilled continuum
>
an infinite series of cause and effect, one can always go further
back, no matter how far back one has already gone, and find another
cause, and the prior cause of that cause, and so on forever.
>
> 3) cause and effect is cyclical, the last effect is always the first causehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuga
>
> I challenge any evolution punks to prove this is a false dichotomy
>
(again, that's what the word "dichotomy" *means*), and you've just
listed three. How much falser can a dichotomy be, that to have, even
as presented, more than the minimal number of possibilities for a
dichotomy?
>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
-- Steven J.
Lee Oswald Ving
news:pan.2007.04...@comcast.net:
Projection ad Absurdum.
When we reach a point where we don't know, we say, "We don't know. Let's
see if we can find out more."
Not, "Hey, let's make up some happy-ass shit that makes us feel better."
Bitch.
Dale Kelly
> Nuclear decay. HTH, HAND--
quantum mechanics is a FARCE
the uncertainty principle says that you cannot even know if the
population you are dealing with is random, YOU CAN KNOW NOTHING,
empirically that is
quantum physicists have ASSUMED that uncertainty means a random normal
population with which they can apply certain statistical procedures to,
the uncertainty principle says you are uncertain even of randomness and a
normal population
secondly, quantum mechanics ALWAYS defaults to Newtonian physics in the
REAL world, and ALL interpretations of quantum mechanics agree with this
there are absolutely ZERO observations of quantum behavior, it is all
pseudoscience (and so is Einstein)
you are WRONG, evolution punk
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
Rich Townsend
Well, a dichotomy has two opposing statements. You have three. Therefore, your
dichotomy is false.
cheers,
Rich
Rich Townsend
Well, a dichotomy has two opposing statements. You have three. Therefore, your
snex
your computer would not work without quantum effects. neither would
scanning tunneling microscopes.
>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
Rich Townsend
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:38:58 -0700, bullpup wrote:
>
>> Nuclear decay. HTH, HAND--
>
> quantum mechanics is a FARCE
>
> the uncertainty principle says that you cannot even know if the
> population you are dealing with is random, YOU CAN KNOW NOTHING,
> empirically that is
>
> quantum physicists have ASSUMED that uncertainty means a random normal
> population with which they can apply certain statistical procedures to,
> the uncertainty principle says you are uncertain even of randomness and a
> normal population
>
> secondly, quantum mechanics ALWAYS defaults to Newtonian physics in the
> REAL world, and ALL interpretations of quantum mechanics agree with this
What absolute rubbish. The Klein-Gordon equation is fully relativistic. The
Dirac equation is fully relativistic. Quantum electrodynamics is fully relativistic.
Ever heard of Thomas precession? It's a relativistic effect. If it is ignored,
the spin-orbit effect in atomic physics is off by a factor 2. This has
observable consequences that can be measured by anyone with a spectrograph and a
brain. Sadly, you're lacking in the latter, and I imagine you've never been
within a mile of the former.
>
> there are absolutely ZERO observations of quantum behavior, it is all
> pseudoscience (and so is Einstein)
>
> you are WRONG, evolution punk
>
Argumentum ad Dirty Harry?
David Canzi -- non-mailable
A true dichotomy has two parts, not three.
--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. |
bul...@bellsouth.net
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:38:58 -0700, bullpup wrote:
> > Nuclear decay. HTH, HAND--
>
> quantum mechanics is a FARCE
Oh. Sorry, I didn't know you were a total idiot.
>
> the uncertainty principle says that you cannot even know if the
> population you are dealing with is random, YOU CAN KNOW NOTHING,
> empirically that is
Try stepping out of a thrid story window. Let me know if your impact
with the ground was "empirical" or just some sort of illusion.
>
> quantum physicists have ASSUMED that uncertainty means a random normal
> population with which they can apply certain statistical procedures to,
> the uncertainty principle says you are uncertain even of randomness and a
> normal population
You might want to look up what the uncertanty principle really
means.
>
> secondly, quantum mechanics ALWAYS defaults to Newtonian physics in the
> REAL world, and ALL interpretations of quantum mechanics agree with this
In the macro-world. STFW?
>
> there are absolutely ZERO observations of quantum behavior, it is all
> pseudoscience (and so is Einstein)
And yet we have field effect transistors, tunneling diodes,...
Amazing how that works if QM is a "farce"
>
> you are WRONG, evolution punk
Tell me, monkey boy, how does it feel to be a total loser?
Boikat
Dale Kelly
> Sadly, you're lacking in the latter, and I imagine you've never been
> within a mile of the former.--
all handled by relativity according to Galileo, Einstein had no real
contribution in this area, his special relativity with bent space and
time is what I think is bunk
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
Rich Townsend
But without that bent space and time, the spin-orbit effect is off by a factor
2. Please explain how you otherwise account for the discrepancy.
Dale Kelly
> But without that bent space and time, the spin-orbit effect is off by a
> factor 2. Please explain how you otherwise account for the
discrepancy.--
WRONG
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
snex
why do air traffic controllers take einstein's equations into effect
when plotting flight paths? dont believe me? call up the airline!
>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
Pete G.
news:462D6378...@barVOIDtol.udel.edu...
I would suggest that this leaves him/her with a 'trichotomy' -- were it not
for the fact that 'lobotomy' is a far more appropriate word...
P.
bill.m...@gmail.com
Ross Langerak
"Dale Kelly" <dale....@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04...@comcast.net...
If I remember correctly, you were an engineer at Kodak. Suppose you were to
go to a party, and after talking to a few people about your job, someone
started ranting about all of the problems with photographic film. It would
quickly become very obvious to you whether or not they knew what they were
talking about, wouldn't it?
Well, I have a degree in physics, and it is very obvious to me that you do
not know what you are talking about when it comes to quantum physics. The
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle puts a limit on our ability to measure the
position and momentum of an object at the same time. (It can also be
expressed in terms of time and energy.) It says nothing about random
populations or statistics.
Quantum physics produces effects that show up in the real world. (I suspect
I know where your misconception about quantum physics originated. If you
are interested in discussing it, let me know; otherwise, I'm not going to
waste my time on you.)
There are numerous examples of quantum behavior. Spectroscopy would be
impossible without quantum physics. Again, to someone who is actually
familiar with the subject, you clearly do not know what you are talking
about.
> you are WRONG, evolution punk
Since you clearly do not know what you are talking about when it comes to
evolution, and based upon your past posts you have no intention of actually
learning anything about evoluiton, why should I care about what you think?
When faced with rational criticism of your assertions, you run away. This
tells me that you are a coward. You post the same assertions over and over
again, even though you know you have not been able to respond to previous
criticisms. This tells me that you have no integrity. You make claims
about things that you know nothing about. This tells me that you are a
liar. I've tried to treat you like a rational adult, but in return, all
I've seen is childish abuse on your part. It's time for you to grow up.
The Enigmatic One
says...
>
>
>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:38:58 -0700, bullpup wrote:
>
>> Nuclear decay. HTH, HAND--
>
>quantum mechanics is a FARCE
Yup.
You proved him wrong.
Slam dunk, really.
You seem to have a great technique of just dismissing any evidence you don't
personally like. Seems to work every time.
Or, maybe you're just a fucking retard. Yeah. Probably more likely.
-Tim
raven1
<dale....@comcast.net> wrote:
Some dressing for your Word Salad, monsieur...?
>2) you could believe in an infinite linear continuum of cause and effect,
>but then you would have to deal with the fact that at the limit of
>infinity you have cause or effect, not cause and effect, since cause and
>effect is binary, and an unfulfilled continuum
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Ernest Major
<dale....@comcast.net> writes
alternative as incoherent. You omit the possibility that events could be
uncaused.
--
alias Ernest Major
BernardZ
> successfully with events that do not have "causes" in the sense that
> they are the only possible outcome of the exact set of circumstances
> in which they occurred.
This is disputed. There is still Einstein law of hidden variables out
there.
In any case you still have a cause and an effect.
Jim Willemin
@comcast.net:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:22:21 -0400, Rich Townsend wrote:
>
>> But without that bent space and time, the spin-orbit effect is off by a
>> factor 2. Please explain how you otherwise account for the
> discrepancy.--
>
> WRONG
>
>
Why, specifically? Rich is talking about observations, presumably oft-
repeated observations. Why are the observers wrong in what they see?
Dale Kelly
> Why, specifically? Rich is talking about observations, presumably oft-
> repeated observations. Why are the observers wrong in what they see?
the standard model of particle phsyics explains all interactions and is
non-relatitivistic
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
Rich Townsend
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:03:51 +0200, Jim Willemin wrote:
>
>> Why, specifically? Rich is talking about observations, presumably oft-
>> repeated observations. Why are the observers wrong in what they see?
>
> the standard model of particle phsyics explains all interactions and is
> non-relatitivistic
>
How, then, do you explain the detection of pions from air showers? The classical
decay time of these particles, which are produced in the upper atmosphere, is
far too short for them to reach the earth's surface. Only when time dilation is
taken into consideration, can we explain the detection of these particles at sea
level.
I've just showed your comment to my friend Levent, who is a particle physicist.
I haven't seen him laugh this much in months. Thanks!
Lorentz
again.
> 1) you could believe in an absolute beginning and a first cause, but a
> first cause is an effect and requires a cause, so there can be no
> absolute beginning
Alright, if I accept this, then there can be no absolute
beginning. If God is defined as an abslute beginning, then God doesn't
exist. If God is not an absolute beginning, then the argument is
irrelevant.
>
> 2) you could believe in an infinite linear continuum of cause and effect,
> but then you would have to deal with the fact that at the limit of
> infinity you have cause or effect, not cause and effect, since cause and
> effect is binary, and an unfulfilled continuum
Cause and effect is not binary. The fact that something causes
something, and the fact that it is caused by something else, are not
mutually exclusive. An unfulfilled continuum is not illogical,
whatever that means.
If God is an infinite continuum of cause and effect, than God is
either a cause of an effect. Whichever way you swing, the continuum is
still unfulfilled. The existence of God, by your own argument, does
not at all bring logical closure and hence is unrelated to what you
just said (whatever it is).
>
> 3) cause and effect is cyclical, the last effect is always the first causehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuga
Cause and effect is not cyclic. The last effect is never the first
cause in any logical chain.
>
> I challenge any evolution punks to prove this is a false dichotomy
Your statements are false, but do not even represent a
dichotomy. They are just an unrelated chain of falsehoods, which are
barely comprehensible.
Guido
> 1) you could believe in an absolute beginning and a first cause, but a
> first cause is an effect and requires a cause, so there can be no
> absolute beginning
>
> but then you would have to deal with the fact that at the limit of
> infinity you have cause or effect, not cause and effect, since cause and
> effect is binary, and an unfulfilled continuum
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuga
>
>
>
limit. You don't seem to grasp the meaning of "infinity".
Guido
ever found evidence for these hidden variables.
Guido
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:03:51 +0200, Jim Willemin wrote:
>
>> Why, specifically? Rich is talking about observations, presumably oft-
>> repeated observations. Why are the observers wrong in what they see?
>
> the standard model of particle phsyics explains all interactions and is
> non-relatitivistic
>
have ever heard.
(I wrote a long reply instead, but decided against it)
Greg Guarino
<dale....@comcast.net> wrote:
Drawing inferences 101:
>> But without that bent space and time, the spin-orbit effect is off by a
>> factor 2. Please explain how you otherwise account for the
>>discrepancy.--
I have no knowledge of the concept above. Yet the response below,
(reprinted in its entirety)...
>WRONG
... makes me pretty confident that interlocutor #2 doesn't know
anything about it either.
Greg Guarino
Greg Guarino
Here's a better dichotomy:
1) If everything must been caused by something else, then nothing
exists.
or
2) As regards the ultimate question of existence, the logic of cause
and effect that we observe in common human experience fails. We have
to admit that we don't, and won't, know the answer.
Greg Guarino
...who prefers #2.
chazwin
> 1) you could believe in an absolute beginning and a first cause, but a
> first cause is an effect and requires a cause, so there can be no
> absolute beginning
>
> 2) you could believe in an infinite linear continuum of cause and effect,
> but then you would have to deal with the fact that at the limit of
> infinity you have cause or effect, not cause and effect, since cause and
> effect is binary, and an unfulfilled continuum
>
>
> I challenge any evolution punks to prove this is a false dichotomy
There is no problem here, except the on ein your mind.
Perhaps you would like to offer an explanation whereby "god" explains
this paradox??
>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
Ye Old One
<dale....@comcast.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:38:58 -0700, bullpup wrote:
>
>> Nuclear decay. HTH, HAND--
>
>quantum mechanics is a FARCE
Learn a bit about it before you make such a daft claim.
>
>the uncertainty principle says that you cannot even know if the
>population you are dealing with is random, YOU CAN KNOW NOTHING,
>empirically that is
The UP says nothing of the sort.
>
>quantum physicists have ASSUMED that uncertainty means a random normal
>population with which they can apply certain statistical procedures to,
>the uncertainty principle says you are uncertain even of randomness and a
>normal population
Don't know what you have been reading, but you misread it.
>
>secondly, quantum mechanics ALWAYS defaults to Newtonian physics in the
>REAL world, and ALL interpretations of quantum mechanics agree with this
>
>there are absolutely ZERO observations of quantum behavior,
Ah! You missed the hundreds of papers published on the subject. Not
surprised, you wouldn't understand them anyway.
> it is all
>pseudoscience (and so is Einstein)
>
>you are WRONG, evolution punk
And you are a VERY stupid brat.
--
Bob.
Timberwoof
Dale Kelly <dale....@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:38:58 -0700, bullpup wrote:
>
> > Nuclear decay. HTH, HAND--
>
> quantum mechanics is a FARCE
No, your understanding of quantum mechanics is a farce.
> the uncertainty principle says that you cannot even know if the
> population you are dealing with is random, YOU CAN KNOW NOTHING,
> empirically that is
Q. E. D.
> quantum physicists have ASSUMED that uncertainty means a random normal
> population with which they can apply certain statistical procedures to,
No, they have observed that.
> the uncertainty principle says you are uncertain even of randomness and a
> normal population
No, it does not.
> secondly, quantum mechanics ALWAYS defaults to Newtonian physics in the
> REAL world, and ALL interpretations of quantum mechanics agree with this
You mean the us-sized world.
> there are absolutely ZERO observations of quantum behavior, it is all
> pseudoscience (and so is Einstein)
You should write a paper about this and see if you can get it published.
> you are WRONG, evolution punk
What does any of this have to do with evolution?
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!
Timberwoof
Doesn't matter what you think. Plenty of observations show that they are
correct. Have you read any textbooks on the subject? Feynman wrote a
good one (Six Not-So-Easy Pieces) as did Roger Penrose (The Road to
reality).
Timberwoof
snex <xe...@comcast.net> wrote:
An airplane isn't going fast enough for any relativistic effects to
matter much. Now whom would I call -- a ticket agent? A public felations
manager?
Ye Old One
<dale....@comcast.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:03:51 +0200, Jim Willemin wrote:
>
>> Why, specifically? Rich is talking about observations, presumably oft-
>> repeated observations. Why are the observers wrong in what they see?
>
>the standard model of particle phsyics explains all interactions and is
>non-relatitivistic
Wrong.
--
Bob.
Shane
[...]
> An airplane isn't going fast enough for any relativistic effects to
> matter much. Now whom would I call -- a ticket agent? A public felations
> manager?
Now there is a job that is going to be hard to fill.
BernardZ
NOguyh...@PLEASExs4all.nl says...
> BernardZ wrote:
> >> Meanwhile, quantum physics deals very
> >> successfully with events that do not have "causes" in the sense that
> >> they are the only possible outcome of the exact set of circumstances
> >> in which they occurred.
> >
> > This is disputed. There is still Einstein law of hidden variables out
> > there.
> >
> > In any case you still have a cause and an effect.
> >
> That's not a "law" as far as I am aware, merely a hypothesis.
We could get into a discussion here of what is the difference between a
law and a hypothesis.
But I think you are correct as doing a net search I noticed it had a few
names what I should have said is "Einstein theory of hidden variables"
> No-one has
> ever found evidence for these hidden variables.
>
Nor is it popular.
>
Errol
> personally like. Seems to work every time.
>
science for the last 100 or so years and substituting it with
unsubstantiated "beliefs and opinions".
A pity because he often raises interesting points, then turns tail
when they are refuted, instead of learning from the responses.
His latest tactic of attacking all who oppose him (evolution punks) is
fairly amusing, though it might result in him being totally ignored on
future posts
Sean Carroll
> 1)
<snip>
> 2)
<snip>
> 3)
<snip>
> I challenge any evolution punks to prove this is a false dichotomy
Um ... no one ever told you what the 'di' in 'dichotomy' means, did they?
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
'What else turns you on? Drugs? Casual sex? Rough sex? ... Casual rough
sex? I'm a doctor, I need to know.' --Dr Gregory House
Sean Carroll
> all handled by relativity according to Galileo, Einstein had no real
> contribution in this area, his special relativity with bent space and
> time is what I think is bunk
When trash-talking about theories you don't know the first thing about,
you should at LEAST have the decency to know WHICH theory you're
spouting the garbage at.
'Special relativity with bent space and time' is like you with a brain:
impossible by definition.
Sean Carroll
> the standard model of particle phsyics explains all interactions and is
> non-relatitivistic
When did gravity stop being an interaction? What is it now, a grilled
cheese sandwich?
Sean Carroll
> Now whom would I call -- a ticket agent? A public felations
> manager?
Public fellations manager? You mean like Monica Lewinsky?
Tiny Bulcher
> Timberwoof wrote:
>
>> Now whom would I call -- a ticket agent? A public felations
>> manager?
>
> Public fellations manager? You mean like Monica Lewinsky?
Close, but no cigar.
snex
wrote:
> In article <1177381798.432146.43...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 23, 9:18 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:00:46 -0400, Rich Townsend wrote:
> > > > Sadly, you're lacking in the latter, and I imagine you've never been
> > > > within a mile of the former.--
>
> > > all handled by relativity according to Galileo, Einstein had no real
> > > contribution in this area, his special relativity with bent space and
> > > time is what I think is bunk
>
> > why do air traffic controllers take einstein's equations into effect
> > when plotting flight paths? dont believe me? call up the airline!
>
> An airplane isn't going fast enough for any relativistic effects to
> matter much. Now whom would I call -- a ticket agent? A public felations
> manager?
not true, the NAVSTAR system takes relativity into effect.
John Wilkins
> Dale Kelly wrote:
>
> > 1)
> <snip>
> > 2)
> <snip>
> > 3)
> <snip>
> > I challenge any evolution punks to prove this is a false dichotomy
>
> Um ... no one ever told you what the 'di' in 'dichotomy' means, did they?
Hes a tri-hard.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
PD
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:03:51 +0200, Jim Willemin wrote:
> > Why, specifically? Rich is talking about observations, presumably oft-
> > repeated observations. Why are the observers wrong in what they see?
>
> the standard model of particle phsyics explains all interactions and is
> non-relatitivistic
That is simply wrong. The Standard Model of particle physics is
*completely* relativistic, manifestly covariant, however you want to
say it. I don't know where you got the idea that it is non-
relativistic. It is, however, completely non-relatitivistic.
>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
Quantum Ranger
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:38:58 -0700, bullpup wrote:
> > Nuclear decay. HTH, HAND--
>
> quantum mechanics is a FARCE
>
> population you are dealing with is random, YOU CAN KNOW NOTHING,
> empirically that is
>
> population with which they can apply certain statistical procedures to,
> normal population
>
> REAL world, and ALL interpretations of quantum mechanics agree with this
>
> pseudoscience (and so is Einstein)
>
>
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
Dale says" there are absolutely ZERO observations of quantum behavior,
it is all
> pseudoscience (and so is Einstein)"
Time to stand and face the waves!
Ok take a friend (one with a brainfunction operating at about 2ghtz
above yours)..now both precede to a mirror that hangs on a wall, one
about face level will do.
Now you stand about 6ft directly infront of the mirror , whilst your
friend stands about 2 metres to the right of you. You look at the
mirror and see your reflection (you need to veiw this as if it is a
photograph self-image hanging on the wall)..you now ask your friend to
do the same as you, but from where he/she is located, look at the
mirror and record what he/she observes, they should see something that
is refected from an opposite angle to where they are.
As you are directly infront of the mirror, your image is always there,
your friend using the same mirror see's something different, in that
they do NOT see your image.
The "single" mirror is supporting TWO images from TWO location at the
same time, these images are superimposed( one on top of the other),
now swop places so that you each you each get a perspective insight to
what the other is seeing.
All simple enough, now lets make it more interesting, you phone a
couple of friends to join you, they position themselves at angles so
they do not see each other in the mirror (remember you are the only
person standing infront of the mirror!)..everyone else see's something
opposite to where they are located.
Every single person who joins you will have a SEPERATE image
reflection, yet the SINGLE mirror never sends a reflection of YOU to
any other person other than yourself?..uless you are in a directly
opposite angle.
How does your image remain constant?..how does the mirror reflect you
and not someone else's image?..I mean all images are using the same
SINGLE mirror, all reflections meet at one location?
As you stand infront of the mirror, the more people that use the
mirror as well as yourself, will impose interference to your image,
eventually the mirror will contain too much information (images), and
you will see your reflection altering. There is a limit as to how much
wavelengths can be reflected form one source.
According to Feynman, the more photons that are hitting the mirrror,
at any one instance, the more chance of the mirror producing
interference, thus the more likely that you recieve the WRONG image.
You can think of this experiment as representative of Random
distribution, when you first stand infront of a mirror, your image is
not randomly reflected, it is CERTAIN that you will see yourself, just
to proove this scenario, how many times have you been alone in front
of a mirror and seen somebody else!..yet if one introduces more input
upon the mirror, one increases the chance of a "wave_collapse",
inteference at the mirror's finite surface.
Relativity says that your image, in 3-D spacetime is just that,
relative to you, it is reflected along YOUR space_time_path , Feynman,
and Quantum Mechanics says this image/reflection, could be a random
event that just happens to fall into your path, via all possible
routes, your image gets renormalized. Cram the room where the mirror
is, full of observers, and then you will all experience proof of the
different paths each image would have taken.
Just standing in front of a mirror with a friend is both a Quantum and
Relative event!