It's Easier to Observe the Failure of Local Realism than Previously Thought

Mar 04, 2009 By Lisa Zyga feature

(PhysOrg.com) -- Local realism is something we live with every day, even if we don’t realize it. The principle of local realism combines two assumptions: locality and realism. Locality says that distant objects cannot directly and instantaneously influence each other (since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light). Realism says that the things we measure and sense are indeed really there apart from our measurements, and it’s not just our measurements that make them exist.

While the principle of local realism is intuitive in our everyday classical world, physicists going back to Einstein’s time have known that local realism can be violated in quantum physics. Experimentally, physicists can confirm that a quantum system has violated local realism (violating either locality or realism) by demonstrating the violation of Bell’s inequality, which serves as a test of local realism.

But while scientists have experimentally observed the failure of local realism in laboratories, no one has ever observed any non-local or non-realistic system on the macroscopic scale. Physicists have usually attributed this fact to decoherence: when quantum systems become macroscopic, they unavoidable interact with their environment, causing them to rapidly lose their quantum features. More recently, physicists Johannes Kofler and Caslav Brukner at the University of Vienna in Austria have suggested an alternative view: that the classical world emerges from the quantum world because our measurements of classical systems are too fuzzy, or coarse-grained, to detect quantum features of nature.

Now, a team of scientists consisting of Hyunseok Jeong of Seoul National University in Korea, Mauro Paternostro of The Queen’s University in the UK, and Timothy C. Ralph of the University of Queensland in Australia have investigated this issue further. But in stark contrast with the conclusions reached by Kofler and Brukner, the new analysis shows that, even when making only coarse-grained measurements, observers can still perceive an evident failure of local realism on the macroscopic scale, as shown by violating Bell’s inequality. Until now, no one has shown that extremely unsharp measurements in the macroscopic limit can be used to reveal the failure of local realism.

“We showed that failure of local realism can in principle be observed even when measurements are performed on a macroscopic scale,” Jeong told PhysOrg.com. “The ‘extremely coarse-grained measurements’ can be understood as measurements on the macroscopic scale. So, the greatest significance of our results is probably that the fuzziness of measurements cannot properly explain the appearance of the classical world on the macroscopic scale.” Instead, Jeong thinks that decoherence is still the most likely explanation for why it is difficult to observe quantum properties, such as failure of local realism, in the macroscopic world.

In the scientists’ proposal, they used two thermal states macroscopically distinguishable but quantum mechanically entangled, sending each to a distant observer. Each observer then performed a homodyne measurement on their thermal state to determine the location of the thermal state. The physicists found that Bell’s inequality could be violated nearly up to the upper limit even when using the coarse-grained homodyne measurements.

“In general, it is relatively easier to make measurements more coarse-grained, while it is nontrivial to make measurements sharp enough to demonstrate strong quantum effects,” Jeong explained. “In our proposal, part of signal to be measured is lost by a beam splitter before an ideal detector so that the resolution of the measurement becomes low.”

As the scientists explained, the failure of local realism means that at least one part of local realism - locality or realism - has been violated. To try to figure out if one or both parts failed when observed with coarse-grained measurements, the physicists compared their results with a test of realism called Leggett’s inequality. The results passed this test, implying that realism had not been violated in their proposed measurement method, and that only locality had failed.

As the first theoretical demonstration that coarse-grained measurements can be used to observe the failure of local realism, this study could help physicists learn more about the nature of the boundary between the quantum and classical worlds. Jeong, Paternostro, and Ralph predict that it should be possible to test their proposal with small-scale experiments in the future.

More information: Jeong, Hyunseok (h.jeong37 [at] gmail.com); Paternostro, Mauro; and Ralph, Timothy C. “Failure of Local Realism Revealed by Extremely-Coarse-Grained Measurements.” Physical Review Letters 102, 060403 (2009).

Copyright 2009 PhysOrg.com.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or part without the express written permission of PhysOrg.com.

Explore further: Neutron tomography technique reveals phase fractions of crystalline materials in 3-dimensions

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Google searches hold key to future market crashes

8 hours ago

A team of researchers from Warwick Business School and Boston University have developed a method to automatically identify topics that people search for on Google before subsequent stock market falls.

Recommended for you

50-foot-wide Muon g-2 electromagnet installed at Fermilab

21 hours ago

One year ago, the 50-foot-wide Muon g-2 electromagnet arrived at the U.S. Department of Energy's Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois after traveling 3,200 miles over land and sea from Long Island, ...

Spin-based electronics: New material successfully tested

Jul 30, 2014

Spintronics is an emerging field of electronics, where devices work by manipulating the spin of electrons rather than the current generated by their motion. This field can offer significant advantages to computer technology. ...

User comments : 199

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

BrianH
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 04, 2009
Decoherence is circular, tautologous.

The failure of locality, but not realism, means that there is a world out there, but distance may be an artifact.

Or something like that! ;)
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (14) Mar 04, 2009
I have a similar view Brian. I suppose it all depends on how you define "realism", but insofar is most people on the planet define and use the concept it will never be shown to "fail" in any meaningful way.

Locality has already been shown to fail miserably as a concept as most people on the planet and relativity define it. There may be distance in some sense (as in our perceptions etc), but I believe there is an underlying principle of interconnectedness that makes it virtually meaningless on the deepest level of reality.
LariAnn
1.9 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2009
Perhaps the question that needs to be asked is not if "realism" is true, but what the actual nature of what is real, is. Something may be actually there whether we measure it or not, but consider that our measuring (dimensionalizing) of it makes it appear to be something it is not. While real, it may not be what we think it is . . .
nano999
3.4 / 5 (17) Mar 04, 2009
"It's Easier to Observe the Failure of Local Realism than Previously Thought" Yeah, just visit your nearest church.
Modernmystic
1.5 / 5 (18) Mar 04, 2009
"It's Easier to Observe the Failure of Local Realism than Previously Thought" Yeah, just visit your nearest church.


Make bigoted comments much? Good luck with that whole bigotry thing...
nano999
3.5 / 5 (12) Mar 04, 2009
Ooh Zing! I was just making a funny. Jeez.
Nikola
2.4 / 5 (14) Mar 04, 2009
Reality is the enemy of Religion.
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (16) Mar 04, 2009
Ooh Zing! I was just making a funny. Jeez.


I didn't laugh...

I don't know how old you are, you might be excused if you're very young, but generally in this country it's considered pretty poor form to make comments like that in polite society.

You're not funny, and you're not helping to get your point across either...
Soylent
3.7 / 5 (14) Mar 04, 2009
Make bigoted comments much? Good luck with that whole bigotry thing...


It's not bigoted if it's factually accurate.
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (15) Mar 04, 2009
Reality is the enemy of Religion.


No, that would be fascists, communists, or basically any intolerant and bigoted group of people who think its OK to make fun of, or even slaughter those who hold differeing opinions...
Modernmystic
1.5 / 5 (11) Mar 04, 2009
Make bigoted comments much? Good luck with that whole bigotry thing...


It's not bigoted if it's factually accurate.


http://dictionary...se/bigot

So yes it fits the definition perfectly (nothing about "factually accurate" in there), sorry words do mean what they mean. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

nano999
3.6 / 5 (14) Mar 04, 2009
Soylent wasn't referring to the definition of bigot. Religious fundamentalists are the most bigoted people in the world so I'm not sure why you're defending them.
Like I said, I was just making a joke. A little hypersensitive are we? Religious people take themselves way to seriously. Glad I could bait you in though.
DozerIAm
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 04, 2009
Or, you could all drop this bickering and discuss the article.
JDB
1.2 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2009
Reality is the enemy of Religion.


No, that would be fascists, communists, or basically any intolerant and bigoted group of people who think its OK to make fun of, or even slaughter those who hold differeing opinions...


So yes, you're talking about religion... :)
JDB
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 04, 2009
*rolls eyes*
Someone has waaaaay too much time on his hands lol
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (9) Mar 04, 2009
Reality is the enemy of Religion.


No, that would be fascists, communists, or basically any intolerant and bigoted group of people who think its OK to make fun of, or even slaughter those who hold differeing opinions...


So yes, you're talking about religion... :)


http://dictionary...ommunism

http://dictionary.../fascism

So, no I was talking about this...

http://dictionary...religion

:)
ArtyNouveau
2.7 / 5 (9) Mar 04, 2009
Mark Twian summed up the failure of local realism many years ago when he said, "'Faith' is believing in something you know isn't true."
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (24) Mar 04, 2009
Brian, I think you are correct. We cannot have rational knowledge of reality, as it is in itself, except as conformed within a mental form, such as space, time, causality. In other words the mind as a functioning device, necessarily supplies the ordering structure of phenomenal reality,... but these mental artifacts are not an aspect of reality apart from a observing mind.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (29) Mar 04, 2009
The religeon comments are not only as modernmystic stated, bigotry, but they are ignorant too. It is as irrational to be a believer as it is to be an atheist. Both rely on faith, because neither can proove their case.
SpottedMarley
2 / 5 (9) Mar 04, 2009
oh my god you people are so gay. is science not enough for you all? you gotta whine about this petty crap? get lives please
latersville
3.4 / 5 (11) Mar 04, 2009
As an atheist, I choose reason and observation over belief. No faith required.
Modernmystic
1.5 / 5 (12) Mar 04, 2009
As an atheist, I choose reason and observation over belief. No faith required.


Prove there isn't a God...

Thought so.

Faith is a wonderful thing.

If you want a "no faith required" gig try here...

http://en.wikiped...osticism
earls
2.9 / 5 (9) Mar 04, 2009
What would constitute the presence of a god? If those requirements are not met, then for all intents and purposes, there is not a god.

Certainly, you can always retreat into your den of elitist agnosticism and gallop about on your high horse of irrefutable logic, but that doesn't bring the existence of a god any closer to being, and without being, there is no being.

It's beyond me that the existence of a "perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe" is a seriously debated question.

Regardless, I recognize the validity of agnosticism. Betrand Russell sums me up:

"As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods."

I apologize for interjecting and adding to this nonsensical off-topic shitfest when a perfectly fantastic article about an exceptionally important aspect of reality is the true subject.
ontheinternets
1.8 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2009
People who go to church don't find it 'real' on all levels anyway, regardless of what is said. The word faith is used in recognition of such matters. Intelligent religious people can find humor in the Mark Twain (typo-ed as "Twian" above) quote as much as anyone, as for all practical purposes, it is true by definition. It's fun to be a quirky bastard sometimes, and it's even respectable.

This isn't intended as a defense or attack on religion. I just don't think the quip/joke the instigated this was particularly offensive to the many whom have thought these things through.. and through.. and through.
Modernmystic
1.3 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2009
People who go to church don't find it 'real' on all levels anyway, regardless of what is said. The word faith is used in recognition of such matters. Intelligent religious people can find humor in the Mark Twain (typo-ed as "Twian" above) quote as much as anyone, as for all practical purposes, it is true by definition. It's fun to be a quirky bastard sometimes, and it's even respectable.

This isn't intended as a defense or attack on religion. I just don't think the quip/joke the instigated this was particularly offensive to the many whom have thought these things through.. and through.. and through.


I think "The Life of Brian", and "The Holy Grail" by good old Monty are two of the funniest movies I've ever seen.

And I just do think the joke that instigated this warranted the reaction it got...

It's the difference between racial jokes made in Mel Brooks movies and those made by the KKK. Sorry of that little subtlety is lost on you.
ontheinternets
3 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2009
I guess given the response, it's apparent that it did get a reaction this time.. so it would be hopeless for me to argue that it was entirely inoffensive. I'd just say that I'd like to see more people mind their own reaction rather than feeling that it's a virtue to speak up (and escalate) in defense of hypothetical offended people. This sort of nonsense goes on too much in this culture.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2009
I guess given the response, it's apparent that it did get a reaction this time.. so it would be hopeless for me to argue that it was entirely inoffensive. I'd just say that I'd like to see more people mind their own reaction rather than feeling that it's a virtue to speak up (and escalate) in defense of hypothetical offended people. This sort of nonsense goes on too much in this culture.


I think your post was largely inoffensive, at least I can tell that's how it was intended.

The difference between your post and the post in question was in fact just that, intent.

If the intent was to inspire all people, especially those who are religious to laugh then a sincere APOLOGY would have been given. Yet what was given was this...

"Glad I could bait you in though."


A person knows when they're being laughed with, and laughed at...
itistoday
1 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2009
Can... you guys just stop the bitching? Or is that too much to ask?
Keter
1 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2009
LariAnn had a good point that pretty much cuts to the chase: it may not be possible to really define local or real.

I like loopholes like that. They make the "impossible" possible.

Peace out, y'all.
out7x
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2009
these postings are an embarrassment to science.
Noumenon
1.2 / 5 (22) Mar 05, 2009
LariAnn -
%u2026 While real, it may not be what we think it is . . .


In fact it cannot be what we think it is. It%u2019s not rational to think that what we call the phenomenal world is the entire reality. The phenomenal world is dressed in concepts dependant on evolved mental %u2018design%u2019, %u2026.reality is conformed within these limited paradigms, so the mind adds itself to this reality and is a part of it. There is no reason to think that reality, as it is in itself apart from an observer, noumenal reality, is comprehensible. We can wrap a working mathematical formulation around observables with success, but it doesn%u2019t mean we understand QM it at all, %u2026because %u2018understanding%u2019 requires the concepts I mentioned previously.

Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2009
DozerIAm

Or, you could all drop this bickering and discuss the article.


Unfortunately the article was nearly content free.

Vague statements like

they used two thermal states macroscopically distinguishable but quantum mechanically entangled,


Something there is entangled but I think it was the attempt at communication with the readers. How the hell does anyone manage to entangle thermal states? Its hard enough to entangle electrons long enough to bother with. Thermal state of what? Tested how. With what? Inquiring minds want to know.

Ethelred
superhuman
2.5 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2009
Interesting thing is that those who use the term bigot to attack others are by definition bigots themselves.

Tolerance is often misunderstood and taken way too far, being quiet when someone makes nonsensical claims, is anything but commendable. No one should be abused physically for their beliefs but that's it. Healthy society requires that people be able to speak their minds freely about any belief they find absurd, ignorant or downright stupid, as long as they are civil and open to arguments it's beneficial to everyone involved.

In the end any defense based on accusations of bigotry only shows you lacks the skills needed to mount a proper one or the position is undefendable to begin with.
Modernmystic
1.3 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2009
Interesting thing is that those who use the term bigot to attack others are by definition bigots themselves.

Tolerance is often misunderstood and taken way too far, being quiet when someone makes nonsensical claims, is anything but commendable. No one should be abused physically for their beliefs but that's it. Healthy society requires that people be able to speak their minds freely about any belief they find absurd, ignorant or downright stupid, as long as they are civil and open to arguments it's beneficial to everyone involved.

In the end any defense based on accusations of bigotry only shows you lacks the skills needed to mount a proper one or the position is undefendable to begin with.


*claps*

My what a good apologist for intolerance and ignorance. The way you set up that strawman and knocked it down earns you a blackbelt in meaningless debate!

See there, and I thought in today's modern society one didn't need to justify the ridicucle of bigoted statements, or "mount a defense" for pointing out how intolerance and bigotry is wrong headed, and well frankly stupid.

The Grand Wizard would be proud grasshopper.
insectking
1.3 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2009
these postings are an embarrassment to science.


And, of course, being an old and distinguished -- and some would say crusty -- gentleman, science needs to get a little red-faced sometimes.

Anyway, wasn't Bell's Theorem of nonlocal quantum entanglement already proven a while ago? Petty semantics aside, what was worth reading in this article?
superhuman
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2009
See there, and I thought in today's modern society one didn't need to justify the ridicucle of bigoted statements, or "mount a defense" for pointing out how intolerance and bigotry is wrong headed, and well frankly stupid.


Well, I see you have got an impression that bashing others as bigots is fine but did you ever actually think about it?
You don't seem to realize the term itself has almost no real meaning, it's just a cheap excuse for an argument. Here take another look at the definition you yourself linked:

"bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion"

According to this definition anyone who is intolerant of something can be called a bigot. People critical of Nazism are bigots as are those against terror, critics of pedophilia, slavery, etc. They are all bigots if you happen to hold particular beliefs. Now would you still claim those bigots deserve to be ridiculed and "their intolerance and bigotry is wrong headed, and well frankly stupid"?

Tolerance is not all good, the world is not all black and white.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2009
See there, and I thought in today's modern society one didn't need to justify the ridicucle of bigoted statements, or "mount a defense" for pointing out how intolerance and bigotry is wrong headed, and well frankly stupid.


Well, I see you have got an impression that bashing others as bigots is fine but did you ever actually think about it?
You don't seem to realize the term itself has almost no real meaning, it's just a cheap excuse for an argument. Here take another look at the definition you yourself linked:

"bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion"

According to this definition anyone who is intolerant of something can be called a bigot. People critical of Nazism are bigots as are those against terror, critics of pedophilia, slavery, etc. They are all bigots if you happen to hold particular beliefs. Now would you still claim those bigots deserve to be ridiculed and "their intolerance and bigotry is wrong headed, and well frankly stupid"?


Tolerance is not all good, the world is not all black and white.


So not only do you have the strawman argument down pat, but the "blame the victim", and apples and oranges variety down too..

Super, your posts on this subject are so blatantly REACHING as to be utterly meaningless.

But by all means continue to call people who oppose bigotry bigots...pfft.
latersville
3 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2009
God raped Mary.
Noumenon
1.2 / 5 (22) Mar 05, 2009
LOL , instigator, Lol
VOR
2.5 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2009
"Prove there isn't a God... " is a very tired and just plain stupid argument. Saying that something, undetectable by definition, cannot be disproved is absolutely ZERO proof or argument that it exists. Its a waste of time and just shows your ignorance, weakening your argument. "'Faith' is believing in something you know isn't true." is not far from entirely accurate. Faith is believing in something when there is NO good reason to do so, to perhaps enable some alternate mental state. Believers should stop arguing that God exists, but simply that thier faith serves a purpose. "Dont ask dont tell" -dont claim god exists and those of us unable to suspend our reasoning capacity wont have to keep reminding you that you make no sense. Besides, its faith that has all the power, not god. (chew on that last one for a while)
Modernmystic
1.1 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2009
"Prove there isn't a God... " is a very tired and just plain stupid argument. Saying that something, undetectable by definition, cannot be disproved is absolutely ZERO proof or argument that it exists. Its a waste of time and just shows your ignorance, weakening your argument. "'Faith' is believing in something you know isn't true." is not far from entirely accurate. Faith is believing in something when there is NO good reason to do so, to perhaps enable some alternate mental state. Believers should stop arguing that God exists, but simply that thier [sic] faith serves a purpose. "Dont ask dont tell" -dont claim god exists and those of us unable to suspend our reasoning capacity wont have to keep reminding you that you make no sense. Besides, its faith that has all the power, not god. (chew on that last one for a while)


BHAHAhaahahhahahahahahahhahhahaaa!

Was there a point in that tired old diatribe?

You think you're saying something NEW?

The FACT is that until you can state as a FACT that there is no God (which you CAN'T) and insist that there isn't one you've got just as much faith as a bible thumpin minister. (chew on that last one for a while).

Don't bother VOR, people with arguments VASTLY superior to yours have tried to save atheism from it's faith based pillar and failed miserably. Believe me you aren't the "chosen one" who's going to convince the agnostics that their rock solid logic is flawed and convert them to atheisty.
superhuman
2.4 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2009
So not only do you have the strawman argument down pat, but the "blame the victim", and apples and oranges variety down too..

It seems you don't realize those are not valid counterarguments unless you are able to show they apply.

Super, your posts on this subject are so blatantly REACHING as to be utterly meaningless.

I used arguments which make the point easy to understand - being tolerant is not always the right thing to do, it all depends on circumstances.

But by all means continue to call people who oppose bigotry bigots...pfft.

It's your favorite ad hominem not mine, you managed to use it 18 times on this page only! I just wanted to point out the term is completely subjective and therefore pretty meaningless as an argument. But as you yourself discovered it sure works well as an all purpose insult for those who don't share your views, it is also fitting that the word originated from ethnic slur.
Necrophage
1.3 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2009
"Something there is entangled but I think it was the attempt at communication with the readers. How the hell does anyone manage to entangle thermal states? Its hard enough to entangle electrons long enough to bother with. Thermal state of what? Tested how. With what? Inquiring minds want to know."

I Have to say this was the most telling and insightful observation on this article. NOt being a physicist myself, doesn't mean I have to accept their "experiments" and assertions without proper substantiation.
superhuman
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2009
Prove there isn't a God...

You are doing it wrong!

It's completely futile to operate on principle that everything exist unless proven otherwise. It is of course impossible to carry out any proof of non existence.

Instead rational beings work in the other direction - assume that only those things exist whose existence can be empirically verified.
Mayday
2.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2009
I have renewed faith that this is a good way to destroy a formerly good comments log: Introduce a random, irrelevant, but imflammatory subject and let those with nothing better to do beat the page to death.
Okay, UNCLE. OKAY?? UN CLE ! You won! Whoopie!!
This once was a good site, but being unsupervised, the blog-clogging ranters have taken over.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2009
SH you can continue to convince yourself that there is no such thing as a bigot, or that there is no concept of bigotry if you want or need to...but you sure as hell aren't going to sell that load and expect ME to buy it...

Instead rational beings work in the other direction - assume that only those things exist whose existence can be empirically verified.


They actually don't go around saying they KNOW things don't exist without a doubt when they don't have a SHRED of evidence to back it up either..
Modernmystic
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2009
I have renewed faith that this is a good way to destroy a formerly good comments log: Introduce a random, irrelevant, but imflammatory subject and let those with nothing better to do beat the page to death.
Okay, UNCLE. OKAY?? UN CLE ! You won! Whoopie!!
This once was a good site, but being unsupervised, the blog-clogging ranters have taken over.


Oh I was willing to stop at the first response, still am...however my days of letting this kind of narrow minded bullying slide on threads where people should NEVER EVEN MENTIONED it in the first place are O V E R.

You'll either get over it, or if you don't you'll eventually learn to live with it...
latersville
1 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2009
You go, Torquemada!
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2009
You go, Torquemada!


You too Stalin!
random
1 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2009
true scientists you lot, not willing to let a single argument go unchallenged. this is the price we pay for our dedication to the truth
superhuman
3.2 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2009
They actually don't go around saying they KNOW things don't exist without a doubt when they don't have a SHRED of evidence to back it up either..


It cannot be proven but there does exist some indirect evidence which weighs heavily on the probability of existence of God.

First of all even if there is no direct evidence it is often possible to roughly estimate the probability of existence based on a number of factors, the most important of them is similarity to things which are already known to exist.

For example consider some mythical creature, the more similar it is to known animals the higher the probability that it did live. If it is claimed to be 100 meters high it's much more likely to be a legend then if it is claimed to be 10 meters high.

Now we can apply the same thinking to the concept of God and when we do we find out that it is *completely alien* to our reality, there is nothing even remotely similar which could signal that there is some truth to the concept. To date science has made great many discoveries and not a single one of them even hinted that the concept of God somehow belongs to reality, all this indirectly disapproves the existence of God.

On the other hand there is a very rational explanation for the existence of God as a myth, the concept has all the elements we could expect from a personification of human desires, fears and ambitions, it serves as a perfect tool for maintaining social order and we also know that humans produced countless Gods during just a few thousand years of history.

In other words when we treat God as a myth everything fits together very well but when we try to make it a part of physical reality it all falls apart and nothing makes sense anymore. The countless internal conflicts and contradictions of the God concept itself further reinforce this perception.

So in the end considering there is not a shred of evidence for existence of God, that there is significant indirect evidence to the contrary and that there is a very simple and highly probable explanation for God as just a myth, any rational person can only conclude that the probability a real God does exist is *vanishingly small*, so small that it can be safely assumed to be zero.
Modernmystic
1.1 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2009
They actually don't go around saying they KNOW things don't exist without a doubt when they don't have a SHRED of evidence to back it up either..


It cannot be proven but there does exist some indirect evidence which weighs heavily on the probability of existence of God.

First of all even if there is no direct evidence it is often possible to roughly estimate the probability of existence based on a number of factors, the most important of them is similarity to things which are already known to exist.

For example consider some mythical creature, the more similar it is to known animals the higher the probability that it did live. If it is claimed to be 100 meters high it's much more likely to be a legend then if it is claimed to be 10 meters high.

Now we can apply the same thinking to the concept of God and when we do we find out that it is *completely alien* to our reality, there is nothing even remotely similar which could signal that there is some truth to the concept. To date science has made great many discoveries and not a single one of them even hinted that the concept of God somehow belongs to reality, all this indirectly disapproves the existence of God.

On the other hand there is a very rational explanation for the existence of God as a myth, the concept has all the elements we could expect from a personification of human desires, fears and ambitions, it serves as a perfect tool for maintaining social order and we also know that humans produced countless Gods during just a few thousand years of history.

In other words when we treat God as a myth everything fits together very well but when we try to make it a part of physical reality it all falls apart and nothing makes sense anymore. The countless internal conflicts and contradictions of the God concept itself further reinforce this perception.

So in the end considering there is not a shred of evidence for existence of God, that there is significant indirect evidence to the contrary and that there is a very simple and highly probable explanation for God as just a myth, any rational person can only conclude that the probability a real God does exist is *vanishingly small*, so small that it can be safely assumed to be zero.



Looked really hard in that text wall and still didn't find anything that proved God does not exist...

Go fish.
Noumenon
1.1 / 5 (23) Mar 05, 2009
@super,etc
It is clear with our limited concepts that even QM is not comprehensible, and you want to rationalize about God?! While i'm an agnostic , the idea of a God at least suggests itself by the existance of things of purposeful form, while an 'flying spaghetti monstor' is completely empty and would not have manifested itself across the planet as the idea of God has done. You can't know God positively nor in a negative sense.
earls
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2009
I'm God. Can't prove I'm not.
earls
1 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2009
Mmm, I don't think Mikey likes the taste of that cereal.
Ethelred
2.9 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2009
God raped Mary.


Troll raped the thread. Not that the hotheads weren't doing that already.

Besides your wrong. If either Mary consented or Jehovah doesn't exist then there was no rape. Heck Jehovah could exist and Mary could have been kidding being a virgin and then there would still be no rape.

Any way its put it YOU are still mentally challenged.

Ethelred
srikkanth_kn
1 / 5 (1) Mar 06, 2009
Its too early to mix science and religion. Or.. may be too late
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2009
What would constitute the presence of a god?


That would depend on who is doing the definition. Any sufficiently vaguely defined god cannot be disproved.

Certainly, you can always retreat into your den of elitist agnosticism and gallop about on your high horse of irrefutable logic, but that doesn't bring the existence of a god any closer to being, and without being, there is no being.


That made no sense. Perhaps you have a bizarre and purely personal definition of Agnostic. Since agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve why the heck did you even use the word in that otherwise agnostic free sentence?

It's beyond me that the existence of a "perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe" is a seriously debated question.


There isn't much to debate. It either exists or it doesn't and there isn't any evidence either way since perfect is in the eye of the definer and the rest don't make any requirements on the universe that could provide proof of the god's existence.

Regardless, I recognize the validity of agnosticism. Betrand Russell sums me up:


You would do better to let him do all the talking. You really need to work on the clarity of your writing.

Generally Atheists believe there is no god. Which is not quite the same as not believing in a god. When pressed in an interview Richard Dawkins did admit to the possibility of a god's existence so I would call him a soft Atheist or an Agnostic by the standards of many. For reasons I have trouble understanding some self named Atheists have a bug up their ass about the term Agnostic. My guess is anger at religion.

I call myself Agnostic but Fundamentalists of all sorts tend to call me an Atheist. Now Madeline Murry O'Hare was what I would call a full on Atheist.

If Russel couldn't disprove the Homeric gods he wasn't trying hard enough. All right maybe I couldn't do either since there they tend to have confusing and contradictory characteristics with nothing solidly testable.

Jehovah on the other hand is generally testable. The Fundamentalist Jehovah does not exist. We simply do not live in the world that is described in Genesis. That gets me called an Atheist quite often.

I apologize for interjecting and adding to this nonsensical off-topic shitfest when a perfectly fantastic article about an exceptionally important aspect of reality is the true subject.


It was a crappy article. That may be reason the shit fest broke out.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2009
So in the end considering there is not a shred of evidence for existence of God,


True.

that there is significant indirect evidence to the contrary


Very questionable. The logic behind that was dubious because you admitted that the whole concept is alien to the human experience (real experience as opposed to myth and legend).

and that there is a very simple and highly probable explanation for God as just a myth,


For some kinds of god. Deism is not a myth. It may be wrong but there is no mythical thinking involved.

any rational person can only conclude that the probability a real God does exist is *vanishingly small*, so small that it can be safely assumed to be zero.


I am rational. Exceeding so. I disagree. There is simply no way to establish the probability of something that is posited to exist outside of the Universe unless you can show how it MUST have some effect.

My thinking on the concept of gods is why would someone come up with the idea IF they had never been exposed to the concept. I don't see any reason myself and those that claim otherwise appear to be influenced by their contact with those that are religious.

Look into your mind and see if there is a residue of being irked at the god you grew up with. Are you like C.S. Lewis, a once self-described Atheist, because he was pissed off at his god? I cannot be angry at something that isn't real for doing things that never happened. I guess people like Lewis and O'Hare are part of the reason I don't call myself an Atheist. The rest is that the definition of Agnostic fits better.

Ethelred
superhuman
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2009
Looked really hard in that text wall and still didn't find anything that proved God does not exist...

I certainly didn't expect to convince you, I just wanted to clarify rational atheism.

@super,etc
It is clear with our limited concepts that even QM is not comprehensible, and you want to rationalize about God?!

Since I consider God a human product I believe it is much more tractable then QM. (I also suspect QM will become much more rational as soon as a proper model is found)

While i'm an agnostic , the idea of a God at least suggests itself by the existance of things of purposeful form, while an 'flying spaghetti monstor' is completely empty and would not have manifested itself across the planet as the idea of God has done. You can't know God positively nor in a negative sense.


For me the idea of God is just as empty, yes there is problem of existence but why double it creating God? If anything it's much better to leave the original "form which exists" and study it. This is more or less what science is doing.

In other words while I agree that there mysteries the biggest one being the existence itself and the existence of consciousness, but I don't see God helping explain them in any way, actualy to the contrary, I see him as an attempt to dumb down those concepts to make them less unnerving.

that there is significant indirect evidence to the contrary

Very questionable. The logic behind that was dubious because you admitted that the whole concept is alien to the human experience (real experience as opposed to myth and legend).

Do you agree that the more similar something is to our experience the higher the chances for it's existence?
If you do then it follows that the more alien a concept is to human experience the less likely it is to exist.

and that there is a very simple and highly probable explanation for God as just a myth,

For some kinds of god. Deism is not a myth. It may be wrong but there is no mythical thinking involved.

To me Deism looks like a "stripped down and rationalized" version of a God myth, while the principle that "The belief that reason, not faith, leads us to certain basic religious truths" is commendable it it still didn't stop it from reaching conclusions like "god wants human beings to behave morally" and "human beings have souls that survive death; that is, there is an afterlife," two telltale signs of a mythical origin. (quotes from wiki)

In general my point is that all religions have a very utilitarian and man-centered origin and their Gods are defined by needs of the men, what men don't understand they ascribe to God.
any rational person can only conclude that the probability a real God does exist is *vanishingly small*, so small that it can be safely assumed to be zero.

I am rational. Exceeding so. I disagree. There is simply no way to establish the probability of something that is posited to exist outside of the Universe unless you can show how it MUST have some effect.
I was talking about God that DOES exist in the world. How would you estimate the chances that God as described in the bible really does exists in our world? This is the probability I am talking about.

Now as for Gods who only exist outside of our universe such Gods do not exist by definition. As I stated above, rational beings assume that only entities for which there is empirical evidence do exist, any other position admits existence of everything you can think of and the term "existence" becomes completely meaningless.
superhuman
not rated yet Mar 06, 2009
I messed quotation in the paragraph before the last one: from "I am rational...". to "...some effect." is a quote from Ethelred post.
latersville
1 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2009
God raped Mary.


Troll raped the thread. Not that the hotheads weren't doing that already.

Besides your wrong. If either Mary consented or Jehovah doesn't exist then there was no rape. Heck Jehovah could exist and Mary could have been kidding being a virgin and then there would still be no rape.

Any way its put it YOU are still mentally challenged.

Ethelred


You are saying that Mary was capable of giving informed consent, or did he slip it to her one night while she was sleeping? Maybe 'virgin birth' is a polite way of saying that god needs some Enzyte.
superhuman
5 / 5 (1) Mar 06, 2009
My thinking on the concept of gods is why would someone come up with the idea IF they had never been exposed to the concept. I don't see any reason myself and those that claim otherwise appear to be influenced by their contact with those that are religious.


I see very good reasons, it's an abstraction of a pack leader concept combined with personification of nature to some extent. We are after all descendants of pack animals.

First powerful individuals were revered after their deaths as ancestors, as the tribes grew it was harder to keep track of all of them so they were turned into local deities (which were also easier to impose on others then ancestors). Then human population grew again and it was soon apparent that there are so many tribes and each has a different deity, this naturally made the concept less powerful since why were those who pray to wrong gods not punished by the real ones? So eventually the concept got reformed again into a monotheistic religion.

There is plenty of evidence for various stages of this process, and it all makes perfect sense to me.

Look into your mind and see if there is a residue of being irked at the god you grew up with.

Nah, luckily I didn't grow up with any god.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2009

Nah, luckily I didn't grow up with any god.



Did you grow up on Mars, or are you actually suggesting that your culture didn't have any effect on your development?

If you grew up on planet Earth you grew up with God in some form and in some way...sorry.
earls
1 / 5 (1) Mar 06, 2009
^ Typical, religion forced upon others.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (18) Mar 06, 2009
[Quote Noumenon] It is clear with our limited concepts that even QM is not comprehensible, and you want to rationalize about God?!

[Quote SuperH:] Since I consider God a human product I believe it is much more tractable then QM. (I also suspect QM will become much more rational as soon as a proper model is found)


You think God is much more tractable than QM, because you presuppose God to be a human invention before hand,... only then do you apply your reason. You have the cart before the horse.

SuperH; As I stated above, rational beings assume that only entities for which there is empirical evidence do exist, any other position admits existence of everything you can think of and the term "existence" becomes completely meaningless.


But empirical evidence would only exist for phenomenal reality, which by definition and implication, is only that scope of reality conformed by the functioning of a 3 lb piece of highly evolved meat. One can state Rationally that phenomenal reality must be a subset of the entire of reality, merely since it is conditioned by a mind, a limited device which must use concepts that are in effect 'man made', a priori. We have rational reasons to think things beyond the purely empirical, in fact we cannot reproduce reality as it is within mental constructs, so right there we see an edge where rationally existence must be beyond.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2009
^ Typical, religion forced upon others.


Yeah about as much as atheism is (another part of our culutre), or rock music.

Really earls, why not go to the corner with the other children who haven't learned to color inside the lines either and leave the important stuff to the adults.

Aren't you supposed to be above all this anyway? Where did your reluctance to post on this thread go??
superhuman
3 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2009
Nah, luckily I didn't grow up with any god.
Did you grow up on Mars, or are you actually suggesting that your culture didn't have any effect on your development?

If you grew up on planet Earth you grew up with God in some form and in some way...sorry.

I find it pretty amusing that you think it's not even possible.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2009
I find it pretty amusing that you think it's not even possible.



Have you heard of rock music? Ate at McDonalds? I suppose it's not possible, but since you knew about the concept of God before you posted on this thread then YES at least in your case by definition it's impossible that you weren't influenced in some way by the concept.

Kind of a no-brainer...

Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2009
Make that second sentence "I suppose it's not IMpossible"...

Sorry, edit time ran out.
earls
5 / 5 (1) Mar 06, 2009
go to the corner with the other children


I can't think of anything more childish than belief in a god... So the corner is all theirs!
superhuman
4.3 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2009
You think God is much more tractable than QM, because you presuppose God to be a human invention before hand,... only then do you apply your reason. You have the cart before the horse.

But god is a human product in that it is completely *defined* by humans no physical phenomena play any role in that definition. QM is much less tractable cause it is basically defined by experiments.

But empirical evidence would only exist for phenomenal reality, which by definition and implication, is only that scope of reality conformed by the functioning of a 3 lb piece of highly evolved meat. One can state Rationally that phenomenal reality must be a subset of the entire of reality, merely since it is conditioned by a mind, a limited device which must use concepts that are in effect 'man made', a priori. We have rational reasons to think things beyond the purely empirical, in fact we cannot reproduce reality as it is within mental constructs, so right there we see an edge where rationally existence must be beyond.


Not one mind but billions of them we also have our sophisticated (to us at least) tools plus we can use inference and induction, its not so bad.

Things for which it all fails, for which we are unable to come up with even a shred of evidence for their existence should be, and are, considered as non-existing, any other position would make the term "existence" completely meaningless, do you think it would be a better solution?
superhuman
not rated yet Mar 06, 2009
it's impossible that you weren't influenced in some way by the concept.

I think it's pretty obvious what I meant when I said I didn't grow up with any god - just as my parents, I never considered such concepts anything more then a myth.

Would you say you grew up with Greek gods because you learned about them in school or read about them in a book? Don't think so.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2009
it's impossible that you weren't influenced in some way by the concept.

I think it's pretty obvious what I meant when I said I didn't grow up with any god - just as my parents, I never considered such concepts anything more then a myth.



As I though it was obvious what Eth was getting at. My point wasn't that you couldn't have "grew up with God" per se, my point is that it's entirely possible that you got irked at the concept of God as you most surely encountered it in your culture...ESPECIALLY if you "grew up without him".

My point was more that you missed his point, not that you grew up in thus and so a way.
Noumenon
1.2 / 5 (21) Mar 06, 2009
[SuperH:] Things for which it all fails, for which we are unable to come up with even a shred of evidence for their existence should be, and are, considered as non-existing, ...


This is simply not true in regard to non-existence. You cannot by any means rationally regard things unknown even in principal, as 'non-existing'. To do so is to make a conclusive statement about things for which you admit is unknowable.

I don't get the sense that you got my point above, which is very subtle. It doesn't matter how many minds, we are talking about,.. the point is by virtue of subjecting reality to conditions of understanding (inherent in mind itself, not any particular one) you in fact delimit reality to the subset of reality we call phenomenal world. The point is, it is rationally possible to recognize the existence of a delimited reality and thus by implication a larger whole,.. although naturally it is in principal unknowable, as is God.

superhuman
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2009
This is simply not true in regard to non-existence. You cannot by any means rationally regard things unknown even in principal, as 'non-existing'. To do so is to make a conclusive statement about things for which you admit is unknowable.

It all depends on how you define "non-existence", I provided my definition, and in it all things which are completely unknowable do not exist. Sure its not perfect but no human concept is. Since you are obviously using a different definition you have to provide it for any meaningful discussion, so how do you define "non-existence"?

I don't get the sense that you got my point above, which is very subtle. It doesn't matter how many minds, we are talking about,.. the point is by virtue of subjecting reality to conditions of understanding (inherent in mind itself, not any particular one) you in fact delimit reality to the subset of reality we call phenomenal world. The point is, it is rationally possible to recognize the existence of a delimited reality and thus by implication a larger whole,.. although naturally it is in principal unknowable, as is God.

I do get your point but you ignore the fact that reality is accessible to our tools also and they are not limited by understanding. For example we are incapable of seeing ultraviolet light but that doesn't mean it's existence is impossible to prove. This is why I don't believe our understanding and mental constructs limit us as much as you imply.
thales
1 / 5 (1) Mar 06, 2009
It seems to me that much of the disagreement about God in this thread is very likely due to different views on what this word means.

At the risk of sounding like a moderator wannabe, I would suggest that Mr. Mystic and Mr. Human submit their respective definitions of "God". At least then we can have some common ground for this discussion.
superhuman
not rated yet Mar 06, 2009
It seems to me that much of the disagreement about God in this thread is very likely due to different views on what this word means.

At the risk of sounding like a moderator wannabe, I would suggest that Mr. Mystic and Mr. Human submit their respective definitions of "God". At least then we can have some common ground for this discussion.


I am afraid I have already spent too much time on this thread so I'd rather not get any deeper into the discussion, my views should be pretty clear by now and I didn't expect to convince anybody anyway.
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2009
It seems to me that much of the disagreement about God in this thread is very likely due to different views on what this word means.

At the risk of sounding like a moderator wannabe, I would suggest that Mr. Mystic and Mr. Human submit their respective definitions of "God". At least then we can have some common ground for this discussion.


I am afraid I have already spent too much time on this thread so I'd rather not get any deeper into the discussion, my views should be pretty clear by now and I didn't expect to convince anybody anyway.


For once we're in total agreement...
The_Lord
3 / 5 (8) Mar 06, 2009
You talk to much about Me. It's boring.
nilbud
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2009
All religion is a filthy lie and a con trick and anyone who purports to believe in "god" is a liar. Liars are scum.
If you have given yourself brain damage or are insane and actually think any of that mumbo jumbo horseshit might possibly have a grain of truth in it, keep it to yourself.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2009
Do you agree that the more similar something is to our experience the higher the chances for it's existence?


The higher the chance of understanding.

If you do then it follows that the more alien a concept is to human experience the less likely it is to exist.


Even if the first were true that does not make the reverse true considering that there is no way to test such a thing.

That line of reasoning seems exceeding close to Dembski's attempts to call the information in DNA the result of an Intelligence because ALL other information we have is from human intelligence. It is dubious at best, to apply what we know about things we can test, to things we cannot even discern.

http://en.wikiped...mplexity

Since I disagree with Dembski I am going to disagree with what you said.

To me Deism looks like a "stripped down and rationalized" version of a God myth,


I am speaking of the idea that there is a creator or a creating principle and that it left things alone after getting the Universe started. That became popular during the Age of Enlightenment. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist for instance. I think he waffled a lot on it but I haven't looked into it.

reaching conclusions like "god wants human beings to behave morally"


I don't think that has to follow from the first principle. I suppose many Deists may think that way but I had never come across it before. I can't see any reason for that conclusion myself. Perhaps Darwin put a crimp that sort of thinking. Evolution by natural selection is a nasty way to improve things so I couldn't call a god that did things that way moral. Biological experimentation is sometimes hard to justify on any morale grounds except that of necessity for the improvement of the general human condition.

I was talking about God that DOES exist in the world.


But that is not the god of all believers. Most yes.

How would you estimate the chances that God as described in the bible really does exists in our world? This is the probability I am talking about.


Depends on how much a person insists that the Bible is true. Many don't really believe in the Old Testament as being much more than some history and stories that were never meant to be literally true. The literalists are definitely wrong. There is only one way they could be right. To have a god that created the Earth to look exactly unlike the world in Genesis. In that case how could anyone know whether it was the world or the book that was the lie. I haven't met a believer yet that wanted to touch that one.

What you are doing is setting up a false dichotomy and then using this dubious set up to claim a near zero chance. I don't like dichotomies that are both false and unstated. If you want to go down that route you must it clear that you are only dealing with a mainstream god and not all possible gods. Otherwise you being deceptive even if only to yourself.

Yes, I am a hardcore Agnostic.

Now as for Gods who only exist outside of our universe such Gods do not exist by definition


Argument by Definition, is a favorite fundamentalist technique. Stop that nasty habit in its tracks.

A god that created the universe MUST intrinsically be able to, or at least have been able to, exist outside the Universe. The basic concept of a GOD like the modern idea of Jehovah or Allah as opposed to a god like Zeus or Thor is that it must transcend the Universe.

How to tick off a Fundamentalist. Point out that the 10 Commandments does NOT say:

Thou shalt have no false Gods before Me

It says

Thou shalt have no OTHER Gods before Me

In Exodus there a number of places where it is quite clear that Jehovah believed in other gods. That is one reason I said 'modern idea of Jehovah'.

As I stated above, rational beings assume that only entities for which there is empirical evidence do exist,


There is no empirical evidence for the existence of Jesus outside the Bible. Not a single sign from the period in which he was supposed to have lived. Only from after. Josephus wasn't even born until after Jesus is supposed to have been crucified.

I repeat I am rational. I disagree with that statement. I assume a lot of things. Which is not the same as believing in them except as a tentative thing. Again you are creating false dichotomies. People can be rational and yet believe in things for which there is as yet no evidence. Much of scientific advancement has depended on men that were certain that there were answers and that THEY had the right answer despite a lack of evidence. Most of the time the ideas came first and the math came second. The math rarely gets done except by believers. Look at the String Hypothesis for instance, the believers even call it a theory.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2009
You are saying that Mary was capable of giving informed consent,


No, I only gave it as a possibility.

Trolling, trolling, trolling down the river.

or did he slip it to her one night while she was sleeping?


That would be rape. I was discussing how that sort of posting just might possibly qualify as a troll.

Maybe 'virgin birth' is a polite way of saying that god needs some Enzyte.


You watch too much commercial television. It has clearly rotted your brain to the point that you are indistinguishable from a troll.

Have you begun to notice that sunlight is painful yet? If not then it may not be too late. A quick application of Hemlock to the member that is doing the thinking may save the brain from further deterioration.

Hemlock(tm) the all natural supplement. Guaranteed to end all your health worries.*

*not to taken in conjunction with strychnine or belladonna. Consult your doctor before engaging in any diet. Peanuts are sometimes processed on the same equipment.

copyright

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2009
I see very good reasons, it's an abstraction of a pack leader concept combined with personification of nature to some extent.


I wasn't talking about how it came about in the first place. I was supposing a tabula rasa. Singular.

Nah, luckily I didn't grow up with any god.


You may still be ticked off at the neighbor kids then.

'Superhuman is an Atheist. He doesn't go to church. Superhuman is an Untermensch he is going to burn in Hell.'

Yes I can see it all now. With no Jews to blame for killing Jesus in your area you became the butt of all religious intolerance. Even now when you go drinking with Harlan Ellison you tell him that he didn't have it half as rough as you. How could being the only Jew in town be as bad as being the only one that was an UNBELIEVER. Why even the Jews would beat up on you just to evade Harlan's fate.

OK maybe I have the sleepless sillies.

Ethelred
AdseculaScientiae
2 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2009
superhuman
3 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2009
If you do then it follows that the more alien a concept is to human experience the less likely it is to exist.

Even if the first were true that does not make the reverse true considering that there is no way to test such a thing.

It does. The more outrageous the claims the less probable the are, it has been tested countless times.

Now as for Gods who only exist outside of our universe such Gods do not exist by definition

Argument by Definition, is a favorite fundamentalist technique. Stop that nasty habit in its tracks.

If you discard definitions any debate is *completely* pointless.

A god that created the universe MUST intrinsically be able to, or at least have been able to, exist outside the Universe. The basic concept of a GOD like the modern idea of Jehovah or Allah as opposed to a god like Zeus or Thor is that it must transcend the Universe.

"Exist outside the Universe", "transcend the Universe," can you even define these concepts? I don't think so. This is where rational thought took "real" biblical god, it exiled him from this world into a completely artificial and undefined concept.

For me such god does not exist, there is only one source of existence - physical reality, anything which can't be traced to it does not exist, if you don't agree then you need to state your definition of existence and non-existence just as I stated mine, otherwise we won't be able to get any further.

There is also the question why would someone even create or care about a concept which has no relation to physical world at all? The only reason I can think of would be to somehow justify existence of the world itself but as I already stated I believe it's much better to leave the mystery of existence where it originates - in the physical world itself - instead of somehow transferring it to an ill-defined artificial concept of "creator" which does not even belong to this world. How is this supposed to help?

So since the concept fails to explain anything or have any relevance whatsoever I find it completely meaningless and believe it should be surrendered to the ultimate power of the rational mind - Occham's Razor.

As I stated above, rational beings assume that only entities for which there is empirical evidence do exist,

I repeat I am rational. I disagree with that statement. I assume a lot of things. Which is not the same as believing in them except as a tentative thing. Again you are creating false dichotomies.

But we are talking about assuming *existence*, if you assume existence of things for which there is no evidence whatsoever you are NOT rational.

People can be rational and yet believe in things for which there is as yet no evidence.

Such beliefs are not rational, believing in things for which there is no evidence is NOT rational. Far from it.

Much of scientific advancement has depended on men that were certain that there were answers and that THEY had the right answer despite a lack of evidence.

But they usually had SOME evidence, something led them to this belief, for example they saw patterns in the data which they learned meant something. It is not the same thing as NO evidence, but if they were rational if asked they would estimate the probability of existence based on the strength of this evidence and not claim it definitely has to exist.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (23) Mar 07, 2009
... and by the same token, if you were rational, you would not claim non-existance conclusively, without proof of impossibility.

Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (22) Mar 07, 2009
[Quote Noumenon] This is simply not true in regard to non-existence. You cannot by any means rationally regard things unknown even in principal, as 'non-existing'. To do so is to make a conclusive statement about things for which you admit is unknowable.

[Quote SuperH]It all depends on how you define "non-existence", I provided my definition, and in it all things which are completely unknowable do not exist. Sure its not perfect but no human concept is. Since you are obviously using a different definition you have to provide it for any meaningful discussion, so how do you define "non-existence"?

[Quote Noumenon] I don't get the sense that you got my point above, which is very subtle. It doesn't matter how many minds, we are talking about,.. the point is by virtue of subjecting reality to conditions of understanding (inherent in mind itself, not any particular one) you in fact delimit reality to the subset of reality we call phenomenal world. The point is, it is rationally possible to recognize the existence of a delimited reality and thus by implication a larger whole,.. although naturally it is in principal unknowable, as is God.

[Quote SuperH]I do get your point but you ignore the fact that reality is accessible to our tools also and they are not limited by understanding. For example we are incapable of seeing ultraviolet light but that doesn't mean it's existence is impossible to prove. This is why I don't believe our understanding and mental constructs limit us as much as you imply.


Those tools have no bearing to the point, they are merely extensions to the senses, and since they are designed by a mind and the results of them must still be interpreted by a mind, the mind still adds the ordering structure of our conception of reality, and therefore that conception must be incomplete.

If you can recognize that existence does not depend on mental observation, in other words, that there is probably a reality independent of mind and may be inaccessible in principal due to our a-priori mental conceptions, you will see the irrationality of conclusively stating in a positive sense, that such and such does not exist.

We only have access to the phenomenal world as you agree, therefore anything outside this domain is in principal unknowable, and this is Not the same thing as saying Does Not Exist, because one can recognize that the phenomenal world is delimited by the circumstance of a mind observing which does not produce reality itself.
earls
1 / 5 (1) Mar 08, 2009
...and by the same token, if you were rational, you would not claim existence conclusively, without proof of impossibility.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2009
The more outrageous the claims the less probable the are, it has been tested countless times.


Only where testable. You seem to be having difficulty with this concept. You cannot test for a sufficiently vaguely defined god.

If you discard definitions any debate is *completely* pointless.


Obviously you don't yet understand what I am talking about.

Argument by definition is an attempt to define things instead of bothering with actually testing them.

For instance Dembski defines information as the product of intelligence instead of proving that DNA is the product of intelligence. He ignores how evolution works in that the information comes from the environment and does not need intelligence.

In this case you are defining a god as being something that exists in this universe and believers do not agree with you on that definition. Your definition is seriously faulty to them and any attempt to use it as proof is past questionable and is simply Argument By Definition.

can you even define these concepts? I don't think so


Then you need to start thinking more.

Our Universe consists of all we can see to the edge. It consists of the laws of the Universe. It does not consist of whatever may have come before the Big Bang. Anything that can create a universe is clearly something that had to exist outside the created universe. That does NOT mean that there had to actually be something.

Go read some science fiction that deals with Pocket Universes. If you create a pocket universe than you would be the god that created that universe. This does not mean that you would become omniscient or all powerful. Indeed you could be swallowed up in the creation of the pocket universe. Then you would be dead god. Towing Jehovah could become a documentary.

This is where rational thought took "real" biblical god, it exiled him from this world into a completely artificial and undefined concept.


Its defined. All knowing, all powerful and whatever else the definer thinks they can get away with. Artificial is not a problem nor accurate if the god actually exists.

For me such god does not exist, there is only one source of existence - physical reality, anything which can't be traced to it does not exist,


I think you are digging a hole there. Instead of admitting you were wrong you are just digging it deeper. Ideas often transcend physical reality. Gods are ideas first and foremost, unless of course one exists. Strained arguments like yours are usually the action of the other side in this sort of discussion.

There is also the question why would someone even create or care about a concept which has no relation to physical world at all?


No one has claimed that there is no relation with the real world.

Let me put this in more concrete terms.

An entity makes a box, out of concrete or even something less definite like a planet in a vacuum, a VERY large box. It starts up a biological environment. The life then evolves to the point where is asks questions about existence. They posit a god. That god created the world they live in. That god does not exist within that world. However that god can still observe if it chooses to. It can meddle if it choose to. It can destroy the box if it chooses to. Yet it still is outside the box. Its existence in no way depends on the box or its contents. This is basically what modern believers think even if they don't put it that way.

Unless the god actually meddles it will be impossible to tell if it exists. If it only meddles by messing with the heads of believers it will be hard for rationalists like you or me to tell that it has meddled.

How is this supposed to help?


Who said I think it helps? I am just pointing out the errors in YOUR logic in my replies to you. I am quite willing to point logical errors in the believers posts. However at present they are avoiding saying anything about concrete. Or even C14 dating of the concrete. Which would produce an invalid date since the carbon in it would not be related to the time the concrete was made.

But we are talking about assuming *existence*, if you assume existence of things for which there is no evidence whatsoever you are NOT rational.


So. They aren't rational. I thought you knew that. They can still argue logically barring the idea that the conclusions cannot be be valid if the premises are wrong. The way to deal with them is to show that they lack valid premises IF they manage to be otherwise logical. That is a rare thing. Logical believers that is. Discussing things with those few can help refine your ideas.

But they usually had SOME evidence, something led them to this belief, for example they saw patterns in the data which they learned meant something


Usually. Einstein claims he developed General Relativity from first principles.

Believers think the Universe itself constitutes proof of a creator. I think it constitutes proof of the Universe. It is difficult to decide which is right. I see no need to posit a creator as it simply adds a step while explaining nothing - Occams Razor applies here. That still does not prove that there is no creator. It is simply a logical tool for deciding between two theories. It proves neither.

For instance Non-Euclidean Geometry is more complex than Euclidean Geometry at least in that first step. More than one line vs. one line only is clearly more things. Yet Non-Euclidean Geometry is not only logically consistent it is a better match for the Universe. So Occam's Razor is a tool and not proof.

Most of the believers are not only irrational but also illogical.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2009
because one can recognize that the phenomenal world is delimited by the circumstance of a mind observing which does not produce reality itself.


Somebody has been taking New Age nonsense as if it was true. What we can test for is no way limited by what we think. It is limited by our tools but those are often capable of detecting things we never thought of. For instance micro-wave receivers were not created to detect the Cosmic Background Radiation yet they did so anyway. If what you said was true we would not be able to discover things while floundering about, as has happened many times.

Ethelred
h0dges
3 / 5 (2) Mar 08, 2009
My primary reason for not believing that there is a sentient entity that created all is that, for this entity to be sentient, it must have a beginning, and to have a beginning it must also have it's own origin/creator. This presents a cascade dependence that is an irrational assumption and clearly violates Occam's Razor. Just because it is hard to comprehend existance from nothing, doesn't mean there is any more merit 'off-loading' this problem onto a 'creator'. Especially when there is no evidence to justify such an action.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (20) Mar 08, 2009
@ Ethelred, You don't know what your talking about.
Again, my point has zero to do with the limit of the senses! The purpose was to show that superH cannot claim non-existence conclusively, can not proove that God does not exist, if he is limited to the phenomenal world.

The idea is based Not on 'new age' or spirit type non-sense but from ideas from one of the greatest philosophers Immaneul Kant. Heisenberg was greatly influenced by Kant, and in fact the copenhagen interpretation has it's premise in that philosophy, in that we can't know or 'visualize' the underlaying reality, qm is incomprehensible with a-priori concepts of the understanding,... so we must wrap mathematical formulations around observables without 'understanding' the reality. Kant knew this way before qm, and Bohr and Heisenberg borrowed his ideas.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (18) Mar 08, 2009
... actually Heisenberg rejected just enough of it (non-euclidean geometry, still able to make predictions, etc), so they could replace it.

What's funny about this tangent discusion is that I don't think any of us believe in a God.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (18) Mar 08, 2009
...and by the same token, if you were rational, you would not claim existence conclusively, without proof of impossibility.


What.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2009
My primary reason for not believing that there is a sentient entity that created all is that, for this entity to be sentient, it must have a beginning,


O.K. so why does it have to have a beginning? I don't see a need for sentience either.

Just because it is hard to comprehend existance from nothing, doesn't mean there is any more merit 'off-loading' this problem onto a 'creator'.


No problem there. Its usually just an attempt to justify a belief in a mainstream religion anyway.

@ Ethelred, You don't know what your talking about.


Sometimes. However I usually don't talk then. Not always, then I tend to stumble around.

Again, my point has zero to do with the limit of the senses!


Then you were mistaken above. I didn't know what YOU were talking about.

If that is what you meant to say you should have another look at what you actually typed. I know clarity is hard. It can take a long time occasionally to figure out how to frame what I want to say. Sometimes I blow it a time or two before I can express myself clearly.

Heisenberg was greatly influenced by Kant, and in fact the copenhagen interpretation has it's premise in that philosophy,


That is the New Age interpretation of the Heisenberg Uncertainity Principle. Most physicists now think that even the electron does not know both its position and velocity. I prefer the Many Worlds interpretation myself but in that one the electron does know. The observer is the one with the uncertainty as the observer doesn't know which of the many worlds the observer is in untill the observer looks. At least I think it would work that way.

So far experimentation has the electron or the observer in the dark. Not a matter of our theory but of the actual physical world. If the various multipath slit experiments have any meaning anyway. Your way is that there is some underlying reality with the electron actually knowing where it is and how fast is going. I am pretty sure the experiments don't back that up.

Kant was a philosopher and not a scientist. He could get it right on QM only by accident. He didn't as far as I can tell.

Oh Imanuel Kant was a real pissant
who was very rarely stable
Heidegger Heidegger was a boozy beggar
who could drink you under the table

... actually Heisenberg rejected just enough of it (non-euclidean geometry, still able to make predictions, etc), so they could replace it.


Heisenberg wasn't dealing with gravity.

What's funny about this tangent discusion is that I don't think any of us believe in a God.


Modernmystic does, at least I am under the impression he does. That is why he got so upset. He has a problem with Atheism as well. I suspect he is on the edge of abandoning belief altogether and is not yet willing to make the leap, possibly making him a bit more edgy.

Ethelred
Noumenon
1 / 5 (19) Mar 08, 2009
[QUOTE Noumenon]Heisenberg was greatly influenced by Kant, and in fact the copenhagen interpretation has it's premise in that philosophy,


[QUOTE Ethelred] That is the New Age interpretation of the Heisenberg Uncertainity Principle. Most physicists now think that even the electron does not know both its position and velocity. I prefer the Many Worlds interpretation myself but in that one the electron does know. The observer is the one with the uncertainty as the observer doesn't know which of the many worlds the observer is in untill the observer looks. At least I think it would work that way.

So far experimentation has the electron or the observer in the dark. Not a matter of our theory but of the actual physical world. If the various multipath slit experiments have any meaning anyway. Your way is that there is some underlying reality with the electron actually knowing where it is and how fast is going. I am pretty sure the experiments don't back that up.

Kant was a philosopher and not a scientist. He could get it right on QM only by accident. He didn't as far as I can tell.


Kant was a scientist, cosmologists, though way before QM. In any case, my way is not to conceptualize an electron At All, apart from observation. We cannot have knowledge except through concepts compatible with mind, this limits us to the phenomenal world,%u2026 but also implies a noumenal reality by virtue of this limitation, though entirely unknowable in principal.

[QUOTE Ethelred] Oh Imanuel Kant was a real pissant


And Kurt Godel was a nut, whats your point.

[QUOTE noumenon]... actually Heisenberg rejected just enough of it (non-euclidean geometry, still able to make predictions, etc), so they could replace it.


[QUOTE Ethelred] Heisenberg wasn't dealing with gravity.


I never mentioned gravity. That space and time are conditions of understanding or forms in which our knowledge of reality must take given our mental design is part of Kants transcendental deduction. He then speculated that Euclidian geometry was the result of these a-priori elements. Later non-Euclidian geometries were discovered and were used successfully to describe the phenomenal world,.. Heisenberg use this fact to reject Kants premise, unnecessarily imo.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (19) Mar 08, 2009
...[Kant] could get it right on qm only by accident [...since he wasn't a scientists]


Kant's philosophy is about epistemology, the philosophy of knowledge, it's scope and limits, so therefore he could and did make statements about our ability to have knowledge of reality, regardless of the particular science. Naturally scientists don't like this, they would rather invent multi worlds. To think that a mind, a piece of meat, could encapsulate reality or reproduce it as it is, is the ultimate faith.

Mayday
1.8 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2009
Somebody had to go for the even 100.

I find it interesting that for bunch of intelligent people very interested in science, the great irony here has not only escaped most of you, but has indeed confounded and endlessly tangled most of the "logic" here.

Like many of our concepts and theories in science, the idea of God proves itself quite useful for some, and in some situations, but not so useful for others. The situations where it is not useful do not of themselves disprove anything. And the situations where it is very useful do not, of themselves, prove anything.

For example, for a painter, "color" is a very useful concept and said painter would want to reject the proposition that "color," as we see it, does not technically exist. But a physicist can easily make that arguement. Specific "color" is an invention of our "mind's eye." A fiction from the point of view of imperical reality(as we think we know it), but very useful in a wide variety of circumstances.

And the same is "true"(a difficult word to use on this thread) for most of our cherished theories and scientific insights. Look at the history of your field and you may get the idea. The fundamental ideas that support our science will one day be overturned. Do you doubt it? It may be decades. It may be centuries. But the ideas that are our scientific foundations today will be supplanted by bolder, better, and(I hope) simpler interpretations of our universe. In the meantime, our current, ideas, models, theories should not be shouted down just because some new genius might ultimately usurp the crown of knowledge from our mentors. Our current ideas remain useful and as such can be regarded as "true," at least in the right context and to the extent of their usefulness. Where usefulness ends, we look for new ideas. That is the beauty of science.

And as for the idea of "God," or "Gods?" It is very similar. For many millions and in many powerful personal situations, the idea of "God" is very useful. And need not be attacked. True, there are and have been many who have exploited the "God" concept for bad purposes -- to repress, to claim counterfiet power, to grasp and hold an overly impressionable populace. I and no one can defend these injustices. But this does not negate the central concept of "God," just as those who exploit fake science and an under-informed electorate to further their nefarious aims can not be used as an arguement against the idea of "science."

"God" is a useful concept in the world for many people. Just as many of our long-cherished ideas in science are until new and more useful ones take their place. And still there are circumstances where the old ideas remain useful.

For people who "believe" in the truths of science, we should appreciate the "God" concept(with all its power and horror) as more evidence of the infinite complexity and power of the human mind and soul.
KBK
1 / 5 (1) Mar 08, 2009
Look up Dan Burisch's recent works, the 'Lotus' work.

He shows (illustrates) the residual effects (measurements) of the failure of local reality on the macroscopic scale.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (18) Mar 08, 2009
What we can test for is no way limited by what we think. It is limited by our tools but those are often capable of detecting things we never thought of. For instance micro-wave receivers were not created to detect the Cosmic Background Radiation yet they did so anyway. If what you said was true we would not be able to discover things while floundering about, as has happened many times.

Ethelred


How is a QM system related to a measuring apparatus, any different from a QM system merely physically interacting with some other physical system? Only when interacting with a tool designed by a classical mind, are interference effects destroyed. Why? The answer is that the process of knowing is to add artificial form to reality given the minds requirements for understanding; location in space and time, cause and effect, a substratum in which effects inhere, etc. The instruments are designed before hand and expect a form, a 'wave' or a 'partical' or 'momentum', 'spin', etc
jonnyboy
2 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2009
It actually amazes me that they put a filter in their software that only applies to "modernmystic".

If you turn your filter on, and set it to 2.0, you will never have to read one of his asinine uneducated comments again.

Life is GOOD!!
superhuman
1 / 5 (2) Mar 08, 2009
the more alien a concept is to human experience the less likely it is to exist.

Even if the first were true that does not make the reverse true considering that there is no way to test such a thing.

It does. The more outrageous the claims the less probable the are, it has been tested countless times.

Only where testable. You seem to be having difficulty with this concept. You cannot test for a sufficiently vaguely defined god.

Not "only where testable", always. To me you are having difficulty and are simply making another exception to save your point and your god.

If you discard definitions any debate is *completely* pointless.

Obviously you don't yet understand what I am talking about.
Argument by definition is an attempt to define things instead of bothering with actually testing them.
For instance Dembski defines information as the product of intelligence instead of proving that DNA is the product of intelligence. He ignores how evolution works in that the information comes from the environment and does not need intelligence.
In this case you are defining a god as being something that exists in this universe and believers do not agree with you on that definition. Your definition is seriously faulty to them and any attempt to use it as proof is past questionable and is simply Argument By Definition.

So, are you lying on purpose or are you just seriously confused?

I never once defined god in this topic but I referred to two god concepts - first I discussed the Christian god with MM and this god is certainly supposed to exist in the physical world but this is not where the above paragraph originated. At one point YOU came forward and stated that my argumentation is not valid for a god which according to YOU exists outside of the Universe, yes it was YOU who defined god as existing outside of the Universe, this statement of yours is what my answer referred to and now you say I use argument by definition because I defined god this way? Seriously at least try to get your facts straight before posting nonsense like that. Here is the whole discussion:
(You:)I am rational. Exceeding so. I disagree. There is simply no way to establish the probability of something that is posited to exist outside of the Universe unless you can show how it MUST have some effect.
(I:)Now as for Gods who only exist outside of our universe such Gods do not exist by definition
(You:)Argument by Definition, is a favorite fundamentalist technique. Stop that nasty habit in its tracks.

(I:)If you discard definitions any debate is *completely* pointless.

(You:)Obviously you don't yet understand what I am talking about.
Argument by definition is an attempt to define things instead of bothering with actually testing them.(...)
In this case you are defining a god as being something that exists in this universe and believers do not agree with you on that definition. Your definition is seriously faulty to them and any attempt to use it as proof is past questionable and is simply Argument By Definition.

So if anyone is off with his understanding here I am afraid it's you.

can you even define these concepts? I don't think so

Then you need to start thinking more.

Ha! No I don't need to start thinking, you need to show that you know what you are talking about because I have serious doubts and so far you failed to prove I am wrong.

Our Universe consists of all we can see to the edge.

Yes, you ARE seriously confused, our Universe does NOT have and edge, *visible* Universe does, definition of the Universe does not restrict it to the visible portion. maybe thats why you thought something can exists outside of the Universe? At least you learned something here.

Go read some science fiction...

Now that's a convincing argument! I've read tons of SF but i think you missed one important detail: it is all science *FICTION*!

If you create a pocket universe than you would be the god that created that universe.

SF is not reality, we are talking about reality here, or at least I am.

This is where rational thought took "real" biblical god, it exiled him from this world into a completely artificial and undefined concept.

Its defined. All knowing, all powerful and whatever else the definer thinks they can get away with.

I was talking about god which you brought forward that supposedly "exists outside of the universe." This is what makes him undefined, simply the properly defined term "existence" does not extend to "outside of universe."

For me such god does not exist, there is only one source of existence - physical reality, anything which can't be traced to it does not exist,

I think you are digging a hole there. Instead of admitting you were wrong you are just digging it deeper. Strained arguments like yours are usually the action of the other side in this sort of discussion.

Mine arguments are strained? First I defined what existence means and then I showed that god as you defined him does not meet requirements of this definition. This is the most rational and logically rigorous way argumentation can be done!
You on the other hand not only failed to state your definition of existence although repeatedly asked to do so, you also put words in my mouth which I never said, you erroneously claim that the Universe has an edge, and you attempt to use science fiction to prove your points! And then you say I am the one digging a bigger hole? Get real!

An entity makes a box...

This is exactly where your problem lies, the Universe is NOT a box! It does not have an edge, it's not all that simple.

For instance Non-Euclidean Geometry is more complex than Euclidean Geometry at least in that first step. More than one line vs. one line only is clearly more things. Yet Non-Euclidean Geometry is not only logically consistent it is a better match for the Universe. So Occam's Razor is a tool and not proof.

No, you are mixing it up, if anything non-euclidean geometry has one axiom *less* (Euclid's fifth postulate), not "more then one line" but it's not what matters, if you tried to describe reality precisely in euclidean geometry your description would be much more complex (you would have to include more mathematical terms in equations for example) then in non-euclidean geometry - THIS is what matters. Besides I not once stated it's a proof so you again put words in my mouth.

Anyway I don't have time to repeat myself endlessly so I am stating it one LAST time, I provided my definition of the term existence and anything that "exists outside of physical universe" does not meet it's requirements and therefore does not exist. You disagree but even though I repeatedly asked you failed to provide your definition of the term existence, if you were truly rational you would know that unless you are able to show my definition is wrong and give a better one your arguments won't carry any weight. This is the only rational and logical way this discussion can proceed further and until that happens I will simply conclude that your arguments are refuted and won't waste any more time.

Being rational is about acting rationally, it's not faith where your self-declaration will do.
superhuman
1 / 5 (2) Mar 08, 2009
... and by the same token, if you were rational, you would not claim non-existance conclusively, without proof of impossibility.


I said it *myself* that it is impossible to prove non-existence long before you even appeared in this topic, so be so kind and at least read the thread before commenting.

If however someone DEFINES a term which is completely outside of physical universe and we use definition of existence which is based on being withing physical universe then such term does not exist BY DEFINITION.

Is it really so hard to understand?
superhuman
1 / 5 (1) Mar 08, 2009
I said it *myself* that it is impossible to prove non-existence long before you even appeared in this topic

Lol, sorry you were here first only left before I joined, too many comments. But still if you followed my posting you should know that I stated it many times.
superhuman
not rated yet Mar 08, 2009
How is a QM system related to a measuring apparatus, any different from a QM system merely physically interacting with some other physical system? Only when interacting with a tool designed by a classical mind, are interference effects destroyed.

That is not true, decoherence happens all the time and everywhere, the tool can have a form of a rock, mind is not required anywhere in the process.

Why? The answer is that the process of knowing is to add artificial form to reality given the minds requirements for understanding; location in space and time, cause and effect, a substratum in which effects inhere, etc.

As I said mind is not required so the above statement makes no sense whatsoever.

The instruments are designed before hand and expect a form, a 'wave' or a 'partical' or 'momentum', 'spin', etc

Our instruments do not "expect" either a wave or a particle, it's only that we find explaining raw data easier some times with a wave model and at other times with a particle model.
Mayday
1 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2009
Noumenon, Superhuman, Ethylred:
GET
A
LIFE.
And preferably, in some other Universe.

This thread is painful to check in on. And even more painful to read. I ask you to step back from the keyboard and consider the effects your rantings are having on the minds of normal human beings who may innocently stumble upon them. This is brain damage. Go home.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2009
We cannot have knowledge except through concepts compatible with mind,


Which is New Age lite. Its still wrong in that if we can see evidence than we find a concept. If there IS evidence then we can eventually see it.

And Kurt Godel was a nut, whats your point.


Let me entertain me. Well you aren't so someone had to.

How can you pretend to know philosophy without learning from the great Bruces at the University of Woolomoloo? Must be why you don't seem to have a sense of humor.

I never mentioned gravity.


I did. Because it is relevant to non-euclidean geometry.

Heisenberg use this fact to reject Kants premise, unnecessarily imo.


Well one was a working scientist that actually had to deal with facts. The other tried to examine human thinking but not the actual facts.

Philosophy can guide but it cannot give definitive answers about the real world. It can suppose that some things are unknowable but when a scientist shows that they ARE knowable it is no longer philosophy.

However, it follows from this that it is possible that there are objects of such a nature that the mind cannot think of them, and so the principle of causality, for instance, cannot be applied outside of experience: hence we cannot know, for example, whether the world always existed or if it had a cause.


Yes its out of context. However its wrong even in context. The world we live in has a cause. It did not always exist. The Universe we live in may have a cause but it almost certainly did not always exist. In other words he put FALSE limits on human learning. They are not false because it was bad philosophy they are false because they don't fit the facts. Same for any theory.

Richard Feynman
%u201CIt doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong%u201D


That is philosophy that deals with physics and not metaphysics.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2009
Like many of our concepts and theories in science, the idea of God proves itself quite useful for some,


For none in science. Only to the religious and when they coincide the religion only hinders.

And the situations where it is very useful do not, of themselves, prove anything.


Since there aren't any they can't prove anything so you got that one right.

But a physicist can easily make that arguement. Specific "color" is an invention of our "mind's eye.


Which was figured out by a scientist (Dr. Land creator of the Polaroid camera). So your wrong again. We see colors that are not in the rainbow. Its not a fiction. Its an artifact of the way we see. Purple for instance.

The fundamental ideas that support our science will one day be overturned. Do you doubt it?


Yes I doubt it. That is fundamentalist evasion of science. The science we have today is not perfect but that is not the same as overturning. Newton's theory of gravity still works. We send interplanetary probes bouncing around the Solar System without ever needing to use the more difficult equations of General Relativity. Einstein replaced Newton without actually overturning him, except on Newton's concept of a fixed coordinate system and even in Newton's time that was thought wrong by many.

And as for the idea of "God," or "Gods?" It is very similar.


Only to a believer. Its not testable. Well some religions have been tested and found wanting. That doesn't stop 25 per cent of Americans from believing nonsense.

For many millions and in many powerful personal situations, the idea of "God" is very useful.


Name one single instance where the idea of a god contributed to science that couldn't have been done without it. Now try to find one that was held back by the idea of a god. Which was easier to find?

"God" is a useful concept in the world for many people.


Yes. But not relevant to reality, just to religion.

we should appreciate the "God" concept(with all its power and horror) as more evidence of the infinite complexity and power of the human mind and soul.


Gosh that is so so so ... totally unsupported by any facts or non-religious meaning at all. Want to give a fact about souls?

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2009
Only when interacting with a tool designed by a classical mind, are interference effects destroyed.


Why make the classical mind claim? The tests were done by people studying quantum effects.

The answer is that the process of knowing is to add artificial form to reality given the minds requirements for understanding;


What a crock. The minds didn't do anything except make a single slit instead of two. The laws of the Universe obviated interference with only one slit. The clever part was when one those minds came up with the idea of trying one photon and two slits. The results followed Heisenberg. Interference.

The instruments are designed before hand and expect a form, a 'wave' or a 'partical' or 'momentum', 'spin', etc


Yes I was right when I accused you of New Age thinking. The slit is the same in either experiment. It is simply the number of slits that is changed. What is expected has nothing to do with the results.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2009
Not "only where testable", always. To me you are having difficulty and are simply making another exception to save your point and your god.


WHAT GOD? This is ridiculous that an Atheist is claiming that an Agnostic has a god.

And not always. Only where testable. If it can't be tested there is no REAL way to put a probability on it. Its just an opinion if you can't test.

So, are you lying on purpose or are you just seriously confused?


Since I didn't lie I guess you are confused.

I never once defined god in this topic but I referred to two god concepts


Now as for Gods who only exist outside of our universe such Gods do not exist by definition


That was the definition in question.

first I discussed the Christian god with MM and this god is certainly supposed to exist in the physical world


Not to exist. To effect the physical world. To sometimes inhabit. However usually Jehovah is supposed to be in Heaven or to BE the physical world and all that is outside it.

At one point YOU came forward and stated that my argumentation is not valid for a god which according to YOU exists outside of the Universe, yes it was YOU who defined god as existing outside of the Universe


Its not my definition. Its a bog standard christian and non-christian concept. No Agnostics need apply.

now you say I use argument by definition because I defined god this way?


That is silly. I did no such thing. Please read it AGAIN this time without the adrenaline surging through your brain.

I was pointing out that YOUR definition was only YOURS and not one a christian would accept.

Christians do not think that their god is confined to the Universe. Nor do think that it does not effect the Universe. So when you try to confine it you are redefining it to something you can try to disprove. Which again is Argument by Definition.

Ha! No I don't need to start thinking,


Gosh that is a foolish statement. It is wrong in so many ways. NEVER say anything that is only useful for your opponent. I shouldn't have to give a primer in online flamewars here. Nevertheless have a link to my starter primer on another site:

http://forum.vide...-30.html

Yes, you ARE seriously confused, our Universe does NOT have and edge, *visible* Universe does,


Which is the Universe by most standards. We can only examine the visible part. You are making this far more difficult that it is.

Now that's a convincing argument! I've read tons of SF but i think you missed one important detail: it is all science *FICTION*!


The writings of a blocked mind. The concepts are there you just refuse to let them in.

SF is not reality, we are talking about reality here, or at least I am.


No. You were talking about a god with a believer and me who YOU have bizarrely managed to claim as a believer.

Mine arguments are strained?


Now even more so. Claiming I have a god is beyond strained. Its imaginary.

First I defined what existence means and then I showed that god as you defined him does not meet requirements of this definition.


Which is what I was talking about. Argument by Definition. Your definitions were and are irrelevant to believers. Since a god is concept and not a reality attempting to use a definition that is special to you is Argument by Definition.

Hell here have a bloody link:

http://www.overco...efi.html

Have two

http://aphilosoph...inition/

You were setting up a bogus definition and then refuting it. Now you are accusing me of using my definition in place of yours and refuting that. Which is a sign of Reading While Angry.

I simply pointed out that your definition was in no way the standard for gods by believers. Their definition is the one that counts and not yours because you don't believe so any definition you use that is different from the believers can only be construed to exist for the purposes of serving as a Straw Man.

This is the most rational and logically rigorous way argumentation can be done!


ONLY IF the others agree with your definition and they would be idiots it they did. For two simple reason. One it makes it easy for you. Two it is not in any way a definition that would ever be popular with people that believe in an all powerful god that created the Universe and therefor had to exist before it.

You on the other hand not only failed to state your definition of existence although repeatedly asked to do so


You mistake me for Noumenon.

you also put words in my mouth which I never said,


Show one. However you do seem to have mistaken MY words as being words put in your mouth.

you erroneously claim that the Universe has an edge,


It has at least two. A beginning and something resembling an end, timelike infinity. Plus the limit of observation which has always been the thought of as Our Universe. The limit is when the rate of expansion away from us reaches the speed of light.

At present the Universe appears to be open. If the Universe was not expanding than you would be right. But it is expanding and therefor it has an effective edge. Anything beyond what we can see is outside since we cannot test it.

And then you say I am the one digging a bigger hole? Get real!


Can you see the Indian Ocean yet?

This is exactly where your problem lies, the Universe is NOT a box! It does not have an edge, it's not all that simple.


See above. It was an analogy on top of that.

No, you are mixing it up, if anything non-euclidean geometry has one axiom *less* (Euclid's fifth postulate)


It has the OPPOSITE axiom so it does not have one less.

- THIS is what matters. Besides I not once stated it's a proof so you again put words in my mouth.


Again where did I do that. I used MY words. Not my fault if you can't tell them from yours. Though I admit this is getting a bit confusing. I have to check very carefully. Especially when SOMEONE messed up his quotes.

I provided my definition of the term existence


And I showed how it wasn't relevant.

nd anything that "exists outside of physical universe" does not meet it's requirements


Requirements you need for your proof. Yet in no way the only definition possible or even relevant to believers.

You disagree but even though I repeatedly asked you failed to provide your definition of the term existence, if you were truly rational you would know that unless you are able to show my definition is wrong


Take another look. That was Noumenon. You had me arguing against before I checked. Frankly you are getting me as confused as you. I was having trouble with whole idea of me trying to define something as nebulous as 'existence'.

is is the only rational and logical way this discussion can proceed further and until that happens I will simply conclude that your arguments are refuted and won't waste any more time.


Argument by Fiat.

You wouldn't be wasting your time if you read what I said instead of what you want to think I said.

Being rational is about acting rationally, it's not faith where your self-declaration will do.


What faith? Your faith in your willingness to use Atheist definitions of a god?

Try this.

A god, for most that believe in one, is outside of the Universe at least before creation. Usually afterwards as well. That you don't like this concept does not invalidate it since gods are not defined by Atheists. I have only used fairly standard definitions that any christian might use.

I am NOT using my definitions. I am pointing out christian thinking and you do not get to make up their thinking for them which is what you do when you use your own definition. Just because you don't like the ones I use here doesn't change that.

Ethelred
Noumenon
1 / 5 (20) Mar 09, 2009
I can' t continue to add weight to this page. I will only say that if one understands the measurement problem in qm, one can see it that it deserves an epistemological analysis for its interpretation,... it happens that the analysis was already done by Descartes, Locke, Leibniz, Hume, and culminating with Kant (1800 ; not 'new age' but concrete analysis; try reading his 'Critique'. Since it is about the scope and limits of knowledge, it is completely relevent here. Because QED is extremely accurate in making predictions, by no means implies that we understand it. As Feynman said '.. my students don't even understand it. They don't understand it, because I don't understand it. No one does' .

SuperH ; you should research better on decoherence, the essential problem with qm is as I posed the question previously.
Ethelred; 'Minds don't do anything' . Thats funny. If one was born with red tinted glasses, they would swear everything was red. But its worse than that, because we are not talking about senses, we are talking about the form understanding must take, which is to artifcially to conform reality.
Mayday; thanks for reading our posts, even if reluctantly.

JS2000
3.2 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2009
Hmmm. It is essential to distinguish between epistemological concepts and ontological ones. Let's get back to basics. Science is not about a hubristic attempt to "know Reality". That is absurd propaganda peddled by silly scientistic vanity. Science is about the observer trying to discover theories that work, in the sense of allowing the prediction (probabilistically) of future observations on the basis of laws deduced from previous ones. It is a classical fallacy to "ontologise" these theories, but unfortunately a very common error. We know from experiment that the concepts that ultimately comprise theories (including matter, space and time) do not map isomorphically onto whatever is "out there". Accept that and all the so-called paradoxes of quantum theory disappear. These paradoxes aren't generated by the theory itself, which is consistent and empirically verified beyond all doubt, they are generated by a simplistic but deeply ingrained form of 19th century realism that a shockingly large number of people, who should know better, refuse to let go of, even when the evidence is overwhelmingly against it.

If there is any group of individuals holding back science with its faith, it is the classical realists. The world "out there" does not reflect our kindergarten-learned macroscopic conceptions or the elements of our mathematical models. And why should it? The evidence is overwhelming that it does not, so why not accept this instead of pretending that classical realism (and its bastard child, materialism) can be rescued if only somebody can find that ever-elusive loophole in the experiments. The whole project is misconceived. The mistake is an elementary category error, confusing a thing with a model of the thing.

Quantum mechanics is a solid and complete theory. The interpretations (many worlds, Bohmian mechanics etc) are metaphysical speculation, the modern equivalent of the medieval debates about how many angels can dance on a pin-head. If anything is a sign of a misplaced faith it is the sight of the materialist fundamentalists struggling with their untestable, unnecessary and often conceptually incoherent pieces of non-science. So, give the theists a break. At least they're addressing something science can't answer (why is there the experience of something rather than nothing?). The classical realists aren't even doing that: they're just frightened to let go of nurse and are throwing the whole of science into a pointless spin as a result.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2009
Noumenon, Superhuman, Ethylred:
GET
A
LIFE.
And preferably, in some other Universe


Get a clue. This IS my life. It is all of it. I can have no other.

Have another. This is fun. Join in or go away.

This thread is painful to check in on.


Self inflicted torture is not against the Geneva Convention. Just common sense.

I ask you to step back from the keyboard and consider the effects your rantings are having on the minds of normal human beings who may innocently stumble upon them.


I am not ranting. I am pontificating on the whichness of existence. It calms my fevered brow.

This is brain damage. Go home.


I am posting from home. That wasn't a good idea on your part now was it?

I figure a post like yours shows that, we the Philosophers of Unbelief, must be doing a Good Thing. If you actually read all this you must be either improving your mind or destroying the mind of a masochist. Either way it is a good thing.

I thank you for your encouragement of our mutual endeavor.

There is no WHY in EthElred. Only who and how much. I find it comforting.
(obscure movie tie in, ten points to the first poster that figures it out.)

Ethelred
Noumenon
1 / 5 (19) Mar 09, 2009
That is exactly correct JS2000. This was discovered way back around 1800 by Kant, and imo was the basis of Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation.

Besides the rediculous multi-universe suggestions, I was astonished to read that E. Wigner suggested that the mind somehow affected reality itself! Wow! Even well known scientists think the reality discovered is the reality as it is apart from observation and a-priori mental forms.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2009
JS2000

I see that was your first post here. It would be nice if it wasn't your last.

I have two problems with your post.

One is that it needs more white space. Its a bit hard to read. So it get a four.

Two. It would make complete sense(if a refusal to believe in a real universe can make sense) if QM was the only functioning theory. It is not. Both Special and General Relativity were created by attempting to understand the Universe and not just giving into the math. This gives some hope of actually getting somewhere in the future.

. Accept that and all the so-called paradoxes of quantum theory disappear.


Perhaps there is something wrong with me. I don't see any paradoxes. Perhaps its my lack advanced physics classes.

The world "out there" does not reflect our kindergarten-learned macroscopic conceptions or the elements of our mathematical models. And why should it?


Seems reasonable within the same limits.

The mistake is an elementary category error, confusing a thing with a model of the thing.


I have some hopes for a newer model. Perhaps with fins. I would pay extra for a hood ornament.

Quantum mechanics is a solid and complete theory.


Well so far. There is that lack of quantum gravity. Perhaps there is no way it can be done.

he interpretations (many worlds, Bohmian mechanics etc) are metaphysical speculation,


Yes so far. And it may never go any farther but it can never go farther if no one tries.

So, give the theists a break. At least they're addressing something science can't answer (why is there the experience of something rather than nothing?).


I don't see them doing that. I see them trying to sneak religion into schools. Besides that question is one I find as silly as the ones you do. You couldn't ask the question if you didn't experience things. The question answers itself. There simply is no possible way for it be otherwise and still notice. I have my own idea of course. Because the laws of the Universe allow it.

The classical realists aren't even doing that: they're just frightened to let go of nurse and are throwing the whole of science into a pointless spin as a result.


That is just Peter Woit and String fans flaming each other. Outside of physics Things Are Getting Done.

You seem to be thinking that physics is done. That there is no more to do except maybe find the Higgs Boson should it exist.

So do you think there is anyway to go farther in physics?

Ethelred
lengould100
2.8 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2009
the idea of God proves itself quite useful for some,

Mostly authoritarian control freaks wanting everyone to conform to what is good for them (give us a 1/10th of all you earn and we will tell you when to go to war for your king)
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 10, 2009
Besides the rediculous multi-universe suggestions,


What makes it ridiculous? The math works. At present there is no way to distinguish the Cophenhagen model from the Many Worlds model. Any preference is not based on present science.

his was discovered way back around 1800 by Kant, and imo was the basis of Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation.


Its not a discovery. Its philosophy. It may have helped form the Copenhagen Model but the key was the data. The data fits at least two different interpretations. Note that JS2000 doesn't go for ANY interpretation. Just the math. Its popular with experimentalists. Not so much with theoreticians.

Just do the numbers and don't worry about what it might REALLY mean if anything. Not very helpful for making breakthroughs.

Of course it could be that QM and General Relativity ARE the rules of the Universe. Kind of like the rules in chess. It doesn't matter if there is an underlying set of rules in games you just deal with the rules that are there. Only there is no rule book and you have to figure out the rules from what happens. This is why I don't see contradictions in QM. Its just the rules. The question is whether they are emergent phenomena of a more basic set of rules. Rules that might produce both QM and GR.

Ethelred
JohnSawyer
3 / 5 (2) Mar 10, 2009
So, in any sense, does non-locality mean that our classical concept of space/distance is not entirely true? If so, does this mean that, in a sense, everything in the universe is still as close to everything else as it was prior to the Big Bang, accounting for the ability of everything to act directly on everything else? Is distance "merely" a kind of mathematical thing/"illusion" introduced into the universe by the Big Bang?

Or is space/distance largely as we perceive it (at least well enough to grant us some anthropometric (anthropic?) satisfaction), but everything is still connected to everything else by virtue of the fact that it originated from the same point in the universe, and is still somehow connected to that point, through space/time, like a big folding fan with a central pivot point? In other words, does it mean that the Big Bang's singularity still exists in some fashion, tying everything together?

When we look at things at the quantum level, are we not only seeing what the interior of the singularity looked like prior to the Big Bang, but are we looking at the singularity itself, located everywhere?
Noumenon
1 / 5 (19) Mar 10, 2009
John, it's questions like that that beg for reflection on what we mean when we say we have knowledge of something; Does the mind add the ordering structure itself, so that we 'can't get out of our own way', so as to know reality as it is in itself. It is apparent that is the case, so time, space, cause and effect, are not elements of reality itself apart from ordering it as a necessary consequence of mind.

Ethelred, sometimes I get the impression that you enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing. It's been my contention from the beginning that for science, we can wrap mathematical formulations around observables to great success, as QED prooves, but it doesn't mean we understand the underlying reality. I'm not at all Replacing philosophy with science, but if one gets that certain concepts are merely an artificial ordering structure from the subject, (reality is subjected to pre-existing conditions of thought), it's no wonder these concepts break down at the qm level. The multi-worlds idea is not science my friend, as one cannot inductively test for it; it is a crazy way of saving positivists face, it is reflection on what 'happens' to Schrodingers wave equation when an observation is made and von Nueman's projection postulate disgards the wave function, ... they want to ask where did the wave function go(?), as if the thing was 'real'.
JohnSawyer
3 / 5 (2) Mar 10, 2009
Noumenon:

I have to believe that everything we perceive, has some connection to external reality (as we say, "whatever that is"). As you say, exactly how we perceive aspects of reality, how we structure those perceptions, is a function largely (or entirely) of the brain/mind itself (individual observations and conclusions, as well as cultural ones), but the perceptions we have must bear some relation to external reality. For instance, I'm not one who blithely says, "There is no time!", since I know we're perceiving something we call time, whatever that ultimately turns out to be. Unless, I guess, some of our perceptions can be compared to what are more classic delusions (paranoid or overly optimistic ideas that are untrue, etc.). Hopefully we'll find out which is which, and what is what, as time (?) goes on, and discover exactly why we think (or thought) this or that about some external fact, and properly refine our perceptions.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 10, 2009
Ethelred, sometimes I get the impression that you enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing.


No. I enoy arguing for the sake of ARGUING.

I also like to learn things.

It's been my contention from the beginning that for science, we can wrap mathematical formulations around observables to great success, as QED prooves, but it doesn't mean we understand the underlying reality


Actually if QM and GR are the bottom then we DO understand the underlying reality. The Universe would be a set rules much like a game. Games also have emergent phenomena. That would be as real as it gets. Perhaps you don't think of that sort thing as a reality. If the rules exactly explain the Universe with no failures and nothing else to find then it is reality.

I just don't think its the bottom. There may not even be a bottom. I doubt that though.

Best I can tell you think humans can't figure out what reality is because of constraints in our ways of thinking. I think that is possible but unlikely. People have a LOT of ways of thinking. One of them could match the Universe. There is nothing stopping the Universe from having rules that we can understand unless there is a flaw in our minds. That is a hypothesis that could easily be wrong. I don't see much good coming out of acting as if was right. That WOULD result in humans never figuring things out. Which is why I can't see any reason to agree with on this.

Perhaps I still don't quite get what you are trying to say.

(reality is subjected to pre-existing conditions of thought),


Which is something I am disagreeing with. I am not yet certain about your stand on this.

The multi-worlds idea is not science my friend, as one cannot inductively test for it;


Its math, not just an idea. No it can't be tested, at least not yet. Same for the Copenhagen model. Unless someone can find a testable difference between them and that hasn't been done.

it is a crazy way of saving positivists face,


No more crazy than the Copenhagen model. Both work.

ey want to ask where did the wave function go(?), as if the thing was 'real'.


That is the Copenhagen Model. That is the idea that has a problem with collapsing wave functions. There is no wave function in the Many Worlds Model. At least I got that impression from the articles I have read.

I once thought that the Many Worlds model was pretty crazy myself. But apparently its fully functional and it does away with collapsing wave functions.

In the Schrodinger's Cat experiment the Copenhagen Model has a superposition of two states. When the box is opened observation causes a collapse of the wave states. In the Many Worlds Model there are two worlds and no superposition. You just don't know which world you are in until you look.

This makes sense to me. I know it doesn't have to make sense to me to be real. JS2000 apparently doesn't care one if one is or the other is real, he just want the numbers to work. Reality doesn't matter to him and you think its an illusion apparently. To me the rules are the reality whatever they are.

Ethelred
Noumenon
1 / 5 (18) Mar 10, 2009
John, yes, i agree entirely. What we perceive absolutely has a connection with the 'real' reality. It's the form in which that reality must take given the mind as a limited functioning device, which is the subjective aspect. Time is not discoverable as an entity in itself, apart from the intellectual application of it in ordering reality for consciousness. Time can be said to be an aspect of the phenomenal world as long as one realizes that the definition of the phenomenal world includes the observer, which adds the ordering form.
Noumenon
1.2 / 5 (20) Mar 10, 2009
Ethelred, I like to argue also as is evident, the new amercian past time;)

The rules can't be the underlying reality, at least apart from observation. The mind is a limited entity, in function and capacity, and cannot encapsulate Reality without conforming its structure.

Copleston has a good intro to Kant in his nine volume history. Also Kant himself has an intro book and the main text 'A Critique of Pure Reason'. Both can probably explain better than my posts. It's very subtle and not obvious, but is rigorous and a philosophical discovery imo.
thales
3 / 5 (2) Mar 10, 2009
Ethelred, I like to argue also as is evident, the new amercian past time;)

A byproduct of the bevy of information made available by the internet I think, and a much more productive pastime than football.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2009
the idea of God proves itself quite useful for some,

Mostly authoritarian control freaks wanting everyone to conform to what is good for them (give us a 1/10th of all you earn and we will tell you when to go to war for your king)



Not that two wrongs make a right, but let's not forget plenty of atheists are guilty of the same cult of personality and using it for the exact same ends...
superhuman
1 / 5 (1) Mar 10, 2009
I never once defined god in this topic but I referred to two god concepts

Now as for Gods who only exist outside of our universe such Gods do not exist by definition

That was the definition in question.


No, that was not a definition, this was directly under YOUR statement, you said in reference to me talking about existence of god the following: "There is simply no way to establish the probability of something that is posited to exist outside of the Universe". This is the first time this idea "of god existing outside of universe" came forward, and to this I referred in my next statement which you quoted. I even went as far as quoting the whole discussion in my last post to show it, but you ignored it anyway.

Since you are obviously having a hard time understanding it, let me put it in a simpler way: imagine this conversation: "A" is talking about fruits then "B" comes forward and says "A, you can't say square apples are not nice" to which A replies "I use definition of "nice" according to which only round fruits are nice so square apples are not nice."

In this little example it's "B" who defines fruits as "square apples." Stating that A defined fruits as "square apples" is nonsensical and counterfactual.

Also when "A" is responding he is using the definition of fruits provided by "B" and for the purpose of their conversation it's B's definition.

B has absolutely no ground to attack A for using "argument by definition" as his definition does not mention square apples.

You really have to start applying logic because so far your argumentation only amounts to twisting of facts and pointless rambling.

Christians do not think that their god is confined to the Universe. Nor do think that it does not effect the Universe. So when you try to confine it you are redefining it to something you can try to disprove. Which again is Argument by Definition.

No you are completely wrong, I never confined or redefined god, I only defined the term "existence" and argued from there that a concept needs to have presence in material world to "exist". You came forward with something that does not have such presence so it obviously does not meet my definition of existence. I already clarified this point but you just stubbornly repeat your nonsense.

Ha! No I don't need to start thinking,

Gosh that is a foolish statement. It is wrong in so many ways. NEVER say anything that is only useful for your opponent.

That's the truth, I don't stop thinking, I can't even if I would want to so no, theres certainly no need foe me to "start thinking," but your reply is very informative, the idea of "not say something useful to your opponent" is completely alien to me, but now that you mention it I can't help to notice that it sums up your posting very well, from what I've seen you seem to go by the "never admit any errors and if wrong drag everything endlessly" rule.
I shouldn't have to give a primer in online flamewars here.

Yes, exactly what I thought you are just seeing it as an internet flame war, not a rational discussion but a flame war, is there anything to add here? Too bad I was foolish enough to treat you seriously but I've learned my lesson.

Yes, you ARE seriously confused, our Universe does NOT have and edge, *visible* Universe does,
Which is the Universe by most standards. We can only examine the visible part. You are making this far more difficult that it is.

Haha! Universe "by most standards," I think you meant to say "by my standards." This is complete nonsense, go google Universe to see for yourself. "Visible Universe" is not the same as Universe and this is where all your problems come from. The universe is not limited to what we can see, just as the Moon is not limited to one half.
Besides the edge of the visible universe shifts constantly with time and with movement of the observer, each observer has his own visible universe, it's completely different thing then the Universe.

So no visible universe is NOT the same as the Universe, yes, you can be outside of the first one but no, you can't be outside of the second. This is where your problem comes from.

SF is not reality, we are talking about reality here, or at least I am.

No. You were talking about a god with a believer and me who YOU have bizarrely managed to claim as a believer.

Lol, so now I claimed you as a believer? When I say your god I mean the god YOU are talking about since I first talked with MM about a different one, this should be pretty obvious.

Mine arguments are strained?

Now even more so. Claiming I have a god is beyond strained. Its imaginary.

Yes, it's your imagination running wild.
First I defined what existence means and then I showed that god as you defined him does not meet requirements of this definition.

Which is what I was talking about. Argument by Definition.

Lol you don't understand what the term "argument by definition" even means, look it up, it would only apply if the definition referred to god, don't you realize that the way you use the term EVERY argument is an "argument by definition"? All arguments HAVE to be traced to definitions or they are completely meaningless.
Language is just a set of definitions and rules for applying them, although it's pretty obvious by now that definitions don't bother you, in fact you see them as something bad! Without definitions all talk is just a pointless rambling.

You on the other hand not only failed to state your definition of existence although repeatedly asked to do so

You mistake me for Noumenon.

No, I don't, I stated my definition of existence and said that this is the only one which makes sense and those who don't agree should state their own one, then later I asked Noumenon and then you to give yours since you obviously disagree with mine without providing a better one.

you also put words in my mouth which I never said,

Show one.

I did, you constantly claim I defined god, when I never did so, it was you who came forward with definition which I referred to, I proved it quoting the whole discussion in the last post.

you erroneously claim that the Universe has an edge,

It has at least two. A beginning and something resembling an end, timelike infinity.

Huh? So for you "beginning and something resembling an end, timelike infinity" is an edge? Now that's interesting especially the part "timelike infinity," did I mention that you completely disregard definitions?

Here let me help you these are first three definitions of "edge" I could google, you are free to look for more:
edge: the boundary of a surface; a line determining the limits of an area; a sharp side formed by the intersection of two surfaces of an object;

I am afraid there's nothing about beginning, time or "timelike infinity."

Plus the limit of observation which has always been the thought of as Our Universe.

Wrong, visible universe has never been thought of as the Universe, the edge of visible universe is constantly shifting, something that was visible a year ago may not be visible now but we know it exists. Just go look up the term "Universe"

At present the Universe appears to be open. If the Universe was not expanding than you would be right. But it is expanding and therefor it has an effective edge. Anything beyond what we can see is outside since we cannot test it.

More hand waving, no it does not have an edge, it's spacetime that expands and it doesn't create an edge anywhere.

And then you say I am the one digging a bigger hole? Get real!

Can you see the Indian Ocean yet?

No, only an ocean of ignorance.

No, you are mixing it up, if anything non-euclidean geometry has one axiom *less* (Euclid's fifth postulate)

It has the OPPOSITE axiom so it does not have one less.

No, you are wrong and again you just can't accept it, there is no such thing as "OPPOSITE axiom," "non-euclidean geometry" is a general term for all geometries which reject Euclid's fifth postulate, go read about it if you don't believe me.
Or provide this "opposite axiom" if you can.

I provided my definition of the term existence

And I showed how it wasn't relevant.

Yeah, right. You didn't show anything you just produced a lot of confused claims. Here take a look how the existence is defined (google define:existence):

wikipedia:
In common usage, existence is the world of which we are aware through our senses, but in philosophy the word has a more specialized meaning, and is often contrasted with essence.

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/existence:
The state of being, existing, or occurring; empirical reality; the substance of the physical universe

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn:
# being: the state or fact of existing; "a point of view gradually coming into being"; "laws in existence for centuries"
# universe: everything that exists anywhere; "they study the evolution of the universe"; "the biggest tree in existence"

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn:
# existent - having existence or being or actuality; # existent - real: being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verified existence; not illusory; "real objects"; "real people; not ghosts"; "a film based on real life"; "a real illness"; "real humility"; "Life is real! Life is earnest!"- Longfellow
# existent - actual: presently existing in fact and not merely potential or possible; "the predicted temperature and the actual temperature were markedly different"; "actual and imagined conditions"

And so on... Not a single definition which would support your claims. Sorry, "outside of the Universe" is not included. But you of course have your own definition much better then the one used by everybody else, too bad you can't even articulate it. Notice also this definition from the above quote: "universe: everything that exists anywhere;" which confirms exactly what I have been saying all the time and specifically invalidates your statements about how universe is only visible universe and how something can exist outside of the universe.

You disagree but even though I repeatedly asked you failed to provide your definition of the term existence, if you were truly rational you would know that unless you are able to show my definition is wrong

Take another look. That was Noumenon. You had me arguing against before I checked. Frankly you are getting me as confused as you. I was having trouble with whole idea of me trying to define something as nebulous as 'existence'.

So you confirm here what I said, you can't even define what you are talking about, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, you are trolling.

is is the only rational and logical way this discussion can proceed further and until that happens I will simply conclude that your arguments are refuted and won't waste any more time.

Argument by Fiat.

Again you show you don't understand language, there is no other rational way to argue, if both sides do not agree about definitions of the terms they use they have to state those definitions, inability to do so is a proof that you don't understand things you are arguing about and therefore should be ignored.

I've treated you seriously long enough, but since you are incapable of even defining what you are talking about, do not understand how proper argumentation works, are unwilling to admit to your own errors and by your own admission see it all as nothing more then a flame war I conclude that discussion with you makes as much sense as discussion with an internet troll.
Modernmystic
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2009
And yet, in that monumental text wall we were just treated to, SH STILL has not proven that God does not exist.

He has stated that God in FACT does not exist, but has not offered any FACTS to back this faith based claim up. He merely reverts to the EXACT same arguments that any fundamentalist would be glad to use to try to PROVE that God exists (again totally impossible).

He thinks that because we have no evidence of such that it proves something. Lack of evidence doesn't prove ANYTHING...it never has and it never will. Lack of evidence is just that....NEVER anything more no matter how much you wish it were.

Just the same that a lack of evidence does not PROVE something. Both arguments are EQUALLY invalid in a making purely scientific/rational assertion.

The only thing that can be said for those that believe over those who make the opposite assertion (as opposed to simply rejecting the claim) is that they aren't as pretentious about their BELIEF.
superhuman
3.5 / 5 (2) Mar 10, 2009
Hmmm. It is essential to distinguish between epistemological concepts and ontological ones.

No, actually it hardly matters in almost all circumstances, unless of course you are a philosopher who has to somehow earn a living.

Let's get back to basics. Science is not about a hubristic attempt to "know Reality".

So you know better what science is about and you came to tell us it's not about "know reality"?
Now that's a great insight!

I myself can add it's also not about "known non-reality," so what do we have here, it turns out science is not about knowing at all! So it must be about not knowing! In other words the less you know the better scientist you are...
That is absurd propaganda peddled by silly scientistic vanity.

Lol! Yes those evil absurd scientists who claim science is about knowing are the root of all evil!

You sure hate scientists, don't you! You sound like a philosopher who can't stand that scientists are increasingly respected while philosophers are all but ignored.

Science is about the observer trying to discover theories that work, in the sense of allowing the prediction (probabilistically) of future observations on the basis of laws deduced from previous ones.

Wait a moment this is exactly what science means by "know reality," there is only one way to test knowledge - making "predictions (probabilistically) of future observations on the basis of laws deduced from previous ones"

We know from experiment that the concepts that ultimately comprise theories (including matter, space and time) do not map isomorphically onto whatever is "out there".

So you know "from experiment" that matter does not map isomorphically onto whatever is "out there"?
What kind of experiment are you talking about?

Accept that and all the so-called paradoxes of quantum theory disappear.These paradoxes aren't generated by the theory itself, which is consistent and empirically verified beyond all doubt

It's obvious you are not a physicists and have a very vague idea about quantum theory. Quantum theory is a theory about *point* particles which are inconsistent in themselves, it is plagued by infinities, it has to be renormalised and even so has a Landau pole where coupling constant (the strength of an interaction) becomes infinite, does not explain any of the physical constants, does not explain the origin of mass, fails to give proper value of vacuum energy, fails to explain dark matter and dark energy, fails to accommodate gravity, fails to predict neutrino oscillations, fails to explain obvious relations between particle masses (Koide formula), does not explain why electrons do not radiate in their base state, and so on....

And all this is just what I can think of atm, there are more problems, in reality quantum theory is VERY far from complete, it is nothing more then a working model which leaves plenty to be desired, it will be discarded once someone comes up with a better model.

they are generated by a simplistic but deeply ingrained form of 19th century realism that a shockingly large number of people, who should know better, refuse to let go of, even when the evidence is overwhelmingly against it.
If there is any group of individuals holding back science with its faith, it is the classical realists.

Lol, there is not a single evidence against local realism, everything in our experience confirms it, there are just a few mysteries at an atomic level, but the whole talk about "violation of local realism" rests on assumption that speed of light is maximum speed of signal propagation, drop it and you can explain everything with local realism.

So, give the theists a break. At least they're addressing something science can't answer (why is there the experience of something rather than nothing?).

Lol, give scientists a break at least they are much more productive then modern philosophers.
superhuman
1.5 / 5 (2) Mar 10, 2009
And yet, in that monumental text wall we were just treated to, SH STILL has not proven that God does not exist.

He has stated that...

He thinks that...

Lol, so you are now my personal interpreter?
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2009
And yet, in that monumental text wall we were just treated to, SH STILL has not proven that God does not exist.

He has stated that...

He thinks that...

Lol, so you are now my personal interpreter?


Well then my mistake, there are only two possiblilities here.

So I retract.

SH does admit that he doesn't know whether or not God exists and is in fact an agnostic and not an atheist.

Is that what you meant?

Which is it? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Time to quit tap dancing and say what you actually mean.
superhuman
not rated yet Mar 11, 2009
Which is it? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I already stated my position but to sum it up:

1. Non-existence cannot be strictly proven for things which are supposed to be present in our universe.

2. For me the concept of gods belongs to an infinite set of things for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for their existence and it is in no way special in this set.

Beside gods this set includes such things as flaying spaghetti monster, ghosts, radioactive all-knowing rock from mars which created life, sentient toasters which mind control people, reptile race which takes form of humans they kill... you get the picture.

While I cannot strictly prove non-existence of any of those things I find the probability of their existence vanishingly small (based on how much they differ from things which we know do exist) and in everyday life treat them as if they don't exist.

I would say atheist best describes this position but for me the actual name is the least important thing.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2009
I wrote parts of this hours ago. I read more about Kant in the meantime. I didn't see anything that convinces me that we are so strictly limited by our minds. If an experiment is performed and something unexpected happens then its something that expands previous limits and it looks like Kant didn't take that into account. If I got that wrong please give me a clue.

The rules can't be the underlying reality, at least apart from observation.


We are observing reality. If the rules observed are maintained by other observers and in other tests it is reasonable to take them as something outside the observers mind. People are not identical nor are the tests always identical.

The mind is a limited entity, in function and capacity, and cannot encapsulate Reality without conforming its structure.


Our ability to observe reality was formed by evolutionary processes. It fits well enough for us to have reason to suspect its a good match. We would not have a evolved a time sense it if it wasn't valuable.

Cause and effect are not illusory unless the whole thing is laid in some place that is outside of time, which Kant doesn't seems to care for either. In that case it is all illusion and everything is fixed even this post and in no way am I thinking at all. Seem like a totally futile concept utterly without value to anyone or anything. Doesn't fit the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle either.

I wonder how the concept of evolution would have effected Kant's thinking. Minds shaped by the environment and therefor by at least some the rules of the universe.

In a fairly quick search I don't see Kant mentioned in combination with Heisenberg or the Copenhagen model on Wikipedia.

Got one via Google:

http://www.fdavid...berg.htm

DP You modified the 'a priori' by introducing it as a limited concept, is that true?

Of course, Kant would have taken the 'a priori' as something more absolute than we would do in quantum theory. For instance, Kant would perhaps have said that Euclidean geometry would be a necessary basis for describing the world, while we, after relativity, would say that we need not necessarily use Euclidean geometry; we can use Riemannian geometry, etc. In the same way, causality was taken by Kant as a condition for science. He says that if we cannot conclude from some fact that something must have been before this fact, then we do not know anything, and we cannot make observations, because every observation supposes that there is a causal chain connecting that which we immediately experience to that which has happened. If this causal chain does not exist, then we do not know what we have observed, says Kant. Quantum theory does not agree with this idea, and in fact proves that we can even work in cases where this causal chain does not exist.


So he was aware of Kant anyway. Not surprising as they were both German.

Another thing to keep in mind about the Uncertainty Principle, its not just an idea. It has equations and they produce measurable results. The amount of uncertainty in any instance is computable at least in principle.

http://en.wikiped...riticism

I did notice that on Peter Woit's site Not Even Wrong that he thought Wikipedia was pretty good even excellent on math, but not as good on physics. Apparently with math only real experts even try whereas with physics there is always some non physicist that thinks they understand better than they do(me too I suppose but I don't write on Wikipedia.)

It's very subtle and not obvious, but is rigorous and a philosophical discovery imo.


It doesn't appear that subtle to me so far, maybe because of all the arguing I have done on the net. I think got it pretty well from a Wikki(Yes I really said that - plus I read more later). Yes there are limits to human senses. That's why we make tools. Those tools are not limited by our senses. They do have inherent physical limits. The idea that our minds are geared to see cause and effect, for instance, limits us is kind of silly unless there really are no causes and no effects. If there actually are causes and effects then he was wrong on that part.

Throw it up it comes down. That's a cause and an effect. If somehow that isn't real then neither is
ANYTHING we observe. In which case this conversation isn't happening. Its an illusion. An illusion that plays out in our minds that don't exist either.

As long as the rules work then that IS reality for all practical purposes.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2009
"There is simply no way to establish the probability of something that is posited to exist outside of the Universe". This is the first time this idea "of god existing outside of universe" came forward,


I don't think you understand that statement. The christian god is supposed to exist outside our universe. You have taken that rather on its own and not in context with the discussion. The christian god is also alleged to interact with our universe. Jehovah does a lot of interaction in the Bible and some of it would leave no physical evidence.

I even went as far as quoting the whole discussion in my last post to show it, but you ignored it anyway.


Perhaps you need to quote a bit more clearly. I generally don't ignore things. I also try very hard to make it clear exactly what I am quoting. Quoting vast quantities without clear comments makes it difficult to figure out just what you meant to be relevant. There is a reason I post the way I do. Several actually.

You really have to start applying logic because so far your argumentation only amounts to twisting of facts and pointless rambling.


That is rubbish. I don't ramble. Each word is carefully selected. Logic is checked. An attempt for better clarity may be tested. You might try that.

You came forward with something that does not have such presence so it obviously does not meet my definition of existence. I already clarified this point but you just stubbornly repeat your nonsense.


Not a bit nonsense. You have stubbornly ignored my attempts to clarify, as you are doing now.

I only defined the term "existence" and argued from there that a concept needs to have presence in material world to "exist".


Yes, that is reverse order.

First something can exist outside our universe and that is not nonsense. Second I pointed out that believers DO think their god has a presence. Perhaps you will get to that later(no you ignored it).

That's the truth, I don't stop thinking,


And where did I accuse you of that?

but your reply is very informative, the idea of "not say something useful to your opponent" is completely alien to me,


That was the idea. Passing on hard won information.

you seem to go by the "never admit any errors and if wrong drag everything endlessly" rule.


Look harder. I admit to errors. Sometimes even explicitly.

Yes, exactly what I thought you are just seeing it as an internet flame war


If I wanted to flame you there would be no doubt. I am sorry to have bothered to try to give you a clue. You have taken it as an insult. Congratulations for using my post against me. Learning about flame wars even when you weren't in one I see.

Too bad I was foolish enough to treat you seriously but I've learned my lesson


The wrong lesson. You take things awfully personally. I will try again to impart hard won knowledge. Perhaps this time you will take it as serious.

---------------------------------------------------

Its NOT personal. I don't know you. You don't know me. Nothing you or I can say can possibly be personal.

Now can you get over it.

--------------------------------------------------

Haha! Universe "by most standards," I think you meant to say "by my standards."


By many. I can't help what some self appointed expert says.

http://en.wikiped...Universe

For instance that one. The picture from the COBE is the Universe they are talking about. Then they give a definition that is different. I can't help someone being that silly.

http://en.wikiped...universe

Now that is what most really mean. If you have a problem with that I can't help it.

So no visible universe is NOT the same as the Universe, yes, you can be outside of the first one but no, you can't be outside of the second. This is where your problem comes from.


Only if you don't think there can't be anything that wasn't created in the Big Bang.

Lol, so now I claimed you as a believer?


Yes.

To me you are having difficulty and are simply making another exception to save your point and your god.


Perhaps you meant to say something different but that is what you said.

If you had said HYPOTHETICAL god it would have been clear. This is what come from Posting While Angry.

Lol you don't understand what the term "argument by definition" even means, look it up,


I posted TWO links. Quit writing in anger.

although it's pretty obvious by now that definitions don't bother you, in fact you see them as something bad! Without definitions all talk is just a pointless rambling.


Talk about being without a point. All that without noticing that I DID not only read but POST two separate discussions about it and explained exactly what I was talking about.

No, I don't, I stated my definition of existence


In a post to Noumenen. I checked. How about you doing that?

Since then you have been referring to that original post and claiming I didn't respond. Which was true since after all the post was not to me.

I proved it quoting the whole discussion in the last post.


Learn how to post. It wasn't at all clear.

o for you "beginning and something resembling an end, timelike infinity" is an edge?


Yes. For Einstein and Hawking as well. Time is a border. Space-Time continuum. Einstein's theory of General Relativity was in part an attempt to remove the space border. Hawking said in A Brief History of the Universe that he was trying to remove the border at the beginning of the Universe. Both ends and beginning create border effects. A border is an edge. Whether in time or in space as the both of them make up space-time.

Now that's interesting especially the part "timelike infinity," did I mention that you completely disregard definitions?


Yes you did make that false statement.

http://arxiv.org/.../9709009

http://scitation....g=normal&id=JMAPAQ000023000002000283000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

http://www.citeba.../0010069

And from A brief History of Time

God may know how the universe began, but we cannot give any particular reason for thinking it began one way rather than another. On the other hand, the quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space-time and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the boundary. There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down, and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time


Of course since Hawking believed that the Universe was closed he didn't have to deal with Time-Like infinity.

Please note that one of those links is from 10 years before Stephen Baxter's book.

I didn't make these ideas up. Time-Like infinity is when everything in the Universe is so far apart that there are no more interactions by any sub-atomic particles. If protons don't decay then that might never happen but the same general concept can be applied to the sub-atomic particles plus protons.

I am afraid there's nothing about beginning, time or "timelike infinity."


If you only look for what you want that is all you are likely to find. See the links and quote above.

If those don't work try playing board games. There are not only physical but time borders and I have used time borders to my advantage in games.

Don't bother telling me what I already know, of course a game isn't the universe. Its the concept I am trying to get across.

No, only an ocean of ignorance.


I have noticed that in you. See above about flames and note what I am responding to.

No, you are wrong and again you just can't accept it, there is no such thing as "OPPOSITE axiom,"


An axiom that assumes that there are multiple lines is an opposite axiom. I did point that out.

Again:

Since NEITHER system can prove whether or not there is or is not more than one line through a point any and most geometric systems have an axiom one way or the other. Or limp along without one at all but the that is not what is usually done.

http://en.wikiped...ometries

Non-Euclidean geometry systems differ from Euclidean geometry in that they modify Euclid's fifth postulate, which is also known as the parallel postulate.


Again I didn't make things up.

Or provide this "opposite axiom" if you can.


Sure. Just change a or two word, its amazingly easy.

The Playfair version of Euclid

At most one line can be drawn through any point not on a given line parallel to the given line in a plane

The opposite.

More than one line can be drawn through any point not on a given line parallel to the given line in a plane.

Not a single definition which would support your claims. Sorry, "outside of the Universe" is not included.


They used variants of the word in the definition. Showing it can't really be done.

Which why I said I wouldn't try.

I am sorry that I didn't point it out to you before that you original post was to Noumenon. I had assumed that you knew what you were talking about and I simply had missed it. Then I checked what you quoted and found in a post to Noumenon.

So you are ranting about something you fuzzed up.

Again. I am NOT silly enough to try to define existence. Those definition you posted showed the futility of it. Its like trying to define IS or IT. Everything gets slippery and awkward.

So you confirm here what I said,


Yes I did confirm that you said it TO NOUMENON.

you are trolling.


Even if I was I would still wouldn't try to define existence. Now that would be trolling.

My idea of a troll is to state that:

The only religious belief in Scientology is that L. Ron Hubbard shalt not pay taxes.

Its about the only troll I have done. It never gets a nibble either. I am so disappointed.

Just because you post while angry that doesn't mean I am trolling. It just means you need to be more careful.

've treated you seriously long enough,


Treating me with hostility is not the same as serious.

nd by your own admission see it all as nothing more then a flame war


I did no such thing. That and most if not all of the other crap in that RANT are the products of an angered mind.

Cool down before you reply again.

Oh and since you gave me a one you get one. Tit for tat. Besides this rant of yours deserves a one.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2009
You sure hate scientists, don't you! You sound like a philosopher who can't stand that scientists are increasingly respected while philosophers are all but ignored.


So its not just me that you reply to while angry. I am hurt. I thought I was special.

it is plagued by infinities, it has to be renormalised


Yep.

Landau pole where coupling constant (the strength of an interaction) becomes infinite


See there are things to learn while arguing on the Net. I missed that one.

does not explain any of the physical constants,


True but I don't have a problem with that. I think the effort to do so is futile because I think other numbers might work as well.

does not explain the origin of mass,


Hey, that's what the Higg's is supposed to do. Now if they can only find it. Or give up and try another theory.

fails to give proper value of vacuum energy,


That one is a bit embarrassing. Makes me wonder about all the virtual particles that I have never been fond of.

fails to explain dark matter and dark energy,


Both of which are only problems if

Dark Energy is real

Dark matter isn't something mundane.

I think Dark Matter is a problem. Not so sure about Dark Energy as I am not sure that is real.

fails to accommodate gravity,


It might if you use more than 4 dimensions and a LOT of work. Still that is speculation.

fails to predict neutrino oscillations,


Now that is dirty pool. Its a consequence of not predicting mass so you making the same complaint twice.

does not explain why electrons do not radiate in their base state, and so on....


Yes it does. Its a consequence of the Uncertainty Principle. The electrons don't orbit. That is what got me to give up on the concept of electron orbits.

in reality quantum theory is VERY far from complete,


I don't think he cares about whether QM is complete. He reminded me of the book A Different Universe. Reinventing Physics from the Bottom by Robert B. Laughlin.

Man that was hard to look up. All I had to start with was a Nobel Prize in physics and Bottom.

Don't expect a reply from him. That is his first and so far only post.

And now to poach on another of Superhuman's replies. A two for one.

Beside gods this set includes such things as flaying spaghetti monster, ghosts, radioactive all-knowing rock from mars which created life, sentient toasters which mind control people, reptile race which takes form of humans they kill... you get the picture


How could you leave out the Giant Orbiting Aardvark? And its Orbital Mind Control Lasers not toasters. I do like the Flaying Spaghetti Monster though. An inspired touch of Bondage and Discipline to a otherwise standard retort.

Ethelred
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (22) Mar 11, 2009
[Quote Noumenon] The mind is a limited entity, in function and capacity, and cannot encapsulate Reality without conforming its structure.


[Quote Ethelred]Our ability to observe reality was formed by evolutionary processes. It fits well enough for us to have reason to suspect its a good match. We would not have a evolved a time sense it if it wasn't valuable.
..........
I wonder how the concept of evolution would have effected Kant's thinking. Minds shaped by the environment and therefore by at least some the rules of the universe.


I'm not at all saying that the evolved time sense is not valuable, but clearly those concepts break down in qm. The fact that we evolved on the macroscopic level itself tells you that our minds were only 'designed' to function on that level,... and so there is no reason to think such evolution would have provided concepts applicable to the entire of reality.

[Quote Ethelred]In a fairly quick search I don't see Kant mentioned in combination with Heisenberg or the Copenhagen model on Wikipedia.

Got one via Google:

http://www.fdavid...berg.htm

DP You modified the 'a priori' by introducing it as a limited concept, is that true?

Of course, Kant would have taken the 'a priori' as something more absolute than we would do in quantum theory. For instance, Kant would perhaps have said that Euclidean geometry would be a necessary basis for describing the world, while we, after relativity, would say that we need not necessarily use Euclidean geometry; we can use Riemannian geometry, etc. In the same way, causality was taken by Kant as a condition for science. He says that if we cannot conclude from some fact that something must have been before this fact, then we do not know anything, and we cannot make observations, because every observation supposes that there is a causal chain connecting that which we immediately experience to that which has happened. If this causal chain does not exist, then we do not know what we have observed, says Kant. Quantum theory does not agree with this idea, and in fact proves that we can even work in cases where this causal chain does not exist.


So he was aware of Kant anyway. Not surprising as they were both German.


Heisenberg has written on Kant (Physics and Philosophy, 1958, etc) and did not reject his ideas entirely, as the Copenhagen interpretation has many parallels, in premise.

As I mentioned somewhere above, Heisenberg rejected kant, on the basis that we can still make progress in science, which perhaps Kant did not envision,.. however, IMO, Heisenberg was wrong in rejecting kant here, because the essential point of kant is that we cannot understand reality except through his a-priori concepts, the hardwired form understanding must take. Kant was talking about 'the understanding' and Heisenberg speaks or maybe equates the 'ability to make predictions' with 'understanding', which is wrong;

This is evident in QM, because we Don't Understand it at All, as Feynman and others have stated countless of times. We don't understand it at all because it is not expressible in term of space, time, causality, kant's a-priori sythetic propositions.

[Quote Heisenberg] If this causal chain does not exist, then we do not know what we have observed, says Kant. Quantum theory does not agree with this idea...


This is incorrect. We in fact do NOT know what we have observed despite being able to wrap statistics around observables, we don't know what went on 'behind the scenes',.. as the Copenhagen interpretations admits.

Also, as I mentioned above, Kants speculation on Euclidean geometry was just that. It is irrelevant whether later science made use of non-Euclidean geometry, because the elements of both are the same (space and time).

[Quote Ethelred] The idea that our minds are geared to see cause and effect, for instance, limits us is kind of silly unless there really are no causes and no effects. If there actually are causes and effects then he was wrong on that part


You still don't get it. There is no causality, space, or time, or substratum, apart from a mind making use of these! They are words used to relate observables,.. they are not entities in themselves. In other words they are not observables themselves, they are a means of ordering observables. Hume's analysis of causality showed that there is no analytic link between cause and effect; It is merely a matter of constant conjunction of observables, ... causality is presupposed a-priori, ....in order to relate observables. It is already built in as a function of the mind, in order to be able to experience.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2009
I'm not at all saying that the evolved time sense is not valuable, but clearly those concepts break down in qm.


A lot of stuff does. QM does have time just no obvious arrow as its reversible except that the Uncertaintity Principle and Chaos has to make reversion uncertain which could easily give an arrow for time.

The fact that we evolved on the macroscopic level itself tells you that our minds were only 'designed' to function on that level,


That is true but we we didn't evolve to read either. Abstract thinking makes it possible to think of a lot of things we didn't evolve to do. To give an example of things humans can think off but cannot even begin to percieve:

Four dimensional space
N-dimensional space
Infinity
2nd order infinity
Klein Bottles

All of which imply that we can manage to conceive of the allegedly inconceivable. If nothing else we can throw around random words and see what we can do with them. Thus breaking limits we aren't aware of.

Heisenberg has written on Kant (Physics and Philosophy, 1958, etc) and did not reject his ideas entirely, as the Copenhagen interpretation has many parallels, in premise.


I don't have a problem with that statement. The Copenhagen Model came AFTER the Uncertainty Principle.

ssential point of kant is that we cannot understand reality except through his a-priori concepts, the hardwired form understanding must take.


Two problems there. One we have come to understand things that we had no a-priori concepts of so that part fails the reality test. Second understanding is NOT hardwired. We think symbolically when we choose to, and even when we might prefer not to(the things that go through your mind when trying to meditate or run or get a horrid song out of your head). Kant couldn't have written his papers if he didn't think them out symbolically. The replacement of hardwiring with symbolic thinking changed everything for humans.

because we Don't Understand it at All, as Feynman and others have stated countless of times.


I think its because we don't have a proper model. And unlike some others I really don't have a problem with wave-particle duality. It just took twenty years of mulling it over occasionally and I suspect Feynman understood it better than he admitted. Maybe its because I used to dealing with seemingly arbitrary rules in games.

We don't understand it at all because it is not expressible in term of space, time, causality,


But it is. Time, space and causality all work after taking uncertainty into account. The Multiple Worlds concept makes it a lot easier to deal with as well.

http://en.wikiped...retation

Frankly I don't understand why Dr. Penrose has wasted time on trying to figure out how to get gravity to collapse the wave function. ANY object will do. Sentience is not needed.

From a previous post of mine
"Quantum mechanics describes particles as not being well defined until they are observed. This seems odd, but it is accepted as being true."

There is no need for the observation to be done by anything conscious. Any particle will do. Massive or not. At that point the observed and the observer become entangled and remain that way until the entangled system is observed by an outside particle. Iterate to infinity or the edge of the Universe, whichever comes first.


At least no one objected and both the votes were fives. And Superhuman was on the thread and he didn't object to a Universe with an edge there.

We in fact do NOT know what we have observed despite being able to wrap statistics around observables, we don't know what went on 'behind the scenes',.. as the Copenhagen interpretations admits.


Well I will take Heisenberg's word on that. Of course he could be wrong but to claim otherwise is to claim that evidence and experiment is just a wast of time since we can't really know anything. Which is college sophomore crap.

There is no causality, space, or time, or substratum, apart from a mind making use of these!


Actually its you that don't get it. That's crap. Its only true if all is illusion and that is rabbit hole you are welcome to. I am not going to waste time on that sort of nonsense. It will get you exactly nowhere and assuming the opposite has built modern civilization.

Does that begin to get through to you. Results from assuming Kant is right equals zero. Results from understanding that it is a waste of time is pretty much everything humans have created.

They are words used to relate observables,.. they are not entities in themselves.


The map is not the territory. I got that before you were born I suspect. Its why I don't see this as subtle.

In other words they are not observables themselves, they are a means of ordering observables.


The order comes from observation. Words are tools to deal with the observations. Those tools work unless you have trouble with logic which is another tool.

Hume's analysis of causality showed that there is no analytic link between cause and effect;


David Hume could out consume both Schopenhauer and Hegel.

In other words I don't care what nonsense he espoused. He didn't show anything, he convinced. Again I will point this out.

If the Theory doesn't match the tests its wrong. Assuming causality is real works. Assuming it isn't gets you dead. So Hume was wrong and the same for Kant. You too.

It is already built in as a function of the mind, in order to be able to experience.


As I pointed out before. Its was built in by the Universe itself through the process of evolution. What you are trying to do essentially is convince me that what I do has no effects because there is no cause. Which is a sure way to get dead, ahead of the time you are pretending doesn't exist.

So if you want to convince me SHOW EVIDENCE. As in show how cause and effect fails. If you can't your wrong. I pointed this out before. The only way Kant is right is if there is no cause and effect. If there is he is wrong. So deal with that. You avoided it before.

One more time for redundancy sake.

IF Kant is right THEN there is no cause and effect.

IF there is cause and effect THEN Kant is wrong.

I don't see anything wrong in that logic. If its wrong please show how or show there is no cause and effect keeping in mind that I don't think QM shows a lack of cause and effect.

Ethelred
Noumenon
1 / 5 (18) Mar 12, 2009
"Quantum mechanics describes particles as not being well defined until they are observed. This seems odd, but it is accepted as being true."

[Quote Ethelred] There is no need for the observation to be done by anything conscious. Any particle will do. Massive or not. At that point the observed and the observer become entangled and remain that way until the entangled system is observed by an outside particle. Iterate to infinity or the edge of the Universe, whichever comes first.


Not correct imo. The Schrodinger wave function evolves and entangles into superpositions as interaction occurs with the world. Only when a mind observes and 'make a measurement', that is, forces reality into a presumed form,.. a wave or a particle, by virtue of the instrument design and interpretation, ... does the 'wavefunction collapse'. I am ignoring the multi-worlds theorem because it is not science, if science is still to be grounded on induction. In my view it is just an explaining away, by those who seem to think the wave function is a real entity. The wavefunction is to be discarded upon observation. See von Nueman's projection postulate; Max Born probability interpretation as a (square of) the wavefunction.

[Quote Noumenon] Hume's analysis of causality showed that there is no analytic link between cause and effect;


[Quote Ethelred] David Hume could out consume both Schopenhauer and Hegel.

In other words I don't care what nonsense he espoused. He didn't show anything, he convinced. Again I will point this out.

If the Theory doesn't match the tests its wrong. Assuming causality is real works. Assuming it isn't gets you dead. So Hume was wrong and the same for Kant. You too.

[Quote Noumenon] It is already built in as a function of the mind, in order to be able to experience.


As I pointed out before. Its was built in by the Universe itself through the process of evolution. What you are trying to do essentially is convince me that what I do has no effects because there is no cause. Which is a sure way to get dead, ahead of the time you are pretending doesn't exist.

So if you want to convince me SHOW EVIDENCE. As in show how cause and effect fails. If you can't your wrong. I pointed this out before. The only way Kant is right is if there is no cause and effect. If there is he is wrong. So deal with that. You avoided it before.

One more time for redundancy sake.

IF Kant is right THEN there is no cause and effect.

IF there is cause and effect THEN Kant is wrong.

I don't see anything wrong in that logic. If its wrong please show how or show there is no cause and effect keeping in mind that I don't think QM shows a lack of cause and effect.

Ethelred


LOL, Hume didn't die because he ate too much. He died of what they called consumption then, which is what we call tuberculosis now.

The most accurate theory ever devised by man is undoubtedly QED, and in it, causality breaks down all day long. Processes 'seem' to occur backwards in time, effects seem to manifest before causes, space seems to have no meaning (entanglement/speed of light limit). These events were presented to the likes of Bohr and Heisenberg, by a young Feynman using his diagrams. They called him an fool and said he didn't understand a thing,.. but Feynman stated these were just helpful diagrams and were not to be taken as the form of reality,... in other words time, space, and causality are 'helpful' (necessary requirement of the mind), elements added by one trying to understand it, trying to wrap a mathematical formulation around the observables. So Cause and Effect are only relevant to a mind ordering events for ITS purpose; reality of itself has no need for this!
Noumenon
1 / 5 (18) Mar 12, 2009
Ethelred, my iPhone crashes trying to load this page when I'm away from a computer. If you want to continue, how about starting a thread in the forums;

in the "Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories" section.

http://www.physforum.com/
thales
1 / 5 (1) Mar 12, 2009
LOL, Hume didn't die because he ate too much. He died of what they called consumption then, which is what we call tuberculosis now.

I think Hume would prefer to say he died at the *same time* he had consumption.
JohnSawyer
1 / 5 (1) Mar 12, 2009
LOL, Hume didn't die because he ate too much. He died of what they called consumption then, which is what we call tuberculosis now.

I think Hume would prefer to say he died at the *same time* he had consumption.


Now, how could Hume say anything after he was dead? :)
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 13, 2009
Not correct imo. The Schrodinger wave function evolves and entangles into superpositions as interaction occurs with the world. Only when a mind observes and 'make a measurement', that is, forces reality


Oh what a give away. You are into New Age nonsense. Sure its opinion just like mine is. But mine doesn't demand the Universe exists only if there is an intelligence in it. That is the Strong Anthropic Principle you have there. The "evolves and entangles into superpositions as interaction occurs with the world" part is EXACTLY what I was saying. The difference occurs at the time of observation, you think the whole thing ends in wave collapse by the magic powers of the "MIND", which is nothing but an emergent phenomena of bio-chemistry, I say the observer becomes entangled and now is part of the superposition. Just like any other set of atoms would do. No mysticism, no appeal to human vanity no need for a special relationship with the Universe.

The Universe would exist even if no one ever noticed. Anything else is just another version of Geocentric thinking.

Why do you think the atoms that make up a brain have some special relationship with the Universe? Might as well get religion.

am ignoring the multi-worlds theorem because it is not science,


Yes it is. Every single equation as much as the Copenhagen Model. And after that give away above of non-science I don't see you having much room to call mathematically sound physics non-science.

See von Nueman's projection postulate; Max Born probability interpretation as a (square of) the wavefunction.


You really should read a little about the Many-Worlds Model. You seem to think its some air head spit wadding from a first year philosophy student.

And of course von Neumann stressed this view of things in his book
"Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics", as at the beginning
of Chapter 5 where he says "After the measurement, the state of
affairs is...", and goes on to say the value measured is one of the
eigenvalues of the operator, and the state of of the system is the
corresponding eigenstate.


Which is pretty much what I just said only with jargon, like eigenstate. The whole system becomes entangled.

Now to see Max.
Ouch, first attempt and I get a 'wave structure of matter' site that looks suspiciously like a Aether-wave style crank site. Well try again.

http://en.wikiped...Max_Born

http://en.wikiped...mplitude

At least Wikepedia isn't a crank site. I don't see anything there except probabilities. Nothing at all claiming a mystical power for the human mind.

Its really weird having a Kant fan calling the Multi-Worlds hypothesis non-scientific. Pots and kettles would come to mind but MW has math behind it. Math that checks out.

LOL, Hume didn't die because he ate too much.


You don't have a sense of humor do you? It's BEER not food and I already quoted Monty Python's Philosopher's Drinking Song once before.

The most accurate theory ever devised by man is undoubtedly QED,


That's open to debate. General Relativity has yet to show a single sign of error. That claim is made a lot but really its often an attempt to steamroll the conversation(who ME, with QM, why I have never done that, no never)since GR is every bit as successful and it doesn't require renormalization to remove infinities nor does have a that little problem that QM has with vacuum fluctuations. Plus of course QED doesn't think there is something Magic in the Human Mind. The idea of Feynman going along with that idea is silly.

. Processes 'seem' to occur backwards in time,


Actually 'seems' is not quite right. Its simply allowed. There is no reason to think it is happening except that it is allowed.(coming from a guy that thinks the Universe exists because it can.)

effects seem to manifest before causes, space seems to have no meaning (entanglement/speed of light limit).


No one has ever sent information at a speed faster than C. So again you are wrong. Show one single experiment that shows causality violation. One single incident of faster than C travel. Even then I bet it will only require a small change in the definition of causality to take FTL into account. I have never cared for Einstein's ideas on causality and the speed of light. Maybe its because of my growing up with idea of causality being a tad subjective in some science fiction. Just because I don't care for it doesn't mean its wrong and so far he wins on every test. So that is Special Relativity winning over your ideas of QED.

but Feynman stated these were just helpful diagrams and were not to be taken as the form of reality


Feynman was into the results and not the metaphysics "the idea is to get the answer"(That's from memory of an hour long show with him in the 80's and about algebra). The numbers worked and that is what he wanted. Lots of people in the 50's went that route. Its the idea that things on that scale don't match everyday thinking. It still doesn't make the mind magic. Especially to Feynman.

The diagrams show things going both ways. They do not show the probabilities nor the chaos that are suspected of creating the arrow of time. Just try a three body problem that way. A few loops back and forth and things are not what they were.

Again you evaded. Show a single sign of REAL causality violation. I keep changing the words because you keep evading the CLEAR intent. Repeating the same unsupported claims will not avail you in this discussion. I know enough about QM that telling me things that I am already aware of will not sway me to accept a silly idea that has a brain doing magic and collapsing a wave function. Maybe that explains Dr. Penrose's Quest For Gravity.

If you evade that yet again, be warned. I will taunt you another time with Monty Python. And again you will likely show that you are lacking in humor. Sad that is. Another mind destroyed by Kant. Dr. Jonathon Miller survived it perhaps one day you will too.

And now for Something Completely Different.

A link or two at Youtube:

Tom Leher

http://www.youtub...50F42ss8

http://www.youtub...-aj76zI4

And what I have trying to educate you with

http://www.youtub...RFJwGsbY

I saw that live. Somewhere out there in that audience. Unless that was the second day. Of course for you the day wouldn't matter, time is just a product of the mind. Perhaps they weren't even there.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 13, 2009
f you want to continue, how about starting a thread in the forums;


And get blown away by people that actually know something?

YOU start it. I have a aversion to starting these things. I just chime in when something bugs me. Just few thousand times(or maybe more than twice that) on the old Maximum PC forum and an unknown number of times on

http://apolyton.net/

Quite a few years ago. Too long without an internet connection. They don't count off topic posts there so I only have about a 1,000 official posts. And yes they were also long. Logorrhea (my spell check thinks that was supposed be gonorrhea)of the keyboard.

Ethelred
Noumenon
1 / 5 (18) Mar 13, 2009
Hey Ethelred, I'm a big Monty Python fan too , but didn't get your reference. Anyway, if you think that I am trying to suggest some mystical or magic effect of the mind on reality, your not at all getting the core idea of Kant. There is absolutely nothing mystical or magic about it. Again QED itself demonstrates a failure of causality at that level. If you apply some other multi-worlds craziness to 'save' causality and the classical notion of science that's another arguement.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (18) Mar 13, 2009
I don' t deny time, space, and causality a place in the phenomenal world,.., that is your misapprehension. Hume didn't deny causality a place in the phenomenal world either. His purpose was to show that one cannot learn new things about the world purely deductively, as causality is not an analytic proposition, but an assimulation of observables into temporal order, .. can at best be true to a high degree of probability, and the form of which originates from the subject componant of phenomenal reality.

There is nothing spooky or mystical or 'new age' here. This is established espistemology from a top five philosopher. The problems with taking QED as The reality can be explain by examining right behind our noses,... no need to propose obvious desparate muli- worlds
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2009
your not at all getting the core idea of Kant.


Perhaps it was the way you wrote it.

Thusly:
Only when a mind observes and 'make a measurement', that is, forces reality


If it takes a mind to force reality then its mystical because I seriously doubt that there is anything special about particles that make up a brain vs. particles that are not part of a brain.

Again QED itself demonstrates a failure of causality at that level.


As I pointed out that really isn't true. That there is no obvious inherent arrow of time doesn't mean that causality is violated. Something may simply be missing in the theory and as I wrote chaos or the Uncertainty Principle may function as an arrow. To put it another way the arrow of time is in the direction of greater entropy. Any other direction would result in a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Some theories produce imaginary numbers at intermediate stages. Those numbers must be canceled out before producing numbers that work in out Universe. Same for Feynman diagrams. Just because they can be read either towards increasing entropy or towards decreasing entropy does not mean that both directions are valid in the actual Universe.

If you apply some other multi-worlds craziness to 'save' causality


I keep pointing out that it isn't crazy. And in this instance it isn't needed. It doesn't matter whether you use the Copenhagen Model or the Many Worlds model the arrow of time is inherent from the laws of thermodynamics which have yet to be violated. Which I have been pointing out to Yep in another discussion regarding a power generation con he is enamored with.

I don' t deny time, space, and causality a place in the phenomenal world,.., that is your misapprehension


More like the way you are writing. QM IS at present the base of phenomenal world. If it can ever deal with gravity anyway. Without gravity it is clearly not the whole story and therefor any conclusions about how the universe works cannot be based solely on QM. QED is a subset of QM and is further limited because of that.

His purpose was to show that one cannot learn new things about the world purely deductively


Isn't that part of what Kant had in Critique of Pure Reason? Since I haven't read it I am going on what little I saw in summaries. Clearly anyone that thinks you can ignore physical testing is severely short on reasoning or is ONLY playing with the tools of reason and not trying to do physics. Not doing experiments is what limited the Greeks in Greece(as opposed to a Greek or two in colonies like Archimedes).

. This is established espistemology from a top five philosopher.


I don't care if he has college students shouting from the rafters and claiming to be No. 1. It still has to fit testing. It still has to fit the Universe. If its false its crap or a fun toy like some String fans are claiming these days. (I am not at all certain that the String Hypothesis is bankrupt.)

So where is that evidence? Not a diagram. Not a hypothesis. Evidence.

The reality can be explain by examining right behind our noses


This your area of difficulty. You are putting the reasoning of a few over physical testing. Even Einstein had to be proved correct. Even Newton had to be proved despite his overweening ego. Despite Newton's belief in an absolute coordinate system that idea has been abandoned. Because it didn't fit the evidence. Well actually because a theorem with a relative coordinate system fit the evidence better.

Ethelred
Noumenon
1 / 5 (18) Mar 15, 2009
your not at all getting the core idea of Kant.




Perhaps it was the way you wrote it.



Thusly:

Only when a mind observes and 'make a measurement', that is, forces reality [...into a presumed form]




If it takes a mind to force reality then its mystical because I seriously doubt that there is anything special about particles that make up a brain vs. particles that are not part of a brain.




You seem to understand the idea in a number of posts you made above somewhat, but you still seem to think I am saying that somehow the mind does something To reality; No, no. See the above where i'm am astonished that E. Wigner suggest this as a possibility. That's not what is being stated here.



I finished the above quote which you left off, which is the essense of that sentence. I don't mean that the mind does anything TO reality, like changes reality itself somehow,.. but that the mind is responsible for the conceptual structure in which the phenomenal world is understood, ...which results in conceptual artifacts, existent only by virtue of an observer (space, time, casuality, substratum). Kant proposed phenomenal reality as a subset of noumenal reality, because it is delimited by mind, the latter unknowable in principal,... while the former includes paradigmns inherent in mind, as the ordering framework.





Again QED itself demonstrates a failure of causality at that level.




As I pointed out that really isn't true. That there is no obvious inherent arrow of time doesn't mean that causality is violated. Something may simply be missing in the theory and as I wrote chaos or the Uncertainty Principle may function as an arrow. To put it another way the arrow of time is in the direction of greater entropy. Any other direction would result in a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Some theories produce imaginary numbers at intermediate stages. Those numbers must be canceled out before producing numbers that work in out Universe. Same for Feynman diagrams. Just because they can be read either towards increasing entropy or towards decreasing entropy does not mean that both directions are valid in the actual Universe.




Given Bell's inequality theorem, there can't be anything missing in the theory (!), there are no hidden or unknown variables, because otherwise our basic ideas of probability would be wrong. Causality is an ordering structure of the mind, and does not exist apart from the mind. It is inapplicable to reality at the qm level, ... the mind did not evolve at this level,... coincidence?, no!



Entropy has zero to do with QM or the uncertainty principal, in fact, thermodynamics is a macroscopic phenomenon. If you have a gas in a box,.. the gas itself does not care how much usable energy it has available,.. only an observer who ask such statistical questions does that even matter. If you examine any particular molecule there is no time direction detectable with it at all,.. it is added to that phenomenon as a means of relating one state of the gas to another,.. pure statistics, and not time as an entity, separate from an observer.



Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2009
.which results in conceptual artifacts, existent only by virtue of an observer (space, time, casuality, substratum).


Which is STILL only significant if the concepts are wrong. Otherwise its crap.

Kant proposed phenomenal reality as a subset of noumenal reality, because it is delimited by mind, the latter unknowable in principal,.


The mind is a concept and not a reality. Perhaps that is his error. The brain is knowable. We just don't know it all that well yet. We do know vastly more than Kant regarding the brain.

while the former includes paradigmns inherent in mind, as the ordering framework.


And if the order of the brain is contingent on the order of reality then what? You have yet to deal with this except by misunderstanding QM. Kant made an assumption. I say his premise is unproved and most likely wrong since the brain evolved to deal with reality.

Given Bell's inequality theorem, there can't be anything missing in the theory (!),


Well then the theorem is flawed because QM is incomplete, except that the incompleteness of QM has nothing to do with hidden variables. Ask any one working in String Hypothesis, Quantum Loop Gravity, Twistors, or the Brane hypothesis. They all disagree with you or they wouldn't be working so hard to fix QM.

here are no hidden or unknown variables, because otherwise our basic ideas of probability would be wrong.


I never claimed hidden variables and every thing I have written here shows I don't think there are any hidden variables that Heisenberg missed in coming up with the Principle. I can't even figure out why you even posted that since nothing I said was dependent on hidden variables.

Causality is an ordering structure of the mind,


You keep repeating that as if there was some evidence for it. There isn't. Nor is there a mind. Only a brain.

It is inapplicable to reality at the qm level,


Again you keep posting that and there is nothing to support it. Even when a diagram has time moving in the opposite direction to the usual there is still a cause. Its just in opposite direction.

the mind did not evolve at this level,... coincidence?, no


Actually the brain evolves at many levels. The changes in the genome are random, the pruning of the changes is by the environment and the environment includes but is not limited to QM, gravity, culture, bacteria, viruses and of course cause and effect. Its not a coincidence that the mind sees cause and effect since that is what determines what lives and what fails to reproduce.

Entropy has zero to do with QM or the uncertainty principal, in fact, thermodynamics is a macroscopic phenomenon.


QM and the Uncertainty Principle and Chaos have MUCH to do with Entropy. Thermodynamics functions at all levels. Only when someone looks at one or two particles can one escape from entropy. As soon as you have three you have a three bodied problem and it doesn't matter if the bodies are galaxies or electrons it is impossible to run events backwards in time to the exact same situation as you started with. This is the arrow of time. It functions at all levels.

If you examine any particular molecule there is no time direction detectable with it at all,


Sure it does. Because there is no particular molecule. There are lots. Three will do. Heck one will do if its a molecule as one molecule will have at least 4 bodies. Two electrons and two protons at a minimum.

pure statistics, and not time as an entity, separate from an observer.


Again an observer is not needed. All the bodies effect each other.

Are you aware that Maxwell's Demon has been disproved via information theory? Now if Maxwell's Demon had been proved you might have had a point but we don't live in that universe AND that universe is impossible. It violates not just the laws of thermodynamics but information theory as well.

Gosh I wonder just when you will show that evidence I asked for and will quit ignoring the request. No evidence no leg to stand on.

Your argument is beginning to look like it is based entirely on speculation that doesn't fit the universe. Or information theory which is far more solidly grounded than Kant. Its proven in the mathematical sense. Any universe that can exist will not violate information theory. Any universe that could violate information theory cannot exist. Of course that is MY hypothesis. The Universe exists because it can. Corollary - Universes that violate mathematical principles cannot exist. Therefor a universe that doesn't have entropy cannot exist.

Ethelred
Noumenon
1 / 5 (18) Mar 17, 2009
[Quote Noumenon] Kant proposed phenomenal reality as a subset of noumenal reality, because it is delimited by mind, the latter unknowable in principal,.


[Quote Etherred] The mind is a concept and not a reality. Perhaps that is his error. The brain is knowable. We just don't know it all that well yet. We do know vastly more than Kant regarding the brain.

.....And if the order of the brain is contingent on the order of reality then what? You have yet to deal with this except by misunderstanding QM.


Of course when we say mind, we mean that complex of mental activity, both pre-conscious and during, which are elements of perception and reason, and since this is a manifestation of brain function, a bio-device,.. it would be ludicrous to think that it would not be limited, as all devices are, so that it could know the essence of reality apart from its own operation. The brain, or mind, evolved on the macroscopic level, which as is clear is quit different fundamentally from the quantum world.

Kant, nor Hume, not Bohr, needed to be neurosurgeons to make advancements in epistemology.

[Quote Noumenon] Given Bell's inequality theorem, there can't be anything missing in the theory (!),


[Quote Ethelred] Well then the theorem is flawed because QM is incomplete, except that the incompleteness of QM has nothing to do with hidden variables. Ask any one working in String Hypothesis, Quantum Loop Gravity, Twistors, or the Brane hypothesis. They all disagree with you or they wouldn't be working so hard to fix QM.


Wrong. It has been empirically demonstrated that Bell inequalities are violated. You ask why I bring up local hidden variables,.. because this is how Einstein sought to find a way out of the irrational conclusions of qm. I cannot convince you that Kant's transcendental deduction, or Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation of qm, says something profound about our ability in principal of understanding reality, unless you first recognize the serious conceptual problem of QM.

You stated that QM is incomplete; ...well if it is, than there must be unknown variables. On the one hand you claim QM is incomplete, then enumerate a number of obviously incomplete and non-empirical theories to replace it! The violation of Bell type inequalities, shows that it can't be fixed.

In regard to thermodynamics, I think you make a decent point, however in QED it is too difficult to make calculations for a mildly complex system anyway, so typically only a single element, say in entanglement or spin, is dealt with, which can't show an arrow of time. In QM a past event cannot be found that is deterministically, causally adequate, to explain why a given observable rather than some existent statistical alternatives to it occurred. QM is acausal.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (19) Mar 17, 2009
How many times do I have to pin you, before you bow down to me? LOL.

[Quote Ethelred]Your argument is beginning to look like it is based entirely on speculation that doesn't fit the universe. Or information theory which is far more solidly grounded than Kant. Its proven in the mathematical sense. Any universe that can exist will not violate information theory. Any universe that could violate information theory cannot exist. Of course that is MY hypothesis. The Universe exists because it can. Corollary - Universes that violate mathematical principles cannot exist. Therefor a universe that doesn't have entropy cannot exist.


I would only modify this as stating, ...cannot exist in the phenomenal world.

Btw, I replied to a post by 'armit' in his thread on Time in the forums, just to upset some more people,...
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2009
and since this is a manifestation of brain function, a bio-device,.. it would be ludicrous to think that it would not be limited, as all devices are, so that it could know the essence of reality apart from its own operation.


It would be ludicrous to think that a brain that evolved to see with light could see with electrons. No wait, we CAN see with electrons via several different tools. Again you forget that humans are tool makers. Perhaps another problem of the Kant. Philosophers have a long tradition of not dirtying their hands with experiments.

Kant, nor Hume, not Bohr, needed to be neurosurgeons to make advancements in epistemology.


They needed to do experiments to test their ideas against reality. Otherwise its just naval gazing or in more colorful terms intellectual masturbation.

You ask why I bring up local hidden variables,.. because this is how Einstein sought to find a way out of the irrational conclusions of qm


That's his problem, not mine as should be obvious from what I have written. I only said it was incomplete not inherently flawed. I don't see anything irrational in QM. It's just rules. Rules of the Universe and few if any really thinks QM is a full explanation of the Universe. There is that GR theory wondering around out there to deal with. QM is incomplete in that it is not a TOE. I don't have a problem with that either. It could simply be that both theorems are complete and both work independently. Assuming that however is a sure way to not find a TOE if one is possible.

Perhaps you are just misunderstanding my statement that QM is incomplete and are ignoring every time I agree with Heisenberg. So again, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle matches experiments. That does not make QM complete. It does make Einstein wrong about QM. Einstein being wrong about QM does not make QM complete as GR tests out every bit as well as QM. Without a quantum theory of gravity QM is incomplete. It has nothing to do with hidden variables.

Is that clear enough?

I cannot convince you that Kant's transcendental deduction, or Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation of qm, says something profound about our ability in principal of understanding reality, unless you first recognize the serious conceptual problem of QM.[q/]

You can't convince me that naval gazing is superior to experiment, that is true. That is why I asked for EVIDENCE. QM has very little of the conceptual to it. It's primarily empirical, which is the source of the accusations of it being ad hoc. If it is an actual, if incomplete, set of rules of the universe than it doesn't matter whether it is ad hoc or not.

Oh and here is more reasoning for the Many Worlds Model.

From:
http://en.wikiped..._Theorem

The quantum mechanical wavefunction can also provide a local realistic description, if the wavefunction values are interpreted as the fundamental quantities that describe reality. Such an approach is called a many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. In this controversial view, two distant observers both split into superpositions when measuring a spin. The Bell inequality violations are no longer counterintuitive, because it is not clear which copy of the observer B observer A will see when going to compare notes. If reality includes all the different outcomes, locality in physical space (not outcome space) places no restrictions on how the split observers can meet up.


That's a small part of the page, the page is not advocating any particular model.

You stated that QM is incomplete; ...well if it is, than there must be unknown variables


Nonsense, unless someone can show a flaw in Bell's Theorem. There may be undiscovered concepts that unify QM and GR.

The violation of Bell type inequalities, shows that it can't be fixed.


The violation shows the Heisenberg was right. That was the whole idea of the Bell's Theorem. If the inequalities are violated then there is no hidden variable.

Another wiki with Bell's tests experiments including with 18km separation.

http://en.wikiped...eriments

There are still loopholes. There may be no way to cover all the loopholes. However if no error can be shown than it will reasonable to assume that there are no hidden variables.

so typically only a single element, say in entanglement or spin, is dealt with, which can't show an arrow of time


To me this only means that things can go in either direction. Neutrons break down into a proton, and electron and an antineutrino. Should a proton capture an electron and an antineutrino then it becomes a neutron but this is normally not a probable event. Again giving an arrow of time via probability. It clearly must happen in the formation of neutron stars which seem to actually exist.

In QM a past event cannot be found that is deterministically, causally adequate, to explain why a given observable rather than some existent statistical alternatives to it occurred. QM is acausal.


Probabilities count. Just because something is not certain that does not mean there is no cause. Just that it is uncertain.

Uncertainty is real, live with it. Unless someone proves otherwise.

How many times do I have to pin you, before you bow down to me? LOL.


You have to pin me. Since you are naval gazing you can't.

I would only modify this as stating, ...cannot exist in the phenomenal world.


Then it doesn't exist to all intents and purposes. Kind of like a god that can't be tested for. If it can't be tested for then it doesn't matter whether it exists or not. No one will notice. And that is as far as I go on the importance of observers. No observer is needed other than there is something to notice. If I am right on the existence of universes then there should be far more without intelligent life than with but they won't be noticed. The VERY long term question about our Universe is whether there is a way to leave it for another before life becomes unsupportable.

Btw, I replied to a post by 'armit' in his thread on Time in the forums, just to upset some more people,...


Well I seem to have upset Superhuman. He hasn't posted in a week anywhere on physorg. Maybe he just doesn't have the time. That happened to me at Christmas. That bugged me. I try not to get upset as it is counterproductive in discussions. Pointing that out seems to be one of the things that upset the Ubermensch.

Ah, he just showed up again.

http://www.physor...506.html

As for armit you could have posted a link. He is NOT on this forum. He is on the forum you mentioned earlier. Google is my friend. When it keeps my data to itself anyway.

Why are you trying to bug someone that agrees with you? Armit that is. Or are you just hoping that his troll will get the attention of others? He does not seem to be well thought of there. Not worth bothering with at present. He has nothing to say for himself and I am not about to argue with people that aren't there.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2009
Please ignore the mess above, though if you read forums the way I do this is too late.

Reposted in clearer form here. I hope:

and since this is a manifestation of brain function, a bio-device,.. it would be ludicrous to think that it would not be limited, as all devices are, so that it could know the essence of reality apart from its own operation.


It would be ludicrous to think that a brain that evolved to see with light could see with electrons. No wait, we CAN see with electrons via several different tools. Again you forget that humans are tool makers. Perhaps another problem of the Kant. Philosophers have a long tradition of not dirtying their hands with experiments.

Kant, nor Hume, not Bohr, needed to be neurosurgeons to make advancements in epistemology.


They needed to do experiments to test their ideas against reality. Otherwise its just naval gazing or in more colorful terms intellectual masturbation.

You ask why I bring up local hidden variables,.. because this is how Einstein sought to find a way out of the irrational conclusions of qm


That's his problem, not mine as should be obvious from what I have written. I only said it was incomplete not inherently flawed. I don't see anything irrational in QM. It's just rules. Rules of the Universe and few if any really thinks QM is a full explanation of the Universe. There is that GR theory wondering around out there to deal with. QM is incomplete in that it is not a TOE. I don't have a problem with that either. It could simply be that both theorems are complete and both work independently. Assuming that however is a sure way to not find a TOE if one is possible.

Perhaps you are just misunderstanding my statement that QM is incomplete and are ignoring every time I agree with Heisenberg. So again, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle matches experiments. That does not make QM complete. It does make Einstein wrong about QM. Einstein being wrong about QM does not make QM complete as GR tests out every bit as well as QM. Without a quantum theory of gravity QM is incomplete. It has nothing to do with hidden variables.

Is that clear enough?

I cannot convince you that Kant's transcendental deduction, or Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation of qm, says something profound about our ability in principal of understanding reality, unless you first recognize the serious conceptual problem of QM.


You can't convince me that naval gazing is superior to experiment, that is true. That is why I asked for EVIDENCE. QM has very little of the conceptual to it. It's primarily empirical, which is the source of the accusations of it being ad hoc. If it is an actual, if incomplete, set of rules of the universe than it doesn't matter whether it is ad hoc or not.

Oh and here is more reasoning for the Many Worlds Model.

From:

http://en.wikiped..._Theorem

There are still loopholes. There may be no way to cover all the loopholes. However if no error can be shown than it will reasonable to assume that there are no hidden variables.

so typically only a single element, say in entanglement or spin, is dealt with, which can't show an arrow of time


To me this only means that things can go in either direction. Neutrons break down into a proton, and electron and an antineutrino. Should a proton capture an electron and an antineutrino then it becomes a neutron but this is normally not a probable event. Again giving an arrow of time via probability. It clearly must happen in the formation of neutron stars which seem to actually exist.

In QM a past event cannot be found that is deterministically, causally adequate, to explain why a given observable rather than some existent statistical alternatives to it occurred. QM is acausal.


Probabilities count. Just because something is not certain that does not mean there is no cause. Just that it is uncertain.

Uncertainty is real, live with it. Unless someone proves otherwise.

How many times do I have to pin you, before you bow down to me? LOL.


You have to pin me. Since you are naval gazing you can't.

I would only modify this as stating, ...cannot exist in the phenomenal world.


Then it doesn't exist to all intents and purposes. Kind of like a god that can't be tested for. If it can't be tested for then it doesn't matter whether it exists or not. No one will notice. And that is as far as I go on the importance of observers. No observer is needed other than there is something to notice. If I am right on the existence of universes then there should be far more without intelligent life than with but they won't be noticed. The VERY long term question about our Universe is whether there is a way to leave it for another before life becomes unsupportable.

Btw, I replied to a post by 'armit' in his thread on Time in the forums, just to upset some more people,...


Well I seem to have upset Superhuman. He hasn't posted in a week anywhere on physorg. Maybe he just doesn't have the time. That happened to me at Christmas. That bugged me. I try not to get upset as it is counterproductive in discussions. Pointing that out seems to be one of the things that upset the Ubermensch.

Ah, he just showed up again.

http://www.physor...506.html

As for armit you could have posted a link. He is NOT on this forum. He is on the forum you mentioned earlier. Google is my friend. When it keeps my data to itself anyway.

Why are you trying to bug someone that agrees with you? Armit that is. Or are you just hoping that his troll will get the attention of others? He does not seem to be well thought of there. Not worth bothering with at present. He has nothing to say for himself and I am not about to argue with people that aren't there.

I had to edit this. What a mess the edit button made. I had to do a lot of cleaning.

Ethelred
Noumenon
1 / 5 (18) Mar 18, 2009

[Quote Noumenon] It has been empirically demonstrated that Bell inequalities are violated. You ask why I bring up local hidden variables,.. because this is how Einstein sought to find a way out of the irrational conclusions of qm. I cannot convince you that Kant's transcendental deduction, or Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation of qm, says something profound about our ability in principal of understanding reality, unless you first recognize the serious conceptual problem of QM.


You can't convince me that naval gazing is superior to experiment, that is true. That is why I asked for EVIDENCE. QM has very little of the conceptual to it. It's primarily empirical, which is the source of the accusations of it being ad hoc. If it is an actual, if incomplete, set of rules of the universe than it doesn't matter whether it is ad hoc or not.

Oh and here is more reasoning for the Many Worlds Model.


It is not 'naval gazing' what ever that is. QM changed science in a profound way. You brush off the problem I'm trying to get across because you think maybe another theory will bring back our ability to understand reality, is that it? The point of science no longer is to understand reality, for the reasons I have been given (Copenhagen/Kant),.. it is to make predictions, and that is it!

It used to be thought that we could 'visualize' or understand reality within our existent mental paradigms. In the early 1900's, there were experimental results, I'm sure you are aware, that existent intuitive classical ideas, failed completely to explain. One was the specific heat problem, degrees of freedom dropping off with low temp and high freq,.. Boltzman proved mathematically, proved, that the then accepted intuitive classical ideas (kinetic theory of gases), could not account for the experimental results, never. The other case was of course black body radiation,.. it was again proven mathematically that the accepted intuitive classical ideas failed to account for experimental results. In both cases, QM was the resulting reluctant mathematical formulation that could account for experimental results, but it was absolutely non-intuitive. Einstein and Schrodinger did not like these results, why, because it changed science,.. no more understanding, just predicting.

It has been my contention that QED is not in fact understood,.. so in that sense it is an incomplete description of reality,... but not because it is a poor theory, but because it CANNOT describe reality intelligibly. It is complete in the sense that it is unfixable given Bells theorem with experimental proof, ...it predicts observables very well,... its just that the thing is completely irrational.

Discussion of other work-in-progress theories, like string theory, multi-worlds, are speculation as they are not the SM, and anyway it is likely they would end up with the same conceptual problems as QM.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (18) Mar 18, 2009
As for armit you could have posted a link. He is NOT on this forum. He is on the forum you mentioned earlier. Google is my friend. When it keeps my data to itself anyway.

Why are you trying to bug someone that agrees with you? Armit that is. Or are you just hoping that his troll will get the attention of others? He does not seem to be well thought of there. Not worth bothering with at present. He has nothing to say for himself and I am not about to argue with people that aren't there.


I didn't target him specifically,.. just took advantage on a existing thread. I cannot understand him anyway. I have posted on like topics over there many times, many disagree yes, some seem to get it (Good Elf). Philosophy of Science is a relevant subject imo. [I would suggest; Curd/Cover-1998, and Sklar-1992.] The Copenhagen interpretation (really, neo-Kant) is hear to stay, imo.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (18) Mar 18, 2009
You say that the multi-worlds interpretation is more reasonable? Upon a measurement, schrodinger wave function collapse, the resulting observable is in our world, the remainder of the probability amplitude, the other statistical possibilities, are to be thought of as realized in other worlds, is this right? So what really the difference here,.. you speak of multi-worlds unknowable by definition of the Schrodinger wave collapse,... while I talk about Noumenal reality, reality as it is apart from being conceptualized by mind, unknowable by definition. Multi-worlds is ad hoc in comparison with my position of subjective form of our conception of reality being a function of mind.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2009
It is not 'naval gazing' what ever that is


Oops. That should have been NAVEL gazing. Not some weird ship spotting hobby. This is a case where a spelling error is subject to misinterpretation.

Dear Lord of the Admiralty

It has come to our attention that the Philosopher Kant has been accused of Naval Gazing. We here at the War Office wish for you to see to it that his movements be observed should he ever enter Great Britain. We do not wish for a man of his caliber to spy on His Majesty's ships. Its bad enough that the Americans have developed superior frigates that are becoming quite a problem for British shipping. We do not wish to deal with nations that might be able to afford to build and man Ships of Line in a similar configuration.

Yours truly
Lord Handle Polisher
The War Office

Philosophy. Navel gazing. Its that lack of testing and no experimentation that makes it navel gazing.

You brush off the problem I'm trying to get across because you think maybe another theory will bring back our ability to understand reality, is that it?


No. I just don't see the problem you claim exists. I would like for someone to look deeper and find something from first principles like Einstein managed with SR and GR.The whole idea of getting to first principles is something that seems foreign to QM. Of course the rules may be all there is and then that will be the first principles.

he point of science no longer is to understand reality, for the reasons I have been given (Copenhagen/Kant),.. it is to make predictions, and that is it!


In case you haven't noticed, and clearly you haven't, I have been pointing out that is where QM is, at present, for this entire discussion. However if there is nothing deeper than the rules, then the rules ARE reality. And give up on trying to beat me over the head with the Copenhagen Model since I don't actually subscribe to it at the moment. There is no way to distinguish which model is correct one and things actually make more sense in the Many Worlds approach. Which makes it conceptually superior to the Copenhagen model. The only thing the Copenhagen has going for it is that it was first.

It used to be thought that we could 'visualize' or understand reality within our existent mental paradigms.


Works pretty well with GR so far but that is our PRESENT existent paradigm and not the one that existed prior to GR. And that is reality. I think you haven't learned to think statistically. Try learning some game theory. Unlike most people I DO think in terms of probabilities. Must be all the game playing and trying to beat my brother. He is better with details so the only way I can beat him is by have better strategy. Part of a better strategy is to understand the probabilistic nature of almost all games.

The other case was of course black body radiation,.. it was again proven mathematically that the accepted intuitive classical ideas failed to account for experimental results. In both cases, QM was the resulting reluctant mathematical formulation that could account for experimental results, but it was absolutely non-intuitive.


Except that Planck figured it out. He had to have some sort of intuition to do so. Its not that it wasn't intuitive, its that Einstein hated the idea of probability. Again that was his problem and not mine. If they can't understand rules of the universe then they were just being stubborn. I see it all the time in Evolution discussions. Insisting that the old ways are intuitive is a bar to learning. They weren't intuitive in any obvious way. Enormous amounts of effort were needed to discover those concepts. Study, experiment, intuition or even guessing and then testing it against the real world. No navel gazing allowed in the testing section except for figuring out ways to test.

It has been my contention that QED is not in fact understood,


It is mine that it doesn't matter at the moment. If its all there is then it IS understood if you look at it as a set of rules. If it isn't all there is then there is more to learn. A good thing by my thinking. I see no reason to throw up ones hands because Kant said it is beyond the ken of mankind. We know far more than he ever supposed one could know.

so in that sense it is an incomplete description of reality,.


In no such way. Its incomplete in that it doesn't deal with gravity. In any other sense it is at the moment as complete as the evidence allows. Unless someone has a GR level brainstorm. One that works that is.

but not because it is a poor theory, but because it CANNOT describe reality intelligibly.


You have point of difficulty in you concept there. I have been trying to get it through to you in post after post. IF it works THEN it is right. At least to level we can measure at present. It IS intelligible. Its a set of rules. Learn to live with that and then it makes sense. You are stuck in the past. Like Einstein was wasting his time trying to make a non-statistical universe match the real statistical one we live in.

Discussion of other work-in-progress theories, like string theory, multi-worlds, are speculation as they are not the SM


You don't get it. The multi-world model is NOT mere speculation. Its every bit as solid as the Copenhagen Model, you just refuse to accept that. String theory isn't. Its an unfinished hypothesis with math problems. The SM isn't a model. Its a set of rules and that may indeed be reality. Only if it isn't we won't find reality without looking.

I can live with uncertainty. You seem to have trouble with it. Like Einstein. Embrace uncertainty and the future may be yours. So far its Heisenberg's.

------------------------------------------------------

I didn't target him specifically,.. just took advantage on a existing thread.


Well everyone else is ignoring it. I am not going to join in either unless someone else with some sense replies. That site has issues. Its moderated and this one isn't but I notice that one has some really stupid inane crap going on. I looked at the Creation-Evolution stuff a bit and can't see anyone worth discussing anything yet. The Mod is part of the problem there as well.

The Copenhagen interpretation (really, neo-Kant) is hear to stay, imo.


As long you see contradictions in it why do you stick with it? Leave the path of darkness and join the path of enlightenment. Or take my path which can deal with both models mostly by not getting upset and calling something a contradiction when its just a failure of imagination.

Open your mind. There is no Dana only Zule. Don't cross the streams.

Try not let your brains fall out in the process.

---------------------------------------------------------

Upon a measurement, schrodinger wave function collapse, the resulting observable is in our world, the remainder of the probability amplitude, the other statistical possibilities, are to be thought of as realized in other worlds, is this right?


Not really. There is no collapse. There are many worlds. You just don't know which you are in till you look. Where people freak out over it is that every quantum event would produce more worlds. To me its covered by my concept of things existing because they can. I can't wear green shoelaces in another universe tomorrow for instance because I don't have any today. But I can choose between a lot of socks. The green shoelace universe can't exit but both a brown sock and a black sock universe can so they both do. Or will. That one starts me down the road of time not existing. I have to think on that.

No time equals no space. Done. We live in space time so we have to deal with time. No one can explain magnetism either. Is that hazy enough?

reality as it is apart from being conceptualized by mind, unknowable by definition.


Which is argument by definition and I don't agree with your definition. Its not unknowable. The inside of a black hole is unknowable. Unless you are inside the black hole. Then the outside is unknowable.

Multi-worlds is ad hoc


The math has been worked out. Now the collapsing wave function is ad hoc to me.

You say tomato and I say tomato.
You say potato and I say potato
tomato ... tomato ....potato ......potato
Where is the conflict in this?

in comparison with my position of subjective form of our conception of reality being a function of mind.


See what Superhuman is missing? Plagarize. Just call it research.

Our brains are a product of reality. Our conception of reality is formed by observation, modeling and then testing. If our conception is wrong sooner or later some test will show it. This effort of yours to evade testing is where you are going wrong. Kant was a philosopher not a scientist. He tried to limit man. A scientists job is at least partly to remove limits. Don't talk to me about the area between the limits. I didn't take that course.

QM even if complete is in no way showing Kant as right. If QM is incomplete, and it clearly is not a theory of everything, that how the heck can that show Kant as right?

Ethelred
jdlaw
1 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2009
Not to get us back onto the religion bickering, but belief is key to realism. Without it, there is only non-locality. Faith and doubt are the same thing in different degrees. A doubt is believing something to be untrue when you do not know for sure. Faith is believing something to be true when you do not know for sure. The key is that nothing physical in this universe is known for sure. It is all probablistic, i.e. there is a 99.999... percent chance that you are actually reading this post. There is also a chance that you are dreaming this or that you are the victim of some other deception. In the end, there only is truth and deception whether we choose faith or doubt. It is just as easy to "believe" something is true as it is to believe it is false. We must do both with equal vigor.

On the other hand, we must consider too that we are not deceived and the subjective local reality existing per singuli (i.e. innate and true in and of itself, deity not included) is a possibility. To fathom such thoughts we must again return to conceptualization, or the possibilities of thinking and of the thinking mind.

There are only four alternatives to the framework suggested above as to how the concept of local reality has come to be in our minds:

1. There is a God and that power has ordered reality as an instance for our minds to discover.
2. There is no God, but reality is a simple truth in and of itself.
3. There is a God and deity has deceived us as to the order of reality.
4. There is no deity and local reality is but a simple falsehood.

We then confront ourselves with the realization that local reality on the macro level holds true across from one individual to another. It doesn't matter whom or what taught us local reality, they all taught us the things we touch see or feel are real. Reality, therefore is not an idea of the mind alone, innate to us babes of the womb, but rather taught to us through our extensions. And through that confirmation from both our minds and of our extensions, that things are real, it is no longer just a part of our individual minds, but has been extended. This is to suggest that reality is both a subjective and an objective process, but we can continue to refocus this examination on just the subjective portions alone.

And now returning to our quest we are engaged, which is an attempt to rule out any of the four alternative frameworks above, to arrive lastly at the one correct and true status of things, the next step is to rule out is whether God can be a deceiver. It doesn't matter whether or not there is a God at this point except that if there is a God, we can rule out that God is a deceiver, at least as to this world.

We can look out our windows and indeed we can see the people down on the street, but as we said above, all corporeal things, even down to our very own physical existence is nothing but extension. What a step it would be to further declare absolutely that those extensions that we view are actually other souls that do also exist. Those people seem real to us, but they could also be a part of a god's deception. It could all be an act in play - a play designed to entertain our souls for some purpose, but to exactly what purpose we know not.

So now back to whether or not there is a God. Which type of thought do we now turn to in order to answer this question? Will it be volition, affection, or a judgment? Volition has worked well for the action to cast out falsehoods and it was our judgment that gave us the power to do so. Now, it was also easy to use our volitions to open our own eyes. It was easy by judgment to cast upon falsehoods that we have allowed falsehoods to be cast out. But as to the truth or error of deity, is seems we cannot yet be sure and yet we drive on, because it is only in judgments that formal falsity, or falsity properly so called, can be met with.

But as mankind can endeavor to obtain by degrees a more intimate and familiar knowledge of self and his affections, the knowledge of the opportunity for true companionship is no small thing when for many people, the possibility of isolation is truly one of the most feared of fears. It is no small thing therefore, to contemplate whether any being outside ourselves truly exists.

We might also ask whether this cause owes its origin and existence to itself, or to some other cause. For if this cause is self-existent, it follows then that this cause is God; for any cause that possesses the perfection of self-existence, it must likewise, without doubt, have the power of actually possessing every perfection of which it has. In other words, all the perfections conceived belong to God. But if we owe one causes existence to another cause, then we demand again, for a similar reason, whether this second cause exists of itself or through another being, until, from stage to stage, we at length arrive at an ultimate cause, which will be God. Therefore, let us re-convince ourselves of the certainty of the following statement and with purpose and conviction; let us reconvene to tell ourselves: we are not alone.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2009
The key is that nothing physical in this universe is known for sure. It is all probablistic, i.e. there is a 99.999... percent chance that you are actually reading this post.


Oh its one hundred percent. Any doubt would just be a waste of time. Its in line with the idea that you MUST accept your perceptions as long a they are working for you. Otherwise you be doubting whether the wall in front of you is real. Banging into the wall to test your eyesight would be just plain stupid.

here is also a chance that you are dreaming this


I can tell. My eyes are open an I can move my fingers. Can't do that when I am asleep. Any deception would be at the level of the Matrix and again there is no sense in going down that route.

1. There is a God and that power has ordered reality as an instance for our minds to discover.


See above. Untestable and not reasonable to assume it any more than the Matrix.

2. There is no God, but reality is a simple truth in and of itself.


A reasonable assumption since its less likely to get you killed if you are wrong.

3. There is a God and deity has deceived us as to the order of reality.


Same as for the first. Applies to the Matrix as well as a deity.

4. There is no deity and local reality is but a simple falsehood.


That is a path to the booby hatch. There are of course more than those four. Never trust false limits in a discussion. They should be pointed out. Two and four can be blended in a number ways as can one and two although to a lesser extent since any intentional fraud by a deity would count up quickly to the level of three. However the deity could change its mind and decide to stop defrauding those under its control. Also a deity could be quite a bit less than omnipotent or omniscient and still violate the apparent laws of the Universe.

We then confront ourselves with the realization that local reality on the macro level holds true across from one individual to another


That line doesn't fallow from the previous statements. I suspect you left out some words so I won't bother commenting on what you might have meant. You were going down the illusion route and now are going the reality route. Perhaps your god is messing with your head.

Reality, therefore is not an idea of the mind alone, innate to us babes of the womb, but rather taught to us through our extensions.


You really need to work on clarity as that is again the opposite of the previous statement. Its crap anyway in that its a clear waste of time to doubt things to that degree.

This is to suggest that reality is both a subjective and an objective process, but we can continue to refocus this examination on just the subjective portions alone.


I won't unless you make things just a tad less confused.

the next step is to rule out is whether God can be a deceiver


You seem to have concluded that there is a god without doing anything to get there. Show your work, don't hide it offstage. Once you assume a god you have gone down a route I only go for the sake argument. You CAN'T rule out a deceptive god. You can only deceive yourself. Popular with believers.

It doesn't matter whether or not there is a God at this point except that if there is a God, we can rule out that God is a deceiver, at least as to this world.


Magic handwaving. There is no way to rule out a deception of that degree.

but as we said above, all corporeal things, even down to our very own physical existence is nothing but extension.


As YOU said above. There is no we in there. I sure don't agree.

What a step it would be to further declare absolutely that those extensions that we view are actually other souls that do also exist.


Where did the souls come from? If you want to say people then do so.

It could all be an act in play - a play designed to entertain our souls for some purpose, but to exactly what purpose we know not.


The worst sort of navel gazing. Sophomore college nonsense. Freshman really and not in any discussion I was involved in.

o now back to whether or not there is a God.


That paragraph is so filled with meaningless noise there is no use commenting.

The next was just as bad.

We might also ask whether this cause owes its origin and existence to itself, or to some other cause.


Clarity thy name is not jdlaw. Its your first post so maybe you just need practice.

For if this cause is self-existent, it follows then that this cause is God; for any cause that possesses the perfection of self-existence, i


Well I am certain of one thing. You are not a Jesuit. Nor a scientist. Maybe the guy that came up 2012.

it must likewise, without doubt, have the power of actually possessing every perfection of which it has.


That doesn't follow at all, except that is equally dubious reasoning if that word can be used in reference to your post.

n other words, all the perfections conceived belong to God.


Again with the made up conclusion not based on the questionable premises.

Therefore, let us re-convince ourselves of the certainty of the following statement and with purpose and conviction; let us reconvene to tell ourselves: we are not alone.


About the only certainty I have regarding your post is that it needs a LOT of work. It wanders around, goes from point A to point Not A without rhyme or reason. It has scads of what looks vaguely like dubious assumptions. Statements that might have been intended as logic. Things I think were intended as conclusions but didn't follow from anything that preceded. Its a mess.

Take smaller bites. Try to see if YOU can make heads or tails of what you posted before hitting the submit button. You joined at 7:04 and posted that at 7:22 so you spent some time on it. Spend less time writing maybe and more time checking. I spend nearly equal times on many of my posts. Cleaning up the crap. Throwing out things I didn't need. Yes I do throw things out. Shudder at how long they were before trimming. Adding in some jokes as I go. I gotta entertain myself first. Otherwise this would be great rotting waste of time.

Write in a text processor of some kind then cut and paste. Checking in that little box gives a different perspective on my writing.

Welcome the discussions. I hope that wasn't a one time post. Then I would have wasted my time replying.

Ethelred
Noumenon
1 / 5 (18) Mar 21, 2009
[Quote Noumenon]You brush off the problem I'm trying to get across because you think maybe another theory will bring back our ability to understand reality, is that it?





[Quote Ethelred] No. I just don't see the problem you claim exists. I would like for someone to look deeper and find something from first principles like Einstein managed with SR and GR.The whole idea of getting to first principles is something that seems foreign to QM. Of course the rules may be all there is and then that will be the first principles.

[Quote Noumenon] the point of science no longer is to understand reality, for the reasons I have been given (Copenhagen/Kant),.. it is to make predictions, and that is it!





[Quote Ethelred] In case you haven't noticed, and clearly you haven't, I have been pointing out that is where QM is, at present, for this entire discussion. However if there is nothing deeper than the rules, then the rules ARE reality. And give up on trying to beat me over the head with the Copenhagen Model since I don't actually subscribe to it at the moment. There is no way to distinguish which model is correct one and things actually make more sense in the Many Worlds approach. Which makes it conceptually superior to the Copenhagen model. The only thing the Copenhagen has going for it is that it was first.




How is the multi-worlds interpretation conceptually superior to my application of Kant's philosophy (or Bohr's Copenhagan), when both suggest a reality unknowable in principal. The multi-worlds is utterly ridiculous in claiming other unknowable worlds, to keep Schrodinger's wave equation intact after an observation. That is the epitome of the tail wagging the dog! It much more rational imo, to regard phenomenal reality as the product of the application of mind on noumenal reality; the mind providing the ordering structure given its means of operation. The Schrodinger equation is a means of fencing in observables,... it is a mathematical leash we put around the unknowable beast,... we know all about the leash, not the reality itself.



An observable by definition is the product of mind being disturbed in some way by reality. In other words, nothing of the essence of reality, no entity, find its way into the mind,.. the mind is merely effected by external influences.,.. so it retains its form. It's this built-in and unavoidable form in which understanding must take that limits all possible conceptions we can have of reality, and is why QM is completely irrational to us.



You say "the rules ARE [the] reality",... [even if there is nothing deeper underlying qm (which Bell's inequality proves)].



We cannot logically reproduce reality, as it is, in our minds (you would have to agree with that! Our idea of a tree is not an actual tree!),... so we make models [for science],.. these mathematical models are NOT the reality itself, but are intellectual relations between states of observables. The mind as a limiting factor in the definition of phenomenal reality precludes us in principal from knowing noumenal reality,.. so logically there must be an underlying reality that is unknowable even in principal.



Lets consider a 'time' when there were no minds in the universe. You would argue that this universe would still operate the same,... the same (?),.. the same as what (?), ...the same as our conception of it? ...But I told you, in this universe there are no minds, yet you still want to bring in a mind, ...in fact you kan't help doing so. The point here is not idealism, but that to have knowledge of reality implies the operation of a mind on it which supplies the ordering structure.





[Quote Ethelred] There is no way to distinguish which model is correct one and things actually make more sense in the Many Worlds approach. Which makes it conceptually superior to the Copenhagen model.




If there is no way to distinguish which model is the correct one, then this seems to imply its more of a choice for convenience rather than some profound insight into the nature of the word,.. in which case the multi-world argument seems awfully heavy for convenience sake.





[Quote Noumenon] It has been my contention that QED is not in fact understood,.. so in that sense it is an incomplete description of reality,... but not because it is a poor theory, but because it CANNOT describe reality intelligibly.





[Quote Ethelred] You have point of difficulty in you concept there. I have been trying to get it through to you in post after post. IF it works THEN it is right. At least to level we can measure at present. It IS intelligible. Its a set of rules. Learn to live with that and then it makes sense. You are stuck in the past. Like Einstein was wasting his time trying to make a non-statistical universe match the real statistical one we live in.



I can live with uncertainty. You seem to have trouble with it. Like Einstein. Embrace uncertainty and the future may be yours. So far its Heisenberg's.




Guy, you're arguing around in circles,.. if you are saying now that,.. " IF it works THEN it is right", and " Its a set of rules", and "Einstein was wasting his time..",... then you are advocating the Copenhagan Interpretation,.. which says that if our mathematical formulations work in making predictions, ..than that is the best we can hope for.



This is inconsistent with the many-worlds idea, which presumes a faith that Schrodinger's equation describes an existent entity in reality, (so that after an observation, the pieces of the wave equations should be accounted for).



The purpose of science is to determine how WE can correlate observables into a coherent mathematical form in order to make predictions,.. it is NOT (since 1900) to determine how REALITY 'does it', of its own volition. This is a distinction many science fans don't get.





[Quote Noumenon] Upon a measurement, schrodinger wave function collapse, the resulting observable is in our world, the remainder of the probability amplitude, the other statistical possibilities, are to be thought of as realized in other worlds, is this right?





[Quote Ethelred] Not really. There is no collapse. There are many worlds. You just don't know which you are in till you look. Where people freak out over it is that every quantum event would produce more worlds. To me its covered by my concept of things existing because they can. I can't wear green shoelaces in another universe tomorrow for instance because I don't have any today. But I can choose between a lot of socks. The green shoelace universe can't exit but both a brown sock and a black sock universe can so they both do. Or will. That one starts me down the road of time not existing. I have to think on that.



No time equals no space. Done. We live in space time so we have to deal with time. No one can explain magnetism either. Is that hazy enough?




O.K., your right there would be no technical collapse in the multi-worlds interpretation.



I see you're having trouble with Time. Here, take a Kantian pamphlet and realize that first principals start with epistemology. Time does not exist as a separate entity, apart from the form of experience.



Our brains are a product of reality. Our conception of reality is formed by observation, modeling and then testing. If our conception is wrong sooner or later some test will show it. This effort of yours to evade testing is where you are going wrong.




Some test has already shown it,.. umm, QM! Classical mechanics was based on deterministic ideas compatible with a-priori mental paradigms. QM, shows that reality is more than that which can be encapsulated within our existing intellectual framework. You seems to equate 'being able to make predictions', with 'understanding reality'. I do not equate the two.,, nor it seems does Feynman.



You have been mentioning my lack of evidence or testing;.. we are discussing interpretations of theories formed from experimental results,... which is to say philosophy. Where is your evidence that there are multi-worlds,.. that the Schrodinger equation is an entity of itself, and continues to live passed von Neuman's projection postulate.



Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2009
The edit sucks around here.

Fry fry a hen

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2009
How is the multi-worlds interpretation conceptually superior to my application of Kant's philosophy (or Bohr's Copenhagan), when both suggest a reality unknowable in principal.


One is mathematically sound. The other is navel gazing.

we know all about the leash, not the reality itself.


That was and remains an assumption. That we do not yet know everything that there is to know does not in any way prove that reality is unknowable.

An observable by definition is the product of mind being disturbed in some way by reality.


That is YOUR definition. I told you in nearly every post I disagree with it. In fact its circular. You assume that reality is unknowable and then call it a definition and then claim victory.

You say "the rules ARE [the] reality",... [even if there is nothing deeper underlying qm (which Bell's inequality proves)].


Bells Inequality proves no such thing. It proves there are no hidden variables.

How many times do you intend to make the same bogus claim? You make a claim based on assumptions and I point out the assumptions and you rearrange the words and then repeat yourself. Those tactics are favorites of Creationists. So I tend to recognize them without much effort due to vast experience in dealing with them.

Do these maneuvers actually work in philosophy classes?

We cannot logically reproduce reality, as it is, in our minds (you would have to agree with that!


I did point out that the map is not the territory. Yet the map is still both useful and representative of reality. Unless its a Russian map.

The mind as a limiting factor in the definition of phenomenal reality precludes us in principal from knowing noumenal reality,.


That does not follow from the preceding statements. How many times are you going to ignore tools and testing?

so logically there must be an underlying reality that is unknowable even in principal.


No. That is an assumption. Based on desire to win an argument. With someone that is both stubborn and practiced in spotting dubious thinking.

You would argue that this universe would still operate the same,... the same


Yes.

.the same as our conception of it?


I am not stupid enough to agree with that irrelevant comment. Our conception of the Universe is irrelevant to how it functions.

But I told you, in this universe there are no minds, yet you still want to bring in a mind, .


I am so glad you make up my thoughts for me. It makes being stupid so much easier. Only I am not stupid nor inexperienced.

I suppose that ridiculous attempt to put words in my mouth might actually work in a verbal debate. But this is the net and I have time to think. I wish I always did.

but that to have knowledge of reality implies the operation of a mind on it which supplies the ordering structure.


Again your wording is that of New Age unthinking. You keep claiming you don't swing that way and then you write new age crap. Minds do not structure the Universe.

If you didn't mean it that way you should quit writing it that way. The Universe is structured by it's laws and our minds are structured by the laws of the Universe.

If there is no way to distinguish which model is the correct one, then this seems to imply its more of a choice for convenience rather than some profound insight into the nature of the word,


Bingo. Its a tool, a tool that can lead to insights. There are others. I will post a link to another discussion at the bottom.

in which case the multi-world argument seems awfully heavy for convenience sake.


The Copenhagen seems awfully full of strangeness just to deal with probabilities. I find the Multi World concept convenient for other things as well. It goes with my idea the the Universe exists because it can. If that is true then other Universes must exist because they can. The one follows logically from the other thus making a Multi World concept quite reasonable especially in comparison to the Copenhagen Model that few actually like. There are at least three different groups on this site that are trying to overturn the Copenhagen model, not including me because I can live with either model should one prove to be to correct.

Guy, you're arguing around in circles,


That is you. I am just replying to your circles. And endless repetitions.

IF it works THEN it is right"


Yes. As opposed to:

IF it doesn't work THEN its right.

So its not circular just rational.

"Einstein was wasting his time..",... then you are advocating the Copenhagan Interpretation,.


Einstein did waste his time at the Advanced Institute For Circle Jerking. There is a reason that Dr. Feynman turned down his invitation. Several actually. Didn't you just complain about me advocating the Multi Worlds model? Please make up your mind.

that if our mathematical formulations work in making predictions, ..than that is the best we can hope for.


I didn't say that it was the best we can hope for. I said that the Universe has laws and if the present laws of QM turn out to be the real thing than that is the way it is. It isn't likely since at least one prediction is wrong at the moment. Neutrinos have mass and the SM has neutrinos without mass.

This is inconsistent with the many-worlds idea,


I see the many worlds concept as being consistent even if the SM model is wrong. But it doesn't matter in this case. I will accept either idea or neither, it simply depends on which best fits the evidence.

I hold these truths to be self-evident.

All theories are crap if they don't work. All theories that work are worth using until they are found wanting. Everything I think I know is subject to change, if the evidence shows I am wrong.

If the evidence is against you will give up on Kant?

Better question:

What evidence would convince you that you are wrong? If you can't answer that you may have a belief that is based on belief instead of evidence.

. it is NOT (since 1900) to determine how REALITY 'does it', of its own volition


Sure it is. However at present we have to make do with approximations. It might even be that most of the approximations are accurate descriptions of reality.

This is a distinction many science fans don't get.


Its a defeatist way of thinking I don't go along with.

I see you're having trouble with Time.


Everyone does. There isn't enough of it. As I have been reminded of this week.

Time does not exist as a separate entity, apart from the form of experience.


I am fairly sure that time exists for the particles that make up my brain and for the particles that make up pretty much everything outside my brain. I could be wrong and the Multi Wolrds Model could be interpreted as having all worlds at all times simultaneously existing if only that didn't imply time outside of time. That way lies headbanging and public drunkenness. Which could lead to banging in heads and a subsequent arrest for public lewdness.

Some test has already shown it,.. umm, QM!


This supposed to get me to bow down to the Great God Kant? I don't think so.

Classical mechanics was based on deterministic ideas compatible with a-priori mental paradigms.


Or maybe it was just based on the evidence.

QM, shows that reality is more than that which can be encapsulated within our existing intellectual framework.


In case you haven't noticed, and that sentence sure sounds like it came from someone that hasn't, QM IS part of our existing intellectual framework. That is why it is called the Standard Model.

You seems to equate 'being able to make predictions', with 'understanding reality'.


I do.

nor it seems does Feynman.


I don't see it that way. He just didn't expect the universe to fit our intuitions at the quantum level.

You have been mentioning my lack of evidence or testing;.. we are discussing interpretations of theories formed from experimental results,


Well I have anyway. You have been discussing Kant.

which is to say philosophy.


No. Science. The lack of testing is the difference between what Kant did and what scientists do.

Where is your evidence that there are multi-worlds,


I Don't need it for what I am using it for. Its a model. A tool for thinking. I doubt it can proved or disproved at least without a substantial increase in knowledge. Note that I am NOT claiming it is reality as you are doing with Kant.

You are just repeating yourself. Forcing me to repeat myself. I don't agree with you and I don't see how you can prove your point. So unless you say something NEW I am not likely to spend much effort in further replies as I wish to spend time on discussions that might actually lead somewhere, as unlikely as it may be.

Link to possibly dead discussion that I haven't had time to deal with adequately, if it continues you might find it more interesting than the one on physforum :

http://www.physor...674.html

And another that I have spent more time on:
http://www.physor...506.html

Ethelred
Noumenon
1 / 5 (18) Mar 24, 2009

[Quote Noumenon] You have been mentioning my lack of evidence or testing;.. we are discussing interpretations of theories formed from experimental results,... which is to say philosophy. Where is your evidence that there are multi-worlds,.. that the Schrodinger equation is an entity of itself, and continues to live passed von Neuman's projection postulate.,


[Quote Ethelred] I Don't need it for what I am using it for. Its a model. A tool for thinking. I doubt it can proved or disproved at least without a substantial increase in knowledge. Note that I am NOT claiming it is reality as you are doing with Kant.



The many-worlds idea is an interpretation of qm, as is what I am suggesting. It is not a science since it incorporates other possible worlds which cannot be studied empirically,.... while I at least suggest a solution based on an existent entity, the mind, where after all, understanding occurs,.. so maybe the problem is there; epistemology.

Secondly, I suspect that your interpretation is in fact more than 'just a tool for thinking'. It kind of reminds me of Feynman's sum over paths approach taken to a ridiculous philosophical conclusion. Therefore it seems redundant as just a tool, except as also a faith to keep determinism and the wave-function to the status as a real entity.

Ethelred, It's been a pleasure debating this topic with you. I cannot improve upon my former post if left intact. It is clear that there are many attempted interpretations of qm and there doesn't seem to be a consensus.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2009
Secondly, I suspect that your interpretation is in fact more than 'just a tool for thinking'. It kind of reminds me of Feynman's sum over paths approach taken to a ridiculous philosophical conclusion.


The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is intolerable to many, Einstein hated it even though his paper on the photo-electric effect kicked it off.

What I am using using the Multi Worlds concept for, at least in part, is to give an answer, that could be right, to the question of why is there anything instead of nothing. Its a last gasp question popular with Creationists and I got tired of only being able to say 'if the universe had to have a god to start it up then that applies to the god as well'. They have a harder time with that concept than they do with evolution.

If the the Universe exists because it can then the Multi Worlds concept is an unavoidable corollary. It does make it easier to claim that time is an illusion which I am not pleased with but I can deal with that.

And its a better answer than saying we can't learn because our mind cripples us, which is what you are doing. Understanding occurs in the brain, the brain is trainable. Mine is anyway.

If you think we are inherently limited by our minds go look at hyperspace sites. We can't see a fourth dimension but with practice and patience we can think about it. We can't experience infinity but we not only can think about infinity, we can think about second order infinity and beyond. Those that sneer at Buzz Lightyear's favorite phrase are wrong. There are numbers that exceed mere infinity.

There are ideas that are beyond Kant's imaginary mind. And we have already come up with some of those.

Ethelred
jdlaw
1 / 5 (1) Mar 25, 2009
That paragraph is so filled with meaningless noise there is no use commenting.

The next was just as bad.

Clarity thy name is not jdlaw. Its your first post so maybe you just need practice.

About the only certainty I have regarding your post is that it needs a LOT of work. It wanders around, goes from point A to point Not A without rhyme or reason. It has scads of what looks vaguely like dubious assumptions. Statements that might have been intended as logic. Things I think were intended as conclusions but didn't follow from anything that preceded. Its a mess.

Take smaller bites. Try to see if YOU can make heads or tails of what you posted before hitting the submit button. You joined at 7:04 and posted that at 7:22 so you spent some time on it. Spend less time writing maybe and more time checking. I spend nearly equal times on many of my posts. Cleaning up the crap. Throwing out things I didn't need. Yes I do throw things out. Shudder at how long they were before trimming. Adding in some jokes as I go. I gotta entertain myself first. Otherwise this would be great rotting waste of time.

Write in a text processor of some kind then cut and paste. Checking in that little box gives a different perspective on my writing.

Welcome the discussions. I hope that wasn't a one time post. Then I would have wasted my time replying.

Ethelred


Dear Ethelred,

Yes, language is certainly imperfect and I am even slightly more imperfect. I still don't quite get the exact UI of this forum.

If it is even possible to clear things up for you, my point was merely found in the last four words, "we are not alone."

Afterall, isn't the topic in this forum: "It's Easier to Observe the Failure of Local Realism than Previously Thought"?

If you are not already familiar with the below websites and/or schools of thought, then I suggest a quick browse just to get the general picture. Then go back and considering all you know about Bohr, Einstein, Kant, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, etc., hopefully it will also point you to the conclusion that reality is not what you think it is -- it is just the only reality that we have to work with.

http://www.youtub...oSzrUL2Y (although, watch out for heavy religious connotations at the end)

http://www.theuni...ved.com/ (introduction to the matrix, although you really need to read the book to get it)

http://en.wikiped...luminati

http://singularity.com/


Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2009
Hey a second post! I was had begun to this the first was a hit and run.

I have started using Control F and then searching for q] in notepad.

my point was merely found in the last four words, "we are not alone."


As yet there is no evidence to support that.

, hopefully it will also point you to the conclusion that reality is not what you think it is


Well I will look. We will see what devastation I can produce. Who knows, maybe I won't do that.


http://www.youtub...oSzrUL2Y (although, watch out for heavy religious connotations at the end)


At the END? Its an Islamic propaganda piece. Start to finish.

Its is a fact proven by science today.


It now going the way of unreality.

"all the information we have today is conveyed by our five senses"

Lie. We have tools that see and measure far beyond what our senses can. True we have to use those senses to use the tools but as long as the evidence fits together than it is reasonable to assume its real.

On top of which those senses are not accidents. There are refined by evolution. Of course that concept is not acceptable to the Islamic mind any more than a hard shell Southern Baptist.

The stuff on vision is boring. I do know all that and more already. So far it sounds like an attempt to disarm a persons critical thinking. Claiming matter doesn't exist except as our perception. Continuous creation and lots of other clearly obvious nonsense. All of sudden things that cannot be tested become absolute and things the can be tested are illusions.

They sure don't trust their ideas to stand up to testing do they? This kind of crap is belief over reality. The sort of thinking that leads to the insanity that is the Middle East

"the light of the candle"

And this is being played as something profound and unknown.

We evolved the sense of vision. If it failed to match reality we would have replaced by something that had a better grasp of reality.

Skipping on to the third so I don't die of boredom
from junior high science.

I am not impressed by Assisi or anyone else claiming souls exist considering the total lack of evidence for them.

Lies about physics, chemistry and reality to push a soul. Seriously fuzzy thinking. This a rejection of science to push religion.

If that sort of ANTI-thinking is what produced your first post its no wonder it was so fuzzy. That video could cause brain damage if you take it seriously.

Next
http://www.theuni...ved.com/ (introduction to the matrix, although you really need to read the book to get it)


The book everyone is talking about


First I heard of it. That's one lie already.

Do you know that you don't know anything we haven't told you. Do you know you are plastic under our thumbs. Do you know your mind is swiss cheese.

Gosh I wasn't aware of any of that. Especially, well actually entirely, the parts they made up.

Help, I have fallen down the Rabbit Hole and an schizophrenic is trying to help me. He insists that only his delusions are real and I must give up reality.

Is this site for real. Are they really that deranged? Or is a New Age version of Landover Baptist and just a joke.

I tell you what. How about I punch you in the nose. I bet that would feel real and you would likely react to it just as if it was real.

That is enough of that site. It is GARBAGE. Worse than the Islamic evasion of reality to support the unsupportable.

The Wiki on the Illuminati.

I think that can speak for itself. If not how about this:

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

You need one. Badly.

The most real version of the Illuminati is in the Steve Jackson game of the same name.

http://singularity.com/


Oh for crying out loud. Now you post the Rapture of the Nerds. Which is not about us being alone and therefor does nothing to support you at all.

Ray needs to cut back on his supplements. If nothing else his time frame is overly optimistic. I read parts of the book. Charley Stoss's Accelerando is far more entertaining.

http://www.antipo...dex.html

Go halfway down the page. Charlie is favorite of us nerds.

He is agnostic by the way. Or maybe its atheist. Don't care either way as he a good writer. The anti-pope bit is an accident. It was supposed to be auto-pope, not that it makes sense either.

Well at least you posted again. You need to dry out your brain. Its done too much nonsense.

This is all your fault Noumenon. You brought philosophy to the table and look what that brought with it. The bastard stepson of philosophy in our era is mysticism. Philosophy without the use of testing leads the fuzzy headed out there to think they can do away logic as well.

jdlaw you need a course in logic to protect you from the shoals of fuzzy thinking. The tools of logic are a required course for philosophy majors. Its why they aren't completely irrelevant. Go take a symbolic logic course. Then, if there is such a thing, a course in critical thinking.

Keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.

Ethelred
jdlaw
1 / 5 (1) Mar 26, 2009
Very Good! I loved the punch you in the nose metaphor; it is great example of critical thinking. Although it doesn't present much of a better solution, it certainly gives due consideration.

While your posts are a bit callous (you come over like an egotistical know-it-all) you are certainly thorough.

Did I ever say that I believe in everything on those sites?

I just asked you if you were familiar with these types of philosophies or schools of thought. You want some more BS that I find extremely interesting to poke holes in, go to the "Zeitgeist" Movement or Movie.

http://video.goog...63636261

http://video.goog...95115331

Or even better yet, take a look at the electric Kool-Aid Wikipedia page at:

http://fusionanomaly.net/

As far as all your science and physical reality that you are so sure of -- you still do not get it at all. The point is that you cannot prove to me your local reality anymore than I could prove to you my non-local reality. There is your point A followed by your "not point A" logic that you have refused to consider.

I don't know what your game is, but your posts indicate that you think that your little world is whole lot better off without faith. I have news for you; you have shown great faith even in your own "belief" that the world is devoid of faith.

So, I leave you now with a taunt:
You don't frighten me, English pig-dog! Go and boil your bottom, son of a silly person. I blow my nose at you; you and all your silly English k-nnnnniggets. Thpppppt! Thppt! Thppt! I fart in your general direction.


Noumenon
1 / 5 (18) Mar 26, 2009
He doesn't understand that our conception of reality cannot be the reality itself, ...because it presumes a form dependent on mind. His argument that since the mind evolved in reality, it should have been so 'designed' to understand reality,.. misses the side of the barn entirely, as does his repeated irrelevant point about tools; He does not get that Reality cannot be subsumed entirely, within a limited product of that reality. So, evolution could not expect that reality be reproduced with complete one to one correspondence,.. that instead for efficiency, it designed a mind (brain) the scope of which is compatible with its manner of thought, with its built-in mode of operation, and so presumes the form in which reality will be understood; i.e. causality is only relevant as a concept in relation to a mind ordering experience. Therefore the classical presumption of science, that we can have direct understanding of reality as it is in itself, is false. Physics, of which I am a huge fan, can at best make predictions about observables (by definition compatible with thought),.. we cannot speak about, nor should we regard as real or understood, what goes on under or behind the observables.



So, jdlaw, you are quit correct in your assertion that he possesses what is defined as faith, with the Multi-worlds theory, because without this ludicrous and completely irrational idea, Schrodinger's wave function falls apart upon transposing it into an observation, ....transposing Reality into phenomenal reality.



Kant is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of all time. His original intention was to show that questions about the ultimate nature of reality, could best be understood through an analysis of epistemology,.. which unfortunately precludes knowledge of realms not compatible with mind,.. that is, noumenal reality and God or souls or like ideas,.. but it also 'protects' the concept of God from the atheist applying rationality to success in defeating those with faith. Kant regarded himself as accomplishing this end.



I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2009
Very Good! I loved the punch you in the nose metaphor; it is great example of critical thinking


Oh good. You might be amazed at the number of times people have reacted as if I had reached across the internet and punched them in the nose.

While your posts are a bit callous (you come over like an egotistical know-it-all) you are certainly thorough.


Not callous, so much as crap intolerant. I am not a know it all. Everything I know or think I know is subject to change. It just takes actual evidence. Fuzzy thinking isn't going to cut it.

In the meantime I act as if it was solid since there is no reason to go the assumption that I know nothing.

Did I ever say that I believe in everything on those sites?


The question then is why did you use them? The singularity site isn't inherently bad. Its just kinda enthusiastic about stuff that is on the edge. The Wiki, well I did say I would let it speak for itself but I didn't see anything on it that showed any actual evidence of anything.

There have been conspiracies. The US was founded by a conspiracy against the Crown. True they didn't exactly keep it a secret. Nevertheless most Americans are not aware that Franklin was given one order when representing the Continental Congress, 'Do no accept Representation'. The USSR was founded by a conspiracy. Its the idea of a conspiracy over centuries and controlling everything that I find pretty silly.

I just asked you if you were familiar with these types of philosophies or schools of thought.


Yes. I still don't why you had Singularity.com there.

Or even better yet, take a look at the electric Kool-Aid Wikipedia page at:


Well you could look at this:

http://www.physor...734.html

Still what does the Cold Fusion teapot have to do with your point?

The point is that you cannot prove to me your local reality anymore than I could prove to you my non-local reality.


That was the punch in the nose. You are not getting it. That IS sufficient proof. You cannot ignore my local reality if I use it to invade your local reality without suffering consequences. In the example, the suffering would be a bloody nose. Dealing with the reality of death and injury is what drives evolution.

Look at this way. You can try to pretend to be unaffected by other people's or animal's local reality but that will lead to personal extinction. Thus removing you and your philosophy from the gene pool. Which means its a stupid waste of time to go on about it after you have thought about it for more than a week or two at most.

There is your point A followed by your "not point A" logic that you have refused to consider.


Being selected out, is what you are refusing to consider. I thought about this fuzzy idea decades ago. It was silly then. It hasn't gotten any less silly.

Really guys, why can't you get it through your heads. This ISN'T new to me. Its old and silly. Freshman stuff at best and I ran across it before college, which I entered forty years ago.

I don't know what your game is, but your posts indicate that you think that your little world is whole lot better off without faith.


Faith is going on belief instead of reality. Why do that? Why believe that which just the imaginings of men when those imaginings almost invariably fail any possible test against reality?

My world is the same world you live in. Its no larger or smaller. I just don't believe in things that are only supported by belief.

What has faith given the world. The death of two thirds of the people in Germany during the Thirty Years War. Millions in the Chinese Civil War. Millions more in various and sundry wars in Europe. Millions in Africa by Islam. Millions over the years in the various was of conversion by Islam and Christianity. Thousands in two buildings in New York recently. People are being killed nearly every single day in the world just for not believing what someone damn religious fool believes.

So what do you find extenuating about believing in things that aren't real?

I have news for you; you have shown great faith even in your own "belief" that the world is devoid of faith.


That is bizarre. First I don't go on faith. Second I am FULLY aware that others do go on faith. Do you really think you are the very first person to try to get me to go on faith? If that wasn't what you intended to say then clarify it please. I can't read your mind.

At best that looks like you failed to say what you intended. At worst it was a bizarre attempt to insult me into giving up and going on faith.

So, I leave you now with a taunt:
You don't frighten me, English pig-dog! Go and boil your bottom, son of a silly person. I blow my nose at you; you and all your silly English k-nnnnniggets. Thpppppt! Thppt! Thppt! I fart in your general direction.


Look Froggy. I am not ANGLO. I am part IRISH. Not even a smidgen English.

I saw that in the theater. I think it was the Art Theater in Long Beach, California. Might have been playing with And Now For Something Completely Different.

Oh I am wondering, just what the heck is your point. You seem to have lost it.

Is it over there, in the box? I can't say it put on weight in this post. Wondered around got resentful and then tried to out Python me.

Fire Mrs. Nesbit.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2009
He doesn't understand that our conception of reality cannot be the reality itself, ...because it presumes a form dependent on mind.


Its amazing how you come up with stuff like that after the long discussion. I fully understood it. I just think its crap. I have a good understanding of human limits. I wear glasses. I have since Ben Hur came out.

You don't understand that the mind evolved to convey an effective representation of reality. OF COURSE ITS NOT THE ACTUAL REALITY. We are still not limited to our senses or intuition.

He does not get that Reality cannot be subsumed entirely, within a limited product of that reality.


See above. Amateurs. I am surrounded by amateurs.

So, evolution could not expect that reality be reproduced with complete one to one correspondenc


Evolution is a process. It expects nothing. Oh thee of little faith in Ethelred. Of course I know its not one to one.

Consider purple. If you don't get that you are not on my level. Way below it.

it designed a mind (brain) the scope of which is compatible with its manner of thought,


Nonsense. I mean actual nonsense. As opposed to just wrong. No I have never written accidental nonsense. Not EVah.

First, evolution does not design. Its a process of selecting OUT changes that don't work. Manner of thought doesn't enter into it. Just success or failure.

; i.e. causality is only relevant as a concept in relation to a mind ordering experience.


Wrong. Causality is something that shaped the human brain. That which helped men cause unto others, instead of unto themselves, survived. That which thought causality was a little bird twittering in the brush got selected out. Kind of like the Shakers. They had faith. They were self selected out of the gene pool.

Therefore the classical presumption of science, that we can have direct understanding of reality as it is in itself, is false.


That statement is false. We can never have anything but an indirect understanding. But by testing our understanding we can refine it.

Physics, of which I am a huge fan, can at best make predictions about observables (by definition compatible with thought),.. we cannot speak about, nor should we regard as real or understood, what goes on under or behind the observables.


Which is not philosophy its physics. Comes via the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and its quantifiable.

So, jdlaw, you are quit correct in your assertion that he possesses what is defined as faith,


Oh dear, some people just live in their own little world. Never hearing what others say. Of course if you redefine faith....

then you are cheating.

with the Multi-worlds theory, because without this ludicrous and completely irrational idea,


Just labeling it irrational doesn't make it so. Then again I am willing to bet there are Irrational Numbers involved. Like Pii for instance. Its literally irrational and all important to making circles.

Schrodinger's wave function falls apart upon transposing it into an observation,


Yet it consistently predicts the observations. Funny about that. When you manage that I will take you more seriously. Till then, you are just claiming that physics is incapable of doing things that it actually does do.

Kant is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of all time.


St. Paul is regarded as one of the greatest theologists of all time. He was still full of it.
Hero worship gets in the way of reason.

which unfortunately precludes knowledge of realms not compatible with mind,


The Many Worlds theory seems to be incompatible with your mind anyway. So maybe you should take another look at it. Of course a lot of modern physics is incompatible with human minds. We still figured it out. That is where you go wrong. You simply refuse to notice that WE HAVE figured things out that are incompatible with the human mind.

What the heck do you think posted the stuff about second order infinity for anyway?

God or souls or like ideas,


Now those are clearly ideas that are compatible with the human brain. Its reason that frees us from these irrational concepts that are generated by the human mind.

I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.


What hath God wrought?

I am averting my eyes. Believers are quoting Agnostics. Next they may even start quoting Beyond the Fringe.

Philsophy from Brits forced to learn it
http://www.youtub...rpok9KPA

The Identity Kit vs Reality
http://www.youtub...=MUrhdIx

Ethelred
jdlaw
1 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2009
Ethelred,

On Faith v Knowledge:
Nobody else writes as well as you. Nobody else thinks as well as you. Nobody else knows anything except you. (at least in this topic thread). Arrogance, Ethelred is thy name. You %u201Cbelieve%u201D that you %u201Cknow%u201D things for sure; when in %u201Creality%u201D you only %u201Cknow%u201D what your world view allows you to see.

On Religion:
What happened? Why did you not yet visit and comment on the ZeistGeist sites? That should have been your mantra, your anthem %u2026 your punch in the face. Does it bother you that there is a movement out there that explains your points better than you do?

There is no such thing as a true agnostic. You may not believe in "Religion" but you do believe in at least some of what you post. The rest are lies and conjecture; they are not knowlege. (I do not expect the arrogant to understand knowledge, when they are both the same thing)

On this Thread:
Noumenon, by the way, is a pseudonym meaning "seer." He looks at a posited post or argument as it is in itself, independent of the senses. He uses all of his senses and reasoning to best place what he sees in the posted material into his own sense of extension and then considers its argument not only according to the extensions of his own environment, but accepts that there are other points of view %u2013 other viewpoints. This way of %u201Cseeing%u201D is something arrogance can never comprehend.

On Physics and Relativity:
Again we have not a universal reference frame, but in relation to other celestial bodies. As we in the Northern hemisphere are closer to the sun we experience summer; and when the southern hemisphere is closer to the sun, we experience the winter. Imagine yourself walking around a campfire, The heat is always coming up from below you. But if your campfire were in the middle of a sloped incline, as you walked on the lower portion of the incline below the fire, you would feel the heat about your head.

Relativity, on the other hand just gives us a reference frame from which to observe ourselves as a practicality.

In considering causation and where it begins at quantum time (Planck%u2019s Unit Time) perhaps the most easily comprehended model we can use as an example is the inertial system (matter in motion). An inertial system is a spatial displacement and its dimensional attributes are distance and time such as meters per second based on some other arbitrary reference inertial system. Any inertial system without a reference system, therefore, is at rest without extension: meaning, that without a reference frame, any object (inertial system) is at rest in relation to itself. There can be no state of velocity or acceleration without a reference outside the inertial system. Inertia without extension, therefore, is a falacy.

And your reply to the fallacy of reference without extension, Ethelred (although of course your arrogance will force you to refute it) should be that if inertia without extension is a fallacy, then what is the reference from which we feel our inertia as gravity each time we wake up in the morning a place our feet on firm ground?

To that, Ethelred, I ask you this simple question and I totally expect that you may actually have the correct answer: what is the difference between real empty space and imaginary empty space?





jdlaw
1 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2009
Next they may even start quoting Beyond the Fringe.

Philsophy from Brits forced to learn it
http://www.youtub...rpok9KPA

The Identity Kit vs Reality
http://www.youtub...=MUrhdIx

Ethelred


I have heard many times of the "Beyond the Fringe" but never actually took the time to watch any of it. I am glad I did this time: it was very amuzing. Thanks.

I amaze myself at how so very little I know of things that are so very entrenched in pop culture.

The second link, "The Identity Kit vs Reality" was not there, i.e. it just linked to YouTube without any particular movie. Can you help me out?

I am still trying to get used to this forum's UI. Sorry about the "%u2019s". Those are just punctuation cut and pasted from MS Word. If I'm going to cut and paste text, from now on I'll have to not use MS Word.
jdlaw
1 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2009
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2009
Nobody else writes as well as you. Nobody else thinks as well as you. Nobody else knows anything except you. (at least in this topic thread).


Not my fault when I win by default.

Then again I am fully aware the Noumenan must know things I don't. Not sure about you since are careful to not actually say anything clearly enough for me to tell.

Arrogance, Ethelred is thy name.


Bull. I sit in my underwear typing this. If you pick a position that you are unable to support that is YOUR choice. I find that religious types often get sullen like this when their fuzzy thinking gets shot down.

You %u201Cbelieve%u201D that you


Don't use the per cent key. It makes a mess. Unfortunately there are a lot keys that I have to bypass. Annoying.

Again I go on evidence. If you find that hard to deal with GET SOME BLOODY EVIDENCE. I won't just take your word and I certainly won't take the word of an Islamic idiot like the one on the video you linked to.

'We don't everything therefor god exists and not just any god but Allah'

That is a god of the gaps and it shows a lack reason. His god doesn't suddenly become real and the world become less than 10,000 years old because my vision is fuzzy. That was just about the lamest attempt to prove a god I have yet seen. And you posted it apparently thinking it was somehow profound. Warning about the religious aspect didn't cover it. Religion was ALL that video was about.

What happened? Why did you not yet visit and comment on the ZeistGeist sites?


How about start saying WHY you post things? That thing is 97 minutes.

Does it bother you that there is a movement out there that explains your points better than you do?


Well if it does I could learn something so no it won't bother me if its true. Since you don't seem to understand what I post though I suspect that it has little to do with me.

Social design? They don't understand what science can do. They are talking politics. Now money. They don't understand capitalism. They used the word science to cover up a snow job.

Oh dear they discovered planned obsolescence and don't really understand it. Things break. No matter how much you spend on a car it will break down eventually. If they know so much they could make better stuff and get rich. That is not being glib. I am serious. Its a conspiracy site so I don't expect them to do more than invent a THEM to blame things on.

That's enough crap. The Web is full of this sort of half assed thinking. Did you actually listen to the whole thing? If so and you think there is something worthwhile JUST SAY SO. Keep in mind that I don't have a lot of tolerance for people that think everything is a plot.

I really annoys me when people refuse to make it clear WHY they post things. At best it implies that you don't know.

Now the second one. The start is not promising. First the fuzzy blue lights and now a bunch of things blowing up. Nebulas, never a good sign when science is not involved, they are a favorite of crank sites across the Web. Two minutes and nothing to say. I would rather listen to Koyanisqatsi.

3 minutes and nothing of interest except to pyrotechnicians. 4 minutes. Do they have a point? Skipping on to 7 and more nothing. Now at 8 they quote George Carlin out of the Blue.

Eight bloody minutes of self indulgence. Who cares what they have to say. They don't care so why should I?

Why did you post those crappy links? To torture me?

Does it bother you that there is a movement out there that explains your points better than you do?


Try again. I say things and do so as clearly as I can. I edit my posts. That was crap. It matters not what they think if they can't be bothered to SAY IT.

There is no such thing as a true agnostic.


Since I am one you are clearly wrong.

You may not believe in "Religion" but you do believe in at least some of what you post.


Otherwise I would be engaging in intellectual masturbation. However the beliefs are subject to change and are based on evidence, not wishful thinking. Not at all beliefs in the sense of the religious. Think of it as working models.

The rest are lies and conjecture; they are not knowlege.


If there where any lies go ahead and point them out. Sullen whining like you are doing in this post is not going to do anything except lower my opinion of you. There were NO LIES in my posts. You may disagree with what I say but just calling something a lie without supporting your claim is intellectual cowardice. Show my mistakes. If you can't its likely that you are wrong.

(I do not expect the arrogant to understand knowledge, when they are both the same thing)


I don't expect the religious to engage reasoned discourse. Occasionally I pleasantly surprised. Not this time. The only thing you have surprised me with was a second post after that near classic hit and run type initial post. It was fuzzy and clearly had a religious agenda that you are still unwilling to be honest about.

Show some guts. Say what YOU think. Not what others think. YOU. Then support it with something resembling evidence. That is not arrogance. Its showing the courage of your convictions. Putting them out there to be exposed to the thinking of others. If you don't like what I have to say show why and don't whine.

You can do better. You can hardly do worse than most of this post. Sullen pissing and moaning that I speak clearly and forthrightly.

Noumenon, by the way, is a pseudonym meaning "seer."


I think you will find he took it from Kant.

He looks at a posited post or argument as it is in itself, independent of the senses.


Not possible. He had to use his senses to read it. In fact that is part of his point.

This way of %u201Cseeing%u201D is something arrogance can never comprehend.


I see you simply don't know what arrogance is. He and I have been going back and forth. He has been repeating himself quite a lot. So I wind up the doing the same. He is capable of speaking for himself. So are you but instead you complain that I am arrogant while being too arrogant to actually bother to support your claims of lies.

Heck you didn't even try to support him much less your self. You just called me names again.

Are you really that morally and intellectually bankrupt that you can only reply with ad hominym attacks?

Again we have not a universal reference frame, but in relation to other celestial bodies.


Yes. Newton thought there should be a universal reference frame but even then many thought he was wrong. I pretty sure that is on this thread already. Everything is relative so Newton was wrong on that. Its on the thread.

Relativity, on the other hand just gives us a reference frame from which to observe ourselves as a practicality.


You seem a tad self-centered. Science tries to be objective. It takes reference frames into account.

In considering causation and where it begins at quantum time (Planck%u2019s Unit Time) perhaps the most easily comprehended model we can use as an example is the inertial system (matter in motion).


Which is pretty much not quantum. At present QM can't really handle inertia. This too has been discussed on this thread. It might help if you read it. It would cut down on you telling me things I have already said. If that seems arrogant I can't help it that you are repeating ME.

Any inertial system without a reference system, therefore, is at rest without extension: meaning, that without a reference frame, any object (inertial system) is at rest in relation to itself.


Yes. That is how Einstein came up with Special and General Relativity.

There can be no state of velocity or acceleration without a reference outside the inertial system. Inertia without extension, therefore, is a falacy.


Only in a mental experiment. In the real world Einstein considered the Universe as a whole as a reference system. Take the Universe away and then inertia would go away or at least become immeasurable. However the Universe is there. So inertia is real. That is General Relativity.

Despite this already being on the thread at least you are trying to think things out. Bringing in QM at the start is OK if the rest works out. Excecpt if the person you are discussing things with is the sort that searches for spelling errors.

I have ways of dealing with them. Really upsetting ways. I had to since I am dependent on spell checkers.

And your reply to the fallacy of reference without extension, Ethelred (although of course your arrogance will force you to refute it) s


You really have some serious ego issues there. Also arrogance. You keep telling me what I am going to say, this time after basically saying what I said already on this thread.

Here have some links to things you are trying to teach to me and are already on the thread in one way or another.

http://en.wikiped...lativity

http://en.wikiped...lativity

http://en.wikiped...retation

http://en.wikiped...y_worlds

http://en.wikiped...iki/Kant

The last one is the one I am weakest on. The others I am pretty good on for someone that is Math Challenged.

hen what is the reference from which we feel our inertia as gravity each time we wake up in the morning a place our feet on firm ground?


Now for that one we don't need the whole Universe. The Earth is enough as long as we don't look at the sky. Then we have to add in more stuff or we miss out on the Earth's orbit around the Sun. The Sun's orbit about through the galaxy. The galaxies movement toward M31. The recession of the rest of the Universe away from us. The mass of the Universe.

Spin a bucket of water. The water will move towards the edge. Well, it actually raises at the sides and lowers towards the center. How does the water know what to do? Its reference is the entire Universe or at least the local gravity. Take away the mass surrounding the bucket and the water will flatten out.

This has actually been tested with a spinning ball in orbit around the Earth. Unfortunately there have been some problems. The technical problems seem to be manageable. The financial problems have slowed things down. I thought the thing was supposed to be finished. The preliminary data is holding up so far. More time is needed to be confident of the results.

http://www.spectr...t08/6848

what is the difference between real empty space and imaginary empty space?


Kind of depends on what you are imagining. Be specific. A space without Virtual Particles? A space where space-time is flat? A space without neutrinos or photons passing through it? The question may be deeper than you think. There may be no such place in the Universe depending on what you call empty.

'What do you by 'IS' in this context?' The President said hoarsely. Clinton sounds like Jimmuh only with a tighter throat which is why he tends to get hoarse.

Why did you waste all that space in whining when you ARE capable of trying to post something cogent(imagining that you left out the insults)?

There is prodding people to do better and then there is calling people names. There is a difference. Find it. Learn it. Practice it.

That was prodding. You earned it.

Ethelred
Ethelred
1 / 5 (2) Mar 28, 2009
I am glad I did this time: it was very amuzing. Thanks.


First time I saw it myself. I have seen some of Beyond the Fringe when they joined with Monty Python in The Secret Policeman's Ball, Allen Bennett was the only one missing.

Seen Dr. Johnathon Miller a lot of times. He did a BBC show on Atheism but the first time I really heard of him he was directing Shakespeare for the BBC's 500 anniversary. He had John Clease in The Taming of the Shrew.

I amaze myself at how so very little I know of things that are so very entrenched in pop culture. r


The view count was around 5000. Not really that entrenched in comparison to Python.

The second link, "The Identity Kit vs Reality" was not there, i.e. it just linked to YouTube without any particular movie. Can you help me out?


Yes, it was broken. It's actually about the The Great Train Robbery but when I listened to it I thought the Identity Kit part was somewhat relevant. Starts at 2:55.

http://www.youtub...hdIxTJSA

If I'm going to cut and paste text, from now on I'll have to not use MS Word.


I think it was the keys themselves. I am using Notepad. Lets try per cent key.

% - bet thats a mess.

Some codes just don't work. The only standard Bulletin Board code that works is the quote. I tried some others like italics and they don't work.

Testing testing 1, 2, 3
U 0025 that's a per cent code. Maybe

Mrs Nesbit is fired out of a torpedo tube in a rather strange Monty Python sketch. To cure a headache.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2009
I see the percent key worked. That was a cut and paste from Notepad. The Unicode did not.

Now to play around with the top row.

!@#$%^&*()_?

Character map set to DOS Western as a source to paste into notepad:

Now for Unicode and Microsoft Sans Seriff to get more choices:

It didn't break Notepad. Now to see if I break the HTML.

Yeah it broke. A few worked but nothing useful.

Ethelred
Noumenon
1 / 5 (18) Mar 28, 2009
You can use microsoft word if you ctrl-a then 'clear formatting' before c/p'ing to PhysOrg.
jdlaw
1 / 5 (2) Mar 28, 2009
You just called me names again.


I say things and do so as clearly as I can. I edit my posts.


You consistently insult others and their intellect on this physics.org site -- with regularity -- and not just on this thread. You even called me Mrs. Nesbit. Anything anyone else writes, you call "crap" "useless" "whining" "intellectual masturbation"

But then, I guess if you didn't insult me just a little, it wouldn't get my blood boiling enough to keep coming back.

That is why at the end of my last post, I tried to come back with just a little physics. This, afterall, is a physics related site; is it not?

But first:

Yes. I still don't why you had Singularity.com there.


Even you seem to have noticed that the local/non-local realism philisophical debate does ultimately center on the concepts of cognitive causality, self-awareness, and general intelligence -- as opposed to the narrow field intelligence, which is full of that fuzzy logic.

The key to thinking about singularity.com as it applies to non-local realism is that if the machines ever became self-aware, then at least the philisophical debate about "we are not alone" has some start. The question about whether you or any other person for that matter in "my world view" is also self-aware is even a question I cannot answer with 100% certainty. I'm sure you are familiar with the "Turing" test. Turing recognizes the problem that there would be no way to even know if a machine is or is not self-aware. So, he just created a test to see how many people the machine could fool (make believe that it is self-aware).

Here have some links to things you are trying to teach to me and are already on the thread in one way or another.

[url]http://en.wikiped...lativity[/url]

[url]http://en.wikiped...lativity[/url]

http://en.wikiped...retation

http://en.wikiped...y_worlds

http://en.wikiped...iki/Kant

The last one is the one I am weakest on. The others I am pretty good on for someone that is Math Challenged.


Yet, you insult people by telling them that "their" postings contain nothing but "freshman physics." A mathmatically challenged person certainly is not a student of graduate level physicist.

I am not a physics major, but JD/MBA BSME (mechanical engineering) so I did have basically the same Freshman physics as you apparently.

Without giving up internet anonymity then, tell me just a little about yourself -- as in your background, because I am going to continue with some "freshman" physics, I hope you understand.

I have been to the wikipedia "physics sections" many times. I can't say that I spend much time on Kant. When dealing in philosophy, Kant annoys me. Like you, I prefer proof.

Since this site has it problems (we really need to talk with them about this site's UI) I will include links to the equations, rather than trying to figure out how to represent them here.

Now for that one we don't need the whole Universe. The Earth is enough as long as we don't look at the sky. Then we have to add in more stuff or we miss out on the Earth's orbit around the Sun. The Sun's orbit about through the galaxy. The galaxies movement toward M31. The recession of the rest of the Universe away from us. The mass of the Universe.


(Of course Laplace's demon is a hypothetical "demon." It was posited in 1814 by Pierre-Simon Laplace. It goes like this: if that demon could know the precise location and momentum of every atom in the universe at anyone instant, then it could use Newton's laws to reveal the entire course of all cosmic events of the past, present, and future.)

So, I will begin with my mantra for JDLaw, which is not legal, but the law of gravity: http://www.redish...vity.JPG

I really like the spinning bucket of water analogy, yet we certainly can't see the bucket here. Where is this acceleration coming from? Possibly only one of two things, unless you can think of more: either a dimension that we just don't see, or non-local reality. One way or another the earth's surface is accelerating towards me at 32 feet per second squared (or am I accelerating towards it?)

Next, there is matter and energy. E=MC squared. However, I really believe that Bohr was nothing without Einstein, but Einstein was nothing without Planck, Lorentz, and Young.

Therefore, the only way I really grasp the E=MC squared equation is in the Lorentz covarient form: http://www.redish...Form.JPG

But this EMC squared definitely required the universal reference frame. I use the little "i" and the little "r" simply to distinguish between the "inertial" reference frame and the "reference" inertial system.

The true Lorentz form should have had the reference frame included: http://www.redish...Form.JPG

Now, again this is all freshman physics; I know. But, when the graduate physicists were freshman, they already thought they knew too much to think about universal reference frames. By the time they got into kenetic energy, the universal reference frame was already engrained so deep into their psyche that it could not escape: http://www.redish...ence.JPG

Now, taking our new found realization that perhaps -- just perhaps mind you -- that there is no "Universal Reference Frame" then it follows that kinetic energy also has none: http://www.redish...ence.JPG

Again I go on evidence. If you find that hard to deal with GET SOME BLOODY EVIDENCE. I won't just take your word and I certainly won't take the word of an Islamic idiot like the one on the video you linked to.


I too hated the entire video, but perhaps even unrecognized by the very authors, the first part of the video, they got right - spot on. There is absolutely no way of telling for sure that anything of what you see in this local reality is real or if it is just by some programmed design: http://www.coastt...me=light

Neither do you have evidence that local reality (Deity not included) is a better model.

Given the freshman physicists look at a lack of universal reference frame above -- and Pascal's gambit:

. You may believe in God, and God exists, in which case you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
· You may believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case your loss is finite and therefore
negligible.
· You may not believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case your gain is finite and
therefore negligible.
· You may not believe in God, and God exists, in which case you will go to hell: your loss is
infinite.

I will place my bet on first: realism. This world (my universe view) is really here, whether local or non-local.

Second: Non-local. The fact that I can't see the bucket of water, tells me that it is not here, but in some other here from which this here projects. If you want to call it merely another dimension which we do not yet see, then fine, it is just semantics.

Third: Belief is mine; it is not Religion.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (18) Mar 28, 2009
[Quote Noumenon] He doesn't understand that our conception of reality cannot be the reality itself, ...because it presumes a form dependent on mind.





[Quote Ethelred] Its amazing how you come up with stuff like that after the long discussion. I fully understood it. I just think its crap. I have a good understanding of human limits. I wear glasses. I have since Ben Hur came out.



You don't understand that the mind evolved to convey an effective representation of reality. OF COURSE ITS NOT THE ACTUAL REALITY.




An effective representation of reality is sufficient for functioning in the macroscopic realm, .. but the goal of science [was] to understand reality at the most fundamental level, i.e. is it a particle or a wave, or an unknowable thing we can with some success track, but not understanding in the sense we can for a macroscopic thing.



We are not speaking about particular physical limits or capacities here. by virtue of the process of forming an understanding of reality at all, implies the application of conceptual paradigms and introduces a conceptual structure dependent on mind.



My statement that our representations are not the reality itself, seems barely worth typing since it is so obvious, as you make clear with effective CAPS, but you seem to neglect to examine what the difference is. What is the difference between our representation of reality, and reality as it is apart from this representation. The answer is, the form in which it is understood. Understanding implies conforming by necessity,.. thus bifurcating Reality into the Phenomenal World (known - compatible with thought) and in an negative sense, the Noumenal World, unknowable even in principal. This is just pure reason and logic, nothing mystical here at all.



If you accept this (and you won't;.. you will continue speaking in regard to the phenomenal realm, thinking I'm a nut (lucky guess)),.. you will have to conclude that the Copenhagen interpretation was a discovery of epistemology, that prevents one from understanding reality, and limits us to making predictions,.. the two are not the same. In qm we can make predictions, but cannot begin to understand the underlying reality.



[you want to use sock puppets for this next bit] If you retort that the Schrodinger wave equation IS the reality (as I think you did), I can simply ask to observe the wave,.. to which you may hand me a piece (the collapsed wave - an observation),.. to which I would respond, no I want to observe the whole thing,.. to which you may retort, well they are in other possible worlds now, their possibility did not manifest for you, they are unknowable to you.



It is inconsistent on the one hand to say that the mind is capable of understanding reality without disturbing that conception (to resolve reality to any level intellectually), and at the same time to propose a realm outside of which the mind can observe aka many-worlds. It IS consistent in contrast, to recognize from the start that the mind as it is, is not conceptually equipped to make rational sense of qm, .. or more accurately that the act of forming an artificial coherence of reality is to conform it within ad-hoc concepts.



I don't have more time to respond to your other sass right now.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Mar 29, 2009
You consistently insult others and their intellect on this physics.org site -- with regularity -- and not just on this thread.


I didn't call you names. I certainly said your posts are fuzzy, since they are. That is not name calling. Nor did I call you a liar. If I was to call someone a liar I would explain why.

Now I did say you were engaging in intellectual cowardice for calling me a liar and not even bothering to say what the alleged lie was. I stand by that.

You even called me Mrs. Nesbit.


Didn't. I said "Fire Mrs. Nesbit".

Put Mrs. Nesbit into the torpedo tube.

Youtube failed me about the torpedo tube.

Anything anyone else writes, you call "crap" "useless" "whining" "intellectual masturbation"


Nonsense. I said that about YOU. Though I called some of Noumenen's philosophy intellectual masturbation I certainly haven't accused him of whining. Toughen up. Don't whine. Don't call people liars unless you can back it up.

Those are suggestions that you can ignore. At your peril of The Holy Hand Grenade.

But then, I guess if you didn't insult me just a little, it wouldn't get my blood boiling enough to keep coming back.


You are mistaking constructive criticism as insults. I insulted your writing. It takes practice to get better.

That is why at the end of my last post, I tried to come back with just a little physics. This, afterall, is a physics related site; is it not?


The catch is that was the only thing you wrote in that post that was relevant to the discussion.

Even you seem to have noticed that the local/non-local realism philisophical debate does ultimately center on the concepts of cognitive causality,


No. I have noticed that OTHERS think so. I disagree. As I pointed out to Noumenen COGNITIVE causality is not what is going on. Its ACTUAL causality. He thinks causality is an illusion because he has been conned by Kant's writings. I think it real because the experiments that depend on causality work.

as opposed to the narrow field intelligence, which is full of that fuzzy logic.


Actually its not that simple. Logic CAN be fuzzy. There also is a branch of logic that is called Fuzzy Logic. Not only that, there is often more than one way that logic and math show things might be. Experimentation is used to deal with both issues. Both bad logic and cases where logic produces more than one possible answer. For instance Newton has been replaced by Einstein. Jfprins on this site is trying to replace the present standard theory of superconduction. Alexa is frothing about foam. Yep thinks that the Plasma Universe somehow matches reality despite the evidence against it. Its experiments that answer those questions.

The key to thinking about singularity.com as it applies to non-local realism is that if the machines ever became self-aware, then at least the philisophical debate about "we are not alone" has some start.


When or if but not now. So its not relevant to the statement 'we are not alone'. No one has a sentient machine. I don't see a problem with it happening eventually. AI proponents have consistently underestimated the difficulty for decades. Maybe they finally have a more realistic concept.

To me, the first step is to have system that can watch itself. You can't be self-aware otherwise and that may not be enough. I think it might be enough. I doubt that all the parts of my brain are looking at what is going on but at least one part is. I can perceive at least two levels of regression at the conscious level. One certainly works with words as symbols. Another is visual. Until a computer can manage both at once while observing both at once I don't think it could qualify as self-aware.

The question about whether you or any other person for that matter in "my world view" is also self-aware is even a question I cannot answer with 100% certainty.


I can. I am self-aware. I not aware of anything that makes me so unique that I could think I was the only person that is self-aware. We all have the same basic chemistry. In most cases the exact same chemistry in our brains with most of the differences being a matter of quantity not kind. Occasionally people do have drastic differences. They wind up failing to function in human society.

Yet, you insult people by telling them that "their" postings contain nothing but "freshman physics.


There are two problems with that statement.

One. It wasn't physics. It was philosophy. And I was talking about a PARTICULAR philosophy, I never said 'nothing but' either.

Two. If that's an insult to you, then you are exceedingly sensitive and really shouldn't be arguing on the net.

That you TAKE INSULT I believe. I can't help it if you think that way. I am not about to coddle you.

I am not a physics major, but JD/MBA BSME (mechanical engineering) so I did have basically the same Freshman physics as you apparently.


Then you should be able to tell physics from philosophy. Perhaps its that MBA influence.

Without giving up internet anonymity then, tell me just a little about yourself --


I have no degree. I suck at math. I am good at theory when I don't have to run the numbers. I have about three years of college. I read a lot. I discuss stuff a lot on the net. I am particularly good at Creation vs. Evolution. I am totally against NOT continuing learn things. Though I do intend to not learn to stop using double negatives.

I find arguing fun. Even flamewars upon occasion. I try not start the flames.

It goes like this: if that demon could know the precise location and momentum of every atom in the universe at anyone instant, then it could use Newton's laws to reveal the entire course of all cosmic events of the past, present, and future.)


Even without the Uncertainty Principle that seems unlikely to work anymore. It's that Chaos thing. For it to work the Demon would need Plank precision and data storage larger than the Universe. I actually discussed something like this when with my mother when she was dying. Of brain cancer at that. I will talk about anything at nearly anytime.

I really like the spinning bucket of water analogy,


Wish I could remember where I stole it from.

Cool, I found out that the original source was Newton:

http://www-groups...ket.html

Interesting this part:

There is nothing to measure rotation with respect to. Newton deduced from this thought experiment that there had to be something to measure rotation with respect to, and that something had to be space itself. It was his strongest argument for the idea of absolute space.


And Einstein didn't figure it out. it was these two, Joseph Lense and Hans Thirring in 1918.

JDLaw, which is not legal, but the law of gravity


And I was hoping it was for Jewish Defense League At War.

One way or another the earth's surface is accelerating towards me at 32 feet per second squared (or am I accelerating towards it?)


Neither I think. Because you aren't accelerating. If you were you wouldn't feel the force. This stuff makes my brain hurt sometimes. Looking at things from first principles often does that.

Now, again this is all freshman physics; I know.


Not anywhere I have heard of. Its upper division I think. The first two semesters, which is all I had, where mechanics of solids and then mechanics of liquids and was purely classical. Though I think I have a vague recollection of at least looking at some of the equations at some time in some class but nothing I was tested on.

Now, taking our new found realization that perhaps -- just perhaps mind you -- that there is no "Universal Reference Frame" then it follows that kinetic energy also has none:


I don't see a problem there.

There is absolutely no way of telling for sure that anything of what you see in this local reality is real or if it is just by some programmed design:


That takes some serious paranoia to question all experiments to that degree. Since accepting the concept that my brain produces a reasonably accurate representation of reality works and hasn't gotten me dead I will go on that.

Neither do you have evidence that local reality (Deity not included) is a better model.


Nor do I have any evidence of the reverse. Once you go down the path that you are only living in your skull you are going down the freshman philosophy route. Its irrelevant to getting anything at all done. Assuming its all in your skull simply adds nothing to the effort to learn how things work.

and Pascal's gambit:


I call it Pascal's Fraud or sometimes Bluff.

I will place my bet on first: realism. This world (my universe view) is really here, whether local or non-local.


Which has nothing to do with Pascal's Bluff but last I saw you were trying to get me to go the opposite way.

The fact that I can't see the bucket of water, tells me that it is not here, but in some other here from which this here projects.


Get your own bucket and then you will see it. I don't see what you are trying to get at by saying you don't see the bucket. So the rest of the sentence pretty much makes no sense for me.

Third: Belief is mine; it is not Religion.


That feels like a non-sequitor since I can't see where it followed from anything above.

Much of that post looked well constructed locally. The bits and pieces don't seem to be related for me yet.

I just can't see where you are trying to go. But at least you seem to be trying to go somewhere.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Mar 29, 2009
but the goal of science [was] to understand reality at the most fundamental level, i.e. is it a particle or a wave,


I go for probability wave at the moment. Maybe something else next week.

by virtue of the process of forming an understanding of reality at all, implies the application of conceptual paradigms and introduces a conceptual structure dependent on mind.


The mind remains dependent on the reality around us. If it is significantly out of touch than we would be dead.

My statement that our representations are not the reality itself,


The map is not the territory. So what else have we thrashed out already?

.. thus bifurcating Reality into the Phenomenal World (known - compatible with thought) and in an negative sense, the Noumenal World, unknowable even in principal.


Which is where we will continue to part ways. I am not aware of much that is unknowable even in principle. The closest thing at present is the inside of a black hole. Sure there are things that historically we cannot know since the information is lost in the background noise. I don't think that is what you are talking about.

This is just pure reason and logic, nothing mystical here at all.


It is often the case that more than one answer can be arrived at by logic and math. Kant does not have the only possible answer. He is only correct if causality is an illusion. Thrashed that one out already as well. That CANNOT be proven logically since there are other logical roads that do not arrive at the same destination. Only testing can show the answer. So far causality is the winner.

thinking I'm a nut (lucky guess))


Wrong. Hero worship.

Copenhagen interpretation was a discovery of epistemology,


I don't think it counts as a discovery. Of anything. Its a way to think about the math in relation to the real world.

In qm we can make predictions, but cannot begin to understand the underlying reality.


Yet. Assuming that the Standard Model is incomplete which is my thinking. However as I said umpteen times before IF QM is accurate as far as it goes then QM is the set of rules. Which would make it reality.

Please note that is a branching conditional. If QM is real you are wrong. If QM is not real or at least not the fundamental story then there is more to learn before we can decide if you are wrong or right.

[you want to use sock puppets for this next bit]


I always post as Ethelred. No sock puppets for me. My magnificent prose must accrue credit. Or blame.

to which I would respond, no I want to observe the whole thing,.


Which would be what the wave represents.

they are unknowable to you.


And then what happened? I mean how is that supposed to prove Kant?

and at the same time to propose a realm outside of which the mind can observe aka many-worlds.


I don't see it that way at all. First I said only experimentation can show if causality is real or not. Kant, and therefor you, can only be right if causality is not real. Both probability waves and the many worlds model still have causality. That the results cannot always be predicted with 100% accuracy in no way shows that the results do not follow from a cause.

Ethelred
jdlaw
1 / 5 (1) Mar 29, 2009
Ethelred,

Maybe your writing is the only writing you can understand, because your level of capability needs some more work.

I can. I am self-aware. I not aware of anything that makes me so unique that I could think I was the only person that is self-aware.


The fact that you %u201Cknow you are self aware,%u201D or that I know I am self-aware, is not proof that you know that I am self-aware. In order to prove you are not alone, you would have to prove that you and I are both self-aware. Something you can not do. Your "logic" is not as iron-clad as you may think.

Not anywhere I have heard of. Its upper division I think. The first two semesters, which is all I had, where mechanics of solids and then mechanics of liquids and was purely classical. Though I think I have a vague recollection of at least looking at some of the equations at some time in some class but nothing I was tested on.


I didn't have freshman college physics or philosophy; I had physics and philosophy for physics and engineering majors. It is different. They are totally different classes intended for those who really intend on pursuing the higher level thought.

Some of the equations I put up for you to look at are not classical physics though. My point was that classical physics typically just assumes the universal reference frame.

My E=MC squared looks like: E=http://www.redishtribution.com/physics/EMC-Reference-squared-LorentzForm.JPG.

If you don%u2019t know what that means, why it is different from the classical Einsteinian view, and why the math shouldn%u2019t scare you, then you have not any of the tools to engage in this discussion. You are a high school grad with a wiki. That is merely being a well versed imposter.

Now, I am not insulting you here. I think I have learned a bit about that from you. When you can actually explain and comment on the E=MC squared equations in the Lorentz covalient forms then you may come back and tell me why you know for sure of your local reality. Otherwise you must join with the entire rest of the physics and philisophical world -- that there is just no way to tell yet.

That makes your arguments only just as good as mine; Not superior.

jdlaw
1 / 5 (1) Mar 29, 2009
Sorry, E= http://www.redish...Form.JPG

and oops! I meant covarient - covalient isn't evan a word. And covalent means something else entirely.

Math. If you have never had calculus or differential equations, but want to know more about it strictly from a conceptual or philisophical view point, just learn about Euler's number.

It basically goes like this: consider an account that starts with $1.00 and pays 100% interest per year. If the interest is credited once, at the end of the year, the value is $2.00; but if the interest is computed and added twice in the year, the $1 is multiplied by 1.5 twice, yielding $1.00×1.5² = $2.25. Compounding quarterly yields $1.00×1.254 = $2.4414%u2026, and compounding monthly yields $1.00×(1.0833%u2026)12 = $2.613035. Now as that sequence approaches a limit (the force of interest) for more and smaller compounding intervals. Compounding weekly yields $2.692597%u2026, while compounding daily yields $2.714567%u2026, just two cents more. Using n as the number of compounding intervals, with interest of 1/n in each interval, the limit for large n is the number that came to be known as "e" (Euler's number). With continuous compounding, the account value will reach $2.7182818%u2026. 2.7182818... is Euler's number. If there is such thing as more important numbers in math than other numbers, Euler's hits up there with 0,1, and infinity.

Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2009
Maybe your writing is the only writing you can understand, because your level of capability needs some more work.


Everyone needs more work. You are getting better for instance.

The fact that you %u201Cknow you are self aware,%u201D or that I know I am self-aware, is not proof that you know that I am self-aware


We have nearly the same genes. Therefor you are self-aware if I am.

In order to prove you are not alone, you would have to prove that you and I are both self-aware.


No. I would only have to prove that we share the same genes responsible. We most likely do.

Your "logic" is not as iron-clad as you may think.


Sure it is. The only alternative is solipsism, which is a waste of time. That is what I am referring to when I mention freshman philosophy discussions.

I didn't have freshman college physics or philosophy; I had physics and philosophy for physics and engineering majors.


In California and most of the US the first three courses in Physics are also known as engineering physics. At least it was that way in '70s. The only philosophy course I took was Symbolic Logic. Which is why I have a book on Kant on my nightstand at the moment. I checked it out from the library. It is due back tomorrow. Which shows that this thread has been going on for a fair length of time.

My point was that classical physics typically just assumes the universal reference frame.


Yes it does. That was Newton's doing. Leibniz disagreed and while we use Leibniz's notation for Newton's equations we mostly still use Newton's models. They work quite well in almost all instances of celestial mechanics and the math is much easier to deal with.

You are a high school grad with a wiki. That is merely being a well versed imposter.


You are mistaken for one thing I have pretended to be an physics major so impostor is more than a little uncalled for. Nothing here has needed much math. You didn't use it yourself. You just posted the formulas and made no use of them except to point out things I already knew and had actually already discussed here regarding some of the differences between classical and relativistic thinking.

When you can actually explain and comment on the E=MC squared equations in the Lorentz covalient forms then you may come back and tell me why you know for sure of your local reality.


I saw them. I didn't see anything to change my thinking. The changes were just to take into account the concept of relative position instead of a fixed postion system. The one is easier to calculate from but can't be used in all instances.

That makes your arguments only just as good as mine; Not superior.


Only I say what I intend to and answer the questions asked. You have evaded my questions and I can't figure out what you intend. Which makes me suspicious. I understand what Noumanen intent is. He wants Kant to get more credit. I don't think its warranted.

--------------------------------------------------

and oops! I meant covarient - covalient isn't evan a word. And covalent means something else entirely.


No problem. I was wondering if that was simply another word I hadn't run across. 'Evan' isn't a word either and it doesn't bother me. It is a name. When spelling errors become the heart of a discussion you know you are dealing with a 14 year old that is taking classes in grammar.

Math. If you have never had calculus or differential equations


Two semesters of calculus. That includes some differential equations but not the one year engineering course on Differential Equations that all engineers had to take.

Its not that the concepts aren't in my head. Its the details that are gone. Its been over thirty years.

e. Using n as the number of compounding intervals, with interest of 1/n in each interval, the limit for large n is the number that came to be known as "e" (Euler's number).


So that is where the E comes from. I noticed it attached to Natural Logarithms, which has always struck me as an oxymoron since I never had a single instance of needing to use them. I asked my dad and he didn't clear it up either. He was a mechanical engineer.

THIS IS IMPORTANT DO NOT BOTHER REPLYING IF YOU CONTINUE TO IGNORE THESE QUESTIONS.

I am still having trouble figuring what your point is. As far as I can see you haven't made one. And I did ask.

What was the intent of your first post? It looked like a religious hit and run post.

What is your intent in claiming we don't know anything?

I find it a favorite of Creationists when trying to avoid the reality that is evolution which always makes me suspicious of anyone that is going down the unreality route. Which is what you seem to be doing.

There is no sense in going on if you continue to evade these sorts of questions.

Ethelred
jdlaw
1 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2009
Etheled,

I am not avoiding your questions. It is just that the answers to your questions are quite %u2013 well, what I call simple-complicated. They are so simple in themselves, yet understanding them takes in so many different schools of thought, it is difficult to write it all down for you. When you read it, you will naturally tend to dismiss it merely as something you had already considered, missing all the little nuances that could be found with just a little more thought.

Believe it or not, I know some of my strengths and weaknesses. Clarity of writing is one of my weaknesses; I am much more a stream of consciousness writer, but with a little more work on your part to avoid quick judgment about me and a little more work on my part to be clear, I am sure I can help this understanding along a little.

What was the intent of your first post? It looked like a religious hit and run post.

What is your intent in claiming we don't know anything?


These two questions go great together, because you are basically answering your first question with the second.

I think this gets to the heart of the difference between you and me so far. Perhaps, working together here, we can get this sorted out.

I will have to bring up some of my first post, but one point I want to make clear is that my first post assumes that one has read the actual article that started this post in the first place -- and has read, or at least glanced at, the majority of the rest of this thread. I don%u2019t know why you have been so quick to assume that I had not. I am simply reminding you or others reading this, that I do not intend to start at the beginning and explain everything again. You will have to consider the context of this thread to be fully incorporated into what I am saying.

So, quoting myself,
We then confront ourselves with the realization that local reality on the macro level holds true across from one individual to another. It doesn't matter whom or what taught us local reality, they all taught us the things we touch see or feel are real. Reality, therefore is not an idea of the mind alone, innate to us babes of the womb, but rather taught to us through our extensions.


The article itself spoke of the TWO parts to local realism %u2013 local and realism. If you haven%u2019t noticed by now, I am a realist; meaning, that I accept everything in my reality as concrete, true, and completely real. I am just not fully accepting locality as the only possibility. Furthermore, Occam%u2019s razor (you know the simplest solution is usually the best) suggests that non-local reality is a whole lot simpler to explain that local reality. Even if you can%u2019t prove either one, non-local reality simply means that there is an external force creating this reality. Non-local %u201Ccreation%u201D (if you will at least not dismiss it immediately) is a whole lot simpler than %u2013 all this nothing came together and created a %u201Cbig bang%u201D which turned into something. Of course, quoting myself again from the first post:

But if we owe one causes existence to another cause, then we demand again, for a similar reason, whether this second cause exists of itself or through another being, until, from stage to stage, we at length arrive at an ultimate cause, which will be God.


When I say %u201CGod%u201D I don%u2019t refer to the bearded man in a robe who sits on a throne and speaks like Charlton Heston. Either local or non-local still requires that something came out of nothing %u2026 but what if nothing came out of something? Who is to say one direction is better than the other.

%u201CGod%u201D is whatever that non-local %u201Cforce%u201D (if you will) has some power in the universe. I think it is why Leon Lederman in his book,

The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?

always refers to God as %u201Cshe.%u201D That way, at least everyone knows that even if we refer to this force as God, at least everyone should immediately recognize that we are open to different interpretations of that word.

But getting back to my first post,

... belief is key to realism. Without it, there is only non-locality. Faith and doubt are the same thing in different degrees. A doubt is believing something to be untrue when you do not know for sure. Faith is believing something to be true when you do not know for sure.


I should have said without belief there is either local or non-local, but the reality part is missing. In later posts I tried to explain that concept to you further by talking about Knowledge and Arrogance. There is nothing inately wrong about arrogance because any time we think we are sure of something we are just a little bit arrogant. Belief and doubt are the same thing in different degrees oposite of knowledge. Remember you can believe something to be true just as you can believe its oposite to be false; you are still believing the same thing. When you doubt something, are you not just "believing" it to be false?

When you think you "know" something, are you not tempting Laplace's demon just a little too hard, just about walking on the edge of Occam's Razor?

There is no fact in this world which is completely irrefutable. Everything is up to probabilities, its is just that when the probablities line up for us with such force (you are 99.999999% sure about something) that you begin to believe that you "know."

For example, what is exactly one meter? There is no method of determining anything to exactness. When we begin to divide up the meter, we find that a meter is only equal to 10 decimeters, 100 centimeters, 1000 millimeters, or 1 million nanometers. There is nowhere to end how fine you want your accuracy or tolerance for your measuring device to be, except of course a theoretical "Planck's length." (you know the distance where a light beam would be there before it left anyway) Yet if we forget the truly objective or quantifiable and instead focus our quest for understanding within the nature of locality vs. non-locality, for a "one meter" measuring stick, quite subjectively, yet in a very exacting manner, considering only the bounds of the thing defined, the logical definition of "one" thing (the concept of a singular meter) is completely undisputable.

%u2026 recall the corny anecdote about Einstein, the physicist, arguing with, Pythagoras, the mathematician at a highschool dance party. Pythagaras insists that if he walks half way over to a very cute girl on the other side of the ballroom, and then half way again, and repeats this process for an infinite number of times, he will never reach her. Meanwhile the Einstein is already more than half way across the ballroom, turns back to the mathematician and says, Yah, but I can get close enough.

If you let down your "agnostic" guard long enough to admit that you "believe" there is no God; you still do believe. That is why you are not calling yourself an atheist. It is not that you are against belief, you just choose not to associate yourself with this folklore and mysticism that we call religion.

Sorry, I am really getting long winded here. But in spite of the tone of some of my posts, I am thoroughly ejoying your insights.

To sum up my answer to your questions. No. we do not know anything absolutely. These scientists who are using "homodyne measurements" to prove spooky action at a distance do not do very much explaining of the actual test procedure or results, yet I have always "believed" in the non-local approach to reality. Either way, it is the only reality we have to deal with.

Your friend,
Jdlaw http://www.redish...vity.JPG

P.S. God created evolution
jdlaw
1 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2009
Hey, I totally typed that last post stream of consciousness and it still messed up all of my hyphens -- quotation marks "" parenthesis () and all my three period little thingies (I don't know what you call it) ...
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2009
When you read it, you will naturally tend to dismiss it merely as something you had already considered, missing all the little nuances that could be found with just a little more thought.


If you would state your intent it would make it lot easier to figure what you are attempting.

I am much more a stream of consciousness writer, but with a little more work on your part to avoid quick judgment about me


Check what you write. I do it. So can you. I still make mistakes. So will you. And what I wrote above applies here. It is unreasonable to expect to guess what it was that you wanted to say. Just come out with it.

These two questions go great together, because you are basically answering your first question with the second.


No I didn't. I am asking what you think. I am not going to guess.

will have to bring up some of my first post, but one point I want to make clear is that my first post assumes that one has read the actual article that started this post in the first place -- and has read, or at least glanced at, the majority of the rest of this thread.


Well since I have been here from the start no assumption is needed. Clarity is needed. State WHY you say what you say instead hinting around. Its really not that hard to do. You have an idea so SAY it.

t. I am simply reminding you or others reading this, that I do not intend to start at the beginning and explain everything again.


You have explained very little. You have posted apparently unrelated and even contradictory ideas without ever giving a clue as to what your point is.

You will have to consider the context of this thread to be fully incorporated into what I am saying.


I have no idea what you think the context is unless you say so. Please do.

The article itself spoke of the TWO parts to local realism %u2013 local and realism. If you haven%u2019t noticed by now, I am a realist; meaning, that I accept everything in my reality as concrete, true, and completely real.


So why do you keep going down the opposite route? To confuse both of us?

I am just not fully accepting locality as the only possibility.


And then what? Local reality is a meaningless noise unless YOU set into some sort of context.

%u201CWe showed that failure of local realism can in principle be observed even when measurements are performed on a macroscopic scale,%u201D Jeong told PhysOrg.com. %u201C


Note the IN PRINCIPLE phrase. In other words they didn't actually show macroscopic failure. They showed that it might be done. Next step to actually do something. They should have started with that or admitted they failed to show anything real.

More weasle words from the article showing that they didn't actually prove anything.

. More recently, physicists Johannes Kofler and Caslav Brukner at the University of Vienna in Austria have suggested an alternative view: that the classical world emerges from the quantum world because our measurements of classical systems are too fuzzy, or coarse-grained, to detect quantum features of nature.


Suggested, is the operative word there.

Basically what it boils down to is that the discussion on this thread has little to do with the actual article since it said nothing of consequence.

Which is typical of Physorg discussions. Its a consequence of often dubious experiments but mostly its the results of the often poor writing in the articles themselves.

And none of has anything to do with the last line in you initial post. Which is why I am still asking WHY THE HECK WAS IT THERE. Is it so hard to explain your intent?

(you know the simplest solution is usually the best)


The simplest solution that is a REAL solution is not necessarily the best but one is better off using it until there evidence to the contrary.

Even if you can%u2019t prove either one, non-local reality simply means that there is an external force creating this reality.


No. It means that there are probability waves involved. The idea of an external force seems to have come out of left field. You do that a lot. Its a sign of fuzzy thinking. Its often caused by trying to get a belief to match reality despite the evidence.

Ccreation%u201D (if you will at least not dismiss it immediately) is a whole lot simpler than %u2013 all this nothing came together and created a %u201Cbig bang%u201D which turned into something. Of course, quoting myself again from the first post:


Why the heck would I agree with that. Its nonsense. The thinking you are using applies to the alleged creator as well. So in that case Occam's Razor is not on your side.

My way.

The Universe exists because it can.

Your way.

The Universe exists because a god created it. Don't bother thinking about where the god came from because that is inconvenient.

To put it another way, I was right. You made a stealth religious post. You have been evading answering my questions because you didn't want to admit to it. Why people do this is for you figure out. After all you are the one that did it.

Either local or non-local still requires that something came out of nothing %u2026 but what if nothing came out of something? Who is to say one direction is better than the other.


Me. And a lot of others. Not that it proves anything. However:

If the Universe requires a creator than a creator requires a creator. And so on to infinity.

So save a bunch of steps. Leave the unneeded out. A creator is just a complication and therefor Occam's Razor should lead you away from it.

Its funny how the religious have yet again copied rationalist methods without actually understanding what they are doing. Occam's Razor is a recent addition to the panoply of abuse of reason by the religious. They create an extra step and then call it simpler which is the exact opposite of Occam's Razor.

I think it is why Leon Lederman in his book,

The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?


The real question is what is wrong with his mind when he went WAY over top with hyperbole. The Higgs Boson is not a god particle. And that is assuming it exists. Something I have some doubts on.

I should have said without belief there is either local or non-local, but the reality part is missing.


Which would still be rubbish. I don't have belief but I still go on the idea of reality. Going on the reverse is just plain futile.

In later posts I tried to explain that concept to you further by talking about Knowledge and Arrogance.


Arrogance is a frequent favorite word of people that beliefs that are at variance with reality. Its used as a bludgeon to avoid reasoned discourse. Just like you did.

n that concept to you further by talking about Knowledge and Arrogance. There is nothing inately wrong about arrogance because any time we think we are sure of something we are just a little bit arrogant.


Again the misuse of the word. Another indicator of religious thinking. Using non-standard definitions is exceedingly popular with the religious.

Truth = my religion
Arrogance = not agreeing with my beliefs and having the nerve to go on evidence
Intolerance = not allowing my religion to proselytized with government money

When you doubt something, are you not just "believing" it to be false?


No. Its suspecting it false. Like the Higgs. Who knows, the thing may exist and the LHC might find it in the first month of full power.

When you think you "know" something, are you not tempting Laplace's demon just a little too hard, just about walking on the edge of Occam's Razor?


No. Keep your mind open but not so far open your brains fall out.

Quit asking me to drop my brains on the floor and believe in things with not a shred of evidence. I am not the one that is abusing Occam.

There is no fact in this world which is completely irrefutable.


Only if you go the unreality route. Which is what I was pretty sure was the reason you were going that way while claiming to believe in a reality. Sure enough now that you are actually saying something instead of trying to hide what your intent it comes out that the unreality is to avoid evidence you find uncomfortable.

For example, what is exactly one meter?


You really claim to be an engineer and ask that question?

http://en.wikiped...ki/Metre

Presently it is defined in wavelengths. And its a fairly precise definition.

The rest of that paragraph just got worse. You aren't going to make your god exist in puff of bad logic.

If you let down your "agnostic" guard long enough to admit that you "believe" there is no God; you still do believe.


Its amazing just how much some people get upset by the term Agnostic. It just goes against the grain of of people that need belief I suppose.

I neither believe nor disbelieve in a god. There may be one. There is no need for one for the universe to exist but then there is no need for there to be no god either.

What is so bloody hard in that for the religious to comprehend? The best I can figure is that is either a genetic predisposition to believe or just another tactic to use as a bludgeon instead of actual reason.

Kind of like the way you abused Occam's Razor. You did abuse it.

. It is not that you are against belief, you just choose not to associate yourself with this folklore and mysticism that we call religion.


See above. Its covered.

The folklore and mysticism is sometimes testable. Those gods that can be tested have so far been found wanting. The god of Genesis for instance does not exist. The world is not young and the order of creation(any of them that are in the Bible) are all wrong. Yes there is more than one in the Bible.

Sorry, I am really getting long winded here.


Pot meet kettle. I am the definition of long winded. This is the first site that I have posted on that hasn't truncated my posts occasionally. There is no moderator either. Interesting how that works out fairly well here. I think its the inherent but not hard coded time limits to the threads interests. In standard forums active threads are visible to new readers.

No. we do not know anything absolutely.


Of course not. Still we know enough to go on. The give some odds of what we know. For instance Newton is not going away even though he was wrong. He was close enough for government work. Literally. Its Newton's Gravity that is used to bank space probes around planets. Einstein's equations are too bloody complex and time consuming. I suppose they checked the close approaches to Jupiter and Saturn and found they were close enough considering the inherent errors they have to deal with.

These scientists who are using "homodyne measurements" to prove spooky action at a distance do not do very much explaining of the actual test procedure or results,


Well that is because Physorg tends to suck at details. There is the original papers but I can't afford the magazines. And I couldn't hack the math anyway. There has been a Bell's Inequality test with very long measurements. As in kilometers but that has issues with the rate of photon detection. Still the evidence is that there are no hidden variables.

Jdlaw http://www.redish...vity.JPG


Its inherent in mathematics. Cube square laws are a product of living in a Universe with three spatial dimensions. More than three produces unstable orbits. Less, well it doesn't matter about the orbits. Life simply wouldn't work.

P.S. God created evolution


No god needed. Evolution is a simple process that cannot not happen.

The only way to stop evolution is to stop mutations. The changes come from mutations, the selection comes from the environment. I don't see a god there. For the Dembski fans the information comes from the environment.

So, now it came out. You were pushing a religious agenda as I thought based on your first post.

Congratulations on learning some clarity. Don't evade showing your intent in the future and the fuzzy writing might go away. The last two and half posts have actually had some meaning.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2009
Hey, I totally typed that last post stream of consciousness and it still messed up all of my hyphens -- quotation marks "" parenthesis () and all my three period little thingies (I don't know what you call it) ...


Use Notepad or another text editor. Then Control A Control C and click on the entry box and Control V.

... I think its called an ellipses.

Wikipedia is encyclopedic. No wonder MS just decided to give up on Encarta.

- ' "

Yes it works with notepad.

Ethelred
jdlaw
1 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2009
Well interesting, but you still dwell on this notion that everything you write is extremely clear and everything I write is not.

In your "long winded" writing you still only asked me two questions. I answered them as best I could. You then picked apart -- only the parts you like to refute -- skipping the nuances. You refuse to take things in context by claiming you do not know what the context is.

So, now here is the short and simple:

The context is "Local vs. Non-local." Both are actually talking about "reality," you just seem to think that non-local means "unreality." Not True. Reality is reality. Don't forget that.

What was the intent of your first post? It looked like a religious hit and run post.


Exactly the opposite, I was making the point that non-local (creator) theory needs no religion or God as the rest of the world knows it. For programmed reality, like in the movie Matrix for example, there are the sentient machines - no white bearded man in a robe. I'm not saying Hollywood had the answer, but it did present a non-local macro explanation for QM that could work.

What is your intent in claiming we don't know anything?


My intent is that we don't! Plain and simple. Even you admitted in your reply (I'm sure it was very difficult for you) that you don't know anything absolutely for sure.

Of course not. Still we know enough to go on.


You of course lean towards local reality. I have actually at least tried to "hack some of the math" in QM. I have found non-local reality is the only reality possible in QM. I'm just left here trying to explain to you why local reality seems so much stronger here in the "Macro" world.

Maybe its an age thing. Some of your posts indicate that you think we (other posters) are somehow still babes just out of the womb.

If you are over 60, perhaps you might consider for a minute that your body chemistry is making you a little Cynical.

I think you are asking me the impossible; you are asking me to "prove" to you non-local reality.

Ethelred, I am asking you to "prove" to me local reality. Is that even possible with all the QM evidence out there?

For all you know, I am one of those sentient machines. You certainly can't prove that I am not.

"Open your mind, but not so much that your brains fall out" -- Physician, heal thyself.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2009
Well interesting, but you still dwell on this notion that everything you write is extremely clear and everything I write is not.


I am pretty sure that I mentioned on this thread, that some of my posts have been incomprehensible even to me, in the past. I don't think any on this thread have been that bad. I usually notice that kind of thing the next day.

But its true that I see your posts as fuzzy. Even you say they are stream of consciousness. Which is not a good way to get a post that holds together in its totality.

In your "long winded" writing you still only asked me two questions.


Basically one. Whats your point?

You then picked apart -- only the parts you like to refute -- skipping the nuances.


If you don't point out what is supposed to be significant how that heck am I going to guess.

You refuse to take things in context by claiming you do not know what the context is.


When the conclusions do not follow from the premises I am left trying to guess at your context.

So, now here is the short and simple:

The context is "Local vs. Non-local." Both are actually talking about "reality," you just seem to think that non-local means "unreality." Not True. Reality is reality. Don't forget that.


Please explain what non-local means to you?

In the article the concept of local reality is just plain meaningless.

Locality says that distant objects cannot directly and instantaneously influence each other (since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light).


Which is pretty obvious and jargon like Local Reality is just not needed for that. Perhaps the author was hazy on the concept.

Realism says that the things we measure and sense are indeed really there apart from our measurements, and it%u2019s not just our measurements that make them exist.


Some disagree with that. I don't.

While the principle of local realism is intuitive in our everyday classical world, physicists going back to Einstein%u2019s time have known that local realism can be violated in quantum physics


Which I find a dubious statement. Local realism in this context is a bit squirrely. Perhaps they have the idea that causality is being violated in the 'spooky action at a distance'. Causality has never been violated in any test and without that reality local or not isn't being violated. It may be that they don't share my point of view.

Experimentally, physicists can confirm that a quantum system has violated local realism (violating either locality or realism) by demonstrating the violation of Bell%u2019s inequality, which serves as a test of local realism.


From
http://en.wikiped...equality

The desire for a local realist theory was based on two assumptions:

1. Objects have a definite state that determines the values of all other measurable properties, such as position and momentum.
2. Effects of local actions, such as measurements, cannot travel faster than the speed of light (as a result of special relativity). If the observers are sufficiently far apart, a measurement taken by one has no effect on the measurement taken by the other.


I disagree with One. Objects DON'T have a definite state until they interact with other objects.

As for Two.

First no one has managed to send information faster than the speed of light. So causality is preserved.

Two, A point of view shift can easily deal with the concept of non-locality simply by defining local as the light cone of the test. That is, the whole system is the local area. The local area expands at the speed of light in all directions until there is an interaction with other objects. Testing one end of the experiment entangles to tester with the objects being tested. Thus making the tester part of the locality of the particles. This works with either a fairly standard probability wave concept or a multiple worlds concept. No laws are violated or changed its just a different way of looking at things.

It may be possible to exchange information this way but so far it has not been done. Even if it can be done its is still local realism as long as you accept local as the volume of the experiment. That volume expands at the speed of light.

The Wiki thinks it can't be done.

The no-communication theorem proves that the observers cannot use the inequality violations to communicate information to each other faster than the speed of light.


And the link to no-communication

http://en.wikiped..._theorem

The key, is the concept of local as depending on the light cone of the particles being tested. Many problems can be resolved with a point of view change.

If you don't like calling that local I can live with it. Its still a reality whether you define it as local or non-local. I just don't see anything either way that is Earth shattering(there should have been a KABOOM). While I have seen this stuff many times before each time I go over it I think of it in a new way. Well if there is a fair amount time in between anyway.

My thinking on Quantum Entanglement. I have posted this before:

There is no need for the observation to be done by anything conscious. Any particle will do. Massive or not. At that point the observed and the observer become entangled and remain that way until the entangled system is observed by an outside particle. Iterate to infinity or the edge of the Universe, whichever comes first.

To me local area is the volume of entanglement.

Yes, I have thought about this stuff for some time now.

Exactly the opposite, I was making the point that non-local (creator) theory needs no religion or God as the rest of the world knows it.


Nor is a creator needed whether you call it local or non-local. The creator simply does not follow at all from anything you have said. No matter how you define creator.

I'm not saying Hollywood had the answer, but it did present a non-local macro explanation for QM that could work.


Uh NO. Its just exactly the same as a creator needing a creator. You are trying to make things MORE complex.

Yes I did notice that you had nothing say about my pointing out your Occam's Razor abuse. So no wonder you do it again. Those that do learn from the past are likely to repeat it.

QM simply does not need that sort of NON-explanation to 'explain' stuff. I have at least two methods of looking at things in this post and maybe three in the thread and none need a creator to patch things over.

The need for a creator is in you not in QM.

My intent is that we don't! Plain and simple. Even you admitted in your reply (I'm sure it was very difficult for you) that you don't know anything absolutely for sure.


Which is meaningless to any discussion of QM or creators. Its just an attempt to make things fuzzy enough to cram in some fuzzy thinking like a creator to explain QM.

You of course lean towards local reality.


You have some peculiar definitions of both local and non-local. I simply think there is a reality and even if the isn't there doesn't seem to any evidence against reality.

I have actually at least tried to "hack some of the math" in QM. I have found non-local reality is the only reality possible in QM


I think you actually tried to shove a square peg into a round hole to support a belief you can't reasonably justify.

I'm just left here trying to explain to you why local reality seems so much stronger here in the "Macro" world.


Claiming a creator is responsible is not an explanation. Its the avoidance of coming to terms with probabilities at best. Most likeley its just an effort to support your religious beliefs. I have come to suspect a tendency towards Mormon thinking in this.

You are aware that increasing the mass of the objects tested lowers the uncertainty aren't you? That covers the questions of macro vs. single electrons quite well.

Maybe its an age thing. Some of your posts indicate that you think we (other posters) are somehow still babes just out of the womb.


Beginners anyway. The way you think I haven't run across this stuff at all before shows that it might be new to you. Its not simply age. Its effort to learn over time. It took me at least fifteen years to give up on the concept of electrons orbiting the nucleus. The key there was running across synchrotron radiation.

Its not that I think YOUR babes, its the YOU acted as I must be a babe to disagree with you. You don't like it? Why do you think I liked it from you when I was pretty darn sure it was the other way around. Not always the case of course but in this instance its clearly true. As the ignorant remark that is coming next shows.

If you are over 60, perhaps you might consider for a minute that your body chemistry is making you a little Cynical.


I am 57. And three quarters. My body chemistry is likely better than you imagine. For instance my pulse at the moment is 62 well below the norm for even young whippersnappers. Lowest ever was 48 and that was when I was running 2 miles for a warmup in college. Of course I could use more hair.

Cynicism is the residue of ideals betrayed.

(Gosh, I just made that up. Got to keep a copy of it)

Since I haven't done that I have a hard time telling when someone is lying to me unless its pretty blatant or the person is using phrases I have come to associate with mendacity.

Like:

Are you calling me a liar? - almost always uttered by a liar although maybe not in that instance.

All politicians are crooks - Thought that one is less certain. Most politicians lie or at least dissemble but not all of them are actually crooked. Shading meaning for an audience is in no way the same as taking bribes. Even people taking bribes can be otherwise honest I suppose. Do tips count as bribes?

I think you are asking me the impossible; you are asking me to "prove" to you non-local reality.


No. I am asking you to be clear about what you are trying to say. And where the heck does the need for a creator come from? It explains nothing. Unless you find a MASSIVE anomaly in the Universe anyway and even then it could be an advanced species pulling your leg.

Kind of like Piltdown Man. That one may have been a joke. Some of the tools apparently looked remarkably like stuff from cricket.

For all you know, I am one of those sentient machines. You certainly can't prove that I am not.


They would be more precise. Unless it was a cover.

How is your Agent Smith impersonation. Mine is quite good Mr. Anderson.

http://www.youtub...yGhABXRA

My Carl Sagan is pretty good as well.

Going down the unreality route is almost always a sign of an unreasoned belief being involved. I am pretty sure I pointed that out already. You simply aren't going to convince me of anything by going that way. Well maybe that you are closet Christian of some sort. Again the pseudo-scientific creator route suggests Mormons or possibly Scientology but they insist Xeno isn't part of their real beliefs.

And now on that note - my only Troll.

Scientology has one discernible belief.

L. Ron Hubbard shalt not pay taxes.

Now that he is dead(for the second time) what do they believe?

Still waiting for someone to bite on that. Not a nibble. Ever.

Physician, heal thyself.


Haven't seen a Doctor in over 30 years. For me anyway. Dentists yes. I just don't get sick much and even then I don't get miserable.

As for who's brains have fallen out. Why do you need a creator to explain something that isn't complete in the first place? QM is incomplete so there is no way to sure if its reality or not.

At least wait till they find the God Particle. Don't hold your breath. The LHC needs a lot of work first.

Ethelred
jdlaw
1 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2009
Ethelred,

You really need to take the l out. Then you would be ethered as in having been surrounded by ether.

Still waiting for someone to bite on that. Not a nibble. Ever.


You flatter me with your mixed bag of tricks. Imitation really is the best form of flattery.

In physics, the principle of locality states that an object is influenced directly only by its immediate surroundings. Quantum mechanics predicts through Bell's inequality the direct violation of this principle. Experiments have shown that quantum mechanically entangled particles violate this principle: they have been shown to influence each other when physically separated by 18 km, thus the principle of locality is false.

From http://en.wikiped...locality


Higgs has stated that Lederman originally wished to label this particle as the goddamn particle. from http://en.wikiped...Particle


Carl Sagan torturing Morpheus was a hoot!

The need for creator comes in because creation is NEITHER a big bang NOR a God organizing the worlds (universe) 14 billion years ago.

Creation is creating one of Planck's time immediately following the one that just happened.

from http://en.wikiped...nck_time

This is the miracle of creation. For that we need a creator whether it is the bearded and robed white guy sitting on the throne who speaks like Charlton Heston, or the evil sentient machines who control the world in the matrix, or the vibrations . . .

You still need faith (belief) to get there. You still need faith (belief) for any reality at all, period.

If a tree falls in the woods, do you believe it fell?
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Apr 04, 2009
Experiments have shown that quantum mechanically entangled particles violate this principle: they have been shown to influence each other when physically separated by 18 km, thus the principle of locality is false.


Not by my way of thinking. The local area IS the volume of entanglement. Bells Inequality ONLY shows that there are no hidden variables. That was the intent of the idea that Bell had. The rest is just a definition that I don't agree with. As I said though, I don't really care if you call it local or not. Its just a definition.

Wikipedia is better at math then physics. See this set of comments on Peter Woits Not Even Wrong blog(Dr. Woit REALLY doesn't like String Theory - or the Mult Worlds model or hyperspace):

http://www.math.c...comments

From:

http://library.th...ity.html

t's interesting to know that Bell's Theorem has assumptions, too. They are:

Logic is valid.
There is a reality separate from its observation.
No information can travel faster than light.

The last assumption is called locality. Locality says that everything that is bound by relativity, everything that can't go faster than light, is local. If something is non-local it is thought to be part of a larger reality. More on this later.


However NO information has ever been transmitted via this experiment. Therefore the last assumption isn't actually relevant. Without the transfer of information the reality is only local. Its still reality either way.

The second assumption is the one that gets the New Age nonsense started. Well its nonsense to me. I see nothing magical about human observation which is why I think ANY particle will do the trick of qualifying as an observer.

Any particle would include the detector.

Here is another interesting site covering Bell's Inequality.

http://www.upscal...rem.html

Lots of possible interpretations there. By going up the tree I found this:

http://www.upscal.../QM.html

Really good explanations there. Its for teaching physics.

One odd thing in this. The Multi Worlds model makes all these problems go away, yet most physicists won't touch it with a one mile linear accelerator. I am fond of it anyway. Lots of things begin to make sense when using the model, at least if you use my extension of it. Why the Universe exists. Why math works for physics. Why there is life. Why there is something rather than nothing.

Yet it drives people nuts. I didn't like it for years myself. If all it did was to remove the locality conundrum I don't think I would be as fond of it.

Higgs has stated that Lederman originally wished to label this particle as the goddamn particle. from


But that wouldn't have sold so many books. The question is what will physicists do if the LHC fails to find the goddamn thing.

Local or non-local though, I don't see where a god comes into it. Now to the next step in your post.

The need for creator comes in because creation is NEITHER a big bang NOR a God organizing the worlds (universe) 14 billion years ago.


And you can prove this HOW?

The Big Bang looks pretty real so far. Nearly as real as a punch in the nose.

Creation is creating one of Planck's time immediately following the one that just happened.


Time is what a clock measures. (I just wrote that on another thread while going over your post). Creating time is something that would have to take time. Kind of a silly idea 'creating time'. At least for entities that live within time. Those that don't can't change and therefor can't create.

This is the miracle of creation.


Yes. You just miraculously created bullshit out of nothing. To say there is NOTHING there in that statement besides the statement itself is saying to much. Oooops.

For that we need a creator whether it is the bearded and robed white guy sitting on the throne who speaks like Charlton Heston, or the evil sentient machines who control the world in the matrix, or the vibrations . . .


How did that follow from ANYTHING you said. That is what I mean by saying your thinking is fuzzy at best. Not one single thing you have said requires a creator.

I notice that you again refuse to deal with this reality:

IF a universe requires a creator THEN a creator requires a creator. And so on to infinity. And beyond. Well not really beyond as only first order infinity is entailed.

You still need faith (belief) to get there. You still need faith (belief) for any reality at all, period.


If I punch you in the nose it would bleed. That is reality. No faith needed. Just one assumption. I am not an illusion since I experience. If I am not an illusion then neither are you since if you were I would be an illusion. That way lies madness which again shows reality.

You need faith. I don't. YOU need a god. The universe does not.

Not ONCE have you tried showing a requirement for a god. All you have done is said:

We don't know everything. Therefor a god exists.

OR

There is bird on a tree. Therefor god exists.

OR

The whichness is why the Jaberwocky worbles. Therefor a god exists.

In other words you have used zero logic. You simply claim what you want.

If a tree falls in the woods, do you believe it fell?


Belief is not involved. It either fell or it didn't. Or it is both until you look. Or it is both until some other particle becomes entangled.

Try stating your logic explicitly. I bet it will look silly even to you. I think you suspect that as you have yet to try doing it.

IF Jehovah died would he need to be towed?

http://en.wikiped...s_Morrow

Ethelred
jdlaw
1 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2009
I notice that you again refuse to deal with this reality:

I notice that you, on the other hand, are still stuck on any non-local reality being unreality. I keep telling you reality is reality - whether local or non-local. If you keep insisting that local reality is the only possible reality, then you really do miss the point of this.

Belief is not involved ... Try stating your logic explicitly. I bet it will look silly even to you. I think you suspect that as you have yet to try doing it.


I guess I shouldn't talk so much about faith. I think that is what really distracts you from getting my point (of course you still don't think I have one.)

My guess then is that you never paid much attention to Descartes. Whereas, you can probably guess that he's pretty much my hero when it comes to discussions like this.

Well, looking it all back over, I guess I have been talking around the point of individual reality. i.e.

"The idea that reality could be both a universal phenomenon as well as a personal experience has been an idea that most scientists dare not peradventure, less they be called heretics. Yet, the known concepts about the study of reality all lead ultimately to the same conclusion; reality is not something uniformly shared, but is a rather personal and unique occurance for each observer. If your reality is truely different from mine, then whose reality is this and in which one do we really exist? Is it my reality or is it yours? Or even more profound, can our realities be different and yet remain true for the both of us?"

Descartes "Meditations on First Philophies."

http://en.wikiped...ilosophy

of course is pretty long and even when translated from the french as it is on the Wiki, it is still a bit difficult to follow for someone like you looking only for those valid demonstration and inference forms of logic. Descartes of course does turn heavily to belief.

"But because it is vane and difficult to rid one's self of the concepts of reality that we have become accustomed, and lest we become convinced in our pride that it is our own self centered minds that are the cause of all existence, it will be desirable to tarry for some time at this stage, that, by long continued meditation, we may more deeply impress upon our memory this new knowledge. In other words, lets just stop and think about it for a moment, because a priori, we are thinking beings."

If a tree falls in the wood, I do believe it fell. I also believe it makes a noise. I also believe that if and when I observe the fallen tree, my consciousness becomes entangled.

Here is my wager for you ethelred - If you can do it, then I give up and say you win. Otherwise we bounce this back and forth just a bit more.

Of course, its not going to be that easy. When I say prove, I mean irrefutable proof.

Prove to me that anything exists outside my own perceptions.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2009
What you claim I did:

I notice that you, on the other hand, are still stuck on any non-local reality being unreality.


What I actually said:

As I said though, I don't really care if you call it local or not. Its just a definition.


Read what I said and this discussion will go easier. Reinterpreting to fit your pre-conceptions will not change what I actually said. Just what you think.

What I was saying had nothing to do with your previous fuzzy posts. It had do with the concept of reality, whether local or non-local, and the definition of local vs. non-local. So you missed all that and invented a meaning that wasn't there. Thank you very much.

Try reading it again. This time without the blinders.

I guess I shouldn't talk so much about faith. I think that is what really distracts you from getting my point (of course you still don't think I have one.)


You claim you do. You have yet to state anything other than your beliefs. I made it pretty obvious in that post. Yet you filtered out the actual meaning. Perhaps you just don't want to state your thinking explicitly, even to yourself.

My guess then is that you never paid much attention to Descartes.


Oh Rene Descarte was a drunken fart
I drink therefor I am.

I am not going to bother rewriting what I wrote above. Read it again and this time read what I wrote. Then try to state your thinking explicitly.

Well, looking it all back over, I guess I have been talking around the point of individual reality. i.e.


No shit Sherlock. I have only asked you to get to the point HOW BLOODY MANY TIMES? Even after that statement you still didn't do it. Talking about needing to do something does not magically obviate the need to actually get around to doing it.

Sure glad I didn't try holding my breath.

Yet, the known concepts about the study of reality all lead ultimately to the same conclusion; reality is not something uniformly shared, but is a rather personal and unique occurance for each observer.


Nothing to do with physics or reality. That's perception. For example you perceived my previous post in a way that did not fit the reality.

If your reality is truely different from mine, then whose reality is this and in which one do we really exist?


IF and ONlY IF. I doubt it. That is still going down a solipsism based route. Oh, and there is still no hint of a creator there. Which is the point you are REALLY evading.

Is it my reality or is it yours?


That again is perception vs. reality. I go for the reality even if it is hard to discern upon occasion.

Or even more profound, can our realities be different and yet remain true for the both of us?"


Rene should have cut back on the bottle. Are you aware just how much people used to drink? And the French still do?

Whereas, you can probably guess that he's pretty much my hero when it comes to discussions like this.


Plus
Descartes of course does turn heavily to belief.


Hero worship just might be involved again.

it is still a bit difficult to follow for someone like you looking only for those valid demonstration and inference forms of logic.


Well a bit of actual logic would be nice to see from you. It is true that confusing perception with a special non-consensus reality does not qualify as logic to me. I had enough of that from the appendix in The Teachings of Don Juan a Yaqui way of lying bullshit by Carlos 'the Coyote' Casteneda.

If a tree falls in the wood, I do believe it fell. I also believe it makes a noise. I also believe that if and when I observe the fallen tree, my consciousness becomes entangled.


You become entangled. Whether your consciousness becomes engaged is another question. That is a matter of perceiving the reality.

Here is my wager for you ethelred - If you can do it, then I give up and say you win.


Bullshit.

You went through that already. So did I. Remember? No?

How about I punch you in the nose? Will that be real enough for you?

I seem to be wasting my time but I will ask again. I will not hold my breath in expectation of an actual answer or you reading what I actually wrote above or in this post. Well I least I clarified my thinking in that post a bit even if you didn't read any of it. Just your own special reality version of it.

When the bleeding bloody damned hell will you respond to the questions of actually getting to the point. Your point. Your silly assed claim of:

But if we owe one causes existence to another cause, then we demand again, for a similar reason, whether this second cause exists of itself or through another being, until, from stage to stage, we at length arrive at an ultimate cause, which will be God. Therefore, let us re-convince ourselves of the certainty of the following statement and with purpose and conviction; let us reconvene to tell ourselves: we are not alone.


That nonsense. Where is your justification for it. As in an explicit explanation of your thinking with rational comments instead just saying things are so. You keep acting as if you proved something without actually bothering with the inconvenience of doing so.

Get to the point. And maybe read my previous post again, this time without the blinders.

In case you haven't noticed yet, I don't give a damn what Descartes or Kant think if the evidence does not support them. Evidence is the difference between science and a philosophical circle jerk.

Ethelred
jdlaw
2 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2009
Nice try.

Prove to me that anything exists outside my own perceptions.


You have NOT.

You punch me in the nose and my nose bleeds, you have just proved to yourself that you can throw a punch.

Yes, I return to perception, because your punch has absolutely no proof as to my perception. Only your own.

C.S. Lewis was stuck in that same paradox until he was about 33 years old. Ehtelred is stuck in that same paradox until he is 56 . . . evidently until he dies.

Noumenon said that you would refuse to see this logic even right in front of your own nose. You keep saying that your arguments are superior. I keep telling you that your arguments are at best only as good as mine . . . Big difference.

Prove to me that anything exists outside my own perceptions.


You can't.

Prove to me that anything exists outside my own perceptions.


Oh! another punch in the nose.

Prove to me that anything exists outside my own perceptions.


Now, I'm bleeding.

Prove to me that anything exists outside my own perceptions.


I repeat, your reality and my reality by definition are not the same. They are "yours" and "mine."

The more you contend; the more you prove my point.

I think, therfore I am?

Do you even know who I am?

I am " . . . that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."

I am that man.

You will not hear from me again until you post something that will . . . prove to me that anything exists outside my own perceptions.
thales
3 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2009
I've been following this without comment, but I just have to interject:

Hold on - you're THE BEAST?!??!!
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2009
Well his arguments are beastly. And he has delusions. So why not a delusion of being a religious fantasy monster?

Following without comment? WHY? Why follow if you don't want to comment? This thread is brimming over with well its just brimming over. Even by my standards.

Just because I find myself entertaining it doesn't mean that I expect others to find this turgid thread interesting. That would be delusional.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2009
You have NOT.


Who the hell claimed they did? I simply pointed out that its stupid to assume unreality of a punch in the nose. If you want to assume that you are invulnerable you go right ahead.

Yes, I return to perception, because your punch has absolutely no proof as to my perception. Only your own.


Wrong. Its your perception of the bleeding that would convince you of the reality of the punch. Remember I am convinced of reality. You are the one going down the non-reality route.

That IS NOT non-local reality. Its non-reality.

Its not my error in understanding what your are writing. It may be an error in your writing.

C.S. Lewis was stuck in that same paradox until he was about 33 years old.


Lewis was under the delusion that he was an atheist. He wasn't. You can't be upset with the actions of a god you know doesn't exist. You can't pray to the god you don't believe in for guidance. You can only do those things if you are a believer.

Ehtelred is stuck in that same paradox until he is 56 . . . evidently until he dies.


Not stuck in a paradox. You haven't been reading what I wrote I see. Didn't reread my earlier post either.

Noumenon said that you would refuse to see this logic even right in front of your own nose.


Since there is no logic there its not surprising that I don't see it.

You keep saying that your arguments are superior.


No. I keep pointing out that your arguments are non-existent. Quit beating around the bush and LAY IT OUT EXPLICITLY. Why is this so bloody hard to understand? If you refuse to say what you mean step by step there is simply no way to discuss it. Falling back on Noumenen's bogus claim is just refusing to state your case.

I keep telling you that your arguments are at best only as good as mine . . . Big difference.


You don't have an argument. Except in the sense of the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says. Yes as in the Argument Clinic

http://www.youtub...KtI6gn9Y&feature=PlayList&p=CDFEA6D52E5CC0EC&index=0&playnext=1

I am still waiting for that connected series of statements to support you proposition.

You can't.


Didn't claim I could. Prove you can make connected series of statements that have anything to do with your point of not being alone. And how non-local reality has anything to do with it. And for that matter what the heck your point is in this post. Its pointless to go down this non-reality route.

Yes non-reality. Its NOT non-local. Its non-real. There is a BIG difference. Now I begin to see the what you say when you claim I not seeing your point. You don't actually have a point, you just think you do so you mistake personal perception with non-local reality.


DO NOT IGNORE THIS NEXT SECTION.

Non-local reality is when information is transmitted at greater than the speed of light. So its no wonder I couldn't figure out what you thought you were saying since what you are saying has no relationship to non-local reality.

http://en.wikiped...on-local

From
http://en.wikiped...locality

Realism in the sense used by physicists does not directly equate to realism in metaphysics.[19] The latter is the claim that there is in some sense a mind-independent world. Even if the results of a possible measurement do not pre-exist the measurement, that does not mean they are the creation of the observer (as in the "consciousness causes collapse" interpretation of quantum mechanics). Furthermore, a mind-independent property does not have to be the value of some physical variable such as position or momentum. A property can be dispositional, i.e. it can be a tendency, in the way that glass objects tend to break, or are disposed to break, even if they do not actually break. Likewise, the mind-independent properties of quantum systems could consist of a tendency to respond to certain measurements with certain values with some probability.[20] Such an ontology would be metaphysically realistic without being realistic in the physicist's sense of "local realism" (which would require that single value be produced with certainty).


I don't care about philosophical definitions as they are NOT TESTED. I care about definitions from physics. Fantasy definitions are not relevant to discussions about QM.

DO NOT IGNORE THE ABOVE SECTION.

The large type was brought to you by your own constant evasions of what I type.

I repeat, your reality and my reality by definition are not the same. They are "yours" and "mine."


Your fantasy land above is not related to non-local reality. Its just fantasy.

The more you contend; the more you prove my point.


You don't have the point you think you do so your wrong. The more you go down unreality the more you look like you simply can't support your initial post.

Do you even know who I am?


Not interested. I do know your the guy that claimed we are not alone yet refuses to show the logic you claim is behind it.

Even with your fantasy definition of reality you have no support for a creator. In fact you undermine the claim since at best you are showing you don't exist and are therefor irrelevant.

Its really weird to claim logic while claiming a special reality that is private to yourself and not related to mine. That is practically the definition of a futile argument.

I am " . . . that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."

I am that man.


So then, your a believer in the Hairy Thunderer. After all that denial. Yes a fantasy land indeed.

You will not hear from me again until you post something that will . . . prove to me that anything exists outside my own perceptions.


Gee a threat based on something you must have noticed I am not stupid enough to even try. Thought so. It was a religious post and nothing else. The rest has been an attempt to kid yourself, as you sure weren't kidding me.

You ignored my entire request. Not surprising. But just in case you actually want to discuss what you REALLY came here for I will repeat the request from the previous post.

When the bleeding bloody damned hell will you respond to the questions of actually getting to the point. Your point. Your silly assed claim of:


But if we owe one causes existence to another cause, then we demand again, for a similar reason, whether this second cause exists of itself or through another being, until, from stage to stage, we at length arrive at an ultimate cause, which will be God. Therefore, let us re-convince ourselves of the certainty of the following statement and with purpose and conviction; let us reconvene to tell ourselves: we are not alone.


If you can't do that then you may as well not bother posing again. Yes posing. You were posing all along.

Ethelred
jdlaw
1 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2009
I've been following this without comment, but I just have to interject:

Hold on - you're THE BEAST?!??!!


Well, at least Ethelred, the master of automatic gainsaying of anything another person says, finally admitted that he cannot prove anyone else's reality.

You responded first to the "Beast" post. So, at least I can come back to "posing" as Ethelred says.

I put that quote in their because the Christian bible I hoped would have just the right amount of philosophy and history mingled with mysticism and fokelore to get Ethelred's attention.

I have often thought the "beast" quote is very misunderstood. Often when reading the Bible (or other religious text for that matter) the mainstream interpretation is to forget that it is a writing. Even if "inspired" it is still written by man, meaning mankind. So, "John" (if John wrote the book)also wrote, "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number"

If we are the "believers" and we ever get to the point of understanding enough to know exactly who and where we are in this supposed creation, then we could not help but have obtained enough wisdom to necessarily do the counting - and then realize that this "Beast" is a man. And if we are wise and do the counting, then we are able to count ourselves. I am such a man.

Despite, Ethelred's claims to the contrary, I do have some amount of wisdom and I am that man who has at least the wisdom to count.

The other thing I guessed that Ethelred is very perplexed by non-classical forms of logic, for example point A followed by your "not point A."

Yes - totally illogical in a clasical sense. but in a non-classical sense, if you for just a minute consider that this whole world is non-local, as in the "light cone" theories are all violated, then this whole world may be some sort of simulation and this forum which is on the Internet "cyber" simulated world, then for all practical purposes is simulation of the simulation.

If you followed my "wager" above, then it was:

Here is my wager for you ethelred - If you can do it, then I give up and say you win. Otherwise we bounce this back and forth just a bit more.


So then I came back with the "not A" threat - as in if you do not post an answer to my question, you will not hear from me again.

At any rate, Ethelred did finally make it clear that he cannot prove anything about my reality. (albeit claiming that he admitted it long ago; frankly I do not see where)

So, now to my point in this thread, again,

But if we owe one causes existence to another cause, then we demand again, for a similar reason, whether this second cause exists of itself or through another being, until, from stage to stage, we at length arrive at an ultimate cause, which will be God. Therefore, let us re-convince ourselves of the certainty of the following statement and with purpose and conviction; let us reconvene to tell ourselves: we are not alone.


If you have truly been following this, then you will see my point all along has been to merely suggest that if you accept a relativistic approach to the universe and admit that there is no universal reference frame, then it follows from Einsteinian physics that E does not equal MC squared.

Aside: (Any html programmer knows that the symbol "not equals" is formed by using the &ne. If you pronounce the ampersand and the ne, you will say "en-nee" as in the the Knights of "en-nee" and so if you can follow this, this is your dubbing ceremony)

Now certainly I do not expect hard core graduate physics majors to agree with the math here, but in a non-universal reference frame: E = http://www.redish...Form.JPG

where "i" is the inertial reference and "r" is the observational reference.

Then, if you accept that there is no universal reference frame, then it follows that real empty space "nothing" (if it exists) is different from Descartes' imaginary cartesian empty space nothing.

Granted, this takes some understanding and I am sure, at least according to Ethelred, that I am very bad at writing.

None-the-less, if you will for a moment imagine that there is no universal reference frame, then the something from nothing argument doesn't go away, but at least it is not necessary.

Then, from a simulated reality laws of physics approach, in which matter of the universe may violate the light cone, go as follows:

The New Laws of Light Speed
1. The observed speed of light in any reference frame is approximately 299,792,458 meters per second.

2. No mass, energy, or quantum particle can be observed directly by another mass energy or quantum particle that has a greater relative difference in velocity than 299,792,458 meters per second.

3. Where two masses, energies, or quantum particles are moving, spinning, or vibrating with velocities separated by greater than 299,792,458 meters per second relative to each other they must exist in a different quantum realities. However, a third mass, energy or quantum particle whose relative velocity is between the two may observe them both.

4. This duality is finite, but the number of dualities is infinite.

5. There is another reference frame in some reality that exists somewhere or sometime where this reference frame, you are in right now, is moving at the speed of light relative to that other reference frame.

From these new "non-universal" referece frame laws, it will follow that any velocity in our known world is extremly small compared to the speed of light and the New Newtonian laws "neo-tonian" laws of inertia also follow:

1. An object is at rest only in relation to another object. The difference in momentum of any two objects appearing at rest (in relation to each other) must have a very small non-zero reference volocity in relation to each other. Unless either of the two objects are acted upon by a third object, they will tend to stay in rest in relation to each other. An object in motion in relation to the two objects tends to stay in motion in a straight line at constant speed unless acted upon by yet another external, unbalanced force.

2. The rate of change of a reference momentum is proportional to the resultant force acting on a body and is in the same direction.

3. In order for an interaction to happen between two objects, their reference volocities in relation to each other must be a speed less than the speed of light and greater than zero. That is, if object A contacts object B, object B will exert a force on A with the same magnitude that A will exert a force on B, but the forces will be in the opposite direction to each other.

Now, unfortunately, Ethelred cannot hear from me again. Alas

You do look, my son, in a moved sort, As if you were dismayed: be cheerful, sir: Our revels now are ended. These our actors, As I foretold you, were all spirits and Are melted into air, into thin air: And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, The solemn temples, the great globe itself, Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff As dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded with a sleep.
thales
3 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2009
This is why I haven't posted any comments. I've read The Sound And The Fury, but this is if anything even more incomprehensible. Ethelred, your name fits (literally, not perhaps historically). jdlaw, on the other hand, is surely "the unready" (both modern and ye olde definitions).