Quantum reality and Idealism [Archive]

RussDill

25th December 2003, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Some of you are aware of my philosophy which concludes that we're all existing within the Mind of God. I thought I'd explain why this philosophy is consistent with QM...

You need proof lifegazer, proof, otherwise, your philosophy is completely meaningless. But, you also need consistentsy, otherwise, your philosophy is trash. You don't have consistentsy either though. So lets see...

The fundamental energy of perceived existence

existence does not have a fundamental energy. You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Do you know what energy is? Can you describe what the fundemental energy of existence would be?

is known to be essentially indeterminate...

Given what I said above, who said that? Where are you pulling this from?

yet progresses towards a probablistic order, generally, facilitating the classical order of our perceptions.

Firstly, there isn't a "classical order of our perceptions". Our observations approach classical because of a) the accuracy of our observations in relation to the quantum level and b) the size of the things we regularly observe in relation to the quantum level.

Compare this to the energy of an omnipotent God,

Energy is a property within our universe. Its MEANINGLESS when describing a god.

which by default is also indeterminate -

MEANINGLESS, not indeterminate.

an omnipotent God having free-will - but who imposes order upon perceived awareness (created order emanating from a free source).

Please define what a "free source" is, and what the difference would be between a source that isn't "free". Otherwise, you are speaking meaningless babble.

Hence, the indeterminate energy of God progresses towards order.

Again, your statement is meaningless. You are not using energy in a context that makes any sense, and if god is progeressing towards order, then there are parts of god which are in disorder, which completely disagrees with your philosophy.

My philosophy is fully consistent with the duality of classical physics and QM.

Its not a duality. EVERYTHING is quantum, its just when you get large systems, you'd have to wait a really long time, or get a really accurate ruler. flip a coin 50 billion times and see how many decimal points past .5 you get. Before you make comparisons with physics, you better understand physics first.

More highly significant evidence that this philosophy should be taken seriously.

Nope, sorry lifegazer, your post is just more evidence that you should not be taken seriously.

In fact, no other philosophy can make sense of this dual reality,

First, its not a dual reality. Second, there is a philosophy that makes PERFECT sense of QM. Can you guess what it is? Would you accept such a philosophy as your own sense it makes PERFECT sense of QM? After all, thats what you are asking us to do? Guess what, its MATERIALISM.

other than a philosophy which acknowledges the free-will of the source of perceived existence, thus explaining the distinction between QM and classical.

*sigh*, all that "thinking" on your part, it would help if you understood why there is a distinction between QM and classical.

Flip a coin a few times, you have no clue what you'll get, 3 heads, 2 tails, 5 heads, 1 tail, 4 heads. Thats QM, now flip a coin 50 billion times, I'm thinking you can guess within a few millionth or billionth of a percentile what you'll get, thats classical.

Edited to add: This was your third testament? Thats like the Arizona Cardinals being your football dream team for the superbowl.

Mercutio

25th December 2003, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Au contrair! You may have Upchurch's Acceptance(tm), but you certainly don't have Upchurch's Permission(tm). No flying for you.

(and if you think my French is bad, wait until you catch my German) Rats! Snagged on a technicality again! Icarus, Daedalus, you boys go on without me...

Someday.....someday......

Yahweh

25th December 2003, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Mercutio
I never thought I'd say this, but I miss Titus Rivas.
Well, if you want, you can come on over the PhysicsForums.com messageboards. They have more subfora than you can imagine, however I stick primarily in the Skepticism and Philosophy forums. I am currently battling the dualists (in fact, this morning I wrote a rather long and detailed post describing consciousness arising from the brain), there are plenty of misconceptions and beliefs that have already been squished here on these forums but are making the way round the PhysicsForums. Oh, and I got a really nice lamp for Christmas.

Zero

25th December 2003, 10:16 PM

I love the way Lifegazer is willing to accept the results of biased, ignorant science when it jibes with his nonsense...I mean his 'philosophy'.

And, I suppose he read a book on QM? Nope, I'm willing to bet he heard about it on TV and meditated on it for awhile.

UndercoverElephant

26th December 2003, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by Zero
I love the way Lifegazer is willing to accept the results of biased, ignorant science when it jibes with his nonsense...I mean his 'philosophy'.

And, I suppose he read a book on QM? Nope, I'm willing to bet he heard about it on TV and meditated on it for awhile.

Zero,

Lifegazer doesn't meditate. If he did meditate, he wouldn't be such a total plonker.

Geoff.

lifegazer

26th December 2003, 02:21 AM

Originally posted by RussDill
existence does not have a fundamental energy. You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Do you know what energy is? Can you describe what the fundemental energy of existence would be?

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/fundamental.html
Snippet:
"Today, quarks and leptons, and their antiparticles, are candidates for being the fundamental building blocks from which all else is made. Particle physicists call them the "fundamental" or "elementary" particles -- both names denoting that, as far as current experiments can tell, they have no substructure."

You're what I class as "a spoiler" Russ. You have no interest in discussing my philosophy any more. It's your sole intention to just spoil anything I present to avoid addressing the ideas inherent within the argument. Not only that, but your complaints are incorrect. Physics does think that there is a fundamental energy of existence. So get off your high horse and stop waffling as though you know what you're talking about.

Firstly, there isn't a "classical order of our perceptions". Our observations approach classical because of a) the accuracy of our observations in relation to the quantum level and b) the size of the things we regularly observe in relation to the quantum level.

You acknowledge no difference between classical physics and QM?
You acknowledge no progression to increased order/predictability from particles & atoms to larger, perceived, objects?

Energy is a property within our universe. Its MEANINGLESS when describing a god.

Another dork statement. It's meaningless to associate energy with a God of creation? You're a hopeless case and I just don't know why I bother with you at all.

MEANINGLESS, not indeterminate.

Please define what a "free source" is, and what the difference would be between a source that isn't "free". Otherwise, you are speaking meaningless babble.

An entity which is the primal-cause of proceeding effects is shown to possess free-will in determining those effects. The energy of such an entity is unpredictable, since the entity has free-will.
Engage your brain and put your physics book back on the shelf.

Again, your statement is meaningless. You are not using energy in a context that makes any sense, and if god is progeressing towards order, then there are parts of god which are in disorder, which completely disagrees with your philosophy.

God's energy is unpredictable does not mean that God is in disorder. It just means that God is a primal-cause with the free-will to do whatever God pleases. Just as would be expected of "a God".

Edited to add: This was your third testament? Thats like the Arizona Cardinals being your football dream team for the superbowl.
No, this was not that. I still haven't decided whether to do it yet.

lifegazer

26th December 2003, 02:28 AM

Predictably, aside from Russ' spoiling waffle, there is not another post worthy of response. That's a reflection on the poor standards in this forum, I'm afraid, as well as the insincerity, generally, of its members.
Please refrain from posting in my threads unless you really want to discuss the content of the arguments presented.

UndercoverElephant

26th December 2003, 05:07 AM

Iacchus

26th December 2003, 06:12 AM

Anybody see the movie, The Matrix? ... Ha ha ha! ... And yet if the machines can perform such a feat, wouldn't it just be a replication of what God has already created?

Zero

26th December 2003, 06:20 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Predictably, aside from Russ' spoiling waffle, there is not another post worthy of response. That's a reflection on the poor standards in this forum, I'm afraid, as well as the insincerity, generally, of its members.
Please refrain from posting in my threads unless you really want to discuss the content of the arguments presented. The arguments you present have no content...that is the main issue that you refuse to confront. Your 'philosophy is like a giant marble stature that is 1 mm thick, and stuffed through and through with styrofoam packing peanuts. Everything you've got is based on assumption, and the overwhelming evidence against you only spurs you on. You say thinks like 'I have shown', when what you mean is 'I have assumed', or 'I have stated without supporting logic or evidence'.

The more wrong you are, the more you think you are smarter than everyone else. You get into this sort of nutball religious messianic state...in reality, you are just a semi-bright kid who has thought to much and learned too little.

Tell me, what book on QM did you read that made you start this thread?

Dragonrock

26th December 2003, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Tell me, what book on QM did you read that made you start this thread?

Quantum Mechanics for Dummies?

Zero

26th December 2003, 06:34 AM

Originally posted by Dragonrock

Quantum Mechanics for Dummies? I'm thinking he read a book review or something, or picked up his understanding of physics from comic books...I mean, look at this nonsense:

The fundamental energy of perceived existence is known to be essentially indeterminate... yet progresses towards a probablistic order, generally, facilitating the classical order of our perceptions. Does this make any sense from a scientific perspective? Really?

Iacchus

26th December 2003, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by Zero
I'm thinking he read a book review or something, or picked up his understanding of physics from comic books...I mean, look at this nonsense:

Does this make any sense from a scientific perspective? Really? Well, it's quite obvious that it doesn't make sense to you.

So what does science know? Isn't science just a process of human agency or, is it something more than that? Like the Word of God or something?

Zero

26th December 2003, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, it's quite obvious that it doesn't make sense to you.

So what does science know? Isn't science just a process of human agency or, is it something more than that? Like the Word of God or something? When you claim something is the "word of god' you have to support it with evidence...which hasn't been done to my satisfaction. Science is simply the best explanation based on the facts as we know them.

What the f*** is a "process of human agency"? Can't you speak English, or are you falling into the Lifegazer trap of speaking in unclear language in order to pretend to be smarter than you are?

El Greco

26th December 2003, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by Zero
What the f*** is a "process of human agency"?

I think that the "process of human agency" refers to the hyperbaric orbit of the interspatial quintessence as it is perceived by the hyberbolically polarized cellular prehension of the true subliminal cerebral influx.

Hope this clears it up.

Iacchus

26th December 2003, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by Zero
When you claim something is the "word of god' you have to support it with evidence...which hasn't been done to my satisfaction. Science is simply the best explanation based on the facts as we know them. Do you mean like "empirical evidence?" Hmm ... Sounds like someone playing God to me!

What the f*** is a "process of human agency"? Can't you speak English, or are you falling into the Lifegazer trap of speaking in unclear language in order to pretend to be smarter than you are? Oh English, excuse me! Anyone else care to take a stab at it? Actually, science is merely a "contrivance" and/or invention of us humans.

Iacchus

26th December 2003, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by El Greco

I think that the "process of human agency" refers to the hyperbaric orbit of the interspatial quintessence as it is perceived by the hyberbolically polarized cellular prehension of the true subliminal cerebral influx.

Hope this clears it up. Actually, it sounds like somebody pooped in your brain too! :p

Zero

26th December 2003, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you mean like "empirical evidence?" Hmm ... Sounds like someone playing God to me!

Oh English, excuse me! Anyone else care to take a stab at it? Actually, science is merely a "contrivance" and/or invention of us humans. And anything labeled 'word of god' is not a contrivance?!? Evidence, please. Science is a tool, and it workd. Religion is also a tool, and it works not so well when explaining physical processes.

Iacchus

26th December 2003, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by Zero
And anything labeled 'word of god' is not a contrivance?!? Evidence, please. Science is a tool, and it workd. Religion is also a tool, and it works not so well when explaining physical processes. So, the one tends to be more rational and the other tends to be more abstract. Does that make either one more right, or wrong? Mind you, we can't functon without both sides of our brain. And, by virtue of the fact that our brains are designed this way, doesn't that suggest we should be ascertain the full spectrum of things, from that which is most concrete, to that which is highly abstract? (i.e., God).

So, how can we ascertain what is abstract without the ability to contrast it against the concrete? And vice versa.

Zero

26th December 2003, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, the one tends to be more rational and the other tends to be more abstract. Does that make either one more right, or wrong? Mind you, we can't functon without both sides of our brain. And, by virtue of the fact that our brains are designed this way, doesn't that suggest we should be ascertain the full spectrum of things, from that which is most concrete, to that which is highly abstract? (i.e., God).

You see, how can we ascertain what is abstract without the ability to contrast it against the concrete? And vice versa. Ummm...the difference is not between abstract and concrete, but between supportable and unsupportable. Plus, just because we have an imagination, it doesn't mean that what we imagine is real(i.e. "God")

When you are discussing the physical, you should keep your thoughts to the physical, I think is what I mean. If you want to discuss your emotions, "god" is perfectly acceptable for you to bring up.

lifegazer

26th December 2003, 08:16 AM

Couldn't resist posting whilst continuing to ignore my argument, I see. How sad, and what a poor showing.

God has free will.
God's energy, therefore, is indeterminate.
God's work - the creation of God's order, exhibits an energy which is essentially indeterminate and progresses towards the order perceived of in creation. Fully consistent with what physics has shown us about fundamental particles. I.e., my philosophy is consistent with scientific knowledge.

Furthermore, we could discuss the importance of observer participation, if you care. And we could discuss the further consistency of my philosophy with the wave/particle duality exhibited by quanta.
But I'm not bothering unless the quality improves. The responses in this thread have been terrible.

Zero

26th December 2003, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Couldn't resist posting whilst continuing to ignore my argument, I see. How sad, and what a poor showing.

God has free will.
God's energy, therefore, is indeterminate.
God's work - the creation of God's order, exhibits an energy which is essentially indeterminate and progresses towards the order perceived of in creation. Fully consistent with what physics has shown us about fundamental particles. I.e., my philosophy is consistent with scientific knowledge.

Furthermore, we could discuss the importance of observer participation, if you care. And we could discuss the further consistency of my philosophy with the wave/particle duality exhibited by quanta.
But I'm not bothering unless the quality improves. The responses in this thread have been terrible. Prove "God". Prove "free will".

BTW< physics claims that the universe progresses towards chaos, not order. So nothing in your argument makes sense. If you would up the quality of your 'argument', maybe you would get better responses? But, since nothing you post is logical, we are forced to muddle along as best we can.

Iacchus

26th December 2003, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Ummm...the difference is not between abstract and concrete, but between supportable and unsupportable. Plus, just because we have an imagination, it doesn't mean that what we imagine is real(i.e. "God")

When you are discussing the physical, you should keep your thoughts to the physical, I think is what I mean. If you want to discuss your emotions, "god" is perfectly acceptable for you to bring up. No, you missed my whole point entirely. Why can't you discuss either one, if you've been given the capacity (of mind) to do so?

Andonyx

26th December 2003, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/fundamental.html
Snippet:
"Today, quarks and leptons, and their antiparticles, are candidates for being the fundamental building blocks from which all else is made. Particle physicists call them the "fundamental" or "elementary" particles -- both names denoting that, as far as current experiments can tell, they have no substructure."

You're what I class as "a spoiler" Russ. You have no interest in discussing my philosophy any more. It's your sole intention to just spoil anything I present to avoid addressing the ideas inherent within the argument. Not only that, but your complaints are incorrect. Physics does think that there is a fundamental energy of existence. So get off your high horse and stop waffling as though you know what you're talking about.

Okay...I'll take a stab at this one.

I don't know why.... it's like when you keep sticking your tongue in a canker sore just because you know it's gonna hurt...

Oh well, the statement above once again shows a fundamental mis-understanding of anything scientific. I don't even have much of a background in QM, but I know darn well this is a load of baloney.

First you discuss what we currently believe are the fundamental particles: Quarks, and Leptons.

Then you somehow equate fundamental particles with fundamental energy.

How do you make this equation?

Of course you don't actually make this equation you hope people will be stupid enough to follow your crap because you use the word fundamental twice.

It may interest you to know that quarks are the building blocks of Hadrons, or large particles that participate in strong reactions, typically the proton and the neutron.

While each constitutent quark does not have a charge per-se, they may be said to have spin, and combinations of quarks with different spins (either up or down for ordinary hadrons) create the different types of subatomic particles.

Leptons are light (as in less massive) particles that don't particpate in strong reactions and were thought until recently to be point particles and possibly have no mass. The most common example would be the electron and its anti-particle the positron.

These particles have charge and spin.

So if you're going to mouth off and make up a bunch of crap based on a blurb from one article you obviously didn't understand remotely, would you care to expand on how you are measuring this "fundamental energy?"

Because as you stated both Quarks and Leptons are fundamental but they have different spins, different masses, and different charges.

I guess you could try to convert them to their equivalent energy by mass using Einstein's equation, but then that would come out differently as well since as I stated they have different masses.

As for charge, you can't even assign charge to a Quark, it has to be a collection of Quarks. Which could have the same charge as an electron but vastly greater mass, so that wouldn't work.

So the question remains?

What is the fundamental energy?

To which particle are you assigning that special significance?

And what is the logic behind determining that particle, and whichever measure of its "energy" you use as the correct one?

And no, "Physics" does NOT think there is a fundamental energy.

Oh, as a sidenote, this is truly disappointing work from you. I expected a much better crack pot theory after last time. If you needed something you could call fundamental energy, there are like three other ideas already in common use that you could have chosen to twist and distort to fit your made up conceptions of the world:

1. The quantized energy levels of electron orbit.

In which we find through spectrographic microscopy that electrons must orbit in sharply defined levels of energy around the nucleus and it is impossible to occupy a between state, even for an instant. In that way we say that electron orbits are quantized and the difference in this levels is a multiple of some fundamental energy.

2. Fundamental Units of Charge:

which seems to be established by the lepton class, and the fact that almost all of matter has to grouped into collections of UDD quarks or UDU quarks, which seems to indicate a fundamental unit of charge. Although scientists think they saw a 5-quark hadrons in a collider recently but that is still being investigated.

3. Cosmic background radiation.

Echoes of the big bang in the form of a cosmic background radiation which spreads out throughout the viewable universe and seems reletively uniform over large areas demonstrates some sort of base level energy which exists even in the approximate vacuum of space.

See, your quackery is just lazy. You could easily have picked up couple issues of popular science, skimmed some articles and come up with some much better ill-defined, untested crapola.

For shame sir.

By the way, anyone else smell sock-puppet here?

Zero

26th December 2003, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, you missed my whole point entirely. Why can't you discuss either one, if you've been given the capacity (of mind) to do so? No, I didn't miss your point...my point is that the 'God' concept is useless in certain contexts, like physics.

Andonyx

26th December 2003, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by Zero
No, I didn't miss your point...my point is that the 'God' concept is useless in certain contexts, like physics.

Although to be fair when the significance of the Higgs Boson was starting to come to light about ten years ago (it may be responsible for any particle having the property of mass) it was referred to in colloquial terms as the "God Particle."

Heh heh.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,54507,00.html

Iacchus

26th December 2003, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Zero
No, I didn't miss your point...my point is that the 'God' concept is useless in certain contexts, like physics. Why? If God does exist then we "must" be speaking about that which is most fundamental to existence. Which, if I'm not mistaken, isn't that what science is supposed to entail? the study of the fundamentals of existence?

So, unless you can prove that God doesn't exist, I'm afraid the "God concept" is not going to go away anytime soon. However, this is about all I have to say at this time, and will leave you to continue your bickering with Lifegazer.

Zero

26th December 2003, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Why? If God does exist then we "must" be speaking about that which is most fundamental to existence. Which, if I'm not mistaken, isn't that what science is supposed to entail? the study of the fundamentals of existence?

So, unless you can prove that God doesn't exist, I'm afraid the "God concept" is not going to go away anytime soon. However, this is about all I have to say at this time, and will leave you to continue your bickering with Lifegazer. LOL, whatever, you don't have anything coherent to say, just like Lifegazer.

Terry

26th December 2003, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

God has free will.

Is it axiomatic in your system that God exists? Or is this just an assumption who's consequences we are examining? I'll assume the latter for now.

God's energy, therefore, is indeterminate.

I apologize in advance for the extremely poor quality of my reasoning processes. But I simply don't understand this. Perhaps you could explain the connection?

God's work - the creation of God's order, exhibits an energy which is essentially indeterminate

Are you saying that the physical universe (in so far as such a thing exists in your system) is God's work? And so it has "indeterminate" "energy"? Again, my lack of mental skill is hindering me. Perhaps you could elaborate. By "energy" do you mean the standard quantity in conventional physics - the sum of all the various kinds of potential energy; of kinetic energy; of rest mass; and so on?
By "indeterminate", do you mean "of unknown value", or "of in principle unknowable value". If the latter, what is it that makes it unknowable, and do we know the limits to within which it can be tied down?
and progresses towards the order perceived of in creation. Fully consistent with what physics has shown us about fundamental particles. I.e., my philosophy is consistent with scientific knowledge.

I don't think I'll be able to comprehend that bit until you clear up my confusion on the previous points.

Thanks in advance for helping me understand.

--Terry.

Pahansiri

26th December 2003, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Some of you are aware of my philosophy which concludes that we're all existing within the Mind of God. I thought I'd explain why this philosophy is consistent with QM...

The fundamental energy of perceived existence is known to be essentially indeterminate... yet progresses towards a probablistic order, generally, facilitating the classical order of our perceptions.

Compare this to the energy of an omnipotent God, which by default is also indeterminate - an omnipotent God having free-will - but who imposes order upon perceived awareness (created order emanating from a free source). Hence, the indeterminate energy of God progresses towards order.

My philosophy is fully consistent with the duality of classical physics and QM. More highly significant evidence that this philosophy should be taken seriously.
In fact, no other philosophy can make sense of this dual reality, other than a philosophy which acknowledges the free-will of the source of perceived existence, thus explaining the distinction between QM and classical.

To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." -- David Brooks ...

lifegazer

26th December 2003, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by Andonyx
I don't know why.... it's like when you keep sticking your tongue in a canker sore just because you know it's gonna hurt...

Such a wit.

First you discuss what we currently believe are the fundamental particles: Quarks, and Leptons.

Then you somehow equate fundamental particles with fundamental energy.

How do you make this equation?

Matter & energy are interchangeable. Fundamental particles are
fundamental energy in particle form. The first forms of fundamental energy.

Of course you don't actually make this equation you hope people will be stupid enough to follow your crap because you use the word fundamental twice.

There is a link between fundamental particles and fundamental energy, given that energy & matter are interchangeable. So cut out the smart-ass comments.

It may interest you to know that quarks are the building blocks of Hadrons, or large particles that participate in strong reactions, typically the proton and the neutron.

While each constitutent quark does not have a charge per-se,
...

Shut up showing-off your knowledge of particles. Do you not realise that neither this knowledge or your possession of it are in the slightest bit relevant to the point of this thread?

would you care to expand on how you are measuring this "fundamental energy?"

I am not measuring it nor am I remotely interested in measuring it. The fact that it doth exist suffice for my argument. And the fact that it doth exist is shown by physics itself, in acknowledgement of fundamental particles.
But if this doesn't suffice, then there's always the causality argument to fall back upon.
And if that doesn't suffice, then I can easily show that there must be a source of perceived existence.
It is irrational to argue against a fundamental source and/or a fundamental energy of that source.

Because as you stated both Quarks and Leptons are fundamental but they have different spins, different masses, and different charges.

The fundamental energy of existence possesses the diversity expressed in the whole of existence.

To which particle are you assigning that special significance?

To any and all fundamental particles. You seem to think that the fundamental energy of all existence should only be able to do one thing.

And no, "Physics" does NOT think there is a fundamental energy.

You cannot have fundamental particles without a fundamental energy. Wakey wakey pal. Time to put the physics book back on the shelf and engage your brain.

Oh, as a sidenote, this is truly disappointing work from you. I expected a much better crack pot theory after last time.

After last time? You never proved anything George. Zilch. The same as have you proved here. And if you're going to talk down your nose to me every time you post, I'd rather you didn't bother in the future, okay? I have no respect for the establishment, especially the pompous snobs who give it a bad name.

1. The quantized energy levels of electron orbit.

In which we find through spectrographic microscopy that electrons must orbit in sharply defined levels of energy around the nucleus and it is impossible to occupy a between state, even for an instant. In that way we say that electron orbits are quantized and the difference in this levels is a multiple of some fundamental energy.

I see. So you argue vehemently that there is no fundamental energy, and then you produce a statement declaring that there is.
*Laughing*.

lifegazer

26th December 2003, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Terry
Is it axiomatic in your system that God exists? Or is this just an assumption who's consequences we are examining? I'll assume the latter for now.

The latter. You'll have to read other threads to acquaint yourself with my philosophy. Here, I just try to show that QM is consistent with a reality of God's Mind.
Though it is actually possible to argue a case for this reality using another detail of QM: observer participation. Later perhaps.

"God's energy, therefore, is indeterminate."

I apologize in advance for the extremely poor quality of my reasoning processes. But I simply don't understand this. Perhaps you could explain the connection?

If an entity has free-will, its actions will be indeterminate. Therefore, the fundamental energy of this entity is essentially indeterminate.
Of course, physics acknowledges no God, least of all that the actions of such an entity would be driven by an energy indeterminate in nature.
But physics does recognise the existence of fundamental particles, which are the first forms of fundamental energy.

I'll leave it at that for now and see how sincere your response is.

lifegazer

26th December 2003, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Pahansiri
To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." -- David Brooks ...
Well if David Brooks said that, I guess it must be true.

Perhaps Mister Brooks would like to ponder the fact that there was once a time when nothing was known. Yet the process of reasoning opened the door to knowledge, without knowledge.

Iacchus

26th December 2003, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Pahansiri
To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." -- David Brooks ...And yet what you seem to be saying is that everything arises out of the unknown? Hmm ... Would that be the same thing as saying the material arises out of the immaterial? Wow! Sounds to me like there might possibly be something "unknown" -- which, knows the whereabouts of "the known" and, "the unknown." :p

Of course that isn't to say theological lunacy doesn't exist either, so long as it's understood that one could be a theologian and "not" a lunatic at the same time.

Pahansiri

26th December 2003, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Well if David Brooks said that, I guess it must be true.

Perhaps Mister Brooks would like to ponder the fact that there was once a time when nothing was known. Yet the process of reasoning opened the door to knowledge, without knowledge.

Hello my friend lifegazer

Well if David Brooks said that, I guess it must be true.

Can you show me in my post where I said because Brooks said it, it must be true? I did not think so.

It seems funny ( not really) that you would say this when you have said we need believe you simply because you have told us to and you are alone the holder of the “truth”.

The quote is true in that it again brings light to the fact that you point to something that is a known and demand it proves your unknown.

That is of course not reality any more then the known proves that Santa is real.

Perhaps Mister Brooks would like to ponder the fact that there was once a time when nothing was known.

Really? When was that and please prove this with facts.

Lets look at the first man if that is what you mean, he “knew” what he sensed around him how to start to find food as he “knew” he was hungry etc.

Also you believe that God has always existed and was always all knowing. Do you ever stop hanging/ self contradicting yourself?

But regardless what has this to do with your statement?

Yet the process of reasoning opened the door to knowledge, without knowledge.

Yes and? How does what is known prove your is unknown?

You seek to say that a known reality is based in or created in your unknown. This is illogical

Pahansiri

26th December 2003, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet what you seem to be saying is that everything arises out of the unknown? Hmm ... Would that be the same thing as saying the material arises out of the immaterial? Wow! Sounds to me like there might possibly be something "unknown" -- which, knows the whereabouts of "the known" and, "the unknown." :p

Of course that isn't to say theological lunacy doesn't exist either, so long as it's understood that one could be a theologian and "not" a lunatic at the same time.

Greetings Iacchus

And yet what you seem to be saying is that everything arises out of the unknown?

1- Can you demonstrate where I said that or that that is what Brooks was saying?

Please again read the quote for what is written.

But, have things as to what we know as the rise of man not “arisen” out what is unknown?

Did first man know the how and why of the things he encountered?

Hmm ... Would that be the same thing as saying the material arises out of the immaterial?

Would it?

Wow! Sounds to me like there might possibly be something "unknown" -- which, knows the whereabouts of "the known" and, "the unknown."

May I ask what that is and ask for proof of existence of this thing?

Pahansiri

26th December 2003, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Anybody see the movie, The Matrix? ... Ha ha ha! ... And yet if the machines can perform such a feat, wouldn't it just be a replication of what God has already created?

yes and Babe was really a talking Pig.:rub:

Andonyx

26th December 2003, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Such a wit.

Matter & energy are interchangeable. Fundamental particles are
fundamental energy in particle form. The first forms of fundamental energy.

Yes, and I showed why later when I suggested using Einstein's equation to do just that that you get different values for different particles.

There is a link between fundamental particles and fundamental energy, given that energy & matter are interchangeable. So cut out the smart-ass comments.

There was no smart ass comment. It's a fact. He did not demonstrate where he equates one to the other. I don't care if he is using Eisnsteins equation or not. If he is, he didn't state it, and he's using it incorrectly, if not, what method is he using?

Shut up showing-off your knowledge of particles. Do you not realise that neither this knowledge or your possession of it are in the slightest bit relevant to the point of this thread?

Actually it's entirely relevant as I explain below...

(And hey, at least I have some knowledge of the subject instead of making it up as I go along.)

I am not easuring it nor am I remotely interested in measuring it. The fact that it doth exist suffice for my argument. And the fact that it doth exist is shown by physics itself, in acknowledgement of fundamental particles.

If you cannot measure it how do you prove it exists? There is no other such complicit acceptance of phenomena in science that says it exists without showing a measure of it somehow and reproducible measures are recorded. Even phenomena we cannot observe directly are measured and recorded as evidenced by their observed effects on other bodies. You do NOT know it exists, because you certainly haven't demonstrated it exists.

And if that doesn't suffice, then I can easily show that there must be a source of perceived existence.
It is irrational to argue against a fundamental source and/or a fundamental energy of that source.

Well, then please do, because you haven't shown it exists yet in any way shape or form. You cannot establish scientific fact by Fiat.

The fundamental energy of existence possesses the diversity expressed in the whole of existence.

This statement has no meaning in any scientific realm. I'll leave it to the philosophers to pick apart it's logical inconsistencies.

To any and all fundamental particles. You seem to think that the fundamental energy of all existence should only be able to do one thing.

No, I'm saying if you call something a fundamental energy, it's properties should be at least consistent, and this goes back to may arguments about defining the nature of the "fundamnetal particles" differently."

The energy of a hadron when converted form mass to energy is different than the energy gained when converting a lepton to energy.

Can we agree on that? They have different mass so they have different energy.

Does that make sense?

So I'm asking. LG proposes because they are fundamental particles they are evidence of fundamental energy, yet they have DIFFERENT energy.

So...which one is the fundamental energy? They can't both be, right? If it's only one, which one? And why? Logically speaking why would one be assigned more signifcance than another?

You can rant and rave all you want, LG, You can't blame me fore asking you to define your terms.

You cannot have fundamental particles without a fundamental energy. Wakey wakey pal. Time to put the physics book back on the shelf and engage your brain.

On what principle do you base that statement? And why not?

Perhaps you should read that same physics book before your engage your mouth.

After last time? You never proved anything George.
Who's George?

And remeber, George doesn't have to prove anything, you're the one making bizarre and unfounded claims. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the truth or even at the very least pheasability of your claims.

Zilch. The same as have you proved here. And if you're going to talk down your nose to me every time you post, I'd rather you didn't bother in the future, okay? I have no respect for the establishment, especially the pompous snobs who give it a bad name.

Sorry if you don't like my posting style, it doesn't change the fact that your arguments are ill-defined, they use the terminology incorrectly, and they do support themselves with internal consistency.

I see. So you argue vehemently that there is no fundamental energy, and then you produce a statement declaring that there is.
*Laughing*.

No, I'm arguing that there are other concepts of "fundamental quantities" that would lend themselves (through misapprehension) to this argument better. The argument is still wrong.

Fundamental Energy levels of electrons are not a type of energy, they are a qauntized measurement of energy, and completely irrelevant to the original post of this message. It is a concept that has to do with the nature and structure of charge. It is not a unit of energy, it a an observance on how energy can be gained and lost by an electron.

Fundamental units of charge are also not energy as we measure it in any sense, it is a measure of interaction between particles. But it is not energy in itself.

If you want to change your philosophy mid-voyage and latch onto any of these explanations as the basis for your irrational conclusion, go right ahead and do so. The thing is all three of them are related to different concepts and different interactions, so you cannot claim all three support your theory by the same mchanism, you have to pick one and then demonstrate it.

So the big question, and I really think it's fair to ask since it is the lynch pin of your entir theory, is...

What IS this fundamental energy? You still have not given any of an answer to that question.

lifegazer

26th December 2003, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Can you show me in my post where I said because Brooks said it, it must be true? I did not think so.

It seems funny ( not really) that you would say this when you have said we need believe you simply because you have told us to and you are alone the holder of the “truth”.

The difference is that I present reasoning to support my conclusions. You simply paste a 2-line seemingly-wise statement but have no reasoning to support it. And you use this statement as a source of rebuttal to my own argument. So I demand reasoning or I demand a retraction of the statement. :D

"Perhaps Mister Brooks would like to ponder the fact that there was once a time when nothing was known."

Really? When was that and please prove this with facts.

Before humanity was, knowledge was not.
There was clearly a moment when knowledge was not known by any entity, mankind or otherwise. Thus, the acquisition of first knowledge was gleaned without any knowledge.
Simple reason squire.

Also you believe that God has always existed and was always all knowing. Do you ever stop hanging/ self contradicting yourself?

Well if you want to bring God into the equation then Mister Brooks is talking nonsense anyway, since nothing is "unknown" by God.

"Yet the process of reasoning opened the door to knowledge, without knowledge."

Yes and? How does what is known prove your is unknown?

What becomes known is not always dependent upon what is already known, since there was once a time when nothing was known. Hence Mister Brooks is wrong. Kindly delete the quote from your personal library and refrain from using it any more.

Interesting Ian

26th December 2003, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by Yahweh
[B]
Well, if you want, you can come on over the PhysicsForums.com messageboards.

OK, I have joined :)

Pahansiri

26th December 2003, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

The difference is that I present reasoning to support my conclusions. You simply paste a 2-line seemingly-wise statement but have no reasoning to support it. And you use this statement as a source of rebuttal to my own argument. So I demand reasoning or I demand a retraction of the statement. :D

Before humanity was, knowledge was not.
There was clearly a moment when knowledge was not known by any entity, mankind or otherwise. Thus, the acquisition of first knowledge was gleaned without any knowledge.
Simple reason squire.

Well if you want to bring God into the equation then Mister Brooks is talking nonsense anyway, since nothing is "unknown" by God.

What becomes known is not always dependent upon what is already known, since there was once a time when nothing was known. Hence Mister Brooks is wrong. Kindly delete the quote from your personal library and refrain from using it any more.

The difference is that I present reasoning to support my conclusions.

I respect you believe it supports your conclusions but the reality it only supports that these things exist not that your God ( a unknown) created them.

You start with a unknown, a belief stating it as it is a proven fact that point out known things to support what you already say is fact. This is backwards.

The known things are known ( or mainly known) realities. Your belief is just that a belief.

Until proven with facts.

You simply paste a 2-line seemingly-wise statement but have no reasoning to support it.

Again these are words you need to direct to yourself not to me or that quote.

And you use this statement as a source of rebuttal to my own argument. So I demand reasoning or I demand a retraction of the statement.

Your reading comprehension skills are very poor, poor in these cases because your blind desire to be right blinds you to what is written.

My point, which all who read with an open mind is that you point to known things and say they prove your belief.. PLEASE read what is written.

Before humanity was, knowledge was not.

Let us post again what you said Perhaps Mister Brooks would like to ponder the fact that there was once a time when nothing was known.

I responded Really? When was that and please prove this with facts.

Lets look at the first man if that is what you mean, he “knew” what he sensed around him how to start to find food as he “knew” he was hungry etc.

Also you believe that God has always existed and was always all knowing. Do you ever stop hanging/ self contradicting yourself?

But regardless what has this to do with your statement?

Again you just said Before humanity was, knowledge was not.

Then you do not believe your God always was nor that it has knowledge?

You are killing yourself here.

There was clearly a moment when knowledge was not known by any entity, mankind or otherwise.

Really? Facts please.
1. Then what created your God?
2. Who helped your God learn?
3. Who created that being and on and on
4. So your God is not as you say all powerful and all knowing.

You are killing yourself here.

Thus, the acquisition of first knowledge was gleaned without any knowledge.
Simple reason squire.

There are many ways to show how silly this statement is as to your earlier statements as I have done to a point so far. BUT if anything existed before life as we know it and your God there was facts behind it, causes and conditions that could be known.
Do you really know what you believe?

Well if you want to bring God into the equation then Mister Brooks is talking nonsense anyway, since nothing is "unknown" by God.

Watch lifegazer hang himself with his own words in the very same post.

Originally posted by lifegazer in this VERY post There was clearly a moment when knowledge was not known by any entity, mankind or otherwise.

This is TOO easy..

Let me post these 2 statements again

Well if you want to bring God into the equation then Mister Brooks is talking nonsense anyway, since nothing is "unknown" by God.

and

There was clearly a moment when knowledge was not known by any entity, mankind or otherwise.

You are like the drunk man who keeps punching himself in the nuts.

Just for kicks and not expecting an answer or mature response prove what you have said here.

Well if you want to bring God into the equation then Mister Brooks is talking nonsense anyway, since nothing is "unknown" by God.

1 prove God
2- prove there is nothing it does not know
3- Prove you can have this knowledge. As you see unless you know everything that can be known you could not know that God knows all that is known..
Do you ever think out what you say?

What becomes known is not always dependent upon what is already known,

Again watch lifegazer self contradict himself.

What becomes known is not always dependent upon what is already known,

VS

There was clearly a moment when knowledge was not known by any entity, mankind or otherwise.

Also then you are saying there are things that God does not already know?

Again watch lifegazer self contradict himself.

What becomes known is not always dependent upon what is already known,

VS

Well if you want to bring God into the equation then Mister Brooks is talking nonsense anyway, since nothing is "unknown" by God.

[quote]since there was once a time when nothing was known. [quote]

Really then you do not believe what you said when you said

Well if you want to bring God into the equation then Mister Brooks is talking nonsense anyway, since nothing is "unknown" by God.

Remember you said there is only God and being he exist nothing else does so if that is the case this statement

[quote]since there was once a time when nothing was known. [quote]

REALLY again contradicters this statement

Well if you want to bring God into the equation then Mister Brooks is talking nonsense anyway, since nothing is "unknown" by God.

Hence Mister Brooks is wrong. Kindly delete the quote from your personal library and refrain from using it any more.

Clearly beyond the fact I just dismantled your statements or really you did it for me. You clearly do not understand what Brooks was saying .

This is far too easy.

RussDill

26th December 2003, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/fundamental.html
Snippet:
"Today, quarks and leptons, and their antiparticles, are candidates for being the fundamental building blocks from which all else is made. Particle physicists call them the "fundamental" or "elementary" particles -- both names denoting that, as far as current experiments can tell, they have no substructure."

Thanks for showing me a page that shows fundemental particles. BTW, since they are just particles, you can drop the fundemental and start calling them particles. Now how about you show me a page talking about fundamental energy.

You're what I class as "a spoiler" Russ. You have no interest in discussing my philosophy any more. It's your sole intention to just spoil anything I present to avoid addressing the ideas inherent within the argument. Not only that, but your complaints are incorrect. Physics does think that there is a fundamental energy of existence. So get off your high horse and stop waffling as though you know what you're talking about.

Sure, as soon as you show me the phrase "fundamental energy" being used in physics the way you are using it. There is no such thing. If you like, you can start by explaining the difference between energy, and fundemental energy.

Then, once you can explain that, you can explain why you are tacking on indeterminate.

You acknowledge no difference between classical physics and QM?
You acknowledge no progression to increased order/predictability from particles & atoms to larger, perceived, objects?

Did you even read what I said:

"Our observations approach classical because of a) the accuracy of our observations in relation to the quantum level and b) the size of the things we regularly observe in relation to the quantum level."

Classical physics is merely an approximation of the real world. Its a very good approximation at the scales we usually talk about. Did I ever say there was no difference, why throw in the red herring?

READ LIFEGAZER, READ. YOUR QUESTION MAKES NO SENSE IN RELATION TO WHAT I WROTE.

Another dork statement. It's meaningless to associate energy with a God of creation? You're a hopeless case and I just don't know why I bother with you at all.

Does it make any sense to assign him a length? What about an electrical charge? A magnetic field? How about the rate of rotation of god? What about the Mass of god? Do these make any sense? All are quantities that are measured within our universe, JUST LIKE ENERGY. How many Joules is GOD? If we converted god to energy, how much heat would he give off, where would the energy go?

An entity which is the primal-cause of proceeding effects is shown to possess free-will in determining those effects.

You have shown no correlation between anything you said and free will other than an assumption.

The energy of such an entity is unpredictable, since the entity has free-will.

You have shown no correlation between "undpredictable energe" and free will other than assumption.

Also, again, It makes no sense to assign god an energy. How many joules? 50000J? Does all this energy also create a gravitational attraction? What is the mass of god? All meaningless.

Engage your brain and put your physics book back on the shelf.

You talk about physics, I'll set you straight. I need the physics book to do that, sorry.

God's energy is unpredictable does not mean that God is in disorder.

It would certainly mean that a portion of him is.

It just means that God is a primal-cause with the free-will to do whatever God pleases.

You have certainly shown no connection between free-will and this "unpredictable energy" you have made up.

Just as would be expected of "a God".

The god you describe cannot have free will anyway since your god cannot make a mistake.

No, this was not that. I still haven't decided whether to do it yet.

Carefull, if you do, people might worship you.

BTW, you completely sidestepped the part where I pointed out that there is no duality. Any response on that?

Also, thanks for the insults throughout the post, I really hope they made you feel superior in some way.

RussDill

26th December 2003, 11:17 AM

Iacchus

26th December 2003, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Greetings Iacchus

1- Can you demonstrate where I said that or that that is what Brooks was saying?When you bring up the unknown, you can only say "unknown" with respect to whom. In which case I may indeed know what I'm talking about, and may even have an idea about what you're talking about, but that isn't to say that just because you don't understand what I'm saying, doesn't mean what I say is "unknowable."

Please again read the quote for what is written.I have, and apparently I'm missing something here?

But, have things as to what we know as the rise of man not “arisen” out what is unknown?

Did first man know the how and why of the things he encountered?And here, we're only speaking of that which is unknown to man.

Would it?I obviously haven't ruled out the possibility.

May I ask what that is and ask for proof of existence of this thing? Well, in order to understand the unknonwn, you begin by opening the door of "plausibilty." And this I'm afraid, is entirely up to you.

Iacchus

26th December 2003, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Pahansiri

yes and Babe was really a talking Pig.:rub: Are you trying to tell me that a movie can't be analogous with something else?

RussDill

26th December 2003, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Couldn't resist posting whilst continuing to ignore my argument, I see. How sad, and what a poor showing.

Just because people do not agree and ask, "tell me again sir lifegazer how one can use ram bladders to predict earthquakes" does not mean they are ignoring your argument.

God has free will.

assumption: there is a god
assumption: god has free will

God's energy, therefore, is indeterminate.

assumption: god has energy
assumption: somethings energy must be indeterminate for it to have free will

God's work - the creation of God's order, exhibits an energy which is essentially indeterminate and progresses towards the order perceived of in creation.
[/B][/QUOTE]

weird meaningless statement by lifegazer: the energy of existence is indeterminate.
assumption: reality is progressing towards order (opposite of what is true btw)

Fully consistent with what physics has shown us about fundamental particles. I.e., my philosophy is consistent with scientific knowledge.

fully has nothing to do with science more like it. All you have is assumptions and crap about energy you just made up.

Furthermore, we could discuss the importance of observer participation, if you care.

Something else about QM you don't understand.

And we could discuss the further consistency of my philosophy with the wave/particle duality exhibited by quanta.

And yet something else you probably don't understand.

But I'm not bothering unless the quality improves. The responses in this thread have been terrible.

The responses in this thread have tried to give you an understanding of QM. Something you aren't willing to do on your own. The quality that needs to improve is your understanding of physics. You have repeatadly stated your refusal to pick up a book on the subject.

BTW, you keep talking about it being important that your phisolophy is consistent with physics, well it isn't, but materialism is. Its time for you to accept materialism, since it is consistent, and after all, thats why you want us to look at your philosophy, right?

RussDill

26th December 2003, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Matter & energy are interchangeable.

sigh, no, they aren't. You can't have one interaction, exchange particles for energy in your equations, and have it progress the same way. You have little comprehension of the source or application of E=mc^2

Fundamental particles are
fundamental energy in particle form. The first forms of fundamental energy.

There is no such thing as fundamental energy. There is energy. Tell me the difference, and then I'll listen. Meaningless babble.

There is a link between fundamental particles and fundamental energy, given that energy & matter are interchangeable. So cut out the smart-ass comments.

Again, you haven't a clue what you mean my interchangeable and you can't explain to me what the difference between energy and fundamental energy is because you are making up meaningless tripe.

Shut up showing-off your knowledge of particles. Do you not realise that neither this knowledge or your possession of it are in the slightest bit relevant to the point of this thread?

Sigh...can you believe that crank-yanker, bringing knowledge of particles into a discussion of QM? Next we'll have someone bringing up greenhouse gas levels in a discussion of global warming, will it never end?

I am not measuring it nor am I remotely interested in measuring it. The fact that it doth exist suffice for my argument.

To show that it exists, you need to show a way to measure it, and tell us the differences it has between it and energy. I think red energy exists and red energy proves my theory, so there.

And the fact that it doth exist is shown by physics itself, in acknowledgement of fundamental particles.

No, fundamental particles are not destroyed to create fundamental energy. If they are annilated, they create energy. Physics never says anything about fundemental energy.

But if this doesn't suffice, then there's always the causality argument to fall back upon.

You causality arguments have already been shown to be meaningless, hundreds of years ago.

And if that doesn't suffice, then I can easily show that there must be a source of perceived existence.

Ya, we like to call it reality. We perceive reality, the material world. So showing that we need a source of perceived existence isn't helpful, because materialism already takes care of that.

It is irrational to argue against a fundamental source and/or a fundamental energy of that source.

You can't just say "its irrational" you have to explain why.

The fundamental energy of existence possesses the diversity expressed in the whole of existence.

Meaningless. There is no such thing as fundamental energy, there is energy. And energy possesses nothing. You have provided no reasoning to show that the laws of physics are contained within energy.

To any and all fundamental particles. You seem to think that the fundamental energy of all existence should only be able to do one thing.

You keep going back and forth between fundamental energy, and "The fundamental energy of existence".

Now you have to explain:

what is the difference between energy and fundamental energy.

and what is the fundamental energy of existence.

You cannot have fundamental particles without a fundamental energy. Wakey wakey pal. Time to put the physics book back on the shelf and engage your brain.

really? According to physics, all you need is energy, not a magical mystical fundemental energy.

After last time? You never proved anything George. Zilch.

He didn't have to prove anything, he just had to show that your theory is inconsistent and out of touch with reality, which he did.

The same as have you proved here. And if you're going to talk down your nose to me every time you post, I'd rather you didn't bother in the future, okay?

Learn physics on you own, and you won't get lectured when you make posts that talk about physics, and yet are completely clueless when it comes to physics.

I have no respect for the establishment, especially the pompous snobs who give it a bad name.

There is no "establishment". You are paranoid.

I see. So you argue vehemently that there is no fundamental energy, and then you produce a statement declaring that there is.
*Laughing*.

heh, you haven't a clue what he just said. And you think the statement is declaring a fundemental energy. No, in that description, its the other definition of fundemental, like in musical notes. Its an energy level, not a specific type of energy...you make such a fool out of yourself.

RussDill

26th December 2003, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Though it is actually possible to argue a case for this reality using another detail of QM: observer participation. Later perhaps.

You've already touched on this and shown you don't understand this aspect of QM either. Either pick up a book, or don't bother.

If an entity has free-will, its actions will be indeterminate.

Really? usually you can predict the actions of an entity with free-will, otherwise its just called random.

Therefore, the fundamental energy of this entity is essentially indeterminate.

There is no such thing as fundamental energy and you have shown no relation between energy and actions.

Of course, physics acknowledges no God, least of all that the actions of such an entity would be driven by an energy indeterminate in nature.

I've shown before, just as its meaningless to give god a mass, its also meaningless to give god an energy.

But physics does recognise the existence of fundamental particles, which are the first forms of fundamental energy.

no, fundamental energy is something you made up.

I'll leave it at that for now and see how sincere your response is.

By sincere, you mean how much he agrees.

RussDill

26th December 2003, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Perhaps Mister Brooks would like to ponder the fact that there was once a time when nothing was known. Yet the process of reasoning opened the door to knowledge, without knowledge.

knowledge exists in humans without the need for reasoning. For instance, how does the baby have knowledge to suckle? Does it reason it out?

RussDill

26th December 2003, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Before humanity was, knowledge was not.
There was clearly a moment when knowledge was not known by any entity, mankind or otherwise. Thus, the acquisition of first knowledge was gleaned without any knowledge.
Simple reason squire.

Really? apes use tools and learn the skill from other apes. Is this not knowledge?

Pahansiri

26th December 2003, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
When you bring up the unknown, you can only say "unknown" with respect to whom. In which case I may indeed know what I'm talking about, and may even have an idea about what you're talking about, but that isn't to say that just because you don't understand what I'm saying, doesn't mean what I say is "unknowable."

I have, and apparently I'm missing something here?

And here, we're only speaking of that which is unknown to man.

I obviously haven't ruled out the possibility.

Well, in order to understand the unknonwn, you begin by opening the door of "plausibilty." And this I'm afraid, is entirely up to you.

Greetings again Iacchus

When you bring up the unknown, you can only say "unknown" with respect to whom.

Why is that?

But first I did not bring up the unknown, lifegazer did. Our friend lifegazer was seeking to use what is known as proof for what is unknown( God).

When speaking about what is known you are speaking about what is known. You may speculate as to a source etc of this known, i.e. a belief but it is illogical to demand this belief is fact without supporting proof, facts. It is as Brooks points out “theological lunacy” to demand because a known exist they your/my/ his etc unknown ( God in this case) is the source.

Once again the quote
”To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." -- David Brooks ...

But back to your statement When you bring up the unknown, you can only say "unknown" with respect to whom.

This seems illogical. Why can this only be said about a “whom”? Allow me this example;

“I believe there is a planet ( not a “whom”) 400, 00000 light years away with talking trees on it.”

This would be an unknown and neither the planet not trees are “whom’s”.

In which case I may indeed know what I'm talking about, and may even have an idea about what you're talking about, but that isn't to say that just because you don't understand what I'm saying, doesn't mean what I say is "unknowable."

I am not sure where you are going with this.

If you are saying you have proof of a God or gods I will be happy to look at it and discuss it. If it is real and valid proof I will be happy to believe it as I do not fear being wrong or learning anything.

As to anything being "unknowable." I will ask you to show where in my words I said anything that exist can be "unknowable.".

I will post for you here a thread at this site http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32523 titled Are there unanswerable questions? there you will find statement/ opinions by me including this
Originally posted
If something happens then there were causes and conditions behind it so answers exist. So to say anything that has happened is unanswerable is illogical as there is an answer and so it is answerable.

To say or believe “we” will not or can not or never know would be a better way to state such a belief but in reality would also be illogical, as she can not know all things or beings to come.

And here, we're only speaking of that which is unknown to man.

Man is the only known we can speak of by as statement of fact and not a statement of belief.

If you say you can speak to what a unknown ( God) knows you need to follow these steps.

1- Prove God
2- Prove this God is your God
3- Prove you know what this God knows
4- Unless you can you prove you know all that can be known you can not even if you could prove God prove you know “he” knows all to be known.

Do this and we can talk about your statement of And here, we're only speaking of that which is unknown to man.

Other wise it is irrelevant as to fact but I do respect it as belief as I respect you.

I obviously haven't ruled out the possibility.

Nor do I as if you have read what I write you would know. I do not rule it out nor do I believe it matters in any way nor do I use something that I may not “rule out” as a fact.

Well, in order to understand the unknonwn, you begin by opening the door of "plausibilty." And this I'm afraid, is entirely up to you.

Again you assume a great deal as to what I think about unknowns.

But are you telling me you understand the unknown? What unknown is that all possible “unknowns” Now that is a WOW.

How do you “understand” a unknown? If you understand it is it not then known?

Be well my friend

lifegazer

26th December 2003, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by RussDill
assumption: there is a god
assumption: god has free will

This thread was not meant as a proof for God's existence. This thread was intended to show that QM was consistent with the existence of a God who is the primal-cause for existence. Clearly, you took no notice of the initial argument.
Secondly, free-will is a necessary attribute for such a primal-cause.

assumption: god has energy

If God is the creator of all effected reality, then God has energy. How can God act without having the capacity to act? Just because you cannot see God's energy in your awareness of what it has effected, is of no relevance, except to expose your naivity in expecting to see it with your eyes.
Take note that this is a philosophical discussion. It's absurd to embark upon a discussion about God and not be willing to think beyond the fishbowl of perceived existence.

assumption: somethings energy must be indeterminate for it to have free will

You're just exposing your inadequacy to reason here. An entity cannot have free will if it is entirely predictable. I.e., the energy of such an entity must be indeterminate.

assumption: reality is progressing towards order (opposite of what is true btw)

So the universe began from absolute order and is progressing towards chaos? Clearly nonsense.
Perhaps you'd like to explain the continuing complexity of order, through time:-
Particles... atoms... molecules... stars & planets (galaxies)... simple life... complex life.
Stop waffling Russ. The tendency towards thermal equilibrium is not the same thing as the tendency towards chaos.

lifegazer

26th December 2003, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

Really? apes use tools and learn the skill from other apes. Is this not knowledge?
Yes it is. But how does this affect reasoning which shows that the acquisition of first knowledge is not dependent upon already having knowledge?

RussDill

26th December 2003, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

This thread was not meant as a proof for God's existence. This thread was intended to show that QM was consistent with the existence of a God who is the primal-cause for existence. Clearly, you took no notice of the initial argument.

I still like pointing out what is an assumption, and what is not.

Secondly, free-will is a necessary attribute for such a primal-cause.

Why? Why could our universe not have been created by an entity that had no choice but to create our universe. In fact, this would fit your philosophy, your god created all of us with free-will to decide its fate because it did not have free will of its own (except for in your philosophy, god has freewill).

If God is the creator of all effected reality, then God has energy. How can God act without having the capacity to act?

Energy is a property of our universe, just like charge and mass. It has nothing to do with an omnipotent being's capacity to act.

Just because you cannot see God's energy in your awareness of what it has effected, is of no relevance, except to expose your naivity in expecting to see it with your eyes.

When did I say anything about seeing god's energy in my awareness?

Take note that this is a philosophical discussion. It's absurd to embark upon a discussion about God and not be willing to think beyond the fishbowl of perceived existence.

And yet you require the laws of our material world to apply to an omnipotent god (he needs energy to do anything).

You're just exposing your inadequacy to reason here. An entity cannot have free will if it is entirely predictable. I.e., the energy of such an entity must be indeterminate.

Something with a determinate energy can be unpredictable. Also, the exact energy of a rock is indeterminate, it does not have free will. A die is not predictable, and yet it does not have free will. You are trying to tie together concepts that are not necessarily related.

So the universe began from absolute order and is progressing towards chaos? Clearly nonsense.

This is the big bang theory and thermodynamics, its what all science agrees with.

Perhaps you'd like to explain the continuing complexity of order, through time:-
Particles... atoms... molecules... stars & planets (galaxies)... simple life... complex life.

Its pretty easy, its called thermodynamics. All closed systems progress towards disorder. However, if you apply energy to a system, its order can increase. Its time you studied thermodynamics.

Stop waffling Russ. The tendency towards thermal equilibrium is not the same thing as the tendency towards chaos.

Entropy and thermal equilibrium are very closely related. Read up.

RussDill

26th December 2003, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Yes it is. But how does this affect reasoning which shows that the acquisition of first knowledge is not dependent upon already having knowledge?

You stated that there was no knowledge before mankind. I was stating one of many examples of knowledge existing before mankind. Most of this tool use btw was learned through trial and error, not reason. Just as a bee hive gains knowledge of the location of pollen, trial and error.

lifegazer

26th December 2003, 12:34 PM

Some of you seem to think that the existence of fundamental particles does not imply the existence of fundamental energy, even though energy & matter are interchangeable and matter is a form of energy. So some of you think that fundamental form can exist without an underlying fundamental energy giving life to that form... which is nonsense imo.

Anyway, since you refuse to accept the obvious because physics hasn't "seen" this energy - no surprise there: physics has never seen any energy; just the effects of it! - then I shall endeavour to convince you via different methods:-

1. A consideration of energy
What is energy, from a rational point of view? Essentially, energy is a force of change, producing new effects from previous states of existence. Energy is the force acting upon a body or bodies to change the state of existence of that body or bodies.
But what force can exist without an enforcing agent? None. Forces are intangible in themselves. We only see their effects. But their own existence requires the existence of an actual entity, to enforce those forces.
That ~something~ exists is hardly worth arguing against. Even a mottley crew like you lot will accept this.
So, what we can say, without hesitation, is that the existence of forces is a proof for the existence of an enforcing agent.

Hence, the fundamental particles are a form of energy which is a fundamental force [of creating matter]... and this energy emanates from an unseen enforcing agent. Fact.
Given that this energy of first-forming-particles is also unseen, except in the effect of the particles themselves, and given that this energy is the first link to matter from the unseen enforcing agent, there is reason to define this energy as the fundamental energy of existence.

I was going to argue a case for a primal-cause too, but this has gotten a little too long.

Dancing David

26th December 2003, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Yes it is. But how does this affect reasoning which shows that the acquisition of first knowledge is not dependent upon already having knowledge?

Now when a chimp stuck a stick in a termite mound for the first time which knowledge are you using to call first knowledge and the preceding knowledge.

a. knowledge that termites are good to eat?
b. knowledge that the termites cling to the stick?

Or are you making reference to the fact that the chimp already knew that termites are associated with temite mounds?

because it probably took some time for the chimp to actauly learn the knowledge that by sticking a piece of grass in the holes that termites would actualy cling to it.

So just for clarities sake, whch is the special knowledge you are reffering to because I would argue that it is aquired through a process like this:

a. chimp is eating termires, which it has already learned are asciated with termite mounds.
b. for some reason (uncausal) chimp sticks a piece of grass in a hole in the termite mound
c. at sometimes the chimp associates puttinf the grass in the hole with the termites clinging to it
d. at other times the chimp doesn't even pull the grass out
e. other times the chimp pulls the grass out but does not associate the grass and the termites.
f> some bright chimp associates the termites on the grass with the sticking the termites sticking to the grass.

This is opposed to what i would call a reasoning process:
a. chimp sits eating termites which it associates with termite mounds.
b. chimp looks at termites coming out of hole in termite mound.
c. chimp decides that there are termites in the termite mound
d. chimp decides to use tool to reach termites in the termite mound
e>chimp inserts grass into hole with intention of reaching termites inside the mound.

Do you think there is a difference?

RussDill

26th December 2003, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Some of you seem to think that the existence of fundamental particles does not imply the existence of fundamental energy, even though energy & matter are interchangeable and matter is a form of energy. So some of you think that fundamental form can exist without an underlying fundamental energy giving life to that form... which is nonsense imo.

key word here, IN YOUR OPINION. Please, explain the difference between energy, and fundamental energy. What about those particles that happened to be make out of just plain energy, rather than fundamental energy? how are they different?

Anyway, since you refuse to accept the obvious because physics hasn't "seen" this energy - no surprise there: physics has never seen any energy; just the effects of it! - then I shall endeavour to convince you via different methods:-

Most of physics is the observation of effects, no surprise. How about you design an experiment for us to observe the effects of fundamental energy then?

1. A consideration of energy
What is energy, from a rational point of view? Essentially, energy is a force of change,

There is no such thing as a "force of change". What you are looking for here is that all systems tend toward their lowest energy state.

producing new effects from previous states of existence.

What new effect has there ever been?

Energy is the force acting upon a body or bodies to change the state of existence of that body or bodies.

No, a field is a force acting upon a body. Don't get the two confused.

But what force can exist without an enforcing agent? None.

Ever hear of mediating particles? Maybe you are familiar with the mediator of the electromagnetic force, the photon. Ever hear of gluons? Sigh, you lack of understanding in this area makes yourselves an embarrasment.

Forces are intangible in themselves. We only see their effects. But their own existence requires the existence of an actual entity, to enforce those forces.

Like I said, mediating particles.

That ~something~ exists is hardly worth arguing against. Even a mottley crew like you lot will accept this.

And ain't it great that physics already did this for you?

So, what we can say, without hesitation, is that the existence of forces is a proof for the existence of an enforcing agent.

Actually, gravity is different, its an actual bending of spacetime, theories differ on if an enforcing agent is actually required. IIRC, general relativity says no, QM says yes (the graviton).

Hence, the fundamental particles are a form of energy which is a fundamental force [of creating matter]... and this energy emanates from an unseen enforcing agent. Fact.

energy emanates from nothing. It just is. In fact, due to the heisenberg uncertainty principle, energy apears out of no where for short periods of time. Also, there is no fundemental force that creates matter, its simply another law of physics. You put enough energy in a small enough area and virtual particles become real particles.

Given that this energy of first-forming-particles is also unseen,

Just to nit-pick, it makes no sense to say "first forming particles" because of lack of simultaneality in our universe.

except in the effect of the particles themselves, and given that this energy is the first link to matter from the unseen enforcing agent, there is reason to define this energy as the fundamental energy of existence.

There is no enforcing agent that causes virtual particles to become real particles by the addition of energy.

Iacchus

26th December 2003, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Why is that?

But first I did not bring up the unknown, lifegazer did. Our friend lifegazer was seeking to use what is known as proof for what is unknown( God).Well, things don't arise out of nowhere do they?

When speaking about what is known you are speaking about what is known. You may speculate as to a source etc of this known, i.e. a belief but it is illogical to demand this belief is fact without supporting proof, facts. It is as Brooks points out “theological lunacy” to demand because a known exist they your/my/ his etc unknown ( God in this case) is the source.But what if one knows better? And how would it be possible for you to refute that?

But back to your statement

This seems illogical. Why can this only be said about a “whom”? Allow me this example;

“I believe there is a planet ( not a “whom”) 400, 00000 light years away with talking trees on it.”

This would be an unknown and neither the planet not trees are “whom’s”.And yet what if "somebody" does know? Indeed, what if that somebody were God?

I am not sure where you are going with this.

If you are saying you have proof of a God or gods I will be happy to look at it and discuss it. If it is real and valid proof I will be happy to believe it as I do not fear being wrong or learning anything.But then again if I told you, how would you know? ...

As for the rest of your post, about "who" knows what, all I can say is I'm not a mind reader here. Sorry. :)

lifegazer

26th December 2003, 12:56 PM

The knowledge discussion is getting a little silly. So let me clarify.

This planet has an origin. Life upon this planet has an origin. Therefore, acquired knowledge, by life, has an origin.
So, the concept of first knowledge is not a myth. It happened. Don't ask me when, or by what. It doesn't matter anyway. All that matters is that there was first knowledge... and it was acquired without possessing any other knowledge. This of course is true in recognition of the fact that it is first knowledge we're talking about.

And so, knowledge can be acquired without having other knowledge.
Eat your heart out Mister Brooks, whomever you are.

Dancing David

26th December 2003, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Predictably, aside from Russ' spoiling waffle, there is not another post worthy of response. That's a reflection on the poor standards in this forum, I'm afraid, as well as the insincerity, generally, of its members.
Please refrain from posting in my threads unless you really want to discuss the content of the arguments presented.

Oh, so now you are god of the forum. I don't see hal Bidlack as your screen name.

I agree with RussDill

I see your argument as essentialy as follows.

1. The source of energy of the universe is indeterminate.
2.The only cause of this indeterminancy is god's free will
3.Therefore god exists, or somesuch.

I would say that you have proven 2.

The expression of HIP is not that enregy itself is indeterminate, it is that it's location is bounded by probability and the speed of light. The location of an electron is within a certain area bounded by probability, but as yet no one has yet to demonstrate that particles demonstrate free will.

There was quite a bit of discussion about free will on this board and if probability could have a role in free will.

Perhaps Wriath will chose to comment.

And as far as your statements that Russ is a spoiler, he is correct in saying that there are no fundamental particles. Your own quote says that they are "fundamental" particles. That is because science can not make predictions involving ontology. It can only make approxiamations of The Way Things Appear To Be.

Andonyx

26th December 2003, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, things don't arise out of nowhere do they?

Yes. They do.

In instances of a certain type of vacuum (Rhindler)((SP?)) You can actually have particles and their anti-particle arise in virtual pairs out of absolute nothingness, because since it is a particle and anti-particle you still have a net amount of matter of zero. The conservation law is not violated in this manner.

Normally these particles annihilate in a matter of nano-seconds after their spontaneous existence, but ocassionally they may be separated fast enough and far enough to travel away form each other and continue to exist.

But what if one knows better? And how would it be possible for you to refute that?

We can see the evidence of virtual particles in some experiements, and I believe in the immediate aftermath of some collider experiements.

Iacchus

26th December 2003, 12:59 PM

If anyone were to consider for one moment whether or not God existed, how would that effect things?

Would we be trying to find a plausible way in which Lifegazer's theory works -- or, would we still be trying to shoot the whole thing down?

lifegazer

26th December 2003, 01:01 PM

Zero

26th December 2003, 01:01 PM

What if, what if, WHAT IF!! Asking the 'what if' question is the first step of finding out things, not the last. You ask the question, and then you study the information, do experiments, often reject your first few dozen assumptions. You don't say 'what if "god" exists', and then leap straight to the conclusion '"God" exists'.

Dancing David

26th December 2003, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, it's quite obvious that it doesn't make sense to you.

So what does science know? Isn't science just a process of human agency or, is it something more than that? Like the Word of God or something?

Welcome Iacchus!

I think that the issue is that Lifegazer is again trying to force the round peg of science to fit the very small square hole of his philospohy. I think that most of the materialists would admit that science is a very human endevour.
The objection comes from what they see as the over strange interpretation of science bent to a wierd purpose.

Say that does sound like the word of god doesn't it.

lifegazer

26th December 2003, 01:07 PM

Iacchus. It's nice to see you again. How's life at pf?

Dancing David

26th December 2003, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, the one tends to be more rational and the other tends to be more abstract. Does that make either one more right, or wrong? Mind you, we can't functon without both sides of our brain. And, by virtue of the fact that our brains are designed this way, doesn't that suggest we should be ascertain the full spectrum of things, from that which is most concrete, to that which is highly abstract? (i.e., God).

So, how can we ascertain what is abstract without the ability to contrast it against the concrete? And vice versa.

Pardon, I don't want you to say I have poop for brains, but what the heck?

Religion is more abstract and acience is more rational, or the other way around. I think you missed the boat on that one. I would say that science is more thought and that religion is more emotional
But that religion can benefit from 9Goodness Forfend) the apllication of scientific principles. the two are not exclusive.

SCience delights in the abstarct, so i question you saying that god is more abstaract than say a Higgs boson or a hyper string.

Sound like you are assigning god values of abstraction, I tend to prefer more earthly dieties, like my wife!

Zero

26th December 2003, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Call the rational police and have this bloke locked up. Thirty years for such a crime as this. Ummmm...who the f*** do you think you are to claim someone else is being irrational? Unless, of course, this falls under "it takes one to know one", in which case you are the world's foremost expert.

Iacchus

26th December 2003, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by Andonyx

Yes. They do.

In instances of a certain type of vacuum (Rhindler)((SP?)) You can actually have particles and their anti-particle arise in virtual pairs out of absolute nothingness, because since it is a particle and anti-particle you still have a net amount of matter of zero. The conservation law is not violated in this manner.

Normally these particles annihilate in a matter of nano-seconds after their spontaneous existence, but ocassionally they may be separated fast enough and far enough to travel away form each other and continue to exist.

Just because something is not tangible does not mean it does not exist. In which case you have to be careful about what you mean by saying "nowhere."

We can see the evidence of virtual particles in some experiements, and I believe in the immediate aftermath of some collider experiements. That still doesn't imply that they didn't come from "somewhere."

lifegazer

26th December 2003, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by RussDill
key word here, IN YOUR OPINION. Please, explain the difference between energy, and fundamental energy. What about those particles that happened to be make out of just plain energy, rather than fundamental energy? how are they different?

Fundamental energy emanates from the unseen enforcing agent of creation, whereas other types of energy, as defined by physics, refer to relationships which exist between the things of creation. But ultimately, all forces can be traced back to the enforcing agent and are actually just a variation of fundamental energy, as other particles are just a variation of fundamental particles.

Most of physics is the observation of effects, no surprise. How about you design an experiment for us to observe the effects of fundamental energy then?

This is philosophy. You need to distinguish between philosophy and physics. Fundamental particles are the only evidence of fundamental energy - being an effect of that energy. Energy can only be seen in the effects it produces upon matter.

What new effect has there ever been?

Are you implying that time is an illusion, and that all is One? Welcome to the fold, brother.

Iacchus

26th December 2003, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Zero
What if, what if, WHAT IF!! Asking the 'what if' question is the first step of finding out things, not the last. You ask the question, and then you study the information, do experiments, often reject your first few dozen assumptions. You don't say 'what if "god" exists', and then leap straight to the conclusion '"God" exists'. Maybe it's because it has to be spelled out to you in hypothetical terms, otherwise you wouldn't get it any other way?

Dancing David

26th December 2003, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Couldn't resist posting whilst continuing to ignore my argument, I see. How sad, and what a poor showing.

Blah Blah Blah

God has free will.
God's energy, therefore, is indeterminate.
God's work - the creation of God's order, exhibits an energy which is essentially indeterminate and progresses towards the order perceived of in creation. Fully consistent with what physics has shown us about fundamental particles. I.e., my philosophy is consistent with scientific knowledge.

I don't follow the leap there, I shall try, how does the probablistic interpretation imply free will. Did you know that the electrons in the two slit experimenta re still constrained by the refractive pattern?
Or are you saying that god chose where they will refract too.
I don't see how god having free will translate sto probability.

Furthermore, we could discuss the importance of observer participation, if you care. And we could discuss the further consistency of my philosophy with the wave/particle duality exhibited by quanta.
But I'm not bothering unless the quality improves. The responses in this thread have been terrible.

The problem with the observer interaction is that it is not the act of observation that creates the quantum effect. The wave form exists before and after the interaction, the indeterminancy always exists, it is not just a product of the 'observation'.

lifegazer

26th December 2003, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Ummmm...who the f*** do you think you are to claim someone else is being irrational? Unless, of course, this falls under "it takes one to know one", in which case you are the world's foremost expert.
If you, like him, truly believe that existence can spring forth from, and reside amongst, *absolutely nothing*, then you too need interrogating by the rational police.

Andonyx

26th December 2003, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Just because something is not tangible does not mean it does not exist. In which case you have to be careful about what you mean by saying "nowhere."

That still doesn't imply that they didn't come from "somewhere."

Okay, fair enough.

It's entirely within the realm of possibility that the instances of these pairs of virtual particles appearing are in fact the result of some process or phenomenon of which we have no evidence or observations. But since we have looked very hard at this phenomena, and we have mathematical models that predicted the phenomena independant of observation, the majority of our current evidence suggests this is the case.

If it is NOT the case though someone has to come up with a very good way to find and observe whatever is the cause of this, which has never before been detected, measured, observed or predicted.

Again wether you're suggesting it is outside the realm of the observable universe, or some theosophical explanation, those things which cannot be measured by science are outside the realm of science, and we do not try to explain them using science in that regard because it would be pointless to do so. To try to combine the ideas of science with that which is inherently unscientific, for instance the conlusions to which LG jumps, is a meaningless and pointless excersize.

As it is we have a hypothesis for why these things happen that has held up under some scientific and mathematical scrutiny...so why go invent spirits and phantoms to explain something which already has an explanation?

Andonyx

26th December 2003, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

If you, like him, truly believe that existence can spring forth from, and reside amongst, *absolutely nothing*, then you too need interrogating by the rational police.

You know for a fact it can't?

No really? What scientific law are you going to bastardize and twist around now to tell us this cannot happen?

Andonyx

26th December 2003, 01:36 PM

Here, a professor explains it quite nicely for you:

Now let's look at the vacuum. Suppose that there is nothing in the vacuum (no matter or radiation at all), according to the HUP there is an uncertainty in the amount of energy which can be contained in the vacuum. On average, the energy is constant, however, there is always a slight uncertainty in the energy, dE. This small uncertainty allows a nonzero energy to exist for short intervals of time defined by
dT = (h/2pi) / dE
Small uncertainties in energy can actually live for very long times. Because of the equivalence between matter and energy, these small energy fluctuations can produce matter (particles) which exists for a short time and then disappears.

The particles produced in this manner are not arbitary. What happens is that pairs of particles are produced -- a particle and its anti-particle twin are produced. This allows certain properties of the Universe to be preserved. Also, an interesting note is that the particles cannot be measured directly (hence the name virtual pairs) and so no physical laws such as the conservation of energy are seen to be violated!

from here:

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/apr14/virtual.html

Iacchus

26th December 2003, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Iacchus. It's nice to see you again. How's life at pf? Hey, long time no see! It's getting pretty slow over there in Physics Forums, although it has diversified quite a bit, pretty much the same old rehash in the Philosophy section though ... Nobody seems to want to get to the point.

This forum on the other hand ... We might be able to turn a few heads? :)

Zero

26th December 2003, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

If you, like him, truly believe that existence can spring forth from, and reside amongst, *absolutely nothing*, then you too need interrogating by the rational police. 'Virtual' particles, which spring from apparent nothingness, have theoretical and laboratory confirmation as being a distinct possibility. Your nonsense springs whole from your head, which proves that crap can come into existance from out of nothing.

lifegazer

26th December 2003, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David
I don't follow the leap there, I shall try, how does the probablistic interpretation imply free will. Did you know that the electrons in the two slit experimenta re still constrained by the refractive pattern?
Or are you saying that god chose where they will refract too.
I don't see how god having free will translate sto probability.

Firstly, particles emanate from fundamental energy... are a particular form of it. Once in this form, these particles, with their definite attributes of charge, spin, colour, mass, whatever, are subject to behaving in accordance with their identity. I.e., once in form, fundamental energy has already lost some of its indeterminancy - but not all of it, of course, as seen by the unpredictability of their behaviour and the wave/particle duality which they possess.
However, they do conform to a general, probablistic order, thus facilitating a progression towards the classical order upon our awareness.
God's energy, though free, becomes semi-enslaved within the things/order it creates.

The problem with the observer interaction is that it is not the act of observation that creates the quantum effect. The wave form exists before and after the interaction, the indeterminancy always exists, it is not just a product of the 'observation'.
Well I argue that 'particles' ONLY exist within the awareness of an observing mind. Hence, divisibility of reality can only exist within the mind. Which means that reality is indivisible, except within the mind. Which means that reality is the mind.

lifegazer

26th December 2003, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by Andonyx
Here, a professor explains it quite nicely for you:

Somebody read the professor his rights...

Now let's look at the vacuum. Suppose that there is nothing in the vacuum (no matter or radiation at all)

Okay cuff him. He simply assumes that a vacuum = absolutely nothing.
Granted, a vacuum = the absence of matter and spacetime; but there is no immediate inference from this that "absolutely nothing" is what remains, as you infered and as you suggest your professor infers.
The rational police have no choice than to lock you up. You abused reason.

Andonyx

26th December 2003, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Somebody read the professor his rights...

Okay cuff him. He simply assumes that a vacuum = absolutely nothing.
Granted, a vacuum = the absence of matter and spacetime; but there is no immediate inference from this that "absolutely nothing" is what remains, as you infered and as you suggest your professor infers.
The rational police have no choice than to lock you up. You abused reason.

Okay and what...(snicker)...do you....(guffaw)...suggest might be in this vacuum that is not (bwaaa haa ahhaahahhaa) of matter or energy?

lifegazer

26th December 2003, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
This forum on the other hand ... We might be able to turn a few heads? :)
They'll try to lynch you high. Be warned.;)

lifegazer

26th December 2003, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Andonyx

Okay and what...(snicker)...do you....(guffaw)...suggest might be in this vacuum that is not (bwaaa haa ahhaahahhaa) of matter or energy?
God, of course. Energy flows from God... and matter flows from God's energy.

Something cannot emanate from nothing in its absoluteness. It's plainly obvious. Aside from anything else, how can something reside within this nothingness?
And why or what would change absolute nothing into something?

Iacchus

26th December 2003, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Andonyx

Okay, fair enough.

It's entirely within the realm of possibility that the instances of these pairs of virtual particles appearing are in fact the result of some process or phenomenon of which we have no evidence or observations. But since we have looked very hard at this phenomena, and we have mathematical models that predicted the phenomena independant of observation, the majority of our current evidence suggests this is the case.What? And you would have me believe that the world is still flat? Sorry. :)

If it is NOT the case though someone has to come up with a very good way to find and observe whatever is the cause of this, which has never before been detected, measured, observed or predicted.Are you saying God cannot be detected or measured? But what if God were the actual cause of which everything else is the effect? Certainly we can measure everyhing up to the point of God then can't we? If so, then what else is left to measure?

Again wether you're suggesting it is outside the realm of the observable universe, or some theosophical explanation, those things which cannot be measured by science are outside the realm of science, and we do not try to explain them using science in that regard because it would be pointless to do so. To try to combine the ideas of science with that which is inherently unscientific, for instance the conlusions to which LG jumps, is a meaningless and pointless excersize.Perhaps it wouldn't be so much of a jump if you understood differently?

As it is we have a hypothesis for why these things happen that has held up under some scientific and mathematical scrutiny...so why go invent spirits and phantoms to explain something which already has an explanation? It isn't necessary to invent "them," for they already exist. ;)

RussDill

26th December 2003, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
The knowledge discussion is getting a little silly. So let me clarify.

This planet has an origin. Life upon this planet has an origin. Therefore, acquired knowledge, by life, has an origin.
So, the concept of first knowledge is not a myth. It happened. Don't ask me when, or by what. It doesn't matter anyway. All that matters is that there was first knowledge... and it was acquired without possessing any other knowledge. This of course is true in recognition of the fact that it is first knowledge we're talking about.

And so, knowledge can be acquired without having other knowledge.
Eat your heart out Mister Brooks, whomever you are.

"first" is a meaningless term in this universe because of a lack of simultaniety.

Andonyx

26th December 2003, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

God, of course. Energy flows from God... and matter flows from God's energy.

Something cannot emanate from nothing in its absoluteness. It's plainly obvious. Aside from anything else, how can something reside within this nothingness?
And why or what would change absolute nothing into something?

Obvious?

Why?

And your pathetic answer is God?

C'mon seriously. I give you experimental and mathematical evidence that this occurs all the time, and somehow coming to the conlusion that some magic man in the sky did it is more rational to you.

You can't possibly be serious.

Look belief in God has nothing to do with this discussion. I have presented evidence; You have presented none whatsoever.

I have only pointed you to already demonstrated and repeated scientific results...you make up stories.

If this your idea of a logical argument, it's juvenile and pointless.

You are jumping to massive conlusions based on nothing but your own imaginary conception of the universe.

And it's sad because when you first made a topic here I thought you had legitimate questions and ideas about science and how we gain our understanding of the universe around us, but in fact you came here to post nonsense, ignore others who have tried very very hard and spent a great deal of time giving you correct and valuable information.

You have resorted to insults, and non-sequiters, all in the name of something that is not only flawed, it is incoherent and incomplete.

Only an idiot or a child would actually spew the kind self involved ridiculousness that you do, present it so abhorrently, and then wonder why people who actually have some education in science tell you you're incorrect.

And ultimately, I cannot help but question the mentality behind someone who claims to hold an obvious proof of God's existence that anyone should be able to understand, and with this holy grail of both philosophy and science wastes so much time and effort posting on a message board.

Any moderately sane person who really believed this stuff would be busily and painstakingly preparing detailed and concisely written paper on his findings and working to publish it.

In case you hadn't noticed, most scientific achievments of note are handled by publishing to scientific peer reviewed journals. Not as you may think by nattering away endlessly on a message board.

What a complete waste of time an effort this coneversation has been...

And what a complete waste of time and effort it must be simply being you.

Andonyx

26th December 2003, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
What? And you would have me believe that the world is still flat? Sorry. :)

Actually, if it were that day and age, I still wouldn't believe you until you showed me some evidence that it wasn't.

That's a specious analogy.

We learned the world was round by several independant means of demonstration of hard evidence, not somebody just waking up one day and deciding it was round.

Are you saying God cannot be detected or measured? But what if God were the actual cause of which everything else is the effect? Certainly we can measure everyhing up to the point of God then can't we? If so, then what else is left to measure?

Fine, you say it's god, I say it's actially a giant bag of tral mix we're floating in and we're about to get eaten. The evidence that we have point equally likely to both cases.

Perhaps it wouldn't be so much of a jump if you understood differently?

Perhaps the jump wouldn't be necessary at all if you understood a damn thing about physics.

It isn't necessary to invent "them," for they already exist. ;)

I see you know it's god because you know it's god. And God exists because you said so?

Well, how could I have been so blind?

I forgot that once you make a claim, and then simply restate the claim backwards when asked for evidence it is defacto veritas.

Iacchus

26th December 2003, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David

Pardon, I don't want you to say I have poop for brains, but what the heck?

Religion is more abstract and acience is more rational, or the other way around. I think you missed the boat on that one. I would say that science is more thought and that religion is more emotional
But that religion can benefit from 9Goodness Forfend) the apllication of scientific principles. the two are not exclusive.

SCience delights in the abstarct, so i question you saying that god is more abstaract than say a Higgs boson or a hyper string.

Sound like you are assigning god values of abstraction, I tend to prefer more earthly dieties, like my wife! What can be more abstract than something you don't understand? And why does science claim that God can't be understood? ... because it's too abstract? And yet so many of the religious folk will say all you have to do is believe ... in something you don't understand? Hmm ... that doesn't seem to cut it either now does it?

RussDill

26th December 2003, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Fundamental energy emanates from the unseen enforcing agent of creation, whereas other types of energy, as defined by physics, refer to relationships which exist between the things of creation.

I asked you what the difference was, not the source. Is the only difference the source? Do you really believe that there is more than one source for energy? Also, we make particles every day out of "normal" energy harnessed at a power plant. We take that energy, accelerate particles, and colide them, making more massive (fundemental) particles than when we started with, energy->matter. These particles aren't make out of your fundamental energy.

You have not explained your fundamental energy, you have no shown what effect it would have, you have not shown its relation to particles. Its meaningless lifegazer, meaningless.

But ultimately, all forces can be traced back to the enforcing agent and are actually just a variation of fundamental energy, as other particles are just a variation of fundamental particles.

Umm....all other particles are not variations of fundamental particles. There are no particles except fundamental particles. All others are constintuents. Also, there is no need to trace any force back anywhere.

This is philosophy. You need to distinguish between philosophy and physics.

And I'm explaining to you that you haven't a clue when it comes to physics. So stop using your misunderstanding of physics to attempt to validate your philosophy.

Fundamental particles are the only evidence of fundamental energy - being an effect of that energy. Energy can only be seen in the effects it produces upon matter.

particles are evidence of energy. Nothing more.

Are you implying that time is an illusion, and that all is One? Welcome to the fold, brother.

I'm saying that time is not as you assume it to be. There is no such thing as "first".

RussDill

26th December 2003, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

If you, like him, truly believe that existence can spring forth from, and reside amongst, *absolutely nothing*, then you too need interrogating by the rational police.

Here's you added dimension again. Existence does not need to reside amongst anything, nothing, god, or otherwise. Existence has no boundries, and therefore it makes no sense to take about what it resides amongst.

Andonyx

26th December 2003, 02:23 PM

Andonyx

26th December 2003, 02:26 PM

I cannot believe this entire pathetic thread has boiled down to this tired old chestnut:

'Well, there are things we can't answer with our current understanding of the world through science, namely where did the universe come from. So all those loose ends MUST be evidence of God.'

Of for freak's sake, same worthless idea, different freaking day.

RussDill

26th December 2003, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Firstly, particles emanate from fundamental energy... are a particular form of it.

Firstly, you have to explain what fundamental energy is. Then, you have to show it exists. You have still done neither.

Once in this form, these particles, with their definite attributes of charge, spin, colour, mass, whatever, are subject to behaving in accordance with their identity.

Everything in the universe behaves in accordance to the laws of physics, its nothing special.

I.e., once in form, fundamental energy has already lost some of its indeterminancy -

Energy obeys the laws of physics no less, no more than matter.

but not all of it, of course, as seen by the unpredictability of their behaviour

Actually, the probabilty of their behavior is perfectly predictable with amazing precision. This is not true of free-will, another example of this having nothing to do with free will.

and the wave/particle duality which they possess.

wave/particle duality has nothing to do with unpredictability in itself. Its the wave nature of the particle that is QM.

However, they do conform to a general, probablistic order,

no, they have a precise probablistic order.

thus facilitating a progression towards the classical order upon our awareness.

no, the scale and number of particles is what gives us our classical observation.

God's energy, though free, becomes semi-enslaved within the things/order it creates.

I've explained to you time and time again why its illogical to say god has energy, and you have not refuted any of those arguments.

Well I argue that 'particles' ONLY exist within the awareness of an observing mind.

Really? I argue that you are 4 feet tall, but I'd have to prove it for it to meaningful, wouldn't I?

Hence, divisibility of reality can only exist within the mind. Which means that reality is indivisible, except within the mind. Which means that reality is the mind.

And this entire progression is based on the assumption that particles only exist within the mind. Your argument is circular and meaningless.

Classic lifegazer post btw, ignoring all the questions and arguments, but instead just restating assumptions.

RussDill

26th December 2003, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

God, of course. Energy flows from God... and matter flows from God's energy.

What about locking you up? Why assume that the vacuum of space is god? Why assume that energy comes from god? Its very likely that the total energy of our universe is zero btw.

Something cannot emanate from nothing in its absoluteness. It's plainly obvious.

really? In this reality it can.

Aside from anything else, how can something reside within this nothingness?

Empty space is as nothing as you are going to get in this reality. Its a lot like a construct. (but more than that)

And why or what would change absolute nothing into something?

Because its the laws of physics.

Iacchus

26th December 2003, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Andonyx

Actually, if it were that day and age, I still wouldn't believe you until you showed me some evidence that it wasn't.

That's a specious analogy.

We learned the world was round by several independant means of demonstration of hard evidence, not somebody just waking up one day and deciding it was round.And yet Columbus had already determined that before he made his voyage didn't he?

Fine, you say it's god, I say it's actially a giant bag of tral mix we're floating in and we're about to get eaten. The evidence that we have point equally likely to both cases.It doesn't have to be anything really, so long as it serves its purpose at the time which, is pretty much as you said isn't it? ;)

Perhaps the jump wouldn't be necessary at all if you understood a damn thing about physics.I do know which way is up and I do know which way is down. And I by no means am implying anyone has to agree with Lifegazer.

I see you know it's god because you know it's god. And God exists because you said so?God forbid I should make a plausible arguement for God, right?

Well, how could I have been so blind?Probably because "your science" has told you so. :p

I forgot that once you make a claim, and then simply restate the claim backwards when asked for evidence it is defacto veritas. Now what on earth could I have done -- but of course God is not "earthly" -- to make you irritable with me?

lifegazer

26th December 2003, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

"first" is a meaningless term in this universe because of a lack of simultaniety.
In that case, cancel the olympics.

RussDill

26th December 2003, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet Columbus had already determined that before he made his voyage didn't he?

This was not how it was proven

RussDill

26th December 2003, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

In that case, cancel the olympics.

You haven't a clue what I am talking about, do you? We all agree on reference frames for the olympics. If we didn't, then it could not actually be said who won.

lifegazer

26th December 2003, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

Here's you added dimension again. Existence does not need to reside amongst anything, nothing, god, or otherwise. Existence has no boundries, and therefore it makes no sense to take about what it resides amongst.
He infered that it sprang from and within absolute nothingness.

RussDill

26th December 2003, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

He infered that it sprang from and within absolute nothingness.

No he didn't, he said that the vacuum was nothingness.

Iacchus

26th December 2003, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Andonyx

Science doesn't.

You and your friend are the only ones here who tried to associate God and science as interdependant entities at all.

No one here has said jack all about God with regard to science other than to ask what the connection is. So what is it all the cordiallity stops once Lifegazer makes an association with me? All I've said so far (or implied) is that we have a similar perspective, namely the belief in God. Now that isn't to say I accept everything he has to say, hook, line and sinker. Got it? ;)

Andonyx

26th December 2003, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet Columbus had already determined that before he made his voyage didn't he?

That's not how most people figured out the Earth was round.

Many many cultures knew that well before Columbus, and it's evident from the movements of the stars in the sky and other astronomical observations, particularly the pole stars.

It doesn't have to be anything really, so long as it serves its purpose at the time which, is pretty much as you said isn't it? ;)

But we don't need anything to serve that purpose. It has already been shown to be possible within the realm of our current models. That doesn't mean we are definitely correct, it only means that the best evidence we have points to this conclusion. If we have an answer that works already, why make up another answer with no evidence that contradicts so many other aspects of science?

I do know which way is up and I do know which way is down. And I by no means am implying anyone has to agree with Lifegazer.

Then I am imisinterpreting your arguments and for that I apologize.

God forbid I should make a plausible arguement for God, right?

The moment you do, let me know. I'll be happy to read it.

Probably because "your science" has told you so. :p

No, what I've been trying to say repeatedly is that science has told me absolutely nothing one way or another about God. Science could give a crap about God. When God does something that science can obesrve, we'll all throw a party, until then I'll keep using science to do my job well, and other people will use it to cure disease and still others will use it to design fun amusement park rides.

You can do whatever you want with God, you simply can't state though that science points to God, because it doesn't.

Now what on earth could I have done -- but of course God is not "earthly" -- to make you irritable with me?

Okay maybe it was the exasperation from LG's willful ignorance, but I will try to reign in my sarcasm and vitriol. Your discussion has been civil, I will do the same.

lifegazer

26th December 2003, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

You haven't a clue what I am talking about, do you? We all agree on reference frames for the olympics. If we didn't, then it could not actually be said who won.
And we can all agree upon reference frames as per dates/events upon Earth.
Did the Earth exist before the life upon it? Of course it did. Did no knowledge precede first knowledge. Of course it did.

lifegazer

26th December 2003, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

No he didn't, he said that the vacuum was nothingness.
"In instances of a certain type of vacuum (Rhindler)((SP?)) You can actually have particles and their anti-particle arise in virtual pairs out of ***absolute nothingness***"

He associates the vacuum with absolute-nothingness. Therefore, he says that there is absolutely nothing in the vacuum.

Andonyx

26th December 2003, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
So what is it all the cordiallity stops once Lifegazer makes an association with me? All I've said so far (or implied) is that we have a similar perspective, namely the belief in God. Now that isn't to say I accept everything he has to say hook, line and sinker. You got it? ;)

I have absolutely NO problem with someone believing in God.

That's spiffy. I'm happy for you.

What you cannot do is allow that belief to color your perception of the kinds of statements that one can make scientifically and the ones best left to the realm of philosophy.

I gave Lifegazer much more leeway than most when he first started posting here because he posted in Religion and Philosophy instead of science. I simply reminded him that once you start using scientific terms and concepts in your arguments you have to tread more carefully because the lexicon becomes much more specific and much easier to abuse and misinterpret.

If you want explain in a purely philosophical realm about your belief in God, great start a topic and let's hear it.

But This thread started out with a very very poor grasp of physics used to make a nebulous conclusion.

That's not philosophy, that's just someone ranting about science they don't understand.

RussDill

26th December 2003, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

And we can all agree upon reference frames as per dates/events upon Earth.
Did the Earth exist before the life upon it? Of course it did. Did no knowledge precede first knowledge. Of course it did.

Your assuming that that knowledge is not possessed elsewhere in the universe, in which case, it could not be said which was the first knowledge.

RussDill

26th December 2003, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

"In instances of a certain type of vacuum (Rhindler)((SP?)) You can actually have particles and their anti-particle arise in virtual pairs out of ***absolute nothingness***"

He associates the vacuum with absolute-nothingness. Therefore, he says that there is absolutely nothing in the vacuum.

He didn't say there was nothing in the vacuum, didn't he just say that virtual particles arise out of the vacuum?

Iacchus

26th December 2003, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Andonyx
The moment you do, let me know. I'll be happy to read it.Well, actually this is what I've been trying to do. If you would like to know more about my thoughts on the matter, perhaps you would be willing to follow the link to my book below?

Bye for now. :)

Terry

26th December 2003, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

f an entity has free-will, its actions will be indeterminate. Therefore, the fundamental energy of this entity is essentially indeterminate.

I'm still not sure I'm getting what you mean by fundamental energy. Consider a marble which is going to roll down a pin-board (like the picture <A href=http://www.met.rdg.ac.uk/~ross/Documents/Images/SchoolTalkA/Pic31.gif>here</A>). The path the marble takes will be indeterminate, but it still has a kown and well-defined energy.

Are you saying that God can violate the conservation laws of the universe? If so, what effects would this have that we can observe?

--Terry.

RussDill

26th December 2003, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, actually this is what I've been trying to do. If you would like to know more about my thoughts on the matter, perhaps you would be willing to follow the link to my book below?

Bye for now. :)

only if the quality of the book is not indicated in the "about the cover" passage. That type of numerology can really be made to come up with anything you want.

lifegazer

26th December 2003, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by Andonyx
"God, of course. Energy flows from God... and matter flows from God's energy.
Something cannot emanate from nothing in its absoluteness. It's plainly obvious. Aside from anything else, how can something reside within this nothingness?
And why or what would change absolute nothing into something?"

Obvious?
Why?

The answer is given in the proceeding questions you ignored.

C'mon seriously. I give you experimental and mathematical evidence that this occurs all the time, and somehow coming to the conlusion that some magic man in the sky did it is more rational to you.

You gave me mathematical evidence that if you take one step forward and one step back, that you have gone nowhere. So to speak. Zero is a concept which neutralises the concepts of positive and negative. But to assume that it equates to absolute nothingness is bad philosophy.

Look belief in God has nothing to do with this discussion. I have presented evidence; You have presented none whatsoever.

Read my other threads for that. This thread was to show the consistency of QM with the idea that there is a God. What say ye to that?

And ultimately, I cannot help but question the mentality behind someone who claims to hold an obvious proof of God's existence that anyone should be able to understand, and with this holy grail of both philosophy and science wastes so much time and effort posting on a message board.

Do you suggest I give George Bush a ring? Or the pope? Stephen Hawking perhaps? Well I would but I don't have their numbers.

Any moderately sane person who really believed this stuff would be busily and painstakingly preparing detailed and concisely written paper on his findings and working to publish it.

No established body of science, philosophy or religion will listen to me. What I have to say revolutionises everything. I am hated before I even begin. I have to start with my fellow pawns and paupers.

In case you hadn't noticed, most scientific achievments of note are handled by publishing to scientific peer reviewed journals. Not as you may think by nattering away endlessly on a message board.

Perhaps you misunderstand my motives. I do not desire academic citation or glory. Nor do I desire fame or financial reward. I do what I do to help facilitate the fulfilment of days.
Look around you. Visit a few forums. The God of reason/philosophy is making a decisive comeback.

What a complete waste of time an effort this coneversation has been...

That's upto you squire. I cannot force you to open your mind and discuss these things.

And what a complete waste of time and effort it must be simply being you.
Therein lies a thread of its own. I live my purpose... you live yours.

Iacchus

26th December 2003, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

only if the quality of the book is not indicated in the "about the cover" passage. That type of numerology can really be made to come up with anything you want. By all means then don't bother. I wouldn't want to waste your time.

RussDill

26th December 2003, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Read my other threads for that. This thread was to show the consistency of QM with the idea that there is a God. What say ye to that?

Your ideas got completely ripped apart and you have not defended any of them (only restated them).

No established body of science, philosophy or religion will listen to me. What I have to say revolutionises everything. I am hated before I even begin. I have to start with my fellow pawns and paupers.

maybe you should listen to what we say, eh?

Perhaps you misunderstand my motives. I do not desire academic citation or glory. Nor do I desire fame or financial reward. I do what I do to help facilitate the fulfilment of days.
Look around you. Visit a few forums. The God of reason/philosophy is making a decisive comeback.

I've looked around a bit, I haven't a clue what you are talking about.

That's upto you squire. I cannot force you to open your mind and discuss these things.

He has an open mind, I'm sure he'd be willing to question any belief he has. You however, have a closed mind, you are not willing to question your beliefs.

lifegazer

26th December 2003, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

Your assuming that that knowledge is not possessed elsewhere in the universe, in which case, it could not be said which was the first knowledge.
Well unless you're suggesting that little green men came to earth and presented first knowledge to life on Earth, we can know that first knowledge was gleaned without possessing any knowledge, simply by acknowledging the fact that it is first knowledge.

LFTKBS

26th December 2003, 03:32 PM

Lifegazer, please identify this equation and explain what it means to you.

RussDill

26th December 2003, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Well unless you're suggesting that little green men came to earth and presented first knowledge to life on Earth, we can know that first knowledge was gleaned without possessing any knowledge, simply by acknowledging the fact that it is first knowledge.

I'm not suggesting that, I saying that its completely pointless to talk about the first knowledge in the universe because its a nonsensical idea given the laws of physics as they are.

First knowledge on earth, first knowledge of man, that can be talked about. However, the first knowlegde on earth would have arisn long before the existence of man. Also, the first knowledge was most likely genetically imprinted.

lifegazer

26th December 2003, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by RussDill
He has an open mind, I'm sure he'd be willing to question any belief he has. You however, have a closed mind, you are not willing to question your beliefs.
Interesting. I've been accused of this before, by upchurch, who even started a thread about it.
Let's compare notes:
Russ
... Believes in an external (to awareness) realm. Will not budge on the issue even though he only has direct evidence of an internal (to mind) existence. Cannot see that the laws of physics apply to perceived reality, making them inner-laws.
Thinks he's a rational person and open-minded, merely because he has questioned religion. Does not realise that noticing the flaws in a specific [man made] religion only discredits that religion. It doesn't destroy the concept of an omnipresent God.
lifegazer
Doesn't trust any establishment, scientific, religious, or philosophical. Questions everything and everybody. Worships no man nor any idol. Kisses no butt and cares not for the consequences. Is open to pure reason only.
Result: my philosophy... due to a completely open-mind.

You cannot claim to have an open mind whilst you still believe in an external reality you have no evidence for and worship science as your saviour (for truth of reality).

RussDill

26th December 2003, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Interesting. I've been accused of this before, by upchurch, who even started a thread about it.
Let's compare notes:
Russ
... Believes in an external (to awareness) realm.

I do have a great deal of evidence that points in that direction.

Will not budge on the issue even though he only has direct evidence of an internal (to mind) existence.

I'm not sure what direct evidence you are talking about here. Just because you haven't changed my mind doesn't mean I won't budge. I'll happily budge given evidence to do so.

Cannot see that the laws of physics apply to perceived reality, making them inner-laws.

You see, perceived reality is reality (at least with a materialist assumption). You assumption makes it inner reality. I'd have to assume that all of reality is a vast illusion made be a superior mind.

Thinks he's a rational person and open-minded, merely because he has questioned religion.

I question everything, even materialism.

Does not realise that noticing the flaws in a specific [man made] religion only discredits that religion. It doesn't destroy the concept of an omnipresent God.

When did I ever mention anything like that? You enjoy making up all kinds of stuff about me lifegazer?

lifegazer
Doesn't trust any establishment, scientific, religious, or philosophical. Questions everything and everybody. Worships no man nor any idol. Kisses no butt and cares not for the consequences. Is open to pure reason only.
Result: my philosophy... due to a completely open-mind.

You fail to realize that questioning YOURSELF is just as important as questioning "The Man" (as your paranoid sensabilities seem to point). If you are not questioning yourself, you are even more closed minded than someone who does not question others. You have openly refused questioning your philosophy lifegazer.

You cannot claim to have an open mind whilst you still believe in an external reality you have no evidence for and worship science as your saviour (for truth of reality).

Your definition of openmindedness is accepting your philosophy. Mine is questioning everything, including yourself. If being open minded is freely and without question accepting some philosophy from someone on the internet who refuses to study science and philosophy, then call me closed minded.

BTW, I do have quite a lot of evidence for external reality, just not proof.

lifegazer

26th December 2003, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by LFTKBS
Lifegazer, please identify this equation and explain what it means to you.
It means you're a bozo for thinking it has any relevance to this conversation, or for thinking that it makes you smarter than me for knowing something I don't.

lifegazer

26th December 2003, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by RussDill
I do have a great deal of evidence that points in that direction.

You have no evidence. Every thing you know is reducible to inner-sensation and the [inner] reason thereof, with a bit of [inner] emotion thrown in for good measure.
The sensations occur WITHIN awareness. No man sees beyond his own mind. When you look into the awesomely large nightsky on a clear night and ponder those distant stars, you're just pondering the sensation of light within your boundless awareness. You haven't looked one measure beyond yourself.

You fail to realize that questioning YOURSELF is just as important as questioning "The Man" (as your paranoid sensabilities seem to point). If you are not questioning yourself, you are even more closed minded than someone who does not question others. You have openly refused questioning your philosophy lifegazer.

You tell me nothing that I never once believed myself. Do you think I was born with this philosophy?

RussDill

26th December 2003, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

You have no evidence. Every thing you know is reducible to inner-sensation and the [inner] reason thereof, with a bit of [inner] emotion thrown in for good measure.

you only assume that everything is reducable to inner sessation. The question at hand is "what is perceived reality", since perceived reality is what we observed. Materialts say perceived reality is reality. You say perceived reality is a vast illusion created be a superior intelligence.

The sensations occur WITHIN awareness. No man sees beyond his own mind. When you look into the awesomely large nightsky on a clear night and ponder those distant stars, you're just pondering the sensation of light within your boundless awareness. You haven't looked one measure beyond yourself.

again, it makes the question, what is perceived reality.

You tell me nothing that I never once believed myself. Do you think I was born with this philosophy?

ummm...when did I say that? Don't you think that after you come up with an idea, you should question it? I know I do.

Pahansiri

26th December 2003, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, things don't arise out of nowhere do they?

But what if one knows better? And how would it be possible for you to refute that?

And yet what if "somebody" does know? Indeed, what if that somebody were God?

But then again if I told you, how would you know? ...

As for the rest of your post, about "who" knows what, all I can say is I'm not a mind reader here. Sorry. :) [/B]

Greetings Iacchus

I had written Originally posted by Pahansiri
Why is that?

But first I did not bring up the unknown, lifegazer did. Our friend lifegazer was seeking to use what is known as proof for what is unknown( God).

You responded:
Well, things don't arise out of nowhere do they?

Natural causes ( a known and or becoming more known everyday)explain the rise and fall of all things very well and do so without adding to or including a unknown i.e.

If your statement is your proof of God may I ask if you believe all things need a source /creator who created God?

But what if one knows better? And how would it be possible for you to refute that?

But “one” lifegazer has not proven he knows better or has offered any facts to support his claim. What he does offer is easily shown to be illogical.

As to how would it be possible for me to refute his position, that is done with facts and logic and many times his own statements contradicting his own statements.

If you are saying I need to believe him or you or anyone just because they say what they say is the truth that is rather silly is it not?

Do you simply believe anything and everything someone tells you?

And yet what if "somebody" does know? Indeed, what if that somebody were God?

All they need do is prove it. Rather simple is it not? It should be greatly so if as “one” says they hold the one and only truth and are the only one that does it should be easy to prove and chare this truth and facts.

Of course if they are God it should be even more so easy to make us believe as it wishes for if they could not they would not be all powerful would they?

But then again if I told you, how would you know? ...

A lovely dance but just present the facts and we will go from there. If you hold this truth these facts just offer them up, why do you wait?
As for the rest of your post, about "who" knows what, all I can say is I'm not a mind reader here. Sorry.

? but you in your last post were telling me what I thought and how I acted.

You perhaps missed a great part of my post so may I post it again in hope you will be so kind and respectful as to answer.

You had said And here, we're only speaking of that which is unknown to man.

And I responded which it seems you missed.

Man is the only known we can speak of by as statement of fact and not a statement of belief.

If you say you can speak to what a unknown ( God) knows you need to follow these steps.

1- Prove God
2- Prove this God is your God
3- Prove you know what this God knows
4- Unless you can you prove you know all that can be known you can not even if you could prove God prove you know “he” knows all to be known.

Also

But are you telling me you understand the unknown? What unknown is that all possible “unknowns” Now that is a WOW.

How do you “understand” an unknown? If you understand it is it not then known?

I look forward to your honest answers.

Be well

Pahansiri

26th December 2003, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Iacchus. It's nice to see you again. How's life at pf?

Do I smell sock puppet or is it Hamster?:D

Iacchus

26th December 2003, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Pahansiri

Do I smell sock puppet or is it Hamster?:D No. Dingle berries.

Pahansiri

26th December 2003, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
No. Dingle berries.

Not that is mature. May I assume you also will not offer facts to support your belief and we need just follow you blindly also?

:rub:

Zero

26th December 2003, 06:40 PM

My larger question is how Lifegazer can claim that physics, which he doesn't understand or actively study, can confirm a 'philosophy' which is incoherent and as logical as a bycycle for a fish.

lifegazer

27th December 2003, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by Zero
My larger question is how Lifegazer can claim that physics, which he doesn't understand or actively study, can confirm a 'philosophy' which is incoherent and as logical as a bycycle for a fish.
You don't have to be a quantum physicist to be aware of the inderminate nature of particles, alongside the fact that they have a dual nature, existing as ~waves~ until observed.

This is the only info I need for my argument. And I don't need it to prove anything about God... I just need it to show that God, with 'his' indeterminate nature/energy, is fully consistent with this base knowledge pertaining to QM.

lifegazer

27th December 2003, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by Pahansiri

Do I smell sock puppet or is it Hamster?:D
Actually, if I remember correctly, Iacchus believes that there is an external reality. I know that our philosophies are different anyway, though we share the ultimate conclusion, I think.

lifegazer

27th December 2003, 01:18 AM

Originally posted by RussDill
You say perceived reality is a vast illusion created be a superior intelligence.

I've argued for this in detail within the "upchurch's question" thread. Abstract sensations/experiences have to be chosen and created by the entity that has them.

Pahansiri

27th December 2003, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

You don't have to be a quantum physicist to be aware of the inderminate nature of particles, alongside the fact that they have a dual nature, existing as ~waves~ until observed.

This is the only info I need for my argument. And I don't need it to prove anything about God... I just need it to show that God, with 'his' indeterminate nature/energy, is fully consistent with this base knowledge pertaining to QM.

I do feel so badly for you my friend. You try so desperately to something the seems to be intelligent and to demonstrate that you know something i.e. You don't have to be a quantum physicist to be aware of the inderminate nature of particles, alongside the fact that they have a dual nature, existing as ~waves~ until observed.

But then say something like this This is the only info I need for my argument. And I don't need it to prove anything about God... I just need it to show that God, with 'his' indeterminate nature/energy, is fully consistent with this base knowledge pertaining to QM.

You could not be more wrong. You DO need to prove God before you can say as a fact that God is and has a “indeterminate nature/energy”.

To say something is a fact I just need it to show that God, with 'his' indeterminate nature/energy, you need to first show it to be a fact then compare it to a known or what would be another known.

What you are doing now is trying to compare a complete un proven belief i.e. God to a known QM and say the known (QM) proves your unknown.

You only make yourself look foolish.

Lets take your statement and say it this way changing a few words.

[quote] This is the only info I need for my argument. And I don't need it to prove anything about little green men... I just need it to show that little green men..., with 'his' indeterminate nature/energy, is fully consistent with this base knowledge pertaining to QM.[/b]
:rolleyes:

Pahansiri

27th December 2003, 06:48 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Actually, if I remember correctly, Iacchus believes that there is an external reality. I know that our philosophies are different anyway, though we share the ultimate conclusion, I think.

You should add neither of you will or will attempt to conduct a logical, factual mature conversation.

Let go of your closed minded childish actions and share in a logical conversation and say you can not prove God but there are things you believe may support your beliefs.

metacristi

27th December 2003, 09:52 AM

lifegazer

My philosophy is fully consistent with the duality of classical physics and QM. More highly significant evidence that this philosophy should be taken seriously.
In fact, no other philosophy can make sense of this dual reality, other than a philosophy which acknowledges the free-will of the source of perceived existence, thus explaining the distinction between QM and classical.

I'm afraid your arguments are too vague and fail to strengthen the case of idealism.Anyway all tenable forms of idealism (Berkeleyan or variations of Matrix hypothesis) are,in what regards the power of explanation of all observed facts,indistinguishable from the system based on the scientific axioms.In spite of the fact that the Berkeleyan proposal (where your own stance seem to derive from) is basically non falsifiable (for the matrix hypothesis there are slight chances to disprove it) the hypothesis is considered as very serious by all respectable philosophers and scientists.That's why one of the basic assumptions of science (axioms of science) is the apriori rejection of all forms of idealism.Science does not need idealism to explain observed facts,the basis of all 'objective knowledge',of rationality ultimately,but neither can it disprove it.At least for the moment.

Even if your position were fully consistent with the actual hypotheses in QM,fallible by the way,having also power of explanation in general,probably you are aware that it remains a simple philosophical hypothesis,for the moment at least.

Since we do not need to postulate the existence of new entities to explain/interpret quantum effects,we have empirically and theoretically progressive scientifc theories/hypotheses,and the fact that science and the scientific method (including the methodology to make the difference between science and pdeudoscientific/philosophical hypotheses) have epistemological privilege (the scientific method is,still,the best empirical method known) such an alternative approach belongs entirely to philoshopical discussions and do not entitle one to claim that it has epistemical privilege over the current scientific explanations or that all would be rational people should believe it.

Of course you might be even right in absolute,unfortunately from experiments and the best methodology to establish what is real/the most likely to be real (the scientific method) we cannot derive the conclusion that our reality is not fundamental or that we live 'in the mind of God'.Hence,currently,idealism cannot go beyond the status of simple philosophical hypothesis.

If you only want to discuss your hypothesis,without positive claims,everything is OK (you might be honest enough though to recognize you are wrong when others prove your arguments invalid or not sound -assuming you know enough logic).

But if you make the positive claim that your hypothesis has epistemological privilege over that of science then,even if your arguments were perfectly sound logically,either you have to present sound experimental evidence (at least an equal,but simpler,scientific hypothesis) for that if you accept the current variant of the scientific method or to present a new methodology,proved superior with sufficient arguments,to the scientific method.

LFTKBS

27th December 2003, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

It means you're a bozo for thinking it has any relevance to this conversation, or for thinking that it makes you smarter than me for knowing something I don't.

Uh, your thread's called "Quantum Reality and Idealism," hoss. I want to see some math here, especially as it pertains to QM. You pseudointellectuals take a perfectly good field of inquiry, misinterpret it - or don't bother to study it at all - then slap a gaudy-looking angel on the cover along with "Quantum" in large bold Comic Sans and sell it to your fellow man as some sort of life-affirming Lisa Frank Trapper Keeper Bullsh*t for $24.95 plus tax.

I'm a little sick of it. Do your own work, johnnies-come-lately, and stop misappropriating important discoveries to make a quick buck, get on Oprah, or fulfill your perverse desire to be famous without contributing anything to society. I'm pointing the finger squarely at you, lifegazer.

Iacchus

27th December 2003, 12:03 PM

Does anybody know what an "original thought" is by the way?

Zero

27th December 2003, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Does anybody know what an "original thought" is by the way? Yep...what's your point?

RussDill

27th December 2003, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

You don't have to be a quantum physicist to be aware of the inderminate nature of particles, alongside the fact that they have a dual nature, existing as ~waves~ until observed.

When did anyone ever say you had to by a quantum physicist? You don't. However, you have to know a hell of a lot more about QM than you do. You understanding is incomplete and incorrect, and thus, your conclusions are incompelete and incorrect.

This is the only info I need for my argument. And I don't need it to prove anything about God... I just need it to show that God, with 'his' indeterminate nature/energy, is fully consistent with this base knowledge pertaining to QM.

Your incomplete and incorrect understanding has caused you to instead show that your philosophy is inconsistent with QM.

UndercoverElephant

27th December 2003, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Does anybody know what an "original thought" is by the way?

This has to be the most transparent sock-puppet of all time. :rolleyes:

[edit]

Oops! No. I forgot the hamster. :)

RussDill

27th December 2003, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I've argued for this in detail within the "upchurch's question" thread. Abstract sensations/experiences have to be chosen and created by the entity that has them.

[RE: "You say perceived reality is a vast illusion created be a superior intelligence."]

ah yes, the upchurch's question thread, I remember I provided a solid argument against each one of your points, to which you responding "you are a poopie head", er, no wait, sorry "Russ, up the quality or get back to the back row."

Pretty similar to this thread, I've provided a number of solid arguments, and you've responded to none of those arguments.

Zero

27th December 2003, 12:35 PM

I was reading about this sort of thing last night, in regards to creationist nonsense...and how they look for a "magic bullet", a single piece of science that 'confirms' their crackpot ideas. The problem, of course, is that scientific ideas don't exist as isolated bits of information, from which you can pick and choose. If you decide to use information from QM, for instance, you are stuck with either using the MAJORITY of QM in your argument, or none at all. You can't pick one tiny part that you agree with, and disregard the parts which contradict your crackpottery.

Pahansiri

27th December 2003, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Does anybody know what an "original thought" is by the way?

I believe everyone does ( just my opinion) why do you ask?

If you mean that we need except an "original thought" as fact simply because someone demands it is fact but fails to support it with any facts I believe you may need to reexamine your postion.

May I ask AGAIN do you believe everything anyone tells you simply because they tell you it is the truth?

Zero

27th December 2003, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Pahansiri

I believe everyone does ( just my opinion) why do you ask?

If you mean that we need except an "original thought" as fact simply because someone demands it is fact but fails to support it with any facts I believe you may need to reexamine your postion.

May I ask AGAIN do you believe everything anyone tells you simply because they tell you it is the truth? He doesn't believe EVERYTHING...just the things that run contrary to logic and accepted ideas.

Iacchus

27th December 2003, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by JustGeoff

This has to be the most transparent sock-puppet of all time. :rolleyes:

[edit]

Oops! No. I forgot the hamster. :) Actually I don't know what a sock-puppet is? Is this one of those things you would term a "James Randi" colloquialism? Hmm ... Whose puppet are we referring to here? :p

Iacchus

27th December 2003, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by Zero

He doesn't believe EVERYTHING...just the things that run contrary to logic and accepted ideas. Well, we'll just have to take "your word" for that one I guess. :p

Pahansiri

27th December 2003, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, we'll just have to take "your word" for that one I guess. :D

You can change that by proving him wrong. This can be done by actually answering a question and presenting supporting facts and logical conclusion.

The fault does not lie with Zero and his statement it lies with you and your proving his statement to be valid.

Iacchus

27th December 2003, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Pahansiri

You can change that by proving him wrong. This can be done by actually answering a question and presenting supporting facts and logical conclusion.

The fault does not lie with Zero and his statement it lies with you and your proving his statement to be valid. No, he's the one who's making the claim, not me. :p

Zero

27th December 2003, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, we'll just have to take "your word" for that one I guess. :p The proof is in your own posting...if Lifegazer posts something that runs contrary to what he claims it does, and you post in defense of him, we are forced to think something about you; namely, that you care more about 'original thinking'(even though Lifegazer shows neither originality or thinking), and don't have very much respect for the accepted ideas that science and real philosophers have to offer.

Iacchus

27th December 2003, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Zero
The proof is in your own posting...if Lifegazer posts something that runs contrary to what he claims it does, and you post in defense of him, we are forced to think something about you; namely, that you care more about 'original thinking'(even though Lifegazer shows neither originality or thinking), and don't have very much respect for the accepted ideas that science and real philosophers have to offer. Boy it's just way over your heads now isn't? But then again I suppose that's where people would point when you asked them where god is now wouldn't they? :clap:

Zero

27th December 2003, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Boy it's just way over your heads now isn't? But then again I suppose that's where people would point when you asked them where god is now wouldn't they? :clap: This post doesn't make any sense...which is par for the course, I suppose.

lifegazer

27th December 2003, 01:27 PM

Particles only exist within awareness. This is a fact which can be shown with an experiment I can cite, pertaining to 1 electron and two paths.
Until seen within an observing awareness, things do not exist as definite particles or definite objects.
The world of definites is something only occuring within the consciousness of an observer.
Hence, a divisible reality (of definites) is something only occuring within the consciousness of an observer.
Hence, reality is truly indivisible, devoid of definites.
Hence, reality is the Mind itself.

Say hello to God ladies and gents.

Zero

27th December 2003, 01:30 PM

Pahansiri

27th December 2003, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Particles only exist within awareness. This is a fact which can be shown with an experiment I can cite, pertaining to 1 electron and two paths.
Until seen within an observing awareness, things do not exist as definite particles or definite objects.
The world of definites is something only occuring within the consciousness of an observer.
Hence, a divisible reality (of definites) is something only occuring within the consciousness of an observer.
Hence, reality is truly indivisible, devoid of definites.
Hence, reality is the Mind itself.

Say hello to God ladies and gents.

My friend you are living proof a little bit of knowledge is dangerous.

Particles only exist within awareness.

Wrong. Matter and energy are not created nor distorted, “they” exist and they exist far beyond what we humans can see even with the most powerful telescope.

Particles, matter and energy do not simply come into existence when you look at them.

You have confused a tiny bit of information you heard with what is reality.

Particles, let us say red or green light particles do not simply come into existence one observed they change color. I.e. a wave of red Particles will by ½ or ½ of them change into green Particles.

You are making yourself look foolish here. Go read, read and learn about what you speak before you speak.

I will ask you this question [/quote]again[/quote].

Everyday our technology improves so as we can see deeper and deeper into space. We find planets or suns we had not yet seen or we see the light remnants of the death of suns or planets.

In the case of the light remnants of the death of suns or planets these planets or suns/starts died billions of years ago and were “born” hundreds of billions of years before that.

Do you know anything about light speed?

No humans as we know them as to Earth observed these suns/planets yet there is proof they existed. Do you REALLY believe that on Monday when a new telescope finds and identifies a new star, that that star did not exist as a star the second before they observed it?

Billions of years of the causes and conditions behind the rising/birth of a star, the forming of gasses to solids simply happened in that split second…

HELLO…. THINK!!!!

This is a fact which can be shown with an experiment I can cite, pertaining to 1 electron and two paths.
Until seen within an observing awareness, things do not exist as definite particles or definite objects.

WRONG…

The world of definites WHAT is definites ? a new word that just came into existence when you observed it?)is something only occuring spelled occurring within the consciousness of an observer.

Wrong. Again did that sun just simply come into existence when the first scientist observed it?

Hence, a divisible reality (of definites) is something only occuring within the consciousness of an observer.

1st there is no word in the English language “definites” .
2nd “occuring” is spelled occurring.
3rd you are living proof a little bit of knowledge is a danger.
Hence, reality is truly indivisible, devoid of definites.

well no one can say you are wrong here as no one but you knows ( if you do) what definites means.

Hence, reality is the Mind itself.

What is funny is in the greatest reality you are right you just do not know why you are right.

Allow me to again show you what Einstein had to say concerning this ( I know I know you said you are smarter then Einstein. But allow me to let you in on a secret Einstein knew how to spell occurring.

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. Albert Einstein

Say hello to God ladies and gents.

You are such a silly boy.

Even if you were right you have proven minds not God..

Again you seek to say because a known exist it proves your unknown..

Such a silly boy..

Here is a site for you http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/subst/home/home.html/104-0881426-7338347 they sell things called BOOKS there. Buy some and read them.

Pahansiri

27th December 2003, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, he's the one who's making the claim, not me. :p

Not at all. YOU made the claim, God is a fact and that lifegazer is right and we are wrong for not believing him.. Prove it and we will all agree with you.

Are you new to this thinking thing?:rub:

Zero

27th December 2003, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Pahansiri

Not at all. YOU made the claim, God is a fact and that lifegazer is right and we are wrong for not believing him.. Prove it and we will all agree with you.

Are you new to this thinking thing?:rub: Be nice, he can't help himself...maybe you should take him under your wing, teach him to be rational?

Pahansiri

27th December 2003, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Be nice, he can't help himself...maybe you should take him under your wing, teach him to be rational?

lol..

No Zero my friend I believe he is a rational person just not when it comes to things he wants to be true like lifegazer They first set what they want to be true then seek to use what is true to make their belief seem true.

The desire for what they want to be true blinds them to the facts and realities that demonstrate what they believe is not true or has yet to be proven to be true.

Both smart kids/ guys just lead by ego rather then rational thinking on some things.

Just what I believe.

Fishboot

27th December 2003, 02:31 PM

If you know a certain critical amount about QM and physics in general, this guy will fail to bother you enough to post; If you don't know the certain critical amount you are not qualified to educate him. A devilish conundrum, I'd say...

Zero

27th December 2003, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Fishboot
If you know a certain critical amount about QM and physics in general, this guy will fail to bother you enough to post; If you don't know the certain critical amount you are not qualified to educate him. A devilish conundrum, I'd say... Since you posted, can we judge which camp you belong to?:p

lifegazer

27th December 2003, 02:50 PM

Energy does not exist as a definite particle within spacetime except within the awareness of an observer. This is a fact which any physicist will confirm with basic-known axioms of QM.
The realm of definites IS a realm of mind.
The realm of definites is a realm of division/separation in relation to other definites.
Yet this realm does not exist, except within the mind.
The realm of definites is an illusion. There is no division.
Reality is indivisible.
Only the Mind exists.

Now... acknowledge your God.

Pahansiri

27th December 2003, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Energy does not exist as a definite particle within spacetime except within the awareness of an observer. This is a fact which any physicist will confirm with basic-known axioms of QM.
The realm of definites IS a realm of mind.
The realm of definites is a realm of division/separation in relation to other definites.
Yet this realm does not exist, except within the mind.
The realm of definites is an illusion. There is no division.
Reality is indivisible.
Only the Mind exists.

Now... acknowledge your God.

Go back and read my post over and over and over then do as I Recommend and buy books and read them you clearly have no grasp of this or any topic you have sought to speak on..

By the by way to avoid my questions again.. Fear not you have not the tools to answer so no one expected you to.
:rub:

Zero

27th December 2003, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Energy does not exist as a definite particle within spacetime except within the awareness of an observer. This is a fact which any physicist will confirm with basic-known axioms of QM.
The realm of definites IS a realm of mind.
The realm of definites is a realm of division/separation in relation to other definites.
Yet this realm does not exist, except within the mind.
The realm of definites is an illusion. There is no division.
Reality is indivisible.
Only the Mind exists.

Now... acknowledge your God. Have you bothered to consult a physicist? Read a book?

lifegazer

27th December 2003, 03:06 PM

Your mind is sealed with a lock guarded by foolishness.
I can do no more for you.

Zero

27th December 2003, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Your mind is sealed with a lock guarded by foolishness.
I can do no more for you. This is so much the pot calling the kettle black. You have been convinced of your own infallibility for years, which is the absolute definition of 'close minded'. You haven't changed your mind, even after having been confronted with fact upon fact showing that your 'philosophy' is neither original, nor based on anything more than your wishful thinking and misinterpretation of the facts.

lifegazer

27th December 2003, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Zero
This is so much the pot calling the kettle black. You have been convinced of your own infallibility for years, which is the absolute definition of 'close minded'. You haven't changed your mind, even after having been confronted with fact upon fact showing that your 'philosophy' is neither original, nor based on anything more than your wishful thinking and misinterpretation of the facts.
Look Zero, the essential indeterminancy of fundamental energy is kindergarten QM. Your squeels of denial are pitiable.

Pahansiri

27th December 2003, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Your mind is sealed with a lock guarded by foolishness.
I can do no more for you.

We watch the contradictions pile up. YOU said there is no mind other then Gods mind, you said only God exists and if God exists nothing else exist.

So how can “my “ mind sealed with a lock guarded by foolishness. If there is no “my” mind?

I will ask for the, well I am not sure how many times it is now. Do you really know what you believe?

Please allow me to post the question you again avoided.

Everyday our technology improves so as we can see deeper and deeper into space. We find planets or suns we had not yet seen or we see the light remnants of the death of suns or planets.

In the case of the light remnants of the death of suns or planets these planets or suns/starts died billions of years ago and were “born” hundreds of billions of years before that.

Do you know anything about light speed?

No humans as we know them as to Earth observed these suns/planets yet there is proof they existed. Do you REALLY believe that on Monday when a new telescope finds and identifies a new star, that that star did not exist as a star the second before they observed it?

Billions of years of the causes and conditions behind the rising/birth of a star, the forming of gasses to solids simply happened in that split second…

Is it your position that this star did not exist yesterday?

I do not expect you to answer I just enjoy others seeing you are not honest enough or believe enough in what you say is truth to try to answer or defend your statements.
;)

UndercoverElephant

27th December 2003, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Actually I don't know what a sock-puppet is? Is this one of those things you would term a "James Randi" colloquialism? Hmm ... Whose puppet are we referring to here? :p

YOURS, NAPPY BOY. :)

Zero

27th December 2003, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Look Zero, the essential indeterminancy of fundamental energy is kindergarten QM. Your squeels of denial are pitiable. "Fundamental energy"? Why is that term so unfamiliar to me? What reference book did it come from, and what is its definition? How is it described in relation to electromagnetism and the nuclear forces?

Pahansiri

27th December 2003, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Look Zero, the essential indeterminancy of fundamental energy is kindergarten QM. Your squeels of denial are pitiable.

Read my post again over and over and the post of the others.

You are in over your head and making yourself look the fool.

You confuse some small misunderstood information for reality.

p.s. indeterminancy is spelled indeterminacy

Zero

27th December 2003, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by Pahansiri

Read my post again over and over and the post of the others.

You are in over your head and making yourself look the fool.

You confuse some small misunderstood information for reality.

p.s. indeterminancy is spelled indeterminacy Go Spelling Police!!!

UndercoverElephant

27th December 2003, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Pahansiri

lol..

No Zero my friend I believe he is a rational person just not when it comes to things he wants to be true like lifegazer They first set what they want to be true then seek to use what is true to make their belief seem true.

The desire for what they want to be true blinds them to the facts and realities that demonstrate what they believe is not true or has yet to be proven to be true.

Both smart kids/ guys just lead by ego rather then rational thinking on some things.

Just what I believe.

Pahansiri,

Ego is what does the thinking. That's why those who meditate seek to stop the thought.

Lifegazer can neither think properly nor not-think properly.

Geoff.

Zero

27th December 2003, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by JustGeoff

Pahansiri,

Ego is what does the thinking. That's why those who meditate seek to stop the thought.

Lifegazer can neither think properly nor not-think properly.

Geoff. I was thinking he has the 'not thinking' down to a science....or at least down to a religion.;)

Pahansiri

27th December 2003, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Go Spelling Police!!!

Zero really I do not mean to act like a Spelling Police and find it rude in most cases. My point with our friend is he demands he is the sole in the history of the word, holder of truth and knowledge. That all others are stupid yet his spelling ( along with simple ability to think logically) is very poor.

One would expect from a perfect all knowing being like him that he could at least spell.

I know my many limitations.

UndercoverElephant

27th December 2003, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Zero
I was thinking he has the 'not thinking' down to a science....or at least down to a religion.;)

Zero,

I have no problem with you, since I consider Zero to be closer to God than any other word invented by humanity. But please understand that Lifegazer is as remote from mysticism as he is from logic, mathematics and science. You have three times claimed he meditates to find his answers. I tell you any person who meditates could not possibly end up like this obscene excuse for a human being. He cannot think and he does not understand the relevance of non-thought. Non-thought and bad thought are not the same tihing.

:(

Geoff.

Pahansiri

27th December 2003, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by JustGeoff

Lifegazer can neither think properly nor not-think properly.

Geoff.

Hello my friend.

I would say as to this topic that is the case. His desire for this to be fact blinds him to the fact.

Science is not about making a belief seem true it is about seeking truth no matter how it may compare with what you may desire to be true as you know.

Zero

27th December 2003, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Pahansiri

Zero really I do not mean to act like a Spelling Police and find it rude in most cases. My point with our friend is he demands he is the sole in the history of the word, holder of truth and knowledge. That all others are stupid yet his spelling ( along with simple ability to think logically) is very poor.

One would expect from a perfect all knowing being like him that he could at least spell.

I know my many limitations. It is whole aversion to opening a book occasionally that causes it. He probably watches TV occasionally, and catches popular science shows. Where he got the idea that he didn't need to study the subjects that he claims to understand is beyond me...but at least he could spell better, right? Since he is worthy of worship and all...

...wait, he doesn't want to be worshipped, which is why he spells words incorrectly on purpose!!

Pahansiri

27th December 2003, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by JustGeoff

Zero,

I have no problem with you, since I consider Zero to be closer to God than any other word invented by humanity.

:(

Geoff.

I would agree, as I see Zero Evidence to support the God idea.

But more far more relevant Zero Evidence to support why it is relevant.

Just what I believe.

Zero

27th December 2003, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by JustGeoff

Zero,

I have no problem with you, since I consider Zero to be closer to God than any other word invented by humanity. But please understand that Lifegazer is as remote from mysticism as he is from logic, mathematics and science. You have three times claimed he meditates to find his answers. I tell you any person who meditates could not possibly end up like this obscene excuse for a human being. He cannot think and he does not understand the relevance of non-thought. Non-thought and bad thought are not the same tihing.

:(

Geoff. No, I agree with you completely. As far as I knew, most mysticism depends on getting beyond your ego. By contrast, Lifegazer's sole goal seems to be building up his ego, which flies in the face of the vast majority of spiritual thought.

He could be looking in the mirror for hours every day, for all the good meditation does him, since all he sees is himself and his biases reflected back at him.

UndercoverElephant

27th December 2003, 03:38 PM

Pahansiri.

I believe in n0thing at all. ;)

Geoff.

Pahansiri

27th December 2003, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Pahansiri.

I believe in n0thing at all. ;)

Geoff.

as it should be nothing at all and everything in all.

Dancing David

27th December 2003, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
What can be more abstract than something you don't understand? And why does science claim that God can't be understood? ... because it's too abstract? And yet so many of the religious folk will say all you have to do is believe ... in something you don't understand? Hmm ... that doesn't seem to cut it either now does it?

You define god as abstract just because you choose to do so. Others have ofetn seen thier god in very concrete terms.

I have never claimed that god can't be understood, that is only for weaklings who don't want to put there treasured delusions to the test.

Unlike monist thinking which believes that all reality is a product of some vauge Mind, I believe that there is this *something* and then there are the human thoughts about that something. I haven't really seen any proof of god outside of those thoughts.

Your anwer would indicate that you don't care either way.
I hope your are not just a troll like lifegazer.

Iacchus

27th December 2003, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by JustGeoff

YOURS, NAPPY BOY. :)
I seem to be missing something else here. Sorry.

RussDill

27th December 2003, 08:55 PM

*sigh*, you want to first defend what you said before moving on? I guess not. I don't know even why I'm bothering correcting your misunderstandings here, as you will not defend yourself, but instead claim everyone is intellectually inferior and then move on to your evolution argument. no arms...no arms...

Originally posted by lifegazer
Particles only exist within awareness.

Here is the theory you set out to prove. To be able to come close to proving it, you'll have to firstly disprove the materialist viewpoint, and secondly prove its consistent with your viewpoint.

This is a fact which can be shown with an experiment I can cite, pertaining to 1 electron and two paths.

I'll assume here the double slit experiment. Definately a classic. Anyone interesting in reading up on it (Except lifegazer of course, who will refuse) should go here for a good primer:

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/DoubleSlit/DoubleSlit.html

read down at the bottom where it talks about electrons. You can google some more if you are interested in the actual math on it (yes lifegazer, the wave equation for the electron will allow you to predict the behavior in the double slit experiment, its already explained).

Until seen within an observing awareness, things do not exist as definite particles or definite objects.

hmm...the double slit experiment never talks about any of this. You are making a huge leap past the experiment here. You will have to expand here. Lemme take some guesses on where you are getting this.

In the double slit experiment, because the electron is a wave, working out the equation means that the wave of probability actually goes through both slits, building up the pattern. If you wanted to measure which slit the electron was going through, you would collapse the wave function. Sounds very complex, it isn't, you are just fixing its probabilty at a particular location. Doing so has an effect on the electron, and effects the pattern it makes (as seen in the equations).

Now, to collapse the wave function, what you need is something similar to a light source, to bounce off the electron. You can then determine which way the electron went.

Now, note that the purpose of the "light source" in the experiment was to observe the electron, but it wasn't the observation that collapsed the wave function, it was the "light source".

Can I break this down any clearer to show that it has nothing to do with an "observing source"?

The world of definites is something only occuring within the consciousness of an observer.

The world of a concious observer differs in no way from reality, because they are the same. (until you prove otherwise).

Hence, a divisible reality (of definites) is something only occuring within the consciousness of an observer.

There is no hence here, you need to back up and confront the argument that I have brought against your post.

Hence, reality is truly indivisible, devoid of definites.

I'm not sure why you go so far to attempt to show this, since even if reality is all precise probabilities within certain constraints (as QM shows) it doesn't show any mind, it just shows QM.

Hence, reality is the Mind itself.

You need to show what relation a QM reality has with a superior intelligence, you haven't shown any.

Say hello to God ladies and gents.

Say hello to a fool who watched a show (or more likely listened to another fool who thought he understood QM) on QM and then actually believes that he understands it.

RussDill

27th December 2003, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Energy does not exist as a definite particle within spacetime except within the awareness of an observer. This is a fact which any physicist will confirm with basic-known axioms of QM.

No it isn't, an observer has no bearing on whether particles exist or do not exist. Show me what part of QM says that.

The realm of definites IS a realm of mind.

Meaningless statement. You haven't show "The Mind".

The realm of definites is a realm of division/separation in relation to other definites.

Again, another meaningless statement.

Yet this realm does not exist, except within the mind.

Even more meaningless.

The realm of definites is an illusion. There is no division.

We live in a QM world. What of it? It proves nothing about your mind.

Reality is indivisible.

We went over that before. It ending with you ignoring posts, insulting everyone else's intelligence, and moving onto another thread.

Only the Mind exists.

You haven't shown the mind to exist, much less only the mind existing.

Now... acknowledge your God.

Materialism explains all this perfectly, maybe its time for you to seriously start thinking about it, since your philosophy is not actually based on QM, but your misunderstanding of QM.

RussDill

27th December 2003, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Your mind is sealed with a lock guarded by foolishness.
I can do no more for you.

Once again lifegazer, I've explained this to you, and you have failed to respond. Everyone of us is willing to change any facet of our understanding (any many have changed things about their understanding) given the proper reason and evidence.

You however, publicly refuse to consider new evidence or reason regarding your ideas. That is truly an idea sealed away with lock and key.

RussDill

27th December 2003, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Look Zero, the essential indeterminancy of fundamental energy is kindergarten QM. Your squeels of denial are pitiable.

Really, show me any QM theory or paper that talks about "fundamental energy". Its a meaningless term that you pulled out of your ass, so stop acting like QM stands behind it.

Zero

27th December 2003, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

Really, show me any QM theory or paper that talks about "fundamental energy". Its a meaningless term that you pulled out of your ass, so stop acting like QM stands behind it. asked him the same question 6 hours ago, and he hasn't been back since...

One of the problems with Lifegazer is that he defines one incoherent concept by referencing a different incoherent concept. Eventually, you get the impression that he has absolutely no clue about what he is talking about.

Iacchus

27th December 2003, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David

You define god as abstract just because you choose to do so. Others have ofetn seen thier god in very concrete terms.I choose to define God as abstract because others choose to do so for me. Whereas to most "rationally" minded people, God is abstract. In which case I'm just trying to work with the "given definition."

I have never claimed that god can't be understood, that is only for weaklings who don't want to put there treasured delusions to the test.Indeed, if it can't be understood, then why bother to bring it up?

Unlike monist thinking which believes that all reality is a product of some vauge Mind, I believe that there is this *something* and then there are the human thoughts about that something. I haven't really seen any proof of god outside of those thoughts.The proof of God is you, by virtue of the fact that you have both a physical and, a spiritual side. In which case it's "you" that must maintain this.

Your anwer would indicate that you don't care either way.This was only my attempt to make sense out of your post which wasn't very clear.

I hope your are not just a troll like lifegazer. The way I see it is that if God exists, and physics exist as well, then there must be an interelationship that exists between the two. And, while I'm not all that up physics which, is why I don't tend to come accross the way Lifegazer does, I do acknowledge much of what Lifegazer has to say about God -- and indeed, this seems to be the message he's trying to get across -- which, I have pretty much concluded for myself. So in that respect I think he and I do have a common interest.

However, although I do believe everything emanates from the "Mind of God," I do believe in an everyday "physical reality" as well which, most of us are still subject to (at least for now).

UndercoverElephant

28th December 2003, 02:28 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
I seem to be missing something else here. Sorry.

SOCK. PUPPET.

UndercoverElephant

28th December 2003, 05:27 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
I seem to be missing something else here. Sorry.

What you are missing is an awareness of what other people see when they look at you. You have already started a thread trying to humiliate me, only to realise it was a big mistake and then claim "your hamster" posted it. You then tried lame humour to mask the fact that you have made yourself look like a total idiot. Now, you have created a sockpuppet because you have no other support on this forum, and you actually think you can fool people into believing it isn't you.

Well, Lifegazer, it was pretty obvious to me that this is your sockpuppet, but just our of interest I just typed "Iachuss" into google.

What do you think I found?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=iachuss

You are the most pathetic human being I have ever encountered. :(

Pahansiri

28th December 2003, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
I choose to define God as abstract because others choose to do so for me. Whereas to most "rationally" minded people, God is abstract. In which case I'm just trying to work with the "given definition."

Indeed, if it can't be understood, then why bother to bring it up?

The proof of God is you, by virtue of the fact that you have both a physical and, a spiritual side. In which case it's "you" that must maintain this.

This was only my attempt to make sense out of your post which wasn't very clear.

The way I see it is that if God exists, and physics exist as well, then there must be an interelationship that exists between the two. And, while I'm not all that up physics which, is why I don't tend to come accross the way Lifegazer does, I do acknowledge much of what Lifegazer has to say about God -- and indeed, this seems to be the message he's trying to get across -- which, I have pretty much concluded for myself. So in that respect I think he and I do have a common interest.

However, although I do believe everything emanates from the "Mind of God," I do believe in an everyday "physical reality" as well which, most of us are still subject to (at least for now).

Iacchus wrote: I choose to define God as abstract because others choose to do so for me. [quote]

I respect that. May I ask you define these /this abstract?

[quote]Whereas to most "rationally" minded people, God is abstract.

Yes only "rationally" minded think like you do all other are crazy, right?

Your self image and maturity problems are showing.

In which case I'm just trying to work with the "given definition."

Unless you can prove this is the "given definition." I will provide the actual definition.

God is a belief a concept that has behind it millions if not billions of definitions.

Until proof, actual hard facts arise it is just a belief and one to be respected as the beliefs of others need be but just a belief and not fact.

Dancing David wrote: I have never claimed that god can't be understood, that is only for weaklings who don't want to put there treasured delusions to the test.

You responded Indeed, if it can't be understood, then why bother to bring it up?

Do you read and comprehend what is written?

Dancing David said I have never claimed that god can't be understood,

He did not say it could NOT be understood so your statement Indeed, if it can't be understood, then why bother to bring it up?

Is illogical. Pay attention.

The proof of God is you, by virtue of the fact that you have both a physical and, a spiritual side. In which case it's "you" that must maintain this.

This is illogical. The proof of Dancing Dave is the proof of dancing Dave not of a unknown .i.e no more then the proof of Dancing Dave is the proof of Santa or 100’ pink 3 headed giants.

The way I see it is that if God exists, and physics exist as well, then there must be an interelationship that exists between the two.

replace God in your “if” with Big Foot, Santa tooth fairy and the result is the same.

We know physics exist that is a known we do not know if a God exist by such the statement is irrelevant. The fact that the known exists does not mean your unknown exists.

And, while I'm not all that up physics which, is why I don't tend to come accross the way Lifegazer does, I do acknowledge much of what Lifegazer has to say about God -- and indeed, this seems to be the message he's trying to get across -- which, I have pretty much concluded for myself.

Why? What proof do you go by? Is it not the case you believe it simply because you want to believe it and ignore all logic and facts that disprove it?

I do respect you believe it but if you demand here that you and Lifegazer are “rational” and we who do not agree with it are “lost not “rational”. Then you need prove it with facts.

So in that respect I think he and I do have a common interest.

I respect that. You both also make statements as being fact but offer no supporting facts, you also ignore questions etc etc.

However, although I do believe everything emanates from the "Mind of God," I do believe in an everyday "physical reality" as well which, most of us are still subject to (at least for now).

I respect you believe that. May I ask with respect you offer supporting logic and facts so we may discus it?

Zero

28th December 2003, 08:28 AM

Dancing David

28th December 2003, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
I choose to define God as abstract because others choose to do so for me. Whereas to most "rationally" minded people, God is abstract. In which case I'm just trying to work with the "given definition."

That makes little sense to me, you let others define your spirituality? To me that would be deny-ing one of the many benefits of being human. I would say that it sounds like you don't know what you think god is, I could be wrong.
The given definition is often of a very concrete diety who cares about things like colds, lottery numbers and traffic jams.

Indeed, if it can't be understood, then why bother to bring it up?

Ge that staement sure makes you look likea trlol, I say that god can be understood. If more people payed attention to thier spirituality then they would benefit. You are the one who keeps saying that god can't be understood, not I.

The proof of God is you, by virtue of the fact that you have both a physical and, a spiritual side. In which case it's "you" that must maintain this.

I think that would be reflected in my statemnet that there is the *something* and then there are thoughts about something. Therefore we are in agreement. There is no god outside of human experience.

This was only my attempt to make sense out of your post which wasn't very clear.

Perhaps your vaugeness has something to do with it as well. I maintain that god is not an abstraction but a concrete human value.

The way I see it is that if God exists, and physics exist as well, then there must be an interelationship that exists between the two. And, while I'm not all that up physics which, is why I don't tend to come accross the way Lifegazer does, I do acknowledge much of what Lifegazer has to say about God -- and indeed, this seems to be the message he's trying to get across -- which, I have pretty much concluded for myself. So in that respect I think he and I do have a common interest.

(That is very nice of you to speak for LG, but his attitude speaks for itself)
That depends on POV
Lifegazer see the diety as the source of the non-existant physics.
I see god as a manifestation of human experience and therefore contained within the physics of the human brain.

However, although I do believe everything emanates from the "Mind of God," I do believe in an everyday "physical reality" as well which, most of us are still subject to (at least for now).

I am a neutral in respects to ontology, it doesn't really matter if matter emenates from mind or mind is a dependant product of matter.

I have spirituality and I have science, the best of both.

lifegazer

28th December 2003, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by RussDill
Really, show me any QM theory or paper that talks about "fundamental energy". Its a meaningless term that you pulled out of your ass, so stop acting like QM stands behind it.
The existence of fundamental energy.
Some of you seem to think that the existence of fundamental particles does not imply the existence of fundamental energy, even though energy & matter are interchangeable and matter is a form of energy. So some of you think that fundamental form can exist without an underlying fundamental energy giving life to that form... which is nonsense imo.

Anyway, since you refuse to accept the obvious because physics hasn't "seen" this energy - no surprise there: physics has never seen any energy; just the effects of it! - then I shall endeavour to convince you via different methods:-

1. A consideration of energy
What is energy, from a rational point of view? Essentially, energy is a force of change, producing new effects from previous states of existence. Energy is the force acting upon a body or bodies to change the state of existence of that body or bodies.
But what force can exist without an enforcing agent? None. Forces are intangible in themselves. We only see their effects. But their own existence requires the existence of an actual entity, to enforce those forces.
That ~something~ exists is hardly worth arguing against. Even a mottley crew like you lot will accept this.
So, what we can say, without hesitation, is that the existence of forces is a proof for the existence of an enforcing agent.

Hence, the fundamental particles are a form of energy which is a fundamental force [of creating matter]... and this energy emanates from an unseen enforcing agent. Fact.
Given that this energy of first-forming-particles is also unseen, except in the effect of the particles themselves, and given that this energy is the first link to matter from the unseen enforcing agent, there is reason to define this energy as the fundamental energy of existence.

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

Screw your papers on QM. I'm presenting arguments about the fundamental origin of the universe (God), and God's fundamental energy, which then proceeds to give form to fundamental particles. The 'paper' above was presented earlier and completely overlooked by the jokers of this forum. As though the act of overlooking it means that it isn't true.

Physics hasn't got a clue about fundamental origins or its fundamental energy. To ask for a physics paper about God is utter stupidity. Now put those poxy textbooks on the shelf and engage your ever-shrinking brains, or just stay away from my threads. I'm sick and tired expanding my energy upon utter bozos who refuse to think.

lifegazer

28th December 2003, 12:59 PM

Oh, and Geoffrey... I have higher aspirations than to get everybody sitting in the dark humming mantras for the sake of self-peace, whilst the world around them crumbles.
Not that you care about the world, of course, as you've already told me.
Geoffrey, I request that you refrain from posting in my threads unless you address my arguments/philosophy.

Iacchus

28th December 2003, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David

That makes little sense to me, you let others define your spirituality? To me that would be deny-ing one of the many benefits of being human. I would say that it sounds like you don't know what you think god is, I could be wrong.
The given definition is often of a very concrete diety who cares about things like colds, lottery numbers and traffic jams.All I'm saying is that I'm trying to talk to people in a way that they can understand.

Ge that staement sure makes you look likea trlol, I say that god can be understood. Look at the words again and tell me that I'm not in fact agreeing with you that God "can" be understood.

I think that would be reflected in my statemnet that there is the *something* and then there are thoughts about something. Therefore we are in agreement. There is no god outside of human experience.Yes, I was essentially reiterating what you had to say. However, to suggest that God doesn't exist outside of human experience, would be tantamount to saying he doesn't exist, in my opinion.

Perhaps your vaugeness has something to do with it as well. I maintain that god is not an abstraction but a concrete human value.Then it should be entirely self-evident, which it's not. Whereas if you were to view God in terms of "everything" -- or, everything manifesting itself from the "Mind of" -- then I don't believe it's possible to concieve of Him except through "abstract" means. Which, is typically what most people experience.

Zero

28th December 2003, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

The existence of fundamental energy.
Some of you seem to think that the existence of fundamental particles does not imply the existence of fundamental energy, even though energy & matter are interchangeable and matter is a form of energy. So some of you think that fundamental form can exist without an underlying fundamental energy giving life to that form... which is nonsense imo.

Anyway, since you refuse to accept the obvious because physics hasn't "seen" this energy - no surprise there: physics has never seen any energy; just the effects of it! - then I shall endeavour to convince you via different methods:-

1. A consideration of energy
What is energy, from a rational point of view? Essentially, energy is a force of change, producing new effects from previous states of existence. Energy is the force acting upon a body or bodies to change the state of existence of that body or bodies.
But what force can exist without an enforcing agent? None. Forces are intangible in themselves. We only see their effects. But their own existence requires the existence of an actual entity, to enforce those forces.
That ~something~ exists is hardly worth arguing against. Even a mottley crew like you lot will accept this.
So, what we can say, without hesitation, is that the existence of forces is a proof for the existence of an enforcing agent.

Hence, the fundamental particles are a form of energy which is a fundamental force [of creating matter]... and this energy emanates from an unseen enforcing agent. Fact.
Given that this energy of first-forming-particles is also unseen, except in the effect of the particles themselves, and given that this energy is the first link to matter from the unseen enforcing agent, there is reason to define this energy as the fundamental energy of existence.

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

Screw your papers on QM. I'm presenting arguments about the fundamental origin of the universe (God), and God's fundamental energy, which then proceeds to give form to fundamental particles. The 'paper' above was presented earlier and completely overlooked by the jokers of this forum. As though the act of overlooking it means that it isn't true.

Physics hasn't got a clue about fundamental origins or its fundamental energy. To ask for a physics paper about God is utter stupidity. Now put those poxy textbooks on the shelf and engage your ever-shrinking brains, or just stay away from my threads. I'm sick and tired expanding my energy upon utter bozos who refuse to think.

See what I mean? No ideas, no intelligence, no rationality...just ranting about how no one is as smart as you, and how actually reading is somehow a detriment to knowledge. You make up definitions and terms, and say they must be true, because otherwise your 'philosophy' is nonsense...

Your philosophy IS nonsense, and so are your made-up terms. Maybe if you would get out of your head,and surpasss your ego, you could learn something.

Iacchus

28th December 2003, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by JustGeoff

What you are missing is an awareness of what other people see when they look at you. You have already started a thread trying to humiliate me, only to realise it was a big mistake and then claim "your hamster" posted it. You then tried lame humour to mask the fact that you have made yourself look like a total idiot. Now, you have created a sockpuppet because you have no other support on this forum, and you actually think you can fool people into believing it isn't you.What, are you accusing me of being Lifegazer? LOL! ... No wonder this doesn't make any sense!

Well, Lifegazer, it was pretty obvious to me that this is your sockpuppet, but just our of interest I just typed "Iachuss" into google.Oh, then you must be referring to Lifegazer here. So what are you going to do when you find out you're wrong? Pretty soon you're going to start hearing voices if you don't watch out. ;)

What do you think I found?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=iachuss

You are the most pathetic human being I have ever encountered. :( Substitute pathetic with "prophetic" and we might be getting closer to the truth. ;)

Try looking it up with one "s" by the way ...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=iacchus

http://www.altavista.com/web/results?q=iacchus&kgs=0&kls=1&avkw=aapt

Zero

28th December 2003, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Oh, and Geoffrey... I have higher aspirations than to get everybody sitting in the dark humming mantras for the sake of self-peace, whilst the world around them crumbles.
Not that you care about the world, of course, as you've already told me.
Geoffrey, I request that you refrain from posting in my threads unless you address my arguments/philosophy. You might want to aspire to opening a book, or learning to be humble, or maybe not being so self-involved?

Zero

28th December 2003, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Some of you are aware of my philosophy which concludes that we're all existing within the Mind of God. I thought I'd explain why this philosophy is consistent with QM... Screw your papers on QM. On the one hand, QM is compatable with your "philosophy", and on the other hand you don't care about what QM papers have to say. Which one is it? Are you ignorant, lying, or what?

RussDill

28th December 2003, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Screw your papers on QM. I'm presenting arguments about the fundamental origin of the universe (God), and God's fundamental energy, which then proceeds to give form to fundamental particles. The 'paper' above was presented earlier and completely overlooked by the jokers of this forum. As though the act of overlooking it means that it isn't true.

Physics hasn't got a clue about fundamental origins or its fundamental energy. To ask for a physics paper about God is utter stupidity. Now put those poxy textbooks on the shelf and engage your ever-shrinking brains, or just stay away from my threads. I'm sick and tired expanding my energy upon utter bozos who refuse to think.

No one responded? You need to go back and read all my posts from pages 1, 2 and 3 regarding "fundemental energy" and actually respond to those critizisms rather than just reposting your assumptions verbatum. My post at "12-26-2003 01:47 PM" on page 2 deals with this post in paticular.

Reposting your tripe that has ALREADY BEEN RESPONDED TO won't get you anywhere. You need to respond to the critisism of your ideas, not just repost them, otherwise, you will continue to have no credibility.

Edited to add: Classic lifegazer, repost assumptions, and insult intelligence of others.

Iacchus

28th December 2003, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by RussDill
Originally posted by lifegazer

Physics hasn't got a clue about fundamental origins or its fundamental energy. To ask for a physics paper about God is utter stupidity. Now put those poxy textbooks on the shelf and engage your ever-shrinking brains, or just stay away from my threads. I'm sick and tired expanding my energy upon utter bozos who refuse to think. Yes, the only way this could possibly make any sense, is if there was something more to it than just physics, say like the existence of god or something? :p

RussDill

28th December 2003, 01:59 PM

lifegazer

28th December 2003, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Zero
You might want to aspire to opening a book, or learning to be humble, or maybe not being so self-involved?
I have read what I need to know to present these arguments:-
(1) There are fundamental particles.
If you read the previous post, I show why this means that there is fundamental energy. It's your job to counter the reason in that argument or accept it. But telling me that physics knows nothing about fundamental energy is both irrelevant and a mistake on the part of physics.
... Physics knows that matter is a form of energy. Therefore physics should know that fundamental forms of matter are derivative/effects of fundamental energy.
Just because we cannot observe this energy doesn't mean that it isn't there. In fact, you cannot observe any energy - you can only observe its effects. Well, fundamental forms of matter are clearly the effect of fundamental energy.
Start using your brain and stop bringing physics into this. Physics cannot go where I am taking you, which is why physics knows nothing about what I'm saying.

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_Principle
Snippet, from the overview:-
"The uncertainty principle is sometimes erroneously explained by claiming that the measurement of position necessarily disturbs a particle's momentum. Heisenberg himself offered this explanation initially. Disturbance plays no part, however, since the principle even applies if position is measured in one copy of the system and momentum is measured in another, identical one. It is more accurate to say that the particle is a wave, not a point-like object, and does not have a well-defined simultaneous position and momentum.

There... that's exactly what I said. There is no realm of definites, except within the mind of an observer.
What I have said is credible and has been criminally overlooked.
There is evidence within this thread for God's existence.

Zero

28th December 2003, 02:01 PM

Here's the Lifegazer "philosophy" in a nutshell: science doesn't say anything about "God"(whatever that means), therefore anything Lifegazer makes up must be true. After all, he is talking about "God" after all, and that means he must be right....

Zero

28th December 2003, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I have read what I need to know....That's your mistake, the basic flaw that haunts all your "thinking". You aren't allowed to selectively read, and only accept the parts that you want to. You either accept the WHOLE thing(give or take a percent or three), or you reject it.

lifegazer

28th December 2003, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by RussDill
No one responded?
Responding directly to my reasoned-argument means just that. It doesn't mean saying stupid things like "No, physics knows nothing about fundamental energy, therefore you're wrong.".

lifegazer

28th December 2003, 02:10 PM

I have just provided a link showing that my "there is no realm of definites" statement is correct.
And I have produced a well reasoned argument showing why the existence of fundamental particles is evidence of fundamental energy.

Are you afraid of the possibility that there might be a God? Seriously? Does God scare you to death?

RussDill

28th December 2003, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I have read what I need to know to present these arguments:-
(1) There are fundamental particles.
If you read the previous post, I show why this means that there is fundamental energy. It's your job to counter the reason in that argument or accept it.

I have argued this on pages 1, 2, and 3. If you want to have ANY credibility at all, you might want to respond to these arguments.

But telling me that physics knows nothing about fundamental energy is both irrelevant and a mistake on the part of physics.

It is not irrelevent, it means that you MADE IT UP. Just like if I start talking about orange energy and claim that everything that is the color orange has orange energy. Just like your fundamental energy, it is meaningless.

... Physics knows that matter is a form of energy. Therefore physics should know that fundamental forms of matter are derivative/effects of fundamental energy.

There is no other type of matter than fundamentel matter. So we can reduce this sentance down to "that matter is the derivative/effect of fundamental energy". Please note here that above, you noted that physics says that matter is a form of energy. Now see that your adding of fundamental before energy is meaningless.

Just because we cannot observe this energy doesn't mean that it isn't there.

But if you can't tell me anything about fundamental energy, or how it is different than regular energy and you just made it up, then its meaningless. Just like my orange energy.

In fact, you cannot observe any energy - you can only observe its effects.

But you can observe the effects, you've given us no effects of fundamental energy to observe.

Well, fundamental forms of matter are clearly the effect of fundamental energy.

No, you admitted above that matter is a form of energy. And there is no matter except fundamentel matter, so if you really want, you can say that fundamental particles are a form of energy. Please not that the word "fundamental" has no place in that sentance.

Start using your brain and stop bringing physics into this.

You are trying to show that your philosophy is consistent with physics. We *have* to bring physics into this. If we don't, we aren't using our brains.

Physics cannot go where I am taking you, which is why physics knows nothing about what I'm saying.

You claim that physics is consistent and irrelavent all at once. You can't have it both ways.

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_Principle
Snippet, from the overview:-
"The uncertainty principle is sometimes erroneously explained by claiming that the measurement of position necessarily disturbs a particle's momentum. Heisenberg himself offered this explanation initially. Disturbance plays no part, however, since the principle even applies if position is measured in one copy of the system and momentum is measured in another, identical one. It is more accurate to say that the particle is a wave, not a point-like object, and does not have a well-defined simultaneous position and momentum.

There... that's exactly what I said. There is no realm of definites, except within the mind of an observer.

That is not excatly what you said and I picked apart piece by piece what you said, which you have failed to respond to. The fact that we live in a QM reality has nothing to do with a mind or an observer and is no evidence whatsoever for your god.

What I have said is credible and has been criminally overlooked.

I have refuted everything you have said and overlooked NOTHING.

There is evidence within this thread for God's existence.

Where? Nothing you have said has been credible, everything has been refuted without challenge.

Zero

28th December 2003, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I have just provided a link showing that my "there is no realm of definites" statement is correct.
And I have produced a well reasoned argument showing why the existence of fundamental particles is evidence of fundamental energy.

Are you afraid of the possibility that there might be a God? Seriously? Does God scare you to death? You keep jumping to the "God" conclusion, based on your ignorance. The concept doesn't scare me...foolish people making up a rationale for "God" scares me plenty.

RussDill

28th December 2003, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Responding directly to my reasoned-argument means just that. It doesn't mean saying stupid things like "No, physics knows nothing about fundamental energy, therefore you're wrong.".

I have stated a lot more than that and provided questions for you to answer about fundamental energy, you have ignored them as well as all the other details of my posts.

RussDill

28th December 2003, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I have just provided a link showing that my "there is no realm of definites" statement is correct.
And I have produced a well reasoned argument showing why the existence of fundamental particles is evidence of fundamental energy.

Are you afraid of the possibility that there might be a God? Seriously? Does God scare you to death?

oh yes, clearly that is it, I'm afraid of god and what he might do to judge me, I'll go to hell for sure. (er, wait, where is hell for sinners in your philosophy again?)

Iacchus

28th December 2003, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

Is that sarcasm? Well it doesn't sound as bad as calling someone's post a load of tripe now does it? :p

RussDill

28th December 2003, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well it doesn't sound as bad as calling someone's post a load of tripe now does it? :p

I'm curious if you are being sarcastic or not, I'd appreciate if you just answer the question.

Iacchus

28th December 2003, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

oh yes, clearly that is it, I'm afraid of god and what he might do to judge me, I'll go to hell for sure. (er, wait, where is hell for sinners in your philosophy again?) Maybe a better way to put it would be "intellectual uncertainty?" Which, of course would mean acknowledging that you went to the "wrong school." ;)

RussDill

28th December 2003, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Maybe a better way to put it would be "intellectual uncertainty?" Which, of course would mean acknowledging that you went to the "wrong school."

So he is asking if I'm fearful of being wrong? Of course not, I'd be very exciting to be wrong about physics, especially to be among the first to discover such a wrong. People are regularly wrong about this type of thing, and when its discovered, its a very exciting thing. Papers are published, nobel prizes won, new coliders built, careers made, etc.

lifegazer

28th December 2003, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by RussDill
It is not irrelevent, it means that you MADE IT UP. Just like if I start talking about orange energy and claim that everything that is the color orange has orange energy. Just like your fundamental energy, it is meaningless.

LOL. I made it up? LOLOL.
Did I make up "fundamental particles"? No!! So, now read the reason I presented to show why the existence of fp's = fe.
I didn't make anything up. I deduced the existence of fe from fp's. So get a grip before I make you stand in a corner at the back, behind the back-row bozos.

There is no other type of matter than fundamentel matter. So we can reduce this sentance down to "that matter is the derivative/effect of fundamental energy". Please note here that above, you noted that physics says that matter is a form of energy. Now see that your adding of fundamental before energy is meaningless.

The term fundamental energy is used in reference to the energy giving form to fundamental particles. You're just trying to side-step the necessity of energy yielding form. If fundamental particles exist, then an energy, hitherto unacknowledged by physics, does exist... giving form to fp's. I shall label that energy, as I already have, fundamental energy.

But you can observe the effects, you've given us no effects of fundamental energy to observe.

Fundamental particles... and their effects.

Iacchus

28th December 2003, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

I'm curious if you are being sarcastic or not, I'd appreciate if you just answer the question. Okay, I agree with what lifegazer said, I didn't care for you calling it a load of tripe and yes, I was being a little sarcastic. ;)

RussDill

28th December 2003, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Okay, I agree with what lifegazer said, I didn't care for you calling it a load of tripe and yes, I was being a little bit sarcastic.

Most of lifegazer's proofs start out with attempting to show an inconsistency or incompleteness in existing scientific theory that requires extra explaination, he then goes on to claim that this explaination is his god.

Its pretty easy for lifegazer to fool someone who isn't very knoweldgable when it comes to physics, since his postings on these concepts are about the first some have heard about them. However, all of the inconsistencies and incompleteness that lifegazer has claimed in merely a misunderstanding on his behalf.

People such as andonyx, Upchurch, and myself point out what physics and science truly says about these matters and show exactly how there is no inconsistency or incompleteness. Lifegazer then goes on to insult the intelligence of such posters, and proceed to repost his assumptions (rather than responding to the critizism).

If you would like to follow along with these discussions, we often post URL's along with our discussion of certain concepts (like the double slit experiment) so that those that haven't studied the area before can take a few minutes and educate themselves. If after reading up, you'd like to challenge one of our assertions or simply ask for more clarification, feel free, we'd be more than happy, its more than lifegazer does. (btw, contrary to geoff, I really don't think you are a sock puppet).

lifegazer

28th December 2003, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, the only way this could possibly make any sense, is if there was something more to it than just physics, say like the existence of god or something? :p
Physics is the study of perceived reality. Physics looks for the cause of phenomena within perception. Physics is the study of behaviour/order of the sensations.
What physicists are so dumb to see, is that the Mind is the cause of perceived reality because the mind is the cause of its own abstract sensations.
Oh if it wasn't so serious it would be amusing. But the fulfilment of days awaits, and cannot come too soon. These bozos are going to destroy everything and I for one am tired of it and will not sit idly by whilst it happens.
Disagree with me if you wish, but push your case for God... for God's sake.

Iacchus

28th December 2003, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Zero
You keep jumping to the "God" conclusion, based on your ignorance. The concept doesn't scare me...foolish people making up a rationale for "God" scares me plenty. How would you ever know if someone didn't bring up the possibility?

RussDill

28th December 2003, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

LOL. I made it up? LOLOL.

yes, you made it up, show me another reference where they are talked about.

Did I make up "fundamental particles"? No!!

who said you did?

So, now read the reason I presented to show why the existence of fp's = fe.

I did, and fundamental particles are just particles, and particles are a form of energy.

so fundamental particles are a form of energy, not fundamental energy. They can't be both a form of energy and fundamental energy.

I didn't make anything up. I deduced the existence of fe from fp's.

you make a completely false deduction, and I've repeatedly shown why.

So get a grip before I make you stand in a corner at the back, behind the back-row bozos.

once again, CLASSIC lifegazer. Don't bother confronting arguments, but instead, repost assumptions, and insult the intelligence of the poster. Do it once or twice, fine, but you are consistent with this childish technique.

The term fundamental energy is used in reference to the energy giving form to fundamental particles.

Where, when? Everytime I see someone talking about the energy that forms particles, they talk about energy, never about "fundamental energy".

You're just trying to side-step the necessity of energy yielding form. If fundamental particles exist, then an energy, hitherto unacknowledged by physics, does exist...

Physicics already acknowledge the form of energy that is bottled up within particles. Its called energy. It exists, its known to physics.

gving form to fp's. I shall label that energy, as I already have, fundamental energy.

Its already been labeled as energy, why relabel it?

Fundamental particles... and their effects.

What about them?

Iacchus

28th December 2003, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Physics is the study of perceived reality. Physics looks for the cause of phenomena within perception. Physics is the study of behaviour/order of the sensations.
What physicists are so dumb to see, is that the Mind is the cause of perceived reality because the mind is the cause of its own abstract sensations.
Oh if it wasn't so serious it would be amusing. But the fulfilment of days awaits, and cannot come too soon. These bozos are going to destroy everything and I for one am tired of it and will not sit idly by whilst it happens.
Disagree with me if you wish, but push your case for God... for God's sake. Actually I think you misconstrued what I was saying. See the above post.

Or, if you go way back to the original post, you can see that I posted your quote within a pair of "empty quotes," as if I were addressing him, but not you.

RussDill

28th December 2003, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Physics is the study of perceived reality.

Actually no, physics is the study of reality. Most Physicists (if not all) assume that perceived reality is reality. Your philosophy on the other hand assumes that perceived reality is a vast illusion created by a superior intelligence.

Physics looks for the cause of phenomena within perception.

Again, physicists assume that reality = perceived reality, so they are looking for the cause of phenomena within reality.

Physics is the study of behaviour/order of the sensations.

No, physics assumes that our sensations allow us to have a window to reality, and then study the order within that reality.

What physicists are so dumb to see, is that the Mind is the cause of perceived reality because the mind is the cause of its own abstract sensations.

Ah, why don't we call all physicists poopie heads while we are at it. This view of perceived reality as a vast illusion created by a superior intelligence is your assumption, for which you have no evidence.

Oh if it wasn't so serious it would be amusing. But the fulfilment of days awaits, and cannot come too soon.

How do you know there will be one? Another assumption by you.

These bozos are going to destroy everything and I for one am tired of it and will not sit idly by whilst it happens.

more of your assumptions...

Disagree with me if you wish, but push your case for God... for God's sake.

I don't disagree with you neccesarily, I disagree with your arguments since they are contridictory, and based on a misunderstanding of physics.

lifegazer

28th December 2003, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by RussDill
I did, and fundamental particles are just particles, and particles are a form of energy.

so fundamental particles are a form of energy, not fundamental energy. They can't be both a form of energy and fundamental energy.

So all of this moaning is due to the fact that I use the word "fundamental" before energy? You actually accept that there is an energy giving form to fp's?
But fp's are first forms of matter. In effect, they are the first forms of the universe (of spacetime) too. For in what sense can spacetime exist without the matter which qualifies it?
So this energy we speak of is fundamental to universal creation itself.
This is serious Russ and you've just given me loads of grief about nothing. I'll label it "orange energy" if it shuts you up. But please note the significance of this energy. It creates the first forms of matter... of spacetime... of the universe itself.
This is a special energy Russ. I think we should call it "fundamental energy" and not "orange energy". What say ye?

once again, CLASSIC lifegazer. Don't bother confronting arguments, but instead, repost assumptions, and insult the intelligence of the poster. Do it once or twice, fine, but you are consistent with this childish technique.

I repeatedly send you to the back because it winds you up. Get some psychology tips off upchurch and the other bozo... resident psychologists apparently. Yet they don't know their a*** from their elbows if you ask me.

Iacchus

28th December 2003, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

So he is asking if I'm fearful of being wrong? Of course not, I'd be very exciting to be wrong about physics, especially to be among the first to discover such a wrong. People are regularly wrong about this type of thing, and when its discovered, its a very exciting thing. Papers are published, nobel prizes won, new coliders built, careers made, etc. Okay, this sounds reasonable. :)

lifegazer

28th December 2003, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by RussDill
Actually no, physics is the study of reality. Most Physicists (if not all) assume that perceived reality is reality.

Err Russ mate... assuming something to be true doesn't mean that it is.

Your philosophy on the other hand assumes that perceived reality is a vast illusion created by a superior intelligence.

No Russ. That's what my threads are about: arguments reasoning for that case. I abhor assumptions.

If you think it's okay to defend materialism on the back of an almighty assumption, then you are exhibiting a severe case of closedmindedness... Russ. And bias.

RussDill

28th December 2003, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

So all of this moaning is due to the fact that I use the word "fundamental" before energy?

because you claim a special place for the energy that makes up particles when it isn't special at all.

You actually accept that there is an energy giving form to fp's?

There is not "an energy" there is energy, plain and simple.

But fp's are first forms of matter.

umm...they are the only forms of matter, saying that they are the first forms is unneccesary.

In effect, they are the first forms of the universe (of spacetime) too.

In effect? You can't glean any effect since they are not just the first forms. Also, it is not necessary for matter to exist for spacetime to exist.

For in what sense can spacetime exist without the matter which qualifies it?

It exists just fine, in fact, intersteller space is amazingly devoid of matter.

So this energy we speak of is fundamental to universal creation itself.

The energy you speak of is just like any other energy, and all the energy that exists to day is the same energy that existed forever, there has been no new energy, if this is your claim, then all energy would be fundamental energy, make the term fundamental useless, since there is no other type.

This is serious Russ and you've just given me loads of grief about nothing.

No I'm not, I'm giving you grief because you are making crap up.

I'll label it "orange energy" if it shuts you up.

Labeling it orange energy makes just as much sense, and points out even more that its meaningless, and you made it up.

But please not the significance of this energy.

There is no special energy, there is energy.

It creates the first forms of matter... of spacetime... of the universe itself.

Then you are just talking about all energy in the universe, meaning that it is special in no way.

This is a special energy Russ. I think we should call it "fundamental energy" and not "orange energy". What say ye?

It can't be special energy if there is no other type of energy.

I repeatedly send you to the back because it winds you up. Get some psychology tips off upchurch and the other bozo... resident psychologists apparently. Yet they don't know their a*** from their elbows if you ask me.

You repeatedly insult the intelligence of others because you don't want to bother confronting their arguments because its too hard for you. You are so convinced that you are right, that you don't want to question your ideas and philosophy, so when someone asks you, why bother? You know you are right, if they challenge something that is so clearly right (in your mind), they must be stupid, so you might as well point them out. Its a symtom of your absolute closemindedness.

RussDill

28th December 2003, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Err Russ mate... assuming something to be true doesn't mean that it is.

No, it doesn't make it true, same with your assumption, but this is the assumption that physicists start with and base their study on.

No Russ. That's what my threads are about: arguments reasoning for that case. I abhor assumptions.

If you abhor assumptions so much, then how come when I point out that you are making one, rather than backing it up, you simply repeat it?

If you think it's okay to defend materialism on the back of an almighty assumption, then you are exhibiting a severe case of closedmindedness... Russ. And bias.

There can be no proof for materialism, because someone can always say that we are all brains in vats somewhere. However, all evidence points to materialism, whereas none points to us being brains in vats or members of a vast illusion. I'd be very happy to take any evidence, or especially proof otherwise. However, you refuse to question your philosophy.

(Edited to add the you before refuse)

lifegazer

28th December 2003, 03:14 PM

There are fundamental particles. Even Russ agrees with this.
There is an energy giving form to these particles. Russ agrees with this too, as long as I don't give it a special name.
Also, don't forget this:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_Principle
Snippet, from the overview:-
"The uncertainty principle is sometimes erroneously explained by claiming that the measurement of position necessarily disturbs a particle's momentum. Heisenberg himself offered this explanation initially. Disturbance plays no part, however, since the principle even applies if position is measured in one copy of the system and momentum is measured in another, identical one. It is more accurate to say that the particle is a wave, not a point-like object, and does not have a well-defined simultaneous position and momentum..

So, let's try again, with additional qualification where necessary:-

Definite particles only exist within awareness. This is a fact which can be shown with an experiment I can cite, pertaining to 1 electron and two paths. It is further proven with the bold-type, above.
Until seen within an observing awareness, things do not exist as definite particles or definite objects.
The world of definites is something only occuring within the consciousness of an observer.
Hence, a divisible reality (of definites) is something only occuring within the consciousness of an observer.
Hence, reality is truly indivisible, devoid of definites.
Hence, reality is the Mind itself.

Say hello to God ladies and gents.

Third time lucky. Will you say hello to God or not?

RussDill

28th December 2003, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
There are fundamental particles. Even Russ agrees with this.
There is an energy giving form to these particles. Russ agrees with this too, as long as I don't give it a special name.

No, so long as you don't claim its special in any way, its energy, nothing more, nothing less.

Also, don't forget this:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_Principle
Snippet, from the overview:-
"The uncertainty principle is sometimes erroneously explained by claiming that the measurement of position necessarily disturbs a particle's momentum. Heisenberg himself offered this explanation initially. Disturbance plays no part, however, since the principle even applies if position is measured in one copy of the system and momentum is measured in another, identical one. It is more accurate to say that the particle is a wave, not a point-like object, and does not have a well-defined simultaneous position and momentum..

You have posted this again and again, yes, we live in a QM reality, but you have yet to point out why this would mean that reality would need your god.

So, let's try again, with additional qualification where necessary:-

Definite particles only exist within awareness.

No, definate particles do not exist, they only exist as waves of probability, that is reality.

This is a fact which can be shown with an experiment I can cite, pertaining to 1 electron and two paths.

We've already gone through this, would you like to respond to my electron slit experiment post?

It is further proven with the bold-type, above.

The above says nothing about definate particles existing anywhere, or anything about your god. You've proven nothing.

Until seen within an observing awareness, things do not exist as definite particles or definite objects.

Gone over this too, you failed to respond. Repeating your assumptions will do nothing for your argument. Things exist as waves of probability and they don't care if there is a conciousness observing them or not.

The world of definites is something only occuring within the consciousness of an observer.

No, the world of definates is an approximation of the quantum world.

Hence, a divisible reality (of definites) is something only occuring within the consciousness of an observer.

hence, you are basing your argument on a misunderstanding of QM.

Hence, reality is truly indivisible, devoid of
definates.

Reality is QM, it proves nothing of your mind.

Hence, reality is the Mind itself.

Since when? You always jump to this conclusion for no reason other than it must be true for your philosophy.

Say hello to God ladies and gents.

Sigh, you always announce with such fanfare like someone out there somewhere is supposed to be impressed.

Third time lucky. Will you say hello to God or not?

No lifegazer, repeating you assumptions 3 times (4 times, 5 times, whatever) does not make them true.

Dancing David

28th December 2003, 03:37 PM

Lifegazer:

As usual some of what you say makes a lot of sense and some of what you say... well maybe you should let your hamster edit for you.

There is a definite 'particle' within the realm of physical reality. It is a WAVE FORM all the time. Isn't that cool! The trick is this, in terms of definites it is definitly a wave all the time. It does not go from being a wace to being a particle and back again. So in terms of definites it is a wave all the time. Where that wave intersects with other wave forms is a matter of probability.

On the fundamental energy issue, this is not something that science has come to a conclusion yet, there are the visible particles and then there are the supposed particles. At this point they appear to be the essential building blocks of the universe. this is subject to change at any time, given the nature of science.
The energy of theuniverse just is. A philosopher and some cosmologists do try to imagine what is behind the observed energy. But there is little that is testable.

On the 'enforcing' principle issue, that is a great argument for god, and I do understand it. But it is not the only possiblity that there is especialy if you consider that particles could be self enforcing.

So while everything in your mind comes back to god, there are other possibilities.

On the humming in the dark iussue: the goal of meditation is to learn to live mindfully in the moment. By being mindful one is less likely to wrech havoc.

Some of us work activly to help heal the world and it's inhabitants.
Do you feel your mission might be better met elsewhere?