beating a dead horse to a bloody pulp

[Shroud of Akron]

if we are made of atoms, which obey TLOP, then (as some say) it follows that we obey TLOP. this is an understandable concept that i disagree with. if our thought process is carried out through the routing of electrons through our brains, i would say that our thoughts are governed through the laws that govern electrons. this would mean quantum mechanics, am i correct? does quantum mechanics not state that no particle can ever be directly observed, and never be predicted as to where it will end up? not to mention that a particle can be in more than one place at the same time. i think the uncertainty principle, based on the logic of the "TLOP" argument dictates free will.

i edit to add that, yes this is directed toward Franko, and that this is not an attack on his beliefs. alot of people seem to tell Franko that he is an idiot, i don't believe this to be the case, he just has enough nerve to post in a forum where he is in the minority. i appreciate his discourse when he keeps it civil. i think that Franko is very good at making me look critically at what i believe.

[PixyMisa]

Ask Franko what he means by "obey" in the expression "Atoms obey the laws of physics." You'll find that by his definition of "obey", the statement is actually false.

Also, Franko's idea of the laws of physics is oddly at variance with reality.

[Tricky]

No, Franko is not an idiot. I have asked him many times to return to the days (yes, there were some long ago) when he posted in an interesting and civil manner. But instead his posts which are repetitive screeds are becoming much more common than his occasional posts that are cogent.

However, it takes no "nerve" to post insults and lies to a board where your anonymity is guaranteed. Rather, it is an act of cowardice.

(Tricky gives the deceased equine a good thrashing;))

[BillyTK]

atoms obey the laws of physics
we are made of atoms
therefore we are made of the laws of physics

(except me-I'm made of frogs and snails and puppy dogs' tails ;) )

[ScottDYelich]

ok, we're made of atoms.
atoms are part of physics.. and may obey laws.

but something on a macro scale may not behave the same way
as things on the micro scale.

why does everyone fall back to quantum physics?

I have absolutely NO belief that my entire body... wil behave
in a single way according to something that quantum physics
does.

What I'm saying is, just because there is physics... and
physics have some rules/laws, this doesn't mean that
god is there playing with things at this level. If "god"
is simply existence, this level and everything else...
well, gee, hard to argue with that. I'd even accept
that, but unfortunately, that then begs the question of
have we actually gained anything by redefining reality as god?

seems to me, this is the normal word and meaning game that
people play when they don't undertstand logic and how logic works.


as another thread said.. is it possible to define anything exactly?

someone said math... but what if the religious person thinks that
god is above math?

see, as I said... I would rather have discussions with people who
are lucid and who have open minds.

Franko claims that people won't address his points. I'll address any
point he puts up, but as I said, he will simply dodge and deny anything
that I say, so he will only end up frustrating himself.

Also, this forum is realy impossible to use to follow threads.
I must be using it wrong. :-)

Scott

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by ScottDYelich
why does everyone fall back to quantum physics?The particles you are made of behave in a way described by quantum mechanics. This is not in dispute.

Large bunches of fundamental particles can be described by simpler laws, but these laws are statistical ones which agree with quantum mechanics.

The unusual properties of QM tend to average out on a macro scale, but that doesn't mean they're gone - just hidden.I have absolutely NO belief that my entire body... wil behave
in a single way according to something that quantum physics does.QM doesn't care what you believe.someone said math... but what if the religious person thinks that god is above math?Then they are spouting meaningless phrases.Franko claims that people won't address his points. I'll address any point he puts up, but as I said, he will simply dodge and deny anything that I say, so he will only end up frustrating himself.Noticed that, have you ;)

[ScottDYelich]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
The particles you are made of behave in a way described by quantum mechanics. This is not in dispute.

Large bunches of fundamental particles can be described by simpler laws, but these laws are statistical ones which agree with quantum mechanics.

The unusual properties of QM tend to average out on a macro scale, but that doesn't mean they're gone - just hidden.QM doesn't care what you believe.Then they are spouting meaningless phrases.Noticed that, have you ;)

pixie... \clarification.

I'm not claiming that because I don't believe in something, something is some way or another.

qm doesn't care what I think or believe. I agree.

What I'm saying is, my macro body is not going to behave
according to a SINGLE behaviour of QM. That is, this particle
and that particle -- where is my ANTI-scott? something
comes into existence and then blinks out... does my who
body come into existence and blink out sometime later?

yes, of course, if I'm made up of things that have qm components, then there are qm components in me. Does this mean that qm is the end all? who knows... probably not. What I was saying was, I didn't think it was necessary to try to define reality in its entirety/completely by what we as a race know now.

Scott

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by ScottDYelich
pixie... \clarification.

I'm not claiming that because I don't believe in something, something is some way or another.

qm doesn't care what I think or believe. I agree.OK. Not a problem.What I'm saying is, my macro body is not going to behave
according to a SINGLE behaviour of QM. That is, this particle
and that particle -- where is my ANTI-scott? something
comes into existence and then blinks out... does my who
body come into existence and blink out sometime later?

yes, of course, if I'm made up of things that have qm components, then there are qm components in me. Does this mean that qm is the end all? who knows... probably not. What I was saying was, I didn't think it was necessary to try to define reality in its entirety/completely by what we as a race know now.Your body doesn't behave the same way as a subatomic particle simply because it isn't a subatomic particle. It still follows quantum mechanical behaviour. Everything does. Is not a question of there being QM components in you. Everything you are made of, and all the interactions between those components, follow the rules of QM.

We know quantum mechanics is not complete, and is therefore not entirely correct. However, we know the boundaries within which QM is correct, and we know that our bodies are quantum mechanical.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by PixyMisa

We know quantum mechanics is not complete, and is therefore not entirely correct. However, we know the boundaries within which QM is correct, and we know that our bodies are quantum mechanical.

And yet, Atoms (and us) obey TLOP the reality(and at least the macro world my *physical me* perceives is not in any sense "random"). :eek:

Originally posted by PixyMisa


QM doesn't care what you believe.

Neither does actuality, i.e. TLOP .... ;)

[Franko]

Shroud of Akron: (Skeptic)
if we are made of atoms, which obey TLOP, then (as some say) it follows that we obey TLOP. this is an understandable concept that i disagree with. if our thought process is carried out through the routing of electrons through our brains, i would say that our thoughts are governed through the laws that govern electrons. this would mean quantum mechanics, am i correct? does quantum mechanics not state that no particle can ever be directly observed, and never be predicted as to where it will end up? not to mention that a particle can be in more than one place at the same time. i think the uncertainty principle, based on the logic of the "TLOP" argument dictates free will.

Makes a certain amount of sense … in fact, it is quite possible that as soon as someone figures out Quantum Gravity (QG) everything you said could be “scientific fact”, as real as a round moving Earth. …still wouldn’t be “free will” though, you need to think of it differently or you’ll never understand it.

Here’s the thing … according to A-Theism/Pseudo-Materialism you just can’t possibly be correct; not now, not EVER! And the reason that it is NOT possible your “free will” could come from QM is because Verner Heisenberg, and John Bell SWORE on the Holy Bible that there were NO HIDDEN VARIABLES, and if YOU control QM, than YOU would be a variable … but there are NO HIDDEN VARIABLES … ask the A-Theists.

Shroud of Akron: (Skeptic)
i edit to add that, yes this is directed toward Franko, and that this is not an attack on his beliefs. alot of people seem to tell Franko that he is an idiot, i don't believe this to be the case, he just has enough nerve to post in a forum where he is in the minority. i appreciate his discourse when he keeps it civil. i think that Franko is very good at making me look critically at what i believe.

Music to my ears, My Friend. That’s exactly why I post in this forum.

You can be Skeptical of Atheism, you just can’t be Atheistic about your Skepticism.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by hammegk
And yet, Atoms (and us) obey TLOP the reality(and at least the macro world my *physical me* perceives is not in any sense "random"). :eek:And, as has been pointed out to you a number of times, this is simply false-to-fact. Macro-scale quantum effects are well established; scientists and engineers know about them and deal with them.Neither does actuality, i.e. TLOP .... ;) Well, there's a surprise.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
And, as has been pointed out to you a number of times, this is simply false-to-fact. Macro-scale quantum effects are well established; scientists and engineers know about them and deal with them.

And as has been pointed out to you numerous times, we do not "randomly" do things. (Well, maybe you do ... nah, I don't think so ... nuthin' but cause & effect is it?? ;) )

And no, I never disagreed that "quantum effects" are used in real world engineering. Sounds better than "magic" I admit.

If quantisizing and predicting-in-aggregate constituted "understanding" science would be in good shape to explain "what-is".

[Franko]

Pixyboo:
And, as has been pointed out to you a number of times, this is simply false-to-fact. Macro-scale quantum effects are well established; scientists and engineers know about them and deal with them.

What on Earth are you talking about Sweet-Pea? "Macro scale quantum effects"??? Sounds like pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo to me. When did someone find a genuine Alive-Dead Cat that we didn't hear about it?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Franko


What on Earth are you talking about Sweet-Pea? "Macro scale quantum effects"??? Sounds like pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo to me. When did someone find a genuine Alive-Dead Cat that we didn't hear about it?
These effects may exist but they disagree with religious dogma so must be rejected, thier existence must be denied. Any further mention of them will cause franko to put the discussion into the restate dogma, demand definitions, claim he's imaginary loop.

[Shroud of Akron]

Originally posted by Franko


What on Earth are you talking about Sweet-Pea? "Macro scale quantum effects"??? Sounds like pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo to me. When did someone find a genuine Alive-Dead Cat that we didn't hear about it? we may not have found an alive-dead cat, but we do have cubits. researchers in japan have got an electrical current to flow both ways at the same time, and we have binary cubits that compute both 0 and 1 simultaneously. they only exist for a short time, but we have created them, so IMHO they do hold credibility. i know that this doesn't really show evidence of macro scale quantum effects, but they are observable.

[Franko]

we may not have found an alive-dead cat, but we do have cubits. researchers in japan have got an electrical current to flow both ways at the same time, and we have binary cubits that compute both 0 and 1 simultaneously. they only exist for a short time, but we have created them, so IMHO they do hold credibility. i know that this doesn't really show evidence of macro scale quantum effects, but they are observable.

Chemicals in a beaker in a lab obey objective rules and don't have "free will". Your brain is just a bunch of chemicals obeying the same laws in the same exact way.

Where is this "YOU" that "controls" the "bubits", or the "cubits" or the "waveform"? How do chemicals obeying physical laws get to make decisions moreso than other chemicals obeying physical laws?

It sounds like you are asserting the existence of a "Soul" ... ?

[neutrino_cannon]

I don't posit on anything nearing a soul. I do, however contend that the universe has holes, namely those pertaining to the predictability of reality.

Also, since I am composed entirely of tau-leptons, and tau-leptons aren't atoms, your widely posted syllogism has no relevance to me.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by hammegk
And as has been pointed out to you numerous times, we do not "randomly" do things. (Well, maybe you do ... nah, I don't think so ... nuthin' but cause & effect is it?? )So you have asserted. Perhaps you could show evidence that (a) this is so and (b) it is somehow relevant?And no, I never disagreed that "quantum effects" are used in real world engineering. Sounds better than "magic" I admit.How about your continued claims that computers are deterministic? Were you wrong?If quantisizing and predicting-in-aggregate constituted "understanding" science would be in good shape to explain "what-is". Was that supposed to mean something?

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Franko
What on Earth are you talking about Sweet-Pea? "Macro scale quantum effects"??? Sounds like pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo to me. When did someone find a genuine Alive-Dead Cat that we didn't hear about it? Try playing with superfluid helium sometime.
Or superconductors.
Or computers.
Or just wander into a reactor core.

[MRC_Hans]

Quantum events are observable on the macro scale. I notice that you have consistently ignored it, Franko, but I have many times (this is number ten) pointed out one that can be cheaply and safely observed with the unaided eye in your own home:

Phosphorescence.

When a phosphorous atom is hit by a sufficiently energetic photon, it changes state; an electron jumps to a different quantum state. After a random period, the electron jumps back, and a photon is emitted. This is an acausal event in the sense that there is no cause for the atom giving up its charge at a certain time.

On the macro scale, the stability of this type of atom makes the phenomenon probabilistic. We observe this as a half-life; after being irridiated with light, a sample of phosphorescent material (containing a huge number of atoms) emits a light that is halved in intensity during a specific period of time.

So for a simplified version of Schroedinger's cat, consider a piece of phosphorescent material: You can measure the intensity of light it gives off, and you can measure its half life, but this knowledge gives you no information whatsoever on when it was charged or by how much.

Hans

[Franko]

neutrino_cannon: (A-Theist)
I don't posit on anything nearing a soul. I do, however contend that the universe has holes, namely those pertaining to the predictability of reality.

Well if there is no “Soul” (no “You”), then I don’t see how you can have any “free will”, because without a “You” what is making the “choices”?

Also what EXACTLY do you mean by the “Universe has holes”? I thought John Bell agreed with A-Theist Saint Heisenberg that there were NO HIDDEN VARIABLES! Why do you believe that contradictions in the dogma of A-Theism are not really logical contradictions?

Also, since I am composed entirely of tau-leptons, and tau-leptons aren't atoms, your widely posted syllogism has no relevance to me.

Ahhh, I see, so tau-leptons are evidence that you have magic powers and do not obey the objective and deterministic laws of physics? Did tau-leptons allow you to preselect your parents? Did tau-leptons allow you to predetermine that you would be “lucky enough” to evolve as a “superior A-Theist”?

Are there any tau-leptons in the Moon? Do all tau-leptons have magic “free willy powers”?

[Franko]

MRC: (Word: Agnostic; Deed: A-Theist)
Quantum events are observable on the macro scale. I notice that you have consistently ignored it, Franko, but I have many times (this is number ten) pointed out one that can be cheaply and safely observed with the unaided eye in your own home:

Phosphorescence.

When a phosphorous atom is hit by a sufficiently energetic photon, it changes state; an electron jumps to a different quantum state. After a random period, the electron jumps back, and a photon is emitted. This is an acausal event in the sense that there is no cause for the atom giving up its charge at a certain time.

So you not understanding the process completely in the present means that it is definitely magical, and there is no possible way that there could be an underlying logical process.

And you know this based on the fact that you have been unable to observe the actual details in the present, so based on a complete lack of information you pass a completely speculative judgment.

Gravitons change state just like that MRC. I bet if you could stand back from afar (a view from the Omniverse) it would look just like electrons changing states – first the Graviton is in one state … and then, as if by magic … he is in another.

On the macro scale, the stability of this type of atom makes the phenomenon probabilistic. We observe this as a half-life; after being irridiated with light, a sample of phosphorescent material (containing a huge number of atoms) emits a light that is halved in intensity during a specific period of time.

So for a simplified version of Schroedinger's cat, consider a piece of phosphorescent material: You can measure the intensity of light it gives off, and you can measure its half life, but this knowledge gives you no information whatsoever on when it was charged or by how much.

You know, you could look at human beings as particles. And you could give them a half life as well. And if all you observed is when they were born, and when they died, and NOTHING in between … an individuals death may appear completely random and without logical cause.

... But I still think that people who exercise regularly tend to beat the half-life, while people who smoke tend not to.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Franko (physicist)
So you not understanding the process completely in the present means that it is definitely magical, and there is no possible way that there could be an underlying logical process.

Magical? What's magical? As long as the possible underlying logical process is unknown (unless you will present any evidence at all for it?), we must assume the obvious explanation. Parsimony, you know. That you dearly want there to be another explanation is no more valid than if you dearly wanted pink unicorns to exist.

And you know this based on the fact that you have been unable to observe the actual details in the present, so based on a complete lack of information you pass a completely speculative judgment.

I'm so sorry, but we are able to observe quantum events very precisely on the atomic scale. After observing these events, we predict their effects on the macro scale, and, what do you know, they fit observation. This is called science.

Gravitons change state just like that MRC. I bet if you could stand back from afar (a view from the Omniverse) it would look just like electrons changing states – first the Graviton is in one state … and then, as if by magic … he is in another.

Uhh, where are we now? In your fantasy land? I don't suppose you have any evidence for this? Last time I looked, you were not among the Nobel nominees.

You know, you could look at human beings as particles. And you could give them a half life as well. And if all you observed is when they were born, and when they died, and NOTHING in between … an individuals death may appear completely random and without logical cause.

No, half-life statistics do not apply to humans. If you look at a newborn, you might find that statistically he had 50% chance of reaching the age of, say, 70 years (depends on where in the world we are). But if this was a half-life function, then you should be able to look at a 70 year old and say that he had a 50% chance of living another 70 years. And this is hardly the case :rolleyes:

... But I still think that people who exercise regularly tend to beat the half-life, while people who smoke tend not to.

Mmm, funny.

[Underemployed]

OK, it's time to abandon Schroedinger's Cat as an example of quantum strangeness.

I propose actually constructing and carrying out the experiment with a transparent box. We'll see what happens to that damn cat.

Could one of you direct me to some government grant-giving sites please - this is important research.

Scott


but something on a macro scale may not behave the same way
as things on the micro scale.


I am VERY suspicious of this argument. Why? Because of the creationist anthem about having observed micro-evolution but not macro-evolution. The Darwinist response has to be that macro evolution is just lots of micro-evolution. I simply do not see how we can justify using this argument anywhere in physics either. I don't care whether you are talking about 1 atom or 1 trillion trillion atoms - they are all just atoms and they all follow the same laws. The micro/macro distinction is just a bodge-job to escape confronting the apparent paradoxes of QM, and I believe that those apparent paradoxes need to be looked at carefully, not dismissed with some dodgy-looking argument about things behaving different on micro and macro scales.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Underemployed
OK, it's time to abandon Schroedinger's Cat as an example of quantum strangeness.

I propose actually constructing and carrying out the experiment with a transparent box. We'll see what happens to that damn cat.

Could one of you direct me to some government grant-giving sites please - this is important research.

Ahh, but we can actually design an alternative experiment that works without cruelty to animals and dangerous substances:

Make a light-proof box. Place two photoflashes, a light meter and a phosphorescent toy in the box so that:

The photoflashes can irridiate the toy.
The light meter can measure the light emitted from the toy.

Next arrange an external readout form the light meter that can be switched on and off, and a computer control of the photoflashes that can, at a random time fire one or two of the flashes according to a random choice.

NOTE: There is a caveat here, as a computer algorithm can only deliver a pseudorandom result which is ultimately knowable in advance. However, for this experiement we choose not to analyze the PRNG, so the result will be indistinguishable from a truely random result.

Now for the experiment:

First, we need to calibrate. We fire each flash and plot the curve of the light from the toy. Then both flashes and do the same. It is important that the two curves from each flash are identical within our measuring precision. If they are not, we must adjust the position or power of the flashes. At the same time we calculate the half-life of the phosporescense in the toy.

Finally we set the computer to fire one or both flashes (we dont know which) within the time of two half-lives, then wait another half-life and read the intensity meter. This reading will be somewhere on the intensity curve plotted after firing both flashes, but we cannot determine if this was caused by one flash firing time t ago or two flashes firing time t+one half-life ago.

QED: A non-deterministic event observable on the macro scale. And one you can test in your home if you really want to.

Hans

[Franko]

Elephant:
I am VERY suspicious of this argument. Why? Because of the creationist anthem about having observed micro-evolution but not macro-evolution. The Darwinist response has to be that macro evolution is just lots of micro-evolution. I simply do not see how we can justify using this argument anywhere in physics either. I don't care whether you are talking about 1 atom or 1 trillion trillion atoms - they are all just atoms and they all follow the same laws. The micro/macro distinction is just a bodge-job to escape confronting the apparent paradoxes of QM [i.e. Pseudo-Materialism], and I believe that those apparent paradoxes need to be looked at carefully, not dismissed with some dodgy-looking argument about things behaving different on micro and macro scales.

Elephant!!!

You and I agreeing on things quantum mechanical??? :confused:

… surely a sign of the impending Apocalypse! ;)

[hammegk]

Silly Brits!

Why couldn't you have got it completely correct? All it needs is replace "bodge-job" with SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess).

PS. I don't really like "dodgy-looking" either but will accept it in a spirit of compromise. :D

[ScottDYelich]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Scott



I am VERY suspicious of this argument. Why? Because of the creationist anthem about having observed micro-evolution but not macro-evolution. The Darwinist response has to be that macro evolution is just lots of micro-evolution. I simply do not see how we can justify using this argument anywhere in physics either. I don't care whether you are talking about 1 atom or 1 trillion trillion atoms - they are all just atoms and they all follow the same laws. The micro/macro distinction is just a bodge-job to escape confronting the apparent paradoxes of QM, and I believe that those apparent paradoxes need to be looked at carefully, not dismissed with some dodgy-looking argument about things behaving different on micro and macro scales.

what is there to be suspicious of? I do not behave like a single atom.
period. if you are saying that I do, then you are welcome to [try to]
prove that to me or anyone else.

does a bunch of atoms puts together in some certain configuration
behave like me? sure do -- it's me! does another configuration
behave differently, sure does, that's you! we are not the same.

I think you and frank are failing via false analogy as pointed out elsewhere.

I do not think I will ever be able to get across this point to either of
you two. I am satisfied that the point has been stated, but it is up
to you to make the leap of faith (back to reality).

Scott

Scott:


what is there to be suspicious of? I do not behave like a single atom.

No. You behave like trillions of atoms. The problem is this : Where do you draw the line between micro and macro?

You cannot draw a line between micro and macro evolution. Neither can you draw a line between micro and macro physics - where do things stop behaving like atoms and start behaving like people? 10 atoms? 1000 atoms? 100000 atoms? Where?


I think you and frank are failing via false analogy as pointed out elsewhere.


Why is the analogy false?

From my POV your argument is a flagrantly flawed as the cretinists yelping on about macro-evolution not being inferred from micro-evolution.


I do not think I will ever be able to get across this point to either of you two. I am satisfied that the point has been stated, but it is up to you to make the leap of faith (back to reality).


In other words you can't defend your own point of view, you aren't going to try..... :rolleyes:

Where do you draw the line, Scott?

[Underemployed]

Posted by MRC_HansAhh, but we can actually design an alternative experiment that works without cruelty to animals and dangerous substances

But I wanted to play with uranium and gas a cat!

When do I get to gas the cat? I want to gas the cat!


PS I actually love cats...


...but I couldn't eat a whole one

[ScottDYelich]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Scott:



No. You behave like trillions of atoms. The problem is this : Where do you draw the line between micro and macro?

You cannot draw a line between micro and macro evolution. Neither can you draw a line between micro and macro physics - where do things stop behaving like atoms and start behaving like people? 10 atoms? 1000 atoms? 100000 atoms? Where?


In other words you can't defend your own point of view, you aren't going to try..... :rolleyes:

Where do you draw the line, Scott?

hmmm? why rolling eyes? I never said that I wouldn't talk about
my position. I said, I don't think I'm going to get you to change
your mind, nor do I think it's important that I do. I share my
position with those who do the science, not those who believe
what they want to believe because god or a book supposedly
written by god, tells them so.


where do I draw the line? I think that's a royal you, right?

I'd repeat what I have stated before. My body doesn't act like a single atom. If two atoms don't act like a single atom, then that's where I'd draw the line. If my body minus 1 atom behaved like 1 atom, but adding that one atom back makes it not behave the same as 1 atom, then THAT is the line.

You say my whole by behaves the same as particles on the quantum level -- just give any one single valid example, and I'll agree you're right. If you're saying that my body is affected by things happening
at the quantum level, well, duh... but affected by is not the same as beheaves the same as. Be specific... stay on the same point.. and don't
change your defitions or interpretations of the same statement to fit
your current position.

Scott

[Franko]

Newbie,

I'd repeat what I have stated before. My body doesn't act like a single atom.

What do you mean exactly? How does a single atom “act”?

As far as I know, a single atom obeys the immutable deterministic laws of physics. All of an atoms motions (its “Actions”) can be explained in terms of the laws of Physics.

The same can be said for You. What exactly is making the “choices”? Aren’t “YOU” (people) just your physical brain? … and isn’t your physical brain simply made of atoms (chemicals) obeying the same laws that ALL chemicals obey? How are the chemicals in your brain making “decisions” or “choices” beyond those made by any other chemicals? Are you claiming that the carbon atoms in your physical body obey a different set of rules from those obeyed by other carbon atoms?

What evidence or logical reason do you have for believing that these “choices” are real? Isn’t it a fact, that your “choices” are simple an illusion like the colors red, green, and blue, when the real reality is oscillating photons traveling at the speed of light? Isn’t your “free will” similarly an illusion while the real reality is that you are a puppet completely under the control of Almighty TLOP (The Laws of Physics)???

[ScottDYelich]

Originally posted by Franko
Newbie,


What evidence or logical reason do you have for believing that these ?choices? are real? Isn?t it a fact, that your ?choices? are simple an illusion like the colors red, green, and blue, when the real reality is oscillating photons traveling at the speed of light? Isn?t your ?free will? similarly an illusion while the real reality is that you are a puppet completely under the control of Almighty TLOP (The Laws of Physics)???

Frank... are you color blind? If I asked you to pick out a red or green object, could you do it?

You see, there may be photons, blah blah... physics... blah blah... but if you and I both agree that some stimulus is called "red" ... or "rock" ... then that's all that's needed.

I am so happy... you've actually called me a name!

anyway... real reality... oscillating photons.

real reality, we call it "red" or "green" ...

what, really, are you trying to say? no, really...

honestly... are you trying to say anything? or
just try to appear clever by always either ignoring most everything people say to you and then disagreeing or misrepresenting everything else?

my brain seems to be able to detect red...
when my eyes are open.

Please tell me how you can determine when your
goddess will make my eyes be closed, so that I may
open them and see the colors... and hope that you will also open your eyes and see the light.

franko: have you ever heard the saying "you can't see the forrest for the trees?" -- you can only see the trees, you can not see the forrest. In fact, you can not see that there are differen't types of trees, or any trees... just atoms. tree atoms are rock atoms are me atoms are you atoms and all obey physics.

franko -- where do you draw the line between micro and macro? is everything... just micro atoms? or, if not, do you then claim that anything macro does not have a single different characteristic then everything micro?

although I know you won't be able to resist... please do respond. Please feel free to sprinkle in the ad hominems... :->

Scott

Scott:


I share my position with those who do the science, not those who believe what they want to believe because god or a book supposedly written by god, tells them so.


There is quite a range of scientific opinion here, IMO.

I still don't understand how you get from a quantum micro world to a Newtonian macro world without explaining the join.

:)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
I still don't understand how you get from a quantum micro world to a Newtonian macro world without explaining the join.

:)
This is just an analogy, so do not read too much into it.

Consider the quandary of physicians before the advent of microbiology. Although crude by todays standards, they knew a good deal about circulation, muscles, skeletal structure and the functions of various organs. The fact that they were unaware cells did not mean that their theories were (necessarily) wrong, just incomplete.

Addition of microbiology to medicine has refined it greatly, but it does not mean that the heart no longer is responsible for pumping blood.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Shroud of Akron
if we are made of atoms, which obey TLOP, then (as some say) it follows that we obey TLOP. this is an understandable concept that i disagree with. if our thought process is carried out through the routing of electrons through our brains, i would say that our thoughts are governed through the laws that govern electrons. this would mean quantum mechanics, am i correct? does quantum mechanics not state that no particle can ever be directly observed, and never be predicted as to where it will end up? not to mention that a particle can be in more than one place at the same time. i think the uncertainty principle, based on the logic of the "TLOP" argument dictates free will.

i edit to add that, yes this is directed toward Franko, and that this is not an attack on his beliefs. alot of people seem to tell Franko that he is an idiot, i don't believe this to be the case, he just has enough nerve to post in a forum where he is in the minority. i appreciate his discourse when he keeps it civil. i think that Franko is very good at making me look critically at what i believe.
I agree that we are made of atoms and that we obey TLOP, but I think Franko stops too soon. For you see, we are made of cells, so we also obey the laws of biology, laws which don't apply directly to atoms (chemistry applies to atoms, but no chemicals are subject to TLOB unless they form a construct complex enough to be a cell, and TLOB don't apply to anything less complicated than cells). We do things atoms don't do on their own, such as breathe, eat, sleep, reproduce, die (etc...). We also obey the laws of complex organisms, so we can also walk, talk, and forge mighty empires, in addition to obeying the laws of biology, another thing which atoms don't do on their own. Atoms obey the laws of physics, but our cells are affected by our behavior as complex organisms, and the atoms of our cells are affected by the laws of biology. Therefore atoms that are a part of you aren't just obeying TLOP, they're also obeying you. You are made of matter. Matter creates consciousness. Therefore, you have free will.

[synaesthesia]

i think the uncertainty principle, based on the logic of the "TLOP" argument dictates free will.

Free will in no way depends upon the uncertainty principle. The behavior in a quantum universe does not speak of the causal influence of mystical things like "violition". It's no less mindless flitting of pattern than the most mechanistic Newtonian. Nowhere do we find explicity represented rules, but we do find regular behavior. Nor do we find exceptions, some regular and mysterious causal abberation in the 'violitional behavior' of homo sapiens. (We're sill homo sapiens I suppose.)


i edit to add that, yes this is directed toward Franko, and that this is not an attack on his beliefs. alot of people seem to tell Franko that he is an idiot, i don't believe this to be the case, he just has enough nerve to post in a forum where he is in the minority.

The project of establishing Franko's position as beloved parriah is a task to which he himself has devoted more time than anyone other individual on this board. It must be admitted that the collective efforts of many others preponderate his own contribution to the endless babble and threads, and threads about threads about nothing of consequence.

But Franko undeniably thrives in the unecessarily controversial spirit. The question is not whether or not he often gets ridiculously obtuse with his repetetive mantras. Of course he does. But it is whether we have a right to deny a human beings something from which they (and many other participants) derive a great deal of fun. ;)

[Underemployed]

c4ts, are you really trying hard to goad Franko on or is it just a natural talent?

Franko:

Atoms obey TLOP!
You are made of Atoms!
You obey TLOP!
TLOP controls YOU controls CAR!

c4ts:

Atoms obey TLOP!
You are made of atoms!
Atoms obey YOU!
TLOP controls YOU controls ATOMS!

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Underemployed
c4ts, are you really trying hard to goad Franko on or is it just a natural talent?

Franko:

Atoms obey TLOP!
You are made of Atoms!
You obey TLOP!
TLOP controls YOU controls CAR!

c4ts:

Atoms obey TLOP!
You are made of atoms!
Atoms obey YOU!
TLOP controls YOU controls ATOMS!

Yes, I am trying to goad Franko on, as usual.

Franko sometimes says the CAR is more conscious than YOU.

I think he also says YOU can't control atoms because atoms obey TLOP and YOU obey TLOP.

According to Franko, I don't know if he ever says YOU control anything.

[Franko]

c4tv: (explosive transvestite)
According to Franko, I don't know if he ever says YOU control anything.

Yes, but what exactly is making the “choices” C4TV? Aren’t “YOU” (people) just your physical brain? … and isn’t your physical brain simply made of atoms (chemicals) obeying the same laws that ALL chemicals obey? How are the chemicals in your brain making “decisions” or “choices” beyond those made by any other chemicals? Are you claiming that the carbon atoms in your physical body obey a different set of rules from those obeyed by other carbon atoms?

What evidence or logical reason do you have for believing that these “choices” are real? Isn’t it a fact, that your “choices” are simple an illusion like the colors red, green, and blue, when the real reality is oscillating photons traveling at the speed of light? Isn’t your “free will” similarly an illusion while the real reality is that you are a puppet completely under the control of Almighty TLOP (The Laws of Physics)???

Where is your extraordinary EVIDENCE for your extraordinary claim of “free will”? You certainly haven’t presented any. You can’t even define “free will” precisely and consistently. You can’t even explain what the “YOU” is that is making the “decisions”? I see no logical reason why you hold these beliefs.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Franko


Yes, but what exactly is making the “choices” C4TV? Aren’t “YOU” (people) just your physical brain? … and isn’t your physical brain simply made of atoms (chemicals) obeying the same laws that ALL chemicals obey?
Yes, but they are obeying additional laws that other chemicals don't.

How are the chemicals in your brain making “decisions” or “choices” beyond those made by any other chemicals?
"Choice" and "decision" are ultimately the results TLOCO (heh heh, "loco"). What is happening is a bunch of atoms obeying TLOP are parts of synapses which obey TLOB, so those atoms are also obeying TLOB. The cells are functioning coherently as an entire organ known as the brain, and organs obey TLOCO. As an organ, the brain recieves sense data, stores it, compares it to previously stored data, plays out countless scenarios (known as "imagination"), and fires synapses which send instructions to other parts of the body that are similar to what was determined to be the best possible outcome. And that's oversimplifying it. The process is inexact, and therefore the total outcome of that process is known as a decision, because methods used to find the best possible outcome draw from countless sources, not just memory and behavioural patterns, but also intelligent perception of experience and things like ideas, beliefs, opinions (etc)... which are often unique to the organism the brain is a part of, and that constitutes free will. Now, only the atoms obeying TLOP, TLOB, and TLOCO, that are part of the specific set of cells which constitute the functioning human brain are performing these actions. A lump of iron, for example, does not and cannot obey TLOB or TLOCO, and therefore it cannot make a decision. While both are made of atoms, and both obey TLOP, the brain is doing things the iron is not becuase it is part of a greater hierarchy involving sets of rules that are not part of the iron. If somebody were to pick it up and throw it, it does not start following TLOB or TLOCO because it is not made of cells, nor would it become part of the person throwing it.

Are you claiming that the carbon atoms in your physical body obey a different set of rules from those obeyed by other carbon atoms?
YES! And I am also claiming that this set of rules is additional, so that it does not replace, undo, or nullify, a single law of physics, but is controlled by laws pertaining to TLOB that other carbon atoms are not controlled by (if it is part of a cell, or a cell's "food"). Physics provides a set of rules, and there is no law of physics for independent motion. TLOB and TLOCO provide ways to store and utillize energy gained through chemical reactions that ultimately result in independent motion. The carbon atoms in my leg are a part of me, and those atoms aren't going anywhere until either an outside force moves them or I move my leg. A decision to go jogging roughly determines the outcome of the motion of those atoms if another decision is made to act upon that decision. Both of those decisions are mine.

What evidence or logical reason do you have for believing that these “choices” are real?

The fact that once a decision is made and acted upon, proving that it is fake will not undo the decision, nor will it undo the actions based upon it. Therefore, unless I am shown otherwise, actions initiated by me because I percieve that I am making decisions are the result of my decisions. Illusory decisions or not, I'm the one who is typing this to you, and I'm doing it because I feel like it. But if you want to prove that my decisions are illusions, I suggest we test if you can use your knowledge of TLOP and the Logical Goddess to accurately predict my actions. Perhaps Stimpson J. Cat or someone with scientific experience to design the experiment and another member of this boards who does not usually go to the R&P forum to record the results, to prevent A-Thiest bias. An accuracy of %100 would prove I am completely under the control of TLOP. (You might want to conduct the experiment on several other subjects, in case your first results were a fluke. That way you could prove, beyond all doubt, that free will is an illusion.)

Isn’t it a fact, that your “choices” are simple an illusion like the colors red, green, and blue, when the real reality is oscillating photons traveling at the speed of light?
What I percieve as light is theoretically the oscillation of photons. That part of your question is close enough to the truth to be called a fact. The other part of your question, the part where you ask if choices are a simple illusion and seem to imply the answer is "yes", is highly disputable, so it is not fact.

Isn’t your “free will” similarly an illusion while the real reality is that you are a puppet completely under the control of Almighty TLOP (The Laws of Physics)???[/i]
I'm afraid there is no way of knowing that until you find some way to test it, as it is rather counterintuitive.

Where is your extraordinary EVIDENCE for your extraordinary claim of “free will”?
Your extraordinary ability to ignore others and keep on saying this will suffice for now.

You certainly haven’t presented any.
Nor have you presented any evidence of the Goddess controlling TLOP.

You can’t even define “free will” precisely and consistently.
That is unnecessary, since it would seem that we both know what free will is. If you did not know what free will is, then I would have to define it, but if you understood so little about free will that you actually had to go look it up in the dictionary, then everything you said about free will not existing would go down the toilet, since the when you argue against it you assume you have a comprehensive enough understanding of free will to say it isn't there.

You can’t even explain what the “YOU” is that is making the “decisions”? I see no logical reason why you hold these beliefs.
So all that thing about the "YOU" being "a complex organism that obeys TLOCO" and that part about actions that are initiated by a complex organism following TLOCO, in which TLOCO control organs made from cells which follow TLOB, and TLOB control cells made from atoms which obey TLOP. Must I elaborate any further than I already have?

The universe is a self-sustaining body. You know it does not need air or food, that it does not need to go to the bathroom, that it is not one big organism. So far, mankind has discovered that matter remains in existence without external forces acting upon it. The universe does not need a Logical Goddess constantly feeding it instructions any more than it needs a bite to eat.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Here's how I see it.

Feces make my bowels react.
My bowels make me react.
Feces are god.

Conclude from that what you will...

[c4ts]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Here's how I see it.

Feces make my bowels react.
My bowels make me react.
Feces are god.

Conclude from that what you will...

I conclude that the feces makes you hold that reaction and seek a toilet. And if the feces does not come out, it is because the Logical Hanky does not wish to trancend your crude mortal gut, and is merely testing you.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Here's how I see it.

Feces make my bowels react.
My bowels make me react.
Feces are god.

Conclude from that what you will...

Minimal contemplation could conclude various interesting points regarding "free will", inputs to an MPB algorithim, foods best suited to the individual, etcetc. ;)

[UnrepentantSinner]

c4ts and hammegk, Occam must be rolling over in his grave. ;)

All I know is that much like my supposed TLOP god and it's harbinger Franktroll, when the feces tells me what do I fail to obey at my own peril!!

Don't forget everyone, your feces controls YOU! It's a higher powere than you are. It's a god.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


Don't forget everyone, your feces controls YOU! It's a higher powere than you are. It's a god.

Again, a subject suitable for mindfullness & meditation. ;)


Wait! Wait! I'm picking up a thought; something about pearls before swine I believe. Hmm.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

UnrepentantSinner,

Here's how I see it.

Feces make my bowels react.
My bowels make me react.
Feces are god.

Conclude from that what you will...

For some reason, this reminds me of a delightful little ditty by Gwar.

Jiggle the Handle (http://www.lyricsdomain.com/lyrics/11183/)

Warning, these lyrics are crude, vulgar, socially unacceptable, and should not be viewed by anybody, ever.

Dr. Stupid

[c4ts]

Originally posted by hammegk


Again, a subject suitable for mindfullness & meditation. ;)


Wait! Wait! I'm picking up a thought; something about pearls before swine I believe. Hmm.

Fool, you've metaphysically jumped websites and are now reading David Icke's mind!

[UnrepentantSinner]

Tossing aside my usual pithyness for a moment... but am I wrong for mocking Franktroll's syllogism as being the most ill concieved since the emerald Socrates walked the earth?

Reharnessing my sarcastic pony... if feces is god.. per Franktroll's logic, does that make a fart the word of god, or merely a heresy by a false idol?

[ScottDYelich]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Tossing aside my usual pithyness for a moment... but am I wrong for mocking Franktroll's syllogism as being the most ill concieved since the emerald Socrates walked the earth?

Reharnessing my sarcastic pony... if feces is god.. per Franktroll's logic, does that make a fart the word of god, or merely a heresy by a false idol?

very nice.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Tossing aside my usual pithyness for a moment... but am I wrong for mocking Franktroll's syllogism as being the most ill concieved since the emerald Socrates walked the earth?

:D :D :D

He's just lucky Aristotle isn't here.