Regarding Franko...

Originally posted by Franko
yeah, but every one of your posts just reinforces the notion that your actions are predictable (you obey Fate).
You are living proof that "free will" doesn't exist Whodidi.
Prove it again. I like when you keep proving it...


You posted that same stuff in another thread, so so will I:


PLEASE QUIT BEING AN INTENTIONAL TROUBLE-STARTER

:D

As usual, you avoided my question. So I'll ignore everything that doesn't pertain to it.

You said:

----
Originally posted by Franko
Whodiddly, Fool, and Upchurch welcome you to the rolls of obssessed religious fanatics.
----


And then I asked:

----
Can you show me the post which I did 'welcome' him?
----


...

Simple question Franko.. You keep choosing to ignore it. :D

PS. You have more posts in this thread than I do, yet I am cluttering it up? :D


As usual, you avoided my question. So I'll ignore everything that doesn't pertain to it.

You said:

----
Originally posted by Franko
Whodiddly, Fool, and Upchurch welcome you to the rolls of obssessed religious fanatics.
----


And then I asked:

----
Can you show me the post which I did 'welcome' him?
----


...

[Checkmite]

I must admit, I'm moderately impressed with Franko. He hasn't yet devolved into his characteristic trenchmouthed-ness. It's almost as if he's Freely Willing himself to remain civil...

As usual, you avoided my question. So I'll ignore everything that doesn't pertain to it.

You said:

----
Originally posted by Franko
Whodiddly, Fool, and Upchurch welcome you to the rolls of obssessed religious fanatics.
----


And then I asked:

----
Can you show me the post which I did 'welcome' him?
----


Come over to PalTalk sweetie. :) We'll see how much you snipe over there.

[Franko]

Whodidi/Pahansiri,

Listen I realize that you are really really stupid, so I will just say it slowly.

I don't like you, you are utterly dishonest in my opinion, I have no respect for you, and I have no intention of having any conversation with you (in any of your many guises) regarding my beliefs. It doesn’t matter how much you nag me. I am not giving you what you want.

There is nothing you can do it about.

… however don’t let that stop you from this amusing display …

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Franko
Whodidi/Pahansiri,

Listen I realize that you are really really stupid, so I will just say it slowly.

I don't like you, you are utterly dishonest in my opinion, I have no respect for you, and I have no intention of having any conversation with you (in any of your many guises) regarding my beliefs. It doesn’t matter how much you nag me. I am not giving you what you want.

There is nothing you can do it about.

… however don’t let that stop you from this amusing display …

Thats a shame Frank, I have just developed an infallable proof for Free will, But I don't respect you so I'm not going to share it.....But, Honest, It really does exist.......What a pathetic copout frank.

[Franko]

Gee, it is so unpredictable that YOU of all people agree with Whodiddly :eek:

I wonder if Upchunk will congradulate him too? ... or maybe Titanpout! To be honest, I am having more and more trouble telling one of you from the next. Borg collective ...

Yeah ... does this mean A-Theism is True, and you will get to cease to exist after all!!!

:D :D :D

Franko, stop concentrating on me, and start concentrating on answering questions. Why, you thought you'd go unchallenged?

As usual, you avoided my question. So I'll ignore everything that doesn't pertain to it.

You said:

----
Originally posted by Franko
Whodiddly, Fool, and Upchurch welcome you to the rolls of obssessed religious fanatics.
----


And then I asked:

----
Can you show me the post which I did 'welcome' him?
----



----
I don't like you, you are utterly dishonest in my opinion, I have no respect for you, and I have no intention of having any conversation with you (in any of your many guises) regarding my beliefs. It doesn’t matter how much you nag me. I am not giving you what you want.
----


I'm dishonest?

You've assumed:

1. I am a strong atheist
2. I welcomed somebody to "the rolls of obssessed religious fanatics"
3. your goddess exists
4. your goddess is female

and when asked about providing evidence of these 'truths', you pass or snipe at me or others. Yet you are honest? You're a joke. :)


Nex time tell me what you really think. Don't hold back.

[Franko]

Could be Titanpout ... ?

I wouldn't put anything past that one ...

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Franko
yes – but you are the one who does not understand parsimony.

How is your incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo about “invisible-magical-self-creating-non-conscious-omnipotent-sky-machine-thingy” more parsimonious then God.

Well, just to start, it is quite comprehensible and has nothing to do with invisibility, magic, or omnipotence, or a "sky-machine-thingy" as you so eloquently put it. It is in fact exactly identical to what your position should be if it is in fact based on the actual laws of physics (and not your misunderstanding of them). The only difference would be that the laws of physics are just rules as opposed to an anthropomorphized conscious entity. Which is truly simpler, that the universe arose through natural means and operates under natural laws...or that a set of rules became an actual conscious entity that controls the entire universe?

I understand exactly what “God” is, but I have no idea what you are talking about with your “invisible-magical-self-creating-non-conscious-omnipotent-sky-machine-thingy”

So you freely admit that you don't understand the laws of physics (which is all my explanation is based on), but you can confidently claim that they must be a conscious entity, and that that this explanation is simpler than the laws of physics on their own?

Originally posted by Franko
Could be Titanpout ... ?

I wouldn't put anything past that one ...


Yeah, Serpent, you do that.

[BillyJoe]

Franko in ordinary type

BillyJoe in bold type

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

That’s simply not True. There are plenty of 16 year old kids who can control a CAR, but they don’t know squat about controlling TLOP.
TLOP controls YOU controls CAR

Okay we’re using “control” in different senses here.
We were originally talking about “understanding” and it is in this sense that I understanding the meaning of your word “control”.

What makes you so certain that only humans build CARS?

Give me an example of something else that does.

Is a CAR more or less complex than the MOON? TLOP made the MOON didn’t it? Are you telling me that TLOP can build the MOON, but NOT build a CAR?

TLOP can only “build” a CAR through “building” homo sapiens.

I still bet I can make a CAR quicker than you can make a Human.

Franko, we are talking about different things.
Consider the following…..

(1) TLOP -> homo sapiens.
(2) TLOP -> homo sapiens -> CAR
(3) TLOP -> homo sapiens -> homo sapiens.

I am comparing (1) and (2).
You are comparing (2) and (3)

Do you agree with me that (2) takes longer than (1). If so, then CAR is more complex than homo sapiens
In any case, I agree with you that (3) takes longer than (2). And that homo sapiens “made” by homo sapiens is more complex that CAR “made” by homo sapiens.

You are trying to change the test. You are saying that to make a CAR you have to actually make two things – a human, and a car. Well if that is the case, then don’t you first have to make TLOP before you can make a Human? If a human is harder to make than a car, then doesn’t that imply that TLOP is harder to make than a human?

See the above.
Where do you stand?

Sometimes rocks are stacked naturally by TLOP. How can we tell which stacked stones are the more complex and evolved human-stacked variety, and which types are the less complex and evolved Tlop-stacked variety? If you are claiming that there is a difference in complexity, then we should be able to observe this difference.

If YOU are stacking those rocks to make a house, that house is more complex than YOU because it first requires the “making” of YOU. Therefore the complexity of YOU is inherent in the complexity of the house.
And I have never seen rocks stacking randomly to form a house.

There is plenty of proof for God and afterlife, but not while you are deluded with crazy notions of “free will”.

I thought we were agreed that free will does not exist.


Yes.

[b]Okay, I’ll have to accept that you do.
How much effort, though, does it take to train yourself to stop feeling as if you are actually making decisions?

The biggest immediate difference I notice, is that I do not declare something UNKNOWN to be FALSE automatically.

(N x P) + R = Z

With no other information I would claim that this equation is UNKNOWN. An A-Theists would say that based on no evidence it is FALSE. This is ludicrous in my way of thinking, I do not consider it logical at all.

Neither do I.
I consider anything for which there is no evidence as irrelevant.
And increasingly irrelevant the longer you spend looking for this evidence and find it lacking.

My perception is what ultimately causes it to manifest. Without perception, nothing exist.

Your consciousness produces reality?

Don’t take this the wrong way my friend, but A-Theism diminishes your perception of Time.

Can you explain this for me.
Time is just change. Without change there is no time. I can’t see what atheism has to do with it.

Is the Moon more than the sum of its atoms and molecules? In a way yes, but that doesn’t mean the Moon has “free will”. It also doesn’t mean that the Moon isn’t doing what it is commanded to do by TLOP, just like you. Your “orbit” is just slightly harder to perceive.

But I don’t believe in free will anyway.

You get One True Free Will choice … essentially, is it better to exist, or not exist?

This is not free will but a value judgement.
Free will is to decide whether to continue to exist or to start not existing.
Or more correctly stated….
The illusion of free will is to feel as if you decide whether to continue to exist or to start not existing.


Tlop is like your words in these posts. In other words, any way that you communicate with me is ultimately you transmitting a meme to me. Tlop is the mechanism that the LG uses to transmit Her memes to you.

Let me put it another way:

BillyJoe is To Initial State (Goddess) what Billyjoe’s words are to To the Laws of Physics (TLOP).

The LG is the “Physics” in TLOP. Just like any of your communications follow the protocol of TLOB (The Laws of Billyjoe).

[b]Does the Goddess formulate TLOP then?

According to Atheism/Pseudo-Materialism, “God” (Source of Tlop) is an incomprehensible invisible mystery non-conscious, sorta, kinda, “machine-like” thingy-ma-bob.

I wouldn’t say so.
The source of TLOP is unknown.
One possibility is the idea of a Multiverse containing all possible universes of which our universe is but one with its particular LOP. There is, of course, no evidence for Multiverse so it is just an interesting thought.
Of course, then there is still the question “Why anything at all?”
Quantum fluctuation, maybe, but then why quantum fluctuation.

There is also no evidence for God.

Unfortunately there is mystery at the beginning of the universe (or Multiverse) and you just have to live with it. Personally, I’m okay with it but, obviously, Franko, you are not?

According to Logical deism/Materialism, “God” (source of Tlop) is just another Graviton, like You or Me.

This is the turtles argument?

Well why do you think the A-Theists have invented “free will”? It’s because they don’t like the idea of being machines. Machines obey Fate, they are controlled by their program.

But I am a non-theist who is also a non-free-willy

But my point is that suppose you found out that you were a robot? Would it really change anything? Would it make you less human, less conscious?

No.

But if it [consciousness] makes your algorithm function more efficiently, then it does effect reality.

And what if the consciousness is, itself, just algorithm?

That’s just question begging on your part. Did the Ocean need a human to build it first? How about the grand canyon? Is the ocean more or less complex than a Car? Less? Why because a human didn’t make the ocean? That’s circular logic.

It’s not circular.
It’s a straight line…..

TLOP -> The Earth (including oceans and grand canyon) -> -> -> homo sapiens -> car

Without making reference to humans, provide a definition of complexity that explains why a CAR is more complex than the Moon (or the Ocean, or the Grand Canyon)?

Can’t do it.
The car is more complex than the Moon because the Moon came before homo sapiens and car came after homo sapiens.

Like I said, we know more about TOASTERS, which means that TLOP knows more about TOASTERS, why do you claim that TOASTERS have gained information (evolved), we have gained information (evolved), but TLOP has NOR gained information (evolved). Why the contradiction?

Perhaps this might help…..

TLOP -> non-evolutionary development (galaxies) -> genetic evolution (homo sapiens) -> mimetic evolution (art, science, culture)

Yes, but aren’t there important “genetic” differences between TOASTERS of today, and a hundred years ago?

No genetic differences but heaps of mimetic differences

Well if TLOP and the Initial state didn’t determine the current state of the Universe (Reality), then what did? Was it magic?

You didn’t say “determine”, you said “got together and decided” implying a “primordial consciousness”.
If you are not implying that, then I agree.


In my theory a simple, low energy system evolves into a complex, high energy system over Time.
In your system it would seem that a simple, high energy system develops into a simpler, lower energy system over Time.

[b]Isn’t it strange……..
You say my system does what I say your system does and I say your system does what you say my system does.
Seems like we at least agree on what the system should do but we disagree on which system does it……

After all, TLOP makes more things than humans which make more things than toasters.

…..and this is your reason why your system does what we both agree the system should do.
Although I think you mean that it’s complexity, not quantity, that matters.
For you, TLOP is more complex than homo sapiens whereas, tfor me, it’s the reverse.

How do we resolve this dilemma about our disagreement?

Once again, I can break rocks by smashing them on the ground. TLOP can similarly break rocks. Why are the rocks that I smash more complex then the ones TLOP smashes according to you?

‘smashing” is not “making”
There is obviously no increase in complexity when you break rocks.

Billyjoe, is a watch more complex, or less complex than a solar system? Our solar system is certainly a much more accurate time keeper then a watch, so how can you claim that the watch is more complex than a solar system? Doesn’t Tlop already make much more complex watches then we humans do?

No. Because to “make” a watch first required “making” consciousness” whereas making a solar system does not.
Of course you will say that TLOP is conscious.

And Tlop does not encompass that entire set?

If TLOP is more complex than homo sapiens, then why is a microbe not more complex than homo sapiens
TLOP -> microbes -> homo sapiens.
In any case doesn’t this conflict with your earlier statement…..

“In my theory a simple, low energy system evolves into a complex, high energy system over Time.”


I don’t see how you can make that statement. You are trying to claim that the subset is greater then the whole set.

[b]Are branches a subset of the trunk?

Entropy is increasing over Time for the universe as a whole (at least according to the A-Theist). How did the Entropy of all the energy start off so low?

If the universe started as a quantum fluctuation, then that quantum fluctuation filled the whole of spacetime. That’s a pretty ordered spacetime.

Why doesn’t energy just appear all the time if it is so simple?
Why haven’t there been any more “Bangs” since the big one?

Energy always totals zero.
But perhaps separating Energy into Mass and Gravity is not so simple an occurrence.
(I need the help of a physicist here.)

Exactly! So how did all of this USEABLE energy just magically appear out of the void one day 12.7 billion years ago? Like I said, for the A-Theists magical religion to be true, you have to take a poop on your most solid Science – Thermodynamics.

You mean the First Law?
Energy is a zero sum.
No net energy is appearing at any time and, therefore, the First Law is not violated.

Of course if you listen to Godel and Einstein instead …

I’m listening……


No one has ever gotten that “theory” to work, and no one ever will (well … other than in their own mind I mean …)

[b]Any physicists out there?

Well I agree, but that is my point, if Entropy ALWAYS increases globally, then how do you account for the MASSIVE contradiction of ENTROPY decreasing globally at the moment of the Big Bang?

Moment before Big Bang: Entropy = zero
Moment after Big Bang: Entropy > zero
It increases from zero and just keeps increasing

The answer is simple, but it would be a long conversation. Suffice to say, this isn’t the only universe to exist, or the only one that will exist. Just as we evolve, so do universes, and so does reality itself.

The LG is the product of such evolution, but she is “New”, like us. She is a product of the original primordial consciousness that the LD call the Progenitor Solipsist (PS). This entity was the first consciousness (although he was very unlike us). Eventually, this entity split himself, and when he did, evolution as we know it began. We are all his descendants … he is our ancestor.

But the PS, like ourselves, is made out of True-Matter. Essentially he is made out of self-aware Time.

Logical Goddess, Primordial Consciousness, Progenitor Solipsist, True-Matter?
Franko, are you sure this is not a religion.

But like I said … that is a long conversation.

Perhaps I need to read a book on it then? :eek:

[urstardust]

Perhaps I need to read a book on it then?

It's clear that Franko should go read a book.

Originally posted by Franko
why is that urstardust,

... or is your A-Theist idea of a logical argument a sane person's idea of an out-of-the-blue logical fallacy (vague insult)?



I'm sure Franko has read books.

Franko, why did you throw in "A-Theist" in there? It has nothing to do with you reading books or not.

[SpaceLord]

Originally posted by Whodini




I'm sure Franko has read books.

Franko, why did you throw in "A-Theist" in there? It has nothing to do with you reading books or not.

Apparently, everything that Franko doesn't agree with has to do with Atheists. Of course, to him I don't exist. :D

Yeah, and Franko only does text, he will never, ever, debate this stuff in voice (I've offered at least half a dozen times) because he known no one will tolerate his obvious "tactics". :)

He knows how to troll fairly well in text, but I've seen better, because he isn't too original.

[Franko]

Billyjoe,

My friend, no one is more interested in all the various topics covered in our conversation so far, then I, but I hope you will not mind if I hone in on this particular bit for the moment, because I think this will help us get to the heart of the matter, and I would like to focus there, if it is okay with you … ?

Franko, we are talking about different things.
Consider the following…..

(B1) TLOP -> homo sapiens.
(B2) TLOP -> homo sapiens -> CAR
(B3) TLOP -> homo sapiens -> homo sapiens.

I am comparing (1) and (2).
You are comparing (2) and (3)

Do you agree with me that (2) takes longer than (1). If so, then CAR is more complex than homo sapiens
In any case, I agree with you that (3) takes longer than (2). And that homo sapiens “made” by homo sapiens is more complex that CAR “made” by homo sapiens.

I don’t agree, and the reason I do not, is because I am using a fundamentally different model of reality then you are as a materialist. I would say:

(F1) Top Graviton -- > Meme (Matter) -- > Graviton (You) -- > Meme (Car)
(F2) Top Graviton -- > Meme (Matter) -- > Graviton (You) -- > Graviton (Human)

Now in My version example #F1 (F1,F2, yours is B1, B2, B3), is TRUE, and example #F2 is FALSE. Gravitons are Fermions, and fermions only contact via boson transmission. So, you have:

(F1) Fermion -- > Boson -- > Fermion -- > Boson (True)
(F2) Fermion -- > Boson -- > Fermion -- > Fermion (False)

Now keep in mind, that the Bosons are actually Memes in this case, and memes can be made of smaller memes. In other words, you can receive multiple memes as a group or bundle, and they will be additive. Kind of like if you are “seeing” a bunch of “red” photons, but simultaneously there are a few “blue” ones mixed in. You might perceive a single image with a reddish-purple color (or you might see red with blue dots – depends on the arrangement of the meme).

In other words, Consciousness can’t just make consciousness, at least … not according to what I believe. Consciousness only transmits information between other consciousnesses.

A Car on the other hand, is simply a meme – a boson. It is not self aware. It only exist as energy and information either stored in, or transferred between Gravitons (individual consciousnesses). The Top Graviton transmits -- > here are your raw materials -- > you transmit back -- > I assemble raw materials as follows (instructs for building car) -- > Top Gravitons transmits -- > Bravo - You have a Car, where do you go in it? -- > …

[Franko]

why is that urstardust,

... or is your A-Theist idea of a logical argument a sane person's idea of an out-of-the-blue logical fallacy (vague insult)?

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Franko
I don’t agree, and the reason I do not, is because I am using a fundamentally different model of reality then you are as a materialist. I would say:

(F1) Top Graviton -- > Meme (Matter) -- > Graviton (You) -- > Meme (Car)
(F2) Top Graviton -- > Meme (Matter) -- > Graviton (You) -- > Graviton (Human)

Now in My version example #F1 (F1,F2, yours is B1, B2, B3), is TRUE, and example #F2 is FALSE. Gravitons are Fermions, and fermions only contact via boson transmission. So, you have:

(F1) Fermion -- > Boson -- > Fermion -- > Boson (True)
(F2) Fermion -- > Boson -- > Fermion -- > Fermion (False)

Considering that you seem, to me, to be using a completely different definition of graviton than particle physicists...and that even those gravitons have never actually been observed only theorized at this point...what exactly is your evidence that this "model of reality" is actually true? What evidence can you provide that gravitons are actually individual consciousnesses?

[whitefork]

I predict that the next post will say

"Prove that they're not"

[Mordred]

Originally posted by whitefork
I predict that the next post will say

"Prove that they're not"

Prove that they're not...didn't want to ruin your prediction track record...

Seriously though, I find it both amusing and distressing that someone who obviously doesn't understand or agree with quantum mechanics is apparently basing a model of reality on the idea that a theorized force carrying particle is actually conscious...if QM is wrong then we have no reason to believe that gravitons even exist...

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Mordred


Seriously though, I find it both amusing and distressing that someone who obviously doesn't understand or agree with quantum mechanics is apparently basing a model of reality on the idea that a theorized force carrying particle is actually conscious...if QM is wrong then we have no reason to believe that gravitons even exist...



Could you explain us -mere mortals- what is the definition of a

graviton in Physics?

Thanks

[Mordred]

Well, the dry definition would be...

A particle with no charge or mass that carries, or mediates, the force of gravity.

A graviton is essentially a quanta of gravity in the same way that a photon is a quanta of electromagnetism.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Mordred
Considering that you seem, to me, to be using a completely different definition of graviton than particle physicists...and that even those gravitons have never actually been observed only theorized at this point...what exactly is your evidence that this "model of reality" is actually true? What evidence can you provide that gravitons are actually individual consciousnesses? That, of course, is the $64,000 question: "What is the basis of Franko's beliefs?"

Franko uses a lot of creative definitions for words that may or may not reflect how they are used by others. "atheist" alone has been argued over at great length here on this board. "logic" could easily be considered another one. Although it hasn't been discussed, I believe "dogma" (or the lack thereof) could also be added to the list.
In my mind, this only goes to prove the statement that "a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing." Franko chooses to adapt other's ideas to his own purposes without fully learning what those ideas are. And to make matters worse, he is unable to conceede when he is wrong, which means that he will never be able to break out of his own misconceptions.

He says, we are the ones who are trapped in a false mindset. Maybe he's right, maybe he's not. But, in the face of overwhelming evidence, his inability to let go of his incorrect notions gives him no room to judge.

Upchurch

[Franko]

A particle with no charge or mass that carries, or mediates, the force of gravity.

Since you have never observed one, and don’t even know if they exist, then how do you know all this stuff is True about them?

Let me guess … the same way you came up with “free will”, and decided that there was NO GOD?

Hehehe … keep telling yourself I am the one who doesn’t understand QM …

[whitefork]

Well, shut my mouth I was pretty darn close, was I not?

Bring it on....

[Franko]

Whitehead & Mildred ..

Why do you A-Theists always project so obviously – Your double standards – onto other people? It is a very deceitful, and intellectually dishonest tactic. It demonstrates that neither of you really understands Logic.

How the A-Theists argue:
Graviton = A particle with no charge or mass that carries, or mediates, the force of gravity.

A graviton is essentially a quanta of gravity in the same way that a photon is a quanta of electromagnetism.

(Prove that they're not)

Whitehead’s hypocrisy:
I predict that the next post (Franko’s) will say

"Prove that they're not"

Actually I didn’t, but that is exactly what you and Mordred are saying …

[whitefork]

....

Mildred

....

Franko, you have a gift.

May it serve you well.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Franko


Since you have never observed one, and don’t even know if they exist, then how do you know all this stuff is True about them?

Let me guess … the same way you came up with “free will”, and decided that there was NO GOD?

Hehehe … keep telling yourself I am the one who doesn’t understand QM …

Those are the expected properties of the theorized particle that particle physicists have named the graviton. They expect it to exist, and to have those properties. If it doesn't, or the force carrier for gravity has properties other than those theorized, then they will know that the theories are flawed in some way and will have to rework them to correct for this. Incidentally, I didn't come up with free will, nor have I ever said that I have free will. I have also never stated as fact that there is no god. I simply do not believe that one exists because I currently have no good reason to. I will however keep telling you that you don't understand quantum mechanics...because that is indeed a fact.

[Franko]

Those are the expected properties of the theorized particle that particle physicists have named the graviton. They expect it to exist, and to have those properties. If it doesn't, or the force carrier for gravity has properties other than those theorized, then they will know that the theories are flawed in some way and will have to rework them to correct for this.

But that is exactly what I am telling you! Those theories are flawed, and obviously so. Einstein kept saying the same thing over and over again, so did Godel, so did a lot of people.

… But you A-theists just don’t want any theory to be True which posits a God; so instead you sacrifice Truth and Science, for Deceit and Dogma.

Incidentally, I didn't come up with free will, nor have I ever said that I have free will. I have also never stated as fact that there is no god. I simply do not believe that one exists because I currently have no good reason to.

… and you currently have no good reason NOT to, it is just that you are intrinsically pessimistic at heart, so you prefer to presume the worst outcome. In a sick way, it makes you feel “better”. You don’t like the idea of anything controlling you, and in all likelihood you actually prefer the idea of ceasing to exist over existing perpetually.

I have my objective reasons for believing that this is not the first conversation we have had. To be honest you remind me a lot of Vicky D. …

I will however keep telling you that you don't understand quantum mechanics...because that is indeed a fact.

Since you don’t really say why you believe this, I guess we should just take your word for it that you are smarter than Me and Everyone about Everything? … Should we have Faith in you Serena … ? You don’t instill much confidence that you know what you are talking about. According to you I suppose TOAST is more complex then a HUMAN BEING? How about Taco’s? Is a Taco superior to you Mary Ann?

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Franko
But that is exactly what I am telling you! Those theories are flawed, and obviously so. Einstein kept saying the same thing over and over again, so did Godel, so did a lot of people.

Once again, Einstein lost this debate sometime around 1927. If we're going to argue via name dropping, if the theories are so obviously flawed then those flaws somehow escaped the attention of Bohr, Heisenberg, Fermi, Dirac, Schrodinger, Feynman, Penrose, Hawking, not to mention pretty much every physicist who has lived since the 1930's. You are claiming that they, who devoted their lives to the study of physics, are wrong about these theories and you are write...despite the fact that all the empirical evidence that we have points to the opposite conclusion.

That, however, is besides the point. What we were discussing is your improper use of the word graviton. It is a word created to refer to a specific kind of theoretical particle which in no way resembles what you use it to refer to. Perhaps you should try thinking up an actual original, descriptive term instead of simply using an already existing one that means something else.

and you currently have no good reason NOT to, it is just that you are intrinsically pessimistic at heart, so you prefer to presume the worst outcome. In a sick way, it makes you feel “better”. You don’t like the idea of anything controlling you, and in all likelihood you actually prefer the idea of ceasing to exist over existing perpetually.

So your answer to my question of why should I believe in a god is to say why shouldn't you? I've already given you a valid reason. There is not sufficient evidence to support the claim that a god exists. Therefore I have no reason to believe the claim that a god exists. Having no reason to believe that claim, my only choice is not to believe it. This does not mean that I claim to know for a fact that no god exists. Nor do I have to prove such a thing. The burden of proof is on those making the claim. You claim a god exists...prove it. If you can't, then I have no reason to believe in a god.

I have my objective reasons for believing that this is not the first conversation we have had. To be honest you remind me a lot of Vicky D. …

To be honest, your behaviour in this regard strikes me as paranoid delusional...

Since you don’t really say why you believe this, I guess we should just take your word for it that you are smarter than Me and Everyone about Everything?

Nice capitalization there...and no you shouldn't believe this. You should however recognize the fact that I have a superior education to yours in the field of physics. So far you have demonstrated clearly in your arguments that you do not understand quantum mechanics. It isn't an easy thing to understand, and I know that there are some parts that I don't quite grasp in full, but you refuse to accept your lack of understanding and seem content to claim that the theory must be wrong and you right...again despite all empirical evidence pointing to the contrary.

Should we have Faith in you Serena … ? You don’t instill much confidence that you know what you are talking about.

You shouldn't have faith in anything in my opinion. I'm an A-theist remember? :p I have no faith.

That is your opinion. According to you I suppose TOAST is more complex then a HUMAN BEING? How about Taco’s? Is a Taco superior to you Mary Ann?

Define complex. Define superior. Does the toast have jelly on it? Does the taco have hot sauce? Who are these people that you keep talking to...I don't see a Serena or a Mary Ann...have you ever been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Mordred


Once again, Einstein lost this debate sometime around 1927. If we're going to argue via name dropping, if the theories are so obviously flawed then those flaws somehow escaped the attention of Bohr, Heisenberg, Fermi, Dirac, Schrodinger, Feynman, Penrose, Hawking, not to mention pretty much every physicist who has lived since the 1930's. You are claiming that they, who devoted their lives to the study of physics, are wrong about these theories and you are write...despite the fact that all the empirical evidence that we have points to the opposite conclusion.

That, however, is besides the point. What we were discussing is your improper use of the word graviton. It is a word created to refer to a specific kind of theoretical particle which in no way resembles what you use it to refer to. Perhaps you should try thinking up an actual original, descriptive term instead of simply using an already existing one that means something else.
...
Nice capitalization there...and no you shouldn't believe this. You should however recognize the fact that I have a superior education to yours in the field of physics. So far you have demonstrated clearly in your arguments that you do not understand quantum mechanics. It isn't an easy thing to understand, and I know that there are some parts that I don't quite grasp in full, but you refuse to accept your lack of understanding and seem content to claim that the theory must be wrong and you right...again despite all empirical evidence pointing to the contrary.[/B]
Franko, you are soooo busted. You haven't learned anything new since Einstein (who you consistantly misquote) and you don't even know the definition of basic physics terms. You are a complete fraud. But you're great material for satire (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10088), so by all means, do keep posting. We're not laughing with you. We're laughing at you.

[Franko]

Once again, Einstein lost this debate sometime around 1927.

Right. … which is right around the Time you A-Theists figured out Quantum Gravity?

You are a nitwit, Einstein was so close to having the right answer he sh*t a brick when he died and found out.

If we're going to argue via name dropping, if the theories are so obviously flawed then those flaws somehow escaped the attention of Bohr, Heisenberg, Fermi, Dirac, Schrodinger, Feynman, Penrose, Hawking, not to mention pretty much every physicist who has lived since the 1930's. You are claiming that they, who devoted their lives to the study of physics, are wrong about these theories and you are write...despite the fact that all the empirical evidence that we have points to the opposite conclusion.

What evidence would you be referring to?

… ohh you mean “blackholes” being more true than E = MC^2?

That, however, is besides the point.

… of course not. … Higg’s boson anyone? Has anyone seen the Higg’s boson???

What we were discussing is your improper use of the word graviton. It is a word created to refer to a specific kind of theoretical particle which in no way resembles what you use it to refer to. Perhaps you should try thinking up an actual original, descriptive term instead of simply using an already existing one that means something else.

Yeah … what exactly does it mean to you? Some “invisible non-existent thingy”?

Like we are just take your word that you know what you are talking about? You model is shot, Pal – it don’t work!

Please!

I think I have wasted enough time with you Connie. Why don’t you go and find some A-Theist to convince how smart you are …

So your answer to my question of why should I believe in a god is to say why shouldn't you? I've already given you a valid reason. There is not sufficient evidence to support the claim that a god exists. Therefore I have no reason to believe the claim that a god exists. Having no reason to believe that claim, my only choice is not to believe it. This does not mean that I claim to know for a fact that no god exists. Nor do I have to prove such a thing. The burden of proof is on those making the claim. You claim a god exists...prove it. If you can't, then I have no reason to believe in a god.

it is very easy to pretend that there is no evidence for “God” when you pretend that you have magical “free willy” powers and deny the overwhelming evidence for Determinism. No A-Theist can be an A-Theist without first being a Materialist, and Materialism – by necessity – implies Determinism.

You claim a “free will” exists...prove it. If you can't, then I have no reason to believe in a “free will”.

[Ceinwyn]

Just out of curiosity,

Who knows what Einstein won the Nobel Prize for?

Nobody answer until Franko does. ok?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Mordred
Define complex. Define superior. Does the toast have jelly on it? Does the taco have hot sauce? Who are these people that you keep talking to...I don't see a Serena or a Mary Ann...have you ever been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic?

Hey Mordred. Don't fall into the communist mental illness trap. You are better than that. The Stalinist state pushed that rhetoric as an atheist tool last century pretty effectively. I would hate to have to start making threads on the religion forum again if this continues.

JK

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Franko


Right. … which is right around the Time you A-Theists figured out Quantum Gravity?

You are a nitwit, Einstein was so close to having the right answer he sh*t a brick when he died and found out.

Einstein spent the last thirty years of his life working on a unified field theory that never worked. We are much closer now than he was when he died.

What evidence would you be referring to?

… ohh you mean “blackholes” being more true than E = MC^2?

Actually I was referring to pretty much every experiment conducted in particle physics...ever. Blackholes are not more or less true than E=mc^2 (incidentally that is only a special case of the actual equation, do you happen to know the rest of it?). Blackholes do not even require any modern physics to theorize. They were first theorized in the 1790s by John Michell and Pierre LaPlace when they posited that a star could exist with an escape velocity greater than the speed of light. They have very little to do with a discussion specifically about quantum mechanics...they are however predicted by general relativity, which is why it would seem so odd that you would make such a statement considering that GR is Einstein's crowning achievement.

of course not. … Higg’s boson anyone? Has anyone seen the Higg’s boson???

What is your point?

Yeah … what exactly does it mean to you? Some “invisible non-existent thingy”?


It means exactly what the word was defined to be...a definition which I have already given. A particle with no charge or mass that carries, or mediates, the force of gravity. That is what a graviton is defined as...if you are not using the word to refer to such a thing, then you are using it incorrectly.

Like we are just take your word that you know what you are talking about? You model is shot, Pal – it don’t work!

Prove it. The physics community seems to disagree with you, you could start a scientific revolution.

I think I have wasted enough time with you Connie.

Talking to the voices in your head again? Who is Connie?

it is very easy to pretend that there is no evidence for “God” when you pretend that you have magical “free willy” powers

Show me where I have ever claimed to have free will.

and deny the overwhelming evidence for Determinism. No A-Theist can be an A-Theist without first being a Materialist, and Materialism – by necessity – implies Determinism.

If the laws of physics were deterministic, you might be correct, they are however probabilistic...and no amount of kicking and screaming by you can change it. If they weren't probabilistic then phenomenon such as say, let me pick a favourite of mine, quantum tunneling wouldn't be possible. Since quantum tunneling is in fact a real and demonstratable phenomenon, the laws of physics cannot be deterministic.

You claim a “free will” exists...prove it. If you can't, then I have no reason to believe in a “free will”.

Again, show me where I have ever claimed that free will exists. I have not made such a statement.

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Don't fall into the communist mental illness trap. You are better than that. The Stalinist state pushed that rhetoric as an atheist tool last century pretty effectively. JK

How is this forum communist?

How is this forum Stalinist?

I already know about the atheist nonsense.

Still, I have yet to see how anything on this forum is communist, stalinist, anythingist. I would like to see some evidence.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Hey Mordred. Don't fall into the communist mental illness trap. You are better than that. The Stalinist state pushed that rhetoric as an atheist tool last century pretty effectively. I would hate to have to start making threads on the religion forum again if this continues.

JK

I'm failing to see how toast with jelly and hot sauce on tacos leads to communism...but disregarding that, Franco was being rather irreverant with me concerning more than just constantly calling me by the wrong name. I was merely returning the favor.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
I would hate to have to start making threads on the religion forum again if this continues.

Not as much as we would hate it. Besides, you wouldn't want to be shown as a liar, would you?

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Franko
....I am using a fundamentally different model of reality then you are as a materialist. I would say:

(F1) Top Graviton -- > Meme (Matter) -- > Graviton (You) -- > Meme (Car)
(F2) Top Graviton -- > Meme (Matter) -- > Graviton (You) -- > Graviton (Human)

Now in My version example #F1 (F1,F2, yours is B1, B2, B3), is TRUE, and example #F2 is FALSE. Gravitons are Fermions, and fermions only contact via boson transmission. So, you have:

(F1) Fermion -- > Boson -- > Fermion -- > Boson (True)
(F2) Fermion -- > Boson -- > Fermion -- > Fermion (False)

Now keep in mind, that the Bosons are actually Memes in this case, and memes can be made of smaller memes. In other words, you can receive multiple memes as a group or bundle, and they will be additive. Kind of like if you are “seeing” a bunch of “red” photons, but simultaneously there are a few “blue” ones mixed in. You might perceive a single image with a reddish-purple color (or you might see red with blue dots – depends on the arrangement of the meme).

In other words, Consciousness can’t just make consciousness, at least … not according to what I believe. Consciousness only transmits information between other consciousnesses.

A Car on the other hand, is simply a meme – a boson. It is not self aware. It only exist as energy and information either stored in, or transferred between Gravitons (individual consciousnesses). The Top Graviton transmits -- > here are your raw materials -- > you transmit back -- > I assemble raw materials as follows (instructs for building car) -- > Top Gravitons transmits -- > Bravo - You have a Car, where do you go in it? -- > …

You are getting into the nuts and bolts here and, as I said, I would probably need to read the book you haven't written yet (perhaps someone else has?).
But I still have a problem with the broard brush strokes.

You seem to believe in an all pervading consciousness - a sort of spacetime consciousness? - out of which matter precipitates. The question then is, what is the origin this consciouness? You resolve this with the anology of the infinite stack of turtles. Well, that was my analogy, the analogy you used what of the fractal which looks the same no matter how far you zoom in or out. Consciousness is a fractal - it is consciousness no matter how far you zoom in or out - a sort of cause uncaused.

The driving force behind your model of reality is that consciousness is greater and therefore must be the cause of matter which is lesser. Even when matter evolves consciousness, as materialists would say, it is really just part of this all pervading spacetime consciousness. The fractal is a way of showing how consciousness, itself, does not need explanation.

Physicists have their quantum fluctuation to explain the Beginning and you have your infinite zoom to explain away the Beginning.
(Is it fair to say that neither of you can answer the question "Why anything at all?)

Is this a fair summary - without getting into the Logical Goddess, Progenitor Solipist, True-Matter, Gravitons, Fermions and Bosons?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Mordred


I'm failing to see how toast with jelly and hot sauce on tacos leads to communism...but disregarding that, Franco was being rather irreverant with me concerning more than just constantly calling me by the wrong name. I was merely returning the favor.

No, it is the atheist reliance on calling people who disagree with speculative science "mentally ill", "unreasonable" and communist labels like that.

2,000,000 people went to the camps in the 1930's and 1940's because they expressed "abnormal behavior" (critical thinking). It is a trend with atheists that is underhanded so I thought I would mention it because it occurs on this forum quite often.

JK

[Franko]

Billyjoe,

You seem to believe in an all pervading consciousness - a sort of spacetime consciousness? - out of which matter precipitates. The question then is, what is the origin this consciousness? You resolve this with the anology of the infinite stack of turtles.

Why’s that?

You certainly can’t do it via A-Theism or Materialism.

Here’s the thing … You have to make an entire Universe Pop out of Nothing.

Me … I only have to make a tiny infinitely simple rudimentary algorithm pop out of an infinite amount of Time, and an infinite amount of Nothing.

Once I get that … then I can build the entire universe. Including everyone in it. All from that simple start.

And besides … according to Godel, Nothing has to come from Nothing. According to him maybe there was always something … ? If that’s True, my model still works … yours is still shot.

Well, that was my analogy, the analogy you used what of the fractal which looks the same no matter how far you zoom in or out. Consciousness is a fractal - it is consciousness no matter how far you zoom in or out - a sort of cause uncaused.

You sound like Godel.

The driving force behind your model of reality is that consciousness is greater and therefore must be the cause of matter which is lesser.

I am saying that all of the Evidence … indicates that this is True.

Even when matter evolves consciousness, as materialists would say, it is really just part of this all pervading spacetime consciousness.

Matter does NOT evolve. Matter just sits there and degrades according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Only Consciousness evolves.

The fractal is a way of showing how consciousness, itself, does not need explanation.

I tried to tell Godel the same thing. ;)

Physicists have their quantum fluctuation to explain the Beginning and you have your infinite zoom to explain away the Beginning.
(Is it fair to say that neither of you can answer the question "Why anything at all?)

I could take a crack at it …

Is this a fair summary - without getting into the Logical Goddess, Progenitor Solipist, True-Matter, Gravitons, Fermions and Bosons?

Well that is what I like about you Billyjoe … you are fair minded. Yes, I think your summary is pretty accurate. I think the key to you understanding lies in the “illusion of free will” you talk about. You need to perceive reality in this way for it to make any sense to you. This is exactly the same idea with “God”. As an unconscious “force” Tlop would remain ever an incomprehensible mystery to you, but if its source is another consciousness intrinsically like your own, then it is within your grasp to comprehend it.

Einstein once observed, that the most incomprehensible thing about the Universe, was that it was so comprehensible.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


No, it is the atheist reliance on calling people who disagree with speculative science "mentally ill", "unreasonable" and communist labels like that.

If that were a "communist" label then wouldn't all psychologists necessarily be communists? I'll let you chew on that for a while. Incidentally, my crack about the paranoid schizophrenia had nothing to do with his disagreements with modern physics. It had to do with the fact that he was constantly referring to me by the wrong name. I was asking him if he was actually talking to me or the voices in his head. I thought it was rather clear that is where I was going with that...

2,000,000 people went to the camps in the 1930's and 1940's because they expressed "abnormal behavior" (critical thinking). It is a trend with atheists that is underhanded so I thought I would mention it because it occurs on this forum quite often.

I'm not going to go into this in depth with you, because arguing the Nazis are atheists point with you is pointless, but I have a question to ask. You do of course know that one of Hitler's main goals was in fact the destruction of communism right? The communists were major opposition for the Nazis in Germany, and Hitler obviously showed how much he loved the Soviets. Communists were in fact one of the groups that were sent to the camps. Since communists are atheists...wouldn't that mean that Hitler was killing atheists? hmmmmm

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Franko
Me … I only have to make a tiny infinitely simple rudimentary algorithm pop out of an infinite amount of Time, and an infinite amount of Nothing.

What is your evidence that time is in fact infinite? Again an application of your concept that you can somehow have amounts of nothing. If you can assign a value to it, even infinity, then it isn't nothing. So you have no proof for the one assertion, and the other is nonsensical.

And besides … according to Godel, Nothing has to come from Nothing. According to him maybe there was always something … ? If that’s True, my model still works … yours is still shot.

The problem of course is that the universe demonstratably doesn't work the way that Godel thought it did. He was still thinking classically. If you would join us in the present your objections would fall by the wayside.

Matter does NOT evolve. Matter just sits there and degrades according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Only Consciousness evolves.

Ummm...I'm sorry, but this is just the creationist argument against evolution based on the 2nd law. Hopefully you know why that argument is flawed.

Einstein once observed, that the most incomprehensible thing about the Universe, was that it was so comprehensible.

I'm still waiting for you to answer the question of what Einstein won his Nobel for...since you seem to know so much about him. Careful, it ties in with something that you don't quite like or understand.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Mordred


If the laws of physics were deterministic, you might be correct, they are however probabilistic...and no amount of kicking and screaming by you can change it. If they weren't probabilistic then phenomenon such as say, let me pick a favourite of mine, quantum tunneling wouldn't be possible. Since quantum tunneling is in fact a real and demonstratable phenomenon, the laws of physics cannot be deterministic.
[/B]

Hello Mordred,

I find this very interesting.

Could you please elaborate more about what you said?

How is it that the Laws of Physics are probabilistic instead of deterministic?

Does it apply to every single event of the Universe or just to some very specific ones?

Q-S

[Titanpoint]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Hello Mordred,

I find this very interesting.

Could you please elaborate more about what you said?

How is it that the Laws of Physics are probabilistic instead of deterministic?

Does it apply to every single event of the Universe or just to some very specific ones?

Q-S

All of them.

[SpaceLord]

Ahhh, that's right.

Hitler was allll about sending communists to the Concentration Camps. He hated communism. Despised it. So, I imagine a lot of communist atheists were killed in the Holocaust.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Hello Mordred,

I find this very interesting.

Could you please elaborate more about what you said?

How is it that the Laws of Physics are probabilistic instead of deterministic?

Does it apply to every single event of the Universe or just to some very specific ones?

Q-S

Ok, I have to think of the best way to explain this. General explanation: quantum mechanics is probabilistic. There are now two ways to look at macroscopic events. They are either governed by different laws of physics (classical mechanics) or they are merely the sum total of a lot of quantum mechanical events and thus governed by the same laws of physics. The latter is obviously the preferrable. That makes classical mechanics an approximation of quantum mechanics that only applies in certain cases. Which is exactly the case. So, if macroscopic events are all just the sum total of a great deal of quantum events which are probabilistic...then the macroscopic events themselves are probabilistic. The thing is that the probabilities that the outcome of a macroscopic event will be different than that predicted by classical mechanics are so vanishingly small that they never happen.

If you would like a more specific example I can do that too.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Mordred

So, if macroscopic events are all just the sum total of a great deal of quantum events which are probabilistic...then the macroscopic events themselves are probabilistic.

Well, this is new for me. I have to say that I just have general knowledge about Physics.
Let me see if we are talking about the same. Are you saying that the orbit of a planet is a probabilistic event?

Originally posted by Mordred

The thing is that the probabilities that the outcome of a macroscopic event will be different than that predicted by classical mechanics are so vanishingly small that they never happen.

It means that you can apply both approaches because the difference between them are so small that they never differ.

Am I right?

Originally posted by Mordred


If you would like a more specific example I can do that too.

Of course I'd like.
I would appreciate it.
Thanks.

Q-S

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Well, this is new for me. I have to say that I just have general knowledge about Physics.
Let me see if we are talking about the same. Are you saying that the orbit of a planet is a probabilistic event?

Well, in a way yes. There is a vanishingly small probability that the planet could break it's orbit even though it does not have the necessary energy to do so. Hopefully that will makes more sense after the rest of this post.

It means that you can apply both approaches because the difference between them are so small that they never differ.

Am I right?

Yeah. The thing is, that applying quantum mechanics in such a way gets mathematically complex in a very big hurry. So it's just easier to approximate things using classical mechanics, since it so closely approximates what is right in those cases anyway. It's the same thing with classical mechanics and relativity. If you are dealing with speeds that are only a very small fraction of c, it isn't worth doing the more complicated work of dealing with relativity because you are going to get practically the same results anyway (out to a large number of decimal places).

Of course I'd like.
I would appreciate it.
Thanks.

Q-S

Ok...here I go...quantum tunneling. This is a good way to show that quantum mechanics is probabilistic, and at the same time give an example of something that classical mechanics can not explain. Say I'm shooting some electrons at a thin physical barrier. A barrier that the electrons do not actually have the energy to pass through. If I do this over and over, I will eventually notice that, to my surprise, a certain percentage of the electrons that I'm shooting actually DO pass through the barrier. This should never happen according to classical mechanics. The particles don't have enough energy to pass through the barrier, so they don't pass through the barrier. According to quantum mechanics however, we do actually expect this to be the case. I think the best way to cover this is through a visual representation, and since I can't draw a picture I will point you to here http://phys.educ.ksu.edu/vqm/html/qtunneling.html

All you have to do is hit the redraw graphs button. The top box is a representation of the particle energy and the barrier conditions (note that the particle energy is lower than the energy necessary to go over the barrier). The bottom box is a graph of the particle's wave function. You will notice that it continues on past the position of the barrier, but at a much lower amplitude. The probability of finding the particle at any particular position is a function of the amplitude of the wave function (bigger amplitude, bigger probability). So it is much more likely that the particle will be on the side of the barrier that it originates from, but there is some small probability that it will pass through the barrier and be located on the other side, despite it not having enough energy to actually pass through the barrier. Now, if you mess with the width of the barrier in the barrier properties, and redraw the graph, you will notice that by increasing the barrier width by even a small amount, the amplitude on the right hand side of the graph quickly approaches zero (it does remain nonzero, it's just not easy to see on the graph). That just goes to show how small the probability usually is.

Now, apply this to a macroscopic event...let's say you are throwing a tennis ball at a brick wall. The ball would need some amount of energy to pass through the wall and end up on the other side. An energy which we will assume that you are not going to generate with your throw. Now, we could deal with this event classically quite easily. However, we could also do it quantum mechanically by doing an analysis of every single particle in the tennis ball in the same manner that we would do for the single electron in the example above. You should be able to see why I would rather do this classically...a tennis ball has a lot of particles, and that means a whole lot of calculations. If I were to do this, and then add up all the wave functions, I would have a wave function that would adequately describe the macroscopic actions of the tennis ball. Now, when I throw it at the brick wall, the height and width of my energy barrier are MUCH bigger than those in the example in the applet (we are talking several orders of magnitude at least). So, obviously the amplitude of the wave function on the other side of the barrier is going to be VERY small. So in reality, if you throw a tennis ball at a brick wall...it actually might have a 0.000000000000000000000000000000.....0000001% chance of going through and ending up on the other side, even though you didn't throw it hard enough to go through (according to classical mechanics). That probability is so small though, that it never actually happens.

[hammegk]

It's currently true that perception of what-is, probing what-is and attempting to describe what-is by math, yields probabalistic results.

As Einstein wondered, is what-is actually probabalistic, or is the math missing a variable or three?

[Mordred]

Originally posted by hammegk
It's currently true that perception of what-is, probing what-is and attempting to describe what-is by math, yields probabalistic results.

As Einstein wondered, is what-is actually probabalistic, or is the math missing a variable or three?

It's a good question, but as I've mentioned, the available data does not point to it being the case.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Mordred
[B]

Yeah. The thing is, that applying quantum mechanics in such a way gets mathematically complex in a very big hurry. So it's just easier to approximate things using classical mechanics, since it so closely approximates what is right in those cases anyway. It's the same thing with classical mechanics and relativity. If you are dealing with speeds that are only a very small fraction of c, it isn't worth doing the more complicated work of dealing with relativity because you are going to get practically the same results anyway (out to a large number of decimal places).

Amazing.

Thanks Mordred, you put it cristal clear.

That makes a lot of sense now. Even though the events seems

to be deterministic, they are still probabilistic.

In this scenario, then we cannot claim that TLOP

predetermine every single action in the Universe.

Q-S

[whitefork]

But if we allow "P" to stands for "probability", then...?

[Titanpoint]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Amazing.

Thanks Mordred, you put it cristal clear.

That makes a lot of sense now. Even though the events seems

to be deterministic, they are still probabilistic.

In this scenario, then we cannot claim that TLOP

predetermine every single action in the Universe.

Q-S

I told this to Franko repeatedly and it doesn't make any difference. Either you control TLOP or TLOP controls you blah blah blah...

TP

[wraith]

Originally posted by Mordred
So in reality, if you throw a tennis ball at a brick wall...it actually might have a 0.000000000000000000000000000000.....0000001% chance of going through and ending up on the other side, even though you didn't throw it hard enough to go through (according to classical mechanics). That probability is so small though, that it never actually happens.

Lets say that I actually did throw a tennis ball at a wall and it passed through it, if someone wound back time to the point where Im just about to through the ball, would the ball go through the wall again or not?

[wraith]

Originally posted by Titanpoint
it doesn't make any difference. Either you control TLOP or TLOP controls you blah blah blah...

TP

it kinda does actually
lol

[ImpyTimpy]

Interesting question... What if the time splits away and in your second instance the ball does something completely different then in the first? It does not effect you or future where you come from, but it would change everything in the "now"...

For more info check out the Back to the Future trilogy. :D

Originally posted by wraith


Lets say that I actually did throw a tennis ball at a wall and it passed through it, if someone wound back time to the point where Im just about to through the ball, would the ball go through the wall again or not?

[Mordred]

Originally posted by wraith


Lets say that I actually did throw a tennis ball at a wall and it passed through it, if someone wound back time to the point where Im just about to through the ball, would the ball go through the wall again or not?

That would be dependent on whether the event was merely a kind of "instant replay" of the original event, or if it could be considered a completely unique and seperate event. If it's just a replay the same exact thing will happen of course...if it is a unique event, then the chances of it going through the wall are infinitesimal. It shouldn't go through the wall in the first place though. This is kind of a useless hypothetical in my opinion. You are asking what would happen if a physical event that shouldn't happen, happened, and then you "rewound" time, which you have no idea how to do (if it is even possible at all). Besides the fact that it wouldn't happen in the first place, you would need to more rigorously define what rewinding time would mean.

Still waiting to see if Franko can tell us what Einstein won his Nobel for. If you don't know you can just look it up, it won't be hard to find.

[CWL]

Oh, oh... since the Nobel prize is Swedish (and I'm Swedish) I thought I might intervene!

Here's a link (http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1921/) that may be helpful.

---

I would also like to take the opportunity to point out once again that the mere existence of (what may be) a certain unavoidable state of things (which may be described by a set of "laws") does not constitute any irrefutable proof of an intelligent, conscious and omnipotent being which started it all, notwithstanding if the "perfect laws of physics" ultimately are deterministic or probabilistic. At least not in any way which has been presented on this forum. If we then add the notion that such a being is also benevolent it becomes even more difficult to see any proof of the existence of such a being IMHO.

Franko really needs to go back to the drawing board...

[wraith]

Originally posted by Mordred
If it's just a replay the same exact thing will happen of course...

So much for free-will?
:eek:
If it was truly a system based on probability, then things will be doing stuff for absolute no reason......

There would be no such thing as logic...


if it is a unique event, then the chances of it going through the wall are infinitesimal.

For sure, but it's not unique. If you go back in time, how would you gain information? How would the system change? It would only change if you brought the information from the future back to the past, then it would be unique.

It shouldn't go through the wall in the first place though.

Yet it did
;)

You are asking what would happen if a physical event that shouldn't happen, happened, and then you "rewound" time, which you have no idea how to do (if it is even possible at all).

point being?
:cool:

Besides the fact that it wouldn't happen in the first place, you would need to more rigorously define what rewinding time would mean.

If you won the lotto 10 mins ago, would your actions be different than it is now?

Going back into time: losing information / regress...
along those lines
;)

[The Fool]

Originally posted by wraith


If you won the lotto 10 mins ago, would your actions be different than it is now?




Frank.
You really love these "rewind time" examples. Why do you only ever want to rewind 10 minutes or some other small unit of time? I agree that If you were rewound a small amount of time then you probably would do pretty much the same thing. Mainly because there is not much time for the truly random events that happen in the real world to have an effect. Now I know that you don't believe that anything is random, partly due to your exposure to random number generators. I think you understand that they are pseudo-random, same seed, same output sequence every time etc? However, I think you discount chaos and the true ability of the real world to generate random outcomes. Rewing 10 years instead of 10 minutes and even random variations in the Earths weather patterns are going to change my decision making process. Decide to stay home instead of go out (Its raining)....Bingo....you've changed your whole future. Sit on that chair instead of this chair....Bingo...future changed again. You have to chuck out an awful lot of very convincing stuff to believe that very complex systems are completely non random over a significant timespan.

[BillyJoe]

Franko,

Originally posted by Franko
You certainly can’t do it via....Materialism.....You have to make an entire Universe Pop out of Nothing. Just a quantum fluctuation - such a really, really small thing really! :)

Actually, the problem is why should there be such a thing as a quantum fluctuation. There has to be an potential for one before you get one. This potential is not nothing and therefore you are still not getting something (quantum fluctuation) from nothing.

This is the great unsolved mystery for materialism

Originally posted by Franko
Me … I only have to make a tiny infinitely simple rudimentary algorithm pop out of an infinite amount of Time, and an infinite amount of Nothing. Even if this algorithm is simpler than a quantum fluctuation, I am still not clear about how you can get your something ("tiny infinitely simple rudimentary algorithm") out of nothing. Even with infinite time there must be the potential for generating albgorithms (even "tiny infinitely simple rudimentary algorithms")

Originally posted by Franko
And besides … according to Godel, Nothing has to come from Nothing. According to him maybe there was always somethingI think you mean "Nothing can come from nothing ergo there must always have been something." But then.....

How can there have always been something?

Is it any easier to understand "Always something" than "something from nothing"?

Originally posted by Franko
Matter does NOT evolve. Matter just sits there and degrades according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Only Consciousness evolves. It seems we still have a fundamental disagreement about Entropy.

Originally posted by Franko
I think the key to you understanding lies in the “illusion of free will” you talk about. You need to perceive reality in this way for it to make any sense to you. I used the term “illusion of free will” to illustrate how real "free will" seems - as real as the square in the color-bleeding optical illusion.

Perhaps it is actually a "delusion of free will" as you imply.

I'm not sure how I would go about demonstrating that free will is an illusion rather than a delusion - whether is is like the square in the color spreading illusion or like the delusion of alien abductions - now that you have informed me that not everyone feels as if they have free will.

Originally posted by Franko
This is exactly the same idea with “God”. As an unconscious “force” Tlop would remain ever an incomprehensible mystery to you, but if its source is another consciousness intrinsically like your own, then it is within your grasp to comprehend it. Perhaps but I am not sure I am happy with the fractal explanation for "God" being a cause uncaused.

regards,
BillyJoe
(...and thanks for your compliments.)

[BillyJoe]

Franko,

I understand you think that Einstein believed in God. I wonder what you think of the following quotes form Einstein:

"Strange is our situation here on earth. Each of us comes for a short visit, not knowing why, yet sometimes seeming to divine a purpose. From the standpoint of daily life, however, there is one thing we do know: that man is here for the sake of other men -- above all for those upon whose smiles and well-being our own happiness depends. "

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms. "

"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it. "

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. "

"It was the experience of mystery -- even if mixed with fear -- that engendered religion."

"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being. "

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science.
My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God. "

"I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

regards,
BillyJoe.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by wraith
So much for free-will?
:eek:

Where have I ever claimed that there was any such thing?

If it was truly a system based on probability, then things will be doing stuff for absolute no reason......

There would be no such thing as logic...

No, they would be behaving exactly according to the probability distributions given by the equations. Just because anything is possible...doesn't mean everything is sufficiently probable to actually happen.

Logic remains as it is. The problem comes when you attempt to apply omnivalent or Aristotlean logic to the real world. Logic you see is a synthetic system. It does it's job extremely well, because it was designed to do exactly that. What it doesn't necessarily do is transfer absolutely to the physical world. This is the value of multivalent logic in my opinion...it more closely resembles how things actually seem to work in reality. It's the same thing with math, with any abstract system. To use an actually relevant Einstein quote...

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."--Albert Einstein

As for the rest...yikes...you need to work on your ability to convey your ideas more clearly (or work on more clearly defining what the hell your ideas really are). However, if all this is an attempt to ask could an event actually turn out differently than it actually did...the Copenhagen Interpretation says yes.

[BillyJoe]

I am pretty sure it has not been proven that rewinding the clock and letting her rip again would not result in the same pobabilities being repeated and hence an identical play evolving.

In any case, even if the probabilities were not repeated, this is no basis for "free will". This would be a delusion of "free will" if you believed that.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
I am pretty sure it has not been proven that rewinding the clock and letting her rip again would not result in the same pobabilities being repeated and hence an identical play evolving.

The probability distribution would be exactly the same, but the whole point is that this does not necessarily gaurantee the same outcome. If you have a pair of dice and roll them twice, the probabilities are exactly the same both times for the possible combinations, but you are very likely to get different outcomes. It all depends on how the probabilities are distributed.

In any case, even if the probabilities were not repeated, this is no basis for "free will". This would be a delusion of "free will" if you believed that.

I agree, I've never said anything in support of free will being real. I do not have conclusive evidence either way, therefore my default position is that it doesn't exist. However, this is not a problem for me as Franko/wraith seems to like to claim without providing proof. I also continue to operate in everyday life with the assumption that I do indeed have free will because the idea, independent of truth, is useful.

And Schrodinger's cat is both alive and dead (in the thought experiment at least) :p

[wraith]

Originally posted by The Fool


Frank.
You really love these "rewind time" examples. Why do you only ever want to rewind 10 minutes or some other small unit of time?

Rewind it all the way back to the big bang if you want...
nothing would change
:eek:

[Mordred]

Originally posted by wraith


Rewind it all the way back to the big bang if you want...
nothing would change
:eek:

I'm sorry to have to point this out to you, but if quantum mechanics is right, then you are wrong. So either offer sufficient evidence to disprove quantum mechanics, or abandon this opinion. Those are your logical options at this point. By the way, I find your "rewind" thought experiment unnecessarily confusing. It would be better just to say if you had two universes operating under identical laws, with identical initial conditions they would turn out exactly the same...of course that is also untrue if those laws are the same as they appear to be in our universe.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Mordred


Where have I ever claimed that there was any such thing?

Sorry, youre a fatalist?



Just because anything is possible...doesn't mean everything is sufficiently probable to actually happen.

It doesnt have to be "everything."
At least 1 is sufficient

Logic remains as it is. The problem comes when you attempt to apply omnivalent or Aristotlean logic to the real world. Logic you see is a synthetic system. It does it's job extremely well, because it was designed to do exactly that. What it doesn't necessarily do is transfer absolutely to the physical world. This is the value of multivalent logic in my opinion...it more closely resembles how things actually seem to work in reality. It's the same thing with math, with any abstract system. To use an actually relevant Einstein quote...

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."--Albert Einstein

Sorry, I dont follow.
:eek:

As for the rest...yikes...you need to work on your ability to convey your ideas more clearly (or work on more clearly defining what the hell your ideas really are). However, if all this is an attempt to ask could an event actually turn out differently than it actually did...the Copenhagen Interpretation says yes.

What are you trying to argue exactly? Are you a believer in Fate or mr free-will?

[wraith]

Originally posted by Mordred


The probability distribution would be exactly the same, but the whole point is that this does not necessarily gaurantee the same outcome. If you have a pair of dice and roll them twice, the probabilities are exactly the same both times for the possible combinations, but you are very likely to get different outcomes. It all depends on how the probabilities are distributed.[/B]

Thats not the same thing as going back in time. In the system above, you have two different events. Regardless of which, TLOP controls the outcome.



I agree, I've never said anything in support of free will being real. I do not have conclusive evidence either way, therefore my default position is that it doesn't exist. However, this is not a problem for me as Franko/wraith seems to like to claim without providing proof. I also continue to operate in everyday life with the assumption that I do indeed have free will because the idea, independent of truth, is useful.

Do you obey TLOP?

[wraith]

Originally posted by Mordred


I'm sorry to have to point this out to you, but if quantum mechanics is right, then you are wrong. So either offer sufficient evidence to disprove quantum mechanics, or abandon this opinion. Those are your logical options at this point. By the way, I find your "rewind" thought experiment unnecessarily confusing. It would be better just to say if you had two universes operating under identical laws, with identical initial conditions they would turn out exactly the same...of course that is also untrue if those laws are the same as they appear to be in our universe.

Just a second ago you said in relation to the "ball going through the wall" scenario

"If it's just a replay the same exact thing will happen of course..."

So which one is it?

[Mordred]

Originally posted by wraith
Sorry, youre a fatalist?

No, as that implies determinism.

It doesnt have to be "everything."
At least 1 is sufficient

You're going to have to elaborate on this. It is unclear to me what you are attempting to say.

Sorry, I dont follow.
:eek:

Logic and math are abstract systems created by human beings. They are based on certain assumptions, such as A!=~A. The universe does not necessarily follow these assumptions. To assume that it does would be to ignore the evidence. An electron for instance can be both spin up and spin down at the same time (it's spin state is both A and ~A). This violates a basic assumption of omnivalent logic. Where there is a contradiction between logic and our observations of how the universe works, if the observations are not flawed (which they do not appear to be), we must conclude that it is our logic which is in error.

What are you trying to argue exactly? Are you a believer in Fate or mr free-will?

I believe I already addresed this a few posts back. The portion of my post that this is in reply to by the way has absolutely nothing to do with it though...

[Mordred]

Originally posted by wraith


Thats not the same thing as going back in time. In the system above, you have two different events. Regardless of which, TLOP controls the outcome.

It is precisely the same thing that you are trying to pass your whole "rewind" thought experiment off as. The events are identical in every physical sense, yet they yield different outcomes.

Do you obey TLOP?

I believe I've already covered this ground before with a different poster who behaves quite eerily similar to you. My actions are governed by the laws of physics. However, the laws of physics are not deterministic, and there is no reason to believe that they themselves are a consciousness of any kind. It is demonstratable that the laws of physics aren't deterministic. So far your assertion that the laws of physics are conscious is completely unfounded.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by wraith


Just a second ago you said in relation to the "ball going through the wall" scenario

"If it's just a replay the same exact thing will happen of course..."

So which one is it?

I clarified my position once I understood exactly what the hell you were trying to say with your "rewind" thought experiment. Which is why I commented that it is unnecessarily confusing. My first answer was dependent on a condition, a condition which your thought experiment does not include. This has to do with the difference between an "instant replay" vs. a unique event with exactly the same initial conditions. You are using language that implies the former, but reaching your conclusion using the latter.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Mordred
You're going to have to elaborate on this. It is unclear to me what you are attempting to say.

Show at least one example of something doing something without reason and you can kiss logic good bye


Logic and math are abstract systems created by human beings. They are based on certain assumptions, such as A!=~A. The universe does not necessarily follow these assumptions. To assume that it does would be to ignore the evidence. An electron for instance can be both spin up and spin down at the same time (it's spin state is both A and ~A). This violates a basic assumption of omnivalent logic. Where there is a contradiction between logic and our observations of how the universe works, if the observations are not flawed (which they do not appear to be), we must conclude that it is our logic which is in error.

Good question...
With more info, then maybe it will become logical

[wraith]

Originally posted by Mordred


It is precisely the same thing that you are trying to pass your whole "rewind" thought experiment off as. The events are identical in every physical sense, yet they yield different outcomes.[/B]

So are you saying that throwing some dice twice is the same as throwing some dice once then rewind time and play when you throw the dice?

No Im affraid not. Conditions change when you throw the dice a second time. The way you throw, how much force you release, the angle in which you throw etc all add up to give you a different outcome



However, the laws of physics are not deterministic,

Still waiting for you to show me
:eek:

and there is no reason to believe that they themselves are a consciousness of any kind.

true, my car controls me
so does the pencil that I write with
:rolleyes:

[wraith]

Originally posted by Mordred


I clarified my position once I understood exactly what the hell you were trying to say with your "rewind" thought experiment. Which is why I commented that it is unnecessarily confusing. My first answer was dependent on a condition, a condition which your thought experiment does not include. This has to do with the difference between an "instant replay" vs. a unique event with exactly the same initial conditions. You are using language that implies the former, but reaching your conclusion using the latter.

No I dont think so...
Both examples are the same...clear as day if you will
;)

[Mordred]

Originally posted by wraith
So are you saying that throwing some dice twice is the same as throwing some dice once then rewind time and play when you throw the dice?

The dice throwing is what some people on this planet call an a-n-a-l-o-g-y.

No Im affraid not. Conditions change when you throw the dice a second time. The way you throw, how much force you release, the angle in which you throw etc all add up to give you a different outcome

This is exactly why your "rewind" scenario is exactly analogous to observing two events in identical universes with identical initial conditions.

Still waiting for you to show me
:eek:

Look back a little in this thread. It seemed quite obvious to everyone else that quantum mechanics is probabilistic and not deterministic. Can you give me a valid explanation for the phenomenon of quantum tunneling without a probabilistic model?

true, my car controls me
so does the pencil that I write with
:rolleyes:

Your idea that this strawman is actually necessitated by a universe where the laws of physics do not constitute a consciousness is still another unfounded assumption on your part.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by wraith


No I dont think so...
Both examples are the same...clear as day if you will
;)

They are not. If you are merely "replaying" what has already happened...then of course what has already happened will happen again. If you are not doing this, but merely starting from the same exact initial conditions, then the outcomes will not necessarily be the same.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Mordred
Logic and math are abstract systems created by human beings. They are based on certain assumptions, such as A!=~A. The universe does not necessarily follow these assumptions. To assume that it does would be to ignore the evidence.

THANK YOU Mordred!

This is one of the main points I have been trying to get across to Franko for quite some time.

Notwithstanding I am convinced that our very own computer programming A-ristotle will go on claiming that the non-existence of "free will" and the existence of his Goddess can be proven by means of a simple syllogsim. For some people it is just so hard to understand that the difference between the map and the land...

[MRC_Hans]

and there is no reason to believe that they themselves are a consciousness of any kind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

true, my car controls me
so does the pencil that I write with
No, it only shows that your claim of a hierachy is wrong. It is a straw man, and it has been refuted. Now, try to think of something new.

Hans

[Mordred]

Originally posted by CWL


THANK YOU Mordred!

This is one of the main points I have been trying to get across to Franko for quite some time.

Notwithstanding I am convinced that our very own computer programming A-ristotle will go on claiming that the non-existence of "free will" and the existence of his Goddess can be proven by means of a simple syllogsim. For some people it is just so hard to understand that the difference between the map and the land...

I've noticed that people have tried basically to impart the difference between validity and truth to him in past discussions. Obviously it still hasn't made a dent. Pure logic can only tell you whether or not your conclusion is valid based on your premises...it cannot be used to divine what is and is not actually true about the universe...but just try telling some people that.

[CWL]

We are in complete agreement. Again, thank you and welcome to the forum.

[Franko]

Mildred claimed:
Look back a little in this thread. It seemed quite obvious to everyone else that quantum mechanics is probabilistic and not deterministic. Can you give me a valid explanation for the phenomenon of quantum tunneling without a probabilistic model?

Wraith he's claiming that QM is magical. Standard John Bell tripe. In the next breathe he will tell you that his beliefs are not based on supernatural or mystical concepts ... go figure ... ?

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Franko


Wraith he's claiming that QM is magical. Standard John Bell tripe. In the next breathe he will tell you that his beliefs are not based on supernatural or mystical concepts ... go figure ... ?

So it is your contention that probability is a supernatural phenomenon?

Still waiting for you to answer buki's question about Einstein's Nobel prize...

[Franko]

Mildred ... explain the difference between something being Supernatural or Magic, and it being Truely random or indeterminate?

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Franko
Mildred ... explain the difference between something being Supernatural or Magic, and it being Truely random or indeterminate?

Since there isn't anyone named Mildred here, I might as well field this one (paranoid schizophrenia surfacing again Franko?).

supernatural

adj : not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material; "supernatural forces and occurrences and beings" [ant: natural]

I've never said anything about "true randomness". I mentioned something about a true random number generator somewhere in this or another thread, but that is not what we are talking about...there is a difference between random and probabilistic. As for indeterminancy, such as that of a particle as described in quantum mechanics. It exists in nature, is subject to explanation according to natural laws, and is related to the physical and material. It occurs in nature and is therefore natural, and by definition therefore not supernatural.

By the by...what did Einstein win his Nobel for?

[Franko]

As for indeterminancy, such as that of a particle as described in quantum mechanics. It exists in nature, is subject to explanation according to natural laws, and is related to the physical and material. It occurs in nature and is therefore natural, and by definition therefore not supernatural.

So what you are claiming is that when YOU say something is magical its not really magical, but if any other religion says something is magical … then it is magical. NICE double standard A-Theist.

Mildred ... explain the difference between something being Supernatural or Magic, and it being Truely random or indeterminate?

Do you want to take another crack at this, or are you going to stand by your previous non-answer?

The fact is, if your can’t comprehend it Mildred – it’s magic. And you are only fooling yourself if you try and claim otherwise. Now, lets see how much of a fool you are willing to be …

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Franko
So what you are claiming is that when YOU say something is magical its not really magical, but if any other religion says something is magical … then it is magical. NICE double standard A-Theist.

First, I have no religion. Second, I never claimed that anything was magical or supernatural. In fact, I claim exactly the opposite. My evidence for that claim is that the phenomenon I refer to is readily observable in nature, not to mention easily repeatable. If something is a part of nature...how can it be supernatural? That is exactly what you are claiming...that a part of nature is supernatural. It would be funny if it didn't contradict the very definitions of the words.

The fact is, if your can’t comprehend it Mildred – it’s magic. And you are only fooling yourself if you try and claim otherwise. Now, lets see how much of a fool you are willing to be …

Who is Mildred? One of the voices in your head? Forget to take your medication again?

The thing is...I do comprehend it. I comprehend wave-particle duality and indeterminancy quite well. By your definition I guess that means that it is not magical to me. That is a strange definition of magical you have there though...

Going to take a crack at the question I keep asking? What did Einstein win his Nobel prize for?

[Franko]

Mildred,

First, I have no religion. Second, I never claimed that anything was magical or supernatural. In fact, I claim exactly the opposite.

Yes … me all realize that YOU claimed that it was the opposite, but this here is one of dem dar “Skeptics” forums, and here you actually have to PROVE your claims – not just make them like the A-Theist “magic-land” you must have come from.

My evidence for that claim is that the phenomenon I refer to is readily observable in nature

I thought you couldn’t directly observe QM scale activity? You are contradicting yourself.

… not to mention easily repeatable.

If you are claiming that it is “RANDOM”, then how can it be “predictable”. I believe those two words are opposites once you exit “the pessimistic neverland of A-Theism” and enter the real world (a skeptics forum).

If something is a part of nature...how can it be supernatural?

Great! So I claim that “God” is part of nature; Ergo God is NOT supernatural, Ergo GOD EXIST. Wow! That was simple Vanessa. Thanks for proving God’s existence for Her. She’ll be relieved …

That is exactly what you are claiming...that a part of nature is supernatural. It would be funny if it didn't contradict the very definitions of the words.

You said it … not me. Now speaking of Supernatural claims, explain this magic “free willy power all you A-Theists claim to possess … ?

[Loki]

Franko,

If you are claiming that it is “RANDOM”, then how can it be “predictable”. I believe those two words are opposites ...
Nice attempt to subtly rephrase what was actually said into something that was not said (or implied), but which you can ridicule. Mordred said the phenomenon was observable, and that the observation can be repeated. The observation is that the phenomenon has a probabilistic nature.

phenomenon = probabilistic
observation = repeatable

Does that make it simpler to grasp? Now, can you explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes...?

Oh, and Einstein won his Nobel prize for "Saving Private Ryan", wasn't it?

[The Fool]

Again its humerous to watch Franks reaction to a beating.

Mordred, You must realise that Frank starting the childish name calling and tantrums Is the only indication you will ever get that he has no answer. Franks only goal is to beat people down with dogma and repetition....

At least you fluxhed out Frank, He doesn't like to use the wraith id for name calling, he tries to keep the styles a bit different....Its sad really, when he first arrived he was quite agile. But, like Gollum, I fear he has worn the ring too long.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Mordred


The dice throwing is what some people on this planet call an a-n-a-l-o-g-y.[/B]

Too bad that it's not an analogy, unless youre claim that two things happening one after the other is the same as doing it once, then going back in time and replaying it as the same thing. Eh, whatever makes you sleep easier at night...
:rolleyes:


]This is exactly why your "rewind" scenario is exactly analogous to observing two events in identical universes with identical initial conditions.[/B]

Yeah, only the conditions arnt 100% identical



Look back a little in this thread. It seemed quite obvious to everyone else that quantum mechanics is probabilistic and not deterministic. Can you give me a valid explanation for the phenomenon of quantum tunneling without a probabilistic model?

So the majority = true? Sorry, not in my books bub.

Quantum tunneling without a probabilistic model? Buggered if I know lol



Your idea that this strawman is actually necessitated by a universe where the laws of physics do not constitute a consciousness is still another unfounded assumption on your part.

Whenever you break TLOP, just let me know...

[wraith]

Originally posted by Mordred


They are not. If you are merely "replaying" what has already happened...then of course what has already happened will happen again. If you are not doing this, but merely starting from the same exact initial conditions, then the outcomes will not necessarily be the same.

ahhh, if youre replaying it, then it has the EXACT conditions, hence the same outcome.

Then you say that if you have the exact same conditions then it will not necessarily have the same outcome.

Again, which one is it sport?

[wraith]

Originally posted by Franko


Wraith he's claiming that QM is magical. Standard John Bell tripe. In the next breathe he will tell you that his beliefs are not based on supernatural or mystical concepts ... go figure ... ?

:)
one born every minute
:cool:

[wraith]

Originally posted by The Fool
He doesn't like to use the wraith id for name calling, he tries to keep the styles a bit different....Its sad really, when he first arrived he was quite agile. But, like Gollum, I fear he has worn the ring too long.

HAHAHAHHHHAHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !
WOO!

classic
just classic

[Loki]

wraith,

ahhh, if youre replaying it, then it has the EXACT conditions, hence the same outcome.

Then you say that if you have the exact same conditions then it will not necessarily have the same outcome.

Again, which one is it sport?
Concentrate. Think about what was written, not what you *think* was written. See if you can figure out why there is a difference between the two scenarios. (Hint...the key word is "replay").

[wraith]

na

the key word is "Fate"

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Mordred
The probability distribution would be exactly the same.....Yes, I understand that to be the case as well.

Originally posted by Mordred
.....but the whole point is that this does not necessarily gaurantee the same outcome.....This is what I thought had not been proven but I cannot remember where I heard this.
However, if you are certain that this is the case, I will accept it until I hear otherwise

Originally posted by Mordred
I agree [that this is no basis for "free will"], I've never said anything in support of free will being real.... Okay, we're agreed on that.

Originally posted by Mordred
.....I do not have conclusive evidence either way, therefore my default position is that it doesn't exist. Great. You don't take into account anything for which there is no positive proof. Exactly my position.

Originally posted by Mordred
I also continue to operate in everyday life with the assumption that I do indeed have free will because the idea, independent of truth, is useful.Well, I would say that I operate in everyday life as if I have free will (in other words, I am not actively assuming it, I just take it for granted) and, it just so happens that this turns out to be useful.

Originally posted by Mordred
And Schrodinger's cat is both alive and dead (in the thought experiment at least) :p My signature summarizes the opinion of Bernard Leikind.

His interpretation is that only a pure quantum state evolves as a probability wave. The probability wave collapses as soon as it interacts with another part of the universe (contrary to popular belief, it is not consciousness that collapses the wave function). A cat is in a continual interaction with other parts of the universe and therefore it is never in a superposition of states. It is always either alive or dead.

Do you disagree?

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by wraith
ahhh, if youre replaying it, then it has the EXACT conditions, hence the same outcome.

Then you say that if you have the exact same conditions then it will not necessarily have the same outcome.

Again, which one is it sport? Perhaps I can help.

Make a video of an event.
Play the video.
Replay the video.
The play and replay are identical.

Take two identical universes, Universe A and Universe B.
Let Universe A play itself out.
Let Universe B play itself out.
Universe A and Universe B play themselves out differently.

See the difference?

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Yes, I understand that to be the case as well.

This is what I thought had not been proven but I cannot remember where I heard this.
However, if you are certain that this is the case, I will accept it until I hear otherwise

Okay, we're agreed on that.

Great. You don't take into account anything for which there is no positive proof. Exactly my position.

Well, I would say that I operate in everyday life as if I have free will (in other words, I am not actively assuming it, I just take it for granted) and, it just so happens that this turns out to be useful.

My signature summarizes the opinion of Bernard Leikind.

His interpretation is that only a pure quantum state evolves as a probability wave. The probability wave collapses as soon as it interacts with another part of the universe (contrary to popular belief, it is not consciousness that collapses the wave function). A cat is in a continual interaction with other parts of the universe and therefore it is never in a superposition of states. It is always either alive or dead.

Do you disagree?

But what if that probability wave fights back? I mean, that it doesnt give way?

Is that possible?

Flame away, sorry.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Mordred
Logic and math are abstract systems created by human beings. They are based on certain assumptions, such as A!=~A. The universe does not necessarily follow these assumptions. To assume that it does would be to ignore the evidence. An electron for instance can be both spin up and spin down at the same time (it's spin state is both A and ~A). This violates a basic assumption of omnivalent logic. Where there is a contradiction between logic and our observations of how the universe works, if the observations are not flawed (which they do not appear to be), we must conclude that it is our logic which is in error.Mordred, do you mean that.....

Logic does not apply to the real world.
Mathematics is an invention not a discovery.
Empiricism is the only path to truth.

BillyJoe.

[BillyJoe]

RANDOM is an instance of the class PROBABILITY.

RANDOM is when the probabilities of all the possible outcomes are equal.


Does this help?.....


regards,
BillyJoe

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Franko
I thought you couldn’t directly observe QM scale activity? You are contradicting yourself.

No I am not, you can directly observe the outcomes of events. The outcomes of those events seem to obey quantum mechanics. Do you have a better model that can explain why this is so?

If you are claiming that it is “RANDOM”, then how can it be “predictable”. I believe those two words are opposites once you exit “the pessimistic neverland of A-Theism” and enter the real world (a skeptics forum).

Where have I ever claimed randomness? Hmmmm, I haven't. Probabilistic and random are not the same thing. If you do an experiment over and over and over and over, and the results always end up fitting the predicted probability distribution...is it random? I think not.

Great! So I claim that “God” is part of nature; Ergo God is NOT supernatural, Ergo GOD EXIST. Wow! That was simple Vanessa. Thanks for proving God’s existence for Her. She’ll be relieved …

Great!!! Oh wait...you took that a step farther than I did. I said that something was a part of nature, therefore it wasn't supernatural. Then I said, here is my evidence that it is part of nature (it is readily observable in nature...you can check this out for yourself quite easily). So, you just skipped that last part didn't you. Your line of reasoning doesn't prove your conclusion from you premises...so where is your evidence that supports your conclusion?

You said it … not me. Now speaking of Supernatural claims, explain this magic “free willy power all you A-Theists claim to possess … ?

Great, so we are making headway here. Your Goddess is not supernatural in any way. Can you explain where she came from now?

I do not see why I should explain the concept of free will and its possibility...as I have never claimed that it exists. Again, would you mind discussing my arguments with me and not the arguments that you wish me to have...

[Mordred]

Originally posted by wraith
ahhh, if youre replaying it, then it has the EXACT conditions, hence the same outcome.

No, if you are "replaying" it, it has the exact same conditions...and has already happened, so will happen as it already has.

Then you say that if you have the exact same conditions then it will not necessarily have the same outcome.

Again, which one is it sport?

What I am saying does not contradict itself...it is only what you are saying I am saying which does. Get it sport?

I think BillyJoe does, maybe you should reread his post until you understand.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Mordred, do you mean that.....

Logic does not apply to the real world.
Mathematics is an invention not a discovery.
Empiricism is the only path to truth.

BillyJoe.

Heh, something like that :)

And I agree with Leikind (although defining what is and isn't a "pure" quantum state is important). That's why I put in the thought experiment at least in parentheses, because it makes certain assumptions. Assumptions which aren't exactly true if one was to actually carry out the experiment.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by wraith
Too bad that it's not an analogy, unless youre claim that two things happening one after the other is the same as doing it once, then going back in time and replaying it as the same thing. Eh, whatever makes you sleep easier at night...
:rolleyes:

I never claimed they were exactly the same...I was using an everyday, macroscopic event governed by probability to illustrate a concept. Obviously that managed to elude you.

Yeah, only the conditions arnt 100% identical

Wait, is this a claim that if you were to "rewind" time to a certain previous time, that the conditions at that time would not be what they were previously at that time? Or is it a claim that two perfectly identical universes with perfectly identical initial conditions (by definition because this is a hypothetical thought experiment and that is how they are defined)...somehow do not have identical conditions?

So the majority = true? Sorry, not in my books bub.

Merely stating that other people didn't seem to have a problem with the proof that I offered...wondering what your problem with it was.

Quantum tunneling without a probabilistic model? Buggered if I know lol

So your argument is that quantum mechanics must be wrong...but you cannot provide an alternate model to explain one of the observable phenomenon that quantum mechanics readily explains? Why should I take you seriously then?

Whenever you break TLOP, just let me know...

Whenever you understand that trite crap like this doesn't prove that a set of rules is conscious...let me know. Furthermore, when you actually understand what the laws of physics really say...let me know...

Incidentally, I'm still waiting for an answer to a question Franko.

[CWL]

Originally posted by buki
Just out of curiosity,

Who knows what Einstein won the Nobel Prize for?

Nobody answer until Franko does. ok?

I have in fact posted a link in this thread which gives away the answer.

Franko, old boy, why are you afraid to answer? Scared that you will fall in one of those devious A-Theist traps again?

Oh... BTW it's enjoyable to watch your debate with "Mildred". Tell me, have you always resorted to name calling when you lack arguments?

[whitefork]

Originally posted by Mordred
Logic and math are abstract systems created by human beings. They are based on certain assumptions, such as A!=~A. The universe does not necessarily follow these assumptions. To assume that it does would be to ignore the evidence. An electron for instance can be both spin up and spin down at the same time (it's spin state is both A and ~A). This violates a basic assumption of omnivalent logic. Where there is a contradiction between logic and our observations of how the universe works, if the observations are not flawed (which they do not appear to be), we must conclude that it is our logic which is in error.

My only quibble with this - there is some risk that it might be taken to mean that logic can be abandoned for trivial reasons - if a formal fallacy is pointed out, someone may argue that the concept of formalism is nonsense. The overwhelming burden of proof (if proof is the right word) is on the person arguing that the rules of logic do not apply in such a case.

It's not as if logic or mathematics is static, after all. Of course those who cannot grasp the principles of syllogism are not in a position to contribute much to more advanced concepts, in my view.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by whitefork
My only quibble with this - there is some risk that it might be taken to mean that logic can be abandoned for trivial reasons - if a formal fallacy is pointed out, someone may argue that the concept of formalism is nonsense. The overwhelming burden of proof (if proof is the right word) is on the person arguing that the rules of logic do not apply in such a case.

I agree completely. It wasn't exactly easy for me to let go of the idea that the universe obeyed an omnivalent system of logic. The burden of proof is on those making the claim, but if quantum mechanics hasn't met that burden of proof yet, then I don't see how anything ever will.

It's not as if logic or mathematics is static, after all. Of course those who cannot grasp the principles of syllogism are not in a position to contribute much to more advanced concepts, in my view.

I am also in complete agreement. That is why I specifically brought up omnivalent logic. Multivalent systems of logic don't necessarily rest on the same assumptions, they don't have the same problem dealing with A=~A. Since omnivalent logic can also be seen as a special case within a multivalent logical system, it makes me start to think of the relationship as not unlike that of relativity and Newtonian mechanics.

[whitefork]

No question that QM has met that burden of proof. Philosophy is always playing catch-up to science. By the time it assimilates QM, physics will be at some other mindbending point.

Victor posted a nice link to alternate logic systems: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/11/2/123247/073

So many developments in the last 25 years. Who can stay on top of everything?

[Franko]

Loki,

Mildred:

[QM]… not to mention easily repeatable.

Franko:
If you are claiming that it is “RANDOM”, then how can it be “predictable”. I believe those two words are opposites once you exit “the pessimistic never-neverland of A-Theism” and enter the real world (a skeptics forum).

Loki:
Nice attempt to subtly rephrase what was actually said into something that was not said (or implied), but which you can ridicule.

Explain how I “subtly rephrased” what he said?

I QUOTED exactly what he said – You didn’t.

Mildred said the phenomenon was observable, and that the observation can be repeated.

QM phenomena is NOT directly observable. And since the outcome is RANDOM, it cannot be REPEATED EXACTLY THE SAME. That is what Random means Loki … :rolleyes:

The observation is that the phenomenon has a probabilistic nature.

So does flipping a coin. Do you consider coin tosses magical?

Here’s the thing Loki this was hashed out ages ago – YOU were there!

Unless you are going to claim that occasionally you uncontrollable and unpredictable run red lights, or kick your father in the nuts, then QM is not a solution for “free will”. How many times do you have to be shown the same thing before you acknowledge the obvious???

The fact of the matter is Loki, that in the same way you whine that a Christian is scared of death, and so he makes up an afterlife … YOU are terrified of the idea that you do not control your own destiny, so you make up a fantasy about having “free will” and you build the Religion of A-Theism around yourself and your insane worldview so you don’t have to deal with reality as it really is (that goes for Mildred, and buki, and the rest as well) …

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Franko
Explain how I “subtly rephrased” what he said?

I QUOTED exactly what he said – You didn’t.

Find me exactly where I have ever referred to quantum mechanics as being random. Again, probabilistic and random are not the same thing.

QM phenomena is NOT directly observable. And since the outcome is RANDOM, it cannot be REPEATED EXACTLY THE SAME. That is what Random means Loki … :rolleyes:

I can directly observe quantum tunneling, for instance. I can directly observe that particles have spins. I can directly observe a great many things having to do with quantum mechanics. Can I directly observe that a particles spin is both zero and one simultaneously until it's wave function collapses...no...because I cannot measure without collapsing the wave function. However, I can deduce that this is seemingly the only possible explanation for my observations. If you have an alternate, superior explanation...offer it. I'm listening. Until then I have no choice to believe the ONLY explanation that fits all the facts.

So does flipping a coin. Do you consider coin tosses magical?

No, probability isn't magical.

Unless you are going to claim that occasionally you uncontrollable and unpredictable run red lights, or kick your father in the nuts, then QM is not a solution for “free will”. How many times do you have to be shown the same thing before you acknowledge the obvious???

Where has anyone here ever claimed that quantum mechanics was somehow a solution for free will? Show me. Otherwise you are just arguing against arguments that no one has made...

The fact of the matter is Loki, that in the same way you whine that a Christian is scared of death, and so he makes up an afterlife … YOU are terrified of the idea that you do not control your own destiny, so you make up a fantasy about having “free will” and you build the Religion of A-Theism around yourself and your insane worldview so you don’t have to deal with reality as it really is (that goes for Mildred, and buki, and the rest as well) …

Heh. I have never claimed to have free will. Atheism is not my religion, I have none. My worldview is based on rationalism and empiricism. If that isn't dealing solely with reality, then I don't know what is.

I've answered plenty of your questions as best I can Franko...why can you not answer me just one. What did Einstein win his Nobel prize for?

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Franko
Mildred,

What's the specific difference?

It would be nice if you actually bothered to read the thread you are posting in...

Originally posted by BillyJoe
RANDOM is an instance of the class PROBABILITY.

RANDOM is when the probabilities of all the possible outcomes are equal.


Does this help?.....


regards,
BillyJoe


IS a coin toss "random" or "probabilistic"?

Anything that is random is probabilistic, so this is not a good question.

If you idealize a coin toss and say that it can ONLY result in heads or tails...then it is random. However, in reality, there are more possible outcomes than this. The coin could come to rest on its side for instance (highly improbable, but possible). This makes the cointoss nonrandom overall, but random in the case of whether it will be heads or tails. It is always probabilistic.

How about Human Behavior?

Good question. If human behavior is solely the result of the laws of physics, then it is probabilistic, but not random.

How about QM?

Probabilistic, but not random (as I have been repeatedly saying).

Any chance you will answer the question you have been repeatedly asked now?

[whitefork]

All Squares are rectangles.

All rectangles are squares.

good one, A-ristotle.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Franko
Mildred:

If anything “random” IS “probabilistic” then they are the same thing. Why can’t you A-Theists ever just say what you mean? Why all of the double-talk? Is this how you believe you will get honest answers about the universe? You certainly have a whacky religion.

Uh, perhaps all things random are probabilistic but all things probabilistic are not necessarily random. Thus, they are not the same thing.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Franko
If anything “random” IS “probabilistic” then they are the same thing. Why can’t you A-Theists ever just say what you mean? Why all of the double-talk? Is this how you believe you will get honest answers about the universe? You certainly have a whacky religion.

Once again, it seems everyone managed to understand exactly what I was saying except for you. Everything random is probabilistic. Everything probabilistic is not necessarily random. Perhaps it would be more evident if someone gave it to you in Venn diagram form...

I said exactly what I meant. There was no double talk. I have no religion.

Einstein won his Nobel prize for? :p

[Franko]

Mildred:

First you claim …

probabilistic and random are not the same thing.

… then you claim …

Anything that is random is probabilistic, so this is not a good question.

If anything “random” IS “probabilistic” then they are the same thing. Why can’t you A-Theists ever just say what you mean? Why all of the double-talk? Is this how you believe you will get honest answers about the universe? You certainly have a whacky religion.

[whitefork]

Franko, I pity your keyboard.

(Or maybe your keyboard is controlling you?)

DILLIGAF?

[Mordred]

Reposting things which have already been replied to...the obvious sign of a superior debater...

Franko, are all rectangles squares?

What did Einstein win his Nobel prize for?

[Franko]

Mildred,

probabilistic and random are not the same thing.

What's the specific difference?

IS a coin toss "random" or "probabilistic"?

How about Human Behavior?

How about QM?

[Mordred]

Franko...you have already made that EXACT same post above. I have already replied to it. Are you attempting to put your whole "rewind" thought experiment into practice? Or are you just being idiotic?

For my answers to those questions you can merely look above. Now, for a question that hasn't been answered yet...what did Einstein win his Nobel prize for? :D

[Franko]

Franko:
How about Human Behavior?

Mildred:
Good question. If human behavior is solely the result of the laws of physics, then it is probabilistic, but not random.

If it’s not solely the results of Physics then what is it the result of? Do you have ANY evidence that indicates human behavior is NOT solely the result of TLOP?

Are you claiming that the Behaviorists are wrong? If so, specifically where and why are they wrong?

Do you agree with Trixy that selecting a card at random from a deck occurs “beyond the scope or influence of TLOP”?

[wraith]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Perhaps I can help.

Make a video of an event.
Play the video.
Replay the video.
The play and replay are identical.

Take two identical universes, Universe A and Universe B.
Let Universe A play itself out.
Let Universe B play itself out.
Universe A and Universe B play themselves out differently.

See the difference?

If the outcome is different then it wasnt 100% identical

[wraith]

Originally posted by Mordred


No, if you are "replaying" it, it has the exact same conditions...and has already happened, so will happen as it already has.[/B]

yes yes



What I am saying does not contradict itself...it is only what you are saying I am saying which does. Get it sport?

I think BillyJoe does, maybe you should reread his post until you understand. [/B]

ahh, youre the one saying that if time wound back to the big bang, things would be different...

great stuff here
:rolleyes:

[wraith]

Originally posted by Mordred


I never claimed they were exactly the same...I was using an everyday, macroscopic event governed by probability to illustrate a concept. Obviously that managed to elude you.[/B]

Hence saying that events that happen one after the other is not the same as playing them twice


Wait, is this a claim that if you were to "rewind" time to a certain previous time, that the conditions at that time would not be what they were previously at that time? Or is it a claim that two perfectly identical universes with perfectly identical initial conditions (by definition because this is a hypothetical thought experiment and that is how they are defined)...somehow do not have identical conditions?[B]

Im not saying that at all. Are you reading whats actually been said? :cool:
Read the above reply slick



[QUOTE][B]Merely stating that other people didn't seem to have a problem with the proof that I offered...wondering what your problem with it was.

;)

So your argument is that quantum mechanics must be wrong...but you cannot provide an alternate model to explain one of the observable phenomenon that quantum mechanics readily explains? Why should I take you seriously then?

Im looking at the logic behind it.
You dont have to seriously if you really dont want too
haha :eek:

Whenever you understand that trite crap like this doesn't prove that a set of rules is conscious...let me know. Furthermore, when you actually understand what the laws of physics really say...let me know...

It's ok for TLOP to control you but is less conscious than you.
Youre on a fire...
:rolleyes:

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Franko


If it’s not solely the results of Physics then what is it the result of? Do you have ANY evidence that indicates human behavior is NOT solely the result of TLOP?

No, nor have I ever claimed anything of the sort.

Are you claiming that the Behaviorists are wrong? If so, specifically where and why are they wrong?

I fail to see specifically where behaviorism applies to this. Could you be more specific?

Do you agree with Trixy that selecting a card at random from a deck occurs “beyond the scope or influence of TLOP”?

I don't agree with that statement...of course that is a misrepresentation of his position, and I also disagree with your position because you fail to see that the laws of physics are not deterministic.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by wraith


If the outcome is different then it wasnt 100% identical

That assumes determinism...which is exactly what the whole scenario was supposed to prove. I'm afraid if you actually apply quantum mechanics to this situation, the initial conditions can be 100% identical, and the outcomes can still be different.

[Franko]

Mordred:
Franko:
Do you agree with Trixy that selecting a card at random from a deck occurs “beyond the scope or influence of TLOP”?

Mordred:
I don't agree with that statement...of course that is a misrepresentation of his position

How is it a misrepresentation exactly? Here is exactly what he said?

Franko:
When a person selects a "random" card, does TLOP decide what card they get, or does the person selecting use "magic free will powers"? ... or does the card itself "decide" to be selected?
Trixy:
The person uses their free will to choose.

So do you agree with Tricky or not Mordred?

[Mordred]

Originally posted by wraith
Hence saying that events that happen one after the other is not the same as playing them twice

Great. Where did I ever say they were the same thing? hmmmm...seems I didn't...

Im looking at the logic behind it.
You dont have to seriously if you really dont want too
haha :eek:

Did you not bother to read that whole discussion about logic, assumptions, observation, and empiricism? Reading the whole thread is usually a good idea. So I ask you...if while applying a system of logic to our observations of the universe, the logic contradicts our observations...which one should we believe? How we actually observe the universe behaving? Or what we conclude it should behave like based on a synthetic system which includes assumptions which are not necessarily true?

It's ok for TLOP to control you but is less conscious than you.
Youre on a fire...
:rolleyes:

The laws of physics do not control me. The term control implies conscious action. Using it in the way you have makes your argument circular. This was also covered elsewhere.

Einstein's Nobel was for?

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Franko
So do you agree with Tricky or not Mordred?

I do not support his position, as I have no reason to believe in free will. However, I also do not support your position that the universe is deterministic. Asking me to choose between the two would be a false dilemma.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Mordred


That assumes determinism...which is exactly what the whole scenario was supposed to prove. I'm afraid if you actually apply quantum mechanics to this situation, the initial conditions can be 100% identical, and the outcomes can still be different.

So why are you saying that if you wound back time, the outcome WILL be the same?

[Mordred]

Originally posted by wraith


So why are you saying that if you wound back time, the outcome WILL be the same?

It had to do with the WAY in which it was originally stated. I asked for clarification on this point, but it was never given. Are we rewinding time and then playing it forward back to the original point (a kind of instant replay)...or are we merely going back to a known set of initial conditions and letting things play out as a unique event. How things will play out will be dependent on which of these things the whole "rewind" scenario is actually referring to. If we are just playing back an event that has already happened...it will of course happen as it already has. If we are traveling back to a point with known initial conditions, and letting the universe evolve forward from that point, then the exact same outcome is not gauranteed.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Mordred


Great. Where did I ever say they were the same thing? hmmmm...seems I didn't...[/B]

“It is precisely the same thing that you are trying to pass your whole "rewind" thought experiment off as. The events are identical in every physical sense, yet they yield different outcomes.”




Did you not bother to read that whole discussion about logic, assumptions, observation, and empiricism? Reading the whole thread is usually a good idea. So I ask you...if while applying a system of logic to our observations of the universe, the logic contradicts our observations...which one should we believe? How we actually observe the universe behaving? Or what we conclude it should behave like based on a synthetic system which includes assumptions which are not necessarily true?

Well, take a stance, then we will talk. Im getting mumbo-jumbo talk from you at the moment ;)

The laws of physics do not control me. The term control implies conscious action. Using it in the way you have makes your argument circular. This was also covered elsewhere.

Of course not! You control TLOP. Im not real. Everyone is controlled by you. YOU is all that there is....

Einstein's Nobel was for?

Youre asking me because......
lol

[wraith]

Originally posted by Mordred
Are we rewinding time and then playing it forward back to the original point (a kind of instant replay)

Yes

...or are we merely going back to a known set of initial conditions and letting things play out as a unique event.

Doesnt matter. If you say that if you had the EXACT same conditions as you had in the replay, then the outcome will be the same. If you say that the outcome will be different, then the outcome in the replay has the potential to also be different.


How things will play out will be dependent on which of these things the whole "rewind" scenario is actually referring to. If we are just playing back an event that has already happened...it will of course happen as it already has.

Why is that?
Is it because the conditions are exactly the same?


If we are traveling back to a point with known initial conditions, and letting the universe evolve forward from that point, then the exact same outcome is not gauranteed.

Why is that?
Were the conditions exactly the same?

[Franko]

You are all over him Sorcerer ... :cool:

[CWL]

Einstein's nobel prize? Anyone? Perhaps Franko or his young Sorcerer would care to guess?

[Mordred]

Originally posted by wraith
“It is precisely the same thing that you are trying to pass your whole "rewind" thought experiment off as. The events are identical in every physical sense, yet they yield different outcomes.”

That was in reference to my thought experiment involving two identical universes with identical initial conditions. It had nothing to do with two events happening one after the other.

Well, take a stance, then we will talk. Im getting mumbo-jumbo talk from you at the moment ;)

I took a stance when the topic was originally brought up, by me. If you bothered to read the thread you are posting in you might have noticed this. It is my opinion that when our system of logic contradicts our observations of the universe, and we have no reason to believe that our observations are incorrect, we must conclude that our system of logic is flawed as far as applying it to the universe. I even busted out a quote...

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."--Albert Einstein

You wouldn't want to go and disagree with Einstein eh? :p What did he win his Nobel for again?

Of course not! You control TLOP. Im not real. Everyone is controlled by you. YOU is all that there is....

Show me exactly where any of my statements imply this conclusion in any way or shut the hell up about it.

Youre asking me because......
lol

I'll settle for an answer from either one of your personalities. It isn't a difficult question.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by wraith
Doesnt matter. If you say that if you had the EXACT same conditions as you had in the replay, then the outcome will be the same. If you say that the outcome will be different, then the outcome in the replay has the potential to also be different.

No, and here is why...something that I have stated repeatedly and you have apparently not picked up on. In the replay scenario...the event has ALREADY HAPPENED. If something has already happened, can it happen differently? This is why I asked for clarification as to the specifics of this scenario and suggested an alternate which was less temporally ambiguous so to say.

Why is that?
Is it because the conditions are exactly the same?

No, it's because the event has already happened.

Why is that?
Were the conditions exactly the same?

Yes. I defined them as exactly the same at the outset of my little thought experiment. Yet if we apply quantum mechanics in this scenario, the outcomes will not necessarily be the same. There will likely be a decent chance that they will...but there will also be some nonzero chance that they won't...and the farther away from the initial conditions we get, the more likely it becomes.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Mordred


That was in reference to my thought experiment involving two identical universes with identical initial conditions. It had nothing to do with two events happening one after the other.[/B]

In other words, if you went back in time and pressed play (having the exact same coditions) you and I say that it WILL yield the same outcome.

Then you say that if you had identical conditions (im assuming that you mean 100% exect conditions) REGARDLESS of when it happened, it's possible to get a different result. ie if you had the EXACT same conditions for both events, regardless of when they were performed (have them be performed one after the other if you want) it is possible to have different outcomes.

I ask again

which one is it?


I took a stance when the topic was originally brought up, by me. If you bothered to read the thread you are posting in you might have noticed this. It is my opinion that when our system of logic contradicts our observations of the universe, and we have no reason to believe that our observations are incorrect, we must conclude that our system of logic is flawed as far as applying it to the universe.

Na, youre still in jumbo-land at the moment ;)

Then change your logic :eek:

I even busted out a quote...

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."--Albert Einstein

You wouldn't want to go and disagree with Einstein eh? :p What did he win his Nobel for again?

You know, he could have been talking to those who had the mindset that science opposes religion and vice versa. Not to those who see sciencë and religion as "allies." Get it? ;)

Think he won the prize for baking a cake...not sure on that one though....



Show me exactly where any of my statements imply this conclusion in any way or shut the hell up about it.

HAHA
my my, how quickly we forget :rolleyes:
"TLOP does not control me"




I'll settle for an answer from either one of your personalities. It isn't a difficult question.

eh
I only have one personality that I am aware of...
muhahaha

[wraith]

Originally posted by Mordred


No, and here is why...something that I have stated repeatedly and you have apparently not picked up on. In the replay scenario...the event has ALREADY HAPPENED. If something has already happened, can it happen differently? This is why I asked for clarification as to the specifics of this scenario and suggested an alternate which was less temporally ambiguous so to say.[/B]

Already happened?
Is this your way of saying
"It had the exact same conditions"?
:cool:

No, it's because the event has already happened.

Translation: It had the exact same conditions, but I dont want to admit it.
;)


Yes. I defined them as exactly the same at the outset of my little thought experiment. Yet if we apply quantum mechanics in this scenario, the outcomes will not necessarily be the same. There will likely be a decent chance that they will...but there will also be some nonzero chance that they won't...and the farther away from the initial conditions we get, the more likely it becomes.

So in saying this, how can you say that the replay will be the same?
The best that you can say is that "it already happened."

LOL! You can rock up to work tomorrow wearing a dress and say "dont blame me, it already happened"
:cool:

[Yahzi]

An electron for instance can be both spin up and spin down at the same time (it's spin state is both A and ~A).
But can an electron be both spin up and NOT spin up?

No?

Then there is no contradiction with the law of negation.

~Up != Down. Up is the opposite of down, not the negation.

[BillyJoe]

LET'S FORGET THE REPLAY SCENARIO.


Take two identical universes, Universe A and Universe B
Let Universe A play itself out.
Let Universe B play itself out.
Universe A and Universe B play themselves out _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _?


Mordred says......
Universe A and Universe B play themselves out DIFFERENTLY.
The reason being that TLOP are PROBABILISTIC.

Wraith says.....
Universe A and Universe B play themselves out IDENTICALLY.
The reason being that TLOP are DETERMINISTIC.


Who is correct?
Quantum theory says that TLOP are probabilistic which seems to suggest that Mordred is correct.
However, may I hazard a guess that Wraith in buying into Einstein's original suggestion that there must be something beyond quantum mechanics that determines what the probabilistic outcomes of quantum theory will be.


How am I going wraith?
BillyJoe.

[CWL]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
However, may I hazard a guess that Wraith in buying into Einstein's original suggestion that there must be something beyond quantum mechanics that determines what the probabilistic outcomes of quantum theory will be.

Well, Einstein didn't like the idea of God playing dice either so that's an educated guess.

If your guess is correct and Wraith is into Einstein, perhaps he would venture a guess as to what Einstein won his Nobel Prize for?

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by CWL
If your guess is correct and Wraith is into Einstein, perhaps he would venture a guess as to what Einstein won his Nobel Prize for? I think everyone must know the answer to that by now. :rolleyes:
The question is who didn't need to look up the internet for the answer? :)

BillyJoe.

[Aardvark_DK]

And it wasn't the theory of relativity...

[Mordred]

Originally posted by wraith
Na, youre still in jumbo-land at the moment ;)

Then change your logic :eek:

Then go back and actually read the exchange between whitefork and myself regarding alternate systems of logic. Perhaps even bother to glance at the link that whitefork provided. Would it not be arrogant to presume that the universe MUST adhere to a system of rules created by us that is based on certain assumptions which are not necessarily true?

You know, he could have been talking to those who had the mindset that science opposes religion and vice versa. Not to those who see sciencë and religion as "allies." Get it? ;)

Did you see the words science or religion in there anywhere? He was referring to the application of mathematics to describing the universe.

HAHA
my my, how quickly we forget :rolleyes:
"TLOP does not control me"

What you continually gloss over is my objection to the term control, which assumes the conclusion that you and/or Franko are attempting to prove. My actions are dictated by the laws of physics, I have never claimed different. How this proves that they must be conscious on the other hand...you have yet to provide sufficient proof, either empirical or logical.

I suggest we drop the whole rewind/replay thing altogether. It has obvious temporal consequences that you seem unwilling to take into account. That is the very reason that I proposed the identical universes example in the first place.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by wraith


Already happened?
Is this your way of saying
"It had the exact same conditions"?
:cool:

No, it's my way of saying the event has already occurred. Is English your native language?

LOL! You can rock up to work tomorrow wearing a dress and say "dont blame me, it already happened"
:cool:

That might be a valid excuse if tomorrow has already happened. To my knowledge it has not. Do you have proof to the contrary?

Again, I suggest we just drop this. Thinking of time in a linear fashion seems to be enough to confuse things with you...thinking of it in a nonlinear fashion does not seem to be something you even want to consider.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Yahzi

But can an electron be both spin up and NOT spin up?

No?

Then there is no contradiction with the law of negation.

~Up != Down. Up is the opposite of down, not the negation.

Hmmm...I'm not so sure of this. If you have only two possible states, then isn't the negation of one of those states the other state? In other words if an electron is not spin up...it has to be spin down. So when it is both spin up and spin down...it is spin up and not spin up at the same time.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
I think everyone must know the answer to that by now. :rolleyes:
The question is who didn't need to look up the internet for the answer? :)

BillyJoe.

I am almost certain of the year, know exactly what he got it for, and know exactly what that paper means. I didn't need to look it up, and since this entire discussion is basically just a rather complex Einstein was right and quantum mechanics and the Copenhagen Interpretation are wrong, damn the evidence tirade...Einstein's Nobel is quite relevant...which makes me wonder why we can't seem to get a simple answer for a very simple question...

[Franko]

CWL,

Einstein's nobel prize? Anyone? Perhaps Franko or his young Sorcerer would care to guess?

Why do I need to guess I already know the answer to this question – so does anyone with a brain I suppose.

I have raised this very issue more than once on this very board in fact!

Doesn’t exactly speak well for the A-Theist who hand out the Nobel prize. It took the Catholic Church 400 years to correct their mistake with Galileo, I wonder how long it will take the A-Theists to correct theirs with Einstein?

Why are you even raising this point A-Theist? It certainly doesn’t help Your argument here in this forum? (I never overestimate the A-Theists capacity for stupidity).

[Mordred]

So why don't you just answer the freaking question then?

Are you claiming that the Nobel prize committee in 1921 was comprised of atheists who wished to deny Einstein a Nobel for what we now think he truly deserved it for? They went out of their way to give Einstein a Nobel, they chose to do it for work that was 16 years old and much less controversial at the time than general relativity.

Again, why don't you just answer the question? Especially if it doesn't help anyone else's position.

[whitefork]

Mordred, I'm very interested in the QM implications of the ************* ******. Nobel awarded in ****.

I started rereading Feynmann's QED last night to get regrounded in these matters, but would you care to offer some more recent insights?

Thank you.

[Franko]

whitefork I'm sure he'll let you kiss his ass if you ask nicely.

:rolleyes:

[Mordred]

Franko, why haven't you answered the question? I do not believe it is too much to ask. I have tried in good faith to respond to every question, state clearly my positions, and reply to your criticisms. If you feel my effort is inadequate...that is your opinion. I will leave others who are reading to form their own. However, if you cannot at least return a small portion of the respect that I have attempted to show by answering one simple little question about a historical fact...why should I take any discussion with you seriously?

Please answer the question, or I will when I respond to whitefork's request.

[Franko]

http://newton.dep.anl.gov:70/askasci/phy99/phy99078.htm

happy now?

[Mordred]

I guess just writing the photo-electric effect was too complicated eh?

Originally posted by whitefork
Mordred, I'm very interested in the QM implications of the ************* ******. Nobel awarded in ****.

I started rereading Feynmann's QED last night to get regrounded in these matters, but would you care to offer some more recent insights?

Thank you.

I don't think I could offer any more recent insights than Feynmann would if he gave a treatment of the phenomenon. I'm sure he would do it much better than I could. We are really talking about a paper that was written in 1905 after all. The reason it is a very interesting part of Franko's little Einstein demi-god worship is that it was Einstein who helped lay the groundwork for quantum mechanics with his work on the photoelectric effect. He solved a problem by thinking about it in what at the time was a unique way (which is what Einstein was really very good at), and also by applying the previous work of Planck from around 1900 or so. Planck hypothesized that energy might be quantitized. Einstein applied this to the photo-electric effect, and in doing so not only coined the phrase photon (a quanta of light), but also provided a theoretical basis and experimental evidence for quantum mechanics before the theory had even been conceived of...not to mention reopening the question of the nature of light (wave-particle duality) which eventually lead to DeBroglie proposing that all matter had wave characteristics...which leads right into the Schrodinger's wave equation, which accompanied by Heisneberg's uncertainty principle forms the nuts and bolts of quantum mechanics.

[whitefork]

Mordred seems to know quite about an area that I'm interested in. He's clear, answers questions, treats people politely, and provides references.

I have the utmost respect for those qualities. Stimpson is an expert in many similar areas, but he does not suffer fools easily (sorry Fool) and can be somewhat abrasive or impatient.

Anyone who can teach me something and will take the time to do so deserves my respect.

I don't need to kiss anyone's ass in order to learn something.

When's the last time you actually learned something? You stop learning, part of you dies.

"Photoelectric effect" - I didn't want to give the answer away.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Mordred


It was Einstein who helped lay the groundwork for quantum mechanics with his work on the photoelectric effect.
...
Einstein applied this to the photo-electric effect, and in doing so not only coined the phrase photon (a quanta of light), but also provided a theoretical basis and experimental evidence for quantum mechanics before the theory had even been conceived of...

So, Einstein was not happy with the idea of randomness in the Universe, but at the end (or before that?), he actually provided the theoretical basis for quantum mechanics.

Q-S

[whitefork]

Fertile ideas have consequences independent of those who formulate them.

Non-Euclidean geometry needed Euclid, don't you think? I like to think he would have understood it, but probably would have rejected it anyway.

But someone like Kepler, now there's a radical. The astrology and bizarre geometry along with the elliptical orbits. What an intellectual platypus. The last of the great medievalists. What a mind.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Q-Source


So, Einstein was not happy with the idea of randomness in the Universe, but at the end (or before that?), he actually provided the theoretical basis for quantum mechanics.

Q-S

Yes, although to be fair to another great scientist, I would say that Einstein provided the first general implementation of the idea originated by Planck (energy exists in discrete packets, quanta).

Either way all the work that followed flowed naturally from Einstein's. He didn't like the philosophical implications of where others were taking it, but he didn't have any real objection, mathematical or empirical to base this on. I think it had more to do with the fact that, despite the fact he himself ushered in the age of modern physics, he was still classically trained and disliked letting go of the last of the concepts that had seemed so certain just twenty or thirty years ago. Scrhodinger, Heisenber, Fermi, Dirac, etc., being younger and generally more mathematically talented didn't have this problem. They trusted what their equations told them. The issue was solved at least from an operational standpoint in 1927, and after Einstein and what had become the "old guard" died off it really wasn't talked about much outside of philosophical curiousity. It is really a fun topic to discuss.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Mordred


Either way all the work that followed flowed naturally from Einstein's. He didn't like the philosophical implications of where others were taking it, but he didn't have any real objection, mathematical or empirical to base this on. I think it had more to do with the fact that, despite the fact he himself ushered in the age of modern physics, he was still classically trained and disliked letting go of the last of the concepts that had seemed so certain just twenty or thirty years ago. Scrhodinger, Heisenber, Fermi, Dirac, etc., being younger and generally more mathematically talented didn't have this problem. They trusted what their equations told them. The issue was solved at least from an operational standpoint in 1927, and after Einstein and what had become the "old guard" died off it really wasn't talked about much outside of philosophical curiousity. It is really a fun topic to discuss.

What is the situation now among the scientific community?
Is it just a philosophical curiousity or is it more than that?

I ask you this, because among general population -without formal education in Physics- is easier to retain or agree with the concepts that Eistein held (I think because he is popular), when in fact -as you mentioned- people like Heisenber and others have contributed with new knowledge about the Universe.

Q-S

BTW, I agree with Whitefork, my respects ;)

[whitefork]

Sorry Q-Source, my ass isn't for kissing.

With regard to Einstein, he's so beloved, and everyone knows that E equals MC squared, and sometimes they know about the twin paradox, and they've heard the expression "general relativity" or "theory of relativity", it's sort of like a touchstone of scientific literacy.

I venture to say that far more people have a good knowledge of electricity, but have no knowledge of Maxwell, volts but not Volta, amps, but not Ampere, etc.

Technology is ready to hand. You don't need to know any science to use it. Yet people know far more about the scientists who made the big concepts with few (direct) practical applications (Hawking, Newton, Heisenberg, Einstein - or at least "uncertainty principle") than those whose work we use every day.

We have this paradoxical situation where what's known of science may have no day-to-day effect on the laypeople who know it, and the stuff that makes the modern world is due to the actions of people who are completely anonymous.

A huge oversimplification, I know.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Q-Source
What is the situation now among the scientific community?
Is it just a philosophical curiousity or is it more than that?

There are no doubt some that believe that determinism can still be "salvaged". I've even read some rather complex philosophy that attempts to find a basis for determinism beneath the apparent nondeterminism of quantum mechanics itself. The problem with all this though, in the end is the same as it was for Einstein. They can't prove it. We have no experimental evidence to support these conclusions. Even if hidden variables do exist, if they remain hidden, then we can not say anything about them. Since the equations all seem to work just the way they are without this added assumption of hidden variables...we must conclude that the Copenhagen Interpretation is the superior model.

Basically, no matter what any physicist that I know of believes...what will be taught in a undergraduate or graduate quantum mechanics class will be based on the Copenhagen Interpretation. If the professor is philosophically minded (as physicists often are), then they will likely take a day or two somewhere to mention the EPR paradox, the hidden variable interpretation, and some other interesting topics. But those days are generally kind of, "hey look at this, isn't this kind of weird?" Now for your homework solve the Schrodinger equation for this and this, and so on...

I ask you this, because among general population -without formal education in Physics- is easier to retain or agree with the concepts that Eistein held (I think because he is popular), when in fact -as you mentioned- people like Heisenber and others have contributed with new knowledge about the Universe.

Q-S

BTW, I agree with Whitefork, my respects ;)

First, thanks. Second, you have no idea what you have just done...opened the door for a mini-rant by me about the state of science (particularly physics) education.

In my opinion, the reason that the general population finds it easier to accept Einstein's position, outside of his overblown reputation (by his own admission), is that they generally have zero formal education in modern physics. The majority of the population has either no high school physics, high school physics, or at the most an intro level undergraduate course in physics. These classes generally teach basic Newtonian mechanics, basic treatments of electricity&magnetism, simple optics, and if you're lucky they might passingly mention special relativity and QM without really giving them anywhere near a sufficient mathematical treatment. In other words, they barely teach you anything that wasn't around in the 19th century, and they don't even cover all of that. So if all they really teach you is classical physics, is it any wonder that you would almost certainly side with the classical interpretation? Throw in the fact that the math is above the level that most people are taught (how comfortable are you with complex math and partial differntial equations?), and you have most people saying "how could this be?"

This is why a lot of people have a hard time making the leap from classical physics to relativity and quantum mechanics. Classical physics seems intuitively obvious to a degree. You see it in action everyday. Relativity and QM seem counterintuitive, they result in things that don't seem to make sense based on what we observe every day...but when you start from the concepts that form the basis of those theories, all the conclusions are perfectly logical, and they conform to the experimental evidence.

In a way it is kind of stupid. They teach all these things from day one, and then all of a sudden when you decide to really be a physicist they decide to inform you that everything you have learned up until now isn't really right. It's just an approximation...here is the way things really seem to be, and it looks much different than you think it should. If you can't let go of your conception of what you think should be right, then you will probably never understand it all. There has to be a better way I would think...but that's how it is done.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by whitefork
A huge oversimplification, I know.

But an important idea, one that I was thinking of touching on more in my last post. I mean, walk up to someone on the street and ask them who Albert Einstein was and a good percentage of the people will know. How many nonphysicists would know Dirac, Gamow, Born, DeBroglie, Lagrange, or Hamilton? Much less what they actually did...

I mean, Hamilton practically wrote down the Schrodinger equation in, I believe, the 1850's...but I'd never heard anything about him until I learned Hamiltonian mechanics in my undergrad classical mechanics course.

[whitefork]

How many trained scientists are teaching at the high school level? I took calculus and physics senior year, your description of the physics curriculum was very accurate. Old Mr. Taylor had clearly seen better days.

Those that wanted to pursue things seriously went to places like MIT, and they were really smart. I went elsewhere.

I remember way more calculus than physics, oddly enough.

How many masters and doctorates are awarded each year in physics? How many of those graduates go into teaching full time? How many at the secondary school level?

Who can afford to?

No wonder we're such dolts. You can learn some science on your own, I guess, but to do real work, I guess you want that community of peers.

I have a good friend with a doctorate in microbiology. He teaches science at a so-called charter school here. An excellent teacher. Paid a pittance. Kids learn, though.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by whitefork
How many of those graduates go into teaching full time? How many at the secondary school level?

Not a lot...the only people with doctorates that I know who have taught high school did so in private schools for a year or two to make money to live on until they got positions at universities. Not that having a Ph.D. made them great teachers though...in fact above a certain level there is almost an inverse law relating intelligence and lecturing ability among physics professors. Chances are that the guy who is just scary smart probably won't be able to explain much to an undergrad in a way that will be understood. There are of course exceptions (Feynman).

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Mordred

There are no doubt some that believe that determinism can still be "salvaged". I've even read some rather complex philosophy that attempts to find a basis for determinism beneath the apparent nondeterminism of quantum mechanics itself.

So, determinism is not generally accepted among Physics. I learn something new everyday.

Originally posted by Mordred

Basically, no matter what any physicist that I know of believes...what will be taught in a undergraduate or graduate quantum mechanics class will be based on the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Well, since they are scientist they have to be objective as well.
But the Copenhagen interpretation is only taught in undergraduate courses in Sciences not in high school courses (I think, I might be wrong).


Originally posted by Mordred

In my opinion, the reason that the general population finds it easier to accept Einstein's position, outside of his overblown reputation (by his own admission), is that they generally have zero formal education in modern physics. The majority of the population has either no high school physics, high school physics, or at the most an intro level undergraduate course in physics. These classes generally teach basic Newtonian mechanics, basic treatments of electricity&magnetism, simple optics, and if you're lucky they might passingly mention special relativity and QM without really giving them anywhere near a sufficient mathematical treatment. In other words, they barely teach you anything that wasn't around in the 19th century, and they don't even cover all of that. So if all they really teach you is classical physics, is it any wonder that you would almost certainly side with the classical interpretation?

To be fair, general population does not have to know in detail about Physics. Just like you don't have to be an expert in Economics or Literature.

In my opinion, this issue only becomes relevant when we try to comprehend our reality and when we try to approach this reality with theories about the nature of the Universe that Science provides.

Then it is very important to know exactly what science offers and most important to understand and interpret that knowlegde.

Originally posted by Mordred

Throw in the fact that the math is above the level that most people are taught (how comfortable are you with complex math and partial differntial equations?), and you have most people saying "how could this be?"

This is why a lot of people have a hard time making the leap from classical physics to relativity and quantum mechanics. Classical physics seems intuitively obvious to a degree. You see it in action everyday. Relativity and QM seem counterintuitive, they result in things that don't seem to make sense based on what we observe every day...but when you start from the concepts that form the basis of those theories, all the conclusions are perfectly logical, and they conform to the experimental evidence.


Yeah, it is true. Hey, just my case, I was taught classical physics more than relativity and quantum mechanisc in high school. Before that you mentioned it, I thought that determinism was the rule!. But, as I said above, I am an economist and knowledge in Physics is not relevant unless I have to hold a philosophical and religious posture.

Q-S

[whitefork]

I'd like to know in what scientific endeavors determinism is still the prevailing orthodoxy. Deterministic psychology, sure.
Certain schools of philosophy. Marxism? (I wouldn't know about that). Economics (maybe some versions).

Anyone help me out here?

[Franko]

Q-Source:
So, determinism is not generally accepted among Physics. I learn something new everyday.

Is that True? It seems a contradiction to me. To say determinism is False is analogous (Logically equivalent) to claiming that reality is NOT Objective (logical).

Q-Source:
Well, since they are scientist they have to be objective as well.
But the Copenhagen interpretation is only taught in undergraduate courses in Sciences not in high school courses (I think, I might be wrong).

LD goes hand in hand with Copenhagen. An observer is required to collapse the wavefunction, and its NOT random. (random = magic).

To be fair, general population does not have to know in detail about Physics. Just like you don't have to be an expert in Economics or Literature.

Depends on what you want to know I guess …

In my opinion, this issue only becomes relevant when we try to comprehend our reality and when we try to approach this reality with theories about the nature of the Universe that Science provides.

Sure, except A-Theism <> Science.

Q-Source:
Then it is very important to know exactly what science offers and most important to understand and interpret that knowledge.

Exactly! Which is why you have to be careful not to make, Dogma = Science. Totally screws up your interpretation.

Evil Sorcerer:
Throw in the fact that the math is above the level that most people are taught (how comfortable are you with complex math and partial differntial equations?), and you have most people saying "how could this be?"

I disagree, the math required to understand the universe is very basic and relatively easy to understand. You A-Theists go out of your way to make things more complicated than it needs to be because it is vital to your religious hierarchy that the people don’t understand it.

Q-Source:
Yeah, it is true. Hey, just my case, I was taught classical physics more than relativity and quantum mechanisc in high school. Before that you mentioned it, I thought that determinism was the rule!. But, as I said above, I am an economist and knowledge in Physics is not relevant unless I have to hold a philosophical and religious posture.

Determinism is the rule. QM has no bearing on the outcome, and this has been hashed out – here on this very board – over and over again. Now that Stimpson has morphed into Mordred, I suppose it will have to be rehashed.

Q-source (or Mordred, or whitefork) if human behavior really is random at heart (or probabilistic – is you prefer) then could you please tell us all how often you randomly and uncontrollably run “red” traffic lights?

How many times have you gone to hug your father, but due to the random stochastic nature of QM you uncontrollably ended up giving him a swift kick to the nutsack instead?

The fact is human behavior is 100% deterministic, unless the entity in question is insane.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Well, since they are scientist they have to be objective as well.
But the Copenhagen interpretation is only taught in undergraduate courses in Sciences not in high school courses (I think, I might be wrong).

I would be surprised if any quantum mechanics is really taught in high school at all. I learned my first bit of quantum mechanics in my high school chemistry classes, and I think that is only because the teacher taught at a very high level. I took intro chemistry courses at a college my senior year of high school and they were easier. We never got beyond a point where explaining the Copenhagen interpretation was necessary though. Undergrad intro courses might touch on it, but you will probably have to take quantum to get a decent explanation. Even then, what my professors always told me was, you learn it first as an undergrad, then they teach it to you again in graduate school and hopefully you start to see how it all hangs together.

To be fair, general population does not have to know in detail about Physics. Just like you don't have to be an expert in Economics or Literature.

Oh I understand that. But to make a parallel...if they taught English the way they taught physics they would send your child into the world with a working knowledge of Victorian Era spelling, syntax, and vernacular and then wonder why they couldn't understand modern American English well. I'm not saying everyone needs to be able to solve a Schrodinger equation, but at least teach them the basic concepts and inform them of the work that has taken place since Newton. I mean, you don't see Biology or Chemistry taught the way Physics is...and therein lies my major problem. When you teach someone Biology and don't teach them about the more fundamental (in my biased opinion :D ) underlying physics...you get people who know just enough to be dangerous...people who might actually believe the 2nd law of thermodynamics means evolution is impossible.

Yeah, it is true. Hey, just my case, I was taught classical physics more than relativity and quantum mechanisc in high school. Before that you mentioned it, I thought that determinism was the rule!. But, as I said above, I am an economist and knowledge in Physics is not relevant unless I have to hold a philosophical and religious posture.

Q-S

I understand completely. And the thing is, until you start talking about things like this, you really have no reason to abandon your ideas about determinism. Why should you? That model works to explain your everyday observations of the world. If the best working model in economics is also deterministic then you really have no practical reason to let it go. But as I've said somewhere before, just because it is practical or useful, doesn't mean it is necessarily true...

[Jedi Knight]

If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, I wouldn't have believed it. Someone moved my "Atheism = Master Race" thread from banter to the religion and philosophy section. They also moved the "Atheism = Intolerant Hate Group" over here too.

But they left De_Bunk's "kook" thread up.

This pressure group is more fanatical than many other religious groups. Unbelievable.

JK

[Ipecac]

Then go away.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Then go away.

This isn't a skeptic forum. Go away? Go away?!?!

No, this is something much different than a skeptic forum.

JK

[Q-Source]

posted by Franko


Q-Source:
So, determinism is not generally accepted among Physics. I learn something new everyday.

Franko:
Is that True? It seems a contradiction to me. To say determinism is False is analogous (Logically equivalent) to claiming that reality is NOT Objective (logical).

Where did I mention that determinism is False?

posted by Franko

Sure, except A-Theism <> Science.

No, you should be honest to accept that you make use of Science to prove the existence of your LG. You like to bring Einstein everytime you want to support that energy = matter.

Originally posted by Franko

I disagree, the math required to understand the universe is very basic and relatively easy to understand. You A-Theists go out of your way to make things more complicated than it needs to be because it is vital to your religious hierarchy that the people don’t understand it.

:D :D

Originally posted by Franko

Determinism is the rule. QM has no bearing on the outcome, and this has been hashed out – here on this very board – over and over again. Now that Stimpson has morphed into Mordred, I suppose it will have to be rehashed.

I missed all the previous discussion about this. Even though in this forum has been concluded that determinism is the rule, it hasn't been accepted by the majority of the scientific community.

Originally posted by Franko

The fact is human behavior is 100% deterministic, unless the entity in question is insane.

Yes, you are right. The problem is that you are talking about determinism in another level, to prove that we are controlled by TLOP. In that way, QM contradicts your assumption and interpretation.

Q-S

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


This isn't a skeptic forum. Go away? Go away?!?!

No, this is something much different than a skeptic forum.

JK

If all you're going to do is bitch and moan, make up facts and accusations, not listen to a dang word anyone says, then maybe going away is a good option for you.

If you want to contribute, fine. But you're not contributing. You're being a spoiled baby.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Franko
Is that True? It seems a contradiction to me. To say determinism is False is analogous (Logically equivalent) to claiming that reality is NOT Objective (logical).

Hmmm, is that a light I see dawning?

LD goes hand in hand with Copenhagen. An observer is required to collapse the wavefunction, and its NOT random. (random = magic).

If LD goes hand in hand with the Copenhagen Interpretation, then why were you seemingly supporting Einstein's idea of a hidden variable interpretation earlier? The two are conflicting. And no, it isn't necessarily random, I've never said that it was.

I disagree, the math required to understand the universe is very basic and relatively easy to understand. You A-Theists go out of your way to make things more complicated than it needs to be because it is vital to your religious hierarchy that the people don’t understand it.

Ok, simple yes or no question for ya. Squirming out of this will only prove my point, so just bite the bullet here. Was Einstein one of these A-Theists trying to make things more complicated on purpose so that people wouldn't understand?

Determinism is the rule. QM has no bearing on the outcome, and this has been hashed out – here on this very board – over and over again. Now that Stimpson has morphed into Mordred, I suppose it will have to be rehashed.

Q-source (or Mordred, or whitefork) if human behavior really is random at heart (or probabilistic – is you prefer) then could you please tell us all how often you randomly and uncontrollably run “red” traffic lights?

How many times have you gone to hug your father, but due to the random stochastic nature of QM you uncontrollably ended up giving him a swift kick to the nutsack instead?

The fact is human behavior is 100% deterministic, unless the entity in question is insane.

Never claimed that human behavior was random. If you followed my example of quantum tunneling and the tennis ball against the brick wall...you wouldn't need to ask this question.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Ipecac


If all you're going to do is bitch and moan, make up facts and accusations, not listen to a dang word anyone says, then maybe going away is a good option for you.

If you want to contribute, fine. But you're not contributing. You're being a spoiled baby.

I am laughing right at you and your whining. I was describing what atheism really is and my threads got moved because I was right.

Don't think that the hate espoused by atheists here is going unnoticed. Once again the atheists have proved that their lack of control and emotion with opinions counter to theirs shows how they really are.

There is no "critical thinking" here and there is no "skepticism". It is a lie. A complete lie.

JK

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I am laughing right at you and your whining. I was describing what atheism really is and my threads got moved because I was right.

JK

*I'm* the one whining?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

[Franko]

Q-Source!
Franko:
Sure, except A-Theism <> Science.

Q-Source:
No, you should be honest to accept that you make use of Science to prove the existence of your LG. You like to bring Einstein everytime you want to support that energy = matter.

That’s right … but for me A-Theism is definitely NOT science. A-Theism does make use of some Science, but for the most part A-Theism is just a whacky evil religion that brainwashes people into believing that an inevitable and horrible Fate awaits them no matter what they do.

Franko:
Determinism is the rule. QM has no bearing on the outcome, and this has been hashed out – here on this very board – over and over again. Now that Stimpson has morphed into Mordred, I suppose it will have to be rehashed.

Q-Source:
I missed all the previous discussion about this. Even though in this forum has been concluded that determinism is the rule, it hasn't been accepted by the majority of the scientific community.

What Determinism says in a nutshell sounds like nothing more than common sense – that’s exactly what it is. Determinism says: People do things for Logical Reasons (based on past experiences). If the “Scientific community” doesn’t believe that people do things for logical objective reasons, then what do they believe – magic “free will powers”?

I can’t say that I speak for the “Scientific community”, but … See what I am getting at?

Franko:
The fact is human behavior is 100% deterministic, unless the entity in question is insane.

Q-Source:
Yes, you are right. The problem is that you are talking about determinism in another level, to prove that we are controlled by TLOP. In that way, QM contradicts your assumption and interpretation.

How so?

Like I said … did you get to “choose” who your parents were? More than ANY other factor, didn’t that make YOU – YOU? Wasn’t that TLOP? What did QM have to do with it?

Do these QM effects make the Moon’s position unpredictable? What makes you think that your actions are any less predictable than the Moon’s (ultimately)?

Besides … the Necromancer has a big problem on his hands that he doesn’t know about. He thinks that because he doesn’t understand QM that it must be magic. Saint Heisenberg told him SO!!!! Saint Bell TOLD HIM SO!!! They were Saints!!! … oops … I mean they were SCIENTISTs! Scientists don’t lie! Scientists are NEVER wrong! When a Scientist declares that something is magical and mysterious and that it will remain that way forever and ever, and no one will EVER solve the riddle, then as any sane person KNOWS these “Scientists” are ALWAYS correct. That’s how they got to be Saints … oops … I mean Nobel Prize winners …

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Franko
Like I said … did you get to “choose” who your parents were? More than ANY other factor, didn’t that make YOU – YOU? Wasn’t that TLOP? What did QM have to do with it?

You mean besides the fact that QM is part of the laws of physics?

Do these QM effects make the Moon’s position unpredictable? What makes you think that your actions are any less predictable than the Moon’s (ultimately)?

There is a difference between totally unpredictable (random), predictable with a certain degree of confidence (probabilistic), and absolutely certain (deterministic). I can predict the Moon's position with a great degree of confidence...almost 100% confidence in fact...but not quite.

Besides … the Necromancer has a big problem on his hands that he doesn’t know about. He thinks that because he doesn’t understand QM that it must be magic.

No, in fact you seem to be the only one who thinks it is magic. I understand QM fairly well. It isn't magic.

Saint Heisenberg told him SO!!!! Saint Bell TOLD HIM SO!!! They were Saints!!! … oops … I mean they were SCIENTISTs!

Hmmm, I'm not sure, but wasn't Heisenberg a protestant? I thought the catholics were a little stricter about who they let into that club.

Scientists don’t lie!

Some do.

Scientists are NEVER wrong!

They are often wrong, and they often admit it.

When a Scientist declares that something is magical and mysterious and that it will remain that way forever and ever, and no one will EVER solve the riddle, then as any sane person KNOWS these “Scientists” are ALWAYS correct.

Uhhhh...actually they're almost always wrong. Although that's not a common opinion in the scientific community as far as I know.

That’s how they got to be Saints … oops … I mean Nobel Prize winners …

You mean like Einstein right? So was Einstein one of these Saints who claimed to always be correct and declared things magical and mysterious? Was Einstein one of these A-Theists trying to make things more complicated on purpose so that people wouldn't understand?

[Franko]

Was Einstein one of these A-Theists trying to make things more complicated on purpose so that people wouldn't understand?

For the last 100 years or more, there has been very little progress in the area of Philosophy. There is a reason that is so.

I think that Einstein was a guy that, as Fate would have it, was in the right Time at the right Place; and therefore he had the right (necessary and True) information to do what he did.

Now, He saw that there was more, he knew which general direction to go … but it was a real dangerous place to go without the exact right information … and Einstein was smart enough to know it.

Einstein said (I’m doing this from memory so I’m paraphrasing …)

- The Goddess doesn’t play dice with the Universe. (i.e. everything is objective / logical / comprehensible [Fate])

- The most incomprehensible thing about the Universe (Reality) is that it is so Comprehensible. (i.e. Consciousness makes matter [if matter made consciousness ultimately we could NEVER comprehend it])

- E = MC^2 … Matter is really Energy (i.e. Consciousness makes Matter [there is NO “matter”])

- Did the Goddess have any choice in creating the Universe? (i.e. was the LG also bound by Fate? [Yes])

- The Goddess is subtle, but She is NOT malevolent. (i.e. phuck-you CWL!)

[Mordred]

So your answer is no then?

Way to misinterpret Einstein's statements by the way.

[Franko]

Way to misinterpret Einstein's statements by the way.

Okay ... everyone read the false-prophets mind with me so we can divine what the hell he is not talking about ... :rolleyes:

[Mordred]

First let's deal with my question about Einstein. I would have accepted a simple yes or no. Based on your somewhat more voluminous, but less definitive answer, I would have to conclude that your answer is no. Einstein is not one of these A-Theists trying to make things more complicated on purpose so that people wouldn't understand. Is that correct? A yes or no will be sufficient this time.

Originally posted by Franko
For the last 100 years or more, there has been very little progress in the area of Philosophy. There is a reason that is so.

Wow...would you mind telling that to all the philosophers that have been publishing in the last 100 years? Haven't you ever at least attempted to study modern philosophy?

- The Goddess doesn’t play dice with the Universe. (i.e. everything is objective / logical / comprehensible [Fate])

God does not play dice with the universe. This is what he believed...he couldn't prove it.

- The most incomprehensible thing about the Universe (Reality) is that it is so Comprehensible. (i.e. Consciousness makes matter [if matter made consciousness ultimately we could NEVER comprehend it])

The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. This is Einstein musing about the fact that the universe, while incredibly complex and intricate, can seemingly be understood based on a few simple concepts. Of course these simple concepts come with rather complex mathematical representations. Regardless, it has nothing to do with with a take on consciousness and it's relation to matter. Have you tried actually reading Einstein in context or do you just go by isolated quotations?

- E = MC^2 … Matter is really Energy (i.e. Consciousness makes Matter [there is NO “matter”])

I see a special case of an equation from special relativity which relates energy and mass. It doesn't say a damn thing about consciousness...nor did Einstein ever claim such a thing to my knowledge. That is solely your own creation.

- Did the Goddess have any choice in creating the Universe? (i.e. was the LG also bound by Fate? [Yes])

Did God have any choice in creating the universe. A purely philosophical question. One which I'm not sure he ever answered for himself sufficiently. How exactly is this proof of anything?

[b[- The Goddess is subtle, but She is NOT malevolent. (i.e. phuck-you CWL!) [/B]

God is subtle, but not malevolent. A modification of a German phrase if I recall correctly. It was said jokingly to a fellow physicist who was struggling with a proof and became extremely frustrated. You will notice that whenever Einstein refers to God in his writings or speech, he is referring to Nature and not an actual conscious entity...as he himself stated on more than one occasion.

[wraith]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
LET'S FORGET THE REPLAY SCENARIO.


Take two identical universes, Universe A and Universe B
Let Universe A play itself out.
Let Universe B play itself out.
Universe A and Universe B play themselves out _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _?


Mordred says......
Universe A and Universe B play themselves out DIFFERENTLY.
The reason being that TLOP are PROBABILISTIC.

Wraith says.....
Universe A and Universe B play themselves out IDENTICALLY.
The reason being that TLOP are DETERMINISTIC.


Who is correct?
Quantum theory says that TLOP are probabilistic which seems to suggest that Mordred is correct.
However, may I hazard a guess that Wraith in buying into Einstein's original suggestion that there must be something beyond quantum mechanics that determines what the probabilistic outcomes of quantum theory will be.


How am I going wraith?
BillyJoe.

BillyJoe

It depends on the conditions of those universes

[wraith]

Originally posted by CWL


Well, Einstein didn't like the idea of God playing dice either so that's an educated guess.

If your guess is correct and Wraith is into Einstein, perhaps he would venture a guess as to what Einstein won his Nobel Prize for?

I told you....
he baked one hell of a cake

[wraith]

Originally posted by Mordred


Then go back and actually read the exchange between whitefork and myself regarding alternate systems of logic. Perhaps even bother to glance at the link that whitefork provided. Would it not be arrogant to presume that the universe MUST adhere to a system of rules created by us that is based on certain assumptions which are not necessarily true?[/B]

Id be crazy to believe in what youre saying...
;)


Did you see the words science or religion in there anywhere? He was referring to the application of mathematics to describing the universe.

I see that the implications of speech is beyond your scope?
:rolleyes:



What you continually gloss over is my objection to the term control, which assumes the conclusion that you and/or Franko are attempting to prove. My actions are dictated by the laws of physics, I have never claimed different. How this proves that they must be conscious on the other hand...you have yet to provide sufficient proof, either empirical or logical.

Show me one that that is not conscious that controls something conscious...
:eek:


I suggest we drop the whole rewind/replay thing altogether. It has obvious temporal consequences that you seem unwilling to take into account. That is the very reason that I proposed the identical universes example in the first place.

HAH
I wonder why...
:rolleyes:
anyway
ILL DO NO SUCH THING
muhaha

[MRC_Hans]

The Goddess is subtle, but She is NOT malevolent. Mmmm, that must be a matter of standards. Her steering Hitler and such people seems rather malevolent to me. Are you saying that the sum of the LG's actions, malevolent and benevolent balance on the benevolent side? From the POV of whom?

Hans

[wraith]

Originally posted by Mordred


No, it's my way of saying the event has already occurred. Is English your native language?[/B]

Yeah Bro
;)

That might be a valid excuse if tomorrow has already happened. To my knowledge it has not. Do you have proof to the contrary?

It might be a valid excuse hey? So why did you war a dress then? Let me guess, it was just random? Just as random as you deciding to take a crapper with the seat down or walking into a womans clothing store to buy a bra?
YEAH RIGHT!
But in your case, Im willing to make an exception ;)


Again, I suggest we just drop this. Thinking of time in a linear fashion seems to be enough to confuse things with you...thinking of it in a nonlinear fashion does not seem to be something you even want to consider.

If anyone is confused, it is you
;)

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Mordred
You will notice that whenever Einstein refers to God in his writings or speech, he is referring to Nature and not an actual conscious entity...as he himself stated on more than one occasion.

Those quotes again (posted earlier on) by Einstein on the God question:


"Strange is our situation here on earth. Each of us comes for a short visit, not knowing why, yet sometimes seeming to divine a purpose. From the standpoint of daily life, however, there is one thing we do know: that man is here for the sake of other men -- above all for those upon whose smiles and well-being our own happiness depends. "

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms. "

"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it. "

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. "

"It was the experience of mystery -- even if mixed with fear -- that engendered religion."

"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being. "

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science.
My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God. "

"I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

regards,
BillyJoe.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by wraith
It depends on the conditions of those universes Identical conditions.

[wraith]

100% same conditions will yield the same outcome....

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by wraith
100% same conditions will yield the same outcome.... Well, okay, Mordred says "different outcome" because of quantum probability.

You say "same outcome" because.....

(1) You don't believe in quantum probability or....
(2) You believe quantum probability has no macroscopic effects or....
(3) You believe quantum probability is determined by "hidden variables".

Or do you have some other reason to say "same outcome"?

[wraith]

I believe in determination.....Fate if you will...

Quantum mechanics as I see it, is not probabilistic. WE label it as being probabilistic because WE dont have the full info. That means jack squat!

If the system that Mordred is describing was the case, then the "replay" has the potential to yield a different outcome. Yet he and I both agree that it will only have 1 set outcome.

Then he applies full thrust and pulls a 9g turn, breaking the formation, bound for wonderland or some other place of a mythical nature...
:rolleyes:

[Mordred]

Originally posted by wraith
Id be crazy to believe in what youre saying...
;)

I see. So you believe that the universe must conform to a system of rules created by humans, based on fundamental assumptions which are not necessarily true?

I see that the implications of speech is beyond your scope?
:rolleyes:

I see actually interpreting something in the context that it was said is beyond yours. Einstein was talking about mathematical representations being generally imperfect models for physical events. This is because math is a system of rules created by humans, based on some fundamental assumptions which aren't necessarily true. It's usually when someone modifies the mathematical landscape with a new technique that a new physical theory pops up. Revolutions in math are almost without exception followed by revolutions in physics.

Show me one that that is not conscious that controls something conscious...
:eek:

Wow...been down this road before. I can't. If something controls something else (whether that something else is conscious or not) it implies conscious action. I can give you plenty of examples of the structure of something dictating the actions of something else. So can you prove to me that you are justified in using the term control when referring to the interaction between the laws of physics and you? Or is this just an assumption you have made which cannot be supported?

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by whitefork
I'd like to know in what scientific endeavors determinism is still the prevailing orthodoxy. Deterministic psychology, sure.
Certain schools of philosophy. Marxism? (I wouldn't know about that). Economics (maybe some versions).

Anyone help me out here?

I can tell you that in Economics ALL the hypotheses about socieconomic facts are tested under the assumption that they all have a probability distribution.

So, at least in this area determinism is less than zero as a way to explain reality.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by wraith
I believe in determination.....Fate if you will...

Quantum mechanics as I see it, is not probabilistic. WE label it as being probabilistic because WE dont have the full info. That means jack squat!

So you support a hidden variable interpretation? What is your proof that these hidden variables must exist? Can you explain why quantum mechanics in its present state works so well without taking these variables into account? Can you account for all the experimental evidence built up since the inception of the Copenhagen Interpretation with a new, coherent model containing hidden variables?

If the system that Mordred is describing was the case, then the "replay" has the potential to yield a different outcome. Yet he and I both agree that it will only have 1 set outcome.

For very different reasons. My problem is that of a possible temporaly paradox. A paradox that could have been explained away quite easily at the beginning of this whole hypothetical. My requests for this however were blown off. Therefore, I had no choice but to assume the potential of a paradox. If that possibility is taken away, then my answer would change...as I have already said.

Then he applies full thrust and pulls a 9g turn, breaking the formation, bound for wonderland or some other place of a mythical nature...
:rolleyes:

Nothing mythical about it. You may perceive it to be through the looking glass so to speak...but the important thing is this...it is consistant with what we have actually observed of the universe. That and that alone is the true test of a theory.

[whitefork]

So as far as I know the real Laplacean determinism (given the position, mass, and velocity of every particle in the universe, the future is absolutely determined) is no longer held by anyone outside of the philosophical community, and even there appears to be merely a position to argue against.

If "determinism" is being used with some other meaning, we need a strict definition. To say that our actions are governed by our past experience is either obvious and trivial (past experience is a rough indicator of future action) or false (the present state absolutely without exception determines the future).

[Mordred]

Originally posted by whitefork
So as far as I know the real Laplacean determinism (given the position, mass, and velocity of every particle in the universe, the future is absolutely determined) is no longer held by anyone outside of the philosophical community, and even there appears to be merely a position to argue against.

Yes, that is dead for any number of reasons. First, we can never have all those measurements with absolute certainty in the first place. Furthermore, even in the hypothetical situation that we do, there is always the chance of an event such as quantum tunneling taking place at the subatomic level. And in addition, if the universe is a chaotic system (which it appears to be) then even a very small deviation in conditions can result in a very large change in outcome down the road. So the farther you get from the initial conditions, the greater the likelihood that you are going to be waaaaay off.

[Q-Source]

Frank,

posted by Franko

… but for me A-Theism is definitely NOT science.

I believe the same, Science is absolutely neutral and objective.

Originally posted by Franko

A-Theism does make use of some Science, but for the most part A-Theism is just a whacky evil religion that brainwashes people into believing that an inevitable and horrible Fate awaits them no matter what they do.
(the emphasis is mine)


Wasn't it FATE which holds exactly what you say atheists do??? :confused:

You have said hundred of times that everything is predetermined by Fate, that you don't believe in Free Will.
Why would an atheist preach an horrible Fate to others?, unless you are talking about the "cease to exist" thing.

Atheists hold that TLOP are probabilistic instead of deterministic. So, it seems a contradiction to hear that.


Originally posted by Franko

What Determinism says in a nutshell sounds like nothing more than common sense – that’s exactly what it is. Determinism says: People do things for Logical Reasons (based on past experiences).

What you say is that people behave in a way that is 100% predictable. I would need to read something about Skinner's writings to understand more about this.
What I want to know is if you find this to be the most important obstacle to understand how the Universe behaves according to the LD?

BTW, probabilities are based on past experiences too.

posted by Franko

Besides … the Necromancer has a big problem on his hands that he doesn’t know about. He thinks that because he doesn’t understand QM that it must be magic.

So, what you propose is to get rid of QM as an approach to understand and explain the Universe. But, what to do with the tons of evidence that support this theory's predictions?.

Do you propose to go back to classical mechanics?. I see this as a solution to comprehend your philosophy and therefore to believe in God. I know that there are more implications that follow after that, but this is what you perceive to be the most important obstacle?

Q-S

BTW. Welcome back to the forum :)

[Franko]

Q-Source,

I believe the same, Science is absolutely neutral and objective.

Right! Exactly, which is why NO TRUE scientist would EVER call himself an A-Theist unless he knew and could prove that there was No God. Anyone who calls themselves an A-Theist and can’t prove the nonexistence of God is no Scientist. They are not being neutral or objective. They are demonstrating an obvious bias.

They have an a priori conclusion. They are not open-minded.

True Scientists are ALWAYS open minded.

Franko:
A-Theism does make use of some Science, but for the most part A-Theism is just a whacky evil religion that brainwashes people into believing that an inevitable and horrible Fate awaits them no matter what they do.


Q-Source:
Wasn't it FATE which holds exactly what you say atheists do???

You have said hundred of times that everything is predetermined by Fate, that you don't believe in Free Will.
Why would an atheist preach an horrible Fate to others?, unless you are talking about the "cease to exist" thing.

That is exactly what I am talking about.

As well as the idea that there are no ultimate answers, and no ultimate consequences for actions. Both of those are equally horrible in their own way.

Atheists hold that TLOP are probabilistic instead of deterministic. So, it seems a contradiction to hear that.

When you approach a “red” traffic light are YOUR actions probabilistic, or Deterministic?

Honestly Q-Source, how often do you uncontrollably and randomly run “red” lights? If Human action were Truly probabilistic instead of deterministic then that is exactly what would happen – does it?

Besides it’s a moot point. There is no matter anyway. All there is are patterns in the Energy. If they are not objective, and logical then you (and Mordred) are claiming that they are magical and supernatural. Think about it.

Franko:
What Determinism says in a nutshell sounds like nothing more than common sense – that’s exactly what it is. Determinism says: People do things for Logical Reasons (based on past experiences).

Q-Source:
What you say is that people behave in a way that is 100% predictable. I would need to read something about Skinner's writings to understand more about this.
What I want to know is if you find this to be the most important obstacle to understand how the Universe behaves according to the LD?

Forget me and everyone else for a moment.

Can You predict what You will do in a given situation?

Say I describe a situation to you, and I describe it in perfect detail accounting for every variable you would consider. Can you predict with 100% accuracy what you will do in that situation?

If you answer yes, then what happened to probability? How can You know for certain what you will do? Aren’t you made of Atoms which are effected by Quantum mechanical states?

The fact is that QM is only random when you don’t know the past history of the particle in question. Know the relevant history, and QM ceases to be random.

BTW, probabilities are based on past experiences too.

Darling I propose that I could build a machine that would flip a specific coin, and I coud set that machine so that it would always flip the coin and make it land “Heads” up, or “Tails” up as I desired.

Know all of the parameters involved, and you can compute the future with 100% accuracy.

Franko:
Besides … the Necromancer has a big problem on his hands that he doesn’t know about. He thinks that because he doesn’t understand QM that it must be magic.

Q-Source:
So, what you propose is to get rid of QM as an approach to understand and explain the Universe. But, what to do with the tons of evidence that support this theory's predictions?.

Do you propose to go back to classical mechanics?. I see this as a solution to comprehend your philosophy and therefore to believe in God. I know that there are more implications that follow after that, but this is what you perceive to be the most important obstacle?

Particles look like they have “free will” (are random) because we don’t understand (know) their histories. When you know the relevant history, you can predict which slit the particle will go through, and you can predict it accurately 100% of the time.

You and I are also particles. We are gravitons. You don’t know all of my relevant history, so to you my behavior will often appear random and unpredictable, but when you do understand my history, (assuming you understand my algorithm as well) you will be able to predict my actions with a high degree of accuracy.

For your own self, You always know your relevant history, so your own actions are entirely predictable to you 100% of the time. You are the source of your actions. You had better know what you are going to do. If not, who does?

You have to try and think of things in terms of Energy.

Imagine Reality as it really is. All that exist is a sea of Energy. Within this sea of Energy you are simply a pattern stored within the Energy. But you are a pattern of Energy which is capable of perceiving other patterns in the Energy.

That is your “matter”. It is nothing more then patterns within the Energy. You are a disembodied self-awareness. Your mind is what makes “matter” hard. Your mind is what gives it substance, and makes it tangible.

BTW. Welcome back to the forum

Ohhh, Thank you Sweetheart! :)

Honestly, I don’t like the “kiddie pool” that much, but I think I made my point. ;)

[wraith]

Originally posted by Mordred
I see. So you believe that the universe must conform to a system of rules created by humans, based on fundamental assumptions which are not necessarily true?

What assumptions are they?
Your claim of magic is meant to hold the key?

I see actually interpreting something in the context that it was said is beyond yours. Einstein was talking about mathematical representations being generally imperfect models for physical events. This is because math is a system of rules created by humans, based on some fundamental assumptions which aren't necessarily true. It's usually when someone modifies the mathematical landscape with a new technique that a new physical theory pops up. Revolutions in math are almost without exception followed by revolutions in physics.

Einy: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

I could take his quote as follows:
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain..."
He was talking to the atheist in terms of science ruling out religion. This could mean that there is something greater that science cant explain. The real reality. (the belief that science rules out religion)

"as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
He could of meant that as far as they are certain IN THE CONFINES OF THIS UNIVERSE, they do not refer to the REAL REALITY...(the belief that science rules out religion)



I can give you plenty of examples of the structure of something dictating the actions of something else.

These structures wernt made by a consciousness by any chance?
:rolleyes:


So can you prove to me that you are justified in using the term control when referring to the interaction between the laws of physics and you? Or is this just an assumption you have made which cannot be supported?

Yeah, I defy TLOP on a daily bases...

[wraith]

Originally posted by Mordred


So you support a hidden variable interpretation? What is your proof that these hidden variables must exist?

Youre saying that things are magical. I say that they are not.



Can you explain why quantum mechanics in its present state works so well without taking these variables into account? Can you account for all the experimental evidence built up since the inception of the Copenhagen Interpretation with a new, coherent model containing hidden variables?

ahhh, Ill give it a shot
LOL



For very different reasons. My problem is that of a possible temporaly paradox. A paradox that could have been explained away quite easily at the beginning of this whole hypothetical. My requests for this however were blown off. Therefore, I had no choice but to assume the potential of a paradox. If that possibility is taken away, then my answer would change...as I have already said.

Youre in wonderland
;)



Nothing mythical about it. You may perceive it to be through the looking glass so to speak...but the important thing is this...it is consistant with what we have actually observed of the universe. That and that alone is the true test of a theory.

What have I said that is inconsistant?

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Franko
Right! Exactly, which is why NO TRUE scientist would EVER call himself an A-Theist unless he knew and could prove that there was No God. Anyone who calls themselves an A-Theist and can’t prove the nonexistence of God is no Scientist. They are not being neutral or objective. They are demonstrating an obvious bias.

They have an a priori conclusion. They are not open-minded.

True Scientists are ALWAYS open minded.

Your definition of atheist differs from mine (and likely a great number of other atheists). I do not claim to know that no gods exist. I have no good reason to believe that a god exists. Lacking that reason, I do not hold a belief in a god. If evidence which would provide me with a good reason to believe is produced. Then I would consequently hold a belief in god. I have not made any a priori conclusions.

Honestly Q-Source, how often do you uncontrollably and randomly run “red” lights? If Human action were Truly probabilistic instead of deterministic then that is exactly what would happen – does it?

Ask yourself how many interactions at the quantum level are necessary for such events. How many would have to differ from the expected classical result in order to affect the macroscopic outcome in the way you have detailed? Quite a large number. What is the probability of a sufficient number of the quantum events that make up such a macroscopic event differing from the expected classical outcome? Incredibly small. That is why you don't see people "randomly" running red lights...or tennis balls going through brick walls...

Besides it’s a moot point. There is no matter anyway. All there is are patterns in the Energy. If they are not objective, and logical then you (and Mordred) are claiming that they are magical and supernatural. Think about it.

I claim nothing of the sort. They are in fact quite natural. It's just that they are subjective not objective, and they obey a different system of logic than you think they do.

The fact is that QM is only random when you don’t know the past history of the particle in question. Know the relevant history, and QM ceases to be random.

First, not random. Second, have we forgotten the uncertainty principle suddenly? One of the big points is that you CAN'T know the precise past history of any particle. There will always be uncertainty in your measurements and those uncertainties obey the inequalities laid down by Heisenberg. If you do measure, say position, exactly your uncertainty in regards to that particles momentum (and hence velocity) will be infinite. You will have no clue as to what direction it is moving, or how fast it is doing so. Likewise, if you measure a particles velocity precisely your uncertainty in its position is now infinite...you will have no idea as to where it actually is.

Darling I propose that I could build a machine that would flip a specific coin, and I coud set that machine so that it would always flip the coin and make it land “Heads” up, or “Tails” up as I desired.

Know all of the parameters involved, and you can compute the future with 100% accuracy.

Making such a machine wouldn't be very hard. How many quantum events go into making up the macroscopic event of the coin flip? How many of them would have to deviate from the accepted classical outcome for the macroscopic event to do the same? How likely is that to happen given the shape of the probability distribution?

Let's play another game. I'm going to make a machine that will shoot particles at an energy potential that they don't have enough energy to penetrate. If determinism holds, I should be able to predict with 100% accuracy that none of the particles will ever cross that energy barrier. Care to guess what will actually happen?

Particles look like they have “free will” (are random) because we don’t understand (know) their histories. When you know the relevant history, you can predict which slit the particle will go through, and you can predict it accurately 100% of the time.

This would be a neat trick. Have you bothered to tell any particle physicists that you can do this so easily? Can you explain why you get an interference pattern from the double slit experiment if the particle is only going through one of the slits as you claim?

You and I are also particles. We are gravitons.

I'd like to politely ask you once again to stop bastardizing that word.

Your mind is what makes “matter” hard. Your mind is what gives it substance, and makes it tangible.

Matter isn't really hard...you could pass right through it in fact...if it wasn't for the forces that matter tends to create. It is the forces that give matter this property, and your brain interprets those forces as hardness. Hardness is a perception, not a reality.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by wraith
What assumptions are they?
Your claim of magic is meant to hold the key?

I've never claimed magic...and one of the assumptions has been discussed already. You did read the little bit of this thread about A!=~A right?

I could take his quote as follows:
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain..."
He was talking to the atheist in terms of science ruling out religion. This could mean that there is something greater that science cant explain. The real reality. (the belief that science rules out religion)

He was actually talking to mathematicians who think math is an absolutely perfect representation of reality in all cases. It's not so much that Einstein didn't hold this belief that aggravates me, but the fact that the belief you are trying to pin on this particular quote...has absolutely nothing to do with what Einstein was saying in this instance.

If your knowledge of Einstein's work and writings is so great...why did you not just say...

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" --Albert Einstein

That at least would have something to do with what you are talking about.

These structures wernt made by a consciousness by any chance?
:rolleyes:

And if I found a watch on a beach somewhere...I would run for fear of being snuck up on by an argument from design...

[Mordred]

Originally posted by wraith
Youre saying that things are magical. I say that they are not.

I've never said anything of the sort. I have said that particles obey laws based on probability distributions. That's not magic, that is math describing experimental results.

ahhh, Ill give it a shot
LOL

Great. When you come up with something and explain it to me, I will take a hidden variable interpretation seriously.

What have I said that is inconsistant?

My claim had nothing to do with internal consistancy. It had to do with being consistant with observation. Quantum mechanics is consistant with what we have observed. What you are saying is not.

[Franko]

I've never said anything of the sort. I have said that particles obey laws based on probability distributions. That's not magic, that is math describing experimental results.

Unless you can define "probability distributions" without reference to the term "random", and unless you can explain the specific diference between "random" and "magical", then you are claiming a Magical Answer whether you want to pretend that you are or NOT.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Franko


Unless you can define "probability distributions" without reference to the term "random", and unless you can explain the specific diference between "random" and "magical", then you are claiming a Magical Answer whether you want to pretend that you are or NOT.

A probability distribution assigns to every interval of the real numbers a probability, so that the probability axioms are satisfied. In technical terms, a probability distribution is a probability space whose underlying ó-algebra is the Borel algebra on the reals.

random

1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements.

2. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely

magical

1. Of, relating to, or produced by magic.

2. Pertaining to the hidden wisdom supposed to be possessed by the Magi; relating to the occult powers of nature, and the producing of effects by their agency.

3. Performed by, or proceeding from, occult and superhuman agencies; done by, or seemingly done by, enchantment or sorcery. Hence: Seemingly requiring more than human power; imposing or startling in performance; producing effects which seem supernatural or very extraordinary; having extraordinary properties; as, a magic lantern; a magic square or circle.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko


Unless you can define "probability distributions" without reference to the term "random", and unless you can explain the specific diference between "random" and "magical", then you are claiming a Magical Answer whether you want to pretend that you are or NOT.
Well, Mordred did it, Franko. Now for once, will you show that you have a spine and admit you were wrong?

I thought not.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Mordred


I've never claimed magic...and one of the assumptions has been discussed already.[/B]

You have actually
:rolleyes:

You did read the little bit of this thread about A!=~A right?

roger that



He was actually talking to mathematicians who think math is an absolutely perfect representation of reality in all cases. It's not so much that Einstein didn't hold this belief that aggravates me, but the fact that the belief you are trying to pin on this particular quote...has absolutely nothing to do with what Einstein was saying in this instance.

He told you personally did he?
:eek:

If your knowledge of Einstein's work and writings is so great...why did you not just say...

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" --Albert Einstein

I never said that it was...

And if I found a watch on a beach somewhere...I would run for fear of being snuck up on by an argument from design...

good on ya
;)

[wraith]

Originally posted by Mordred


I've never said anything of the sort. I have said that particles obey laws based on probability distributions. That's not magic, that is math describing experimental results.[/B]

So why doesnt the "replay" have a potential to change?



My claim had nothing to do with internal consistancy. It had to do with being consistant with observation. Quantum mechanics is consistant with what we have observed. What you are saying is not.

How so?

[BillyJoe]

wraith,

Originally posted by wraith
I believe in determination......Quantum mechanics as I see it, is not probabilistic. So your answer is...
(1) You don't believe in quantum probability.

Originally posted by wraith
WE label it as being probabilistic because WE dont have the full info. Or perhaps.....
(2) You believe quantum probability has no macroscopic effects or....
(3) You believe quantum probability is determined by "hidden variables".

Originally posted by wraith
If the system that Mordred is describing was the case, then the "replay" has the potential to yield a different outcome. Yet he and I both agree that it will only have 1 set outcome. Mordred's interpretation of the "replay" scenario is as follows.....

Make a video.
Play the video.
Replay the video.
The play and the replay are the same.....obviously!

He agrees with you only because......hey, I thought we were going to forget the "replay" scenario???

Originally posted by wraith
Then he applies full thrust and pulls a 9g turn, breaking the formation, bound for wonderland or some other place of a mythical nature... I think this is a little unfair. He was merely trying to cover a second possible interpretation of your original scenario.

BillyJoe.

[wraith]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
wraith,

So your answer is...
(1) You don't believe in quantum probability.

I dont believe in his magic
:)

Sure, you could flick a coin and I couldnt tell you with 100% certainty what the outcome is. I dont have the info. However, TLOP controls the whole event.

Or perhaps.....
(2) You believe quantum probability has no macroscopic effects or....
(3) You believe quantum probability is determined by "hidden variables".

I like to use "not enough info"

Mordred's interpretation of the "replay" scenario is as follows.....

Make a video.
Play the video.
Replay the video.
The play and the replay are the same.....obviously!

Yes! Because they have the exact same conditions. If it was completely random, then the replays should have the potential to be different (magic)

He agrees with you only because......hey, I thought we were going to forget the "replay" scenario???

na
;)

I think this is a little unfair. He was merely trying to cover a second possible interpretation of your original scenario.

But he got it all wrong!

Was only trying to be witty haha
:cool:

[MRC_Hans]

:rolleyes: The exploits of a master debater, heheh. I took 20 mins to run through Wraiths statements here in this 12 page thread running over a couple of weeks. They are all below.

Join me in a game of "spot the logic argument";) :

Can you create something more conscious than yourself?
Do you control TLOP?

Come on churchy, it's not hard!

Im just saying that you need to use logic

How old are you?
12?

it was almost midnight from memory

Would you fight a friend of yours that you saw on the street and claim that it was your free-will to do so?

You would fight him if your brain was wired in away (ie your algorithm) to think "smack up friends that you see on the street."

Is this still free will? Do you deny that youre brain goes through a series of steps based on how you interpret past experiences?

How often do you jump out of planes?
Do you wear a bra when you go out?

show-off

LOL
HAHAHA
now THATS a hoot!

HAHAHA!
Another one for the books

WOAH, slow down there Turbo, this is starting to get interesting!

Dont play Mr Innocent TP. It doesnt suit you.

Lets say that I actually did throw a tennis ball at a wall and it passed through it, if someone wound back time to the point where Im just about to through the ball, would the ball go through the wall again or not?

it kinda does actually
lol

So much for free-will?

If it was truly a system based on probability, then things will be doing stuff for absolute no reason......

There would be no such thing as logic...

For sure, but it's not unique. If you go back in time, how would you gain information? How would the system change? It would only change if you brought the information from the future back to the past, then it would be unique.

Yet it did

point being?

If you won the lotto 10 mins ago, would your actions be different than it is now?

Going back into time: losing information / regress...
along those lines

Rewind it all the way back to the big bang if you want...
nothing would change

Sorry, youre a fatalist?

It doesnt have to be "everything."
At least 1 is sufficient

Sorry, I dont follow.

What are you trying to argue exactly? Are you a believer in Fate or mr free-will?

Thats not the same thing as going back in time. In the system above, you have two different events. Regardless of which, TLOP controls the outcome.

Do you obey TLOP?

Just a second ago you said in relation to the "ball going through the wall" scenario

"If it's just a replay the same exact thing will happen of course..."

So which one is it?

Show at least one example of something doing something without reason and you can kiss logic good bye

Good question...
With more info, then maybe it will become logical

So are you saying that throwing some dice twice is the same as throwing some dice once then rewind time and play when you throw the dice?

No Im affraid not. Conditions change when you throw the dice a second time. The way you throw, how much force you release, the angle in which you throw etc all add up to give you a different outcome

Still waiting for you to show me

true, my car controls me
so does the pencil that I write with

No I dont think so...
Both examples are the same...clear as day if you will

Too bad that it's not an analogy, unless youre claim that two things happening one after the other is the same as doing it once, then going back in time and replaying it as the same thing. Eh, whatever makes you sleep easier at night...

Yeah, only the conditions arnt 100% identical

So the majority = true? Sorry, not in my books bub.

Quantum tunneling without a probabilistic model? Buggered if I know lol

Whenever you break TLOP, just let me know...

ahhh, if youre replaying it, then it has the EXACT conditions, hence the same outcome.

Then you say that if you have the exact same conditions then it will not necessarily have the same outcome.

Again, which one is it sport?

one born every minute

HAHAHAHHHHAHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
WOO!

classic
just classic

na

the key word is "Fate"

If the outcome is different then it wasnt 100% identical

yes yes

ahh, youre the one saying that if time wound back to the big bang, things would be different...

great stuff here

Hence saying that events that happen one after the other is not the same as playing them twice

Im looking at the logic behind it.
You dont have to seriously if you really dont want too
haha

It's ok for TLOP to control you but is less conscious than you.
Youre on a fire...

So why are you saying that if you wound back time, the outcome WILL be the same?

It had to do with the WAY in which it was originally stated. I asked for clarification on this point, but it was never given. Are we rewinding time and then playing it forward back to the original point (a kind of instant replay)...or are we merely going back to a known set of initial conditions and letting things play out as a unique event. How things will play out will be dependent on which of these things the whole "rewind" scenario is actually referring to. If we are just playing back an event that has already happened...it will of course happen as it already has. If we are traveling back to a point with known initial conditions, and letting the universe evolve forward from that point, then the exact same outcome is not gauranteed.

“It is precisely the same thing that you are trying to pass your whole "rewind" thought experiment off as. The events are identical in every physical sense, yet they yield different outcomes.”

Well, take a stance, then we will talk. Im getting mumbo-jumbo talk from you at the moment

Of course not! You control TLOP. Im not real. Everyone is controlled by you. YOU is all that there is....

Youre asking me because......
lol

Yes

Doesnt matter. If you say that if you had the EXACT same conditions as you had in the replay, then the outcome will be the same. If you say that the outcome will be different, then the outcome in the replay has the potential to also be different.

Why is that?
Is it because the conditions are exactly the same?

Why is that?
Were the conditions exactly the same?

In other words, if you went back in time and pressed play (having the exact same coditions) you and I say that it WILL yield the same outcome.

Then you say that if you had identical conditions (im assuming that you mean 100% exect conditions) REGARDLESS of when it happened, it's possible to get a different result. ie if you had the EXACT same conditions for both events, regardless of when they were performed (have them be performed one after the other if you want) it is possible to have different outcomes.

I ask again

which one is it?

Na, youre still in jumbo-land at the moment

Then change your logic

You know, he could have been talking to those who had the mindset that science opposes religion and vice versa. Not to those who see sciencë and religion as "allies." Get it?

Think he won the prize for baking a cake...not sure on that one though....

HAHA
my my, how quickly we forget
"TLOP does not control me"

eh
I only have one personality that I am aware of...
muhahaha

Already happened?
Is this your way of saying
"It had the exact same conditions"?

Translation: It had the exact same conditions, but I dont want to admit it.

So in saying this, how can you say that the replay will be the same?
The best that you can say is that "it already happened."

LOL! You can rock up to work tomorrow wearing a dress and say "dont blame me, it already happened"

BillyJoe

It depends on the conditions of those universes

I told you....
he baked one hell of a cake

Id be crazy to believe in what youre saying...

I see that the implications of speech is beyond your scope?

Show me one that that is not conscious that controls something conscious...

HAH
I wonder why...

anyway
ILL DO NO SUCH THING
muhaha

Yeah Bro

It might be a valid excuse hey? So why did you war a dress then? Let me guess, it was just random? Just as random as you deciding to take a crapper with the seat down or walking into a womans clothing store to buy a bra?
YEAH RIGHT!
But in your case, Im willing to make an exception

If anyone is confused, it is you

100% same conditions will yield the same outcome....

I believe in determination.....Fate if you will...

Quantum mechanics as I see it, is not probabilistic. WE label it as being probabilistic because WE dont have the full info. That means jack squat!

If the system that Mordred is describing was the case, then the "replay" has the potential to yield a different outcome. Yet he and I both agree that it will only have 1 set outcome.

Then he applies full thrust and pulls a 9g turn, breaking the formation, bound for wonderland or some other place of a mythical nature...

What assumptions are they?
Your claim of magic is meant to hold the key?

Einy: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

I could take his quote as follows:
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain..."
He was talking to the atheist in terms of science ruling out religion. This could mean that there is something greater that science cant explain. The real reality. (the belief that science rules out religion)

"as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
He could of meant that as far as they are certain IN THE CONFINES OF THIS UNIVERSE, they do not refer to the REAL REALITY...(the belief that science rules out religion)

These structures wernt made by a consciousness by any chance?

Yeah, I defy TLOP on a daily bases...

Youre saying that things are magical. I say that they are not.

ahhh, Ill give it a shot
LOL

Youre in wonderland

What have I said that is inconsistant?

You have actually

roger that

He told you personally did he?

I never said that it was...

good on ya

So why doesnt the "replay" have a potential to change?

How so?

I dont believe in his magic

Sure, you could flick a coin and I couldnt tell you with 100% certainty what the outcome is. I dont have the info. However, TLOP controls the whole event.

I like to use "not enough info"

Yes! Because they have the exact same conditions. If it was completely random, then the replays should have the potential to be different (magic)

na

But he got it all wrong!

Was only trying to be witty haha




Hans

[wraith]

Hans, trying spending 20 mins doing something else
;)

[MRC_Hans]

I usually do, I usually do :). Anyhow its nothing compared to all the time you used to say so little.

Hans

[BillyJoe]

wraith,

Originally posted by wraith
I dont believe in his magic.Probability = Magic?

Originally posted by wraith
Sure, you could flick a coin and I couldnt tell you with 100% certainty what the outcome is. I dont have the info. However, TLOP controls the whole event. And TLOP doesn't include quantum probability?

Originally posted by wraith
I like to use "not enough info"There is "not enough info" to accept quantum probability as valid?

Originally posted by wraith
Yes! Because they have the exact same conditions. If it was completely random, then the replays should have the potential to be different (magic)Two questions.....

You still don't accept that random = probability but probability != random?
(ie that random is a subset of probability - specifically, when the probabilities of all outcomes are the same)

Are you saying that quantum probability means that when we replay a video, the outcome should be different?

Originally posted by wraith
But he got it all wrong!Maybe you just misunderstood him, wraith.

BillyJoe.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by wraith
He told you personally did he?
:eek:

He told everyone who actually cares enough to pay attention to a little thing called CONTEXT.

[whitefork]

A favorite graffito:


...context...

[Mordred]

Originally posted by wraith
Sure, you could flick a coin and I couldnt tell you with 100% certainty what the outcome is. I dont have the info. However, TLOP controls the whole event.

The laws of physics will dictate the outcome of the coin flip yes. Did you bother to read my response to Franko's little coin flipping machine idea? Quantum mechanics doesn't conflict with this.

I like to use "not enough info"

AKA hidden variables

Yes! Because they have the exact same conditions. If it was completely random, then the replays should have the potential to be different (magic)

For the eight hundred billionth time...not completely random...and it has to do with a potential temporal paradox which you seem unwilling to take into account, or to merely remove from possibility in this hypothetical. If you did either, this conflict would be resolved immediately.

[Tricky]

Maybe you should see if you can get a copy of this, Wraith.

[Franko]

Mordred:

Franko:
Unless you can define "probability distributions" without reference to the term "random", and unless you can explain the specific diference between "random" and "magical", then you are claiming a Magical Answer whether you want to pretend that you are or NOT.

Mordred:
A probability distribution assigns to every interval of the real numbers a probability, so that the probability axioms are satisfied.

Meaning there is a percent chance for each outcome. (i.e. random)

In technical terms, a probability distribution is a probability space whose underlying ó-algebra is the Borel algebra on the reals.

(A-Theist standard operating procedure) Insert a little extra confusion in. It will make you sound “smart”, so maybe no one will question you and simply assume you know what you are talking about.

random

1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements.

i.e. NOT OBJECTIVE – MAGICAL.

2. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely

Like a coin toss?

If you KNOW all the variables on a coin toss, then you KNOW which way the coin will come up. The key element to TRUE RANDOMNESS (like QM) is NOT KNOWING.

Remember what Verner Heisenberg and John Bell said THERE ARE NO HIDDEN VARIABLES!!!

Are the outcomes equally likely Mordred? You have no phucking clue!

magical

1. Of, relating to, or produced by magic.

i.e. random or unpredictable.

2. Pertaining to the hidden wisdom supposed to be possessed by the Magi;

YEAH … like Verner Heisenberg and John Bell’s Non-existent Hidden Variables – Magic.

…relating to the occult powers of nature, and the producing of effects by their agency.

So once again you are defining TLOP as a supernatural Agency.

3. Performed by, or proceeding from, occult and superhuman agencies; done by, or seemingly done by, enchantment or sorcery.

Okay Mordred, so other than the fact that You don’t use the terms “OCCULT”, “SUPERHUMAN”, “ENCHANTMENT”, or “SORCERY” what is the real difference between what you are describing and QM? There is no difference other than your creative semantics!!!

Hence: Seemingly requiring more than human power; imposing or startling in performance; producing effects which seem supernatural or very extraordinary

Read this again Mordred … What you are describing here sounds EXACTLY like the way you’d describe QM or the Origin of the Universe … Seemingly requiring more than human power; imposing or startling in performance; producing effects which seem supernatural or very extraordinary.

If not, then explaining EXACTLY what is different. There is NO difference!

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

Trixy,

You stupid Twit! Maybe you should see if you can get a copy of the Bible?

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I usually do, I usually do :). Anyhow its nothing compared to all the time you used to say so little.

Hans

blow up dolls dont count
;)

[wraith]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
wraith,

Probability = Magic?

I prefer to say that randomness is magic

And TLOP doesn't include quantum probability?

In absolute terms, no. But to US it appears probable (not enough info)



You still don't accept that random = probability but probability != random?
(ie that random is a subset of probability - specifically, when the probabilities of all outcomes are the same)

(read above)

Are you saying that quantum probability means that when we replay a video, the outcome should be different?

yeah, still I prefer to use randomness than probability

Maybe you just misunderstood him, wraith.

maybe
;)
but....

[wraith]

Originally posted by Mordred


He told everyone who actually cares enough to pay attention to a little thing called CONTEXT.

point being....
;)

[wraith]

Originally posted by Mordred


The laws of physics will dictate the outcome of the coin flip yes. Did you bother to read my response to Franko's little coin flipping machine idea? Quantum mechanics doesn't conflict with this.[/B]

Mind repeating it? Dont remember
:eek:


AKA hidden variables

Whatever takes your fancy



For the eight hundred billionth time...not completely random...and it has to do with a potential temporal paradox which you seem unwilling to take into account, or to merely remove from possibility in this hypothetical. If you did either, this conflict would be resolved immediately.

mmm
please explain it again....
;)

[wraith]

Originally posted by Tricky
Maybe you should see if you can get a copy of this, Wraith.

looks like an interesting read...
;)
thanks for the tip Trickster
haha

[Franko]

not completely random...and it has to do with a potential temporal paradox which you seem unwilling to take into account

potential temporal paradox?

say that 5 times real quick.

You see Wraith if only we were smart Physicists and understood the potential temporal paradox, or 10 extra invisible dimensions, or multi worlds interpretation then it would all be clear to us.

Obviously there is no evidence for invisible Gods, but there is loads of evidence for invisible extra dimensions, invisible aliens, invisible blackholes, and an infinite number of complete invisible parallel UNiverses! You have to be some sort of stupid Religious person not to see the real things that are invisible!!!

[Tricky]

Trixy,

You stupid Twit! Maybe you should see if you can get a copy of the Bible?
Got one. It was given to me when I was confirmed into the Episcopal church. I read the whole thing. Lot of characters. Plot jumps around a lot. Some good stuff in there though.

[Franko]

Got one. It was given to me when I was confirmed into the Episcopal church. I read the whole thing. Lot of characters. Plot jumps around a lot. Some good stuff in there though.

A Christian friend swears to me that there is a hidden flaw in Atheism. He says that he can't explain the hidden flaw, but if you keep reading the Bible you will eventually see it yourself.

Personally, I think he's crazy.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko


A Christian friend swears to me that there is a hidden flaw in Atheism. He says that he can't explain the hidden flaw, but if you keep reading the Bible you will eventually see it yourself.

Personally, I think he's crazy.
Yeah, I would worry about anybody who made claims but then couldn't explain them because "you're too closed minded to understand."

[wraith]

Originally posted by Franko
You see Wraith if only we were smart Physicists and understood the potential temporal paradox, or 10 extra invisible dimensions, or multi worlds interpretation then it would all be clear to us.

haha!
Oh that just goes without saying
:)

[whitefork]

Now, about the pellucid pristine simplicity of Einstein's mathematics, beginning with tensor calculus, please.....

And the non-existence of black holes....

Do you require that the truth be simple and easy to understand?

[Mordred]

Was that you noticing where I was trying to steer Franko, whitefork? Or did you pick up on that one independently? :D

[Franko]

Mildred,

Here’s the deal.

Either the explanation for QM and the “Big Bang” (i.e. the nonexistence of time and space) are ultimately comprehensible, or they are not. If they are comprehensible, then the Universe is ultimately Deterministic, Objective, and Logical. If they are ultimately incomprehensible, then regardless of what you want to call it they are Unpredictable, Subjective, Random, Magic, and Supernatural.

According to You, Heisenberg, and Bell there are no hidden variables, and the whole process is ultimately magical. Say what you want, but those are the facts. Unless you want to explain where Bell went wrong?

Nitwit A-Theist intoned:
Do you require that the truth be simple and easy to understand?

Face it nitwit you are happy with the Flat Earth and Man made out of clay. You don’t like the idea of round Earth’s with Men made out of Monkeys.

Mildred:
Was that you noticing where I was trying to steer Franko, whitefork?

For the Love of the Goddess! … You couldn’t steer a wheelbarrow physics-boiy.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Franko
Mildred,

Here’s the deal.

Either the explanation for QM and the “Big Bang” (i.e. the nonexistence of time and space) are ultimately comprehensible, or they are not. If they are comprehensible, then the Universe is ultimately Deterministic, Objective, and Logical. If they are ultimately incomprehensible, then regardless of what you want to call it they are Unpredictable, Subjective, Random, Magic, and Supernatural.

How does comprehensibility imply determinism? Can you not comprehend probability or multivalent logic? I can. The people who built the mathematical basis for these things sure could...otherwise they wouldn't have been able to do so in the first place. You should also note, that the universe is subjective (relativity anyone?), and that unpredictable and uncertain are not the same things. I can predict the outcome of events, I just cannot do so with absolute certainty.

As for your constant assertions of magic...if you apply your interpretation of the definition I listed for magical...your own beliefs would also fall into that category.

[Franko]

Mildred,

How does comprehensibility imply determinism?

If you can’t comprehend it, I can’t explain it to you.

Can you not comprehend probability or multivalent logic? I can.

If you really comprehended them, then you could explain them.

The people who built the mathematical basis for these things sure could...otherwise they wouldn't have been able to do so in the first place.

Kind of like the Catholic Saints, I guess, huh?

You should also note, that the universe is subjective (relativity anyone?), and that unpredictable and uncertain are not the same things. I can predict the outcome of events, I just cannot do so with absolute certainty.

It’s a simple question Mildred … the kind you A-Theist Religious fanatics never seem to want to answer. IS THE UNIVERSE ULTIMATELY COMPREHENSIBLE OR NOT?

According to Verner and Johny-boy it’s definitely NOT. What’s your answer?

As for your constant assertions of magic...if you apply your interpretation of the definition I listed for magical...your own beliefs would also fall into that category.

And I assume that you know this because you have used your magic powers to read my mind and determine exactly what I believe, what I know, and what I can prove?

Tell me again … YOU are supposed to be the “Scientist”, and I am supposed to be the “Nitwit”? :rolleyes:

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Franko


potential temporal paradox?

say that 5 times real quick.

You see Wraith if only we were smart Physicists and understood the potential temporal paradox, or 10 extra invisible dimensions, or multi worlds interpretation then it would all be clear to us.

Obviously there is no evidence for invisible Gods, but there is loads of evidence for invisible extra dimensions, invisible aliens, invisible blackholes, and an infinite number of complete invisible parallel UNiverses! You have to be some sort of stupid Religious person not to see the real things that are invisible!!!

There is strong theoretical evidence that points to the possibility of the number of dimensions exceeding four. I don't recall ever claiming that this was a certainty in any way. Invisible aliens? Never made such a claim, nor has anyone else I know. Black holes being objects with escape velocities greater than the speed of light could be called "invisible" at least in an optical sense, but their effects can certainly be detected. The infinite worlds interpretation is just a competing interpretation of quantum mechanics, which while not having experimental verification, does have very useful explanatory attributes. You would have to be some kind of stupid person to think that scientists were claiming these all as undisputed truths...

[Franko]

There is strong theoretical evidence that points to the possibility of the number of dimensions exceeding four. I don't recall ever claiming that this was a certainty in any way. Invisible aliens? Never made such a claim, nor has anyone else I know. Black holes being objects with escape velocities greater than the speed of light could be called "invisible" at least in an optical sense, but their effects can certainly be detected. The infinite worlds interpretation is just a competing interpretation of quantum mechanics, which while not having experimental verification, does have very useful explanatory attributes. You would have to be some kind of stupid person to think that scientists were claiming these all as undisputed truths...

Which explains why they are claiming that NO GOD is an undisputed truth?

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Franko
If you can’t comprehend it, I can’t explain it to you.

So it only makes sense to people who already believe it...that's very convincing.

If you really comprehended them, then you could explain them.

I could. I can. They are comprehensible, and I comprehend them...a great many people comprehend them, they could also explain these things to you. There have even been books written on these very subjects for the express purpose of explaining them.

Kind of like the Catholic Saints, I guess, huh?

No, more like mathematicians and logicians.

It’s a simple question Mildred … the kind you A-Theist Religious fanatics never seem to want to answer. IS THE UNIVERSE ULTIMATELY COMPREHENSIBLE OR NOT?

Yes. And to ask again the question you did not seem to want to answer...how does this necessitate determinism?

According to Verner and Johny-boy it’s definitely NOT. What’s your answer?

First off, his name is spelled Werner. Second, they only claimed such a thing if you can prove that a lack of determinism necessitates an incomprehensible universe. Demonstrate this please, or admit it is an unfounded assumption on your part.

And I assume that you know this because you have used your magic powers to read my mind and determine exactly what I believe, what I know, and what I can prove?

Nothing of the sort. Your beliefs need to explain exactly the same things. Do your beliefs not necessitate that the universe originated from something "seemingly requiring more than human power; imposing or startling in performance; producing effects which seem supernatural or very extraordinary"? And if not, then how can you claim that your explanation of the universe is completely naturalistic...while mine is not, despite mine being based solely on observations of natural events.

Tell me again … YOU are supposed to be the “Scientist”, and I am supposed to be the “Nitwit”? :rolleyes:

I've never called you a nitwit. I have, however, jokingly referred to you as a paranoid schizophrenic because you can't seem to remember my name correctly.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Franko


Which explains why they are claiming that NO GOD is an undisputed truth?

Who is they? All physicists? All scientists? The people coming up with these ideas aren't using them to say anything about a god not existing. Heh, if you've ever read some of Hawking's writings you would see him doing quite the opposite.

If "they" is all atheists...then you are also incorrect, this stemming from your incorrect definition of the word. I am an atheist, and have never claimed as an undisputed truth that no god exists, or even that no god could exist. There simply is not enough evidence to prove the claim that a god exists, so I therefore do not believe the claim. If new evidence becomes available to me that can prove the claim, then I will change my position. Can you provide me with any such evidence?

[Franko]

So Mordred ...

Are you claiming to be an Agnostic then?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
So Mordred ...

Are you claiming to be an Agnostic then?
Instead of trying to affix the correct label to Mordred, why don't you try answering his questions? But then, asking questions is your specialty. Answering them is a bit of a weak point for you.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Franko
So Mordred ...

Are you claiming to be an Agnostic then?

Did you see me claiming to be an agnostic? Agnosticism is not a middle ground between theism and atheism. Those who use it as such are doing so incorrectly. I lack a belief in a god. Therefore, I am an atheist.

Incidentally, I asked an interesting question that I don't think has been answered yet...

Can you (or anyone else for that matter) provide an explanation for the interference pattern that arises in the double slit experiment using a deterministic model?

[BillyJoe]

Defintions again:

gnostic: One who believes that it is possible to know (whether there is a God).

agnostic: One who does not believe that it is possible to know (whether there is a God).

But, of course, nobody agrees on definitions and this is the cause of many arguments which lead nowhere.

[BillyJoe]

wraith,

BillyJoe: Probability = Magic?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wraith: I prefer to say that randomness is magicIs the outcome of a coin toss magic then?



BillyJoe: And TLOP doesn't include quantum probability?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wraith: In absolute terms, no. But to US it appears probable (not enough info)Are you saying that, if we had "enough info" we would be able to determine the outcome of quantum events?



BillyJoe: Are you saying that quantum probability means that when we replay a video, the outcome should be different?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wraith: yeah, still I prefer to use randomness than probabilityI did mean an actual video, wraith.
If you do as well, are you saying that, when we watch "The Terminator" a second time and it is the same as when we watched it the first time, that is evidence against quantum probability?

BillyJoe.

[wraith]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
wraith,

Is the outcome of a coin toss magic then?

Why do you say that?



Are you saying that, if we had "enough info" we would be able to determine the outcome of quantum events?

YEAH!



I did mean an actual video, wraith.
If you do as well, are you saying that, when we watch "The Terminator" a second time and it is the same as when we watched it the first time, that is evidence against quantum probability?

I like the tennis ball flying through the wall better
:eek:

Anyway, I wouldnt use the video as such as "evidence." Different situation. What if I taped the ball going through the wall?
You end up arguing what was actually taped rather than QM.