Quantum reality and Idealism

lifegazer · 25th December 2003, 05:59 PM

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

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

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

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

Yahweh · 25th December 2003, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer
In fact, no other philosophy can make sense of this dual reality, other than a philosophy which acknowledges the free-will of the source of perceived existence, thus explaining the distinction between QM and classical.

Materialism makes perfect sense of QM and Classical Physics.

1. There is no reason why "free-will" is required for existence.

2. Quantum Physics is not the "source" for percieve existence. The scale is too small, you have to ascend to the Neural level.

3. Why is a god necessary for your Philosophy

4. RussDill has a better comprehension of QM than myself, I'm sure he'll have a few objections of his own...

Upchurch · 25th December 2003, 08:29 PM

Under lifegazer's theism, anything is applicable because his assumption is that the physical world is just the imagination of God. So, if science were to discover the existance of pink unicorns, that's entirely consistant with lifegazer's theology, because God imagined the unicorns.

(Mercutio, do I owe you a beer now? This is a different thread. Although I'm prefectly fine expanding the bet to any of his threads, except as duty demands.)

Mercutio · 25th December 2003, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Upchurch
Under lifegazer's theism, anything is applicable because his assumption is that the physical world is just the imagination of God. So, if science were to discover the existance of pink unicorns, that's entirely consistant with lifegazer's theology, because God imagined the unicorns.

(Mercutio, do I owe you a beer now? This is a different thread. Although I'm prefectly fine expanding the bet to any of his threads, except as duty demands.)

As a gentleman, I am forced to admit that you do not owe me a beer...although, frankly, these threads do seem to blur.

The bad news for you, though, is that I will consider this an acceptance of my terms...I'd have let you off for posting, as there had only been a challenge, but no acceptance. Now I have, as it were, Upchurch's Permission.

I never thought I'd say this, but I miss Titus Rivas.

Upchurch · 25th December 2003, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mercutio
I'd have let you off for posting, as there had only been a challenge, but no acceptance. Now I have, as it were, Upchurch's Permission.

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

(and if you think my French is bad, wait until you catch my German)

RussDill · 25th December 2003, 08:52 PM

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

The fundamental energy of perceived existence

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

Quote:

is known to be essentially indeterminate...

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

Compare this to the energy of an omnipotent God,

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

Quote:

which by default is also indeterminate -

MEANINGLESS, not indeterminate.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

Hence, the indeterminate energy of God progresses towards order.

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

Mercutio · 25th December 2003, 08:53 PM

Quote:

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

(and if you think my French is bad, wait until you catch my German)

Rats! Snagged on a technicality again! Icarus, Daedalus, you boys go on without me...

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

Yahweh · 25th December 2003, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mercutio
I never thought I'd say this, but I miss Titus Rivas.

Well, if you want, you can come on over the PhysicsForums.com messageboards. They have more subfora than you can imagine, however I stick primarily in the Skepticism and Philosophy forums. I am currently battling the dualists (in fact, this morning I wrote a rather long and detailed post describing consciousness arising from the brain), there are plenty of misconceptions and beliefs that have already been squished here on these forums but are making the way round the PhysicsForums. Oh, and I got a really nice lamp for Christmas.

Zero · 25th December 2003, 11:16 PM

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

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

UndercoverElephant · 26th December 2003, 02:22 AM

Quote:

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

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

Zero,

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

Geoff.

lifegazer · 26th December 2003, 03:21 AM

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

MEANINGLESS, not indeterminate.

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

lifegazer · 26th December 2003, 03:28 AM

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

UndercoverElephant · 26th December 2003, 06:07 AM

Quote:

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

Iacchus · 26th December 2003, 07:12 AM

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

Zero · 26th December 2003, 07:20 AM

Quote:

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

The arguments you present have no content...that is the main issue that you refuse to confront. Your 'philosophy is like a giant marble stature that is 1 mm thick, and stuffed through and through with styrofoam packing peanuts. Everything you've got is based on assumption, and the overwhelming evidence against you only spurs you on. You say thinks like 'I have shown', when what you mean is 'I have assumed', or 'I have stated without supporting logic or evidence'.

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

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

Dragonrock · 26th December 2003, 07:25 AM

Quote:

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

Quantum Mechanics for Dummies?

Zero · 26th December 2003, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonrock

Quantum Mechanics for Dummies?

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

Quote:

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

Does this make any sense from a scientific perspective? Really?

Iacchus · 26th December 2003, 07:46 AM

Quote:

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

Does this make any sense from a scientific perspective? Really?

Well, it's quite obvious that it doesn't make sense to you.

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

Zero · 26th December 2003, 07:58 AM

Quote:

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

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

When you claim something is the "word of god' you have to support it with evidence...which hasn't been done to my satisfaction. Science is simply the best explanation based on the facts as we know them.

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

El Greco · 26th December 2003, 08:14 AM

Quote:

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

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

Hope this clears it up.

Iacchus · 26th December 2003, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zero
When you claim something is the "word of god' you have to support it with evidence...which hasn't been done to my satisfaction. Science is simply the best explanation based on the facts as we know them.

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

Quote:

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

Oh English, excuse me! Anyone else care to take a stab at it? Actually, science is merely a "contrivance" and/or invention of us humans.

Iacchus · 26th December 2003, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by El Greco

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

Hope this clears it up.

Actually, it sounds like somebody pooped in your brain too!

Zero · 26th December 2003, 08:32 AM

Quote:

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

Oh English, excuse me! Anyone else care to take a stab at it? Actually, science is merely a "contrivance" and/or invention of us humans.

And anything labeled 'word of god' is not a contrivance?!? Evidence, please. Science is a tool, and it workd. Religion is also a tool, and it works not so well when explaining physical processes.

Iacchus · 26th December 2003, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zero
And anything labeled 'word of god' is not a contrivance?!? Evidence, please. Science is a tool, and it workd. Religion is also a tool, and it works not so well when explaining physical processes.

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

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

Zero · 26th December 2003, 09:04 AM

Quote:

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

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

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

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

lifegazer · 26th December 2003, 09:16 AM

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

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

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

Zero · 26th December 2003, 09:24 AM

Quote:

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

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

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

Prove "God". Prove "free will".

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

Iacchus · 26th December 2003, 09:34 AM

Quote:

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

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

No, you missed my whole point entirely. Why can't you discuss either one, if you've been given the capacity (of mind) to do so?

Andonyx · 26th December 2003, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then you somehow equate fundamental particles with fundamental energy.

How do you make this equation?

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

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

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

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

These particles have charge and spin.

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

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

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

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

So the question remains?

What is the fundamental energy?

To which particle are you assigning that special significance?

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

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

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

1. The quantized energy levels of electron orbit.

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

2. Fundamental Units of Charge:

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

3. Cosmic background radiation.

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

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

For shame sir.

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

Zero · 26th December 2003, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, you missed my whole point entirely. Why can't you discuss either one, if you've been given the capacity (of mind) to do so?

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

Andonyx · 26th December 2003, 09:57 AM

Quote:

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

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

Heh heh.

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

Iacchus · 26th December 2003, 09:59 AM

Quote:

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

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

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

Zero · 26th December 2003, 10:15 AM

Quote:

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

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

LOL, whatever, you don't have anything coherent to say, just like Lifegazer.

Terry · 26th December 2003, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer

God has free will.

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

Quote:

God's energy, therefore, is indeterminate.

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

and progresses towards the order perceived of in creation. Fully consistent with what physics has shown us about fundamental particles. I.e., my philosophy is consistent with scientific knowledge.

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

Thanks in advance for helping me understand.

--Terry.

Pahansiri · 26th December 2003, 10:29 AM

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

lifegazer · 26th December 2003, 10:45 AM

Quote:

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

Such a wit.

Quote:

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

Then you somehow equate fundamental particles with fundamental energy.

How do you make this equation?

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

To which particle are you assigning that special significance?

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

1. The quantized energy levels of electron orbit.

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

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

lifegazer · 26th December 2003, 10:58 AM

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

lifegazer · 26th December 2003, 11:05 AM

Quote:

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

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

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

Iacchus · 26th December 2003, 11:09 AM

Quote:

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

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

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

Pahansiri · 26th December 2003, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer

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

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

Hello my friend lifegazer

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

But regardless what has this to do with your statement?

Quote:

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

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

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

25th December 2003, 05:59 PM	#1
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047	Quantum reality and Idealism Some of you are aware of my philosophy which concludes that we're all existing within the Mind of God. I thought I'd explain why this philosophy is consistent with QM... The fundamental energy of perceived existence is known to be essentially indeterminate... yet progresses towards a probablistic order, generally, facilitating the classical order of our perceptions. Compare this to the energy of an omnipotent God, which by default is also indeterminate - an omnipotent God having free-will - but who imposes order upon perceived awareness (created order emanating from a free source). Hence, the indeterminate energy of God progresses towards order. My philosophy is fully consistent with the duality of classical physics and QM. More highly significant evidence that this philosophy should be taken seriously. In fact, no other philosophy can make sense of this dual reality, other than a philosophy which acknowledges the free-will of the source of perceived existence, thus explaining the distinction between QM and classical.
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047

25th December 2003, 06:26 PM	#2
Yahweh Ayay ashay ayay Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,030	Re: Quantum reality and Idealism Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer In fact, no other philosophy can make sense of this dual reality, other than a philosophy which acknowledges the free-will of the source of perceived existence, thus explaining the distinction between QM and classical. Materialism makes perfect sense of QM and Classical Physics. 1. There is no reason why "free-will" is required for existence. 2. Quantum Physics is not the "source" for percieve existence. The scale is too small, you have to ascend to the Neural level. 3. Why is a god necessary for your Philosophy 4. RussDill has a better comprehension of QM than myself, I'm sure he'll have a few objections of his own...
Yahweh Ayay ashay ayay Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,030

25th December 2003, 08:52 PM	#6
RussDill Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 2,752	Re: Quantum reality and Idealism Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer Some of you are aware of my philosophy which concludes that we're all existing within the Mind of God. I thought I'd explain why this philosophy is consistent with QM... You need proof lifegazer, proof, otherwise, your philosophy is completely meaningless. But, you also need consistentsy, otherwise, your philosophy is trash. You don't have consistentsy either though. So lets see... Quote: The fundamental energy of perceived existence existence does not have a fundamental energy. You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Do you know what energy is? Can you describe what the fundemental energy of existence would be? Quote: *is known to be essentially indeterminate...* Given what I said above, who said that? Where are you pulling this from? Quote: yet progresses towards a probablistic order, generally, facilitating the classical order of our perceptions. Firstly, there isn't a "classical order of our perceptions". Our observations approach classical because of a) the accuracy of our observations in relation to the quantum level and b) the size of the things we regularly observe in relation to the quantum level. Quote: Compare this to the energy of an omnipotent God, Energy is a property within our universe. Its MEANINGLESS when describing a god. Quote: which by default is also indeterminate - MEANINGLESS, not indeterminate. Quote: an omnipotent God having free-will - but who imposes order upon perceived awareness (created order emanating from a free source). Please define what a "free source" is, and what the difference would be between a source that isn't "free". Otherwise, you are speaking meaningless babble. Quote: Hence, the indeterminate energy of God progresses towards order. Again, your statement is meaningless. You are not using energy in a context that makes any sense, and if god is progeressing towards order, then there are parts of god which are in disorder, which completely disagrees with your philosophy. Quote: My philosophy is fully consistent with the duality of classical physics and QM. Its not a duality. EVERYTHING is quantum, its just when you get large systems, you'd have to wait a really long time, or get a really accurate ruler. flip a coin 50 billion times and see how many decimal points past .5 you get. Before you make comparisons with physics, you better understand physics first. Quote: More highly significant evidence that this philosophy should be taken seriously. Nope, sorry lifegazer, your post is just more evidence that you should not be taken seriously. Quote: In fact, no other philosophy can make sense of this dual reality, First, its not a dual reality. Second, there is a philosophy that makes PERFECT sense of QM. Can you guess what it is? Would you accept such a philosophy as your own sense it makes PERFECT sense of QM? After all, thats what you are asking us to do? Guess what, its MATERIALISM. Quote: *other than a philosophy which acknowledges the free-will of the source* of perceived existence, thus explaining the distinction between QM and classical.** sigh, all that "thinking" on your part, it would help if you understood why there is a distinction between QM and classical. Flip a coin a few times, you have no clue what you'll get, 3 heads, 2 tails, 5 heads, 1 tail, 4 heads. Thats QM, now flip a coin 50 billion times, I'm thinking you can guess within a few millionth or billionth of a percentile what you'll get, thats classical. Edited to add: This was your third testament? Thats like the Arizona Cardinals being your football dream team for the superbowl.

25th December 2003, 10:30 PM	#8
Yahweh Ayay ashay ayay Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,030	Quote: Originally posted by Mercutio I never thought I'd say this, but I miss Titus Rivas. Well, if you want, you can come on over the PhysicsForums.com messageboards. They have more subfora than you can imagine, however I stick primarily in the Skepticism and Philosophy forums. I am currently battling the dualists (in fact, this morning I wrote a rather long and detailed post describing consciousness arising from the brain), there are plenty of misconceptions and beliefs that have already been squished here on these forums but are making the way round the PhysicsForums. Oh, and I got a really nice lamp for Christmas.
Yahweh Ayay ashay ayay Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,030

25th December 2003, 11:16 PM	#9
Zero Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 1,535	I love the way Lifegazer is willing to accept the results of biased, ignorant science when it jibes with his nonsense...I mean his 'philosophy'. And, I suppose he read a book on QM? Nope, I'm willing to bet he heard about it on TV and meditated on it for awhile.
Zero Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 1,535

25th December 2003, 08:29 PM	#3
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 19,555	Under lifegazer's theism, anything is applicable because his assumption is that the physical world is just the imagination of God. So, if science were to discover the existance of pink unicorns, that's entirely consistant with lifegazer's theology, because God imagined the unicorns. (Mercutio, do I owe you a beer now? This is a different thread. Although I'm prefectly fine expanding the bet to any of his threads, except as duty demands.)

25th December 2003, 08:38 PM	#4
Mercutio Shakespeare's Sock Puppet Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Live Free Or Die Posts: 16,329	Quote: Originally posted by Upchurch Under lifegazer's theism, anything is applicable because his assumption is that the physical world is just the imagination of God. So, if science were to discover the existance of pink unicorns, that's entirely consistant with lifegazer's theology, because God imagined the unicorns. (Mercutio, do I owe you a beer now? This is a different thread. Although I'm prefectly fine expanding the bet to any of his threads, except as duty demands.) As a gentleman, I am forced to admit that you do not owe me a beer...although, frankly, these threads do seem to blur. The bad news for you, though, is that I will consider this an acceptance of my terms...I'd have let you off for posting, as there had only been a challenge, but no acceptance. Now I have, as it were, Upchurch's Permission. I never thought I'd say this, but I miss Titus Rivas.

25th December 2003, 08:42 PM	#5
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 19,555	Quote: Originally posted by Mercutio I'd have let you off for posting, as there had only been a challenge, but no acceptance. Now I have, as it were, Upchurch's Permission. Au contrair! You may have Upchurch's Acceptance(tm), but you certainly don't have Upchurch's Permission(tm). No flying for you. (and if you think my French is bad, wait until you catch my German)

25th December 2003, 08:53 PM	#7
Mercutio Shakespeare's Sock Puppet Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Live Free Or Die Posts: 16,329	Quote: Originally posted by Upchurch Au contrair! You may have Upchurch's Acceptance(tm), but you certainly don't have Upchurch's Permission(tm). No flying for you. (and if you think my French is bad, wait until you catch my German) Rats! Snagged on a technicality again! Icarus, Daedalus, you boys go on without me... Someday.....someday......

26th December 2003, 02:22 AM	#10
UndercoverElephant Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Brighton, Sussex, England Posts: 8,066	Quote: Originally posted by Zero I love the way Lifegazer is willing to accept the results of biased, ignorant science when it jibes with his nonsense...I mean his 'philosophy'. And, I suppose he read a book on QM? Nope, I'm willing to bet he heard about it on TV and meditated on it for awhile. Zero, Lifegazer doesn't meditate. If he did meditate, he wouldn't be such a total plonker. Geoff.
	__________________ "I am real!" said Alice, and began to cry. "You won't make yourself a bit realler by crying," Tweedledee remarked: "there's nothing to cry about."

26th December 2003, 03:21 AM	#11
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047	Quote: Originally posted by RussDill existence does not have a fundamental energy. You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Do you know what energy is? Can you describe what the fundemental energy of existence would be? http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/th...ndamental.html Snippet: "Today, quarks and leptons, and their antiparticles, are candidates for being the fundamental building blocks from which all else is made. Particle physicists call them the "fundamental" or "elementary" particles -- both names denoting that, as far as current experiments can tell, they have no substructure." You're what I class as "a spoiler" Russ. You have no interest in discussing my philosophy any more. It's your sole intention to just spoil anything I present to avoid addressing the ideas inherent within the argument. Not only that, but your complaints are incorrect. Physics does think that there is a fundamental energy of existence. So get off your high horse and stop waffling as though you know what you're talking about. Quote: Firstly, there isn't a "classical order of our perceptions". Our observations approach classical because of a) the accuracy of our observations in relation to the quantum level and b) the size of the things we regularly observe in relation to the quantum level. You acknowledge no difference between classical physics and QM? You acknowledge no progression to increased order/predictability from particles & atoms to larger, perceived, objects? Quote: Energy is a property within our universe. Its MEANINGLESS when describing a god. Another dork statement. It's meaningless to associate energy with a God of creation? You're a hopeless case and I just don't know why I bother with you at all. Quote: MEANINGLESS, not indeterminate. Please define what a "free source" is, and what the difference would be between a source that isn't "free". Otherwise, you are speaking meaningless babble. An entity which is the primal-cause of proceeding effects is shown to possess free-will in determining those effects. The energy of such an entity is unpredictable, since the entity has free-will. Engage your brain and put your physics book back on the shelf. Quote: Again, your statement is meaningless. You are not using energy in a context that makes any sense, and if god is progeressing towards order, then there are parts of god which are in disorder, which completely disagrees with your philosophy. God's energy is unpredictable does not mean that God is in disorder. It just means that God is a primal-cause with the free-will to do whatever God pleases. Just as would be expected of "a God". Quote: Edited to add: This was your third testament? Thats like the Arizona Cardinals being your football dream team for the superbowl. No, this was not that. I still haven't decided whether to do it yet.
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047

26th December 2003, 03:28 AM	#12
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047	Predictably, aside from Russ' spoiling waffle, there is not another post worthy of response. That's a reflection on the poor standards in this forum, I'm afraid, as well as the insincerity, generally, of its members. Please refrain from posting in my threads unless you really want to discuss the content of the arguments presented.
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047

26th December 2003, 06:07 AM	#13
UndercoverElephant Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Brighton, Sussex, England Posts: 8,066	Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer Predictably, aside from Russ' spoiling waffle, there is not another post worthy of response. That's a reflection on the poor standards in this forum, I'm afraid, as well as the insincerity, generally, of its members. Please refrain from posting in my threads unless you really want to discuss the content of the arguments presented.
	__________________ "I am real!" said Alice, and began to cry. "You won't make yourself a bit realler by crying," Tweedledee remarked: "there's nothing to cry about."

26th December 2003, 07:12 AM	#14
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	The Mind of God ... Anybody see the movie, The Matrix? ... Ha ha ha! ... And yet if the machines can perform such a feat, wouldn't it just be a replication of what God has already created?

26th December 2003, 07:20 AM	#15
Zero Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 1,535	Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer Predictably, aside from Russ' spoiling waffle, there is not another post worthy of response. That's a reflection on the poor standards in this forum, I'm afraid, as well as the insincerity, generally, of its members. Please refrain from posting in my threads unless you really want to discuss the content of the arguments presented. The arguments you present have no content...that is the main issue that you refuse to confront. Your 'philosophy is like a giant marble stature that is 1 mm thick, and stuffed through and through with styrofoam packing peanuts. Everything you've got is based on assumption, and the overwhelming evidence against you only spurs you on. You say thinks like 'I have shown', when what you mean is 'I have assumed', or 'I have stated without supporting logic or evidence'. The more wrong you are, the more you think you are smarter than everyone else. You get into this sort of nutball religious messianic state...in reality, you are just a semi-bright kid who has thought to much and learned too little. Tell me, what book on QM did you read that made you start this thread?
Zero Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 1,535

26th December 2003, 07:25 AM	#16
Dragonrock Militant Elvisian Tacoist Join Date: May 2002 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 8,098	Quote: Originally posted by Zero Tell me, what book on QM did you read that made you start this thread? Quantum Mechanics for Dummies?
	__________________ ...it rings a bell in my head that just don't chime...--pillory There is no God but the Great Taco In The Sky and Elvis is his prophet. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

26th December 2003, 07:34 AM	#17
Zero Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 1,535	Quote: Originally posted by Dragonrock Quantum Mechanics for Dummies? I'm thinking he read a book review or something, or picked up his understanding of physics from comic books...I mean, look at this nonsense: Quote: The fundamental energy of perceived existence is known to be essentially indeterminate... yet progresses towards a probablistic order, generally, facilitating the classical order of our perceptions. Does this make any sense from a scientific perspective? Really?
Zero Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 1,535

26th December 2003, 07:46 AM	#18
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Quote: Originally posted by Zero I'm thinking he read a book review or something, or picked up his understanding of physics from comic books...I mean, look at this nonsense: Does this make any sense from a scientific perspective? Really? Well, it's quite obvious that it doesn't make sense to you. So what does science know? Isn't science just a process of human agency or, is it something more than that? Like the Word of God or something?

26th December 2003, 07:58 AM	#19
Zero Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 1,535	Quote: Originally posted by Iacchus Well, it's quite obvious that it doesn't make sense to you. So what does science know? Isn't science just a process of human agency or, is it something more than that? Like the Word of God or something? When you claim something is the "word of god' you have to support it with evidence...which hasn't been done to my satisfaction. Science is simply the best explanation based on the facts as we know them. What the f*** is a "process of human agency"? Can't you speak English, or are you falling into the Lifegazer trap of speaking in unclear language in order to pretend to be smarter than you are?
Zero Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 1,535

26th December 2003, 08:14 AM	#20
El Greco Summer worshipper Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Παρά θιν'αλός Posts: 11,784	Quote: Originally posted by Zero What the f* is a "process of human agency"?** I think that the "process of human agency" refers to the hyperbaric orbit of the interspatial quintessence as it is perceived by the hyberbolically polarized cellular prehension of the true subliminal cerebral influx. Hope this clears it up.
	__________________ "As though it were not I but someone else / I went way through life No matter how careful one is / No matter if one chases after things Always, it will always be too late / There is no second life." - The Complaint - Odysseas Elytis

26th December 2003, 08:22 AM	#21
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Quote: Originally posted by Zero When you claim something is the "word of god' you have to support it with evidence...which hasn't been done to my satisfaction. Science is simply the best explanation based on the facts as we know them. Do you mean like "empirical evidence?" Hmm ... Sounds like someone playing God to me! Quote: What the f* is a "process of human agency"? Can't you speak English, or are you falling into the Lifegazer trap of speaking in unclear language in order to pretend to be smarter than you are?** Oh English, excuse me! Anyone else care to take a stab at it? Actually, science is merely a "contrivance" and/or invention of us humans.

26th December 2003, 08:25 AM	#22
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Quote: Originally posted by El Greco I think that the "process of human agency" refers to the hyperbaric orbit of the interspatial quintessence as it is perceived by the hyberbolically polarized cellular prehension of the true subliminal cerebral influx. Hope this clears it up. Actually, it sounds like somebody pooped in your brain too!

26th December 2003, 08:32 AM	#23
Zero Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 1,535	Quote: Originally posted by Iacchus Do you mean like "empirical evidence?" Hmm ... Sounds like someone playing God to me! Oh English, excuse me! Anyone else care to take a stab at it? Actually, science is merely a "contrivance" and/or invention of us humans. And anything labeled 'word of god' is not a contrivance?!? Evidence, please. Science is a tool, and it workd. Religion is also a tool, and it works not so well when explaining physical processes.
Zero Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 1,535

26th December 2003, 08:59 AM	#24
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Quote: Originally posted by Zero *And anything labeled 'word of god' is not a contrivance?!? Evidence, please. Science is a tool, and it workd. Religion is also a tool, and it works not so well when explaining physical processes.* So, the one tends to be more rational and the other tends to be more abstract. Does that make either one more right, or wrong? Mind you, we can't functon without both sides of our brain. And, by virtue of the fact that our brains are designed this way, doesn't that suggest we should be ascertain the full spectrum of things, from that which is most concrete, to that which is highly abstract? (i.e., God). So, how can we ascertain what is abstract without the ability to contrast it against the concrete? And vice versa.

26th December 2003, 09:04 AM	#25
Zero Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 1,535	Quote: Originally posted by Iacchus So, the one tends to be more rational and the other tends to be more abstract. Does that make either one more right, or wrong? Mind you, we can't functon without both sides of our brain. And, by virtue of the fact that our brains are designed this way, doesn't that suggest we should be ascertain the full spectrum of things, from that which is most concrete, to that which is highly abstract? (i.e., God). You see, how can we ascertain what is abstract without the ability to contrast it against the concrete? And vice versa. Ummm...the difference is not between abstract and concrete, but between supportable and unsupportable. Plus, just because we have an imagination, it doesn't mean that what we imagine is real(i.e. "God") When you are discussing the physical, you should keep your thoughts to the physical, I think is what I mean. If you want to discuss your emotions, "god" is perfectly acceptable for you to bring up.
Zero Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 1,535

26th December 2003, 09:16 AM	#26
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047	Couldn't resist posting whilst continuing to ignore my argument, I see. How sad, and what a poor showing. God has free will. God's energy, therefore, is indeterminate. God's work - the creation of God's order, exhibits an energy which is essentially indeterminate and progresses towards the order perceived of in creation. Fully consistent with what physics has shown us about fundamental particles. I.e., my philosophy is consistent with scientific knowledge. Furthermore, we could discuss the importance of observer participation, if you care. And we could discuss the further consistency of my philosophy with the wave/particle duality exhibited by quanta. But I'm not bothering unless the quality improves. The responses in this thread have been terrible.
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047

26th December 2003, 09:24 AM	#27
Zero Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 1,535	Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer Couldn't resist posting whilst continuing to ignore my argument, I see. How sad, and what a poor showing. God has free will. God's energy, therefore, is indeterminate. God's work - the creation of God's order, exhibits an energy which is essentially indeterminate and progresses towards the order perceived of in creation. Fully consistent with what physics has shown us about fundamental particles. I.e., my philosophy is consistent with scientific knowledge. Furthermore, we could discuss the importance of observer participation, if you care. And we could discuss the further consistency of my philosophy with the wave/particle duality exhibited by quanta. But I'm not bothering unless the quality improves. The responses in this thread have been terrible. Prove "God". Prove "free will". BTW< physics claims that the universe progresses towards chaos, not order. So nothing in your argument makes sense. If you would up the quality of your 'argument', maybe you would get better responses? But, since nothing you post is logical, we are forced to muddle along as best we can.
Zero Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 1,535

26th December 2003, 09:34 AM	#28
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Quote: Originally posted by Zero Ummm...the difference is not between abstract and concrete, but between supportable and unsupportable. Plus, just because we have an imagination, it doesn't mean that what we imagine is real(i.e. "God") When you are discussing the physical, you should keep your thoughts to the physical, I think is what I mean. If you want to discuss your emotions, "god" is perfectly acceptable for you to bring up. No, you missed my whole point entirely. Why can't you discuss either one, if you've been given the capacity (of mind) to do so?

26th December 2003, 09:36 AM	#29
Andonyx Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,834	Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/th...ndamental.html Snippet: "Today, quarks and leptons, and their antiparticles, are candidates for being the fundamental building blocks from which all else is made. Particle physicists call them the "fundamental" or "elementary" particles -- both names denoting that, as far as current experiments can tell, they have no substructure." You're what I class as "a spoiler" Russ. You have no interest in discussing my philosophy any more. It's your sole intention to just spoil anything I present to avoid addressing the ideas inherent within the argument. Not only that, but your complaints are incorrect. Physics does think that there is a fundamental energy of existence. So get off your high horse and stop waffling as though you know what you're talking about. Okay...I'll take a stab at this one. I don't know why.... it's like when you keep sticking your tongue in a canker sore just because you know it's gonna hurt... Oh well, the statement above once again shows a fundamental mis-understanding of anything scientific. I don't even have much of a background in QM, but I know darn well this is a load of baloney. First you discuss what we currently believe are the fundamental particles: Quarks, and Leptons. Then you somehow equate fundamental particles with fundamental energy. How do you make this equation? Of course you don't actually make this equation you hope people will be stupid enough to follow your crap because you use the word fundamental twice. It may interest you to know that quarks are the building blocks of Hadrons, or large particles that participate in strong reactions, typically the proton and the neutron. While each constitutent quark does not have a charge per-se, they may be said to have spin, and combinations of quarks with different spins (either up or down for ordinary hadrons) create the different types of subatomic particles. Leptons are light (as in less massive) particles that don't particpate in strong reactions and were thought until recently to be point particles and possibly have no mass. The most common example would be the electron and its anti-particle the positron. These particles have charge and spin. So if you're going to mouth off and make up a bunch of crap based on a blurb from one article you obviously didn't understand remotely, would you care to expand on how you are measuring this "fundamental energy?" Because as you stated both Quarks and Leptons are fundamental but they have different spins, different masses, and different charges. I guess you could try to convert them to their equivalent energy by mass using Einstein's equation, but then that would come out differently as well since as I stated they have different masses. As for charge, you can't even assign charge to a Quark, it has to be a collection of Quarks. Which could have the same charge as an electron but vastly greater mass, so that wouldn't work. So the question remains? What is the fundamental energy? To which particle are you assigning that special significance? And what is the logic behind determining that particle, and whichever measure of its "energy" you use as the correct one? And no, "Physics" does NOT think there is a fundamental energy. Oh, as a sidenote, this is truly disappointing work from you. I expected a much better crack pot theory after last time. If you needed something you could call fundamental energy, there are like three other ideas already in common use that you could have chosen to twist and distort to fit your made up conceptions of the world: 1. The quantized energy levels of electron orbit. In which we find through spectrographic microscopy that electrons must orbit in sharply defined levels of energy around the nucleus and it is impossible to occupy a between state, even for an instant. In that way we say that electron orbits are quantized and the difference in this levels is a multiple of some fundamental energy. 2. Fundamental Units of Charge: which seems to be established by the lepton class, and the fact that almost all of matter has to grouped into collections of UDD quarks or UDU quarks, which seems to indicate a fundamental unit of charge. Although scientists think they saw a 5-quark hadrons in a collider recently but that is still being investigated. 3. Cosmic background radiation. Echoes of the big bang in the form of a cosmic background radiation which spreads out throughout the viewable universe and seems reletively uniform over large areas demonstrates some sort of base level energy which exists even in the approximate vacuum of space. See, your quackery is just lazy. You could easily have picked up couple issues of popular science, skimmed some articles and come up with some much better ill-defined, untested crapola. For shame sir. By the way, anyone else smell sock-puppet here?
Andonyx Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,834	__________________ Andonyx www.andonyx.com Shy Gypsy Slyly Shyly Tryst By My Crypt.

26th December 2003, 09:37 AM	#30
Zero Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 1,535	Quote: Originally posted by Iacchus No, you missed my whole point entirely. Why can't you discuss either one, if you've been given the capacity (of mind) to do so? No, I didn't miss your point...my point is that the 'God' concept is useless in certain contexts, like physics.
Zero Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 1,535

26th December 2003, 09:57 AM	#31
Andonyx Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,834	Quote: Originally posted by Zero No, I didn't miss your point...my point is that the 'God' concept is useless in certain contexts, like physics. Although to be fair when the significance of the Higgs Boson was starting to come to light about ten years ago (it may be responsible for any particle having the property of mass) it was referred to in colloquial terms as the "God Particle." Heh heh. http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,54507,00.html
Andonyx Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,834	__________________ Andonyx www.andonyx.com Shy Gypsy Slyly Shyly Tryst By My Crypt.

26th December 2003, 09:59 AM	#32
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Quote: Originally posted by Zero No, I didn't miss your point...my point is that the 'God' concept is useless in certain contexts, like physics. Why? If God does exist then we "must" be speaking about that which is most fundamental to existence. Which, if I'm not mistaken, isn't that what science is supposed to entail? the study of the fundamentals of existence? So, unless you can prove that God doesn't exist, I'm afraid the "God concept" is not going to go away anytime soon. However, this is about all I have to say at this time, and will leave you to continue your bickering with Lifegazer.

26th December 2003, 10:15 AM	#33
Zero Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 1,535	Quote: Originally posted by Iacchus Why? If God does exist then we "must" be speaking about that which is most fundamental to existence. Which, if I'm not mistaken, isn't that what science is supposed to entail? the study of the fundamentals of existence? So, unless you can prove that God doesn't exist, I'm afraid the "God concept" is not going to go away anytime soon. However, this is about all I have to say at this time, and will leave you to continue your bickering with Lifegazer. LOL, whatever, you don't have anything coherent to say, just like Lifegazer.
Zero Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 1,535

26th December 2003, 10:20 AM	#34
Terry Zeitgeist-impaired Technical Moderator Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: logged in to the server Posts: 6,374	Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer God has free will. Is it axiomatic in your system that God exists? Or is this just an assumption who's consequences we are examining? I'll assume the latter for now. Quote: God's energy, therefore, is indeterminate. I apologize in advance for the extremely poor quality of my reasoning processes. But I simply don't understand this. Perhaps you could explain the connection? Quote: God's work - the creation of God's order, exhibits an energy which is essentially indeterminate Are you saying that the physical universe (in so far as such a thing exists in your system) is God's work? And so it has "indeterminate" "energy"? Again, my lack of mental skill is hindering me. Perhaps you could elaborate. By "energy" do you mean the standard quantity in conventional physics - the sum of all the various kinds of potential energy; of kinetic energy; of rest mass; and so on? By "indeterminate", do you mean "of unknown value", or "of in principle unknowable value". If the latter, what is it that makes it unknowable, and do we know the limits to within which it can be tied down? Quote: and progresses towards the order perceived of in creation. Fully consistent with what physics has shown us about fundamental particles. I.e., my philosophy is consistent with scientific knowledge. I don't think I'll be able to comprehend that bit until you clear up my confusion on the previous points. Thanks in advance for helping me understand. --Terry.

26th December 2003, 10:29 AM	#35
Pahansiri Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 1,380	Re: Quantum reality and Idealism Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer Some of you are aware of my philosophy which concludes that we're all existing within the Mind of God. I thought I'd explain why this philosophy is consistent with QM... The fundamental energy of perceived existence is known to be essentially indeterminate... yet progresses towards a probablistic order, generally, facilitating the classical order of our perceptions. Compare this to the energy of an omnipotent God, which by default is also indeterminate - an omnipotent God having free-will - but who imposes order upon perceived awareness (created order emanating from a free source). Hence, the indeterminate energy of God progresses towards order. My philosophy is fully consistent with the duality of classical physics and QM. More highly significant evidence that this philosophy should be taken seriously. In fact, no other philosophy can make sense of this dual reality, other than a philosophy which acknowledges the free-will of the source of perceived existence, thus explaining the distinction between QM and classical. To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." -- David Brooks ...
	__________________ "If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility."...H.W.Longfellow