Quantum reality and Idealism

[Pahansiri]

Quote:

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

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

Greetings Iacchus

Quote:

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

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

Please again read the quote for what is written.

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

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

Quote:

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

Would it?

Quote:

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

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

[Pahansiri]

Quote:

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

yes and Babe was really a talking Pig.

[Andonyx]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer

Such a wit.

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

Does that make sense?

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

After last time? You never proved anything George.

Who's George?

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[lifegazer]

Quote:

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

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

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

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.

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

OK, I have joined

[Pahansiri]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

Until proven with facts.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

Before humanity was, knowledge was not.

Let us post again what you said

Quote:

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

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

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

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

But regardless what has this to do with your statement?


Again you just said

Quote:

Before humanity was, knowledge was not.

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

You are killing yourself here.

Quote:

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

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

You are killing yourself here.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Originally posted by lifegazer in this VERY post

Quote:

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

This is TOO easy..

Let me post these 2 statements again

Quote:

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

and

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

Again watch lifegazer self contradict himself.

Quote:

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

VS

Quote:

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

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

Again watch lifegazer self contradict himself.

Quote:

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

VS

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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


REALLY again contradicters this statement

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

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

This is far too easy.

[RussDill]

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."

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

Did you even read what I said:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

It would certainly mean that a portion of him is.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

Just as would be expected of "a God".

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

Quote:

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

Carefull, if you do, people might worship you.


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

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

[RussDill]

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'm sorry, next time, I'll agree with your scewed view of physics, then post. After all, what good is my post if it points out the shortcomings in your understanding rather than agreeing with you, right?

[Iacchus]

Quote:

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Greetings Iacchus

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

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

Quote:

Please again read the quote for what is written.

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

Would it?

I obviously haven't ruled out the possibility.

Quote:

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

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

[Iacchus]

Quote:

Originally posted by Pahansiri


yes and Babe was really a talking Pig.

Are you trying to tell me that a movie can't be analogous with something else?

[RussDill]

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

God has free will.

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

Quote:

God's energy, therefore, is indeterminate.

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

Something else about QM you don't understand.

Quote:

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

And yet something else you probably don't understand.

Quote:

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

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

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

[RussDill]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer

Matter & energy are interchangeable.

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Now you have to explain:

what is the difference between energy and fundamental energy.

and what is the fundamental energy of existence.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

There is no "establishment". You are paranoid.

Quote:

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

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

[RussDill]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

no, fundamental energy is something you made up.

Quote:

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

By sincere, you mean how much he agrees.

[RussDill]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer

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

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

[RussDill]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer

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

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

[Pahansiri]

Quote:

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


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


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


I obviously haven't ruled out the possibility.


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

Greetings again Iacchus

Quote:

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

Why is that?

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

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


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

But back to your statement

Quote:

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

I am not sure where you are going with this.

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

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

I will post for you here a thread at this site http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showt...threadid=32523 titled Are there unanswerable questions? there you will find statement/ opinions by me including this

Quote:

Originally posted
If something happens then there were causes and conditions behind it so answers exist. So to say anything that has happened is unanswerable is illogical as there is an answer and so it is answerable.

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

Do this and we can talk about your statement of

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

I obviously haven't ruled out the possibility.

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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


Be well my friend

[lifegazer]

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

assumption: god has energy

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

[lifegazer]

Quote:

Originally posted by RussDill


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

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

[RussDill]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

[RussDill]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer

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

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

[lifegazer]

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

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

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

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

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

[Dancing David]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer

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

[derail]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you think there is a difference?

[/derail]

[RussDill]

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

producing new effects from previous states of existence.

What new effect has there ever been?

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

Like I said, mediating particles.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

[Iacchus]

Quote:

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Why is that?

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

But back to your statement

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

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

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

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

Quote:

I am not sure where you are going with this.

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

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

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

[lifegazer]

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

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

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

[Dancing David]

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.

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

I agree with RussDill

I see your argument as essentialy as follows.

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

I would say that you have proven 2.

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

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

Perhaps Wriath will chose to comment.

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

[Andonyx]

Quote:

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

Yes. They do.

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

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

Quote:

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

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

[Iacchus]

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

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

[lifegazer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Andonyx
Yes. They do.

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

Call the rational police and have this bloke locked up. Thirty years for such a crime as this.

[Zero]

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

[Dancing David]

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?

Welcome Iacchus!

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

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

[lifegazer]

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

[Dancing David]

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).

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

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

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

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

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

[Zero]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer

Call the rational police and have this bloke locked up. Thirty years for such a crime as this.

Ummmm...who the f*** do you think you are to claim someone else is being irrational? Unless, of course, this falls under "it takes one to know one", in which case you are the world's foremost expert.

[Iacchus]

Quote:

Originally posted by Andonyx


Yes. They do.

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

[lifegazer]

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

What new effect has there ever been?

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

[Iacchus]

Quote:

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

Maybe it's because it has to be spelled out to you in hypothetical terms, otherwise you wouldn't get it any other way?

[Dancing David]

Quote:

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

Blah Blah Blah


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

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

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

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

[lifegazer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Zero
Ummmm...who the f*** do you think you are to claim someone else is being irrational? Unless, of course, this falls under "it takes one to know one", in which case you are the world's foremost expert.

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

[Andonyx]

Quote:

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


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

Okay, fair enough.

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

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

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

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