Introduction and Question

FiekertJ
FiekertJ's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
Introduction and Question

Alright, this is my first post here, so I`ll start off and say hello, my name is Jimi, and I was invited to this site by someone that uses the RRS myspace login (Though I am not sure exactly sure who, as of yet).

Also, before posting my actual Question I would like to state one thing. I, nor anyone I know, considers me to be a typical Christian. I frown upon the concept of sunday service, Act for the local Rocky Horror Picture Show cast, and I had a talk with the Youth Minister of a youth group I volunteer for about me not being allowed to voice my opinion of how the Bible does not condemn a homosexuality.

Now, to the point of my question (and if you couldn`t tell, I tend to be long winded at times):

I use to be Atheist. I was also Anti-Christian at one point, too (the two overlapped for about a year, though they were not one in the same with me). Obviously, now, I am a Christian. I will not go into detail of why here. I'm not sure when it came to me, but a realization came to me while I was in the part of my life where I was both Anti-Christian, and Athiest. I am a very sceintific person, and as such, a peice of sceince was missing to me: The creation of the Universe. To me, the Big Bang Theory does not make sence. The best way to describe this is Through one of the Proofs that God exists (done by St. Thomas Aquinas... and note that the proofs are that a god exists... not the christian god) the proof that I identify with is a scientific one:

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Basic physics. Now, that means that if it were comprehendable (sp?) to do so, we should be able to trace every action, every fired neuron, every earthquake, star from birth to collapse. all these actions had a root to them. (in the case of the big bang theory, the big bang was the root). But This root action, from which all other reactions and actions would eventuall follow, cannot exist. It defies the very principles of physics to assume that there was an action (expecially one as poweful and tramendus as the big bang), that was caused by no provocation of any form.

What are your takes to this concept?

-Jimi F


Noor
Posts: 250
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote:For every action,

Quote:
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Basic physics. Now, that means that if it were comprehendable (sp?) to do so, we should be able to trace every action, every fired neuron, every earthquake, star from birth to collapse. all these actions had a root to them. (in the case of the big bang theory, the big bang was the root). But This root action, from which all other reactions and actions would eventuall follow, cannot exist. It defies the very principles of physics to assume that there was an action (expecially one as poweful and tramendus as the big bang), that was caused by no provocation of any form.

What are your takes to this concept?

This is a never-ending sequence. I could also ask, what caused a god to come about? Doesn't it make more sense to leave the cause of the Big Bang as a mystery, instead of jumping to the idea that a fairy started it? Don't have to solve a mystery with another mystery. (Occam's Razor)

Also, I have Victor J. Stenger's book The Comprehensible Cosmos: Where Do The Laws of Physics Come From? on my reading list. It may have some further answers and possibilities to your question.


FiekertJ
FiekertJ's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
noor wrote: This is a

noor wrote:

This is a never-ending sequence. I could also ask, what caused a god to come about? Doesn't it make more sense to leave the cause of the Big Bang as a mystery, instead of jumping to the idea that a fairy started it? Don't have to solve a mystery with another mystery. (Occam's Razor)

Also, I have Victor J. Stenger's book The Comprehensible Cosmos: Where Do The Laws of Physics Come From? on my reading list. It may have some further answers and possibilities to your question.

I am assuming then, that you do not beleive in the big bang theory?

-Jimi F


Kemono
Posts: 137
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Hi Jimi! FiekertJ wrote:I am

Hi Jimi!

FiekertJ wrote:
I am a very sceintific person, and as such, a peice of sceince was missing to me: The creation of the Universe.

Theistic explanations of the origin of the universe seem to me fundamentally inadequate because they assume that a complex, intelligent being was simply there from the beginning.

To elucidate my point, I shall appropriate William Paley's watchmaker analogy: In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a baby universe and was asked how it came to be there. I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watchmaker on the heath, and it should be inquired how she happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, she might have always been there. There must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, a process of evolution by natural selection which formed the watchmaker.

So whatever the first cause may have been, it is hard to imagine how it could have been a living, intelligent being. Unless of course that being evolved in some other universe, in which case it was not really a first cause.


Noor
Posts: 250
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
FiekertJ wrote:noor

FiekertJ wrote:
noor wrote:

This is a never-ending sequence. I could also ask, what caused a god to come about? Doesn't it make more sense to leave the cause of the Big Bang as a mystery, instead of jumping to the idea that a fairy started it? Don't have to solve a mystery with another mystery. (Occam's Razor)

Also, I have Victor J. Stenger's book The Comprehensible Cosmos: Where Do The Laws of Physics Come From? on my reading list. It may have some further answers and possibilities to your question.

I am assuming then, that you do not beleive in the big bang theory?

I do believe in it; I just don't think we have the answer as to what caused it, as of now.


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
noor wrote: This is a

noor wrote:

This is a never-ending sequence. I could also ask, what caused a god to come about? Doesn't it make more sense to leave the cause of the Big Bang as a mystery, instead of jumping to the idea that a fairy started it? Don't have to solve a mystery with another mystery. (Occam's Razor)

This is all related to the "unmoved mover" theory of God. I have yet to see a satisfying refutation. God did not "come about". God simply is. That is part of the definition.


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote:This is all

nedbrek wrote:
This is all related to the "unmoved mover" theory of God. I have yet to see a satisfying refutation. God did not "come about". God simply is. That is part of the definition.

God simply exists. God created the universe.

Now, apply Occam's Razor, and you get:

The universe simply exists.

You eliminate an unnecessary (and infinitely complicated) variable.

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Insidium Profundis

Insidium Profundis wrote:

God simply exists. God created the universe.

Now, apply Occam's Razor, and you get:

The universe simply exists.

You eliminate an unnecessary (and infinitely complicated) variable.

The problem is, the universe has not always existed as we know it now. Similarly, the universe will eventually reach a point where all life ceases.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
FiekertJ wrote: For every

FiekertJ wrote:

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Basic physics. Now, that means that if it were comprehendable (sp?) to do so, we should be able to trace every action, every fired neuron, every earthquake, star from birth to collapse. all these actions had a root to them. (in the case of the big bang theory, the big bang was the root). But This root action, from which all other reactions and actions would eventuall follow, cannot exist. It defies the very principles of physics to assume that there was an action (expecially one as poweful and tramendus as the big bang), that was caused by no provocation of any form.

First of all, you're giving us a form of the Kalam argument - i.e the supposed impossibility of an infinite chain.

The Kalam argument is self refuting for reasons already pointed out above.

Next, your claim that 'it defies the very principles of physics to assume that there was an action that was caused by no provocation of any form" is false! Modern Physics states the exact opposite. Quantum theory tells us that quantum events are acausal - without 'provocation of any kind".

And even if that were not the case, it is a fallacy of composition to apply a law found within to the universe to the universe itself.

Here is an example:

oxygen is a gas
hydrogen is a gas
it follows that H2O is a gas.

We know that it is wrong to assume that H20 is a gas based on the fact that oxygen is a gas. It is the same error to assume that the universe itself is a causal phenomenon.

Quote:

What are your takes to this concept?

Your arguments commits all the flaws of the Kalam argument.

It violates what we actually do know of physics.

And finally, your argument rests upon an undeclared false dichotomy error: "Either physics can answer my questions to my satisfaction, or I will decided that goddidit

This false dichtomy error, in turn, rests on an argument from ignorance - i.e.. you don' know how to answer a question, ergo god exists....

So, those are the problems.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


FiekertJ
FiekertJ's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
noor wrote:FiekertJ

noor wrote:
FiekertJ wrote:
noor wrote:

This is a never-ending sequence. I could also ask, what caused a god to come about? Doesn't it make more sense to leave the cause of the Big Bang as a mystery, instead of jumping to the idea that a fairy started it? Don't have to solve a mystery with another mystery. (Occam's Razor)

Also, I have Victor J. Stenger's book The Comprehensible Cosmos: Where Do The Laws of Physics Come From? on my reading list. It may have some further answers and possibilities to your question.

I am assuming then, that you do not beleive in the big bang theory?

I do believe in it; I just don't think we have the answer as to what caused it, as of now.

Leaving out a detail to try and make sence of something is not always the correct way of doing something. Yet, is that what is right?

I agree that adding that in, creates a huge, complex addition to an already extremely complex question. To me, a Diety (christian or not), makes more sence than: "There was a speck of cosmic dust that suddenly went Boom!"

As for the leaving it a mystery, I could have left it as mystery, but at the time, I was about 14 or 15, I was curious, and wanting to learn as much in the scientific world as I could. I could not find an answer to that question that made sence to me. And as I stated, to me, "A fairy" actually makes more sence then all that the Big Bang basis it`s self on.

-Jimi F


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:As for the leaving it

Quote:
As for the leaving it a mystery, I could have left it as mystery, but at the time, I was about 14 or 15, I was curious, and wanting to learn as much in the scientific world as I could. I could not find an answer to that question that made sence to me. And as I stated, to me, "A fairy" actually makes more sence then all that the Big Bang basis it`s self on.

In other words, you would rather resort to magic than science to explain a natural phenomenon.

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: First of

todangst wrote:

First of all, you're giving us a form of the Kalam argument - i.e the supposed impossibility of an infinite chain.

I am trying to decode the explanation at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument

All I have been able to determine is that the universe may have "caused itself to exist". Is there more to it than that?

Thanks!


FiekertJ
FiekertJ's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote: First of all, you're

Quote:

First of all, you're giving us a form of the Kalam argument - i.e the supposed impossibility of an infinite chain.

The Kalam argument is self refuting for reasons already pointed out above.

Next, your claim that 'it defies the very principles of physics to assume that there was an action that was caused by no provocation of any form" is false! Modern Physics states the exact opposite. Quantum theory tells us that quantum events are acausal - without 'provocation of any kind".

And even if that were not the case, it is a fallacy of composition to apply a law found within to the universe to the universe itself.

I have not read any materials where it states that quantum events will happen spontanously. Granted that doesn`t mean that it isn`t there. it just means that I haven`t read such materials. If you are actually willing to link me, i would be more than willing to read up on them

Quote:

Here is an example:

oxygen is a gas
hydrogen is a gas
it follows that H2O is a gas.

We know that it is wrong to assume that H20 is a gas based on the fact that oxygen is a gas. It is the same error to assume that the universe itself is a causal phenomenon.

Actually, Water is a gas, just at a different temp.

Quote:

And finally, your argument rests upon an undeclared false dichotomy error: "Either physics can answer my questions to my satisfaction, or I will decided that goddidit

This false dichtomy error, in turn, rests on an argument from ignorance - i.e.. you don' know how to answer a question, ergo god exists....

So, those are the problems.

I actually reseached quite a bit before I even considered looking into religion for that answer. At that, it wasn't really a 'looking into', as it just happened to fall into place. It was more of a catalyst that opened my eyes that there may be a hint of truth in religion somewhere. From there, I considered myself an Agnostic, and began to look at religion for possible answers.

-Jimi F


FiekertJ
FiekertJ's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:First of all, you're

***This was a double post... I deleted the duplicate text***


FiekertJ
FiekertJ's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
Insidium Profundis

Insidium Profundis wrote:
Quote:
As for the leaving it a mystery, I could have left it as mystery, but at the time, I was about 14 or 15, I was curious, and wanting to learn as much in the scientific world as I could. I could not find an answer to that question that made sence to me. And as I stated, to me, "A fairy" actually makes more sence then all that the Big Bang basis it`s self on.

In other words, you would rather resort to magic than science to explain a natural phenomenon.

But Science has not explained this phenomenon. Not yet, atleast. It is possible that oneday, in the future, there will be concrete scientific evidence.

-Jimi F


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
FiekertJ wrote:Quote:First

FiekertJ wrote:

First of all, you're giving us a form of the Kalam argument - i.e the supposed impossibility of an infinite chain.

The Kalam argument is self refuting for reasons already pointed out above.

Next, your claim that 'it defies the very principles of physics to assume that there was an action that was caused by no provocation of any form" is false! Modern Physics states the exact opposite. Quantum theory tells us that quantum events are acausal - without 'provocation of any kind".

And even if that were not the case, it is a fallacy of composition to apply a law found within to the universe to the universe itself.

Quote:

I have not read any materials where it states that quantum events will happen spontanously.

You've never heard of non determinancy? That's the main point of the concept of quantum physics! It's like saying you've heard of gravity, but nothing about this 'things attracting each other business"

Look up acausality or non determinancy. Look up the debates between Einstein and Neils Bohr. They centered on this topic.
Basically you'll see that quantum events, like the decay of an atom, are unpredictable because they are uncaused.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger%27s_cat

Quote:

Here is an example:

oxygen is a gas
hydrogen is a gas
it follows that H2O is a gas.

We know that it is wrong to assume that H20 is a gas based on the fact that oxygen is a gas. It is the same error to assume that the universe itself is a causal phenomenon.

Quote:

Actually, Water is a gas, just at a different temp.

Actually, that's like saying a dog is a donut, only a dog is alive and not made of dough.

The very point of the concept of the 'states' of matter is to make a reference to temperature! So to say that 'water is a gas at a different temperature" is to say that water is not a gas at all, but a liquid.

And again, the point is that it is an error to assume that we can automatically make inferences about the whole from a part without error

Quote:

And finally, your argument rests upon an undeclared false dichotomy error: "Either physics can answer my questions to my satisfaction, or I will decided that goddidit

This false dichtomy error, in turn, rests on an argument from ignorance - i.e.. you don' know how to answer a question, ergo god exists....

So, those are the problems.

Quote:

I actually reseached quite a bit before I even considered looking into religion for that answer.

So you say, but you've not demonstrated much of an understanding of these topics... I think there's a lot more for you to look at.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Here's a rather interesting

Here's a rather interesting video that gives a naturalistic explanation of the cause of the big bang:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4183875433858020781


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
FiekertJ wrote: I have not

FiekertJ wrote:

I have not read any materials where it states that quantum events will happen spontanously.

What? You say you read up on quantum mechanics, and you missed that? How is that even possible? Take a class in it, that is the first thing they tell you. That is the very essence of it. Quantum mechanics is basically nature's way of saying "shit happens".


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
FiekertJ wrote:But Science

FiekertJ wrote:
But Science has not explained this phenomenon. Not yet, atleast. It is possible that oneday, in the future, there will be concrete scientific evidence.

This is the classic god of the gaps argument. It's also very bad reasoning. A long time ago, people thought that god (or other supernatural causes) was responsible for earthquakes, lightning, diseases, rainfall, etc. Do you think that just because they did not have science to explain these things, that it was reasonable for them to believe in magic? I certainly don't think so.

If you don't know something, it's better to say "I don't know" than to say "goddidit." Because really, that's not an explanation. Science has the potential to effectively model anything in nature. It's only a matter of time before there is an answer to any questions you have about the world. I'd like to point out, though, that modern science sufficiently explains a great deal more than you probably think. I highly suggest you pick up something by Brian Greene or Stephen Hawking.

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Nice points and the

Nice points and the suggestion for the Greene book is a good one.


Noor
Posts: 250
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
FiekertJ wrote:noor

FiekertJ wrote:
noor wrote:
FiekertJ wrote:
noor wrote:

This is a never-ending sequence. I could also ask, what caused a god to come about? Doesn't it make more sense to leave the cause of the Big Bang as a mystery, instead of jumping to the idea that a fairy started it? Don't have to solve a mystery with another mystery. (Occam's Razor)

Also, I have Victor J. Stenger's book The Comprehensible Cosmos: Where Do The Laws of Physics Come From? on my reading list. It may have some further answers and possibilities to your question.

I am assuming then, that you do not beleive in the big bang theory?

I do believe in it; I just don't think we have the answer as to what caused it, as of now.

Leaving out a detail to try and make sence of something is not always the correct way of doing something. Yet, is that what is right?

As mentioned above, Occam's razor pretty much eliminates the need for more complex detail.

Quote:
I agree that adding that in, creates a huge, complex addition to an already extremely complex question. To me, a Diety (christian or not), makes more sence than: "There was a speck of cosmic dust that suddenly went Boom!"

It didn't exactly go "Boom!" - it just started to expand. That's it. It wasn't like an explosion as we view them today. Of course, we are still researching what happened before that.

Theists are always trying to keep a god in the picture, but as science progresses, the role of god keeps going more and more backwards in time. We used to believe god put us directly on the earth; now evolutionist theists believe god created us through evolution and science. We keep pushing god backwards and backwards.

Quote:
As for the leaving it a mystery, I could have left it as mystery, but at the time, I was about 14 or 15, I was curious, and wanting to learn as much in the scientific world as I could. I could not find an answer to that question that made sence to me. And as I stated, to me, "A fairy" actually makes more sence then all that the Big Bang basis it`s self on.

Then I might ask, what started that fairy? How did an intelligent, all-knowing, all-powerful fairy "just come about"? Theists always say God didn't need to be created, but as mentioned above, why are they unable to believe that maybe the universe itself didn't need to be created either?


GlamourKat
GlamourKat's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
FiekertJ wrote: But Science

FiekertJ wrote:

But Science has not explained this phenomenon. Not yet, atleast. It is possible that oneday, in the future, there will be concrete scientific evidence.

You require concrete scientific evidence for quantam theories, yet you need none to believe in a deity?
Puzzled


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
GlamourKat wrote:FiekertJ

GlamourKat wrote:
FiekertJ wrote:

But Science has not explained this phenomenon. Not yet, atleast. It is possible that oneday, in the future, there will be concrete scientific evidence.

You require concrete scientific evidence for quantam theories, yet you need none to believe in a deity?
Puzzled

Nice point, I see that Insidium Profundis also touched on it as well..... how can one take something as incredible as a supernatural claim on faith, yet suddenly be a hardline skeptic on something as well supported as quantum theory?

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Look up

todangst wrote:
Look up the debates between Einstein and Neils Bohr. They centered on this topic. Basically you'll see that quantum events, like the decay of an atom, are unpredictable because they are uncaused.

 

I'm with Einstein on this one.... Quantum Theory is irrational and will be debunked.  God does not play dice.   Eye-wink

 

 

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


melchisedec
melchisedec's picture
Posts: 145
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
FiekertJ wrote: To me, a

FiekertJ wrote:
To me, a Diety (christian or not), makes more sence than: "There was a speck of cosmic dust that suddenly went Boom!"

 But if we are going to use our imaginations why limit ourselves to it either being a deity or nothing. I can conceive of a number of things such as that the universe is in itsef a being, a life. Sometimes I might get the fanciful idea when looking at a picture of a crab nebula that it could somehow be alive. Or the matrixish theory where we could be inside a being, or part of a cell of a being. I mean, you can really go on abstracting ideas on what could of 'caused' everything, but we choose to stick to the traditional anthropomorphic concepts.

 

 

 


chaospump
chaospump's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: todangst

unixrab wrote:

todangst wrote:
Look up the debates between Einstein and Neils Bohr. They centered on this topic. Basically you'll see that quantum events, like the decay of an atom, are unpredictable because they are uncaused.

I'm with Einstein on this one.... Quantum Theory is irrational and will be debunked.  God does not play dice.   Eye-wink

I guess that winkicon at the end means you realize that your Einstein reference is grossly misleading. Einstein long regretted his use of this metaphor, as he did not believe in a personal god; the type of god who might or might not "play dice."

For others who might be misled, let's clear that up right now - in his own words:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."  -Einstein

 

This was a fascinating debate, but Einstein can be said to have lost it in the 70's based on the experiments conducted by Alain Aspect et al. Look it up.

Given that the predictions of quantum theory have been verified with greater accuracy than any other than than General Relativity, and since quantum theory was crucial to the development of (for example) the monitor you are most likely viewing these posts on, cna you explain your prediction that it will be "debunked" on any other basis than your own intuition and prejudice?

All of the faith and prayer in the world

All of your dumb show and circuses

You know it's a lie, it'll always be a lie

The invention of an animal who knows he's going to die

-Randy Newman


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
chaospump wrote: chaospump

chaospump wrote:
chaospump wrote:
unixrab wrote:

todangst wrote:
Look up the debates between Einstein and Neils Bohr. They centered on this topic. Basically you'll see that quantum events, like the decay of an atom, are unpredictable because they are uncaused.

I'm with Einstein on this one.... Quantum Theory is irrational and will be debunked. God does not play dice. Eye-wink

I guess that winkicon at the end means you realize that your Einstein reference is grossly misleading. Einstein long regretted his use of this metaphor, as he did not believe in a personal god; the type of god who might or might not "play dice."

For others who might be misled, let's clear that up right now - in his own words:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly." -Einstein

No this isn't about God..or Einstein's convictions! it's about Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics (besides requiring more faith than needs to believe in a God, and besides it being quite irrational with 14 {and counting} dimensions) is just wrong. That's what Einstein was saying, regardless of his renunciation of a personal God, he never renounced his DISbelief in QM. QM is like kids trying to figure out the elegant and intricate rules of the Creator without acknowledging He exists and is smarter than they are... it's an imperfect theory that works on small objects but not stars -

 

chaospump wrote:

This was a fascinating debate, but Einstein can be said to have lost it in the 70's based on the experiments conducted by Alain Aspect et al. Look it up.

I have... I just "believe" Einstein had more insight into the Universe than anyone since. QM may work on paper or in computer models, but the universe @ large (much more observable than say..."strings&quotEye-wink contradicts QM ... blatantly.

chaospump wrote:
Given that the predictions of quantum theory have been verified with greater accuracy than any other than than General Relativity, and since quantum theory was crucial to the development of (for example) the monitor you are most likely viewing these posts on, cna you explain your prediction that it will be "debunked" on any other basis than your own intuition and prejudice?

me thinks you'll find two different camps on this one. There are others who don't buy into QM. There is a pursuit for the Unification of all the forces.....that's when QM will go out the window. It's also a prediction, granted.... but admittedly.. it is opinion (but I'm right.) Eye-wink

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
melchisedec wrote: Or the

melchisedec wrote:

Or the matrixish theory where we could be inside a being, or part of a cell of a being. 

 

The Matrix is actually an excellent analogy for Christianity.  Not "perfect" but an excellent example of how people can be born slaves to an evil system and have no way of knowing it save for those among us who have been set free.

 

I can help you unplug if you wish.   Eye-wink

 

 

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote:

unixrab wrote:
QM is like kids trying to figure out the elegant and intricate rules of the Creator without acknowledging He exists and is smarter than they are... it's an imperfect theory that works on small objects but not stars -

Oh. Your. God. Do us all a favor and stop arguing about topics of which you obviously have no knowledge. If it wasn't for QM effects, there would be no fusion in stars. Without fusion, there wouldn't be any production of carbon and oxygen, etc.


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote: Oh. Your. God.

KSMB wrote:

Oh. Your. God. Do us all a favor and stop arguing about topics of which you obviously have no knowledge. If it wasn't for QM effects, there would be no fusion in stars. Without fusion, there wouldn't be any production of carbon and oxygen, etc.

 

That's awesome.   I love your faith in QM.  ... and your alive/dead cat.

"This [interest in QM], of course, assumes that physicists will maintain their current faith in quantum mechanics as a complete description of physical reality. This is something on which I would personally bet only at even odds for the year 2100, and bet heavily against as regards the year 3000!

((~ Tony Leggett, Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801-3080, USA))

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


chaospump
chaospump's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: No this

unixrab wrote:

No this isn't about God..or Einstein's convictions! it's about Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics (besides requiring more faith than needs to believe in a God, and besides it being quite irrational with 14 {and counting} dimensions) is just wrong. That's what Einstein was saying, regardless of his renunciation of a personal God, he never renounced his DISbelief in QM. QM is like kids trying to figure out the elegant and intricate rules of the Creator without acknowledging He exists and is smarter than they are... it's an imperfect theory that works on small objects but not stars -

And yet you chose to quote the particular statement Einstein used which theists have always seized upon to present a misleading impression. Even when they know the impression is false, as you clearly do. As I said , I was just trying to prevent anyone being fooled by that quote.

unixrab wrote:

I have... I just "believe" Einstein had more insight into the Universe than anyone since. QM may work on paper or in computer models, but the universe @ large (much more observable than say..."strings&quotEye-wink contradicts QM ... blatantly.

Einstein had more insight into the universe than anyone since, you say - except where you disagree with him, eh? As in the matter of the reasonableness of believing in a personal deity?

QM does not work only "on paper or in computer models" - it produces verifiable (and verified) predictions about the real universe we live in. To dismiss it because it is a theory concerning the very small scale demonstrates a severe lack of of understanding of the concepts involved - it's like objecting to special relativity because it works for electrons, but not cannonballs.

unixrab wrote:

me thinks you'll find two different camps on this one. There are others who don't buy into QM. There is a pursuit for the Unification of all the forces.....that's when QM will go out the window. It's also a prediction, granted.... but admittedly.. it is opinion (but I'm right.) Eye-wink

Scientific debate is what keeps science growing and healthy. Unlike religious debate, it requires that competing proposed explanations of observed phenomena be submitted to the test of comparison against reality.

Unfortunately, those who are hostile toward and willfully ignorant about any part of science that conflicts with their own worldview are forever citing these healthy debates as evidence that some scientific theory is not solidly accepted by the scientific community, when that is false. Evolution gets this treatment regularly, and so do special and general relativity, and of course, QM.

 The idea of the unification of the forces is actually an idea that arose within quantum theory, and one of the goals of this unification is to fully unify quantum theory with relativity as well - not that there is any direct contradiction between them, just that each generates a set of models for talking and thinking about the universe, and these models seeem to be somewhat incompatible.

All of the faith and prayer in the world

All of your dumb show and circuses

You know it's a lie, it'll always be a lie

The invention of an animal who knows he's going to die

-Randy Newman


chaospump
chaospump's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote:That's

unixrab wrote:

That's awesome.   I love your faith in QM.  ... and your alive/dead cat.

"This [interest in QM], of course, assumes that physicists will maintain their current faith in quantum mechanics as a complete description of physical reality. This is something on which I would personally bet only at even odds for the year 2100, and bet heavily against as regards the year 3000!

((~ Tony Leggett, Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801-3080, USA))

 The nonsensical implications of Shrodinger's cat result from what I believe most theorists today see as a misconception in the thinking of earlier theorists which led them to associate some sort of quasi-mystical connection between consciousness and the measurement collapse of the quantum wavefunction. Such ideas coming from scientists who (I think) should have known better have led to all kinds of absurd and unfounded extrapolations generated by pseudo-science cranks and mystics with some metaphysical axe to grind.

But there is nothing in the Schrodinger's cat model that is essential to quantum theory, and I believe this model is becoming less and less widely accepted, if indeed the community of quantum theorists still give it any credibility at all.

 Your quote (again) seems to be presented in a misleading way - your bolding of the word faith may distract people from seeing what this questionable faith is in: that quantum mechanics is a complete (my italics)  description of physical reality.

Indeed, neither Newtonian, Einsteinian, nor Quantum mechanics present a complete description, as these theories fail to explain entropy and the arrow of time. All of these forms of mechanics are perfectly reversible, while the real world is not. This does not mean that they are not very powerful and accurate descriptions of physical reality, just that they are not "complete."

All of the faith and prayer in the world

All of your dumb show and circuses

You know it's a lie, it'll always be a lie

The invention of an animal who knows he's going to die

-Randy Newman


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: KSMB

unixrab wrote:
KSMB wrote:

Oh. Your. God. Do us all a favor and stop arguing about topics of which you obviously have no knowledge. If it wasn't for QM effects, there would be no fusion in stars. Without fusion, there wouldn't be any production of carbon and oxygen, etc.

 

That's awesome. I love your faith in QM. ... and your alive/dead cat.

This argument is so pathetic. Trying to bring a well verified scientific theory down to the theist level by claiming I have "faith" in it. As if science and religion were anything alike.


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: That's

unixrab wrote:
That's awesome. I love your faith in QM. ... and your alive/dead cat.

"This [interest in QM], of course, assumes that physicists will maintain their current faith in quantum mechanics as a complete description of physical reality. This is something on which I would personally bet only at even odds for the year 2100, and bet heavily against as regards the year 3000!

((~ Tony Leggett, Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801-3080, USA))


There's a kind of irony to Quantum Physics.
Most theories base themselves by finding an explanation for what we already know and then find evidence to support this explanation. If I understand Quantum Physics, they've got loads and loads of evidence but not clue on how to turn it into a theory.

By the by, the faith in the article wasn't faith in the truth of quantum physics but faith in the belief we'll understand it well enough to provide a complete description of complete reality.


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: No this

unixrab wrote:

No this isn't about God..or Einstein's convictions! it's about Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics (besides requiring more faith than needs to believe in a God, and besides it being quite irrational with 14 {and counting} dimensions) is just wrong.

Assertion/Proof by Incredulity.

How are additional spatial dimensions irrational? Just because they aren't big enough for us to interact with them (at least from what we see on a daily basis) doesn't make them irrational.

Some info on how we could detect them:

http://d0server1.fnal.gov/users/gll/public/edpublic.htm

I highly recommend reading Dawkin's book, especially the chapter where he talks about us interacting in the "Middle World" (I think that's how he puts it.) This led to early man having to come up with all sorts of ignorant (not in the derogatory sense, just the "lack of information" sense) explanations for the world around them that involved things on smaller (bacteria, illness) or larger (planets, stars, earthquakes) scales.