Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8739 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-01-2017 2:07 AM
413 online now:
CRR, DrJones*, NoNukes, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (5 members, 408 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminAsgara
Post Volume:
Total: 805,931 Year: 10,537/21,208 Month: 19/3,605 Week: 167/873 Day: 19/148 Hour: 0/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1314151617
18
Author Topic:   Time and Beginning to Exist
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10193
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 256 of 268 (644385)
12-17-2011 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Dr Adequate
12-17-2011 10:40 AM


Re: Objective/Subjective
2 snufflepuffs + 2 snufflepuffs equals 4 snufflepuffs.

The truth of this isn't dependent on snufflepuffs existing in any sense whatsoever. Nor is the logic in your example dependent on the existence of snufflepuffs.

So I think we can meaningfully say that these logical relationships (2+2=4 and "If ALL X are Y and ALL Y are Z Then ALL X are Z") exist without invoking any Platonic snufflepuffs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2011 10:40 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 2859
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 259 of 268 (681888)
11-28-2012 12:39 PM


Link to another Time and Beginning to Exist discussion
There's a decent discussion taking place in the thread linked below. It's in Free for All, and I just wanted to link it up to a topic where the title also leads directly to the discussion instead of just tangentially.

Also, because I want to. Maybe I want to keep an order on the board, maybe I just like things to be in an order in my head. But probably because I'm just bored.

It's about here: Message 342.
Mostly onward from there, but also backward somewhat too, I think.

The discussion I've linked to is mostly about basic physics... describing why time is a dimension in the first place, and more than just "an idea we have in our heads."

Oh yeah... that's the stuff... nothing quite like the feeling of pandering to the demands of irrational OCD


Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by kofh2u, posted 11-28-2012 4:43 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1206 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 260 of 268 (681918)
11-28-2012 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by PaulK
11-22-2011 10:21 AM


To save the argument then, we need a rigorous definition of "beginning to exist", we need to show that it is in fact true that everything that meets this definition has a cause - taking care to deal with the extreme cases - and we need to accept this definition when building on the argument.

Even if our premise was right, everything exists only because it has been observed to exist which collapsed the Wave Function that started the whole process of Cause and Effect.

This scientifically based idea futhermore requires that an initial observer, one outside of the Universe, was required to have observe the first split seconds of the Big Bang which collapsed the Wave Function of the Quantum particles that transmuted into matter.

1) The key concept of the theory, which forms a central part of the Copenhagen Interpretation, is known as the "collapse of the wave function".

2) The theory seeks to explain how an entity such as a photon, atom, or an electron, could "travel as a wave but arrive as a particle."

3) According to the interpretation, what is passing through the split experiment is not a material wave at all, but is a 'probability wave'. ....That wave merely contains the "probability" for what COULD be real.

4) Once the thing is observed, the wave function collapses and the photon, atom, and electron, or the whole world becomes a reality

5) Nothing is real until it has been observed!

6) We really are saying that in the 'real' world - even outside of the laboratory - until a thing has been observed it doesn't exist. ....But, by observing, all things materialize

7) This implies that there MUST actually be something 'outside' the universe, (God?), to look at the universe as a whole and collapse its overall wave function.....
Then, the Universe materialized and continues to so do.

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Quantum%20mechanics.htm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by PaulK, posted 11-22-2011 10:21 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-28-2012 4:45 PM kofh2u has responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1206 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 261 of 268 (681931)
11-28-2012 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Stile
11-28-2012 12:39 PM


Re: Link to another Time and Beginning to Exist discussion

leads directly to the discussion instead of just tangentially.

...oh,...
we can discuss stuf tangentially now?

tyhis is the third post that says the same thing, but the moderators kept telling me that my posts are too disracting from what the moderaters were discussing on the other threads.

I got suspended for some reason.

I think I had better keep on topic, like the post aboce, which says things only exist when we observe them.

Once something has been observed, the Wave Funtion collapses and then in the material world, Cause and Effect follows.
But this implies that God was the first Observer.
Thereafter, Cause and Effect in the material universe followed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Stile, posted 11-28-2012 12:39 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11253
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 262 of 268 (681932)
11-28-2012 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by kofh2u
11-28-2012 3:29 PM


5) Nothing is real until it has been observed!

Nonsense. That's just taking a misunderstanding of QM and running with it.

Bolwing balls do not behave like particles. They exist at a point even when nobody is observing them. Only really small things behave like probability waves that collapse upon observation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by kofh2u, posted 11-28-2012 3:29 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by kofh2u, posted 11-28-2012 8:09 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 265 by Stile, posted 11-30-2012 11:01 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1206 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 263 of 268 (681951)
11-28-2012 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by New Cat's Eye
11-28-2012 4:45 PM



Nonsense. That's just taking a misunderstanding of QM and running with it.

Bolwing balls do not behave like particles. They exist at a point even when nobody is observing them. Only really small things behave like probability waves that collapse upon observation

Hmmm...

Check out this video which uses electrons and atoms in the double slit experiments.

The spirit world of Quantum Physics

Also, the bowling balls only exist because the initial quantum particles during that first 1X10^143 sec of the Big Bang was seen by that Observer who we therefore call the Creator.

Once all matter appeared with the quantum particle wave collapse, bowling balls were merely Cause and Effect between natural phenomenon.

Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-28-2012 4:45 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-29-2012 9:58 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11253
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


(2)
Message 264 of 268 (681972)
11-29-2012 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by kofh2u
11-28-2012 8:09 PM


Check out this video...

A few things here: 1. this is a written discussion site and we don't debate by link, write it down in your own words. 2. I'm at work and don't want to be sitting here watching vidoes, but I can read and write all I want. 3. I've already seen that video.

which uses electrons and atoms in the double slit experiments.

High energy helium atoms... not bowling-ball-stuff. My point stands: QM does not apply to large massive objects.

Also, the bowling balls only exist because the initial quantum particles during that first 1X10^143 sec of the Big Bang was seen by that Observer who we therefore call the Creator.

That is simply an unevidence false assertion that I can dismiss just as easily as you made it up.

Once all matter appeared with the quantum particle wave collapse,

That's not really how it works, but regardless, not all matter would have appeared then anyways. The heavy metallic elements that are present in my bowling ball were fused within the cores of stars much much later.

bowling balls were merely Cause and Effect between natural phenomenon.

Actually, when humans create things, like bowling balls, we refer to those as artificial rather than natural. Nature doesn't make bowling balls.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by kofh2u, posted 11-28-2012 8:09 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by NoNukes, posted 11-30-2012 11:36 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 2859
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 265 of 268 (682165)
11-30-2012 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by New Cat's Eye
11-28-2012 4:45 PM


When Bowling Balls are Observed
Catholic Scientist writes:

Bolwing balls do not behave like particles. They exist at a point even when nobody is observing them. Only really small things behave like probability waves that collapse upon observation.

Would it be correct to say that the bowling balls do behave in the same way... it's just that the bowling balls are constantly being "observed" by many things. Like the air particles all around them and colliding and such, or the machine or wood they're resting on, or even all the particles of the bowling balls themselves running into each other?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-28-2012 4:45 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-30-2012 11:19 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11253
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 266 of 268 (682169)
11-30-2012 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Stile
11-30-2012 11:01 AM


Re: When Bowling Balls are Observed
Would it be correct to say that the bowling balls do behave in the same way... it's just that the bowling balls are constantly being "observed" by many things. Like the air particles all around them and colliding and such, or the machine or wood they're resting on, or even all the particles of the bowling balls themselves running into each other?

I don't think so. Large massive objects just don't exhibit that wave-like propagation. And I think the observation comes when you actually measure one of the properties of the behavior. The light still interacts with the double-slit screen, and that's why it shows the diffraction patterns, its only when we measure its position with the detector, that the wave-function collapses. ABE: sort of, but not really. You can still see the diffraction pattern of a laser on a wall being shone through a double slit, even thought there's no detector there. ABE2: I guess it after the light reflects off that wall and then gets detected by our eyeballs that the wave-function collapses.

A sufficiently large double-slit screen would never cause a bunch of bowling balls to create a diffraction pattern.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Stile, posted 11-30-2012 11:01 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9458
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 267 of 268 (682170)
11-30-2012 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by New Cat's Eye
11-29-2012 9:58 AM


QM does not apply to large massive objects.

I think QM does apply to large massive objects. QM predictions simply collapses to conventional physics as objects increase in size. For example, QM predicts that electrons can tunnel through potential barriers with an appreciable probability. QM also predicts that macroscopic objects have probabilities for tunneling through wall, but it also predicts that such probabilities are vanishingly small such that macroscopic tunneling does not occur.

kofh2u is simply mistating QM just as he mistates cosmology and every other branch of science that he attempts to mangle into agreeing with a literal reading of Genesis.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-29-2012 9:58 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-30-2012 11:51 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11253
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 268 of 268 (682173)
11-30-2012 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by NoNukes
11-30-2012 11:36 AM


QM does not apply to large massive objects.

I think QM does apply to large massive objects. QM predictions simply collapses to conventional physics as objects increase in size.

Well, yeah, you can use the equations on big stuff. It does "apply". That's some sloppy wording on my part.

I was trying to say that the funky behavior that we see from QM doesn't actually happen to big stuff.

Recall that he said that "nothing is real until it has been observed", and I was saying that bowling balls exist even when they're not observed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by NoNukes, posted 11-30-2012 11:36 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
1314151617
18
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017