Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,923 Year: 4,180/9,624 Month: 1,051/974 Week: 10/368 Day: 10/11 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the underlying assumptions rig the debate
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 107 of 246 (323016)
06-18-2006 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by randman
06-18-2006 6:36 PM


Re: you deny wave/partical duality then?
Actually Wheeler says quantum phenomena are neither waves nor particles but are intrinsically undefined until the moment they are measured.
Hi Randman, I don't know that we have had any exchanges here. I am relatively new to this forum.
The last line of your post which I have quoted above, also captures my understanding of one of the quantums implications. Not that my understanding is anything other than casual and intuitive. I am not a mathematician, nor a physicist.
When speaking of the characteristic of definitions being defined by an observer, wanted to ask if you had noticed simmilarity between light and truth?
I have personally found the simmilarities to be startling!
We need not agree, but I would like your thoughts. If you are so inclined feel free to read an unpublished article of mine on the subject posted in the following thread. http://EvC Forum: What are you? EvC poll -->EvC Forum: What are you? EvC poll

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by randman, posted 06-18-2006 6:36 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by randman, posted 06-18-2006 8:07 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 116 of 246 (323045)
06-18-2006 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by randman
06-18-2006 8:07 PM


Re: you deny wave/partical duality then?
Good to know I'm not alone at least potentially. My paper may be very rough and not well spoken, but it sounds like you'll understand the points...
For the record, my definition of Dualism vs Monism in regard to that paper is of the good and evil forces kind, not the natural and supernatural per se (but even then they are liked in my mind).
Any criticism or commentary is welcome, Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by randman, posted 06-18-2006 8:07 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by randman, posted 06-18-2006 9:14 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 122 of 246 (323054)
06-18-2006 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by randman
06-18-2006 9:14 PM


Re: you deny wave/partical duality then?
It's a long paper. Read half of it, but may need to wait to finish it. I do think careful consideration of this area is warranted and agree with some things you are saying.
I think it is a profound point irrespective of how well I have personally presented it. I tried to bring several points into play and was attempting to make it an evangelical piece. It need not be...
Sorry about the length, but I encourage you to work through it at your convenience. http://EvC Forum: What are you? EvC poll -->EvC Forum: What are you? EvC poll
And that is only half the story...
There are some other things in the quantum that I sense lend credence to the plausibility of the miracles spoke of in Biblical scripture. Now this is well out of my league to speak of, but I am suprised at the typical resistance to all of the ideas in question.
If true (and I think so) it would be true divine revelation and the best news in the world. I guess most people are looking to prove the status quo, and not so much of the truth.
By the way... the truth whatever it turns out to be would be utterly astonishing! I say that in light of the fact that so many pretend not to know more than they do, and assume such reality to be out of our reach.
In that sense, they're underlying assumptions rig the debate...
Thank you for your response...
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by randman, posted 06-18-2006 9:14 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by randman, posted 06-18-2006 10:46 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 125 by randman, posted 06-18-2006 11:11 PM Rob has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024