Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the implications of quantum physics II
mitchellmckain
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 60
From: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Joined: 08-14-2006


Message 2 of 21 (341397)
08-19-2006 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
08-18-2006 6:18 PM


Greetings
I don't even care any more. I posted a criticism of the whole set up of this EvC forum at Message 196 with the conclusion that the whole Evolution versus Creation debate belongs in Showcase.

See my relativistic physics of space flight simimulator at Astahost.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 08-18-2006 6:18 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 08-19-2006 7:59 PM mitchellmckain has replied

mitchellmckain
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 60
From: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Joined: 08-14-2006


Message 6 of 21 (341734)
08-20-2006 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by randman
08-19-2006 7:59 PM


Re: I agree with your criticism of EvC
randman writes:
Although we agree on a lot, I'd like to throw out an idea where we may disagree and see what you think. One of the criticisms of ID as a conceptual approach is that thus far it lacks a mechanism other than indirectly looking for "design." Imo, you are quite correct to see QM as an area of interaction between the spiritual and physical, but I am not so sure that we cannot involve technology into that sphere as you are.
You are right and I fear it will be a sore one for you for I have had friends with similar hopes and they have not been happy with my opinion that what they hope to make their life work, is foolish. Another is your use of ID which includes the word "design" of which I am passionately opposed. You have not responded to the questions which I raised which I think your position requires answering in Message 22.
Why would things of the spirit be quantifiable? Doesn't our experience of love, God and other things of the spirit suggest otherwise? Why do you think the scientific method and rationalism should apply to the spiritual reality? Do you think that Christianity is deficient, that mathematics is a better language for the things of the spirit?
Edited by mitchellmckain, : dBCode reference

See my relativistic physics of space flight simimulator at Astahost.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 08-19-2006 7:59 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by randman, posted 08-20-2006 4:24 PM mitchellmckain has replied
 Message 8 by randman, posted 08-20-2006 4:30 PM mitchellmckain has replied

mitchellmckain
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 60
From: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Joined: 08-14-2006


Message 9 of 21 (341772)
08-20-2006 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by randman
08-20-2006 4:24 PM


Re: I agree with your criticism of EvC
randman writes:
I just believe, and apparently you do as well, that QM shows an interaction between the physical and the spiritual realm. .
Again let me repeat, I believe no such thing. QM merely shows a limitation to physical causality. It represents a limit to which the methods of physics can reach. There is only a hole or lack of causality in which you can see nothing or something. On faith religious people see meaning where there is no proof. Therefore religious people can fill the lack of causality in QM with a faith in non-physical causes. But they cannot use QM to produce a scientific proof of what they believe in. There is no shortcut around faith.
I rejoice in this discovery of the limits of science for it validates my experience of life that tells me that the reality of science consisting only of the quantifiable, the objectively observable and the measurable, is not a complete picture. Your hope for a scientific grasp of spiritual phenomena only tears down that clarity which keeps science from dictating the ultimate nature of reality.
randman writes:
What if we discover that consciousness is in part the result of a superluminal, or instant communication, within one's being via quantuam mechanics.
That makes no sense. No part of quantum mechanics violates the Minkowsky structure of space-time (what you call superluminal).
The communication or interaction between physical and spiritual does transend time and space and thus could conceivably be a means of comunication that disregards such limitations, but it is also submerged in a sea of randomness as well as being effected by subjective factors and so it can never be reliable. It could never be objectively verifiable. Success can always be dismissed as coincidental. This is the nature of spiritual phenomena.
randman writes:
One thing I believe the Lord shared with me is that we would see astounding technological advances in my lifetime that would shake the faith of some who held dogmatic positions.
Well that is a safe bet because scientific/technical advances does tend to do that. But no threat or fear will make me abandom my reason. When such evidence comes then I will adjust my point of view, but I no more expect this than I expect the earth to suddenly stop rotating.
randman writes:
Consider this. What if your position is that science cannot delve into certain areas, cannot delve into the world of spirit, and then when science does, there are those with a loss of faith because their view of that arena is that it was so God-controlled that man couldn't enter, and now that man has, one wonders if this God stuff was ever right in the first place or if we just called something God that we all felt, the universal, quantum connections or something else, and so a great many people could lose faith when in reality the immense advances should be a delight to the Christian, if used properly, and something to be thankful to God for and something that strengthens our faith, not disheartens it.
The truth is always better than getting carried away by fashionable enthusiasms which have no solid foundations. The increasing amount of pseudo-science will no doubt give birth to an increasing number of anti-scientific groups like the flat earthers and anti-relativists. There are already a lot of people who are half inventor and half con-man who make extravagant and fraudulent claims.
What are you expecting or hoping for: machines to measure the quality of peoples spirit so that we can usurp the position of God in judging people? pills that will make sins go away? mechanical devices to let us see and communicate with God? a telephone number for deceased loved ones? or just some proof to shove in the face of those who ridicule you? or to make that little nagging feeling of doubt go away?
randman writes:
Be a little more open-minded. God said man didn't have many limits at the tower of Babel.
There is a difference between being open minded and having an undisciplined mind. I see a whole range of documented spiritual phenomena from ghosts to ESP and spiritual healing. I have no skepticism in regards to these things because they all share the fundamental characteristics of spiritual phenomena. It is only when such things start to seem reliable that I become skeptical and expect an investigation to show that they are products of fraud. I believe in the power of the mind and spirit (on these I place no limits) and greatly criticize the narrow mindedness of Western medicine for example. But when people start talking about perpetual motion machines and other things which violate physical laws then it is no longer a matter of open-mindedness but ignorance.
Edited by mitchellmckain, : grammar

See my relativistic physics of space flight simimulator at Astahost.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by randman, posted 08-20-2006 4:24 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by randman, posted 08-20-2006 6:32 PM mitchellmckain has replied

mitchellmckain
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 60
From: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Joined: 08-14-2006


Message 11 of 21 (341787)
08-20-2006 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by randman
08-20-2006 4:30 PM


Re: I agree with your criticism of EvC
randman writes:
There is a lot more to QM than the uncertaintly principle, and I do think in many respects the uncertainty principle is eclipsed by non-locality.
Of course there is, and most of it is about predicting the results of experients like the rest of physics and none of it has anything to with any interaction between physical and spiritual. It is the difference between making careful claims that no one can argue with and making extravagant claims that simply prove your lack of understanding of the science. There is no mathematical description of anything nonlocal in physics.
randman writes:
That's true, but it suggests a source or mechanism exists, and this mechanism has definite repeatable properties, right?
No because any such repeatable mechanism would be a hidden variable and the existence of these has been disproven.
randman writes:
Why not? Energy works with different frequencies and vibrations, correct?
Well sure, or more to the point all energy in physical phenomena has a definite quantity. There is a measurable amount of energy. But this and all other aspects of quantity are a direct consequence of that energy being part of the mathematical form which is the physical universe. All these mathematical aspect are not really inherent in the energy itself but only control its relationship and function in relationship to the rest of the physical universe.
randman writes:
Because spiritual forms of energy are discrete forms in their own way. The spirit of an angel or a demon or of God or a person are not all the same. So they are measurable, and our experience tells us we measure them in fact.
NO. Discreteness and difference is not the same as measurable and measurable is not the same as real. Love is different from hope which is different from faith, but the difference is not quantifiable, numerical or measurable. To believe in the reduction of spirit to numbers and measurable quantities is disgusting to me. It is demeaning. It is no different than materialism. I might as well believe that my children are nothing but a collection of elementary particles. I do not think you see the consequences of what you are proposing. If spirit is quantifiable there is no reason to believe in it at all.
randman writes:
So I think man's experience of spiritual things suggest spiritual energy has different forms, is recongnizable, and so theoretically could be discerned technologicially, or parts of it could.
Of course all energy has different forms. That is what energy does - what energy is for. But this has nothing to do with quantifiability or measurability. In order to be discerned technologically there would have to be un unbroken chain of absolutely deterministic causality between the detector and what is detected, which would either put all of spirituality under the rule of deterministic causality or simply redefine what you think is spiritual. It would not prove that spirituality is real but just the opposite. It would prove that what people thought was spiritual has a materialistic cause after all.
randman writes:
But the question was on the human will?
I also told you that living things were an exception. But the only gap in the chain of deterministic causality is found in quantum mechanics. It is the nonlinear mathematics of far from equillibrium systems like living organisms that can amplify such uncaused events to effect large scale phenomena.
randman writes:
It's God's power holding things together. They cannot and do not self-exist.
Well I think you are confused about the meaning of "self-exist" for this only means uncaused. Only God self-exists. All other things are created. But it would limit God in the extreme if He could not create anything that would not fall apart the moment He turns His attention from it or stops supporting it. Even human beings can create persisting works and automation. If a man stands in front of you holding up beams and panels and says I have finished building your shed, will you pay him? If you say that God cannot create things which do not require Him to sustain them then I think you deny His power of true creation and all you are allowing Him is imagination. This is not only extremely repugnant but it is not in the least bit Christian. It is pantheism. If God cannot create things with independent and autonomous existence then all He can create are no different than figments of His own imagination and everything is merely parts of God Himself.
No one is suggesting that there is any natural law that is not a creation of God. But the commonality which I was seeing (hoping to see?) between us is this idea that spiritual existence is not just ruled by the whim of God but by a rule of law, purpose, and meaning that operates autonomously. That the commandments of God all have reasons behind them.
randman writes:
If God says you jump off of this building, and you die, and you do it and die. God in a sense killed you because He didn't break the laws of gravity to save you.
Children think like this, but it is wrong. For example suppose your son has no drivers licence yet, so you refuse to let him drive your car, so he blaims you for standing up his girlfriend. By this kind of logic God is responsible for every evil and I deny this. God like any parent makes rules for a reason and the refusal to break those rules does not make them responsible for the consequences of not taking those rules seriously.
randman writes:
Suffice to say, God's love is permanent and unchanging, and the more emotional depictions of wrath or whatever are real, true, and valid, but perhaps a more limited yet very important perspective on God since there is a sense of God as a force that won't change, and so we do need to fear God in that sense. God won't break the rules or lie to save us. He will be just regardless of His love for us.
Exactly. Punishment is for the purpose of behavior modification. Eternal punishment is therefore nonsensical. Eternal consequences, however, are only natural, for without them our choices ultimately have no meaning or at least none of our choices have any significant seriousness.
randman writes:
What I am referring to are things like the principle of sowing and reaping. It suggests a mechanism within creation that affects the physical out of the spiritual. The math that suggests extra dimensions to make the data work, imo, is math already quantifying the existence of spiritual realms.
But reaping what you sow is not a mathematical truth and that is why atheists can come up with an endless list of counterexamples. Spirtual truths are not objectively testable. A evil man will ask someone for a kindness in order return the favor with robbery, rape or murder, and such evil men are not always caught. We must have faith that it is true in spite of such evidence that it is false. This is always the nature of spiritual things so it is obvious that there is no mathematical mechanism involved. Expectations of mathematically just reward is repudiated in the Bible. "Those who are first shall be last and those who are last shall be first."
randman writes:
Another way to say it is that the wave-function describes the particle's physical and non-physical state, and the physical is the secondary or derived state.
Of course I utterly deny this. I think it is terribly confused. The wave function and particle is pure physics, they have no spiritual aspect. Only in very special phenomenon like living things is there any spiritual element involved and sure there is a definite sense in which the spiritual is real thing, for the physical part is really just a bunch of elementary particles behaving according to mathematical laws but the spirit IS NOT. The spirit is given form not by any deterministic mathematical laws. It is given form by the choices the living organism has made. The deformed freak in the circus is not really the material form which you can see and which repells you but the kindnesses that he has done for others, for they are what has given his spirit form and make him who and what he truly is.
Edited by mitchellmckain, : mistakes
Edited by mitchellmckain, : No reason given.

See my relativistic physics of space flight simimulator at Astahost.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by randman, posted 08-20-2006 4:30 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 08-20-2006 8:34 PM mitchellmckain has replied
 Message 15 by randman, posted 08-21-2006 12:05 AM mitchellmckain has not replied

mitchellmckain
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 60
From: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Joined: 08-14-2006


Message 13 of 21 (341804)
08-20-2006 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by AnswersInGenitals
08-20-2006 8:34 PM


Re: Mathematics of the nonlocal
Answers writes:
Bell's inequality describes nonlocal phenomena and has been quantitatively tested. Also, Newton's theory of gravity is both quantitative and nonlocal. In fact, his own criticism of his theory was its 'action at a distance' aspect, which Einstein was parodying with his 'spooky action at a distance' remark.
It does no such thing. Bell's inequality is a mathematical relation which must hold in a collection of the simultaneous measurement of a both particles sharing the same wave function assuming that reality is local and that there are hidden variables which determine the outcome of the measurements. Experimental tests of this show, however, that Bell's inequality is not obeyed, forcing us to conclude that one or more of the premises from which Bell's inequality was derived is incorrect. So either there are no hidden variables (and thus determinsm is dead) or the understanding of reality in physics as local is incomplete, or both. There are are many solutions including the idea that reality is nonlocal but there is absolutely no proof that reality is non-local. Furthermore this idea that reality is nonlocal not only has no verifiable mathematical description, but this solution is utterly unacceptible to the physics community, and so a solution that presumes that reality is non-local cannot be called a physics solution.
So the only definite conclusion of the failure of the experiments to uphold Bell's inequality is that there are no hidden variables to explain quantum mechanics and that determinism in physics is dead. There are means to preserve determinism outside the local realism of physics such as in Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation. At least this MWI preserves mathematical determinism and continuity, although what are percieved of as event by observers are just as lacking in deterministic causes from their point of view.
Newtonian gravity mathematically models a very limited range of physical phenomena and it does explain anything. The action at a distance which you describe has been proven to be one of the things in Newtonian gravity which is wrong. Locality was only given a mathematical definition by the special theory of relativity and no one in the physics community has any doubt of this theory. Only nut-cases like Flat Earthers and Trekkies insist on stubbornly refusing to bow to the overwhelming evidence for the Special Theory of Relativity.

See my relativistic physics of space flight simimulator at Astahost.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 08-20-2006 8:34 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

mitchellmckain
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 60
From: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Joined: 08-14-2006


Message 14 of 21 (341837)
08-20-2006 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by randman
08-20-2006 6:32 PM


Re: motives
randman writes:
It's just that science appears to be at the threshold of investigating the spiritual aspect of the framework of reality.
What are talking about? Science is not on the threshold of any such thing. This is your imagination.
randman writes:
I don't see this at all. QM is used in applied technology. It's not a hole that has to be filled with nothing or faith, but a description of working principles which we can harness to do amazing things, and we are already harnessing the principles and effects of QM.
But QM has nothing to do with spirituality. It is physics plain and simple. It is already doing all the things you say. Quantum physics is not new. All the new technology of the last eighty years is based on QM. The scientific and technological developments have accelerated beyond anyones wildest dreams. And none of it has anything to do with spirituality or ever will. This expectation is a product of your misunderstanding.
What has proceeded much more slowly is the understanding and realization of the philosophical consequences of QM. Partly because of resistance to QM within the physics community itself.
randman writes:
The way I look at is I don't need to invent an artificial boundary or assert a boundary to know science is limited. Science is limited by technology and by man's perceptive abilities, and that's enough right there to tell you it's very, very limited. Trying to draw a line saying science can investigate this, but not that, is going to lead to an error in some respects. I hear what you are saying in reacting to people that erroneously think scientific conclusions are valid in areas where they are not. Science indeed is misused in that regard, but think of it this way.
I can see that you do not understand but I do not know how to remedy it. The funny thing is that your reluctance is so similar to the reluctance of physicist to accept what QM is saying. Except that you don't understand QM at all.
It is not I that draw such a boundary it is QM. Einsein could not accept this either. He thought that physics could provide all the answers and he refused to believe what QM was saying, because QM was saying that physics could not provide the answers. Not because of any limitation in human technology or understanding, but because according to QM the answers are not even there. That is what QM is saying that is so significant. It is saying there is no reason at all why some things do what they do!
I don't believe what QM is saying because I deny that the description of reality in physics is complete. All physics does is discover the mathematical relationship between measurable quantities. If you believe that everything can be described in this way then you have no choice but to believe what QM is saying, that there are ultimately no reasons why some things do what they do.
It is so weird that you are all excited by QM and all the while you are really repudiating what it says because you misunderstand what it is saying. If you keep doing this then like so many non-scientists you are using quantum physics as a magical word for the purposes of rhetoric without understanding anything about it.
randman writes:
If your doctrine is science can never investigate aspects of spiritual things, then what if science does investigate those things but calls them by another name?
What if there is no spirituality? What if there is no God? What if this life is all there is? Do you think I have not been asked these questions before? The crazy thing is that you are asking me these same questions and you do not even know it.
randman writes:
Suppose science can create a conscious mind via quantum computers harnessing principles taken out of the extra dimensions formerly known as spiritual?
Oh but I think this is very possible. I even know how. It doesn't have anything to do with extra dimensions. It doesn't have anything to do with any scientific investiagion of the spiritual. You cannot do it like you are thinking. Consciousness is life. It is a very specific process and I know what that process is. The method is the same as God's method. But before you go any further you should read Mary Shelly's book, "Frankenstein" and tell me what you have learned from it.
randman writes:
Are we going to say that since man did this, God could not have done it by spiritual means since the 2 are separate?
Huh?
randman writes:
Say what you want, but non-locality does from our perspective.
I am not sure you know what locality is. Ok let me test your understanding. Consider this. A black marble and white marble are placed in two boxes by some random process that nobody sees. The boxes are then separated by a distance of light years. In both locations nobody know which marble is in the box they have, it could be either one an equal probility of black or white. But now one of the boxes is opened and found to contain white. This intantly changes the probabilities of finding either color of marble light years away. Is that correct? Is this a nonlocal phenomenon? Can you explain why this is not a case of non-locality and can you explain what difference QM would make in this situaltion?
randman writes:
That knowledge is essentially superluminal from our perspective.
No two points on the earth requires more than a twentieth of a second for light to travel from one to the other so I am afraid this is a very poor example. Besides I have already said I have no doubt any such thing. But all attempts to make objective measurements of this have failed. Why?
randman writes:
What's the point of a question like that?
The point is to figure out what aspect of spirituality it is that you think isn't spiritual. Because as I explained before that is all any scientific investigation of the spiritual could possibly succeed in proving.
randman writes:
Btw, maybe you can help me with this? When a wave-function (a particle) collapses to a state, where does the energy come from if the particle is in an indeterminate state. Also, the change from either a superpositional state or an indetermined state, whichever is the right view, is an informational response. The response is based on the inquiry, correct? What sort of energy can react seemingly knowingly to the response? What's going on here?
Where does what energy come from? What kind of superposition state? The collapse of the wave is the result of an interaction - a disturbance of the wave that occurs in the process of getting that information. The information only exists because the interaction destroys the superposition state. There is nothing conscious about the behavior of wave or particle.

See my relativistic physics of space flight simimulator at Astahost.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by randman, posted 08-20-2006 6:32 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 08-21-2006 12:49 AM mitchellmckain has replied

mitchellmckain
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 60
From: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Joined: 08-14-2006


Message 17 of 21 (341851)
08-21-2006 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by randman
08-21-2006 12:49 AM


Re: Maybe back some things up....?
I am quickly coming to the conclusion that communication between us is nearly impossible. We just do not seem to speak the same language. Just because I am willing to step away from the physics and enter into a philosophical or theological discussion does not mean I am willing to confuse the science with the philosophy or the theology.
I am not like you at all. You look at descriptions of physics and see spiritual truths there, I do not. I am a physicist and I see the physics as part of a larger pattern, but I do not see any spiritual truths in the physics itself.
You use the terms of science but I do not think that you understand what the words really mean to the scientist. Take the word "dimensions", for example. Dimensions refers to the difference between a piece of paper and box. A piece of paper is large in only two dimension while the box is large in three dimensions. The physical world is large in four dimension and very small in another 6 or 7 dimensions (depending on how you look at it). You see this as having something to do with a spiritual reality and I do not.
I have tried to explain the significance of quantum mechanics to you and I must admit failure. I think you can only see your spiritual truths in QM so you cannot understand what it is saying in physics at all.
randman writes:
Now, even if one thinks that is what is happening, delayed-choice experiments have shown it is not the physical interaction of measuring the photon that causes the collapse because they have shown that even if it is determined after the photon has travelled it's path, what path the photon took, that the photon still collapses. So "the mere threat" or the potential for obtaining information causes the collapse.
Have you read of these experiments?
I have not only read them I studied the mathematics while working on my masters degree in physics.
The Wheeler's delayed choice experiment simply means that it is the detection method which determines the result. It is the detection process which disturbes and collapses the wave. The fact that a choice of method is made after the light has passed through the two slits is irrelevant. It absurd to think that the detection method changes what happens at the two slits anyway. The detection method only changes how the wave is modified by the detectors when it detects the wave. The whole point of this experiment is to show that you cannot think of the photon as a particle which passes through one slit or the other no matter what detection method you use. In other words, even though the telescope detection method makes it seem like the light is really a particle that goes through one slit or the other, it is not true at all. It is the telescopes themselves that are collapsing the wave to make it seem like this.
In the Mandel experiment, it is blocking an idler path which changes the results. It is no mere threat that changes the results but the actual change to some portion of the light path which collapses the wave function and changes the results. It is not the threat, of determining the route which the photon has taken, which changes the result. It is only that the change, wrought by disturbing the path of the light, is consistent with the fact that you can now calculate which path the photon has taken. For if you can make such a calculation you have changed how the light interacts with the system, modifying the wave so that it behaves in a manner that is consistent with what you can calculate. In other words it is not the knowledge of the observer (or threat of such knowledge) that changes the result, it is the other way around. It is the change of the wave function which makes the knowledge possible. Physicists implicitly know that this is the case, but that does not prevent them from exploiting the apparent paradox to make their work seem more interesting.
You can say that information destroys the pattern but that is because the information is not seperate from the wave function. The information exists because the wave function has changed.
Edited by mitchellmckain, : db code error and restatement of conclusion
Edited by mitchellmckain, : No reason given.

See my relativistic physics of space flight simimulator at Astahost.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 08-21-2006 12:49 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by randman, posted 08-21-2006 5:05 AM mitchellmckain has replied

mitchellmckain
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 60
From: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Joined: 08-14-2006


Message 20 of 21 (341860)
08-21-2006 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by randman
08-21-2006 5:05 AM


Re: the physics then..
randman writes:
Now, admittedly there is a lot of controversy, but there is no reason to act like where I am coming from on this is outside the mainstream or not under consideration of quantum physicists, at least in terms of the science. We ought to be able to have a good discussion, but it seems you are bent on just saying, well, you're wrong, and that doesn't go very far....?
Well it appears that you can look like you know what you are talking about, but in your previous posts it did not appear so to me at all. It seem there are issues upon which we disagree, that are fundamental enough to make discussion very difficult. What you say in regards to spirituality makes absolutely no sense to me and I have been unable to explain things to you either. Sure there are funny things going on in quantum mechanics and a great deal of controversy but the conclusion you are drawing from this are not intelligible to me. I just don't know where to go from there.

See my relativistic physics of space flight simimulator at Astahost.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by randman, posted 08-21-2006 5:05 AM randman has not replied

mitchellmckain
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 60
From: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Joined: 08-14-2006


Message 21 of 21 (341864)
08-21-2006 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by randman
08-21-2006 12:49 AM


Trying....
randman writes:
Maybe I do. Maybe I don't. Why don't you explain some of your statements such as the one above?
I can't even try anymore because I have lost faith that it will do any good. I am just repeating myself. You don't agree, and I don't agree with you.
randman writes:
But all "spiritual" means is a word denoting an invisible realm with certain qualities and principles.
But the defining qualities and priciples which I see are not those which you see. Too bad really, because I think mine lead to a reconcilliation of science and religion and explains a great many things. No its not Biblical. But I don't see anything Biblical in what you are saying either.
randman writes:
You think there some sort of knowledge wave travelling to our intuition at light speed or something?
No, the point was simply that, I do not see how you could possibly know if you are getting such messages in less that 1/20 of a second in order to justify calling them super-luminal. It seems just like a fantasy of yours to call it super-luminal.
randman writes:
If you have no doubt, then why not discuss it's ramifications. Moreover, the second part is wrong. They have that black box over at Oxford, I believe, that appears to make predictions or to show a coorealation between large events and it's code. Maybe someone that knows more about it can tell us the deal on it, but it's been in the news sometimes, especially a few years ago.
Because I don't think there are any ramifications, certainly not in regards to science and technology. Besides believing that something can occur and believing that such things are of value are two different things. I have no such communication experiences so the possibility does not mean much to me, and I have other things to do which are more important to me that exploring these experiences.
randman writes:
Couple of questions. There are plenty of quantum physicists that don't see the wave-function as either a wave or a particle, but exists in an undetermined state.
But what you talk about seeing it as, is just a visualization of the mathematical representation, and we call that mathematical representation a wave function. This wave function represents this undetermined state. Its change and motion in time is given by the Schrodinger wave equation, so it is natural to call it a wave and that is what I mean, not a classical wave of any kind.
Edited by mitchellmckain, : addition
Edited by mitchellmckain, : addition

See my relativistic physics of space flight simimulator at Astahost.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 08-21-2006 12:49 AM randman 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