Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9049 total)
96 online now:
anglagard, LamarkNewAge, nwr, xongsmith (4 members, 92 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Upcoming Birthdays: Coragyps, DrJones*
Post Volume: Total: 887,670 Year: 5,316/14,102 Month: 237/677 Week: 42/54 Day: 25/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Sudden Dawn of the Cosmos and the Constancy of Physical Laws
Christian7
Member
Posts: 627
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 211 of 244 (888533)
09-20-2021 10:18 AM


Request for reconciliation of beliefs and recommendation of books
I have not by this time learned new things, whereby my disputing may cast down every claim of yours by knowledge, but I have increased the knowledge of science within me, through the reading of the theory you affirm, which though it intrigues me, I do not believe, by reason of my faith in the Word of God.

But I ask you this: if they agree: if you can somehow show they agree for my sake, that I may believe the word of God, and yet not disbelieve science. But if it is clear that they disagree, then the word of God, in that my faith will remain.

Forgive these words and the voice about them, for by practice at this time I seek the power of voice, through the choosing and arranging of feet with rhythm and concord, not as though I had not by ear done it many times, and not as though my ear is with no part in it.

I ask you also, although to further my knowledge of logic, already have I begun, what books would supply my mind with clearer thinking. For many books I have read on style, but none on how to think.

Thank you.


Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by PaulK, posted 09-20-2021 1:29 PM Christian7 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20334
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 212 of 244 (888535)
09-20-2021 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Christian7
09-18-2021 8:33 PM


Re: gobbledygook
Christian7 writes:

The evidence shows no such thing. It simply shows that mental states may correspond to physical brain states. It does not show that mental states are themselves physical, or are the same as brain states.

I assume by mental state that you're referring to the mind. Why do you say the mind isn't physical? There cannot be a mind without a brain, so the mind must be part of the natural world.

quote:
That's right. The universe seems to operate quite well without us and our perceptions. It did so quite productively for the first 13.97 billion years before producing us.

Was it able to defy logic before we existed?

I'm sure no one can guess why you have this weird idea that the laws of the universe were different before we were around. If you have evidence for this then please present it.

No. I was saying this: What your mind after death will be is what your living brain should produce if materialism is true. It would have no mind, just chemicals.

You've just said it: if there's no brain then there's no mind. The mind is just an emergent property of the brain, not an independent entity that can exist on it's own.

But all models of higher levels must depend on models of the lower levels for the emergence of systems in the higher level, and there is no way that sentience emerges from biological, chemical, or quantum mechanical processes.

Can you name anything sentient that isn't part of the natural world?

For all biological processes are chemical processes, and all chemical processes are quantum mechanical processes, just as all electronic devices are not merely made of components, but the things that constitute those components. At the lowest level, everything is just energy, pure physical energy. Anything that emerges, emerges from the interaction of the energy. What we see as a house, is not a house without our minds. So how can our minds be minds without our minds?

Do you have an automatic gibberish generator?

There can be no mind without a brain. Many people view the brain as the biological underpinning of the mind, the highways and byways that the electrical impulses of the mind travel. But they're both very much a part of the natural world.

quote:
Of course the camera records the light just like the eye. The frequency is the same. The camera is made to react only by recording that frequency in its memory. We biologicals have a much greater range of reactions we can exercise.

So what? They're still all physical objects moving around and changing states in space. There is nothing qualitative about it. They are purely quantitative, (not sure if I used that term correctly).

Since you use most terms incorrectly, the odds are that once again you used a term (multiple terms, more likely) incorrectly.

I haven't seen a comment from you about it yet, but your manner of expression is so foreign to how English is normally expressed that I'm becoming more and more convinced that you think in some foreign language, perhaps even discuss this very topic on some foreign language discussion board, and then translate your ideas in literal fashion into English where, because the translation is literal and not informed by the nuances that skilled translators take into account, it makes no sense.

But I'm betting that even in your native language your ideas sound pretty strange.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 8:33 PM Christian7 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Christian7, posted 09-20-2021 11:15 AM Percy has responded

  
Christian7
Member
Posts: 627
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 213 of 244 (888536)
09-20-2021 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Percy
09-20-2021 10:44 AM


Re: gobbledygook
Are you confident about all that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Percy, posted 09-20-2021 10:44 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Percy, posted 09-21-2021 10:51 AM Christian7 has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19260
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 214 of 244 (888537)
09-20-2021 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Christian7
09-16-2021 6:14 PM


Re: Actual Big Bang Theory
Christian7 writes:

Is not science dependable, in so far as it is done properly, because it draws right conclusions concerning the physical world, which, for some reason, continues from the beginning and still continues, according the the Laws that govern it?


Sure.

Christian7 writes:

But, by what power, or by what governor, do these laws subsist?


It doesn't matter. Whether your car is gasoline or electric, you drive it the same.

Christian7 writes:

Is it not God, who said that Jesus is "upholding all things by the word of his power."


It doesn't matter. It could be Quetzalcoatl or it could be Zeus. What matters is the laws themselves. As long as we know WHAT they are, we don't need to know "where they came from".

Christian7 writes:

If it is not God, then by what or under what does the universe subsist, in which or in whom you can trust?


You have it backwards. If the laws were created by an all-powerful God, what's to prevent him from changing the laws at his whim? How could we trust them?

Christian7 writes:

And if you trust in it, then you trust not in science anymore, but have faith in that thing or being which causes the universe to move.


No. We can NOT trust in a God who was the power to arbitrarily change the laws. We trust the laws themselves only because we do not observe them changing. Ifr they did change, we would change our use of them.

Christian7 writes:

And if nothing causes the universe to move, but the universe moves itself, then you trust in the universe, and have faith in it.


No. We do NOT have "faith" in the universe. We only react to what we see it doing. If its behavior changed, we would change our reaction. We have no more "faith" in it than we have in the direction that a baseball will bounce on the field. We can only react to what it actually DOES.

Christian7 writes:

Without trust their is no certainty. And without certainty there is no knowledge. For knowledge is certainty of truth.


See above. You can NOT be certain of a God who has the power to change "the truth".

"I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!"
-- Lucky Ned Pepper

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Christian7, posted 09-16-2021 6:14 PM Christian7 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20334
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 215 of 244 (888539)
09-20-2021 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Christian7
09-18-2021 11:07 PM


Christian7 writes:

Tell me, how is it, that when nothing was, there appeared physical things with physical laws.

You continue to repeatedly go over old ground. Nothing has changed that should cause you to expect a different answer. The answer is still the same: we don't know. And you'll probably repeat the same mistake, replacing "we don't know" with "God did it."

Without cause, objects emerged out of nowhere,...

This may be a language problem, but "objects," in the way the word is normally used, did not emerge out of nowhere during the Big Bang. A quark plasma somehow formed extremely rapidly.

...and not without cause they went through many eras.

You're trying to say the universe evolved.

There was no cause for the beginning, why should there be any cause for the end, even one to occur in a moment? If nothing was, and the world appeared, in a non-casual event, why do we limit non-casual events to the appearance of virtual particles?

A better question is how many times things have to be described to you before you get them right? We've described for you several things for which we're not aware at this time of any cause, such as the Big Bang, virtual particles, nuclear decay, and the observed spin property of an entangled particle. There may be others. Son Goku is the current resident physics expert.

Should not we fear the occurrence of destruction, happening without a cause?

If you're the type of person who fears things you don't even know exist let alone be able to do anything about then sure, go ahead, fear them.

And if nothing was, no potential was, and no potential for events, even those which are non-causal, nor is there anything of nothing that is sayable which contradicts its nothingness.

Do even you know what this means?

I guess you should be congratulated on your invulnerability to feedback. Most people when told they're not clear or have language issues would make an effort to improve, but not you. Your contributions in this thread have as high a babble content now as they did in the beginning, maybe higher.

For if no potential was, then no certainty that nothing should form could not have been, for there was no such polarity. Nothing is nothing, the absence of all things, where there is no distinction, thus no contradiction to its own lack of power to bring forth. In nothing, there is no power. Without power, there is no action. Without action, there is no emergence. Without emergence, there is no thing. Without things, there is nothing.

I think you've pegged the gibberish meter with this one.

Nothing is not a vacuum which nature abhors, as though nature had a mind or even existed.

Even in a total vacuum virtual particles continually flit in and out of existence.

You believe in oblivion after death. Will your mind rise again without cause, while you are nothing?

After death the brain will not spontaneously return to life - that would be an extreme violation of entropy. And without the brain there can be no mind.

Why is it that a mind was not first formed? Why is it that no non-physical things were formed?

I've got my own ponderings, like, "Why does Christian express himself using impenetrable language?"

It would help if you could be explicit about what a "non-physical thing" is. I've made the operating assumption that you mean things not within the natural universe, but it would help the discussion if you could confirm that, or if it's incorrect if you could explain what you do mean by a "non-physical thing."

Why should the universe be so organized, and have such levels of function, among so many objects in our universe, commonly? Is this truly all an accident?

If you see a guiding hand somewhere (not one that you make up in your head but one that you and everyone else can actually see) then please let us know.

In nothing is not the absence of absence, otherwise nothing is not nothing.

More gibberish. I'll guess that you meant, "Nothing cannot be the absence of absence, otherwise nothing is not nothing." Congratulations on another tautology. Yes, we all agree, nothing isn't something.

But if it were so,...

You're seriously postulating if nothing is something? Really? Spectacular!

...then the absence of the absence of purpose would be in nothing.

Since the "absence of absence" is the same as "presence," what you've actually said is, "The presence of purpose is in nothing." I still think you'd do much better as a mystic than you're doing here.

Therefore, would there not be purpose to the universe, according to your physical models?

You put a question mark on the end. Are you seriously asking us whether we think the senseless statements you've strung together lead to any rational conclusions? If you're really asking then speaking just for myself, no, you've said almost nothing during this entire discussion that has any rational interpretation.

Would there not be everything, then, if in nothing is not even nothing? Nothing is not a thing, it is the absence of all things. We impose linguistic obligations on the concept of nothing, for nothing is not an individual. There is no logic in nothing. There is no math in nothing. There is no reality in nothing.

When there is nothing, there is no reality. Therefore there will never be anything. For without reality there is no action, truth, potential, behavior, or anything. Thus, the concept of a causeless event where there is nothing is absurd. Where there is nothing, there is no reality, and where there is no reality, there is no event.

Wow, the gibberish just goes on and on. I agree with AZPaul3's assessment: "The rest of your post is just drivel."

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typos.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 11:07 PM Christian7 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-20-2021 1:58 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20334
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 216 of 244 (888542)
09-20-2021 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Christian7
09-19-2021 11:18 AM


Re: Another YAWN topic
Christian7 writes:

God doesn't change His mind.

Here's just one example of God changing his mind from Numbers 14:12-19, I've trimmed it down to the essentials:

God:I will strike them down with a plague and destroy them.
Moses:Forgive the sin of these people.
God:I have forgiven them.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Christian7, posted 09-19-2021 11:18 AM Christian7 has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17009
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 217 of 244 (888543)
09-20-2021 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Christian7
09-20-2021 10:18 AM


Re: Request for reconciliation of beliefs and recommendation of books
quote:
I have not by this time learned new things, whereby my disputing may cast down every claim of yours by knowledge, but I have increased the knowledge of science within me, through the reading of the theory you affirm, which though it intrigues me, I do not believe, by reason of my faith in the Word of God.

No, your faith is in men who tell you that the Genesis stories are the word of God and tell you that God meant them literally - and who try to gloss over the disagreements (have you noticed how the story starting in Genesis 2 portrays a much smaller God, than Genesis 1, that it’s much more like a pagan myth?).

I don’t think those men are worthy of such trust.

quote:
But I ask you this: if they agree: if you can somehow show they agree for my sake, that I may believe the word of God, and yet not disbelieve science. But if it is clear that they disagree, then the word of God, in that my faith will remain.

If you insist that the Genesis stories are literally true then they do not agree well with science. There are concordists around who try to find agreement but if you want to speak to them I think you should try elsewhere - like the Peaceful Science forum.

Or perhaps Kenneth Miller’s book Finding Darwin’s God might be of interest (although I haven’t read it)

quote:
I ask you also, although to further my knowledge of logic, already have I begun, what books would supply my mind with clearer thinking. For many books I have read on style, but none on how to think.

I would suggest that the first thing to do is to explain your points. Quoting a Few Bible verses without any explanation, for instance, is not good for anyone - and when you seem unable to explain when asked, I’d say you have a problem.

I think your problem is that you put conclusions first, and your thinking is just attempting to find excuses to dismiss anything that threatens them. That is no way to understand or to find the truth.

Start with the facts - and make sure that they are actual facts - before coming to conclusions.

For instance it’s a fact that not one book of the Bible explicitly claims to be the Word of God. You’ll find that some books have God speaking as a character in the story and some books have messages that are claimed to come from God. But always there is more to the text which makes no such claim. Think about that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Christian7, posted 09-20-2021 10:18 AM Christian7 has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2583
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 218 of 244 (888546)
09-20-2021 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Percy
09-20-2021 12:35 PM


Wow, the gibberish just goes on and on. I agree with AZPaul3's assessment: "The rest of your post is just drivel."

I have tried reading C7's gibberish out loud and recording it with my phone and then playing it back. It's quite funny, especially if it's all just strung together. It brought back memories of sitting in church when I was a kid, listening to the preacher preach, and it seemed as nonsensical to me then as this gibberish, but really similar. I remember watching the adults around me and wondering why they weren't laughing. Funny, I hadn't thought about that in a long time.

C7 really does sound like a non-English speaker.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Percy, posted 09-20-2021 12:35 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20334
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 219 of 244 (888547)
09-20-2021 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by AZPaul3
09-19-2021 1:05 PM


AZPaul3 writes:

One non-cause theory is that the universe sprang from random alignments/collisions between mulitverses.

Then brane collisions, or interaction among multiverses, would be the cause, would it not?

Yes, no, maybe, was quantum uncertainty involved, I don't know. Writing for Christian7 is confusing.

We may not know the cause. We'll have to go find it, but there is one there, somewhere. In the mean time our best response is to admit ignorance and study harder.

This sounds a lot like those who reject quantum uncertainty and believe that there's a yet undiscovered deeper reality causing quantum behavior. But yes, if the Big Bang is the result of a causal chain of events then it has a cause. But if the Big Bang is a result of quantum uncertainty then it doesn't have a cause. Or is quantum uncertainty a cause (more on that next)? And there are other possibilities. I don't think we know if the Big Bang has a cause.

I guess it could be argued that things like virtual particles and wave function collapse and which slit a particle chooses and so forth are caused by quantum uncertainty. To me quantum uncertainty can't be a cause, but others might feel differently. I just can't see it though. If someone asked, "What caused the electron to choose the left slit?" and it was answered with, "Quantum uncertainty," my feeling would be that that is no answer at all.

I don't think, philosophically, that anything about this universe is un-caused. We're just too ignorant of how this place operates to have figured it out, yet.

Rather than put these things in the 'un-caused' bin I prefer to leave them in the 'ignorance' bin for a few more centuries to see what happens.

I hope I never implied that I've concluded the Big Bang was uncaused. If I did it was inadvertent. I've said and will continue to say that we don't know.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

Edited by Percy, : Grammar again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by AZPaul3, posted 09-19-2021 1:05 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by AZPaul3, posted 09-20-2021 4:45 PM Percy has responded

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2199
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 220 of 244 (888548)
09-20-2021 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Christian7
09-18-2021 8:33 PM


Re: gobbledygook
Christian7 writes:

... there is no way that sentience emerges from biological, chemical, or quantum mechanical processes.

I think you are only saying this because you yourself don't see a way how this could happen. It is indeed a difficult problem that science still struggles to unravel. But so is the problem of how biology emerges from mere chemical processes. It would seem that simple chemicals just react with one another and that biological macrolecules begin to exhibit more purposeful behaviour, like moving things around and cutting other molecules into pieces, or instead pasting them together. It's as if these macromolecules sort of "know" what to do. But the main thing that changes when we go from chemistry to biology is the level of complexity. So I don't think it's a stretch to expect the emergence of sentience when we crank up the level of complexity a couple of notches.

You draw the line between the levels of biology and sentience, so I ask you: what would you say to someone who says there's no way that biology emerges from chemistry? Perhaps you should reflect on how their incredulity compares to yours.

As for some very instructive examples of the power of emergence, I urge you to take a look at John Horton Conway's Game of Life. Prepare to be amazed to the point of incredulity once again.


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 8:33 PM Christian7 has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6032
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 221 of 244 (888553)
09-20-2021 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Percy
09-20-2021 2:14 PM


Uncertainty
Quantum uncertainty involves a very specific set of circumstances.

What Heisenberg showed is that with subatomic particles we cannot measure to the same accuracy both the position and momentum. Because of the relation between the two, if you increase your measure of the one the more uncertain will be your measure of the other. This goes for energy/time and other complementary variables.

Quantum uncertainty does not refer to virtual pairs or entanglement unless you are trying to measure some aspect of a specific particle's properties.

The big bang has nothing to do with quantum uncertainty since we are not trying to measure the properties of a specific particle. Quantum uncertainty is not involved in virtual pairs, wave-function collapse (if that even happens) or the double slit experiment.

What has become pop-sci is the errant view that quantum uncertainty refers to any unknown in our knowledge of QFT. It does not.

The 'uncertainty' in which slit a photon will pass through is not an issue. When we want to see this we can do so with fantastic accuracy. The problem we are having with this is that the whole system seems to change from wave-like behavior to particle-like behavior just trying to detect which slit was used.

That's not an 'uncertainty' in QFT. It's a 'WTF is going on here' in QFT.

I hope I never implied that I've concluded the Big Bang was uncaused.

Com'on, Percy. We know you're smarter than that.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Percy, posted 09-20-2021 2:14 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Percy, posted 09-20-2021 5:51 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20334
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 222 of 244 (888554)
09-20-2021 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Christian7
09-19-2021 1:25 PM


Christian7 writes:

If the box contains 100 billion pebbles, and I take out all but one pebble, all being white, can I be confident the next pebble will be white? Yes, but it can very well be blue. There is no certainty.

Yes, exactly right, there's no certainty, and yet you still correctly picked the white pebble. High confidence was sufficient for you to see that the best choice was white. You didn't need certainty. Science doesn't either.

Since we said science is tentative, why are you asking about certainty? There is no certainty in science. My confidence that I am right and you are wrong derives from my awareness of the evidence supporting my position and how clear you've made it that you have no evidence for anything you say. All you do is keep repeating the same fallacious rhetorical arguments.

You never pointed out a fallacy in the form of my argument, nor proved my premises false.

And yet you just disproved your own argument about needing certainty. If you don't understand that then there are some serious defects in your comprehension.

You merely quoted from other sources of which there is no certainty.

Well now you're just confused. I didn't quote any sources. The only quotes in my message are of you. Could you at least try to make an effort and get the simple and obvious things right? My message was right in front of you while you were typing your reply - how could make so blatant an error as to think I quoted any sources?

It is much more likely that a conclusion drawn from premises which are already proven, either by deduction from previous premises, or by its tautological nature, is certainly true. But I'm not claiming my arguments were fool proof, only that you did not deal with their validity at all, merely the truth value of the premises through their contradiction with unproven knowledge.

You argued that science couldn't be trusted because it lacked certainty but proved yourself wrong when you showed you understood that high confidence works just fine.

By the way, it is not a good thing when your argument is tautological. It means you haven't really said anything.

You continue your inability to get anything right by delving into dark matter. Why do you do this to yourself? Did you make this up yourself, or did someone feed you this misinformation. I'm probably making a mistake by responding more information just seems to increase your confusion, and there's a strong chance that you're confusing dark matter with dark energy, but here goes anyway:

Well, I don't know if the existence of dark matter is proven, or if dark matter has ever been detected or analyzed.

Dark matter's effects have been observed, mostly in galaxies, but dark matter itself has never been detected. We don't know what it is. By far the most popular hypothesis is WIMPs (Weakly Interactive Massive Parrticles), but MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics) also has its adherents.

But speaking of scientific models, it seems that there was a problem with their model of the universe, so they accounted for it by saying the universe was filled with dark matter, unable to explain why their theory didn't make sense of the amount of matter in the universe.

Dark matter effects were first noticed long before we knew there were any other galaxies besides our own, in other words, before we knew there was a universe.

They believed in their theory more than the evidence, so they made up a concept, and filled in the gap, without any empirical observation.

Our only knowledge of dark matter derives from empirical observations, the exact opposite of what you just said.

If they have no evidence of dark matter's presence in the universe,...

This is wrong as there is a tremendous amount of evidence for dark matter.

...but merely an inference from inconsistency with math and what they observe,...

This is wrong as our knowledge of dark matter derives from observation, not inference.

...then this demonstrates their confidence is based on math rather than science.

Since almost everything you said in that paragraph is wrong, this conclusion is also wrong. Our confidence in the existence of dark matter derives from observation.

You framed this as a conflict between observation and theory, and though that wasn't actually the case it is still worth commenting on what happens in science when observation and theory do not agree.

One of the most famous examples of observation leading theory is the orbit of Mercury. Deviations in its orbit from that predicted by Newtonian physics motivated both theoretical and observational efforts, culminating in Einstein's theory of relativity which correctly described Mercury's orbit.

A case of theory leading observation is the Higgs boson. Theorists predicted the existence of the Higg's boson over half a century ago, but experimental physicists could not find it. Both theorists and experimentalists worked hard on the problem. If there were no Higgs Boson then theory must be wrong and would have to change, potentially opening up fantastic opportunities to go beyond the Standard Model of particle physics. But if the Higgs were eventually found then it would nail down some other related uncertainties in the Standard Model, also expanding our theoretical knowledge. The Higgs was finally discovered about a decade ago, resolving theory with observation.

I'm trying. Also, I don't always use the most effective communication. This is not deliberate.

Then what's going on here? We're putting in enough effort with you that we deserve an explanation. Do you think in Italian? Do you have only an 8th grade education, and that only in a foreign language? Are you a member of some weird sect hostile to science? What?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Christian7, posted 09-19-2021 1:25 PM Christian7 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by dwise1, posted 09-20-2021 7:07 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20334
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 223 of 244 (888555)
09-20-2021 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by AZPaul3
09-20-2021 4:45 PM


Re: Uncertainty
AZPaul3 writes:

Quantum uncertainty does not refer to virtual pairs or entanglement unless you are trying to measure some aspect of a specific particle's properties.

Yeah, that was the example I mentioned to Christian7 a couple times.

The big bang has nothing to do with quantum uncertainty since we are not trying to measure the properties of a specific particle. Quantum uncertainty is not involved in virtual pairs, wave-function collapse (if that even happens) or the double slit experiment.

I assumed that quantum uncertainty underlay quantum fluctuations. Not so?

The 'uncertainty' in which slit a photon will pass through is not an issue. When we want to see this we can do so with fantastic accuracy. The problem we are having with this is that the whole system seems to change from wave-like behavior to particle-like behavior just trying to detect which slit was used.

Sorry, you're right, I bolloxed up the example. I was only hoping to make clear that I don't see quantum uncertainty as a cause.

AbE:

I hope I never implied that I've concluded the Big Bang was uncaused.

Com'on, Percy. We know you're smarter than that.

?

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : AbE.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by AZPaul3, posted 09-20-2021 4:45 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by AZPaul3, posted 09-20-2021 6:03 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 229 by AZPaul3, posted 09-20-2021 8:11 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6032
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 224 of 244 (888556)
09-20-2021 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Percy
09-20-2021 5:51 PM


Re: Uncertainty
I hope I never implied that I've concluded the Big Bang was uncaused.

Com'on, Percy. We know you're smarter than that.

?

Yeah, that was sloppy.

You are too smart to have settled the issue in your mind given the evidence or lack thereof. And we know it.

Sorry for the slop.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Percy, posted 09-20-2021 5:51 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Christian7
Member
Posts: 627
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 225 of 244 (888559)
09-20-2021 6:44 PM


Is this hard to grasp?
First, the language I speak is English, and I speak no language besides it; so the thing that Percy was willing to bet on, even that claim is false. To make sense in English I am fully able, but I wrote my posts with the purpose of style, and rushed through every one. Also in logic there is lack of skill in me, although in a course on the same I attained an A, seeing that most of what I learned, that I also forgot. But when I need not to compose an argument, I am well able to write with sense. Despite what it seems, with no intent have I hidden in my words a single thought.

I am unready to debate with you all, so to study what is needful I will take a break. For with me is no argument, nor knowledge, nor evidence, by which I am able to persuade your minds; having made these posts mostly with arguments formed by the mind that is in myself. So a break will I take to advance my knowledge, of logic, of science, and of defending the faith.


Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by AZPaul3, posted 09-20-2021 7:02 PM Christian7 has not yet responded
 Message 228 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-20-2021 7:13 PM Christian7 has not yet responded
 Message 232 by Percy, posted 09-21-2021 12:08 PM Christian7 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021