paranoia agent I personally don’t believe in original sin because of evolution being true, but I do see the need for a salvation of sorts, and there are many better ways to understand Christ’s sacrifice that a simplistic blood exchange for guilt despite Pauls use of that concept. I won’t get into that however but I will say that I don’t think the bible is even necessary for so called salvation, or that one has to know about Jesus for this salvation. If the bible was wrong in everything it wouldn’t matter to me. Why one God instead of many? Well there is something about the number one that is fundamentally and philosophically important. After all you have many brain cells, but there is only one you. Why is that?
Musings about different types of atheist!
by Seraphim23 304 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
rawe
Hi Seraphim23,
I have to head off to work in a few minutes -- so this will be quick reply. Thanks for your comments. For some time I've kinda disliked the questions, "What happened before the big bang?" and "How did the Universe come from nothing?" Both seems to miss the rather obvious point that being in the universe does put some limits on questions one can ask. The box of the universe may be big, but it is a box nonetheless, making questions about what is outside the box somewhat nonesensical (to me). However, after reading Roger Penrose's Cycles of Time, it did make me thing about the 'before' question a bit different. Specifically, we might be able to look in the far flung future and then imagine a very spread-out universe forming the basis for the next 'big bang', that would appear to come from a single point.
Cheers,
-Randy
ps. When I have some more time I would like to respond and explore this idea of what science can and cannot know and how such effects philosophy.
-
Seraphim23
bohm, Probabilities break down into actual outcome don’t they in the real world we inhabit? Things don’t actually exist as probabilities on the large scale do they? What about Schrödinger's cat being alive and dead?
-
Seraphim23
Thanks rawe I look forward to chatting more about these things to you. Have a great day at work if any can these days.
-
bohm
Seraphim23:
Probabilities break down into actual outcome don’t they in the real world we inhabit?
Firstly, it is important to keep in mind the fundamental object in (classical) quantum mechanics is the wave function (i simplify things a bit). The wave function is not a probability density, though the square amplitude of the wave function is.
To take a concrete example, when a person in classical physics talk about an electron, he is thinking about a small ball with a charge. According to this view the ball is characterized by its location. In QM the electron is characterized by its wave function. In classical physics the location can change (for instance because the electron is moving) according to newtons equations, in reality the wave function is changing according to Schrodingers equation. When the electron is manipulated then, according to classical physics, its coordinates change, in reality, the wave function change. There is no "breaking down".
These are two theories that are equally consistent and either could be correct. in reality, the view the electron is a small ball does not match the observations at all, while the view it is a wave match the observations perfectly.
Things don’t actually exist as probabilities on the large scale do they?
Yes they do. However, on the large scale, the wave functions will behave in a manner very similar to newtons equations, except in some particular cases like superfludity and superconductivity where the wave-function may still exist at a macroscopic level, this happends for instance in an MRI machine. However t his is only saying the wave-function view is the more fundamental and general.
What about Schrödinger's cat being alive and dead?
The cat is in a superimposed state according to that example meaning it is not DEAD or ALIVE but: "DEAD / sqrt(2) + ALIVE / sqrt(2)". It is odd, but that is how nature is. However in reality an object like a cat would quickly exhibit decoherence. That is why we normally observe cats in well-defined states.
-
Seraphim23
You are talking above my pay grade here. Are you saying that the cat is both dead and alive at the same time but then something happens to keep it in one state or the other?
-
bohm
Seraphim: The cat is a bad example because it is in practice impossible to prepare and keep it in the dead/alive state.
But yes, in reality, it is possible for the cat to be DEAD, ALIVE and in an infinite number of states that are composed of both DEAD and ALIVE AT THE SAME TIME. This does *NOT* refer to a probability we believe it is dead or alive. It is the STATE of the cat.
It is very strange, i know. It took me a long time to grasp this is not just an abstraction (like you, i kept thinking to myself it is just a fancy way of saying something else). But yes, it is in both states.
But as I said, you dont have to worry this happends to your cat. The point is something like electrons do this all the time and it has been checked experimentally this must be the case.
-
Seraphim23
I think I slightly get what you are saying and I do have my own cat. I’m glad she is ok LOL
If the abstraction isn’t there then it must be in the human scale world, is that the case? Like the idea perhaps that what we perceive is an illusion? Help me out; I’m trying to maintain the mysteriousness of life!
-
bohm
Se: not sure i understand. The effects in qm give rise to different phenomena at different scales, just like a liquid is very different at the macro scale from the atomic scale.
-
Seraphim23
Roger Penrose seems to have a different view as far I can tell. I take it there is disagreement in the interpretation of qm in that he thinks the wave function does collapse in that something happens when a quantum events effect become magnified from the microscopic to the macroscopic? I have to be honest that I have an issue with something existing as a probability. To say something has a probability makes sense to me but to say that something is a probability doesn’t, despite the experiments that show this is the case. I may be wrong of course but do other experts in this field share this concern?