Hi Oubliette,
I wanted to start the new thread right away, out of respect for the request. Alas, I am not that fast with my thoughts and it will take me some time to parse through Seraphim23's post to respond in a way that make sense.
Cheers,
-Randy
Posts by rawe
-
19Quantum Physics and philosophy about God
by rawe inhi everyone,.
this new topic narrows a discussion in another thread: musings about different types of atheist!.
in the next post i'll pick up the discussion where it left off in regards to qm/qp (quantum mechanics / quantum physics) and how it relates to philosophy and belief or lack thereof in god.. cheers,.
-
-
-
19
Quantum Physics and philosophy about God
by rawe inhi everyone,.
this new topic narrows a discussion in another thread: musings about different types of atheist!.
in the next post i'll pick up the discussion where it left off in regards to qm/qp (quantum mechanics / quantum physics) and how it relates to philosophy and belief or lack thereof in god.. cheers,.
-
-
rawe
Hi Seraphim23,
I guess I am wondering about the true nature of randomness because it seems like a paradox in logic. Digital verses randomness type of thing. To me this is key to why the universe makes sense. True, the implications of QM bothered Einstein and others who felt giving up complete predictability was basically a defeat. However, things like evolution depend on randomness to an extent, yet it still works out to be a predicable process. For example as per the theory of evolution any sufficiently advanced species that goes extinct will never again appear. By "never" I mean extremely improbable, since the accumulation of random events expressed in the species will never happen again. "I agree with you that the universe is not digital in this sense of non-computability but the nature of what is really going with randomness seems as far away as understanding what infinity is as with Pi. The measurement problem seems to have relevance here as well." Okay, my comment here is probably just nonsense... but after reading your comment I got thinking about infinity and how it is connected to zero and how that relates to "nothing." What exactly are we unable to divide by zero? I have sometimes asked my daughters math teachers that. The reason of course is as you divide by a smaller and smaller value you get a larger and large quotient. But one is not allowed to divide by zero to obtain an infinite quotient. You've raised some other good points I would like to comment on as well, alas, I will need to get back to this. Cheers, -Randy ps. Yes, I am an atheist, although I would say I don't feel it is possible to prove the non-existence of something.
-
19
Quantum Physics and philosophy about God
by rawe inhi everyone,.
this new topic narrows a discussion in another thread: musings about different types of atheist!.
in the next post i'll pick up the discussion where it left off in regards to qm/qp (quantum mechanics / quantum physics) and how it relates to philosophy and belief or lack thereof in god.. cheers,.
-
-
rawe
Hi Everyone,
This new topic narrows a discussion in another thread: Musings about different types of atheist!
In the next post I'll pick up the discussion where it left off in regards to QM/QP (Quantum Mechanics / Quantum Physics) and how it relates to philosophy and belief or lack thereof in God.
Cheers,
-Randy
-
304
Musings about different types of atheist!
by Seraphim23 ina thought that occurs to me is that if one has the belief that all that is real is only explicable in terms of particles and forces, and that nothing exists that is not one of these, then good and bad doesnt exist either, the same would be true for any concept for that matter.
or perhaps it is only true when reduced to the level of matter and forces, but without the moral force, meaning and purpose that such a materialist only description would entail.
after all, if death is forever, which is materialist view, then what does it matter if a seventy or seven year old enters the grave?
-
-
rawe
Hi Snare&Racket,
"Can you gutys debate quantum physics under a different thread so as to not confuse the issues for new readers please?"
Sure, no problem. I'll start one with the Title: Quantum Physics and philosophy about God.
Cheers,
-Randy
-
304
Musings about different types of atheist!
by Seraphim23 ina thought that occurs to me is that if one has the belief that all that is real is only explicable in terms of particles and forces, and that nothing exists that is not one of these, then good and bad doesnt exist either, the same would be true for any concept for that matter.
or perhaps it is only true when reduced to the level of matter and forces, but without the moral force, meaning and purpose that such a materialist only description would entail.
after all, if death is forever, which is materialist view, then what does it matter if a seventy or seven year old enters the grave?
-
-
rawe
Hi Bohm,
"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."
Please bear with me... I have yet to fully understand this issue, let alone form a solid opinion.
In my QP for Dummies book there is only a one paragraph mention of Schrödinger's Cat. So far in my reading about this again this evening, I'm left with the impression that in terms of real cats it is an abstraction.
The thought experiment was crafted to show a possible macro-world implication of quantum superposition. To quote the Wikipedia article on this...
Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; on the contrary, the paradox is a classic reductio ad absurdum.[2]
Thus the conclusion I have reached for the moment is while Schrödinger's cat idea is in the cat-size world absurd, it has not removed in reality the conclusions of QM in regards to superposition and entanglement. The reality of superposition and entanglement at the quantum level has been demonstrated. Yet, I don't understand why it does not scale up, or if it does, why we can't readily detect such.
Cheers,
-Randy
-
304
Musings about different types of atheist!
by Seraphim23 ina thought that occurs to me is that if one has the belief that all that is real is only explicable in terms of particles and forces, and that nothing exists that is not one of these, then good and bad doesnt exist either, the same would be true for any concept for that matter.
or perhaps it is only true when reduced to the level of matter and forces, but without the moral force, meaning and purpose that such a materialist only description would entail.
after all, if death is forever, which is materialist view, then what does it matter if a seventy or seven year old enters the grave?
-
-
rawe
Hi Seraphim23,
"They understand how to use equations to get the desired results in predicting quantum systems, which are accurate, but it is to do with probabilities and where probabilities exist complete understating is lacking. Probabilities would not have to be taken into account if it was known exactly what was going on."
On the other hand what would be the implications of knowing exactly? It would make the universe, at least in principal, completely predictable. In reality there is an essential randomness at the heart of the universe, yet no matter how hard I personally throw a stone it will follow a predicable arc that relates to the forces involved.
For a long while, after reading a Scientific American article on quantum loop gravity I thought perhaps the correct understanding of the universe was one wherein very small integers reigned supreme. The idea that if you get small enough, there literally was nothing there between the discrete quantum bits -- either expressed as ticks of time or distance across the smallest possible object. I now look back on that as rather naive on my part.
I struggle enough in the area where I do have some expertise (programming in C in my case), so while this is all fun and all, I must simply admit I probably cannot personally gain enough information and expertise to know any of this on a deep level. All I can do is make educated guesses at what seems most plausible then defer to the experts.
Now I have moved away, in thought from the digital/integer under-pining of the universe. One of the motivations was another article in SA that posed the question: Is the universe digital and analog? The author was surprised that most responses went over to the analog, despite how cool ideas about the "Matrix" might sound. One of the lines of argument I found very convincing was the difficulty scientists have creating computer models suitable for the study of QP. If the universe were itself digital, it should not have problems being modelled within a computer, that itself is digital.
Since then I've run into pi (3.14) in QP equations. Page 175 of my For Dummies book shows the wave function laid out like this...
w(x,y,z,t) = 1/((2 x pi)^(3/2)...
The problem of course is pi, as far as we can see, goes on for ever -- it seems to resist boiling down to a number that can be represented as any form of an integer. Thus if you solved for this equation, you could always get more "exact" by adding more digits to your value for pi.
In terms of philosophy, I do think science asks us to embrace the unknown and perhaps permanently so. We may never know the exact pathway form the non-living to the first living thing. We may never know exactly how a star like our sun is formed. Such events simple may resist all our attempts to probe them for knowledge.
But as I said earlier on this thread -- be careful asking God to fill in these knowledge gap. Because in doing so, one may create a knowledge gap that is impossible to fill, even in principal.
On this score I must credit the TV series the Twilight Zone. In one episode aliens arrive and announce that their plans for earth and humanity have failed and they have decided to end the experiment. The leaders of earth beg for one week to demonstrate the promise of humanity. After sweating it out for one week, they make an incredible breakthrough -- a true ironclad peace treaty for the entire earth, presented in several hundred pages. The alien ambassador returns and is given the treaty. Upon reading just a few pages, he begins to laugh hysterically. "Silly humans! We breed warriors! Your puny weapons have amounted to nothing and what is more you long for peace! Experiment over!"
And that is the problem. An almighty God who interacts with the material universe in violation of the laws of nature, means, that any knowledge gained by trusting the laws of nature is suspect. That is why I said, if such a God exists, then nothing can be known.
Cheers,
-Randy
-
304
Musings about different types of atheist!
by Seraphim23 ina thought that occurs to me is that if one has the belief that all that is real is only explicable in terms of particles and forces, and that nothing exists that is not one of these, then good and bad doesnt exist either, the same would be true for any concept for that matter.
or perhaps it is only true when reduced to the level of matter and forces, but without the moral force, meaning and purpose that such a materialist only description would entail.
after all, if death is forever, which is materialist view, then what does it matter if a seventy or seven year old enters the grave?
-
-
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.
-
304
Musings about different types of atheist!
by Seraphim23 ina thought that occurs to me is that if one has the belief that all that is real is only explicable in terms of particles and forces, and that nothing exists that is not one of these, then good and bad doesnt exist either, the same would be true for any concept for that matter.
or perhaps it is only true when reduced to the level of matter and forces, but without the moral force, meaning and purpose that such a materialist only description would entail.
after all, if death is forever, which is materialist view, then what does it matter if a seventy or seven year old enters the grave?
-
-
rawe
Hi Seraphim23,
"But scientists don’t understand quantum mechanics so how do they THINK it works? It works to predict small scale phenomena but breaks down at a certain point in scale."
Recently I've been reading two books Quatum Physics for Dummies and The Complete Idiot's Guide to Catholicism. I've been enjoying both. Up to this point most of my reading about Quantum Physics has been in science magazines such as Scientific American. A difference has struck me between a book-size discussion of QP vs what one reads in SA. The difference is the book starts out by laying out the actual equations used in QP. The actual details of the wave function and these constructs called 'bras' and 'kets'. SA articles tend to focus on the more "fun" implications of the theory.
I wish I could tell you that the material was presented in a simple enough matter that I actually understand the equations -- alas, they're still over my head! :( But it has made me think about just how "loose" this subject is -- and my conclusion for the moment is "not very." Even though QP is truly about probabilities, the equations that work are the ones that do, not just anything. E = mc^2 just can't be E = mc^1.87, likewise the calculus used in QP is one way and not the other.
The book on Catholicism is good for what it is -- but you get this sense of philosophy is constrained only by historical precedence and the whim of the powers that be. For example the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not what I thought it was (I thought wrongly that it was: virgin birth of Jesus) -- but what it was, was... well... in reality, just something that has been made up and now forms part of the doctrine of the faith.
Cheers,
-Randy
-
16
The Sudden Catastrophic Collapse of Evolutionary Time
by Perry ini have met dr. gentry personally and found his reasearch on readio-halos fascinating.
it has been unanswered in published scientific journals, though lots of unscientific "just so" theories abound on the internet.
this video is a nice overview of several processes that are in much conflict with the worldview of materialists.
-
-
rawe
Hi Perry,
I didn't want to comment specifically on the Polonium Halos in my first post, since it has been awhile since I've read material on this. I just re-read this article: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/violences.html
The author, John Brawley, is an amateur scientist, however I was impressed by the length he went to study this issue and produce a report. It takes awhile to read the report, so if you stop before reaching the end, you'll miss a funny bit about him trying to get people to let him on their land to get samples. To quote him: "[some from a] high-security mining operation and could not wait to get me the hell off their property."
After his research and examining several examples his conclusion was the Polonium Halos are mostly likely formed by Radon-222. This is consistent with other reports I have read about this. In any regards, it is telling that Dr. Gentry is trying to hang so much on one thing, without considering many lines of evidence that contradict the Genesis creation account and Noah's flood. I mentioned a few above, but there are many -- even simple things like asking would enough population be available after the flood to build Stonehenge, The Great Wall of China and the Pyramids of Egypt? Or why don't we find evidence of lemurs outside of Madagascar?
I think the best approach to these things is to accept the theories that are most encompasing of all lines of evidence. Yet at the same time appreciate there will always be outliers wherein some small bits of data doesn't seem to fit. Such might indicate a refinement in our theories is required, but jumping to some wild conclusion that is opposed to mountains of other evidence based on an unexplained anomaly is not productive.
Here is John Brawley's conclusions. If you feel inclined to comment it would be appreciated, but in any regards I enjoy the opportunity these threads create to discuss such things.
"In Conclusion, I believe that Radon-222 is the most likely candidate for the source of certain "Polonium-218" halos in biotite mica. The process envisioned is most consistent with the data (including some observational data not mentioned by previous researchers), and providentially is unique in its characteristics: Radon is an inert gas, the only gas in the Uranium-238 decay chain, having the thermodynamic ability and more than enough time to migrate about in the mica, a few atoms at a time. Also significant is the apparent impossibility of distinguishing Radon-222 halos from Polonium-218 halos under the microscope."
Cheers,
-Randy
-
16
The Sudden Catastrophic Collapse of Evolutionary Time
by Perry ini have met dr. gentry personally and found his reasearch on readio-halos fascinating.
it has been unanswered in published scientific journals, though lots of unscientific "just so" theories abound on the internet.
this video is a nice overview of several processes that are in much conflict with the worldview of materialists.
-
-
rawe
Hi Perry,
One of the most powerful quotes in the book Life How Did It Get Here? - By Evolution or Creation was this one from Robert Gentry:
Before concluding that Bible chronology is in error, consider that radioactive dating methods have come under sharp criticism by some scientists. A scientific journal reported on studies showing that "dates determined by radioactive decay may be off -- not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude." It said: "Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand.
You can see this on page 96. This one quote, for many years, made me suspicious of such so-called "radioactive dating methods." After I left the faith I actually went down the Phoenix Public Library main branch and found the November 1979 Popular Science article that contains this quote. I've copied the full quote (see below) from Jan Haugland's website where I found a copy. You'll notice of course PopSci calls Gentry's views "odd speculations" and offers this information mostly to show somethings are still unknown. Elsewhere I've read that Gentry is a Seventh Day Adventist and believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis that involves believing the Earth is not much older than 6000 years.
In terms of how the Witnesses used the quote, you don't have to get into the U238 / Pb206 ratios, to see dishonesty. PopSci could just as easily said "elephants" or "rivers" or "polar icecaps" where the word used is "man." But if it had, the quote wouldn't have worked for the Witnesses, because they hold the very odd position of old earth, but young age for the history of mankind.
Not having an explanation for some anomaly does not mean Dr. Gentry has built a case against every other line of evidence. Certainly layers of ice at the poles are also a measure of time and they go far beyond the time frame of the Genesis creation account as well as the global flood of Noah's day. Rates of change in MtDNA is yet another measure of time. A literal understanding of Genesis would compel us to believe all of us have MtDNA from Eve who was the first human female and she lived just over 6000 years ago. His comment about "rates of decay" not varying being an "untestable assumption" means what exactly? Basically it would mean fundemental physics of radiation is not understood. Actually the reliability of the laws of nature is an important reason why we know anything at all.
Cheers,
-Randy
ps: Quote from PopSci...
So, today, everything -- human artifacts, animal remains, ancient rocks -- can be dated fairly accurately. The dates may be off a little, but that's mainly a matter of impurities in the sample or need to refine techniques, say the scientists involved. Yet major mysteries and curious anomalies remain -- the odd speculations advanced by Columbia Union College's Robert Gentry, for instance. Physicist Gentry believes that all of the dates determined by radioactive decay may be off -- not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude. His theory revolves around "halos," tiny, ringlike discolorations found within coalified wood (wood on its way to becoming coal) and mica, often in the proximity of radioactive uranium or thorium. Some halos can be explained in terms of conventional radioactive decay. Others, known as giant halos, cannot. They're simply too big to be caused by alpha particles thrown off by known isotopes, and they don't fit into any accepted theory. If the theory of radioactive decay is weak in one spot, says Gentry, doubt is cast on whatever answers isotopes give you. Further, when Gentry studies halos in coalified wood, he finds that the uranium/lead ratios are often not at all what they should be. "Since the coalified wood was obtained from deposits supposedly at least tens of millions of years old," he says, "the ratio between uranium-238 and lead-206 should be low." They're not. They're so high, in fact, that "presently accepted ages may be too high by a factor of thousands." And man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand. "The possibility of reducing the 4.5-billion-year history of earth by a factor of a thousand," he says with some ire, "has not yet been seriously considered." Most scientists simply dismiss the idea. As one physicist told me, "You can believe it or not; I don't." "I realize it's difficult to believe," counters Gentry. "It would invalidate the whole underlying principle of radioactive dating: that the rates of decay are forever unvarying -- an untestable assumption.