Franko Memorial thread!

[Upchurch]

Universe in a nutshell was a good read.
Currently reading "Simply Einstein: Relativity Demystified"

So, you've read a some popularized science books and came up with an alternative theory of gravity and rejected quantum theory? Is that the gist of it?

-MPB
-We obey TLOP
-We're not more conscious than TLOP

I believe there are more assumptions than this (e.g. the special nature of gravity, determinism, etc.), but it's a good start, I suppose, as long as you realize that they are assumptions and the truth-value of LD is based on the truth-value of those assumptions.

Observed phenomena?
LIke what?!

Quantum pheomena, for one. Relativistic phenomena, for another.

Can you account for these?

 

[Tricky]

The "logic" that you use is insufficient. Im sorry if that hurts you

Then would you mind demonstrating the fallacious arguments, oh master of logic? I am truly curious to see how well you have learned this 'logic' stuff.

So your position that TLOP warped in from the void is different from a Christian saying that God was the Beginning?

Your double standards are amusing....at least for a while

If you can point out where I took that position, then perhaps I'll address it, scarecrow.

But see if you can tell the difference in these two positions.
1) The universe appeared out of the void.
2) God made the universe appear out of the void.

(Hint: It starts with "G")

Yeah here we go
What "science" are you referring to?

Okay, Wraith, I'll make it easy for you. Find me one legitimate science book that defines gravitons the way you do (including souls, memes, time etc.) I only require one. If you can, then I will concede that your "science" has some basis. Until then, you must admit that my version of "science" is superior to yours.

Evidence for consciousness creating matter you say?

No, I do not say. I have shown you evidence for matter creating consciousness, but not the reverse. I'm still waiting on your evidence.

 

[Sundog]

So, you've read a some popularized science books and came up with an alternative theory of gravity and rejected quantum theory? Is that the gist of it?

Is this an unfamiliar pattern to you?

I don't know which is the more interesting question - why people whose education appears to be drawn entirely from books by Herbert S. Zim want to debate physics, or why people with actual knowledge in the subject like yourself waste your time on them.

The real world is so much clearer. When an amateur boxer steps in the ring with a heavyweight, the winner is obvious even to the loser. The problem with intellectual TKO's is that they usually fly right over the loser's head.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Sundog

The problem with intellectual TKO's is that they usually fly right over the loser's head.

This is good.. I think I'll use it.

 

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Sundog


This is good.. I think I'll use it.

Not back a whole day and already being quoted? Cool.

That hat looks good on you.

 

[hammegk]

...
Quantum pheomena, for one. Relativistic phenomena, for another.

Can you account for these?

Do you think anyone can "account" (I take it you mean explain the reason for) for those observations as we and our instruments perceive them? I haven't heard that claim.

And as I've asked before --
How does a materialist maintain the belief in an "atom" made of "matter"? That is, as matter gets scientifically studied more precisely there becomes less & less of it and more & more "nothing" with some bits of "energy" winking in & out of existence?

 

[Upchurch]

I don't know which is the more interesting question - why people whose education appears to be drawn entirely from books by Herbert S. Zim want to debate physics, or why people with actual knowledge in the subject like yourself waste your time on them.

I like to think that I "waste" my time on them beause I don't think misinformation should go unchallenged. Of course, it could just be a waste of my time after all.

Orignially posted by hammegk

Do you think anyone can "account" (I take it you mean explain the reason for) for those observations as we and our instruments perceive them? I haven't heard that claim.

You are correct, I did mean "explain" when I said "account". The claim has been made by quite a few people and can be found under headings of "Quantum Physics" and "Relativity Physics" respectively. It has been amazingly well documented and tested.

Regardless, the claims of LD's (as presented by Franko) are contrary to some of these phenomena (velocity addition or the nature of fermions, for example). I was curious how LD's account for, or explain if you like, such phenomena.

 

[Sundog]

I like to think that I "waste" my time on them beause I don't think misinformation should go unchallenged. Of course, it could just be a waste of my time after all.

Just yankin' your chain. I enjoy your posts and admire your energy, as well as your knowledge.

 

[Upchurch]

How does a materialist maintain the belief in an "atom" made of "matter"? That is, as matter gets scientifically studied more precisely there becomes less & less of it and more & more "nothing" with some bits of "energy" winking in & out of existence?

Energy and matter or, more appropriately, mass are equivalent. i.e. E = m.


edited to add:
before someone gets on my case for making a "mistake", in terms of conventional units and scaling:

E = m c^2

but c is a constant so for simplicity's sake, it also valid to just say "E = m"

 

[Upchurch]

Just yankin' your chain. I enjoy your posts and admire your energy, as well as your knowledge.

I dig, but it was a valid question nonetheless. Thanks for the complements, but as far as my knowledge goes, there is by far more that I don't know than what I do know.

edited to add:

You know, it just occured to me that there is one thing that I will miss about Franko being gone. This being a memorial thread, I should mention it.

I love talking science and physics. I really do. However, I rarely get a chance to exercise that "muscle" anymore because what I know isn't applicable on an everyday basis in my life. But with Franko's blatent mistakes and/or misrepresentations, I get to pull out the old books and have some fun again. I like that.

I suppose there is always Jedi Knight if I want to hear some woowoo-pulled-out-of-thin-air science, but he always runs away when you challenge him.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want F to come back although I'm sure he eventually will (unless you count him already being here as wraith). The board is much better off without him.

 

[Dancing David]

I am not sure that any one actually says that matter is made of atoms: in QM, this is a conventional statement used by conventional people. Matter in this case is something that you knock up against, pour or can store in a balloon. Atoms are particles that are believed to exist and are the smallest reduce-able elements in chemestry.

Now can we say without question what are the mechanisms behind the theory of QM: fraid not but does that mean that it is not a useful theory with all sorts of great stuff: no.

I think that people are inherently afraid of the copenhagen model of QM, whats wrong with things being random? There are so many wavicles out there why shouldn't the universe be random.

Peace
dancing david

 

[whitefork]

Random....random.....

Nice word, very difficult to define coherently I've found.

Interesting Ian posed a nice question that led to some question about the nature of randomness, specifically wether the digits of PI are randomly distributed (at least I think that was implied in the question).

Take a very long string of digits that have an appearance of randomness. PI will do. Now, take a small string of digits, such as 12345. Will 12345 occur in the string which is PI? Well, it does, at position 49702 (http://www.angio.net/pi/piquery). Now, how about 123456? yes. But, you get to 123456789, now, that doesn't occur in the first 100 million digits of PI, but it's a pretty near certainty that it does occur somewhere within the first x digits.

OK.

Now, I can construct a number which is PI, but with all occurrences of 12345 removed. Therefore, there's a string that cannot by definition occur there. And, now the question: is the depleted-PI number random?

Well, probably not, because there is now a zero probability of the digit 5 occurring after the string 1234.

Could you discover this deficiency by analyzing depleted-PI?

In other words, is there an algorithmic process for determining whether an (infinite) string of digits is random or not?

Feel free to join the search for the truth over here: http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17828

I've pretty much reached the point of flailing about but others might have something to contribute.

Why bring this up here? Well, if we have a hard time deciding whether something as cut-and-dried as PI is random, how much more challenging the question of the nature of the universe as a whole?

 

[CWL]

Shush you guys! You will be confusing the poor lad. I really want to hear from wraith where he himself first learned about the terms "Logical Deism" and "Logical Goddess".

 

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Sundog

The problem with intellectual TKO's is that they usually fly right over the loser's head.

This is good.. I think I'll use it.

Ha! Like you'll ever have a chance to!


Just kidding, lamp man

 

[hammegk]

....but c is a constant so for simplicity's sake, it also valid to just say "E = m"

If that does it for you, who am I to argue?

Do I vaguely recall something about "energy neither being created, nor destroyed". Might as well say "matter is neither created nor destroyed", huh?

Good luck finding the indivisible A-tom.

 

[Upchurch]

Do I vaguely recall something about "energy neither being created, nor destroyed". Might as well say "matter is neither created nor destroyed", huh?

Might as well:

Originally posted from the above link
energy/mass: conserved except on short time scales for which they may violate in accordance with the energy-time uncertainty principle.

Note: something being "conserved" means that it "is neither created nor destroyed"

Good luck finding the indivisible A-tom.

hammegk,

Despite what was believed for thousands of years (remember, the Greeks first came up with the concept of the "atom"), atoms are not the fundamental building block of matter. If you will remember, atoms are made up of three more fundamental particals, electrons, protons, and neutrons. But those are made up of even smaller particles. Ultimately, you find that fundamental whatever it is behaves like a cross between energy and matter(a.k.a. particle-wave duality). The most famous example of particle-wave duality is light waves (energy) and photons (matter).

So, as long as you keep thinking that energy and matter are two different things, then yes, matter can be destroyed (creating energy). But, then, energy can also be destroyed (creating matter). The sum effect is that the total amount of energy + matter remains constant and, thus, is conserved.

edited to add:
Nice straw man though.

 

[hammegk]

Upchurch, Sounds good to me.

Philosophically, are you a 100% materialist? If so how did you reconcile life/non-life & at human level HPC?

Dualist? Nah: "If it effects or affects the physical, it IS physical".

Agnosticism is logical, although I prefer the monism of idealistic deism (or maybe deistic idealism).


Note also -- A-tom -- means "indivisible" to me at least. Now, find us some of this "matter" stuff, which sure seems to be "energy" stuff when we scientifically examine it. Or do you think reality IS mathematical equations?

 

[CWL]

Golly. I ask the lad a simple question and he disappears again. I thought he said he would be back today.

I wonder why it is so difficult for our friend the wraith to answer how he himself first learned about the terms "Logical Deism" and "Logical Goddess". I wonder and wonder and wonder...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Golly. I ask the lad a simple question and he disappears again. I thought he said he would be back today.

I wonder why it is so difficult for our friend the wraith to answer how he himself first learned about the terms "Logical Deism" and "Logical Goddess". I wonder and wonder and wonder...

Hey! It's kind of hard to hold a memorial service, if the ' memorial-ee' wont stay away..

 

[Upchurch]

Philosophically, are you a 100% materialist?

No, not really. While I believe that physical things are physical, I recognize that abstracts, like ideas and emotions, also have a reality that may or may not have a foundation in physical reality.

Note also -- A-tom -- means "indivisible" to me at least.

As it originally did to the Greeks, but the thing that eventually inhereted the name "atom" turned out not to be the "atom" the greeks conceptualized (i.e. that which could not be broken down any further). But, by the time we realized that atoms (i.e. combinations of electrons, protons, and neutrons) could be broken down further, the name had passed on into common usage. It's a good example of the evolution of word usage, I'd say.

Now, find us some of this "matter" stuff, which sure seems to be "energy" stuff when we scientifically examine it.

sigh. Let me say it again. Energy is matter. Matter is energy. Two forms of the same thing. You can refer to matter in terms of energy and you can refer to energy in terms of mass.

I don't know how else to say it to you aside from, perhaps, showing you the derivation (equation 9)

Or do you think reality IS mathematical equations?

Of course I don't think reality is mathematical equations. I do believe that mathematics is the proper language by which we describe reality. And mass/energy equivalency does seem to be accurate considering we've been able to utilize it in the form nuclear power.

Incidently, what point are you trying to prove? In this quote,

Do I vaguely recall something about "energy neither being created, nor destroyed". Might as well say "matter is neither created nor destroyed", huh?

Good luck finding the indivisible A-tom.

You seem to be implying that finding the indivisible atom is impossible, but in this quote,

A-tom -- means "indivisible" to me at least.

you imply that atoms must be indivisible.

What are you trying to get at here?