Quantum reality and Idealism

[lifegazer]

Some of you are aware of my philosophy which concludes that we're all existing within the Mind of God. I thought I'd explain why this philosophy is consistent with QM...

The fundamental energy of perceived existence is known to be essentially indeterminate... yet progresses towards a probablistic order, generally, facilitating the classical order of our perceptions.

Compare this to the energy of an omnipotent God, which by default is also indeterminate - an omnipotent God having free-will - but who imposes order upon perceived awareness (created order emanating from a free source). Hence, the indeterminate energy of God progresses towards order.

My philosophy is fully consistent with the duality of classical physics and QM. More highly significant evidence that this philosophy should be taken seriously.
In fact, no other philosophy can make sense of this dual reality, other than a philosophy which acknowledges the free-will of the source of perceived existence, thus explaining the distinction between QM and classical.

 

[Yahweh]

In fact, no other philosophy can make sense of this dual reality, other than a philosophy which acknowledges the free-will of the source of perceived existence, thus explaining the distinction between QM and classical.

Materialism makes perfect sense of QM and Classical Physics.

1. There is no reason why "free-will" is required for existence.

2. Quantum Physics is not the "source" for percieve existence. The scale is too small, you have to ascend to the Neural level.

3. Why is a god necessary for your Philosophy

4. RussDill has a better comprehension of QM than myself, I'm sure he'll have a few objections of his own...

 

[Upchurch]

Under lifegazer's theism, anything is applicable because his assumption is that the physical world is just the imagination of God. So, if science were to discover the existance of pink unicorns, that's entirely consistant with lifegazer's theology, because God imagined the unicorns.

(Mercutio, do I owe you a beer now? This is a different thread. Although I'm prefectly fine expanding the bet to any of his threads, except as duty demands.)

 

[Mercutio]

Under lifegazer's theism, anything is applicable because his assumption is that the physical world is just the imagination of God. So, if science were to discover the existance of pink unicorns, that's entirely consistant with lifegazer's theology, because God imagined the unicorns.

(Mercutio, do I owe you a beer now? This is a different thread. Although I'm prefectly fine expanding the bet to any of his threads, except as duty demands.)

As a gentleman, I am forced to admit that you do not owe me a beer...although, frankly, these threads do seem to blur.

The bad news for you, though, is that I will consider this an acceptance of my terms...I'd have let you off for posting, as there had only been a challenge, but no acceptance. Now I have, as it were, Upchurch's Permission.

I never thought I'd say this, but I miss Titus Rivas.

 

[Upchurch]

I'd have let you off for posting, as there had only been a challenge, but no acceptance. Now I have, as it were, Upchurch's Permission.

Au contrair! You may have Upchurch's Acceptance(tm), but you certainly don't have Upchurch's Permission(tm). No flying for you.

(and if you think my French is bad, wait until you catch my German)

 

[RussDill]

Some of you are aware of my philosophy which concludes that we're all existing within the Mind of God. I thought I'd explain why this philosophy is consistent with QM...

You need proof lifegazer, proof, otherwise, your philosophy is completely meaningless. But, you also need consistentsy, otherwise, your philosophy is trash. You don't have consistentsy either though. So lets see...

The fundamental energy of perceived existence

existence does not have a fundamental energy. You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Do you know what energy is? Can you describe what the fundemental energy of existence would be?

is known to be essentially indeterminate...

Given what I said above, who said that? Where are you pulling this from?

yet progresses towards a probablistic order, generally, facilitating the classical order of our perceptions.

Firstly, there isn't a "classical order of our perceptions". Our observations approach classical because of a) the accuracy of our observations in relation to the quantum level and b) the size of the things we regularly observe in relation to the quantum level.

Compare this to the energy of an omnipotent God,

Energy is a property within our universe. Its MEANINGLESS when describing a god.

which by default is also indeterminate -

MEANINGLESS, not indeterminate.

an omnipotent God having free-will - but who imposes order upon perceived awareness (created order emanating from a free source).

Please define what a "free source" is, and what the difference would be between a source that isn't "free". Otherwise, you are speaking meaningless babble.

Hence, the indeterminate energy of God progresses towards order.

Again, your statement is meaningless. You are not using energy in a context that makes any sense, and if god is progeressing towards order, then there are parts of god which are in disorder, which completely disagrees with your philosophy.

My philosophy is fully consistent with the duality of classical physics and QM.

Its not a duality. EVERYTHING is quantum, its just when you get large systems, you'd have to wait a really long time, or get a really accurate ruler. flip a coin 50 billion times and see how many decimal points past .5 you get. Before you make comparisons with physics, you better understand physics first.

More highly significant evidence that this philosophy should be taken seriously.

Nope, sorry lifegazer, your post is just more evidence that you should not be taken seriously.

In fact, no other philosophy can make sense of this dual reality,

First, its not a dual reality. Second, there is a philosophy that makes PERFECT sense of QM. Can you guess what it is? Would you accept such a philosophy as your own sense it makes PERFECT sense of QM? After all, thats what you are asking us to do? Guess what, its MATERIALISM.

other than a philosophy which acknowledges the free-will of the source of perceived existence, thus explaining the distinction between QM and classical.

*sigh*, all that "thinking" on your part, it would help if you understood why there is a distinction between QM and classical.

Flip a coin a few times, you have no clue what you'll get, 3 heads, 2 tails, 5 heads, 1 tail, 4 heads. Thats QM, now flip a coin 50 billion times, I'm thinking you can guess within a few millionth or billionth of a percentile what you'll get, thats classical.


Edited to add: This was your third testament? Thats like the Arizona Cardinals being your football dream team for the superbowl.

 

[Mercutio]

Au contrair! You may have Upchurch's Acceptance(tm), but you certainly don't have Upchurch's Permission(tm). No flying for you.

(and if you think my French is bad, wait until you catch my German)

Rats! Snagged on a technicality again! Icarus, Daedalus, you boys go on without me...

Someday.....someday......

 

[Yahweh]

I never thought I'd say this, but I miss Titus Rivas.

Well, if you want, you can come on over the PhysicsForums.com messageboards. They have more subfora than you can imagine, however I stick primarily in the Skepticism and Philosophy forums. I am currently battling the dualists (in fact, this morning I wrote a rather long and detailed post describing consciousness arising from the brain), there are plenty of misconceptions and beliefs that have already been squished here on these forums but are making the way round the PhysicsForums. Oh, and I got a really nice lamp for Christmas.

 

[Zero]

I love the way Lifegazer is willing to accept the results of biased, ignorant science when it jibes with his nonsense...I mean his 'philosophy'.

And, I suppose he read a book on QM? Nope, I'm willing to bet he heard about it on TV and meditated on it for awhile.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I love the way Lifegazer is willing to accept the results of biased, ignorant science when it jibes with his nonsense...I mean his 'philosophy'.

And, I suppose he read a book on QM? Nope, I'm willing to bet he heard about it on TV and meditated on it for awhile.

Zero,

Lifegazer doesn't meditate. If he did meditate, he wouldn't be such a total plonker.

Geoff.

 

[lifegazer]

existence does not have a fundamental energy. You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Do you know what energy is? Can you describe what the fundemental energy of existence would be?

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/fundamental.html
Snippet:
"Today, quarks and leptons, and their antiparticles, are candidates for being the fundamental building blocks from which all else is made. Particle physicists call them the "fundamental" or "elementary" particles -- both names denoting that, as far as current experiments can tell, they have no substructure."

You're what I class as "a spoiler" Russ. You have no interest in discussing my philosophy any more. It's your sole intention to just spoil anything I present to avoid addressing the ideas inherent within the argument. Not only that, but your complaints are incorrect. Physics does think that there is a fundamental energy of existence. So get off your high horse and stop waffling as though you know what you're talking about.

Firstly, there isn't a "classical order of our perceptions". Our observations approach classical because of a) the accuracy of our observations in relation to the quantum level and b) the size of the things we regularly observe in relation to the quantum level.

You acknowledge no difference between classical physics and QM?
You acknowledge no progression to increased order/predictability from particles & atoms to larger, perceived, objects?

Energy is a property within our universe. Its MEANINGLESS when describing a god.

Another dork statement. It's meaningless to associate energy with a God of creation? You're a hopeless case and I just don't know why I bother with you at all.

MEANINGLESS, not indeterminate.

Please define what a "free source" is, and what the difference would be between a source that isn't "free". Otherwise, you are speaking meaningless babble.

An entity which is the primal-cause of proceeding effects is shown to possess free-will in determining those effects. The energy of such an entity is unpredictable, since the entity has free-will.
Engage your brain and put your physics book back on the shelf.

Again, your statement is meaningless. You are not using energy in a context that makes any sense, and if god is progeressing towards order, then there are parts of god which are in disorder, which completely disagrees with your philosophy.

God's energy is unpredictable does not mean that God is in disorder. It just means that God is a primal-cause with the free-will to do whatever God pleases. Just as would be expected of "a God".

Edited to add: This was your third testament? Thats like the Arizona Cardinals being your football dream team for the superbowl.

No, this was not that. I still haven't decided whether to do it yet.

 

[lifegazer]

Predictably, aside from Russ' spoiling waffle, there is not another post worthy of response. That's a reflection on the poor standards in this forum, I'm afraid, as well as the insincerity, generally, of its members.
Please refrain from posting in my threads unless you really want to discuss the content of the arguments presented.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Predictably, aside from Russ' spoiling waffle, there is not another post worthy of response. That's a reflection on the poor standards in this forum, I'm afraid, as well as the insincerity, generally, of its members.
Please refrain from posting in my threads unless you really want to discuss the content of the arguments presented.

 

[Iacchus]

The Mind of God ...

Anybody see the movie, The Matrix? ... Ha ha ha! ... And yet if the machines can perform such a feat, wouldn't it just be a replication of what God has already created?

 

[Zero]

Predictably, aside from Russ' spoiling waffle, there is not another post worthy of response. That's a reflection on the poor standards in this forum, I'm afraid, as well as the insincerity, generally, of its members.
Please refrain from posting in my threads unless you really want to discuss the content of the arguments presented.

The arguments you present have no content...that is the main issue that you refuse to confront. Your 'philosophy is like a giant marble stature that is 1 mm thick, and stuffed through and through with styrofoam packing peanuts. Everything you've got is based on assumption, and the overwhelming evidence against you only spurs you on. You say thinks like 'I have shown', when what you mean is 'I have assumed', or 'I have stated without supporting logic or evidence'.

The more wrong you are, the more you think you are smarter than everyone else. You get into this sort of nutball religious messianic state...in reality, you are just a semi-bright kid who has thought to much and learned too little.

Tell me, what book on QM did you read that made you start this thread?

 

[Dragonrock]

Tell me, what book on QM did you read that made you start this thread?

Quantum Mechanics for Dummies?

 

[Zero]

Quantum Mechanics for Dummies?

I'm thinking he read a book review or something, or picked up his understanding of physics from comic books...I mean, look at this nonsense:

The fundamental energy of perceived existence is known to be essentially indeterminate... yet progresses towards a probablistic order, generally, facilitating the classical order of our perceptions.

Does this make any sense from a scientific perspective? Really?

 

[Iacchus]

I'm thinking he read a book review or something, or picked up his understanding of physics from comic books...I mean, look at this nonsense:


Does this make any sense from a scientific perspective? Really?

Well, it's quite obvious that it doesn't make sense to you.

So what does science know? Isn't science just a process of human agency or, is it something more than that? Like the Word of God or something?

 

[Zero]

Well, it's quite obvious that it doesn't make sense to you.

So what does science know? Isn't science just a process of human agency or, is it something more than that? Like the Word of God or something?

When you claim something is the "word of god' you have to support it with evidence...which hasn't been done to my satisfaction. Science is simply the best explanation based on the facts as we know them.

What the f*** is a "process of human agency"? Can't you speak English, or are you falling into the Lifegazer trap of speaking in unclear language in order to pretend to be smarter than you are?

 

[El Greco]

What the f*** is a "process of human agency"?

I think that the "process of human agency" refers to the hyperbaric orbit of the interspatial quintessence as it is perceived by the hyberbolically polarized cellular prehension of the true subliminal cerebral influx.

Hope this clears it up.