Quantum reality and Idealism

[Iacchus]

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.

Do you mean like "empirical evidence?" Hmm ... Sounds like someone playing God to me!

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?

Oh English, excuse me! Anyone else care to take a stab at it? Actually, science is merely a "contrivance" and/or invention of us humans.

 

[Iacchus]

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.

Actually, it sounds like somebody pooped in your brain too!

 

[Zero]

Do you mean like "empirical evidence?" Hmm ... Sounds like someone playing God to me!

Oh English, excuse me! Anyone else care to take a stab at it? Actually, science is merely a "contrivance" and/or invention of us humans.

And anything labeled 'word of god' is not a contrivance?!? Evidence, please. Science is a tool, and it workd. Religion is also a tool, and it works not so well when explaining physical processes.

 

[Iacchus]

And anything labeled 'word of god' is not a contrivance?!? Evidence, please. Science is a tool, and it workd. Religion is also a tool, and it works not so well when explaining physical processes.

So, the one tends to be more rational and the other tends to be more abstract. Does that make either one more right, or wrong? Mind you, we can't functon without both sides of our brain. And, by virtue of the fact that our brains are designed this way, doesn't that suggest we should be ascertain the full spectrum of things, from that which is most concrete, to that which is highly abstract? (i.e., God).

So, how can we ascertain what is abstract without the ability to contrast it against the concrete? And vice versa.

 

[Zero]

So, the one tends to be more rational and the other tends to be more abstract. Does that make either one more right, or wrong? Mind you, we can't functon without both sides of our brain. And, by virtue of the fact that our brains are designed this way, doesn't that suggest we should be ascertain the full spectrum of things, from that which is most concrete, to that which is highly abstract? (i.e., God).

You see, how can we ascertain what is abstract without the ability to contrast it against the concrete? And vice versa.

Ummm...the difference is not between abstract and concrete, but between supportable and unsupportable. Plus, just because we have an imagination, it doesn't mean that what we imagine is real(i.e. "God")


When you are discussing the physical, you should keep your thoughts to the physical, I think is what I mean. If you want to discuss your emotions, "god" is perfectly acceptable for you to bring up.

 

[lifegazer]

Couldn't resist posting whilst continuing to ignore my argument, I see. How sad, and what a poor showing.

God has free will.
God's energy, therefore, is indeterminate.
God's work - the creation of God's order, exhibits an energy which is essentially indeterminate and progresses towards the order perceived of in creation. Fully consistent with what physics has shown us about fundamental particles. I.e., my philosophy is consistent with scientific knowledge.

Furthermore, we could discuss the importance of observer participation, if you care. And we could discuss the further consistency of my philosophy with the wave/particle duality exhibited by quanta.
But I'm not bothering unless the quality improves. The responses in this thread have been terrible.

 

[Zero]

Couldn't resist posting whilst continuing to ignore my argument, I see. How sad, and what a poor showing.

God has free will.
God's energy, therefore, is indeterminate.
God's work - the creation of God's order, exhibits an energy which is essentially indeterminate and progresses towards the order perceived of in creation. Fully consistent with what physics has shown us about fundamental particles. I.e., my philosophy is consistent with scientific knowledge.

Furthermore, we could discuss the importance of observer participation, if you care. And we could discuss the further consistency of my philosophy with the wave/particle duality exhibited by quanta.
But I'm not bothering unless the quality improves. The responses in this thread have been terrible.

Prove "God". Prove "free will".


BTW< physics claims that the universe progresses towards chaos, not order. So nothing in your argument makes sense. If you would up the quality of your 'argument', maybe you would get better responses? But, since nothing you post is logical, we are forced to muddle along as best we can.

 

[Iacchus]

Ummm...the difference is not between abstract and concrete, but between supportable and unsupportable. Plus, just because we have an imagination, it doesn't mean that what we imagine is real(i.e. "God")


When you are discussing the physical, you should keep your thoughts to the physical, I think is what I mean. If you want to discuss your emotions, "god" is perfectly acceptable for you to bring up.

No, you missed my whole point entirely. Why can't you discuss either one, if you've been given the capacity (of mind) to do so?

 

[Andonyx]

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.

Okay...I'll take a stab at this one.

I don't know why.... it's like when you keep sticking your tongue in a canker sore just because you know it's gonna hurt...

Oh well, the statement above once again shows a fundamental mis-understanding of anything scientific. I don't even have much of a background in QM, but I know darn well this is a load of baloney.

First you discuss what we currently believe are the fundamental particles: Quarks, and Leptons.

Then you somehow equate fundamental particles with fundamental energy.

How do you make this equation?

Of course you don't actually make this equation you hope people will be stupid enough to follow your crap because you use the word fundamental twice.

It may interest you to know that quarks are the building blocks of Hadrons, or large particles that participate in strong reactions, typically the proton and the neutron.

While each constitutent quark does not have a charge per-se, they may be said to have spin, and combinations of quarks with different spins (either up or down for ordinary hadrons) create the different types of subatomic particles.

Leptons are light (as in less massive) particles that don't particpate in strong reactions and were thought until recently to be point particles and possibly have no mass. The most common example would be the electron and its anti-particle the positron.

These particles have charge and spin.

So if you're going to mouth off and make up a bunch of crap based on a blurb from one article you obviously didn't understand remotely, would you care to expand on how you are measuring this "fundamental energy?"

Because as you stated both Quarks and Leptons are fundamental but they have different spins, different masses, and different charges.

I guess you could try to convert them to their equivalent energy by mass using Einstein's equation, but then that would come out differently as well since as I stated they have different masses.

As for charge, you can't even assign charge to a Quark, it has to be a collection of Quarks. Which could have the same charge as an electron but vastly greater mass, so that wouldn't work.

So the question remains?

What is the fundamental energy?

To which particle are you assigning that special significance?

And what is the logic behind determining that particle, and whichever measure of its "energy" you use as the correct one?

And no, "Physics" does NOT think there is a fundamental energy.

Oh, as a sidenote, this is truly disappointing work from you. I expected a much better crack pot theory after last time. If you needed something you could call fundamental energy, there are like three other ideas already in common use that you could have chosen to twist and distort to fit your made up conceptions of the world:

1. The quantized energy levels of electron orbit.

In which we find through spectrographic microscopy that electrons must orbit in sharply defined levels of energy around the nucleus and it is impossible to occupy a between state, even for an instant. In that way we say that electron orbits are quantized and the difference in this levels is a multiple of some fundamental energy.

2. Fundamental Units of Charge:

which seems to be established by the lepton class, and the fact that almost all of matter has to grouped into collections of UDD quarks or UDU quarks, which seems to indicate a fundamental unit of charge. Although scientists think they saw a 5-quark hadrons in a collider recently but that is still being investigated.

3. Cosmic background radiation.

Echoes of the big bang in the form of a cosmic background radiation which spreads out throughout the viewable universe and seems reletively uniform over large areas demonstrates some sort of base level energy which exists even in the approximate vacuum of space.

See, your quackery is just lazy. You could easily have picked up couple issues of popular science, skimmed some articles and come up with some much better ill-defined, untested crapola.

For shame sir.

By the way, anyone else smell sock-puppet here?

 

[Zero]

No, you missed my whole point entirely. Why can't you discuss either one, if you've been given the capacity (of mind) to do so?

No, I didn't miss your point...my point is that the 'God' concept is useless in certain contexts, like physics.

 

[Andonyx]

No, I didn't miss your point...my point is that the 'God' concept is useless in certain contexts, like physics.

Although to be fair when the significance of the Higgs Boson was starting to come to light about ten years ago (it may be responsible for any particle having the property of mass) it was referred to in colloquial terms as the "God Particle."

Heh heh.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,54507,00.html

 

[Iacchus]

No, I didn't miss your point...my point is that the 'God' concept is useless in certain contexts, like physics.

Why? If God does exist then we "must" be speaking about that which is most fundamental to existence. Which, if I'm not mistaken, isn't that what science is supposed to entail? the study of the fundamentals of existence?

So, unless you can prove that God doesn't exist, I'm afraid the "God concept" is not going to go away anytime soon. However, this is about all I have to say at this time, and will leave you to continue your bickering with Lifegazer.

 

[Zero]

Why? If God does exist then we "must" be speaking about that which is most fundamental to existence. Which, if I'm not mistaken, isn't that what science is supposed to entail? the study of the fundamentals of existence?

So, unless you can prove that God doesn't exist, I'm afraid the "God concept" is not going to go away anytime soon. However, this is about all I have to say at this time, and will leave you to continue your bickering with Lifegazer.

LOL, whatever, you don't have anything coherent to say, just like Lifegazer.

 

[Terry]

God has free will.

Is it axiomatic in your system that God exists? Or is this just an assumption who's consequences we are examining? I'll assume the latter for now.

God's energy, therefore, is indeterminate.

I apologize in advance for the extremely poor quality of my reasoning processes. But I simply don't understand this. Perhaps you could explain the connection?

God's work - the creation of God's order, exhibits an energy which is essentially indeterminate

Are you saying that the physical universe (in so far as such a thing exists in your system) is God's work? And so it has "indeterminate" "energy"? Again, my lack of mental skill is hindering me. Perhaps you could elaborate. By "energy" do you mean the standard quantity in conventional physics - the sum of all the various kinds of potential energy; of kinetic energy; of rest mass; and so on?
By "indeterminate", do you mean "of unknown value", or "of in principle unknowable value". If the latter, what is it that makes it unknowable, and do we know the limits to within which it can be tied down?

and progresses towards the order perceived of in creation. Fully consistent with what physics has shown us about fundamental particles. I.e., my philosophy is consistent with scientific knowledge.

I don't think I'll be able to comprehend that bit until you clear up my confusion on the previous points.

Thanks in advance for helping me understand.

--Terry.

 

[Pahansiri]

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.

To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." -- David Brooks ...

 

[lifegazer]

I don't know why.... it's like when you keep sticking your tongue in a canker sore just because you know it's gonna hurt...

Such a wit.

First you discuss what we currently believe are the fundamental particles: Quarks, and Leptons.

Then you somehow equate fundamental particles with fundamental energy.

How do you make this equation?

Matter & energy are interchangeable. Fundamental particles are
fundamental energy in particle form. The first forms of fundamental energy.

Of course you don't actually make this equation you hope people will be stupid enough to follow your crap because you use the word fundamental twice.

There is a link between fundamental particles and fundamental energy, given that energy & matter are interchangeable. So cut out the smart-ass comments.

It may interest you to know that quarks are the building blocks of Hadrons, or large particles that participate in strong reactions, typically the proton and the neutron.

While each constitutent quark does not have a charge per-se,
...

Shut up showing-off your knowledge of particles. Do you not realise that neither this knowledge or your possession of it are in the slightest bit relevant to the point of this thread?

would you care to expand on how you are measuring this "fundamental energy?"

I am not measuring it nor am I remotely interested in measuring it. The fact that it doth exist suffice for my argument. And the fact that it doth exist is shown by physics itself, in acknowledgement of fundamental particles.
But if this doesn't suffice, then there's always the causality argument to fall back upon.
And if that doesn't suffice, then I can easily show that there must be a source of perceived existence.
It is irrational to argue against a fundamental source and/or a fundamental energy of that source.

Because as you stated both Quarks and Leptons are fundamental but they have different spins, different masses, and different charges.

The fundamental energy of existence possesses the diversity expressed in the whole of existence.

To which particle are you assigning that special significance?

To any and all fundamental particles. You seem to think that the fundamental energy of all existence should only be able to do one thing.

And no, "Physics" does NOT think there is a fundamental energy.

You cannot have fundamental particles without a fundamental energy. Wakey wakey pal. Time to put the physics book back on the shelf and engage your brain.

Oh, as a sidenote, this is truly disappointing work from you. I expected a much better crack pot theory after last time.

After last time? You never proved anything George. Zilch. The same as have you proved here. And if you're going to talk down your nose to me every time you post, I'd rather you didn't bother in the future, okay? I have no respect for the establishment, especially the pompous snobs who give it a bad name.

1. The quantized energy levels of electron orbit.

In which we find through spectrographic microscopy that electrons must orbit in sharply defined levels of energy around the nucleus and it is impossible to occupy a between state, even for an instant. In that way we say that electron orbits are quantized and the difference in this levels is a multiple of some fundamental energy.

I see. So you argue vehemently that there is no fundamental energy, and then you produce a statement declaring that there is.
*Laughing*.

 

[lifegazer]

Is it axiomatic in your system that God exists? Or is this just an assumption who's consequences we are examining? I'll assume the latter for now.

The latter. You'll have to read other threads to acquaint yourself with my philosophy. Here, I just try to show that QM is consistent with a reality of God's Mind.
Though it is actually possible to argue a case for this reality using another detail of QM: observer participation. Later perhaps.

"God's energy, therefore, is indeterminate."

I apologize in advance for the extremely poor quality of my reasoning processes. But I simply don't understand this. Perhaps you could explain the connection?

If an entity has free-will, its actions will be indeterminate. Therefore, the fundamental energy of this entity is essentially indeterminate.
Of course, physics acknowledges no God, least of all that the actions of such an entity would be driven by an energy indeterminate in nature.
But physics does recognise the existence of fundamental particles, which are the first forms of fundamental energy.

I'll leave it at that for now and see how sincere your response is.

 

[lifegazer]

Re: Re: Quantum reality and Idealism

To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." -- David Brooks ...

Well if David Brooks said that, I guess it must be true.

Perhaps Mister Brooks would like to ponder the fact that there was once a time when nothing was known. Yet the process of reasoning opened the door to knowledge, without knowledge.

 

[Iacchus]

To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." -- David Brooks ...

And yet what you seem to be saying is that everything arises out of the unknown? Hmm ... Would that be the same thing as saying the material arises out of the immaterial? Wow! Sounds to me like there might possibly be something "unknown" -- which, knows the whereabouts of "the known" and, "the unknown."

Of course that isn't to say theological lunacy doesn't exist either, so long as it's understood that one could be a theologian and "not" a lunatic at the same time.

 

[Pahansiri]

Re: Re: Re: Quantum reality and Idealism

Well if David Brooks said that, I guess it must be true.

Perhaps Mister Brooks would like to ponder the fact that there was once a time when nothing was known. Yet the process of reasoning opened the door to knowledge, without knowledge.

Hello my friend lifegazer

Well if David Brooks said that, I guess it must be true.

Can you show me in my post where I said because Brooks said it, it must be true? I did not think so.

It seems funny ( not really) that you would say this when you have said we need believe you simply because you have told us to and you are alone the holder of the “truth”.

The quote is true in that it again brings light to the fact that you point to something that is a known and demand it proves your unknown.

That is of course not reality any more then the known proves that Santa is real.

Perhaps Mister Brooks would like to ponder the fact that there was once a time when nothing was known.

Really? When was that and please prove this with facts.

Lets look at the first man if that is what you mean, he “knew” what he sensed around him how to start to find food as he “knew” he was hungry etc.

Also you believe that God has always existed and was always all knowing. Do you ever stop hanging/ self contradicting yourself?

But regardless what has this to do with your statement?

Yet the process of reasoning opened the door to knowledge, without knowledge.

Yes and? How does what is known prove your is unknown?

You seek to say that a known reality is based in or created in your unknown. This is illogical