Regarding Franko...

[Franko]

Those are the expected properties of the theorized particle that particle physicists have named the graviton. They expect it to exist, and to have those properties. If it doesn't, or the force carrier for gravity has properties other than those theorized, then they will know that the theories are flawed in some way and will have to rework them to correct for this.

But that is exactly what I am telling you! Those theories are flawed, and obviously so. Einstein kept saying the same thing over and over again, so did Godel, so did a lot of people.

… But you A-theists just don’t want any theory to be True which posits a God; so instead you sacrifice Truth and Science, for Deceit and Dogma.

Incidentally, I didn't come up with free will, nor have I ever said that I have free will. I have also never stated as fact that there is no god. I simply do not believe that one exists because I currently have no good reason to.

… and you currently have no good reason NOT to, it is just that you are intrinsically pessimistic at heart, so you prefer to presume the worst outcome. In a sick way, it makes you feel “better”. You don’t like the idea of anything controlling you, and in all likelihood you actually prefer the idea of ceasing to exist over existing perpetually.

I have my objective reasons for believing that this is not the first conversation we have had. To be honest you remind me a lot of Vicky D. …

I will however keep telling you that you don't understand quantum mechanics...because that is indeed a fact.

Since you don’t really say why you believe this, I guess we should just take your word for it that you are smarter than Me and Everyone about Everything? … Should we have Faith in you Serena … ? You don’t instill much confidence that you know what you are talking about. According to you I suppose TOAST is more complex then a HUMAN BEING? How about Taco’s? Is a Taco superior to you Mary Ann?

 

[Mordred]

But that is exactly what I am telling you! Those theories are flawed, and obviously so. Einstein kept saying the same thing over and over again, so did Godel, so did a lot of people.

Once again, Einstein lost this debate sometime around 1927. If we're going to argue via name dropping, if the theories are so obviously flawed then those flaws somehow escaped the attention of Bohr, Heisenberg, Fermi, Dirac, Schrodinger, Feynman, Penrose, Hawking, not to mention pretty much every physicist who has lived since the 1930's. You are claiming that they, who devoted their lives to the study of physics, are wrong about these theories and you are write...despite the fact that all the empirical evidence that we have points to the opposite conclusion.

That, however, is besides the point. What we were discussing is your improper use of the word graviton. It is a word created to refer to a specific kind of theoretical particle which in no way resembles what you use it to refer to. Perhaps you should try thinking up an actual original, descriptive term instead of simply using an already existing one that means something else.

and you currently have no good reason NOT to, it is just that you are intrinsically pessimistic at heart, so you prefer to presume the worst outcome. In a sick way, it makes you feel “better”. You don’t like the idea of anything controlling you, and in all likelihood you actually prefer the idea of ceasing to exist over existing perpetually.

So your answer to my question of why should I believe in a god is to say why shouldn't you? I've already given you a valid reason. There is not sufficient evidence to support the claim that a god exists. Therefore I have no reason to believe the claim that a god exists. Having no reason to believe that claim, my only choice is not to believe it. This does not mean that I claim to know for a fact that no god exists. Nor do I have to prove such a thing. The burden of proof is on those making the claim. You claim a god exists...prove it. If you can't, then I have no reason to believe in a god.

I have my objective reasons for believing that this is not the first conversation we have had. To be honest you remind me a lot of Vicky D. …

To be honest, your behaviour in this regard strikes me as paranoid delusional...

Since you don’t really say why you believe this, I guess we should just take your word for it that you are smarter than Me and Everyone about Everything?

Nice capitalization there...and no you shouldn't believe this. You should however recognize the fact that I have a superior education to yours in the field of physics. So far you have demonstrated clearly in your arguments that you do not understand quantum mechanics. It isn't an easy thing to understand, and I know that there are some parts that I don't quite grasp in full, but you refuse to accept your lack of understanding and seem content to claim that the theory must be wrong and you right...again despite all empirical evidence pointing to the contrary.

Should we have Faith in you Serena … ? You don’t instill much confidence that you know what you are talking about.

You shouldn't have faith in anything in my opinion. I'm an A-theist remember? I have no faith.

That is your opinion. According to you I suppose TOAST is more complex then a HUMAN BEING? How about Taco’s? Is a Taco superior to you Mary Ann?

Define complex. Define superior. Does the toast have jelly on it? Does the taco have hot sauce? Who are these people that you keep talking to...I don't see a Serena or a Mary Ann...have you ever been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic?

 

[Tricky]

Once again, Einstein lost this debate sometime around 1927. If we're going to argue via name dropping, if the theories are so obviously flawed then those flaws somehow escaped the attention of Bohr, Heisenberg, Fermi, Dirac, Schrodinger, Feynman, Penrose, Hawking, not to mention pretty much every physicist who has lived since the 1930's. You are claiming that they, who devoted their lives to the study of physics, are wrong about these theories and you are write...despite the fact that all the empirical evidence that we have points to the opposite conclusion.

That, however, is besides the point. What we were discussing is your improper use of the word graviton. It is a word created to refer to a specific kind of theoretical particle which in no way resembles what you use it to refer to. Perhaps you should try thinking up an actual original, descriptive term instead of simply using an already existing one that means something else.
...
Nice capitalization there...and no you shouldn't believe this. You should however recognize the fact that I have a superior education to yours in the field of physics. So far you have demonstrated clearly in your arguments that you do not understand quantum mechanics. It isn't an easy thing to understand, and I know that there are some parts that I don't quite grasp in full, but you refuse to accept your lack of understanding and seem content to claim that the theory must be wrong and you right...again despite all empirical evidence pointing to the contrary.[/B]

Franko, you are soooo busted. You haven't learned anything new since Einstein (who you consistantly misquote) and you don't even know the definition of basic physics terms. You are a complete fraud. But you're great material for satire, so by all means, do keep posting. We're not laughing with you. We're laughing at you.

 

[Franko]

Once again, Einstein lost this debate sometime around 1927.

Right. … which is right around the Time you A-Theists figured out Quantum Gravity?

You are a nitwit, Einstein was so close to having the right answer he ◊◊◊◊ a brick when he died and found out.

If we're going to argue via name dropping, if the theories are so obviously flawed then those flaws somehow escaped the attention of Bohr, Heisenberg, Fermi, Dirac, Schrodinger, Feynman, Penrose, Hawking, not to mention pretty much every physicist who has lived since the 1930's. You are claiming that they, who devoted their lives to the study of physics, are wrong about these theories and you are write...despite the fact that all the empirical evidence that we have points to the opposite conclusion.

What evidence would you be referring to?

… ohh you mean “blackholes” being more true than E = MC^2?

That, however, is besides the point.

… of course not. … Higg’s boson anyone? Has anyone seen the Higg’s boson???

What we were discussing is your improper use of the word graviton. It is a word created to refer to a specific kind of theoretical particle which in no way resembles what you use it to refer to. Perhaps you should try thinking up an actual original, descriptive term instead of simply using an already existing one that means something else.

Yeah … what exactly does it mean to you? Some “invisible non-existent thingy”?

Like we are just take your word that you know what you are talking about? You model is shot, Pal – it don’t work!

Please!

I think I have wasted enough time with you Connie. Why don’t you go and find some A-Theist to convince how smart you are …

So your answer to my question of why should I believe in a god is to say why shouldn't you? I've already given you a valid reason. There is not sufficient evidence to support the claim that a god exists. Therefore I have no reason to believe the claim that a god exists. Having no reason to believe that claim, my only choice is not to believe it. This does not mean that I claim to know for a fact that no god exists. Nor do I have to prove such a thing. The burden of proof is on those making the claim. You claim a god exists...prove it. If you can't, then I have no reason to believe in a god.

it is very easy to pretend that there is no evidence for “God” when you pretend that you have magical “free willy” powers and deny the overwhelming evidence for Determinism. No A-Theist can be an A-Theist without first being a Materialist, and Materialism – by necessity – implies Determinism.

You claim a “free will” exists...prove it. If you can't, then I have no reason to believe in a “free will”.

 

[Ceinwyn]

Just out of curiosity,

Who knows what Einstein won the Nobel Prize for?

Nobody answer until Franko does. ok?

 

[Jedi Knight]

Define complex. Define superior. Does the toast have jelly on it? Does the taco have hot sauce? Who are these people that you keep talking to...I don't see a Serena or a Mary Ann...have you ever been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic?

Hey Mordred. Don't fall into the communist mental illness trap. You are better than that. The Stalinist state pushed that rhetoric as an atheist tool last century pretty effectively. I would hate to have to start making threads on the religion forum again if this continues.

JK

 

[Mordred]

Right. … which is right around the Time you A-Theists figured out Quantum Gravity?

You are a nitwit, Einstein was so close to having the right answer he ◊◊◊◊ a brick when he died and found out.

Einstein spent the last thirty years of his life working on a unified field theory that never worked. We are much closer now than he was when he died.

What evidence would you be referring to?

… ohh you mean “blackholes” being more true than E = MC^2?

Actually I was referring to pretty much every experiment conducted in particle physics...ever. Blackholes are not more or less true than E=mc^2 (incidentally that is only a special case of the actual equation, do you happen to know the rest of it?). Blackholes do not even require any modern physics to theorize. They were first theorized in the 1790s by John Michell and Pierre LaPlace when they posited that a star could exist with an escape velocity greater than the speed of light. They have very little to do with a discussion specifically about quantum mechanics...they are however predicted by general relativity, which is why it would seem so odd that you would make such a statement considering that GR is Einstein's crowning achievement.

of course not. … Higg’s boson anyone? Has anyone seen the Higg’s boson???

What is your point?

Yeah … what exactly does it mean to you? Some “invisible non-existent thingy”?

It means exactly what the word was defined to be...a definition which I have already given. A particle with no charge or mass that carries, or mediates, the force of gravity. That is what a graviton is defined as...if you are not using the word to refer to such a thing, then you are using it incorrectly.

Like we are just take your word that you know what you are talking about? You model is shot, Pal – it don’t work!

Prove it. The physics community seems to disagree with you, you could start a scientific revolution.

I think I have wasted enough time with you Connie.

Talking to the voices in your head again? Who is Connie?

it is very easy to pretend that there is no evidence for “God” when you pretend that you have magical “free willy” powers

Show me where I have ever claimed to have free will.

and deny the overwhelming evidence for Determinism. No A-Theist can be an A-Theist without first being a Materialist, and Materialism – by necessity – implies Determinism.

If the laws of physics were deterministic, you might be correct, they are however probabilistic...and no amount of kicking and screaming by you can change it. If they weren't probabilistic then phenomenon such as say, let me pick a favourite of mine, quantum tunneling wouldn't be possible. Since quantum tunneling is in fact a real and demonstratable phenomenon, the laws of physics cannot be deterministic.

You claim a “free will” exists...prove it. If you can't, then I have no reason to believe in a “free will”.

Again, show me where I have ever claimed that free will exists. I have not made such a statement.

 

[Ceinwyn]

Don't fall into the communist mental illness trap. You are better than that. The Stalinist state pushed that rhetoric as an atheist tool last century pretty effectively. JK

How is this forum communist?

How is this forum Stalinist?

I already know about the atheist nonsense.

Still, I have yet to see how anything on this forum is communist, stalinist, anythingist. I would like to see some evidence.

 

[Mordred]

Hey Mordred. Don't fall into the communist mental illness trap. You are better than that. The Stalinist state pushed that rhetoric as an atheist tool last century pretty effectively. I would hate to have to start making threads on the religion forum again if this continues.

JK

I'm failing to see how toast with jelly and hot sauce on tacos leads to communism...but disregarding that, Franco was being rather irreverant with me concerning more than just constantly calling me by the wrong name. I was merely returning the favor.

 

[Tricky]

I would hate to have to start making threads on the religion forum again if this continues.

Not as much as we would hate it. Besides, you wouldn't want to be shown as a liar, would you?

 

[BillyJoe]

....I am using a fundamentally different model of reality then you are as a materialist. I would say:

(F1) Top Graviton -- > Meme (Matter) -- > Graviton (You) -- > Meme (Car)
(F2) Top Graviton -- > Meme (Matter) -- > Graviton (You) -- > Graviton (Human)

Now in My version example #F1 (F1,F2, yours is B1, B2, B3), is TRUE, and example #F2 is FALSE. Gravitons are Fermions, and fermions only contact via boson transmission. So, you have:

(F1) Fermion -- > Boson -- > Fermion -- > Boson (True)
(F2) Fermion -- > Boson -- > Fermion -- > Fermion (False)

Now keep in mind, that the Bosons are actually Memes in this case, and memes can be made of smaller memes. In other words, you can receive multiple memes as a group or bundle, and they will be additive. Kind of like if you are “seeing” a bunch of “red” photons, but simultaneously there are a few “blue” ones mixed in. You might perceive a single image with a reddish-purple color (or you might see red with blue dots – depends on the arrangement of the meme).

In other words, Consciousness can’t just make consciousness, at least … not according to what I believe. Consciousness only transmits information between other consciousnesses.

A Car on the other hand, is simply a meme – a boson. It is not self aware. It only exist as energy and information either stored in, or transferred between Gravitons (individual consciousnesses). The Top Graviton transmits -- > here are your raw materials -- > you transmit back -- > I assemble raw materials as follows (instructs for building car) -- > Top Gravitons transmits -- > Bravo - You have a Car, where do you go in it? -- > …

You are getting into the nuts and bolts here and, as I said, I would probably need to read the book you haven't written yet (perhaps someone else has?).
But I still have a problem with the broard brush strokes.

You seem to believe in an all pervading consciousness - a sort of spacetime consciousness? - out of which matter precipitates. The question then is, what is the origin this consciouness? You resolve this with the anology of the infinite stack of turtles. Well, that was my analogy, the analogy you used what of the fractal which looks the same no matter how far you zoom in or out. Consciousness is a fractal - it is consciousness no matter how far you zoom in or out - a sort of cause uncaused.

The driving force behind your model of reality is that consciousness is greater and therefore must be the cause of matter which is lesser. Even when matter evolves consciousness, as materialists would say, it is really just part of this all pervading spacetime consciousness. The fractal is a way of showing how consciousness, itself, does not need explanation.

Physicists have their quantum fluctuation to explain the Beginning and you have your infinite zoom to explain away the Beginning.
(Is it fair to say that neither of you can answer the question "Why anything at all?)

Is this a fair summary - without getting into the Logical Goddess, Progenitor Solipist, True-Matter, Gravitons, Fermions and Bosons?

 

[Jedi Knight]

I'm failing to see how toast with jelly and hot sauce on tacos leads to communism...but disregarding that, Franco was being rather irreverant with me concerning more than just constantly calling me by the wrong name. I was merely returning the favor.

No, it is the atheist reliance on calling people who disagree with speculative science "mentally ill", "unreasonable" and communist labels like that.

2,000,000 people went to the camps in the 1930's and 1940's because they expressed "abnormal behavior" (critical thinking). It is a trend with atheists that is underhanded so I thought I would mention it because it occurs on this forum quite often.

JK

 

[Franko]

Billyjoe,

You seem to believe in an all pervading consciousness - a sort of spacetime consciousness? - out of which matter precipitates. The question then is, what is the origin this consciousness? You resolve this with the anology of the infinite stack of turtles.

Why’s that?

You certainly can’t do it via A-Theism or Materialism.

Here’s the thing … You have to make an entire Universe Pop out of Nothing.

Me … I only have to make a tiny infinitely simple rudimentary algorithm pop out of an infinite amount of Time, and an infinite amount of Nothing.

Once I get that … then I can build the entire universe. Including everyone in it. All from that simple start.

And besides … according to Godel, Nothing has to come from Nothing. According to him maybe there was always something … ? If that’s True, my model still works … yours is still shot.

Well, that was my analogy, the analogy you used what of the fractal which looks the same no matter how far you zoom in or out. Consciousness is a fractal - it is consciousness no matter how far you zoom in or out - a sort of cause uncaused.

You sound like Godel.

The driving force behind your model of reality is that consciousness is greater and therefore must be the cause of matter which is lesser.

I am saying that all of the Evidence … indicates that this is True.

Even when matter evolves consciousness, as materialists would say, it is really just part of this all pervading spacetime consciousness.

Matter does NOT evolve. Matter just sits there and degrades according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Only Consciousness evolves.

The fractal is a way of showing how consciousness, itself, does not need explanation.

I tried to tell Godel the same thing.

Physicists have their quantum fluctuation to explain the Beginning and you have your infinite zoom to explain away the Beginning.
(Is it fair to say that neither of you can answer the question "Why anything at all?)

I could take a crack at it …

Is this a fair summary - without getting into the Logical Goddess, Progenitor Solipist, True-Matter, Gravitons, Fermions and Bosons?

Well that is what I like about you Billyjoe … you are fair minded. Yes, I think your summary is pretty accurate. I think the key to you understanding lies in the “illusion of free will” you talk about. You need to perceive reality in this way for it to make any sense to you. This is exactly the same idea with “God”. As an unconscious “force” Tlop would remain ever an incomprehensible mystery to you, but if its source is another consciousness intrinsically like your own, then it is within your grasp to comprehend it.

Einstein once observed, that the most incomprehensible thing about the Universe, was that it was so comprehensible.

 

[Mordred]

No, it is the atheist reliance on calling people who disagree with speculative science "mentally ill", "unreasonable" and communist labels like that.

If that were a "communist" label then wouldn't all psychologists necessarily be communists? I'll let you chew on that for a while. Incidentally, my crack about the paranoid schizophrenia had nothing to do with his disagreements with modern physics. It had to do with the fact that he was constantly referring to me by the wrong name. I was asking him if he was actually talking to me or the voices in his head. I thought it was rather clear that is where I was going with that...

2,000,000 people went to the camps in the 1930's and 1940's because they expressed "abnormal behavior" (critical thinking). It is a trend with atheists that is underhanded so I thought I would mention it because it occurs on this forum quite often.

I'm not going to go into this in depth with you, because arguing the Nazis are atheists point with you is pointless, but I have a question to ask. You do of course know that one of Hitler's main goals was in fact the destruction of communism right? The communists were major opposition for the Nazis in Germany, and Hitler obviously showed how much he loved the Soviets. Communists were in fact one of the groups that were sent to the camps. Since communists are atheists...wouldn't that mean that Hitler was killing atheists? hmmmmm

 

[Mordred]

Me … I only have to make a tiny infinitely simple rudimentary algorithm pop out of an infinite amount of Time, and an infinite amount of Nothing.

What is your evidence that time is in fact infinite? Again an application of your concept that you can somehow have amounts of nothing. If you can assign a value to it, even infinity, then it isn't nothing. So you have no proof for the one assertion, and the other is nonsensical.

And besides … according to Godel, Nothing has to come from Nothing. According to him maybe there was always something … ? If that’s True, my model still works … yours is still shot.

The problem of course is that the universe demonstratably doesn't work the way that Godel thought it did. He was still thinking classically. If you would join us in the present your objections would fall by the wayside.

Matter does NOT evolve. Matter just sits there and degrades according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Only Consciousness evolves.

Ummm...I'm sorry, but this is just the creationist argument against evolution based on the 2nd law. Hopefully you know why that argument is flawed.

Einstein once observed, that the most incomprehensible thing about the Universe, was that it was so comprehensible.

I'm still waiting for you to answer the question of what Einstein won his Nobel for...since you seem to know so much about him. Careful, it ties in with something that you don't quite like or understand.

 

[Q-Source]

If the laws of physics were deterministic, you might be correct, they are however probabilistic...and no amount of kicking and screaming by you can change it. If they weren't probabilistic then phenomenon such as say, let me pick a favourite of mine, quantum tunneling wouldn't be possible. Since quantum tunneling is in fact a real and demonstratable phenomenon, the laws of physics cannot be deterministic.
[/B]

Hello Mordred,

I find this very interesting.

Could you please elaborate more about what you said?

How is it that the Laws of Physics are probabilistic instead of deterministic?

Does it apply to every single event of the Universe or just to some very specific ones?

Q-S

 

[Titanpoint]

Hello Mordred,

I find this very interesting.

Could you please elaborate more about what you said?

How is it that the Laws of Physics are probabilistic instead of deterministic?

Does it apply to every single event of the Universe or just to some very specific ones?

Q-S

All of them.

 

[SpaceLord]

Ahhh, that's right.

Hitler was allll about sending communists to the Concentration Camps. He hated communism. Despised it. So, I imagine a lot of communist atheists were killed in the Holocaust.

 

[Mordred]

Hello Mordred,

I find this very interesting.

Could you please elaborate more about what you said?

How is it that the Laws of Physics are probabilistic instead of deterministic?

Does it apply to every single event of the Universe or just to some very specific ones?

Q-S

Ok, I have to think of the best way to explain this. General explanation: quantum mechanics is probabilistic. There are now two ways to look at macroscopic events. They are either governed by different laws of physics (classical mechanics) or they are merely the sum total of a lot of quantum mechanical events and thus governed by the same laws of physics. The latter is obviously the preferrable. That makes classical mechanics an approximation of quantum mechanics that only applies in certain cases. Which is exactly the case. So, if macroscopic events are all just the sum total of a great deal of quantum events which are probabilistic...then the macroscopic events themselves are probabilistic. The thing is that the probabilities that the outcome of a macroscopic event will be different than that predicted by classical mechanics are so vanishingly small that they never happen.

If you would like a more specific example I can do that too.

 

[Q-Source]

So, if macroscopic events are all just the sum total of a great deal of quantum events which are probabilistic...then the macroscopic events themselves are probabilistic.

Well, this is new for me. I have to say that I just have general knowledge about Physics.
Let me see if we are talking about the same. Are you saying that the orbit of a planet is a probabilistic event?

The thing is that the probabilities that the outcome of a macroscopic event will be different than that predicted by classical mechanics are so vanishingly small that they never happen.

It means that you can apply both approaches because the difference between them are so small that they never differ.

Am I right?

If you would like a more specific example I can do that too.

Of course I'd like.
I would appreciate it.
Thanks.

Q-S