Regarding Franko...
- Thread starter Titanpoint
- Start date
-
- Tags
- franko
Mildred,
Since Loki is claiming that QM is magical, and since I asked you about this directly the other day and you failed to respond (surprise - surprise), howz about fessing up?
Do you believe that QM (the Universe, the Big Bang) is ultimately comprehensible, or incomprehensible, and what is your reason for believing this?
Since Loki is claiming that QM is magical, and since I asked you about this directly the other day and you failed to respond (surprise - surprise), howz about fessing up?
Do you believe that QM (the Universe, the Big Bang) is ultimately comprehensible, or incomprehensible, and what is your reason for believing this?
Quantum Mechanics says that if you want to know the speed of a particle you can't determine its position. That makes many macroscopic events uncertain (but statistically predictable).
On the other hand, Franko claims that the problem is that they seem to be unpredictable (probabilistic) because we don't have enough information about both: their position and speed at the same time.
Is it possible that Science will be able to determine both characteristics of a particle in the future? or are they exclusive?.
According to Franko this is possible
Q-S
whitefork
None of the above
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 2,326
Dept of redundancy dept
Another quote:
[Discussing the partial reflection of light by glass]
Try as we might to invent a reasonable theory that can explain how a photon "makes up its mind" whether to go through glass or bounce back, it is impossible to predict which way a given photon will go. Philosophers have said that if the same circumstances don't always produce the same results, predictions are impossible and science will collapse. Here is a circumstance -- identical photons are always coming down in the same direction to the same piece of glass -- that produces different results. We cannot predict whether a given photo will arrive at A or B [reflected or pass through]. All we can predict is that out of 100 photons that come down, an average of 4 will be reflected by the front surface [of the piece of glass]. Does this mean that physics, a science of great exactitude, has been reduced to calculating only the probability of an event, and not predicting exactly what will happen? Yes. That's a retreat, but that's the way it is: Nature premits us to calculate only probabilities. Yet science has not collapsed.
Richard Feynman, QED. Page 19. (Nobel Prize in physics, 1965)
If you use arguments from physics to try and prove your position, you will attract the attention of physicists, and they will offer an opinion about your understanding of their science. If you talk about logic, you'll have the opinion of logicians.
Suppose you take your theory to a physicist, and he rejects it on account of your representation of Quantum theory. You can say it's because he is atheistic and is predisposed to reject deism on that ground.
You go to a theologian, and he sees that business about the Goddess creating one universe but not the others. He will say, that's interesting, but you're rehashing Plotinus, Proclus, and the Gnostics, and they have a more solid theological grounding. Read their works and the critiques, and get back to us. Your theologian may be an atheist, too.
Sooner or later, you may run out of acceptable peers to review your work.
Another quote:
[Discussing the partial reflection of light by glass]
Try as we might to invent a reasonable theory that can explain how a photon "makes up its mind" whether to go through glass or bounce back, it is impossible to predict which way a given photon will go. Philosophers have said that if the same circumstances don't always produce the same results, predictions are impossible and science will collapse. Here is a circumstance -- identical photons are always coming down in the same direction to the same piece of glass -- that produces different results. We cannot predict whether a given photo will arrive at A or B [reflected or pass through]. All we can predict is that out of 100 photons that come down, an average of 4 will be reflected by the front surface [of the piece of glass]. Does this mean that physics, a science of great exactitude, has been reduced to calculating only the probability of an event, and not predicting exactly what will happen? Yes. That's a retreat, but that's the way it is: Nature premits us to calculate only probabilities. Yet science has not collapsed.
Richard Feynman, QED. Page 19. (Nobel Prize in physics, 1965)
If you use arguments from physics to try and prove your position, you will attract the attention of physicists, and they will offer an opinion about your understanding of their science. If you talk about logic, you'll have the opinion of logicians.
Suppose you take your theory to a physicist, and he rejects it on account of your representation of Quantum theory. You can say it's because he is atheistic and is predisposed to reject deism on that ground.
You go to a theologian, and he sees that business about the Goddess creating one universe but not the others. He will say, that's interesting, but you're rehashing Plotinus, Proclus, and the Gnostics, and they have a more solid theological grounding. Read their works and the critiques, and get back to us. Your theologian may be an atheist, too.
Sooner or later, you may run out of acceptable peers to review your work.
Q-Source,
Exactly. When you don’t make an observation you have no idea which slit the particle went through. You can’t tell … so it could have been either, and that is exactly what you see.
But the second you put a working detector on a slit (or both slits), then suddenly (and magically if you are an A-Theist/Pseudo-materialist) the particle starts picking a specific slit to go through.
Surprise! Surprise!
Don’t be rolling your eyes at me like that Mystic-Chick! If you are claiming that You will never be able to do it, then you are claiming that you KNOW that the universe is ultimately incomprehensible and magic in nature.
The Christians won’t suffer w Witch to live, not because they Hate magic, but because they KNOW that ultimately there is no magic. Ultimately everything is explainable, it’s comprehensible, it’s understandable. The only people who’d claim otherwise are people who … deep down … are afraid of the answers … they don’t want to know the Truth …
… it scares them …
Exactly. When you don’t make an observation you have no idea which slit the particle went through. You can’t tell … so it could have been either, and that is exactly what you see.
But the second you put a working detector on a slit (or both slits), then suddenly (and magically if you are an A-Theist/Pseudo-materialist) the particle starts picking a specific slit to go through.
Surprise! Surprise!
Is it possible that Science will be able to determine both characteristics of a particle in the future? or are they exclusive?.
According to Franko this is possible
Q-S
Don’t be rolling your eyes at me like that Mystic-Chick! If you are claiming that You will never be able to do it, then you are claiming that you KNOW that the universe is ultimately incomprehensible and magic in nature.
The Christians won’t suffer w Witch to live, not because they Hate magic, but because they KNOW that ultimately there is no magic. Ultimately everything is explainable, it’s comprehensible, it’s understandable. The only people who’d claim otherwise are people who … deep down … are afraid of the answers … they don’t want to know the Truth …
… it scares them …
Whitefork (Full-blown A-Theist Religious fanatic)
Feynman … isn’t he the guy that all of the A-Theist think is such a genius because he figured out that when you put a rubber-band in ice water it loses its elasticity???
Impossible? What if you are the photon?
Is it still impossible then? If “Yes”, then how does the photon do it – magic?
i.e. it’s magic. That is what I have been saying. I guess that makes me a “Philosopher”?
When you say that the “photons are the same”, what exactly do you mean? Have the two photons had the same exact histories? How is that even possible? Two photons cannot have the exact same entropy conditions, and source or point of origin, ergo, in what way are they the same?
Isn’t this like claiming that if you conduct an experiment with two individual people, that you will should get the same results, because you are using two identical “Human Beings”? What makes you believe that photons are more uniform that “humans” (on the quantum scale)?
We cannot predict whether a given person will arrive at a red traffic light [stop or pass through]. All we can predict is that out of 100 people that reach the intersection in question, an average of 4 will be compelled to run the “red” light. Does this mean that physics, a science of great exactitude, has been reduced to calculating only the probability of an event, and not predicting exactly what will happen? Yes. That's a retreat, but that's the way it is: Nature permits us to calculate only probabilities. Yet science has not collapsed, only A-Theism and psuedo-materialism.
That’s true. No real “scientist” would dare to make a priori assumptions (has YOU have done) and simply assume that there is no “God”. That is absurd. It is not science, it is religious dogma pure and simple.
Excellent then follow their belief system if you think it is so great.
You brought it up. You go read them if you are interested A-Theist.
Lots of people mislabel themselves.
The worst type of deception is self-deception. It is the root of all evil.
There seems to be no shortage here … or anywhere else I post.
You on the other hand … you never say anything new or interesting. I find you routinely predictable. You are a devout religious fanatic, you are almost completely incapable of independent thinking. You’re a-Theism has made you a mere husk of what you might have been …
Feynman … isn’t he the guy that all of the A-Theist think is such a genius because he figured out that when you put a rubber-band in ice water it loses its elasticity???
Impossible? What if you are the photon?
Is it still impossible then? If “Yes”, then how does the photon do it – magic?
i.e. it’s magic. That is what I have been saying. I guess that makes me a “Philosopher”?
When you say that the “photons are the same”, what exactly do you mean? Have the two photons had the same exact histories? How is that even possible? Two photons cannot have the exact same entropy conditions, and source or point of origin, ergo, in what way are they the same?
Isn’t this like claiming that if you conduct an experiment with two individual people, that you will should get the same results, because you are using two identical “Human Beings”? What makes you believe that photons are more uniform that “humans” (on the quantum scale)?
We cannot predict whether a given person will arrive at a red traffic light [stop or pass through]. All we can predict is that out of 100 people that reach the intersection in question, an average of 4 will be compelled to run the “red” light. Does this mean that physics, a science of great exactitude, has been reduced to calculating only the probability of an event, and not predicting exactly what will happen? Yes. That's a retreat, but that's the way it is: Nature permits us to calculate only probabilities. Yet science has not collapsed, only A-Theism and psuedo-materialism.
That’s true. No real “scientist” would dare to make a priori assumptions (has YOU have done) and simply assume that there is no “God”. That is absurd. It is not science, it is religious dogma pure and simple.
Excellent then follow their belief system if you think it is so great.
You brought it up. You go read them if you are interested A-Theist.
Lots of people mislabel themselves.
The worst type of deception is self-deception. It is the root of all evil.
There seems to be no shortage here … or anywhere else I post.
You on the other hand … you never say anything new or interesting. I find you routinely predictable. You are a devout religious fanatic, you are almost completely incapable of independent thinking. You’re a-Theism has made you a mere husk of what you might have been …
Franko said:
oh Franko!, this is why I like you
I am not claiming anything
(this is why I don't like you sometimes...) I am asking a question: is it possible to determine speed and position at the same time?
You say yes
QM says No (I think, that's why I asked Mordred...)
I think that all we know at the moment is thanks to many people that work everyday to reach that Truth. The same people that you hate so much, but from who you get so much.
Scare of what?, of what Truth?, why that Truth is not clear, evident?
Q-S
Coming from you whitefork ... that's music to my ears.
… but just out of curiosity, how exactly have you divined this? Are you capable of magically deducing anyone’s occupation over the Internet? How exactly does your mystical power function? Does it have anything to do with your magic “free willy powers” (wishful thinking)?
BTW … what was Einstein’s occupation when he came up with the idea for Relativity?
Well since he wasn’t an official “high priest” of the one true faith. I guess we can simply dismiss his “theories” as the ramblings of a mad-man … ?
1) I am a computer program – an algorithm (or alternately)
2) I am merely a figment of your subconscious imagination (still an algorithm).
Take your pick.
Franko said:
If you bother to look back, you will find that I did indeed answer your question. Q-Source even quoted some of it for you. It came in two parts. Yes, the universe does seem to be comprehensible, and Heisenberg never said that it wasn't, unless you can prove that probability leads directly to incomprehensibility (which I asked you to do, and so far you have not). Then, I asked you how comprehensibility would imply determinism (a question you have also yet to reply to).
Q-Source said:
I'm going to answer this for you like any true scientist should, even though I'm sure Franko will pounce on it as some kind of evidence for a victory. Is it possible that we will someday be able to determine both momentum and position with arbitrary precision in violation of the uncertainty principle...yes.
However, now I will also qualify that statement as I think any physicist would. If we were to ever accomplish this feat, it would have to be by some physical means not known to us at this time. It would essentially rewrite a fundamental part of quantum mechanics and our physical interpretations of it. It would then require a new theory which would take this into account, continue to explain all the experimental evidence currently explained by quantum mechanics, any new experimental evidence that is uncovered, and retain the predictive powers currently demonstrated by quantum mechanics. This includes things like the double slit experiment that I'm going to have a further chat with Franko about in my next post.
All that having been said. As a physicist, I am left asking myself this question...is there any reason at all that I should actually believe this will be the case? I concede it is possible, but is it at all likely given the evidence before me? My honest answer to this is no. There is no indication that the uncertainty principle will ever be "broken". There is no indication of the existance of any hidden variables that would allow a workaround. Quantum mechanics will continue to be refined, generalized, and likely give way in a sense to a new theory in the future...however, there is no indication at all that we will ever return to the classical, Newtonian, clockwork universe interpretation that Franko espouses. Now, I could be wrong of course, but the current evidence available points to this not being the case...and I can only discuss such things as far as the current evidence can take me.
In short, Franko's objections are philosophical ones, and have no empirical basis.
Mordred,
So we get another A-Theist mystery answer that is invisible to everyone but other A-Theists?
Really? Then explain what it was like before the “Big Bang”, and explain what it is like when there is No Time? Are you honestly claiming that you can make that comprehensible?
Who do you think you are kidding Mordred?
You are really gonna explain how the entire Universe popped out of nothing taking a big doo-doo all over Thermodynamics in the process?
What’s your empirical evidence that the immutable laws of thermodynamics can be violated thusly?
Well obviously one of us doesn’t understand the meaning or ramifications of the phrase “No Hidden Variables” Since you are the smart “Scientist”, and I am just the whacky “Deist”, why don’t you explain exactly what it means to all of us mere mortals without benefit of your extensive “scientific” background? (blessed by the “One True Faith”)
I guess, to me, it is self-evident?
When you say that something is Comprehensible, you are claiming that it is the opposite of Random, or Supernatural, or Magic – you are claiming that it is Logical.
If a thing is logical/comprehensible, that means (it implies by necessity) that the “thing” is following a logical sequence. Know the algorithm and all pertinent data, and you can predict the sequence, all the time, with 100% accuracy.
But if the thing is incomprehensible – either the algorithm, or the data – then it is impossible to predict the sequence.
So we get another A-Theist mystery answer that is invisible to everyone but other A-Theists?
Really? Then explain what it was like before the “Big Bang”, and explain what it is like when there is No Time? Are you honestly claiming that you can make that comprehensible?
Who do you think you are kidding Mordred?
You are really gonna explain how the entire Universe popped out of nothing taking a big doo-doo all over Thermodynamics in the process?
What’s your empirical evidence that the immutable laws of thermodynamics can be violated thusly?
Well obviously one of us doesn’t understand the meaning or ramifications of the phrase “No Hidden Variables” Since you are the smart “Scientist”, and I am just the whacky “Deist”, why don’t you explain exactly what it means to all of us mere mortals without benefit of your extensive “scientific” background? (blessed by the “One True Faith”)
I guess, to me, it is self-evident?
When you say that something is Comprehensible, you are claiming that it is the opposite of Random, or Supernatural, or Magic – you are claiming that it is Logical.
If a thing is logical/comprehensible, that means (it implies by necessity) that the “thing” is following a logical sequence. Know the algorithm and all pertinent data, and you can predict the sequence, all the time, with 100% accuracy.
But if the thing is incomprehensible – either the algorithm, or the data – then it is impossible to predict the sequence.
Franko said:
But once again, that isn't what you see. You don't see that the particle could have went through either. You see an interference pattern. A pattern which could only be produced if the particle actually goes through both slits. When we don't break down the wave function by measuring the particle, it appears to travel both of the possible paths at the same time, and the wave functions along these two paths interfere with each other. That is the only possible explanation for the production of the observed outcome as far as I know. If you can provide another, then do so. I do have to warn you however, that there are also other, more complex instances of particles seemingly traveling multiple paths at the same time. If you wish to do away with this aspect of quantum mechanics you will have to explain them all sufficiently with another model.
But the second you put a working detector on a slit (or both slits), then suddenly (and magically if you are an A-Theist/Pseudo-materialist) the particle starts picking a specific slit to go through.
Surprise! Surprise!
Not a surprise. Exactly what is predicted. When the measurement is taken the wave function breaks down. This is not unlike finding that a particle is spin up when you measure it, but acts just as it is both spin up and spin down beforehand.
Q-Source,
Right back at ya – Darling!
(She’s a hotty)
Ohhh, but Sweety, you are so beautiful when you are angry. … hehe …
Right … theoretically – I’d say Yes. The particle itself definitely knows its speed and position. If it doesn’t … then who or what does know?
Its kind of like you Q-Source. Imagine that you are a particle. Your last name begins with the letter “A” thru “M” you end up going through one slit; your last name begins with the letters “N” thru “Z” and you go thru slit #2. You know where you are (position), and how fast you are going (speed), and you know BOTH at the same time.
I told you before … I don’t Hate the entities that carry it … I Hate the idea (meme) itself.
I don’t have to thank them for anything, other then maybe trying to annihilate us all. You don’t have anything to thank them for either.
As for being scared of the Truth … don’t ask me why? I guess some entities are just intrinsically insane?
Right back at ya – Darling!
(She’s a hotty)Ohhh, but Sweety, you are so beautiful when you are angry. … hehe …
Right … theoretically – I’d say Yes. The particle itself definitely knows its speed and position. If it doesn’t … then who or what does know?
Its kind of like you Q-Source. Imagine that you are a particle. Your last name begins with the letter “A” thru “M” you end up going through one slit; your last name begins with the letters “N” thru “Z” and you go thru slit #2. You know where you are (position), and how fast you are going (speed), and you know BOTH at the same time.
I told you before … I don’t Hate the entities that carry it … I Hate the idea (meme) itself.
I don’t have to thank them for anything, other then maybe trying to annihilate us all. You don’t have anything to thank them for either.
As for being scared of the Truth … don’t ask me why? I guess some entities are just intrinsically insane?
Franko said:
The answer is there in plain view for anyone to read. If you have a problem with it...find it incomplete or unacceptable in some way...then ask me to clarify it for you. Do not claim that I simply did not answer. Doing such a thing would be considered by me to be something I call lying.
Hmmm...we went from talking about the universe itself, to what existed before the universe. Have you ever considered that one might be comprehensible while the other is not? The universe as it exists today seems to be comprehensible. Before the universe existed, such questions are much more up in the air. I do believe that you are mixing definitions of comprehensible all throughout this to suit your needs. Do you constantly mean comprehensible as in able to be comprehended (understood), or do you mean it as you have described it below (comprehensible=logical)? They are not the same thing. Can you not understand something that is illogical? Would you also mind defining what constitutes logical? Are you limiting this to only those things that are valid in a single system of logic? What about those that are valid in some, but not others? Why should we choose one system over the others?
Outside of all this. I believe that the concepts you ask about might be comprehensible (logical under a certain system). However, I do not know if we are capable of comprehending (understanding) them. I think I discussed this in the nothing thread...we are not well equipped to deal with such things conceptually. We have begun dealing with them mathematically with some success.
I would never venture to do such a thing. I could however explain how the universe originated from nothing without breaking any of the laws of thermodynamics. In fact I have in other threads, and other have as well, and they have linked to articles which go more in depth on the subject. I suggest reading the recent threads about big bang theory again.
I have never called you wacky. I have never claimed to be a one true anything. I bothered to do the work to secure a degree in physics. Doing so I feel justified in referring to myself as a scientist or a physicist. I have never claimed this makes me somehow superior to you outside of the knowledge that comes from a more in depth, formal study of a subject.
The ramification of the problems with the hidden variable interpretaion is that one must accept the Copenhagen interpretation as superior (as it does not suffer from the same problems and is more parsimonious), and therefore accept indeterminancy.
Quite convincing.
Again, I think you are mixing definitions within your arguments. I contend that the universe does seem to be comprehensible, but does not conform to the arbitrary system of logic you wish to impose on it.