Quantum reality and Idealism

[Andonyx]

If you, like him, truly believe that existence can spring forth from, and reside amongst, *absolutely nothing*, then you too need interrogating by the rational police.

You know for a fact it can't?

No really? What scientific law are you going to bastardize and twist around now to tell us this cannot happen?

 

[Andonyx]

Here, a professor explains it quite nicely for you:

Now let's look at the vacuum. Suppose that there is nothing in the vacuum (no matter or radiation at all), according to the HUP there is an uncertainty in the amount of energy which can be contained in the vacuum. On average, the energy is constant, however, there is always a slight uncertainty in the energy, dE. This small uncertainty allows a nonzero energy to exist for short intervals of time defined by
dT = (h/2pi) / dE
Small uncertainties in energy can actually live for very long times. Because of the equivalence between matter and energy, these small energy fluctuations can produce matter (particles) which exists for a short time and then disappears.

The particles produced in this manner are not arbitary. What happens is that pairs of particles are produced -- a particle and its anti-particle twin are produced. This allows certain properties of the Universe to be preserved. Also, an interesting note is that the particles cannot be measured directly (hence the name virtual pairs) and so no physical laws such as the conservation of energy are seen to be violated!

from here:

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/apr14/virtual.html

 

[Iacchus]

Iacchus. It's nice to see you again. How's life at pf?

Hey, long time no see! It's getting pretty slow over there in Physics Forums, although it has diversified quite a bit, pretty much the same old rehash in the Philosophy section though ... Nobody seems to want to get to the point.

This forum on the other hand ... We might be able to turn a few heads?

 

[Zero]

If you, like him, truly believe that existence can spring forth from, and reside amongst, *absolutely nothing*, then you too need interrogating by the rational police.

'Virtual' particles, which spring from apparent nothingness, have theoretical and laboratory confirmation as being a distinct possibility. Your nonsense springs whole from your head, which proves that crap can come into existance from out of nothing.

 

[lifegazer]

I don't follow the leap there, I shall try, how does the probablistic interpretation imply free will. Did you know that the electrons in the two slit experimenta re still constrained by the refractive pattern?
Or are you saying that god chose where they will refract too.
I don't see how god having free will translate sto probability.

Firstly, particles emanate from fundamental energy... are a particular form of it. Once in this form, these particles, with their definite attributes of charge, spin, colour, mass, whatever, are subject to behaving in accordance with their identity. I.e., once in form, fundamental energy has already lost some of its indeterminancy - but not all of it, of course, as seen by the unpredictability of their behaviour and the wave/particle duality which they possess.
However, they do conform to a general, probablistic order, thus facilitating a progression towards the classical order upon our awareness.
God's energy, though free, becomes semi-enslaved within the things/order it creates.

The problem with the observer interaction is that it is not the act of observation that creates the quantum effect. The wave form exists before and after the interaction, the indeterminancy always exists, it is not just a product of the 'observation'.

Well I argue that 'particles' ONLY exist within the awareness of an observing mind. Hence, divisibility of reality can only exist within the mind. Which means that reality is indivisible, except within the mind. Which means that reality is the mind.

 

[lifegazer]

Here, a professor explains it quite nicely for you:

Somebody read the professor his rights...

Now let's look at the vacuum. Suppose that there is nothing in the vacuum (no matter or radiation at all)

Okay cuff him. He simply assumes that a vacuum = absolutely nothing.
Granted, a vacuum = the absence of matter and spacetime; but there is no immediate inference from this that "absolutely nothing" is what remains, as you infered and as you suggest your professor infers.
The rational police have no choice than to lock you up. You abused reason.

 

[Andonyx]

Somebody read the professor his rights...

Okay cuff him. He simply assumes that a vacuum = absolutely nothing.
Granted, a vacuum = the absence of matter and spacetime; but there is no immediate inference from this that "absolutely nothing" is what remains, as you infered and as you suggest your professor infers.
The rational police have no choice than to lock you up. You abused reason.

Okay and what...(snicker)...do you....(guffaw)...suggest might be in this vacuum that is not (bwaaa haa ahhaahahhaa) of matter or energy?

 

[lifegazer]

This forum on the other hand ... We might be able to turn a few heads?

They'll try to lynch you high. Be warned.

 

[lifegazer]

Okay and what...(snicker)...do you....(guffaw)...suggest might be in this vacuum that is not (bwaaa haa ahhaahahhaa) of matter or energy?

God, of course. Energy flows from God... and matter flows from God's energy.

Something cannot emanate from nothing in its absoluteness. It's plainly obvious. Aside from anything else, how can something reside within this nothingness?
And why or what would change absolute nothing into something?

 

[Iacchus]

Okay, fair enough.

It's entirely within the realm of possibility that the instances of these pairs of virtual particles appearing are in fact the result of some process or phenomenon of which we have no evidence or observations. But since we have looked very hard at this phenomena, and we have mathematical models that predicted the phenomena independant of observation, the majority of our current evidence suggests this is the case.

What? And you would have me believe that the world is still flat? Sorry.

If it is NOT the case though someone has to come up with a very good way to find and observe whatever is the cause of this, which has never before been detected, measured, observed or predicted.

Are you saying God cannot be detected or measured? But what if God were the actual cause of which everything else is the effect? Certainly we can measure everyhing up to the point of God then can't we? If so, then what else is left to measure?

Again wether you're suggesting it is outside the realm of the observable universe, or some theosophical explanation, those things which cannot be measured by science are outside the realm of science, and we do not try to explain them using science in that regard because it would be pointless to do so. To try to combine the ideas of science with that which is inherently unscientific, for instance the conlusions to which LG jumps, is a meaningless and pointless excersize.

Perhaps it wouldn't be so much of a jump if you understood differently?

As it is we have a hypothesis for why these things happen that has held up under some scientific and mathematical scrutiny...so why go invent spirits and phantoms to explain something which already has an explanation?

It isn't necessary to invent "them," for they already exist.

 

[RussDill]

The knowledge discussion is getting a little silly. So let me clarify.

This planet has an origin. Life upon this planet has an origin. Therefore, acquired knowledge, by life, has an origin.
So, the concept of first knowledge is not a myth. It happened. Don't ask me when, or by what. It doesn't matter anyway. All that matters is that there was first knowledge... and it was acquired without possessing any other knowledge. This of course is true in recognition of the fact that it is first knowledge we're talking about.

And so, knowledge can be acquired without having other knowledge.
Eat your heart out Mister Brooks, whomever you are.

"first" is a meaningless term in this universe because of a lack of simultaniety.

 

[Andonyx]

God, of course. Energy flows from God... and matter flows from God's energy.

Something cannot emanate from nothing in its absoluteness. It's plainly obvious. Aside from anything else, how can something reside within this nothingness?
And why or what would change absolute nothing into something?

Obvious?

Why?

And your pathetic answer is God?

C'mon seriously. I give you experimental and mathematical evidence that this occurs all the time, and somehow coming to the conlusion that some magic man in the sky did it is more rational to you.

You can't possibly be serious.

Look belief in God has nothing to do with this discussion. I have presented evidence; You have presented none whatsoever.

I have only pointed you to already demonstrated and repeated scientific results...you make up stories.

If this your idea of a logical argument, it's juvenile and pointless.

You are jumping to massive conlusions based on nothing but your own imaginary conception of the universe.

And it's sad because when you first made a topic here I thought you had legitimate questions and ideas about science and how we gain our understanding of the universe around us, but in fact you came here to post nonsense, ignore others who have tried very very hard and spent a great deal of time giving you correct and valuable information.

You have resorted to insults, and non-sequiters, all in the name of something that is not only flawed, it is incoherent and incomplete.

Only an idiot or a child would actually spew the kind self involved ridiculousness that you do, present it so abhorrently, and then wonder why people who actually have some education in science tell you you're incorrect.

And ultimately, I cannot help but question the mentality behind someone who claims to hold an obvious proof of God's existence that anyone should be able to understand, and with this holy grail of both philosophy and science wastes so much time and effort posting on a message board.

Any moderately sane person who really believed this stuff would be busily and painstakingly preparing detailed and concisely written paper on his findings and working to publish it.

In case you hadn't noticed, most scientific achievments of note are handled by publishing to scientific peer reviewed journals. Not as you may think by nattering away endlessly on a message board.

What a complete waste of time an effort this coneversation has been...

And what a complete waste of time and effort it must be simply being you.

 

[Andonyx]

What? And you would have me believe that the world is still flat? Sorry.

Actually, if it were that day and age, I still wouldn't believe you until you showed me some evidence that it wasn't.

That's a specious analogy.

We learned the world was round by several independant means of demonstration of hard evidence, not somebody just waking up one day and deciding it was round.

Are you saying God cannot be detected or measured? But what if God were the actual cause of which everything else is the effect? Certainly we can measure everyhing up to the point of God then can't we? If so, then what else is left to measure?

Fine, you say it's god, I say it's actially a giant bag of tral mix we're floating in and we're about to get eaten. The evidence that we have point equally likely to both cases.

Perhaps it wouldn't be so much of a jump if you understood differently?

Perhaps the jump wouldn't be necessary at all if you understood a damn thing about physics.

It isn't necessary to invent "them," for they already exist.

I see you know it's god because you know it's god. And God exists because you said so?

Well, how could I have been so blind?

I forgot that once you make a claim, and then simply restate the claim backwards when asked for evidence it is defacto veritas.

 

[Iacchus]

Pardon, I don't want you to say I have poop for brains, but what the heck?

Religion is more abstract and acience is more rational, or the other way around. I think you missed the boat on that one. I would say that science is more thought and that religion is more emotional
But that religion can benefit from 9Goodness Forfend) the apllication of scientific principles. the two are not exclusive.

SCience delights in the abstarct, so i question you saying that god is more abstaract than say a Higgs boson or a hyper string.

Sound like you are assigning god values of abstraction, I tend to prefer more earthly dieties, like my wife!

What can be more abstract than something you don't understand? And why does science claim that God can't be understood? ... because it's too abstract? And yet so many of the religious folk will say all you have to do is believe ... in something you don't understand? Hmm ... that doesn't seem to cut it either now does it?

 

[RussDill]

Fundamental energy emanates from the unseen enforcing agent of creation, whereas other types of energy, as defined by physics, refer to relationships which exist between the things of creation.

I asked you what the difference was, not the source. Is the only difference the source? Do you really believe that there is more than one source for energy? Also, we make particles every day out of "normal" energy harnessed at a power plant. We take that energy, accelerate particles, and colide them, making more massive (fundemental) particles than when we started with, energy->matter. These particles aren't make out of your fundamental energy.

You have not explained your fundamental energy, you have no shown what effect it would have, you have not shown its relation to particles. Its meaningless lifegazer, meaningless.

But ultimately, all forces can be traced back to the enforcing agent and are actually just a variation of fundamental energy, as other particles are just a variation of fundamental particles.

Umm....all other particles are not variations of fundamental particles. There are no particles except fundamental particles. All others are constintuents. Also, there is no need to trace any force back anywhere.

This is philosophy. You need to distinguish between philosophy and physics.

And I'm explaining to you that you haven't a clue when it comes to physics. So stop using your misunderstanding of physics to attempt to validate your philosophy.

Fundamental particles are the only evidence of fundamental energy - being an effect of that energy. Energy can only be seen in the effects it produces upon matter.

particles are evidence of energy. Nothing more.

Are you implying that time is an illusion, and that all is One? Welcome to the fold, brother.

I'm saying that time is not as you assume it to be. There is no such thing as "first".

 

[RussDill]

If you, like him, truly believe that existence can spring forth from, and reside amongst, *absolutely nothing*, then you too need interrogating by the rational police.

Here's you added dimension again. Existence does not need to reside amongst anything, nothing, god, or otherwise. Existence has no boundries, and therefore it makes no sense to take about what it resides amongst.

 

[Andonyx]

What can be more abstract than something you don't understand? And why does science claim that God can't be understood? ... because it's too abstract? And yet so many of the religious folk say all you have to do is believe ... in something you don't understand? Hmm ... that doesn't seem to cut it either now does it?

Science doesn't.

You and your friend are the only ones here who tried to associate God and science as interdependant entities at all.

No one here has said jack all about God with regard to science other than to ask what the connection is.

 

[Andonyx]

I cannot believe this entire pathetic thread has boiled down to this tired old chestnut:

'Well, there are things we can't answer with our current understanding of the world through science, namely where did the universe come from. So all those loose ends MUST be evidence of God.'

Of for freak's sake, same worthless idea, different freaking day.

 

[RussDill]

Firstly, particles emanate from fundamental energy... are a particular form of it.

Firstly, you have to explain what fundamental energy is. Then, you have to show it exists. You have still done neither.

Once in this form, these particles, with their definite attributes of charge, spin, colour, mass, whatever, are subject to behaving in accordance with their identity.

Everything in the universe behaves in accordance to the laws of physics, its nothing special.

I.e., once in form, fundamental energy has already lost some of its indeterminancy -

Energy obeys the laws of physics no less, no more than matter.

but not all of it, of course, as seen by the unpredictability of their behaviour

Actually, the probabilty of their behavior is perfectly predictable with amazing precision. This is not true of free-will, another example of this having nothing to do with free will.

and the wave/particle duality which they possess.

wave/particle duality has nothing to do with unpredictability in itself. Its the wave nature of the particle that is QM.

However, they do conform to a general, probablistic order,

no, they have a precise probablistic order.

thus facilitating a progression towards the classical order upon our awareness.

no, the scale and number of particles is what gives us our classical observation.

God's energy, though free, becomes semi-enslaved within the things/order it creates.

I've explained to you time and time again why its illogical to say god has energy, and you have not refuted any of those arguments.

Well I argue that 'particles' ONLY exist within the awareness of an observing mind.

Really? I argue that you are 4 feet tall, but I'd have to prove it for it to meaningful, wouldn't I?

Hence, divisibility of reality can only exist within the mind. Which means that reality is indivisible, except within the mind. Which means that reality is the mind.

And this entire progression is based on the assumption that particles only exist within the mind. Your argument is circular and meaningless.



Classic lifegazer post btw, ignoring all the questions and arguments, but instead just restating assumptions.

 

[RussDill]

God, of course. Energy flows from God... and matter flows from God's energy.

What about locking you up? Why assume that the vacuum of space is god? Why assume that energy comes from god? Its very likely that the total energy of our universe is zero btw.

Something cannot emanate from nothing in its absoluteness. It's plainly obvious.

really? In this reality it can.

Aside from anything else, how can something reside within this nothingness?

Empty space is as nothing as you are going to get in this reality. Its a lot like a construct. (but more than that)

And why or what would change absolute nothing into something?

Because its the laws of physics.