Quantum reality and Idealism

[lifegazer]

The existence of fundamental energy.

Some of you seem to think that the existence of fundamental particles does not imply the existence of fundamental energy, even though energy & matter are interchangeable and matter is a form of energy. So some of you think that fundamental form can exist without an underlying fundamental energy giving life to that form... which is nonsense imo.

Anyway, since you refuse to accept the obvious because physics hasn't "seen" this energy - no surprise there: physics has never seen any energy; just the effects of it! - then I shall endeavour to convince you via different methods:-

1. A consideration of energy
What is energy, from a rational point of view? Essentially, energy is a force of change, producing new effects from previous states of existence. Energy is the force acting upon a body or bodies to change the state of existence of that body or bodies.
But what force can exist without an enforcing agent? None. Forces are intangible in themselves. We only see their effects. But their own existence requires the existence of an actual entity, to enforce those forces.
That ~something~ exists is hardly worth arguing against. Even a mottley crew like you lot will accept this.
So, what we can say, without hesitation, is that the existence of forces is a proof for the existence of an enforcing agent.

Hence, the fundamental particles are a form of energy which is a fundamental force [of creating matter]... and this energy emanates from an unseen enforcing agent. Fact.
Given that this energy of first-forming-particles is also unseen, except in the effect of the particles themselves, and given that this energy is the first link to matter from the unseen enforcing agent, there is reason to define this energy as the fundamental energy of existence.

I was going to argue a case for a primal-cause too, but this has gotten a little too long.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes it is. But how does this affect reasoning which shows that the acquisition of first knowledge is not dependent upon already having knowledge?

[derail]

Now when a chimp stuck a stick in a termite mound for the first time which knowledge are you using to call first knowledge and the preceding knowledge.

a. knowledge that termites are good to eat?
b. knowledge that the termites cling to the stick?

Or are you making reference to the fact that the chimp already knew that termites are associated with temite mounds?

because it probably took some time for the chimp to actauly learn the knowledge that by sticking a piece of grass in the holes that termites would actualy cling to it.

So just for clarities sake, whch is the special knowledge you are reffering to because I would argue that it is aquired through a process like this:

a. chimp is eating termires, which it has already learned are asciated with termite mounds.
b. for some reason (uncausal) chimp sticks a piece of grass in a hole in the termite mound
c. at sometimes the chimp associates puttinf the grass in the hole with the termites clinging to it
d. at other times the chimp doesn't even pull the grass out
e. other times the chimp pulls the grass out but does not associate the grass and the termites.
f> some bright chimp associates the termites on the grass with the sticking the termites sticking to the grass.

This is opposed to what i would call a reasoning process:
a. chimp sits eating termites which it associates with termite mounds.
b. chimp looks at termites coming out of hole in termite mound.
c. chimp decides that there are termites in the termite mound
d. chimp decides to use tool to reach termites in the termite mound
e>chimp inserts grass into hole with intention of reaching termites inside the mound.

Do you think there is a difference?

[/derail]

 

[RussDill]

Re: The existence of fundamental energy.

Some of you seem to think that the existence of fundamental particles does not imply the existence of fundamental energy, even though energy & matter are interchangeable and matter is a form of energy. So some of you think that fundamental form can exist without an underlying fundamental energy giving life to that form... which is nonsense imo.

key word here, IN YOUR OPINION. Please, explain the difference between energy, and fundamental energy. What about those particles that happened to be make out of just plain energy, rather than fundamental energy? how are they different?

Anyway, since you refuse to accept the obvious because physics hasn't "seen" this energy - no surprise there: physics has never seen any energy; just the effects of it! - then I shall endeavour to convince you via different methods:-

Most of physics is the observation of effects, no surprise. How about you design an experiment for us to observe the effects of fundamental energy then?

1. A consideration of energy
What is energy, from a rational point of view? Essentially, energy is a force of change,

There is no such thing as a "force of change". What you are looking for here is that all systems tend toward their lowest energy state.

producing new effects from previous states of existence.

What new effect has there ever been?

Energy is the force acting upon a body or bodies to change the state of existence of that body or bodies.

No, a field is a force acting upon a body. Don't get the two confused.

But what force can exist without an enforcing agent? None.

Ever hear of mediating particles? Maybe you are familiar with the mediator of the electromagnetic force, the photon. Ever hear of gluons? Sigh, you lack of understanding in this area makes yourselves an embarrasment.

Forces are intangible in themselves. We only see their effects. But their own existence requires the existence of an actual entity, to enforce those forces.

Like I said, mediating particles.

That ~something~ exists is hardly worth arguing against. Even a mottley crew like you lot will accept this.

And ain't it great that physics already did this for you?

So, what we can say, without hesitation, is that the existence of forces is a proof for the existence of an enforcing agent.

Actually, gravity is different, its an actual bending of spacetime, theories differ on if an enforcing agent is actually required. IIRC, general relativity says no, QM says yes (the graviton).

Hence, the fundamental particles are a form of energy which is a fundamental force [of creating matter]... and this energy emanates from an unseen enforcing agent. Fact.

energy emanates from nothing. It just is. In fact, due to the heisenberg uncertainty principle, energy apears out of no where for short periods of time. Also, there is no fundemental force that creates matter, its simply another law of physics. You put enough energy in a small enough area and virtual particles become real particles.

Given that this energy of first-forming-particles is also unseen,

Just to nit-pick, it makes no sense to say "first forming particles" because of lack of simultaneality in our universe.

except in the effect of the particles themselves, and given that this energy is the first link to matter from the unseen enforcing agent, there is reason to define this energy as the fundamental energy of existence.

There is no enforcing agent that causes virtual particles to become real particles by the addition of energy.

 

[Iacchus]

Why is that?

But first I did not bring up the unknown, lifegazer did. Our friend lifegazer was seeking to use what is known as proof for what is unknown( God).

Well, things don't arise out of nowhere do they?

When speaking about what is known you are speaking about what is known. You may speculate as to a source etc of this known, i.e. a belief but it is illogical to demand this belief is fact without supporting proof, facts. It is as Brooks points out “theological lunacy” to demand because a known exist they your/my/ his etc unknown ( God in this case) is the source.

But what if one knows better? And how would it be possible for you to refute that?

But back to your statement

This seems illogical. Why can this only be said about a “whom”? Allow me this example;

“I believe there is a planet ( not a “whom”) 400, 00000 light years away with talking trees on it.”

This would be an unknown and neither the planet not trees are “whom’s”.

And yet what if "somebody" does know? Indeed, what if that somebody were God?

I am not sure where you are going with this.

If you are saying you have proof of a God or gods I will be happy to look at it and discuss it. If it is real and valid proof I will be happy to believe it as I do not fear being wrong or learning anything.

But then again if I told you, how would you know? ...

As for the rest of your post, about "who" knows what, all I can say is I'm not a mind reader here. Sorry.

 

[lifegazer]

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.

 

[Dancing David]

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

Oh, so now you are god of the forum. I don't see hal Bidlack as your screen name.

I agree with RussDill

I see your argument as essentialy as follows.

1. The source of energy of the universe is indeterminate.
2.The only cause of this indeterminancy is god's free will
3.Therefore god exists, or somesuch.

I would say that you have proven 2.

The expression of HIP is not that enregy itself is indeterminate, it is that it's location is bounded by probability and the speed of light. The location of an electron is within a certain area bounded by probability, but as yet no one has yet to demonstrate that particles demonstrate free will.

There was quite a bit of discussion about free will on this board and if probability could have a role in free will.

Perhaps Wriath will chose to comment.

And as far as your statements that Russ is a spoiler, he is correct in saying that there are no fundamental particles. Your own quote says that they are "fundamental" particles. That is because science can not make predictions involving ontology. It can only make approxiamations of The Way Things Appear To Be.

 

[Andonyx]

Well, things don't arise out of nowhere do they?

Yes. They do.

In instances of a certain type of vacuum (Rhindler)((SP?)) You can actually have particles and their anti-particle arise in virtual pairs out of absolute nothingness, because since it is a particle and anti-particle you still have a net amount of matter of zero. The conservation law is not violated in this manner.

Normally these particles annihilate in a matter of nano-seconds after their spontaneous existence, but ocassionally they may be separated fast enough and far enough to travel away form each other and continue to exist.

But what if one knows better? And how would it be possible for you to refute that?

We can see the evidence of virtual particles in some experiements, and I believe in the immediate aftermath of some collider experiements.

 

[Iacchus]

If anyone were to consider for one moment whether or not God existed, how would that effect things?

Would we be trying to find a plausible way in which Lifegazer's theory works -- or, would we still be trying to shoot the whole thing down?

 

[lifegazer]

Yes. They do.

In instances of a certain type of vacuum (Rhindler)((SP?)) You can actually have particles and their anti-particle arise in virtual pairs out of ***absolute nothingness***

Call the rational police and have this bloke locked up. Thirty years for such a crime as this.

 

[Zero]

What if, what if, WHAT IF!! Asking the 'what if' question is the first step of finding out things, not the last. You ask the question, and then you study the information, do experiments, often reject your first few dozen assumptions. You don't say 'what if "god" exists', and then leap straight to the conclusion '"God" exists'.

 

[Dancing David]

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

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

Welcome Iacchus!

I think that the issue is that Lifegazer is again trying to force the round peg of science to fit the very small square hole of his philospohy. I think that most of the materialists would admit that science is a very human endevour.
The objection comes from what they see as the over strange interpretation of science bent to a wierd purpose.

Say that does sound like the word of god doesn't it.

 

[lifegazer]

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

 

[Dancing David]

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.

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!

 

[Zero]

Call the rational police and have this bloke locked up. Thirty years for such a crime as this.

Ummmm...who the f*** do you think you are to claim someone else is being irrational? Unless, of course, this falls under "it takes one to know one", in which case you are the world's foremost expert.

 

[Iacchus]

Yes. They do.

In instances of a certain type of vacuum (Rhindler)((SP?)) You can actually have particles and their anti-particle arise in virtual pairs out of absolute nothingness, because since it is a particle and anti-particle you still have a net amount of matter of zero. The conservation law is not violated in this manner.

Normally these particles annihilate in a matter of nano-seconds after their spontaneous existence, but ocassionally they may be separated fast enough and far enough to travel away form each other and continue to exist.

Just because something is not tangible does not mean it does not exist. In which case you have to be careful about what you mean by saying "nowhere."

We can see the evidence of virtual particles in some experiements, and I believe in the immediate aftermath of some collider experiements.

That still doesn't imply that they didn't come from "somewhere."

 

[lifegazer]

key word here, IN YOUR OPINION. Please, explain the difference between energy, and fundamental energy. What about those particles that happened to be make out of just plain energy, rather than fundamental energy? how are they different?

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. 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.

Most of physics is the observation of effects, no surprise. How about you design an experiment for us to observe the effects of fundamental energy then?

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

What new effect has there ever been?

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

 

[Iacchus]

What if, what if, WHAT IF!! Asking the 'what if' question is the first step of finding out things, not the last. You ask the question, and then you study the information, do experiments, often reject your first few dozen assumptions. You don't say 'what if "god" exists', and then leap straight to the conclusion '"God" exists'.

Maybe it's because it has to be spelled out to you in hypothetical terms, otherwise you wouldn't get it any other way?

 

[Dancing David]

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

Blah Blah Blah


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.

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.

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.

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'.

 

[lifegazer]

Ummmm...who the f*** do you think you are to claim someone else is being irrational? Unless, of course, this falls under "it takes one to know one", in which case you are the world's foremost expert.

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.

 

[Andonyx]

Just because something is not tangible does not mean it does not exist. In which case you have to be careful about what you mean by saying "nowhere."


That still doesn't imply that they didn't come from "somewhere."

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.

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.

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.

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?