Quantum reality and Idealism

[Iacchus]

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.

And yet Columbus had already determined that before he made his voyage didn't he?

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.

It doesn't have to be anything really, so long as it serves its purpose at the time which, is pretty much as you said isn't it?

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

I do know which way is up and I do know which way is down. And I by no means am implying anyone has to agree with Lifegazer.

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

God forbid I should make a plausible arguement for God, right?

Well, how could I have been so blind?

Probably because "your science" has told you so.

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

Now what on earth could I have done -- but of course God is not "earthly" -- to make you irritable with me?

 

[lifegazer]

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

In that case, cancel the olympics.

 

[RussDill]

And yet Columbus had already determined that before he made his voyage didn't he?

This was not how it was proven

 

[RussDill]

In that case, cancel the olympics.

You haven't a clue what I am talking about, do you? We all agree on reference frames for the olympics. If we didn't, then it could not actually be said who won.

 

[lifegazer]

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.

He infered that it sprang from and within absolute nothingness.

 

[RussDill]

He infered that it sprang from and within absolute nothingness.

No he didn't, he said that the vacuum was nothingness.

 

[Iacchus]

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.

So what is it all the cordiallity stops once Lifegazer makes an association with me? All I've said so far (or implied) is that we have a similar perspective, namely the belief in God. Now that isn't to say I accept everything he has to say, hook, line and sinker. Got it?

 

[Andonyx]

And yet Columbus had already determined that before he made his voyage didn't he?

That's not how most people figured out the Earth was round.

Many many cultures knew that well before Columbus, and it's evident from the movements of the stars in the sky and other astronomical observations, particularly the pole stars.

It doesn't have to be anything really, so long as it serves its purpose at the time which, is pretty much as you said isn't it?

But we don't need anything to serve that purpose. It has already been shown to be possible within the realm of our current models. That doesn't mean we are definitely correct, it only means that the best evidence we have points to this conclusion. If we have an answer that works already, why make up another answer with no evidence that contradicts so many other aspects of science?

I do know which way is up and I do know which way is down. And I by no means am implying anyone has to agree with Lifegazer.

Then I am imisinterpreting your arguments and for that I apologize.

God forbid I should make a plausible arguement for God, right?

The moment you do, let me know. I'll be happy to read it.

Probably because "your science" has told you so.

No, what I've been trying to say repeatedly is that science has told me absolutely nothing one way or another about God. Science could give a crap about God. When God does something that science can obesrve, we'll all throw a party, until then I'll keep using science to do my job well, and other people will use it to cure disease and still others will use it to design fun amusement park rides.

You can do whatever you want with God, you simply can't state though that science points to God, because it doesn't.

Now what on earth could I have done -- but of course God is not "earthly" -- to make you irritable with me?

Okay maybe it was the exasperation from LG's willful ignorance, but I will try to reign in my sarcasm and vitriol. Your discussion has been civil, I will do the same.

 

[lifegazer]

You haven't a clue what I am talking about, do you? We all agree on reference frames for the olympics. If we didn't, then it could not actually be said who won.

And we can all agree upon reference frames as per dates/events upon Earth.
Did the Earth exist before the life upon it? Of course it did. Did no knowledge precede first knowledge. Of course it did.

 

[lifegazer]

No he didn't, he said that the vacuum was nothingness.

"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***"

He associates the vacuum with absolute-nothingness. Therefore, he says that there is absolutely nothing in the vacuum.

 

[Andonyx]

So what is it all the cordiallity stops once Lifegazer makes an association with me? All I've said so far (or implied) is that we have a similar perspective, namely the belief in God. Now that isn't to say I accept everything he has to say hook, line and sinker. You got it?

I have absolutely NO problem with someone believing in God.

That's spiffy. I'm happy for you.

What you cannot do is allow that belief to color your perception of the kinds of statements that one can make scientifically and the ones best left to the realm of philosophy.

I gave Lifegazer much more leeway than most when he first started posting here because he posted in Religion and Philosophy instead of science. I simply reminded him that once you start using scientific terms and concepts in your arguments you have to tread more carefully because the lexicon becomes much more specific and much easier to abuse and misinterpret.

If you want explain in a purely philosophical realm about your belief in God, great start a topic and let's hear it.

But This thread started out with a very very poor grasp of physics used to make a nebulous conclusion.

That's not philosophy, that's just someone ranting about science they don't understand.

 

[RussDill]

And we can all agree upon reference frames as per dates/events upon Earth.
Did the Earth exist before the life upon it? Of course it did. Did no knowledge precede first knowledge. Of course it did.

Your assuming that that knowledge is not possessed elsewhere in the universe, in which case, it could not be said which was the first knowledge.

 

[RussDill]

"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***"

He associates the vacuum with absolute-nothingness. Therefore, he says that there is absolutely nothing in the vacuum.

He didn't say there was nothing in the vacuum, didn't he just say that virtual particles arise out of the vacuum?

 

[Iacchus]

The moment you do, let me know. I'll be happy to read it.

Well, actually this is what I've been trying to do. If you would like to know more about my thoughts on the matter, perhaps you would be willing to follow the link to my book below?

Bye for now.

 

[Terry]

f an entity has free-will, its actions will be indeterminate. Therefore, the fundamental energy of this entity is essentially indeterminate.

I'm still not sure I'm getting what you mean by fundamental energy. Consider a marble which is going to roll down a pin-board (like the picture <A href=http://www.met.rdg.ac.uk/~ross/Documents/Images/SchoolTalkA/Pic31.gif>here</A>). The path the marble takes will be indeterminate, but it still has a kown and well-defined energy.

Are you saying that God can violate the conservation laws of the universe? If so, what effects would this have that we can observe?

--Terry.

 

[RussDill]

Well, actually this is what I've been trying to do. If you would like to know more about my thoughts on the matter, perhaps you would be willing to follow the link to my book below?

Bye for now.

only if the quality of the book is not indicated in the "about the cover" passage. That type of numerology can really be made to come up with anything you want.

 

[lifegazer]

"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?

The answer is given in the proceeding questions you ignored.

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 gave me mathematical evidence that if you take one step forward and one step back, that you have gone nowhere. So to speak. Zero is a concept which neutralises the concepts of positive and negative. But to assume that it equates to absolute nothingness is bad philosophy.

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

Read my other threads for that. This thread was to show the consistency of QM with the idea that there is a God. What say ye to that?

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.

Do you suggest I give George Bush a ring? Or the pope? Stephen Hawking perhaps? Well I would but I don't have their numbers.

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.

No established body of science, philosophy or religion will listen to me. What I have to say revolutionises everything. I am hated before I even begin. I have to start with my fellow pawns and paupers.

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.

Perhaps you misunderstand my motives. I do not desire academic citation or glory. Nor do I desire fame or financial reward. I do what I do to help facilitate the fulfilment of days.
Look around you. Visit a few forums. The God of reason/philosophy is making a decisive comeback.

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

That's upto you squire. I cannot force you to open your mind and discuss these things.

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

Therein lies a thread of its own. I live my purpose... you live yours.

 

[Iacchus]

only if the quality of the book is not indicated in the "about the cover" passage. That type of numerology can really be made to come up with anything you want.

By all means then don't bother. I wouldn't want to waste your time.

 

[RussDill]

Read my other threads for that. This thread was to show the consistency of QM with the idea that there is a God. What say ye to that?

Your ideas got completely ripped apart and you have not defended any of them (only restated them).

No established body of science, philosophy or religion will listen to me. What I have to say revolutionises everything. I am hated before I even begin. I have to start with my fellow pawns and paupers.

maybe you should listen to what we say, eh?

Perhaps you misunderstand my motives. I do not desire academic citation or glory. Nor do I desire fame or financial reward. I do what I do to help facilitate the fulfilment of days.
Look around you. Visit a few forums. The God of reason/philosophy is making a decisive comeback.

I've looked around a bit, I haven't a clue what you are talking about.

That's upto you squire. I cannot force you to open your mind and discuss these things.

He has an open mind, I'm sure he'd be willing to question any belief he has. You however, have a closed mind, you are not willing to question your beliefs.

 

[lifegazer]

Your assuming that that knowledge is not possessed elsewhere in the universe, in which case, it could not be said which was the first knowledge.

Well unless you're suggesting that little green men came to earth and presented first knowledge to life on Earth, we can know that first knowledge was gleaned without possessing any knowledge, simply by acknowledging the fact that it is first knowledge.