"Magnetism" Question Covers Real Question

[NotBlinded]

I can understand your frustration. We don't know the underlying princible that causes this effect. But calling it "Force", "God", "Power of the Universe" and especially "Conciousness" all create connotations beyond that which we actually observe. "Force" isn't too bad, but it's very vague. "God" implies (in most peoples' minds) an anthropomorphic being, "Power of the Universe" implies there's only one, and again, is kind of vague. "Consciousness" implies almost as much as "god" in this respect and applies attributes (life, intent, etc) that I don't believe conform to the observed phenomenon.

 

Please don't think I'm trying to put anybody down here...

 

IMOHO,

No, I value what you have to say!

 

I feel that is why words can only go so far in order to understand this "Whatever". Hey, I kinda like Whatever, it has no boundries! Unless of course one were to type it like this: WhutEEEVER! Words are forms used to describe forms, not the formless. That is why, IMO, meaning is lost when trying to use words to describe the formless.

[Amanda]

"Why does everyone say that abiogenesis isn't part of evolution?"

 

 

They differ in their degrees of statistical impossibility. Evolution is as likely as a mule growing wings and flying cross-country. Abiogenesis is as likely as a mule growing wings and flying to Jupiter.

 

 

And what is the statistical possibility of a talking snake? Or a talking donkey?

 

Silly us.....believing in evidence and science! What could we have been thinking? It was all about a magic garden, a magic tree with magic fruit, and a talking snake! And of course the entire population of the world....what 6 billion, was sparked by 2 apparantly "magic" people just 6000 years ago!

 

Stupid, stupid us! How could we possibly believe the earth has been around for many thousands of years? Especially when it's so obvious that half our entire species was originally crafted out of a single rib belonging to a member of the other half of the species! Duh!!!

 

We are such for seeking the explanations for everything when the answers are all clearly laid out in a book composed by unknown authors! How dare we be exploring the world and space around us.....we should be decently burning witches and killing everyone who goes out to get the newspaper on Sunday morning like good little god-fearing boys and girls!

 

----- ------

 

Thanks White Raven! That was so eloquently done! I swear, every time I see posts like this... I think to myself, ExC's originator should make a sitcom on TV from this site! Wouldn't it make the world see themselves and laugh? Of course, I do know that Tx Viper can't help it... we only know what we only know. However... some responses like this in regards to me helped me wake from some delusions I had.

 

 

Skankboy and No Heaven for Kevin... thanks for your insights and patience. I appreciate it very, very much! I don't always say it, but I always do.

[NotBlinded]

I have seen 'What the Bleep do We Know' also, it's a very good movie. Although, keep in mind, it has a very New Age Physics flavor, but it does introduce some of the weird things that have been discovered in quantum physics.

 

When they were talking about our consciousness changing the state of things, they were refering to the wave/particle duality of matter and photons. When something is observable, it acts like a particle, when it isn't observable, it acts like a wave. People interprit this in different ways, and a lot like to make a connection between consciousness and waves collapsing into particles.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_particle_duality

 

The other aspect of not being able to accurately measure the postion and speed of a particle at the same time is called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_Un...ainty_Principle

Hi!

 

I read the links and went like this:

 

But, what I did get out of it was this:

 

"Such explanations, which are still encountered in popular expositions of quantum mechanics, are debunked by the EPR paradox, which shows that a "measurement" can be performed on a particle without disturbing it directly, by performing a measurement on a distant entangled particle."

 

Then, I got this out of the EPR paradox:

 

"The EPR paradox is a paradox in the following sense: if one takes quantum mechanics and adds some seemingly reasonable conditions (referred to as "locality", "realism", and "completeness"), then one obtains a contradiction. However, quantum mechanics by itself does not appear to be internally inconsistent, nor — as it turns out — does it contradict relativity. As a result of further theoretical and experimental developments since the original EPR paper, most physicists today regard the EPR paradox as an illustration of how quantum mechanics violates classical intuitions, and not as an indication that quantum mechanics is fundamentally flawed."

 

Then, I had to go to entangle particle and got this:

 

"For example, it is possible to prepare two particles in a single quantum state such that when one is observed to be spin-up, the other one will always be observed to be spin-down and vice versa, this despite the fact that it is impossible to predict, according to quantum mechanics, which set of measurements will be observed. As a result, measurements performed on one system seem to be instantaneously influencing other systems entangled with it. However, at this time classical information cannot be transmitted through entanglement faster than the speed of light.

 

Quantum entanglement is the basis for emerging technologies such as quantum computing and quantum cryptography, and has been used for experiments in quantum teleportation. At the same time, it produces some of the more theoretically and philosophically disturbing aspects of the theory, as one can show that the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics are inconsistent with the seemingly obvious principle of local realism, which is that information about the state of a system should only be mediated by interactions in its immediate surroundings. Different views of what is actually occurring in the process of quantum entanglement give rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics."

 

My wittle brain is struggling! I'm not quite sure what they are meaning when they speak of "popular expositions" of quantum mechanics being debunked by the EPR paradox. It says a measurement can be obtained by performing the measurement on an entagled particle while viewing the other although it is impossible to predict which measurement one will receive because it instantaneously influences other systems entangled with it. If different views of what is occurring give rise to different interpretations, how can the popular expositions be debunked? I quess I need to know what the popular expositions are first huh?

 

Oh...here it is:

 

"The uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics is sometimes erroneously explained by claiming that the measurement of position necessarily disturbs a particle's momentum. Heisenberg himself may have initially offered explanations which suggested this view. That this disturbance does not describe the essence of the uncertainty principle in current theory has been demonstrated above. The fundamentally non-classical characteristics of the uncertainty measurements in quantum mechanics were clarified due to the EPR paradox..."

 

 

So, it's a paradox of wave-particle duality that is not untrue. Maybe like the paradox of cause and effect being the same?

 

This is way over my head!!!!

[No Heaven for Kevin]

I have seen 'What the Bleep do We Know' also, it's a very good movie. Although, keep in mind, it has a very New Age Physics flavor, but it does introduce some of the weird things that have been discovered in quantum physics.

 

When they were talking about our consciousness changing the state of things, they were refering to the wave/particle duality of matter and photons. When something is observable, it acts like a particle, when it isn't observable, it acts like a wave. People interprit this in different ways, and a lot like to make a connection between consciousness and waves collapsing into particles.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_particle_duality

 

The other aspect of not being able to accurately measure the postion and speed of a particle at the same time is called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_Un...ainty_Principle

Hi!

 

I read the links and went like this:

 

But, what I did get out of it was this:

 

"Such explanations, which are still encountered in popular expositions of quantum mechanics, are debunked by the EPR paradox, which shows that a "measurement" can be performed on a particle without disturbing it directly, by performing a measurement on a distant entangled particle."

 

Then, I got this out of the EPR paradox:

 

"The EPR paradox is a paradox in the following sense: if one takes quantum mechanics and adds some seemingly reasonable conditions (referred to as "locality", "realism", and "completeness"), then one obtains a contradiction. However, quantum mechanics by itself does not appear to be internally inconsistent, nor — as it turns out — does it contradict relativity. As a result of further theoretical and experimental developments since the original EPR paper, most physicists today regard the EPR paradox as an illustration of how quantum mechanics violates classical intuitions, and not as an indication that quantum mechanics is fundamentally flawed."

 

Then, I had to go to entangle particle and got this:

 

"For example, it is possible to prepare two particles in a single quantum state such that when one is observed to be spin-up, the other one will always be observed to be spin-down and vice versa, this despite the fact that it is impossible to predict, according to quantum mechanics, which set of measurements will be observed. As a result, measurements performed on one system seem to be instantaneously influencing other systems entangled with it. However, at this time classical information cannot be transmitted through entanglement faster than the speed of light.

 

Quantum entanglement is the basis for emerging technologies such as quantum computing and quantum cryptography, and has been used for experiments in quantum teleportation. At the same time, it produces some of the more theoretically and philosophically disturbing aspects of the theory, as one can show that the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics are inconsistent with the seemingly obvious principle of local realism, which is that information about the state of a system should only be mediated by interactions in its immediate surroundings. Different views of what is actually occurring in the process of quantum entanglement give rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics."

 

My wittle brain is struggling! I'm not quite sure what they are meaning when they speak of "popular expositions" of quantum mechanics being debunked by the EPR paradox. It says a measurement can be obtained by performing the measurement on an entagled particle while viewing the other although it is impossible to predict which measurement one will receive because it instantaneously influences other systems entangled with it. If different views of what is occurring give rise to different interpretations, how can the popular expositions be debunked? I quess I need to know what the popular expositions are first huh?

 

Oh...here it is:

 

"The uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics is sometimes erroneously explained by claiming that the measurement of position necessarily disturbs a particle's momentum. Heisenberg himself may have initially offered explanations which suggested this view. That this disturbance does not describe the essence of the uncertainty principle in current theory has been demonstrated above. The fundamentally non-classical characteristics of the uncertainty measurements in quantum mechanics were clarified due to the EPR paradox..."

 

 

So, it's a paradox of wave-particle duality that is not untrue. Maybe like the paradox of cause and effect being the same?

 

This is way over my head!!!!

 

lol.

 

Believe me, it's not just your brain struggling with all this. If anyone says they have a good idea of what's going on at the quantum level, I'll call them a damn liar. The reason there are so many interpretations is because there is still so much to be learned, and it's so very difficult to test these ideas. We have just begun to scratch the surface of the whacky world that exists below the atomic level.

 

I will say, though, that just because we don't fully understand something now (i.e. electromagnetic fields), that doesn't mean it won't be understood in the future. And it definately doesn't mean that it has to be some sort of supernatural force just because we cant explain it a the moment.

[NotBlinded]

I will say, though, that just because we don't fully understand something now (i.e. electromagnetic fields), that doesn't mean it won't be understood in the future. And it definately doesn't mean that it has to be some sort of supernatural force just because we cant explain it a the moment.

Of course not...God/Whatever is perfectly natural!

[Ouroboros]

And who knows, maybe John Titor did travel in time from 2036...

 

The hyperdrive they speculate about is derived from the idea that electromagnetism and gravity is the same force, and the machine that could be used to test the hypothesis is the Z-Machine. And John Titor claimed that the results from that test is essential to build the time machine he used to get to our time. (Just one of those random facts I throw out now and then. )

[Valgeir]

"Why does everyone say that abiogenesis isn't part of evolution?"

 

 

They differ in their degrees of statistical impossibility. Evolution is as likely as a mule growing wings and flying cross-country. Abiogenesis is as likely as a mule growing wings and flying to Jupiter.

 

Yeah, and Christianity is as likely as a jackass talking.

 

...You're the best evidence we have for your religion!

[txviper]

Held up by computer problems. Let's try out the new laptop.

 

 

Amanda,

 

'How can I refute the evidence of abiogenesis once I looked at it?'

 

 

There isn't any, you've never seen any, and you can't post any.

[Asimov]

Held up by computer problems. Let's try out the new laptop.

 

 

Amanda,

 

'How can I refute the evidence of abiogenesis once I looked at it?'

 

 

There isn't any, you've never seen any, and you can't post any.

 

That's quite the assertion....and easy to refute.

 

Even the Urey-Miller experiment is evidence in support of abiogenesis.

[Ouroboros]

...

Amanda,

 

'How can I refute the evidence of abiogenesis once I looked at it?'

 

 

There isn't any, you've never seen any, and you can't post any.

Funny. There's even less for genesis...

[white_raven23]

Held up by computer problems. Let's try out the new laptop.

 

 

Amanda,

 

'How can I refute the evidence of abiogenesis once I looked at it?'

 

 

There isn't any, you've never seen any, and you can't post any.

 

 

I repeat.....

 

TALKING SNAKE!

[NorthenSun]

Of course, my philosophy of God is that we look everywhere for it... but it is everywhere, because it is everything, IMHO. What do you mean by calling it nothing?

 

I can understand your frustration. We don't know the underlying princible that causes this effect. But calling it "Force", "God", "Power of the Universe" and especially "Conciousness" all create connotations beyond that which we actually observe. "Force" isn't too bad, but it's very vague. "God" implies (in most peoples' minds) an anthropomorphic being, "Power of the Universe" implies there's only one, and again, is kind of vague. "Consciousness" implies almost as much as "god" in this respect and applies attributes (life, intent, etc) that I don't believe conform to the observed phenomenon.

 

When I was in Sunday School I often heard someone say that they saw God in everything and that everything was God. I wanted too ask, (but was too polite) "So you see God in a big fresh pile of steaming dog shit?"

 

I have to agree with you, Skankboy, that the concept of God implies to me something beyond the ordinary phenomenon that we experience everyday. Else if we say that God is everything, or for example the whole universe, the concept really loses any useful meaning. Neither would I consider the forces of nature to be God.

[Asimov]

I have to agree with you, Skankboy, that the concept of God implies to me something beyond the ordinary phenomenon that we experience everyday. Else if we say that God is everything, or for example the whole universe, the concept really loses any useful meaning. Neither would I consider the forces of nature to be God.

 

Of course it does, because saying God is everything is committing a fallacy of equivocation.

[Ex-COG]

I feel that is why words can only go so far in order to understand this "Whatever". Hey, I kinda like Whatever, it has no boundries! Unless of course one were to type it like this: WhutEEEVER! Words are forms used to describe forms, not the formless. That is why, IMO, meaning is lost when trying to use words to describe the formless.

 

 

The tao that can be described

is not the eternal Tao.

The name that can be spoken

is not the eternal Name.

 

That's what popped into my mind when I read your post.

[Amanda]

Amanda,

 

'How can I refute the evidence of abiogenesis once I looked at it?'

 

 

There isn't any, you've never seen any, and you can't post any.

 

Tx Viper... yes there is. It seems we are way past Stanly Miller's experiment of causing amino acids to suggest a premise for a living system. I did my own research, and found information that scientist can now or on the brink of creating replicating polypeptide chains! I suggest you do your own research too. I thought people were talking about spontaneous generation, which I knew had been proven false. Abiogenesis is different. If you look it up yourself, you'll find no one is steering you in the wrong direction. Abiogenesis is a possible theory with quite compelling evidence! Look it up before you automatically refute it.

 

 

I have to agree with you, Skankboy, that the concept of God implies to me something beyond the ordinary phenomenon that we experience everyday. Else if we say that God is everything, or for example the whole universe, the concept really loses any useful meaning. Neither would I consider the forces of nature to be God.

 

Of course it does, because saying God is everything is committing a fallacy of equivocation.

 

Asimov... ok, how about saying all things are parts, subsets of God?

[Ouroboros]

Hey, Amanda! You got a new symbol! Cool.

 

You know you can change the text "Apostate" above it, if you go into "My Controls" menu.

 

WHAT THE??? I got a new symbol too! Yeah! Awesome!

[Asimov]

Asimov... ok, how about saying all things are parts, subsets of God?

 

Still doesn't define God.