What causes Uncertainty?

[pittsburghjoe]

We know large objects are subject to the Measurement Problem. So, is it the uncertainty of the individual atoms and not the whole object? If it is the whole object, is it because it using Vector for Momentum?
 

Do scalar volumes use the vector field for direction (velocity, acceleration, momentum, path)? Is physical matter considered scalar volumes? Could uncertainty be from scalar volumes using vector?
 

Is the energy associated with light from vector momentum to scalar energy?

Is a Bose-Einstein condensate causing a physical scalar volume to become vector waves? Is absolute zero impossible because the vector field is responsible for movement?
 

Is the vector field why waves are waves? Is it all possible paths that cause interference patterns? Do Scalar Volumes limit the number of possible paths? Does measurement cause Vector Waves to be Scalar?
 

Consider what momentum from vector would do to a scalar volume. I think there is something extremely fundamental here. Is position from Scalar? Is momentum from Vector?

Isn't Uncertainty all about Position and Momentum?
 

Vector quantum waves can decohere/localize from something that is already scalar. Quantum information isn't lost to the environment, it is used by its scalar volume to become physical matter. Coherent lasers can avoid causing decoherence (scalar volumes) because it is vector/virtual. This is why they are used in a Bose-Einstein condensate.

 

Vector/Virtual Light Waves can only be as physical as the energy it becomes as scalar. If it doesn't have mass, does that mean a scalar volume doesn't form?

 

Particles in superposition are not physical. If they were their weight would multiply from being in all possible paths.

Mass must be involved in the physical structure/volume of particles.

 

A vector and a vector quantity are two different things. A vector field is filled with vectors. A wave is defined by the number of vectors it used in the field. A non-local wave uses a lot more from all possible paths. The position might be considered vector, but the measured particle is Scalar.

 

The weird thing about electrons is that they are never point particles while in electron shells. They are forced to be a wave because they have no start or end.

Could the complex plane be used to describe Vector? Is scalar using the real number line?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

"I'm going to keep rearranging my vector-scalar-volume-dechoerence-locality word salad until the Prof finally bans my ass entirely."  ~Pittsville Hoe

[pittsburghjoe]

You have so much hate in your heart, it's sad to think about.

[Joshpantera]

Ok, so you have tried again at another thread but carefully refrained from making it about god from the get go. The other are now locked because they were getting too circular in reasoning. And you apparently want to try and keep coming at this. 

 

Let's start off by addressing the OP. You are talking about uncertainty in the sense of the uncertainty principle. I assume you think this will lead to your proof of god???

 

If this is where you attempt to prove to us that god exists, then by all means get right to it. Because you have the burden of proof on your shoulders right now to try and prove your initial claim that god exists. 

 

The above, obviously, doesn't prove god exists. It's about particle / wave duality and related physical subjects that do nothing for the god debate.

 

So what is your point? Make the point clear. The only uncertainty that pertains to the existence of god is the uncertainty of not being able to know, objectively, if a god exists. The cause of this inherent uncertainty, is the fact that there's no objective proof to date for the existence of god, not from science, not from philosophy. 

 

What else would you like to add? 

[pittsburghjoe]

Do you know what the Shroud of Turin is? If you knew how impossible it is to create you would see how unnecessary all this is.

 

 

Uncertainty relates to God because it involves Scalar Volumes and the Vector Field. There wasn't Scalar before original sin. There wasn't wave-particle duality before original sin. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 minutes ago, pittsburghjoe said:

Uncertainty relates to God because it involves Scalar Volumes and the Vector Field. There wasn't Scalar before original sin. There wasn't wave-particle duality before original sin. 

Can you provide evidence to support these claims?  Can you provide evidence that original sin exists?  Can you provide evidence for anything that occurred before this alleged original sin came to be?

 

Yes or no?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

15 minutes ago, pittsburghjoe said:

You have so much hate in your heart, it's sad to think about.

[pittsburghjoe]

What do you think it implies when a particle can decohere only from the possibility of being observed?

 

“Even if not actually measured, the mere possibility that an observer could determine which slit the photon passed through causes the interference pattern to switch to non-interference.”

https://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harvard.edu/presentations/single-photon-interference

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 minute ago, pittsburghjoe said:

What do you think it implies when a particle can decohere only from the possibility of being observed?

 

“Even if not actually measured, the mere possibility that an observer could determine which slit the photon passed through causes the interference pattern to switch to non-interference.”

https://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harvard.edu/presentations/single-photon-interference

 

Well, obviously it implies that jesus is the only son of the father, begotten not made, that he died on the cross, was resurrected on the third day, and is now seated at the right hand of the father.

[Joshpantera]

Of course I know what the shroud of Turin is, it's an image of a European looking male face presented 'as if' the face of a middle eastern jew. In other words,  an obvious forgery which in and of itself doesn't prove (1) the existence of the jesus of nazareth myth or (2) the existence of god in the first place. It's only evidence of that a shroud of some unknown origin exists and doesn't prove anything about either jesus or god for that matter. Even if it were dated to the correct time period, it doesn't prove the existence of jesus from the gospel myths. 

 

So that get's you nowhere in terms of proving something. 

 

Next up: 

 

11 minutes ago, pittsburghjoe said:

Uncertainty relates to God because it involves Scalar Volumes and the Vector Field. There wasn't Scalar before original sin. There wasn't wave-particle duality before original sin. 

 

There you go again, you haven't first proven that god exists, number one. So you haven't proven that the god of the bible IS the god that exists, number two. And there you haven't proven that the bible is true, number three. Which leads us to how many points removed your claim of the bible's concept of original sin is from an objective statement of truth. 

 

We can't even get into the issues of particle - wave duality in science being related to your pet religious belief, until your pet religious beliefs are first proven true and accurate. You can't frame an argument in the way in which you keep trying to frame your argument. It's failed before you even start. 

 

The idea here is to see if you can identify where you keep going wrong or not? 

 

And possibly correct your argument to something that doesn't involve a presupposition (god exists) and then circular arguing based on the presupposition. 

 

[pittsburghjoe]

I have to prove God exists before Sin? Why, because you don't like it?

When God resurrected he took the form of the Son of God ..before he was born a human.

[Joshpantera]

1 minute ago, pittsburghjoe said:

I have to prove God exists before Sin? Why, because you don't like it?

When God resurrected he took the form of the Son of God ..before he was born a human.

 

Because if your presupposition (god exists) is wrong, then everything else follows. The bible is not related to any god. The myths in the bible stories starting in Genesis, like original sin, for instance, extend from the presupposition. 

 

You clearly don't understand that landscape of debate. You don't understand what the burden of proof means. And that's where you're spinning your wheels. You need to first understand why your arguments are poorly framed and can't ever work out for you. It requires rethinking your entire position and stance. 

[pittsburghjoe]

Uh, if there is Sin, then there is a God.

[Joshpantera]

37 minutes ago, pittsburghjoe said:

Uh, if there is Sin, then there is a God.

 

This outlines the biggest failure of your argument. Sin is a concept associated not with the general belief in god, but specifically to Judeo-Christianity. It's introduced as a concept in Genesis. You have a series of assumptions BEFORE sin is introduced as a concept. 

 

Assumptions:

 

1) God exists

2) The bible is true and only it's god is valid. 

3) The bible says sin exists. 

 

You're trying to argue that assumption #3 (sin exists) proves that assumption #1 (god exists) is factual. 

 

See why that will never work out as an argument???

[sdelsolray]

29 minutes ago, pittsburghjoe said:

Uncertainty relates to God because it involves Scalar Volumes and the Vector Field. There wasn't Scalar before original sin. There wasn't wave-particle duality before original sin. 

 

Three mere assertions in a row.  Cute.

[sdelsolray]

24 minutes ago, pittsburghjoe said:

What do you think it implies when a particle can decohere only from the possibility of being observed?

 

“Even if not actually measured, the mere possibility that an observer could determine which slit the photon passed through causes the interference pattern to switch to non-interference.”

https://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harvard.edu/presentations/single-photon-interference

 

 

This one is repeating himself.  He posted this link twice before in another thread.  It appears he's running out of material.

[pittsburghjoe]

Mind–body dualism is wave-particle duality

[WalterP]

I did try to warn you about this, Joe.

 

Romans 13 : 1 - 7.

 

1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 

2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 

3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 

4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 

5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. 

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 

7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

 

When you registered here and became a member of this forum you placed yourself under the authority of the Moderators.

 

They are god's established authority in this forum.

 

God requires you to submit to them, to show them respect and to honour them.

 

So, when the Mods politely ask you to provide evidence to back up your claims and assertions... you should do it.

 

To refuse, to dodge the question, to be evasive or to fail to carry out their lawful requests isn't rebellion against them.  It's you rebelling against god.

 

Joe, you've already felt the sword they wield when they've shut down threads where you disobeyed them.

 

Their sword is still hanging over you now.

 

If you can't give them the evidence they've asked for, why don't you just say so?

 

To continue in this stubborn dance of starting up new threads when they shut yours down is rebellion against god.

 

Scripture says so.

 

If you persist, the Mods will be acting under god's authority to shut you down again and ban you if you don't toe the line.

 

Please do what is right, what is scriptural and what is spiritual and godly by obeying the Moderators.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[pittsburghjoe]

Yawn. Pretty sure God is cool with me pointing out he exists even when the mods don't want me to.

[Joshpantera]

4 minutes ago, pittsburghjoe said:

Yawn. Pretty sure God is cool with me pointing out he exists even when the mods don't want me to.

 

This god is subjective, all in your mind as it stands. So the god is whatever you think it is. 

 

How about getting back to square one and proving your claim objectively without deviating off into red herrings about physics issues for multiple pages? Stay on task please. 

[Christianchat_Chat]

22 minutes ago, pittsburghjoe said:

Uh, if there is Sin, then there is a God.

 

if there is Sin, then there is also Perfection?

 

anything not of perfection/God is of sin because imperfect (not yet perfected in Christ/God) and not of Spirit (Christ/God), but Physical?

 

[sdelsolray]

6 minutes ago, pittsburghjoe said:

Yawn. Pretty sure God is cool with me pointing out he exists even when the mods don't want me to.

 

Note the self-approval.  This one believes he is special.

 

[WalterP]

Even if you refuse to behave as god's word instructs you Joe, I'm going to take my cue from it.

 

Titus 3 : 10  &  11.

 

 

¹⁰ Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. 

¹¹ You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned.

 

 

[pittsburghjoe]

8 minutes ago, Christianchat_Chat said:

 

if there is Sin, then there is also Perfection?

 

anything not of perfection/God is of sin because imperfect (not yet perfected in Christ/God) and not of Spirit (Christ/God), but Physical?

 

 

Yes, God is perfect order. Disorder has to come from something.

This physical reality of the fallen has something called entropy, it is disorder.

[Joshpantera]

Christians, you're both still getting way too far ahead of yourselves already. You don't seem to notice or identify the primary issue that I have made clear. Everything you say is based on a series of presuppositions that you accept without demonstrable proof and evidence to first substantiate. 

 

We can not have a discussion about the biblical concept of "sin," without first establishing whether or not it's real or provable in the first place. Not here, at ex-C. In christian echo chambers, it passed by unnoticed and unaddressed. But here, it will not go unaddressed. Biblical errancy and contradiction is a hurtle that one must face in order to proceed any further: 

 

 

Simply put, if the bible doesn't start off as factually true, how then can concepts introduced in a bible that doesn't start off factually true be true in and of themselves? 

 

Is sin true absent the truth of the bible???