interference of particles at the quantum level

[Edgarcito]

And, complete/absolute would match the Chrisitan God scenario.....that He knew me before and after, and the potential for a finite existence or some other avenue for my "soul".  If y'all can't see this in the discussion, it's not my fault.  It's there in spades.  Thx. 

[Edgarcito]

Then the next question is, is there a component in our "system" that allows for free will and also a component that gives us the opportunity to escape the finite option.  The take home message is we don't know, but that we could allow for them through faith.  Given we don't understand the universe, it only makes sense that we might allow for free will and eternal life.  But I'm just a redneck in west Texas....

 

[Edgarcito]

And the answer to both is will we EXERCISE OUR FREE WILL TO ESCAPE DEATH...a doorway out through the Door.

 

That's it, that's my grand unified theory as a human.

[pantheory]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

It, them, scientists, humans, are largely on an ego trip because of our ability to predict our tiny subjective realm pretty well.... essentially making it into a math proof and then summarily patting ourselves on the back with shit like Nobel prizes and expensive awards banquets.  

 

It's a mess....and then use that knowledge to run people down.... which is even more sad for the person having to revert to that avenue.  Don't be that guy.  My dear ole dad was.  Granted he was smart enough to do it, but it was unbecoming and hurtful.

 

You want to be famous; I would suggest taking your prospective model and the building outward with the known inputs and know behaviors of those inputs into your model.  And then move outward adding the shit and see how your certainty stays intact or not.

 

I'm not going to charge anyone for this insight as "I am a neat guy".  That's a Steve Martin reference for us old guys.

 

Take care.

 

 

I'm sure that the practicing of science at a "high" level is an ego trip for some scientists, but generally in the absence of religion, reality must be explained.  I know a lot about modern physics theory but think much of it is wrong. On the other hand I know a lot about biology theory and think most of it is good, and some of it is great IMO such as Natural Selection.

 

I've been theorizing since 1958 when I was still in high school. This was the same year I became an atheist, and the same year I started finding what I believed were flaws in some science theories. My mom asked me to study religion for her sake, but by doing so I felt i also needed to study science. The idea was that if religion was wrong then reality must be explainable by science. That same year I decided there were many problems with both religion and science.

 

your quote:

"You want to be famous; I would suggest taking your prospective model and the building outward with the known inputs and know behaviors of those inputs into your model.  And then move outward adding the shit and see how your certainty stays intact or not."

 

For an old guy, I wouldn't mind being famous to get more hot young chicks (that I don't have to pay for)  , but I would prefer just to promote correct theory whether mine or someone else's. Here is a listing of one of my books, my website, and some of my own papers and theories. My only published research papers have only been in cosmology.

 

http://www.pantheory.org/

 

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=7ONCj-kAAAAJ&hl=en

 

https://papers.pantheory.org/Theory-of-Everything.pdf

 

https://papers.pantheory.org/Grand-Unified-Theory.pdf

 

I run a loosely knit group of theorists doing research in cosmology, genetic and stem cell research, and meteorology,

 

https://www.send2press.com/wire/profile/pantheory-research-organization/

 

My own cosmological model will rise or fall based upon its unique equations and related calculations and provable details.

 

Otra vez voy a Tijuana este fin de semana hasta el Lunes.  Espero que vd. tiene un buen fin de semana tambien, comenzando hoy 9/2/22.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Not that difficult to conceptualize.  If the limits are known, absolute, then again, it's just a matter of computing the inputs and outcomes.  This yields a finite answer.  Job Bob is born, is imputed with these knowns.... his body reacts to the knowns, and we understand the output of his body, then Joe Bob lands over there dead where we predicted he would die simply because our abilities would allow us to understand the entire system.

 

Let's just start on this half of the dilemma for now please.  I'd like to know how the aforementioned is incorrect in anyone's opinion.

 

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle prevents us from knowing the "entire system" of Joe Bob with absolute certainty.

 

Therefore, the aforementioned is incorrect.

 

 

 

But we've here before.

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/86397-the-problem-of-evol/page/8/#comment-1251634

 

You wrote...

 

A finite universe and associated understanding would mean complete predictability and 100% certainty.  We, given the ability to account for all the associated factors, could calculate how it all plays out.  Conservation of space, time, void, etc. was completely accounted for.....this singularity accounted for this universe, perfect.

An infinite universe might present itself two-fold.  One, our inability to account for certainty, and two, our inability to define a limit. 

Does that help? 

 

To which I replied...

 

Well, not really.

Even if we live in a finite universe, it's still one where quantum uncertainty makes calculation of all factors impossible.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle makes it impossible for us to simultaneously know both the position AND the velocity of a given particle.

Unless you are denying that such quantum uncertainty exists?

 

 

 

And since Joe Bob is made up of particles this Principle makes it impossible to know the "entire system" of Joe Bob and his inputs, outputs and outcomes, etc.

 

Which is why the aforementioned is incorrect.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

[Edgarcito]

17 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle prevents us from knowing the "entire system" of Joe Bob with absolute certainty.

 

Therefore, the aforementioned is incorrect.

 

 

 

But we've here before.

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/86397-the-problem-of-evol/page/8/#comment-1251634

 

You wrote...

 

A finite universe and associated understanding would mean complete predictability and 100% certainty.  We, given the ability to account for all the associated factors, could calculate how it all plays out.  Conservation of space, time, void, etc. was completely accounted for.....this singularity accounted for this universe, perfect.

An infinite universe might present itself two-fold.  One, our inability to account for certainty, and two, our inability to define a limit. 

Does that help? 

 

To which I replied...

 

Well, not really.

Even if we live in a finite universe, it's still one where quantum uncertainty makes calculation of all factors impossible.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle makes it impossible for us to simultaneously know both the position AND the velocity of a given particle.

Unless you are denying that such quantum uncertainty exists?

 

 

 

And since Joe Bob is made up of particles this Principle makes it impossible to know the "entire system" of Joe Bob and his inputs, outputs and outcomes, etc.

 

Which is why the aforementioned is incorrect.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

I think I covered that in my posts Walter....our perception is infinite, large and small, near and far, yet our bodies are finite.  As I said, I'm speculating God employs free will as a test to our wanting death or eternal life, something finite or infinite.  That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

 

And maybe Heisenburg was on to something...

 

[Edgarcito]

31 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

I'm sure that the practicing of science at a "high" level is an ego trip for some scientists, but generally in the absence of religion, reality must be explained.  I know a lot about modern physics theory but think much of it is wrong. On the other hand I know a lot about biology theory and think most of it is good, and some of it is great IMO such as Natural Selection.

 

I've been theorizing since 1958 when I was still in high school. This was the same year I became an atheist, and the same year I started finding what I believed were flaws in some science theories. My mom asked me to study religion for her sake, but by doing so I felt i also needed to study science. The idea was that if religion was wrong then reality must be explainable by science. That same year I decided there were many problems with both religion and science.

 

your quote:

"You want to be famous; I would suggest taking your prospective model and the building outward with the known inputs and know behaviors of those inputs into your model.  And then move outward adding the shit and see how your certainty stays intact or not."

 

For an old guy, I wouldn't mind being famous to get more young chicks , but I would prefer just to promote correct theory whether mine or someone else's. Here is a listing of one of my books, my website, and some of my own papers and theories. So far my only published research papers have only been in cosmology.

 

http://www.pantheory.org/

 

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=7ONCj-kAAAAJ&hl=en

 

https://papers.pantheory.org/Theory-of-Everything.pdf

 

https://papers.pantheory.org/Grand-Unified-Theory.pdf

 

I run a loosely knit group of theorists doing research in cosmology, genetic and stem cell research, and meteorology,

 

https://www.send2press.com/wire/profile/pantheory-research-organization/

 

My own cosmological model will rise or fall based upon its unique mathematics and related calculations and theory details.

 

Otra vez voy a Tijuana este fin de semana hasta el Lunes.  Espero que vd. tiene un buen fin de semana tambien, comenzando 9/2/22.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you and sounds good, enjoy your time.

[walterpthefirst]

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I think I covered that in my posts Walter....our perception is infinite, large and small, near and far, yet our bodies are finite.  As I said, I'm speculating God employs free will as a test to our wanting death or eternal life, something finite or infinite.  That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

 

And maybe Heisenburg was on to something...

 

 

There's nothing wrong in speculation, Ed.

 

However, I should point out that you are incorrect about our perception.  We cannot perceive anything that is infinitely small (Heisenberg, again) and we cannot perceive anything that is infinitely large because we can only perceive the observable universe - nothing more.

 

Your speculation also involves something known by faith (god) and something else (free will) which we don't even know that we possess.

 

That's an interesting mix.

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

2 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

There's nothing wrong in speculation, Ed.

 

However, I should point out that you are incorrect about our perception.  We cannot perceive anything that is infinitely small (Heisenberg, again) and we cannot perceive anything that is infinitely large because we can only perceive the observable universe - nothing more.

 

Your speculation also involves something known by faith (god) and something else (free will) which we don't even know that we possess.

 

That's an interesting mix.

 

 

 

 

No, the definition of perceive allows for something we come to understand.  Children perceive the immediate, adults perceive much more, i.e., the potential for infinite, small and large.

[walterpthefirst]

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

No, the definition of perceive allows for something we come to understand.  Children perceive the immediate, adults perceive much more, i.e., the potential for infinite, small and large.

 

No, you are wrong, Ed.  This is what you wrote...

 

our perception is infinite, large and small, near and far, yet our bodies are finite.

 

I just explained to you why our perception of the infinitely large is impossible.  The visual limits of the observable universe make it impossible for us to ever perceive the infinity that might lie beyond.  And nobody knows if it is infinite in extent or simply vastly larger than the observable universe, much as a grain of sand is part of an ocean.

 

Our perception of the infinitely small is also impossible.  Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle makes it impossible for us to use anything to perceive what is at the quantum scale.  We can't use photons of light or particles like electrons to perceive quantum scale phenomenon because the act of observing with photons or particles changes the things we want to observe.  Which means that we do not see things as they really are - we only see the changes that we have made to what we wanted to observe.

 

In both cases, the infinitely large and the infinitely small, there is nothing we can do to come to understand them.  We are forever denied this knowledge by the way the universe works. 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

39 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

No, you are wrong, Ed.  This is what you wrote...

 

our perception is infinite, large and small, near and far, yet our bodies are finite.

 

I just explained to you why our perception of the infinitely large is impossible.  The visual limits of the observable universe make it impossible for us to ever perceive the infinity that might lie beyond.  And nobody knows if it is infinite in extent or simply vastly larger than the observable universe, much as a grain of sand is part of an ocean.

 

Our perception of the infinitely small is also impossible.  Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle makes it impossible for us to use anything to perceive what is at the quantum scale.  We can't use photons of light or particles like electrons to perceive quantum scale phenomenon because the act of observing with photons or particles changes the things we want to observe.  Which means that we do not see things as they really are - we only see the changes that we have made to what we wanted to observe.

 

In both cases, the infinitely large and the infinitely small, there is nothing we can do to come to understand them.  We are forever denied this knowledge by the way the universe works. 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

Your take doesn’t fit the definition… but I understand what you are saying.  I disagree. Thx.

[walterpthefirst]

This might be of some help to you, Ed.

 

If you are going to go with science, as you did with the Joe Bob example or the Finite Universe example from the Problem of Evol thread, then you have to play by the rules of science.  And science tells us that complete and absolute knowledge of things impossible.  Quantum mechanics governs the realm of the very small and only uses probabilities, not certainties.  General Relativity governs the realm of the very big and in that system nothing is absolute.  There is no absolute framework in GR, but only things that are relative to each other.  That's why it's called Relativity.  The clue is in the name. 

 

If you are going to go with faith, then you have to play by the rules of faith, as outlined in Hebrews 11.  This chapter is a model of all other instances of faith in the entire bible.  Biblical faith does not employ evidence.  Going with faith means going without visible or tangible evidence.  If you read through Hebrews 11, all of the instances cited are about people who went by faith without seeing or without evidence to guide them.  

 

And that is why I said that your speculation in this thread was an interesting mix.  

 

I think I covered that in my posts Walter....our perception is infinite, large and small, near and far, yet our bodies are finite.  As I said, I'm speculating God employs free will as a test to our wanting death or eternal life, something finite or infinite.  That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

 

You mix evidence (perception) with faith (god) when the two systems play by different and mutually exclusive rules.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

7 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

This might be of some help to you, Ed.

 

If you are going to go with science, as you did with the Joe Bob example or the Finite Universe example from the Problem of Evol thread, then you have to play by the rules of science.  And science tells us that complete and absolute knowledge of things impossible.  Quantum mechanics governs the realm of the very small and only uses probabilities, not certainties.  General Relativity governs the realm of the very big and in that system nothing is absolute.  There is no absolute framework in GR, but only things that are relative to each other.  That's why it's called Relativity.  The clue is in the name. 

 

If you are going to go with faith, then you have to play by the rules of faith, as outlined in Hebrews 11.  This chapter is a model of all other instances of faith in the entire bible.  Biblical faith does not employ evidence.  Going with faith means going without visible or tangible evidence.  If you read through Hebrews 11, all of the instances cited are about people who went by faith without seeing or without evidence to guide them.  

 

And that is why I said that your speculation in this thread was an interesting mix.  

 

I think I covered that in my posts Walter....our perception is infinite, large and small, near and far, yet our bodies are finite.  As I said, I'm speculating God employs free will as a test to our wanting death or eternal life, something finite or infinite.  That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

 

You mix evidence (perception) with faith (god) when the two systems play by different and mutually exclusive rules.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

Just the way my brain puts patterns and types together.  I see the pattern as remarkably similar. 

 

Let's go back to the beginning and not worry about whether we can achieve these points scientifically.  Let's look at the theory please.

 

If our objective existence is absolute....and from a practical standpoint, it seems as though that would be the case, whether we understand it completely or not, then our live ARE like a math proof.  Would you agree with that?

[walterpthefirst]

On 9/3/2022 at 2:55 PM, Edgarcito said:

Just the way my brain puts patterns and types together.  I see the pattern as remarkably similar. 

 

Let's go back to the beginning and not worry about whether we can achieve these points scientifically.  Let's look at the theory please.

 

If our objective existence is absolute....and from a practical standpoint, it seems as though that would be the case, whether we understand it completely or not, then our live ARE like a math proof.  Would you agree with that?

 

That's an interesting question, Ed.

 

To entertain it I'd have to start by accepting the existence of two things.  First, the existence of some kind of absolute and the second being that this absolute is the  objective of our existence.  For your information, I have no idea what you mean by the term 'absolute' so I can't do anything except hypothetically accept it's existence, for the sake of entertaining your argument.  If you are talking about some physical absolute then I do not accept the reality of such a thing for the very reasons I've already given to you in this thread.  I know of no possible way that we can know of anything cosmically absolute and also no way of knowing anything absolute in the quantum realm either.  

 

However, for the sake of entertaining your question I will hypothetically accept the existence of this absolute, whatever that is.

 

When it comes to this absolute being the objective of our existence, I do not accept that either.  This kind of purpose or destination being built into reality is more commonly known as the Argument from Design, https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_design  This is a teleological argument presupposing the existence of some designing agency - usually god.  As an atheist and a sceptic I have yet to see any convincing evidence for god.  Therefore, I do not accept the teleological argument and therefore I do not accept that there is any design, purpose, objective or destination built into reality.

 

However, for the sake of entertaining your question I will hypothetically accept that reality has some kind of objective.

 

 

Therefore, taking these two hypothetical points as givens, do I agree that our lives are like a mathematical proof?   

 

My answer is No.  I do not agree.

 

Mathematical proofs are purely abstract concepts and our lives are clearly not nor even 'like' purely abstract concepts. 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

That's an interesting question, Ed.

 

To entertain it I'd have to start by accepting the existence of two things.  First, the existence of some kind of absolute and the second being that this absolute is the  objective of our existence.  For your information, I have no idea what you mean by the term 'absolute' so I can't do anything except hypothetically accept it's existence, for the sake of entertaining your argument.  If you are talking about some physical absolute then I do not accept the reality of such a thing for the very reasons I've already given to you in this thread.  I know of no possible way that we can know of anything cosmically absolute and also no way of knowing anything absolute in the quantum realm either.  

 

However, for the sake of entertaining your question I will hypothetically accept the existence of this absolute, whatever that is.

 

When it comes to this absolute being the objective of our existence, I do not accept that either.  This kind of purpose or destination being built into reality is more commonly known as the Argument from Design, https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_design  This is a teleological argument presupposing the existence of some designing agency - usually god.  As an atheist and a sceptic I have yet to see any convincing evidence for god.  Therefore, I do not accept the teleological argument and therefore I do not accept that there is any design, purpose, objective or destination built into reality.

 

However, for the sake of entertaining your question I will hypothetically accept that reality has some kind of objective.

 

 

Therefore, taking these two hypothetical points as givens, do I agree that our lives are like a mathematical proof?   

 

My answer is No.  I do not agree.

 

Mathematical proofs are purely abstract concepts and our lives are clearly not nor even 'like' purely abstract concepts. 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

Lol, I appreciate you trying Walter, but for the conversation, it's really not as formal as you make it out to be.  My point simply would be a finite universe and a completely known quantum understanding....i..e completeness.  For example, the universe as having absolute bounds, and everything totally understood within those bounds.  Void meaning no physical properties, etc.  

 

The bounds within, imo, would be calculable.  These reactions, those reactions, might play out to some end or some harmony perhaps, who know.  Long story short, the property of Joe Bob would be calculable.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

27 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Lol, I appreciate you trying Walter, but for the conversation, it's really not as formal as you make it out to be.  My point simply would be a finite universe and a completely known quantum understanding....i..e completeness.  For example, the universe as having absolute bounds, and everything totally understood within those bounds.  Void meaning no physical properties, etc.  

 

The bounds within, imo, would be calculable.  These reactions, those reactions, might play out to some end or some harmony perhaps, who know.  Long story short, the property of Joe Bob would be calculable.

 

 

 

But the things you list are the very stumbling blocks that I've described, Ed.

 

You cannot know if the universe is finite so you cannot claim that it has absolute bounds and therefore you can never arrive at a state of complete understanding of it.  Nor can quantum mechanics give you completeness.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  QM only gives probabilities.  Therefore, all of these things employed in your argument are unknowable, imponderable and beyond calculation. 

 

This is not a matter of formality - its how the universe works.

 

But, if you want to waive that inconvenient detail and keep things so informal as to be unrealistic, then what value are your unrealistic speculations?

 

You might as well be talking about pink unicorns or invisible teapots in outer space.

 

If you want to converse about such fantastical notions, that's ok by me.  Carry on.

[Edgarcito]

17 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

But the things you list are the very stumbling blocks that I've described, Ed.

 

You cannot know if the universe is finite so you cannot claim that it has absolute bounds and therefore you can never arrive at a state of complete understanding of it.  Nor can quantum mechanics give you completeness.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  QM only gives probabilities.  Therefore, all of these things employed in your argument are unknowable, imponderable and beyond calculation. 

 

This is not a matter of formality - its how the universe works.

 

But, if you want to waive that inconvenient detail and keep things so informal as to be unrealistic, then what value are your unrealistic speculations?

 

You might as well be talking about pink unicorns or invisible teapots in outer space.

 

If you want to converse about such fantastical notions, that's ok by me.  Carry on.

It seems rather straightforward the reason that we only have certainty is that we don't understand completely and can't calculate the possibilities.  Speculating on this if a long way from unicorns and teapots. 

 

I'm sorry you can't comprehend this nor are willing.