Arrogance & Religion

[Raithere]

Re: The intended goal of physics?

one_raven:

Don’t confuse the hypothetical explanations of empirical observations with the data and equations those observations establish. The underlying problem that you are addressing here is that ‘reality’ does not always behave according to our classical ‘common sense’ perspective. There are some truly confounding things going on in some of these arenas. The possibility that you must consider is that reality is nowhere near as absolute as most people think. In fact, evidence suggests that reality is instead relational and probabilistic.

The double slit experiment is only inconclusive in its interpretation, the data and equations are quite sound. Indeed, the philosophical aspect has become quite important as we are seeing something that we cannot truly comprehend or explain. In fact, quantum physics is not mere hypothetical extrapolation as you seem to suggest but a very solid set of equations. QED, for instance, is actually the most accurate theory ever devised. These equations are extremely accurate models of reality; the problem is that the interpretations they suggest are quite confounding. The efforts you decry as implausible are primarily mathematical attempts to reduce the equations into something more manageable and more easily understood or to explore the possibilities that they suggest.

~Raithere

 

[one_raven]

Re: Re: The intended goal of physics?

Originally posted by Raithere
The possibility that you must consider is that reality is nowhere near as absolute as most people think. In fact, evidence suggests that reality is instead relational and probabilistic.

I have considered it.
I still do quite regularly.
I question everything that I am not satisfied with the explanations on.
That inclused classical theory and modern physics models.

Originally posted by Raithere
The double slit experiment is only inconclusive in its interpretation, the data and equations are quite sound. Indeed, the philosophical aspect has become quite important as we are seeing something that we cannot truly comprehend or explain.

I completely agree.
That is the crux of my argument.
The fact that the model is mathematically viable does not imply that it is relaistically feasible.
We do not understand it yet.
We have not solved the puzzle.
Quantum Theory does not solve the mystery either.
It simply rovides the math and a fantasical view that, although not observed as fact, fits into the equations.
Why not just say, "God did it." and plug him into the equations?

Originally posted by Raithere
In fact, quantum physics is not mere hypothetical extrapolation as you seem to suggest but a very solid set of equations.

I think it is.
It is hypothetical extrapolation from a very solid set of equations.

Originally posted by Raithere
The efforts you decry as implausible are primarily mathematical attempts to reduce the equations into something more manageable and more easily understood or to explore the possibilities that they suggest.

Which I why I said that it is a useful tool to help get to the point of understanding reality, but not at all an accurate depiction of reality.

Tell me...
What should be the intended goal of science?
To make sure all the math works and simply make up unprovable hypotheses and invisible undetectable unproovable objects and notions to fill in the blanks and claim that it is reality?
Or to use those proven equations as a tool to look further into the phenomena in an effort to discover and understand what is actually happening?

 

[Raithere]

Reality?

one raven:

You seem to be laboring under the presumption that there is a single, comprehensible, concrete reality. While it may be possible that we'll find one it does not seem to be likely. Instead it seems quite likely that reality is, in actuality, quite bizarre from a human perspective. I see no reason to assume that the Universe must conform to a human conception of ‘proper’ behavior; the expectation is simply anthropomorphism. Rather, I think that science has run headlong into the errors of reductionism and is modifying itself accordingly.

~Raithere

 

[one_raven]

Re: Reality?

Originally posted by Raithere
You seem to be laboring under the presumption that there is a single, comprehensible, concrete reality. While it may be possible that we'll find one it does not seem to be likely. Instead it seems quite likely that reality is, in actuality, quite bizarre from a human perspective.

Sounds like Theistic reasoning to me.
Why do you believe this?
I have seen no empirical evidence for this not based on wave/particle duality.
Wave/particle duality, of course, is supported mainly by Einstein's work with the photelectric effect, Feynman's interpretation of teh two slits experiment and Michelson/Morley's interpretation of their claim to fame.
As I pointed out earlier, I think that the conclusions drawn from the results of these expoeriments are inconlusive at best.

Other than these three (and directly related observations) what evidence has science offered to make any reasonable assumption that Classical Newtonian Mechanics should be suspended in ANY situation?

There very well could be some that I am not aware of, I am completly open to that possibility.
Just as if someone offered me proof today that God exists, I would accept it and re-evaluate everything I know about the subject.
But I have searched for quite a while now to no avail.

 

[Jenyar]

posted by One_Raven
1.) The role of Science and its intended goal is to accurately predict the outcome of observed phenomena. It is not necessary for the hypotheses to reflect the underlying truth and reality of what is happening. Actual reality is treated as subjective and relative to the observer. This approach blurs the line between the absolute and the abstract. It mixes philosphy and science.
2.) The role of science and its intended goal is to discover the underlying objective fundamental truths behind what we observe. Personal realities may be subjective and relative, however, that is no more than the objective truth filtered through our fallible subjective human perception.
I prefer approach #2.

I tend to agree with Raithere. If you were a Christian you'd be a fundamentalist. You are subjecting science to your limited world-view (just like some scientists subject religion to their limited world-view). But to be fair, I also prefer #2, because that is how I approach my religion.

Option 1 has the tendency to create or "induce" meaning, while option 2 tries its best to "deduce" meaning.

As a theist (or a Christian, I should say) I have to ask you: On what evidence do you believe in any "fundamental truths" if they are not evident without theory, inspection or interpretation? If Heisenberg concludes 1 using valid and tested methods, and Bohr has concluded 2 also using valid and tested methods, and they seem irreconcilable but obviously both refer to the same reality - do you, as atheists do about the Bible, conclude that either one or both are flawed - or do you accept their conclusions and look for objective truth #3?

Evidence is always inconclusive, depending on with how much you will settle for. Yet "settling for" is hardly scientific - thus the search goes on...

That is the nature of any search for the "truth" - it is an endless lesson on enquiry. But we have to ask ourselves first: what are we prepared to believe?

 

[Raithere]

Re: Re: Reality?

Originally posted by one_raven
I have seen no empirical evidence for this not based on wave/particle duality.
Wave/particle duality, of course, is supported mainly by Einstein's work with the photelectric effect, Feynman's interpretation of teh two slits experiment and Michelson/Morley's interpretation of their claim to fame.
As I pointed out earlier, I think that the conclusions drawn from the results of these expoeriments are inconlusive at best.

I must disagree. Wave/particle duality is an observed phenomenon; what this phenomenon means is what is undecided not the fact that quantum level 'objects' exhibit properties of both particles and waves. Note that this behavior is not limited to photons alone but has also been demonstrated with electrons and even atoms. All experiments to date have only confirmed this.

~Raithere

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Fair enough, but it doesn't answer my question.
Why is it logical to ask the question; Who created God?

Love

Jan Ardena.

Sorry, but it doesn't answer mine.

Why isn't it logical to ask the question; who created god?



rofl

 

[Gilgal]

why argue God's existance using logic perhaps, God is not logical to our limited mind

quick question..

Did electricity exist before humanity discovered it?
Has earth always been round or was it once actually flat?

In the area of God I don't think science can proove or disproove anything.

 

[one_raven]

Originally posted by Jenyar
As a theist (or a Christian, I should say) I have to ask you: On what evidence do you believe in any "fundamental truths" if they are not evident without theory, inspection or interpretation? If Heisenberg concludes 1 using valid and tested methods, and Bohr has concluded 2 also using valid and tested methods, and they seem irreconcilable but obviously both refer to the same reality - do you, as atheists do about the Bible, conclude that either one or both are flawed - or do you accept their conclusions and look for objective truth #3?

I will fully admit that there is at least some level of faith involved in scientific discovery.
One way that religion and science differs is how much faith is required and what you should have faith in.
I have no problem having faith in reason (my own) and logic determining my views of how to interpret data.
We know things to different levels of confidence.
I can't say that I KNOW that atoms exist (since no one has ever "seen" one), but I can say that I am reasonably sure that atoms exist based on all the observations and corroborating experiments.
However, the opposite is true about God and other matters of far-reaching faith in most religions.
How much evidence is there for; God, Heaven and Hell, Angels, Creation of man by supernatural forces etc...
Religion requires a great deal of faith in things unseen and unprovable in the physical world.
Science asks for considerably less faith since a great deal of physical empirical evidence suggesting truth is readily available.

In your situation above, I would lean towards whichever conclusion was more reasonable to me, and not decide until more evidence is forthcoming froms scientist #3, #4, #5 or myself.
If they were contradictory, then yes, absolutely one or both MUST be incorrect (or at least incomplete).

Evidence is always inconclusive, depending on with how much you will settle for. Yet "settling for" is hardly scientific - thus the search goes on...

I agree completely.
The difference is...
Science says, "Here are the questions. Let's look at the possibilities."
Religion (especially Christianity) says. "Here are the answers. Don't ask any questions."

 

[one_raven]

Re: Re: Re: Reality?

Originally posted by Raithere
I must disagree. Wave/particle duality is an observed phenomenon; what this phenomenon means is what is undecided not the fact that quantum level 'objects' exhibit properties of both particles and waves. Note that this behavior is not limited to photons alone but has also been demonstrated with electrons and even atoms. All experiments to date have only confirmed this.

What it means is everything.
We observe what appears to be a particle exhibiting properties of both a wave and a particle.

This could mean that sub-atomic particles behave differently than super-atomic particles (the popular view).
Or, it could mean (my view) that what we are mis-interpreting experimental results as wave/particle duality and mis-understanding what is actually happening.

I wish I could share what I think is actually happening here (it might make more sense) , but I am not ready to yet.
If I disseminate my hypothesis too soon (before I have corroborating experiments and verifying equations) it would (understandably) be discounted as crackpottery before it is even considered by the scientific community.
Besides, if it IS accepted, and I share it before publishing it, I run the considerable risk of receiving no credit.

Duality (arguably) is even found on super-atomic levels (therefore if Newton applies to basket balls, it should also apply to single atoms and electrons).

However, the question still stands:
What, outside of apparent wave/particle duality, suggests that the laws of Classical Newtonian Mechanics should ever be suspended?

 

[Raithere]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Reality?

Originally posted by one_raven
What it means is everything.

I guess that depends upon what your goals are. From my POV you seem to be stuck on the reductionist track, continuing to hope and in fact insisting that some further discovery will crystallize our conceptions of reality into some absolute theory. You’re in good company, Einstein thought so too, but the last half century has seen us move further away rather than closer to his ideal.

We observe what appears to be a particle exhibiting properties of both a wave and a particle.

More properly, we observe some ‘things’ that exhibit the properties of both waves and particles. Since classical particles do not act like waves and waves do not act like particles it is reasonable to infer that quantum objects are something different that share the properties of both.

Or, it could mean (my view) that what we are mis-interpreting experimental results as wave/particle duality and mis-understanding what is actually happening.

Well, I’m not sure how much there is to misinterpret on this level. Photons, electrons, and even atoms sometimes behave like particles and sometimes they behave like waves depending upon how the experiment is setup. This much is not in question. But there are various hypotheses as to how and why this happens; from the Copenhagen interpretation to carrier waves, transactional waves, string theory, etc. The problem is that all of them have some element that is distinctly strange from our human experience POV.

And this is only one experiment that demonstrates such weirdness. QED shows that in calculating the path of photons the most accurate calculation is to add up every possible path it could take (including every bizarrely twisted loop you can imagine).

I wish I could share what I think is actually happening here (it might make more sense), but I am not ready to yet.
…
Besides, if it IS accepted, and I share it before publishing it, I run the considerable risk of receiving no credit.

I had no idea you were a physicist. Surely you can give a few clues as to your interpretation without revealing the fine detail that would risk your credit.

Duality (arguably) is even found on super-atomic levels (therefore if Newton applies to basket balls, it should also apply to single atoms and electrons).

I’m not quite sure what you mean here.

What, outside of apparent wave/particle duality, suggests that the laws of Classical Newtonian Mechanics should ever be suspended?

Well, nothing actually. Classical physics works quite well above the vaguely defined quantum level. However, what seems to be the case is that the behavior of objects on a classical level is the result of quantum probability rather than a strictly mechanistic substructure. In other words, light appears to travel in straight lines (excepting the influence of gravity) because most of the quantum probabilities cancel each-other out, not because photons always travel in straight lines.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Re: why argue God's existance using logic perhaps, God is not logical to our limited mind

Originally posted by Gilgal
In the area of God I don't think science can proove or disproove anything.

This depends upon how you define God.

BTW: Welcome to SciForums.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Why is it logical to ask the question; Who created God?

Since Zero seems reluctant to respond more fully, I’ll take this one.

Logic aside for the moment, why should there be any compelling reason not to ask any conceivable question?
Is there some category or class of questions IYO that people should not ask?

Logically, however, the question is quite appropriate. It stems from the ‘first cause’ argument for god, which states, “Everything in the Universe requires a cause, therefore there must be some initial cause for the Universe to exist, that cause is God.”

There are several errors in this argument but the question ‘Who created God?’ addresses the assignment of the attribute of self-causation, which is simply assumed to be a property of God rather than logically necessitated.

I hope that helps answer your question.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by doom
Cos thats just as stupid (almost)
if its always existed that implies infinity,throws out the big bang which is quiet firm as an explanation for things.

I think its better to say there is infinity of everthing outside the universe so anything that is physically possible will happen somewhere somehow,a multiverse if you like or something else along those lines.

You must deal with infinity no matter how you try to resolve the problem. You seemed not to notice but even though you say that ‘the Universe always existed’ is a stupid answer because it implies infinity you, yourself, explicitly declare infinity in your alternative. Unsound reasoning there buddy.

~Raithere

 

[one_raven]

Originally posted by Raithere
I guess that depends upon what your goals are. From my POV you seem to be stuck on the reductionist track, continuing to hope and in fact insisting that some further discovery will crystallize our conceptions of reality into some absolute theory. You’re in good company, Einstein thought so too, but the last half century has seen us move further away rather than closer to his ideal.

What I am arguing, if you remember, is that physics is on the wrong path.

Originally posted by Raithere
Well, I’m not sure how much there is to misinterpret on this level. Photons, electrons, and even atoms sometimes behave like particles and sometimes they behave like waves depending upon how the experiment is setup. This much is not in question.

But that is exactly what I am questioning.
read on...

Originally posted by Raithere
And this is only one experiment that demonstrates such weirdness. QED shows that in calculating the path of photons the most accurate calculation is to add up every possible path it could take (including every bizarrely twisted loop you can imagine).

I have that covered too.

Originally posted by Raithere
I had no idea you were a physicist.

I'm not. Not yet.
Which is another reason I would be discounted as a crackpot if I come out of the closet too soon.

Originally posted by Raithere
Surely you can give a few clues as to your interpretation without revealing the fine detail that would risk your credit.

I will give you an anaolgy that will hopefully clear it up a little:
Let's say that the Aether does exist.
(I know what you are going to say: "But it doesn't exist. MM proved that.")
Well, MM, as I said, was inconclusive, but that is moot, since I my model is not an Aether model, it is just the best analogy I can come up with.
Anyway...
Assume the Aether does exist.
It is an omnipresent fluid Aether that is made up of matter.
This Aether is the medium for the electromagnetic radiation to travel "through", or more accurately "on".
The Aether material is electrostatically sensitive.
An electric charge introduced to this medium would charge the particles of the medium.
That charge would travel from one particle of the medium to the next in an omidirectional manner.
Blow that picture up billions of times so that each particle of the Aether is the size of a ping-pong ball.
Now take a 2 dimentional slice of that collection of ping-pong balls and lay it flat on a pool table.
Hit a ping-pong ball at the end of the pool table.
What happens?
That ping-pong ball hits those that are immediately surrounding it.
Those hit the balls that are immediately surrounding them.
The pattern continues.
If you look at this behavior (which easily fits within Classical Newtonian Mechanics) and look at it from afar, what would it look like?
Ripples in a pond, right?
It is a collection of particles that, when interacting on a mass scale, appear to move in a wave-like manner.
Remember, this is not what I think is literally happening (I am not arguing to resurrect the Aether) it just an analogy that I think best describes the idea in my model of how a particle can appear to have wave-like properties in a Classical system.

Originally posted by Raithere
I’m not quite sure what you mean here.

Think about what the wavelength of the bowling ball would be. According to de Broglie, the wavelength is equal to Planck's constant divided by the object's momentum; Planck's constant is very, very, very tiny, and the momentum of a bowling ball, relatively speaking, is huge. If you had abowling ball with a mass of, say, one kilogram, moving at one meter per second, its wavelength would be about a septillionth of a nanometer. This is so ridiculously small compared to the size of the bowling ball itself that you'd never notice any wavelike stuff going on; that's why we can generally ignore the effects of quantum mechanics when we're talking about everyday objects. It's only at the molecular or atomic level that the waves begin to be large enough (compared to the size of an atom) to have a noticeable effect. Source: University of Colorado Physics Department Website

Originally posted by Raithere
Well, nothing actually. Classical physics works quite well above the vaguely defined quantum level. However, what seems to be the case is that the behavior of objects on a classical level is the result of quantum probability rather than a strictly mechanistic substructure. In other words, light appears to travel in straight lines (excepting the influence of gravity) because most of the quantum probabilities cancel each-other out, not because photons always travel in straight lines.

This also can easily explianed by my above model analogy.

Wow!
This has gone WAY off-topic, even off-subject of the forum.
If you want to continue to discuss this, PM me and we can take it further.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Originally posted by one_raven
What I am arguing, if you remember, is that physics is on the wrong path.

I was trying to explain a while ago something like this but was having difficulty. I don't even know if we have the same problem with physics, this statement just grabbed my attention.

I don't think the problem is with physics but with the conclusions people personally draw from physics.
Physics only explains physics but lots of people take it as a complete explanation of reality. As though there is physics and that is it. Physics explains the mechanics of reality not reality. It absolutely never will. If the goal of physics was to explain reality, than it couldn't be on a wronger path.
Sorry, if you were off topic I've undoubtedly gone to some insane new level of offtopicality.

What was this thread about anyway? .... ARROGANCE AND RELIGION?!?!?! *double take* whhhaaaaa??????


That was the cheesiest thing I've ever done but I can't stop smiling I'm such a loser

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by one_raven
Wow!
This has gone WAY off-topic, even off-subject of the forum.
If you want to continue to discuss this, PM me and we can take it further.

That’s okay, I like diverting topics sometimes. It only shows how interrelated all these topics are. If the mods feel we’re too off topic they can always move the thread or ask us to desist.

What I think I’m getting here is that the aether, rather than being the medium of a light ‘wave’, is the medium that the photon travels through. As it travels, it disturbs the surrounding medium which reacts as a wave and causes the wave like behavior of the photon.

This also can easily explianed by my above model analogy.

Let me know if I’ve understood you analogy. The next step would be various considerations of experimental evidence and how we might differentiate between the two.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
I don't think the problem is with physics but with the conclusions people personally draw from physics.
Physics only explains physics but lots of people take it as a complete explanation of reality. As though there is physics and that is it. Physics explains the mechanics of reality not reality. It absolutely never will. If the goal of physics was to explain reality, than it couldn't be on a wronger path.

I think the most common error is that people tend to forget that science (and in actuality any conception about reality) is a model of reality not reality itself. The effort of science is to achieve models that are precisely congruent with reality in that if we factor some change in the model it will correspond exactly with such a change in reality. But I’m not sure I understand what you mean by ‘couldn’t be on a wronger path’.

~Raithere

 

[one_raven]

Originally posted by Raithere
What I think I’m getting here is that the aether, rather than being the medium of a light ‘wave’, is the medium that the photon travels through. As it travels, it disturbs the surrounding medium which reacts as a wave and causes the wave like behavior of the photon.

In the analogy, basically, yes.

As the photon travels from particle to particle of the Aether, it uses each particle as a vehicle to get to the next.

It is the particles that move and transfer the photon(s) to their neighbors.

 

[one_raven]

On second thought in the context of this analogy think of the photon not as a particle, rather as the kinetic energy that is passed from ping-pong ball to ping-pong ball.