Personal experience as a basis for god belief
- Thread starter Myles
- Start date
I don't wish to quibble but upper-class Buddhists speak of the Dharma; they prefer Sanskrit to Pali.
Why sadly ? Whatever happened to " The Truth Shall Make You Free"
Thank you for that insight I wish I had thought of it. It explains why there are so many religious sects, each believing all the others to be in error.
You will find that Einstein did abhor the thought of action at a distance, even if I used the wrong label, not that I'm certain I did. I rely on my education plus associated background reading to keep up to date with developments. A lot of people one here and, please believe me, I am not suggesting that you are one of them, seem to dip into Wilkipaedia ( ? ) and start arguments based on things they have not properly understood. A bit like reading the bible for answers and then impressing you neighbours with your pseudo-erudition
I did NOT say I am a determinist. I said tsomething to the efect I can't be bothered to look it up ) the view held by some that there is no action at a distance argues an underlying determinism, which is a totally different matter
Having said that, can I point out that I am familiar with the argument you quote against determinism. Are you aware of the opposing argument ? If your actions are not the result of cause and effect, then they are random.
You take your pick. I will back neither horse at present
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
Yes, Einstein did not like action at a distance. I just meant the quote was not about that. Einstein also thought many times he had found a proof against certain facets of QM but admitted each time that he had not in fact done this. Consider the possibility that just as physicists before Einstein had trouble accepting his paradigmn shift he may have had trouble with the next one. I think sometimes people drop Einstein's name like if he believed it it must be right. He also believed that death was illusory and that the future was already there. And the past is only apparently gone. If we want to use him as a sort of reference work, we can't simply pick and choose.
You know for all your disclaimers I can't see some other reason to bring it up.
I have not gotten my knowledge from Wikipedia.
I went back and looked. This is what you said:
I actually find this very confusing. Action at a distance does not preclude determinism. In fact it is making a claim about a certain kind of cause effect relationship.
OK. You are not a determinis., but aren't you, despite your sources not being Wikipedia, doing a bit of the same slap dab stuff you are claiming the Wikipedia readers are doing?
As far as chairs appearing in the air, this has been answered frequently by books about Quantum Physics. The odds against it are so enormous one would have to live billions (?) of years to be likely to see such a statistical anomaly.
They used to say things were either matter or energy. Particles or waves.
People tell me all the time that the choice is between liberal 'free' market capitalism or the USSR.
I don't assume that those are the choices.
Myles,
How is it that the "views" describe God in the same way? It is reasonable to assume that "different views" mean different descriptions, lifestyles, ideaologies, beliefs, etc, yet they are the same, thousands of years and miles apart.
This is the crux of your position, which, for all intent and purpose has nothing to do with God.
There lies your problem, you are equating mentalities of today with mentalities of folks thousands of years ago.
What made you think sex was involved in the acts?
To abuse somebody or something does not necessarily mean gang-rape.
How can you find it disgusting if you have no idea what happened, nor it seems you have any idea of the morality and ethics of the everyday people at that time. It seems you are basing your emotion on the world as you see it today.
You have already demonstrated that your method of understanding is at fault, and as such your conclusions are very personal.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
I just don't understand your mentality.
You and people like you are gross.
I hate you.
Do you see what can happen when false assumptions are made?
We're not talking about the merits of these books, maybe you should start a new thread in the 'arts' section of the forums.
How is it that you think "abuse" in the context of that verse means gangrape?
Yet you talk of "thinking for yourself".
Why do you feel the need to invoke the authors you mentioned, to a subject matter which has nothing to do with their particular field of knowledge?
How is it you said this;
What I gained from reading the sources I listed was a clear and distinct notion that there were no experts. They we all pushing their own views.
When in fact they are all united.
What have you added to this discussion that you can call your own thinking?
Jan.
How is it that the "views" describe God in the same way? It is reasonable to assume that "different views" mean different descriptions, lifestyles, ideaologies, beliefs, etc, yet they are the same, thousands of years and miles apart.
This is the crux of your position, which, for all intent and purpose has nothing to do with God.
There lies your problem, you are equating mentalities of today with mentalities of folks thousands of years ago.
What made you think sex was involved in the acts?
To abuse somebody or something does not necessarily mean gang-rape.
How can you find it disgusting if you have no idea what happened, nor it seems you have any idea of the morality and ethics of the everyday people at that time. It seems you are basing your emotion on the world as you see it today.
You have already demonstrated that your method of understanding is at fault, and as such your conclusions are very personal.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
I just don't understand your mentality.
You and people like you are gross.
I hate you.
Do you see what can happen when false assumptions are made?
We're not talking about the merits of these books, maybe you should start a new thread in the 'arts' section of the forums.
How is it that you think "abuse" in the context of that verse means gangrape?
Yet you talk of "thinking for yourself".
Why do you feel the need to invoke the authors you mentioned, to a subject matter which has nothing to do with their particular field of knowledge?
How is it you said this;
What I gained from reading the sources I listed was a clear and distinct notion that there were no experts. They we all pushing their own views.
When in fact they are all united.
What have you added to this discussion that you can call your own thinking?
Jan.
I have taken the trouble to make a few phone calls because when I spoke of the possibility of determinism underlying QM, you suggested that not many physicists would support that view/ possibility. So I append a partial list of scientists who are currently seeking to refute the accepted explanation of QM and replace it with an explanation which would support a deeper , deterministic explanation. Action at a distance implies indeterminism because the spin of the individual entagled particles could, for example , be either up or down before an observation is made. I will not discuss it further.
So, here is is the partial list I promised :
Joy Christian, University of Oxford. He has a paper curently under review at " Physical Review Letters
Gerard 't Hooft. University of Utrecht, Netherlands
Nicolas Gibson, University of Geneva
Les Smolin, Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Canada
Fontini, also at Perimenter Institute ( loop quantum gravity )
Markus Aspelmeyer, University of Vienna, Austria
Roger Penrose, Oxford
Stephen Adler, Institute of Advanced Studies, Princeton
Philip Pearle ( retired ) Hamilton College in New York has commented favourably
So, here is is the partial list I promised :
Joy Christian, University of Oxford. He has a paper curently under review at " Physical Review Letters
Gerard 't Hooft. University of Utrecht, Netherlands
Nicolas Gibson, University of Geneva
Les Smolin, Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Canada
Fontini, also at Perimenter Institute ( loop quantum gravity )
Markus Aspelmeyer, University of Vienna, Austria
Roger Penrose, Oxford
Stephen Adler, Institute of Advanced Studies, Princeton
Philip Pearle ( retired ) Hamilton College in New York has commented favourably
There is nothing more I can usefully say to you. I do not acept unquestioned authority. My reference to those books was, as you well know, an attempt to see whether you have ever taken your nose out of the bible to look at other possibilities.
I like your sense of humour. So they are all united ? How about the Muslims who regard Christians as infidels and and some Christians who will say it is the Muslims who are infidels. Lots of accord there.
Finally, how about the bickering between Christians who accept that evolutionary theory does not rule out a creator and those hard-nosed born -again Christians who will have none of it. Those who drive to rallys to rant on about atheistic science, conveniently overlooking the fact that their cars are a spin-off "atheistic" science. Why don't they walk or ride donkeys as in biblical times ? All a bit confusing for anyone who chooses to think about it.
Here endeth the last message; You are totally confused and beyond help. Please read my remarks interspersed with your response above. I am new to this so I do not know how to use colour as you have done.
Last edited:
How quaint. And silly, too.
The one important atheism is the one where atheists don't accept the unsubstantiated claims of theists. Is that one lacking?
Verily I now see that I gave thee less than full measure. So I shall now quote from Judges and let others decide which of us has the correct interpretation.
Anyone interestedmay look the passage up for themselves to ensure I have not distorted it. So, here we go.
Verses 22 onwards
A number of men come to the door of the house where the visitor and his concubine are staying.
They say: " Bring forth this man that we may know him"
Were they asking for an introduction are wanting to sodomize him ? To "know" someone as used in the bible means to have carnal knowledge of, sex, etc.
Should there be any doubt about my interpretation. consider what comes next.
23 The master of the house says to the men; " do not do so wickedly"
So was it wicked to ask for a personal introduction or did the master of the house believe they wanted the man for some other purpose? Consider what follows.
24 The master says " Here is my daughter, a maiden, and his ( the visitor's) concubine. Do what seemeth good unto you but unto this man do not so VILE a thing.
25 They knew her and abused her all night until the morning
28/29 To cut to the chase, the concubine is found dead on the doorstep by her master. He takes her corpse on his ass, takes her home and cuts her body into 12 pieces.....
If you believe the above is not a description of gang rape and murder then there is nothing anyone can say to you. You are beyond reason. People like you thrive on taking advantage of others, even more ignorant than yourselves.
For my part, I find the whole passage disgusting. If you can believe such rubbish, I pity you. You should, however, be pleased that I am encourging others to read gos's holy word
You accuse me of not thinking for myself . I know it's difficult for you to understand , but Ihave worked out my interpretation of judges, unaided. What is yor PERSONAL interprettion if you have one. If on the other hand ,you are simply going to repeat what someone told you or ask stupid questions such why I assume abuse to be rape in the context I have quoted , please don't bother me.
Last edited:
Everybody who is trying to understand what is going on finds QM confusing because it is counter-intuitive. The scientists I have referred to are trying to show that there is or may be an underlying determinism. So why not give them the benefit of your knowledge by writing to them and explaining that they are chasing their tails. No need to take my word for it.Think of the time and effort , not to mention the money , that will be saved. The only requirement is that you explain why, preferably with a few equations, they are wasting their time.
Einstein referred to "spooky action at a distance". He was never comfortable with it. And don't try to tell me that I believe everything Einstein was right in everything he said. I don't know anyone who believes that. Like the rest of us , as he got older his powers waned.
I have an honours degree in physics. Admittedly, I have been in retirement for 15 years bit I have done my best to keep up to date with developments in physics. Your sources, whatever they are, are not up to date with current developments, or you misunderstand what you read.
Lastly, it is irrelevant what you choose to believe or deny. It's not about personal preference. On the question of free will ,if our actions are not the result of cause and effect, it suggests they are random. Nobody is asking you to believe anything but it would be helpful if you offered alternative explanations . EXPLANATIONS, not just a statement that you do not regard the possibilities I have mentioned as choices. Perhaps you have a theory of "Random Determinism" or some such. To repeat myself, it's not a matter of your belief about choices. You have choices which are:
1 To refrain from making a choice
2. To say that one explanation seems more plausible to you than another and that you will go with it until you are convinced otherwise.
3. To suggest other possibilities supported by evidence
To say you do not regard randomness or determinism as choices is to say nothing.If I offer you tea or coffee and you regard neither as a choice, surely it's incumbent on you to state what you would regard as a choice. If you want a coke I'm sure you would tell me. So what would you regard as offering you a choice if you do not accept randomness or determinism as mentioned above. Or are you going with 1, which is fine if you say so. But the way you express yourself suggests there are other choices, If so, what are they
Last edited:
Let's not forget: " Myopic are the masses "
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
Ah so, you are an expert and I believe what you said about your colleagues. I plucked down The Oxford Guide to Modern Science, 2003 and read their description in which they write with great certainty about non-locality and action at a distance. No controversy mentioned. They tell it as a flat dead issue and even talk about technological uses of action at a distance in teleporting photons and quantum encryption. Over my head, in any case, but I hope you will pardon my lay confusion. This was not the only book I have read on the subject, in fact the others focused specifically on quantum theory and were written by physicists, and they also made non-locality and action at distance seem like dead issues in QM's favor. They specifically went into the reasons what comes off as Einstein's last challenge the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. After Aspect's tests suprisingly confirmed QM predictions the name was changed to the Einstein-Pod...etc. Effect. So to me Einstein's last actually practical laid out challenge to QM failed. This does not mean that therefore QM was right. But to quote Einstein's problems with QM seems to me to attribute to him correct intuition as yet unproven. Which is fine with me, since I am pro-intuition.
I said, in fact, that 'I do not assume that they are the choices.' Meaning the only ones.
And that does mean something. And it does not require me to give evidence about what a third might be.
I think some of the colleagues you called might even back me up on that. I am not assuming.
If you want to assume you know that these two are the only options, that's fine with me.
Assumptions can be useful and sometimes they are blocks. I don't know which it will be in this case for you.
It may have escaped your attention . but the year is 2007. not 2003 Write to to the individuals concerned and ask what the current state of play is.
As to choices, it is not incumbent upon you to do or say anything. So why venture an opinion in the first place. The opiniion you expressed implies you believe in other possibilities. So where's your problem in stating what you believe them to be ? Do you enjot being a " dog in the manger" or do you want us to believe you know something we don't. I cannot understand the mentality of someone who claims or implies he has an opinion but is not prepared to explain himself. So, I insist that you are saying nothing. You are simply making a statement which adds nothing to the debate. Are we not supposed to be engaged in dialogue ? Enlighten us or stop making blanket statements which mean nothing.
If you believe you are saying something and you are challenged the burden of proof IS on YOU . So if you belive there are other possibilities tell us what they are or accept that you have said nothing meaningful. Is it possible that you have another referemce book which tells you that the accepted rules of philosophical debate have been discarded and that anything goes.
I know there are cabbages on Mars which look like elephants and squeek like mice but I am not prepared to offer evidence. Ordinary mortals like you could not possibly understand my explanation. I'm sure you'd accept such a statement and add it to your store of knowledge. wouldn't you. You misunderstand more than QM
I have spent enough time talking to you, so if you regard yourself as having won some sort of prize I congratulate you.
Ps.Have you got a book which tells you that by the time a book on physics get to the shops, much of it may be out of date ?
As to choices, it is not incumbent upon you to do or say anything. So why venture an opinion in the first place. The opiniion you expressed implies you believe in other possibilities. So where's your problem in stating what you believe them to be ? Do you enjot being a " dog in the manger" or do you want us to believe you know something we don't. I cannot understand the mentality of someone who claims or implies he has an opinion but is not prepared to explain himself. So, I insist that you are saying nothing. You are simply making a statement which adds nothing to the debate. Are we not supposed to be engaged in dialogue ? Enlighten us or stop making blanket statements which mean nothing.
If you believe you are saying something and you are challenged the burden of proof IS on YOU . So if you belive there are other possibilities tell us what they are or accept that you have said nothing meaningful. Is it possible that you have another referemce book which tells you that the accepted rules of philosophical debate have been discarded and that anything goes.
I know there are cabbages on Mars which look like elephants and squeek like mice but I am not prepared to offer evidence. Ordinary mortals like you could not possibly understand my explanation. I'm sure you'd accept such a statement and add it to your store of knowledge. wouldn't you. You misunderstand more than QM
I have spent enough time talking to you, so if you regard yourself as having won some sort of prize I congratulate you.
Ps.Have you got a book which tells you that by the time a book on physics get to the shops, much of it may be out of date ?
Last edited:
I missed somethinmg in my lst reply which I shall mention now.
As I suggested on a previous occasion , you misunderstand the situation. Please give what follows your complete attention.
There is no argument about what happens, that is, the results of experiments.
It is the EXPLANATION of what is going on that I am talking about, as are the scientists I mentioned.
To give you a prosaic example. All drivers accept that their cars go when operated in a particular fashion. Put your foot on the gas and the car accelerates, on the brake and it slows down and so on. What is being questioned is the description of how or why an IC engine works. In short. the theory of the IC engine is still up for grabs. It's even worse than that; we cannot see under the bonnet so we are inferring it's existenceI cannot explain things any better than that.
To explain what was over your head. You wil see an exaggerated form of teleportation if you watch an episode of Star Trek....Beam me up Scottie. This has been done numerous times under laboratory conditions but not on such a scale, obviously. The only available explanation available at present is what you have read. But, as ever with science, the current description is being questioned by a number of researchers and if that is what you are denying you are wrong. In my previous message I referred to a paper on this very topic , which is currently under peer review.
Quantum encryption is a way of encoding and storing information . In theory, becauseof the associated complexity, the code cannot be cracked. In the near future when you get money from an ATM the vital information will have been encrypted in this manner. Again, in theory, it should be foolproof such that your card cannot be copied as happens today with hiden cameras and other devices. ATM cards of this type are in the pipeline. You can easily imagine other applications. Such information would not appear in a book which went to press in 2003 becausewhat I have referred to was only a gleam in the eye.
I correspond from time to time with two other physicists when there is something of significance to talk about. There is no such reward on this site.
If you truly want to get up to speed with what is going on, I suggest you subscribe to Scientific American. The articles are lucid, despite which they may require a bit of thinking about the issues discussed. They are aimed at the intelligent non-specialist. A chemist may read it to find out what physicists are getting up to and so on.If you know of it that's fne. If not, look at a copy on your local newstand or wherever its available and you may decide to become a subscriber.
Last edited:
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
I did not express an opinion. I stated a fact, Myles. I said I do not assume those are the choices. Which is the truth.
No, bad guess.
It wasn't an opinion. It was a fact. In the context I had pointed out an irony determinists face. You returned with what the irony or problem the non-determinist must face. I was stating that I don't feel I have to face that problem/irony despite my disbelief in determinism. We were in a tangent, pointing out problems/ironies they face. I stated a fact about myself in relation to that. If I had known that in your world this made me an immoral person for not taking my best shot at positing a theory, I would have just answered 'yes, I have heard that.'
It was not a blanket statement.
The burden of proof is on me if I make a claim that there is a third option and here it is. At present I remain unconvinced, just like you, by either determinism or randomness. And if I noticed correctly you had some respect for the oddness of believing everything we do is completely determined AND assuming you would be able to tell if a proof of determinism was correct or not. You also said about a random universe
which also does not make much of a case for engaging in the activity you are engaging in right now on the internet.
Tell me in which universe it makes sense to engage in debate in an internet forum with other people. The one where everything is absolutely determined or the one that is random. Yet here you are. And don't assume I am naive here about determinism. I understand that people might very well engage in debates in a determinist universe. However I think it would be very odd for them to continue once they were shown it was deterministic and they believed it. I also think it would be odd to spend time engaging in debates in a random universe, where any motivation for engaging in such a debate is made a mockery of by the absence of cause and effect.
Since you believe that it MUST be one of those two options why do you believe this is worthwhile activity. So worthwhile that your smugness goes up to a more strident pitch when I do not seem to engage in debate in the way you think I should.
In which universe, the determined or the random, is there a should, Myles?
You make a claim that you believe it must either be random or deterministic and are quite happy to roll into sarcastic mockery at the possiblity there might be something else. And yet here you are acting, it seems like, you belief in some third possibility.
Should I believe your actions or what you claim to believe?
Well, oddly enough I have trouble accepting either one, just like you Myles. I take that a step further and think there might be a third and that we may not have not hit the answer.
I was not about to have you come down sarcastically on what I have only vague inklings of. You do not strike me as an open person that I could explore that third possibility. You do not strike me as someone to help move from belief to knowledge with if that belief seems strange to you. I am quite sure you can do that with certain kinds of beliefs, but not where you are sure and not where it is something that is based on experiences you haven't had.
I can certainly take some battering now that you have turned out to have much more knowledge about physics than I do. I thought your problem with QM events not appearing in the macro had been well answered in the books I had read. That it was an issue of scale and probability. I thought it was a kind of novice problem. Clearly I have been duped by at least three physicists into thinking this response was accepted in general. And I do not mean that sarcastically. I mean it literally. I am an annoyed lay person and not at you in that case.
As far as my third option, as I said it is vague. If you want to direct more sarcasm at me, well you can have that pint by yourself. If you are actually capable of exploring something, this is what I think about as possible areas to look at.
Consciousness and creativity. I don't experience a random universe, so this is more directed at determinism. What would be the evolutionary benefit of consciousness in a deterministic universe? The dominoes could fall just as well without an observer. Certainly sensory mechanisms make sense and even the complicated nervous systems animals have. But an experiencer: seems superfluous to me; hell, it even has drawbacks. Also when I imagine a deterministic universe - however limited my ability to imagine it - I don't see where consciousness arises. Particles move around, energies dissipate, fields take place. I don't get how something with a meta-relationship to energy, particles and fields arises.
And sure there is the subjective feeling of not being determined, of their being possiblity, choice, and multiple possible futures. More fundamentally than that it feels like there is a quasi status to the now. A tentativness where I am. (and yes, I realize that this is subjective. I am being honest about where my sense comes from, but also wondering if, perhaps, an answer might rest in some of these subjective impressions. Or they might lead to an explanation of a third possibililty. Could we get some use in exploring from the present moment having a quasi status? for example.)
Creativity. We make choices. Determinists assume that these choices are predetermined: they are given by both internal and external causes. We simply have a feeling of choosing or we do choose, but we confuse this word with some kind of freedom. Our choosing is the same as the domino choosing to hit the next only more complicated. But what if there is a cusp, created by consciousness between the past and the future. (NOW certainly does not seem like either of those regions? periods?. ) What if consciousness allows a choosing forward that is creative, not simply determined by what has gone before? That somehow imagination and desire for what is not already. Does consciousness allow us to have a metaposition from which our creative ability can lead us to actions that are not determined by what has gone before. Limited, but not completely constrained. And here I feel stopped and generally reluctant to reach this point with others who are completely sure that the universe must be random or completely determined. I am aware it is far from complete or compelling. However we are in a philosophy forum not a hard science one.
I am also aware that I am looking at some form of free will with humans as an exception. I have a gut feeling it is not limited to us, but I am even less sure which direction to go with that.
You want to chew it up. Go ahead. Be smug. Though why anyone would be smug in a determined or random universe while KNOWING those are the only possiblities is beyond me. I mean how could I have helped myself. I was either compelled to do it or it certainly wasn't something I could control with randomness.
You want to explore with me you are welcome to.
Last edited:
I will not attemp to answer all of your questions nor any one of them in any detail because, to be honest, I would regard it as a waste of time.
Determinism: At no point have I said that that I am a determinist. I simply pointed out that there are two mutually exclusive possibilities. If something is not determined, that is , it is not the result of a process of cause and effect, then it has occured randomly. I said I would back neither horse at present. I have insufficient proof. But you are representing or misunderstanding what I have said.
I am saying I don't know which choice to makebut you are hinting at other possibilites which you will not discuss, so I am entitled to ignore you. Muddying the waters by attenpting to introducing consciousness and asking questions about it in terms of determinism /randomness when I have told you on at least one previous case that I take a stand on neither is disingenouous.
I provided you with a list of scientists who are currently attempting to construct theories. I even referred to a paper under peer review at present. And what is your response ? There is no mention of it in a reference book published some years ago, so you cast doubt on what I say.
How very different if you could have retorted : I contacted X and he assured me he is doing no such thing. Or I contacted X's university and was told by Y that he knows X is not doing what I said he was.
Micro/macro: Quantum effects disappear if we zoom out to the atomic level. That is a FACT. So do not expect to see objects like chairs appearing ex nihilo now or at any time in the future. I have never said anything to the contrary.
Einstein could never accept the current explanation because he could not accept the notion of a random ,i.e., non-deterministic universe. Others followed, see Bell, but they also failed to make the case for " hidden variables " as evidence of an underlying determinism "
It has recently been suggested that Bell assumed the hidden variables would be ordinary numbers. He did not consider numbers with non-commuting properties. You may care to look up " quaternions" used in computer graphics, for example.This latest suggestion has not received much support but that is beside the point. It supports what I say about current attempts to find an underlying determinism in QM.
By now, you may have some inkling what Feynman was driving at when he said how difficullt it is to know something.
I will not discuss consciousness with you but I will suggest some reading matter if you wish.As we have had so many problems with QM, i have more sense than to join you in another minefield If you choose to believe that I have no knowledge of current issues in neuroscience, please do so; I can live with it.
Leaving aside the problems with QM , when we initially discussed the topic of this thread, you could not accept the distinction I made between knowledge and belief. May I suggest that, before you become too engrossed in neuroscience, you get one of the many good books on the "Theory of Knowledge" or, if you choose to call it it by a more impressive name "Epistemology". When you have worked your way through it , which is a very different matter from reading it, you can have a go at the author and tell him how wrong he is. Or will you see the light and keep stumm?
I did not come on here to teach physics, so please take what I have said above as my last word on the subject.
Determinism: At no point have I said that that I am a determinist. I simply pointed out that there are two mutually exclusive possibilities. If something is not determined, that is , it is not the result of a process of cause and effect, then it has occured randomly. I said I would back neither horse at present. I have insufficient proof. But you are representing or misunderstanding what I have said.
I am saying I don't know which choice to makebut you are hinting at other possibilites which you will not discuss, so I am entitled to ignore you. Muddying the waters by attenpting to introducing consciousness and asking questions about it in terms of determinism /randomness when I have told you on at least one previous case that I take a stand on neither is disingenouous.
I provided you with a list of scientists who are currently attempting to construct theories. I even referred to a paper under peer review at present. And what is your response ? There is no mention of it in a reference book published some years ago, so you cast doubt on what I say.
How very different if you could have retorted : I contacted X and he assured me he is doing no such thing. Or I contacted X's university and was told by Y that he knows X is not doing what I said he was.
Micro/macro: Quantum effects disappear if we zoom out to the atomic level. That is a FACT. So do not expect to see objects like chairs appearing ex nihilo now or at any time in the future. I have never said anything to the contrary.
Einstein could never accept the current explanation because he could not accept the notion of a random ,i.e., non-deterministic universe. Others followed, see Bell, but they also failed to make the case for " hidden variables " as evidence of an underlying determinism "
It has recently been suggested that Bell assumed the hidden variables would be ordinary numbers. He did not consider numbers with non-commuting properties. You may care to look up " quaternions" used in computer graphics, for example.This latest suggestion has not received much support but that is beside the point. It supports what I say about current attempts to find an underlying determinism in QM.
By now, you may have some inkling what Feynman was driving at when he said how difficullt it is to know something.
I will not discuss consciousness with you but I will suggest some reading matter if you wish.As we have had so many problems with QM, i have more sense than to join you in another minefield If you choose to believe that I have no knowledge of current issues in neuroscience, please do so; I can live with it.
Leaving aside the problems with QM , when we initially discussed the topic of this thread, you could not accept the distinction I made between knowledge and belief. May I suggest that, before you become too engrossed in neuroscience, you get one of the many good books on the "Theory of Knowledge" or, if you choose to call it it by a more impressive name "Epistemology". When you have worked your way through it , which is a very different matter from reading it, you can have a go at the author and tell him how wrong he is. Or will you see the light and keep stumm?
I did not come on here to teach physics, so please take what I have said above as my last word on the subject.
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
In the post above I could not possibly have made it clearer that I understood you did not claim to be a determinist. In fact I made it clear that you considered there to be two possibilities which you repeat above.
No it is not. You have taken a stand that it has to be one or the other. I made it clear that I found certain types of behavior odd if one believes that one of those two must be true. My point is that your behavior takes a stand and I do not think it fits with a belief on your part that the universe is either random or determined. You say I should get a book on epistemology. Perhaps you need a book on logic. If you say either this is true or that is true and I see you acting in ways that imply you actually believe a third thing, it is perfectly valid to point this out and ask you what is going on and what you actually believe.
I am sorry. The post where I responded to that post I wrote several times and edited it poorly taking out a large portion. The Ah you are an expert comes off sarcastic and I meant it as more Oops, now I know. The rest was meant to be an explanation of why I believed what I did, checking the one book I had access to that had mislead me. My apologies, the poor communication was my fault.
From my readings it did not seem like a much vexed question. And I wrongly concluded you were a novice. Here you are saying it is not a much vexed question for you.
I certainly never thought 1) that chairs would start appearing ex nihilo or 2) that you thought so. I thought you thought the absence of such phenomena was problematic if QM interpretations were correct. Now it seems like that is not the case.
We had different interpretations of the meanings of the words. Once this was pointed out I used yours. I got the impression you felt we should not base beliefs on personal experience. I disagree. Sometimes that is the only option.
So you demanded and demanded that if I was an honorable participant in a debate I would come forward with something about the third possibility. I can see now how wrong it was of me not to have immediately done that.
So let's call it a day. I have come to the belated conclusion that many of the threads on this site are ok for a bit of fun, but not much else. Consider what a waste of time a discussion between an atheist and a born-again Christian is. The chances are that the atheist or deist has used reason to arrive at his beliefs. This does not put him beyond error, but his approach is infinitely better than that of a Christin who confines himself to quoting the Bible like a parrot. When asked to explain himself, he considers he is doing so by coming up with another quotation to support a previousone. Mention reason, and you will soon find you are wasting your time. Mention books other than the Bible and Christian literature and you will be told there is no way they will read anything which contradicts scripture.How many who decry evolutionary theory have read anything about it, granted that there are many non-Christians who have read books on it without having grasped the principles involved.
Last edited: