Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 8:16 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Debunking of Modern Evolutionary and Cosmological Theories
RE: Debunking of Modern Evolutionary and Cosmological Theories
(April 26, 2015 at 9:04 am)Hatshepsut Wrote: If that happens, I'm afraid the mathematicians will blanch because two major assumptions they have made will suddenly be as vulnerable to melting as ice cream in a hot car in July. You can do addition by experiment, using only marbles if you don't have a lipid bilayer handy. 2  + 3  = 5  becomes visually evident as marbles. But if you repeat the experiment next week, will you get the same result? Mathematicians assume that once you've established something like 2 + 3 = 5 you never have to prove it a second time. In other sciences that's not so. Anything done empirically is subject to re-investigation and possible overturn.

The other assumption is trickier: If you do math with apples instead of marbles, then what is the "sixness" that connects 6 apples with 6 marbles? Somehow, mathematicians feel that 6 ought to be 6 whether it's represented by marbles, apples, or dancing electrons on a bi-lipid membrane. They call it the principle of isomorphism.

I don't see the second assumption as being trickier, more of an alternate expression of the first. The thing that connects the 6 apples and the 6 marbles is (one or more of) us pointing out something that we consider significant, same as in the first paragraph. Reality is what it is and so far as it has communicated with me, unconcerned. The six apples are six apples, the six marbles are six marbles. They do not connect their "sixness." We do.
So how, exactly, does God know that She's NOT a brain in a vat? Huh
Reply
RE: Debunking of Modern Evolutionary and Cosmological Theories
(April 26, 2015 at 8:28 am)JuliaL Wrote:
(April 26, 2015 at 3:15 am)Alex K Wrote: @JuliaL

I'm pretty sure the p in the example specifies a range of momenta and q,r ranges in space. Then, the Heisenberg uncertainty is supposed to tell you that p and q can't be true at the same time because q is too small a spatial interval to allow that small a momentum uncertainty as given by p. The same for p and r. However, (q or r) together specifies a larger spatial range which is compatible with a momentum uncertainty small enough that it can be contained in p, and hence p and (q or r) can be true, while (p and q) as well as (p and r) must be false by Heisenberg.

That being said, the example seems to fail on a subtle technicality: as soon as you restrict the wave function to *any* finite space interval, its extent in momentum space is infinite by the laws of fourier analysis. So saying that the particle is absolutely certainly inside any finite space interval would not allow you to have any absolute restrictions on the momentum. Very large momenta are merely.very unlikely, not absolutely excluded. So one can't really do the example with intervals.

Thanks for the further clarification.
You've improved my understanding from mud (totally opaque) to sort of dark, dark translucent. Rolleyes
Your 'technicality' though (I think, maybe?), depends on the validity of the 'law' of uncertainty which, though fully verified empirically so far, is still a knowingly tentative statement as it pertains only to the consistency our observations have shown in the universe to date and our expectations going forward.

My brain hurts when I try to think too hard.  Life was simpler when I just took 'natural law' as absolute.

But...but...
Isn't the writer of the example going back and forth between the values of r,q & (r or q) being true/false values and their being intervals in space which can be added to reformulate the truth values of the expression?  Like, r is false and q is false (can't squeeze the particle into those boxes) but (r or q) is true (the box got bigger and now the particle fits?)  One case is logical rule following and the other is adding space.
I'm back to mud.

Don't feel bad, I don't find it particularly clear either. I tried to interpret it thusly: q is "particle is in a quantum superposition where it can have any location between -1 and 1",  and r is "particle is in a quantum superposition where it can have any location between 1 and 3". You then interpret the "or" *not in the sense*  "it's in this quantum superposition or in that", but instead as a sort of quantum or which puts all the things it or-s into one big quantum superposition. Then, r quantum-or q is tantamount to "particle is in a quantum superposition where it can be at any location between -1 ...1 or 1...3".


Concerning my technical concerns, I'm purely talking about how the maths of quantum mechanics works, not the empirical side. That being said, strongly modifying the heisenberg law would yield a radical departure from QM and I am not aware of any such thing that is empirically feasible.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition

Reply
RE: Debunking of Modern Evolutionary and Cosmological Theories
(April 26, 2015 at 10:31 am)Alex K Wrote: Don't feel bad, I don't find it particularly clear either. I tried to interpret it thusly: q is "particle is in a quantum superposition where it can have any location between -1 and 1",  and r is "particle is in a quantum superposition where it can have any location between 1 and 3". You then interpret the "or" *not in the sense*  "it's in this quantum superposition or in that", but instead as a sort of quantum or which puts all the things it or-s into one big quantum superposition. Then, r quantum-or q is tantamount to "particle is in a quantum superposition where it can be at any location between -1 ...1 or 1...3".


Concerning my technical concerns, I'm purely talking about how the maths of quantum mechanics works, not the empirical side. That being said, strongly modifying the heisenberg law would yield a radical departure from QM and I am not aware of any such thing that is empirically feasible.

And thanks for the sympathy, it helps.
I'm convinced that everybody at some point reaches not only the limit of their current understanding, but the limit of their potential understanding no matter what examples, explanations or education is offered. It is trivial to point out that Socrates saw this long, long ago and no great ego boost to recognize that I've understood this for quite a while myself. I still enjoy stretching for whatever understanding I can. It is personally rewarding. But the math you embrace is off my map. I don't really feel bad about it, more sort of resigned.
So how, exactly, does God know that She's NOT a brain in a vat? Huh
Reply
RE: Debunking of Modern Evolutionary and Cosmological Theories
(April 26, 2015 at 10:12 am)Alex K Wrote: Niels

Oops, i before e even in Denmark.

(April 25, 2015 at 8:16 pm)robvalue Wrote: Normally I beat people up for this kind of crap Wink

Then flog away! I can't spell anymore and I can't do most of the exercises in my college math books either. My real work turned out to be running a foodservice shop.  Tongue

(April 26, 2015 at 10:22 am)JuliaL Wrote: The six apples are six apples, the six marbles are six marbles.  They do not connect their "sixness."  We do.

Indeed. Because there's something to connect which doesn't depend on the nature of the objects in a set of six. Plato's already went through it all with his "forms," which need have no physical reality. At least the math folks probably won't go back and redo all their theorems to see if they're still true. When the physics folks have that "theory of everything," they won't have to either.  Smile
Reply
RE: Debunking of Modern Evolutionary and Cosmological Theories
(April 26, 2015 at 2:17 pm)Hatshepsut Wrote: I can't spell anymore

You just did.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist.  This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair.  Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second.  That means there's a situation vacant.'
Reply
RE: Debunking of Modern Evolutionary and Cosmological Theories
(April 26, 2015 at 2:24 pm)Stimbo Wrote:
(April 26, 2015 at 2:17 pm)Hatshepsut Wrote: I can't spell anymore

You just did.

She actually typed "I cant shpel animoar", but the spellchecker fixed it.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition

Reply
RE: Debunking of Modern Evolutionary and Cosmological Theories
(April 24, 2015 at 3:22 pm)gomlbrobro Wrote: It is crucial to realize that we cannot worship both sides: it is either scientific laws behind the existence of our universe (or universes) and life, or a higher power.  It is our duty and favor to us as individuals to honestly evaluate the authenticity of both.  The scientists behind the theories are constantly seeking answers that we simply cannot understand.  It is a faulty pursuit that insists that we know the answers for everything, or will know in the soon future.  Unless you can genuinely believe that all of the scientific assertions make sense, it can’t be wise to invest your belief in it.  The possibility that a higher power created the universe, which accepts that we do not know all of the answers with our limited intellect, is the more rational alternative.  Given this, the real question should ask where we came from, not how we got here.
I find a few observations about the above part.
We don't worship science as you seem to say. We try to understand the workings of the universe, using a particular methodology, which is highly effective.
Science is not seeking answers that we cannot understand, rather scientists are seeking to understand.
It is a strong ethical rule in science, that if we do not know an answer, we say just that - ie. we do not know the answer.
If saying that we do not know all of the answers is rational, (which it is), then science is more rational than believing in a god.
The reason  - which follows from what you are saying here - is that we cannot know god, (even if it exists).
When we do not know of the answer(s) to the types of questions which science looks to answer, plugging in that "God" did it, is not an answer or an explanation.
Science is looking into where we came from, and that is surely part of the answer to how we got here. Think of any journey. If you know where you came from, it helps to answer how you got here. So asking where we came from is part of science.

Note that I do not mean to imply that where we came from is an actual place. What I mean by ' where we came from', is what are our origins? - (all the way back as far as we can discern or conjecture, including before the big bang).

If you're reading this gomlbrobro, I commend you for using your brain, putting your ideas down, sharing them, and for seeking criticisms.
There are no atheists in terrorist training camps.



Reply
RE: Debunking of Modern Evolutionary and Cosmological Theories
It is sad that people have to create a strawman of what "all atheists" are like to make themselves feel better about beating up on them and ignoring what they have to say.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
RE: Debunking of Modern Evolutionary and Cosmological Theories
Oh geez .... LOL Smile
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Will modern society slow the progress of change? Heat 11 2890 May 10, 2016 at 1:52 am
Last Post: Excited Penguin
  A new atheist's theories on meta-like physical existence freedeepthink 14 3788 October 1, 2014 at 1:35 am
Last Post: freedeepthink
  Do the multiverse theories prove the existence of... Mudhammam 3 2144 January 12, 2014 at 12:03 pm
Last Post: Esquilax
  Study suggests that Neandertals shared speech and language with modern humans Minimalist 13 6367 July 10, 2013 at 9:50 pm
Last Post: Full Circle
  Debunking YEC claims: Empirical evidence for the age of the Earth Jackalope 5 4082 January 7, 2012 at 2:33 am
Last Post: twocompulsive
  Modern Humans in Britain 40,000+ years ago Minimalist 10 2920 November 3, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Last Post: 5thHorseman
  Debunking the Paranormal Tabby 2 2031 June 24, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Last Post: Tabby



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)