(October 16, 2016 at 5:29 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote:

(October 16, 2016 at 3:32 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Particle physics/quantum mechanics, I'll give two. Schrodinger's Cat and photons.

So the first one, when practiced in reality, has either two completely random outcomes is that correct?

And i couldn't find anything about photons being contradictory so if you could elaborate please.

The reality in physics is that a photon is in a state of superposition-- i.e. it is more than one thing at one time, until resolved by interaction with something.

You should youtube "double slit experiment" and then "quantum eraser," because it will save everyone about 10 pages of typing. In essence, either a photon can travel back in time and change its nature, or it is simultaneously more than one thing, and resolves to one thing after-the-fact (for example after it has already been sent, detected, and received on a photographic plate).

Photon as a particle and a wave, traveling "upward"

(October 13, 2016 at 3:21 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: Is there ultimate, immaterial, Universal, objective truth? ... Or... is truth subjective.

The only intelligble definition of truth is that found in our brain biology. The brain generates feelings of certitude when it observes stable regularities in the world. This is how the brain marks knowledge: it pairs facts with a positive feeling, and such facts seep into our subconscious. So, the brain's threshold of truth is reliability. The brain is practical. If something appears reliable, the brain takes it as truth.

Now, to go beyond this definition and look for some higher definition of truth is pure folly, and pure imagination. How would we ever know if we arrived at such mythical higher truth without using the brain's existing threshold of truth, which would make the process circular and contradictory.

It's true that we can never be sure that our brain is accurately perceiving the world e.g. we may be a brain in a vat, or in an experience machine, or everyone else may be a zombie, etc. But there is no way to solve these hypothetical realities. They may actually be true. We can never know. So, without any arbitrating criteria, we simply have to choose one reality to live with. And it's no surprise that everyone will choose the apparent reality in front of their eyes.

(October 16, 2016 at 9:15 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(October 16, 2016 at 5:29 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: So the first one, when practiced in reality, has either two completely random outcomes is that correct?

And i couldn't find anything about photons being contradictory so if you could elaborate please.

The reality in physics is that a photon is in a state of superposition-- i.e. it is more than one thing at one time, until resolved by interaction with something.

You should youtube "double slit experiment" and then "quantum eraser," because it will save everyone about 10 pages of typing.  In essence, either a photon can travel back in time and change its nature, or it is simultaneously more than one thing, and resolves to one thing after-the-fact (for example after it has already been sent, detected, and received on a photographic plate).

Yeah, I knew someone here could do it better.

(October 16, 2016 at 9:45 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Yeah, I knew someone here could do it better.

That would be Alex, not I, but hopefully Soldat will watch the videos and come back better armed and ready to discuss them.

Discussing about "truth" and "absolute truth" has always sounded pretentious to me.

I dont even understand the question.

Sounds like a topic philosophers enjoy though. Even if it is a waste of time.

The truth is 42. Everyone should know this.

"Now, to go beyond this definition and look for some higher definition of truth is pure folly, and pure imagination. How would we ever know if we arrived at such mythical higher truth without using the brain's existing threshold of truth, which would make the process circular and contradictory."

This is why if you believe in a godless universe, you are either forced into absurdity, everything is subjective. Or you have to give a reason, a justification for your use of objectivtivity. See, naturalism cannot justify naturalism, in much the same way the brain cannot justify the brain. But supernaturalism can justify naturalism.

---

OR! You could go the route Dawkins is going, forget reason, not everything needs a reason!

Either 3 ways you are unreasonable

(October 17, 2016 at 1:55 am)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: But supernaturalism can justify naturalism.

Stupidest thing ever stated, ever.

"double slit experiment"
Light cancels light out... Okay, so this creates nuetrality? How is it a contradiction?

Same with the cat. Pehaps in concept it would seem to contradict. However in practice there could be only one of two possible outcomes.

Either way this is some facinating stuff, reminds me of the sound waves and salt experiement.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=25-XgrBOgto

Now if it was possible for any of the laws that govern our universe to contradict eachother, i don't we would exist. Kind of like what they're doing over at Cern and the "God particle" that's some dangerous shit.

All i'm seeing here is + & - = -