Or prove that everything began to exist

(July 20, 2019 at 5:28 am)Bucky Ball Wrote: polymath257 Wrote:

Quote:No, energy isn't all that exists. 

Quantum particles.

So then, in a exothermic chemical reaction, the heat energy that is released is made of "quantum particles" (?)

The heat is the random motion of the molecules, which are all made of quantum particles.

---

(July 20, 2019 at 12:33 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(July 20, 2019 at 10:52 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: If going deeper than the immediate macroscopic world you can perceive is going into rabbit hole, then not going down rabbit holes means stop using most microelectronic devices that relies on quantum effects.   Why the net energy of the universe may be zero while perturbation from zero can temporarily support existence of things like you is but quantum effects writ large.

---

How does that follow from existent quantum particles not being directly energy?

Not sure if you're asking me. 
Heat energy is the movement of particles, not the particles themselves. 
So the idea that "everything there is" is quantum particles cannot be true.

Everything there is is a property of such particles. The motion is a property.

---

(July 21, 2019 at 7:23 am)comet Wrote:

(July 20, 2019 at 12:33 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: Not sure if you're asking me. 
Heat energy is the movement of particles, not the particles themselves. 
So the idea that "everything there is" is quantum particles cannot be true.

They don't know what energy is.  They know how to use the notion but not what it is.  Just Like they don't know what gravity is but can use it.    I I think its better stated the movement of particles is the indication of "heat energy".  Its Like seeing if its windy outside by looking out the window.  The movement isn't the wind. 

Maybe change that to "everything we know is based on quantum particles."?  If space/time itself is quantized then everything being based on quantized is correct.

What do you even mean when asking what something 'is'? Isn't knowing 'how to use it', meaning when and where to find it, when it shows up, and how it acts, aren't these *precisely* what it means to know 'what something is'?
You can equally well say we don't know what momentum is, or what spin is, or what charge is. Well, we seem to know enough to use these and describe in exquisite detail how these things operate.
I think asking anything past that is metaphysical BS.

(July 22, 2019 at 9:10 am)polymath257 Wrote: The heat is the random motion of the molecules, which are all made of quantum particles.

---

Actually it's not "random". The relative motions may be "random" but the temperature they are generally at, is not "random". They are either hotter or colder than another group of them. The energy of them can be determined. That is not "random".
Saying they are all quantum particles does not really do it.
Important characteristics of an atom, (which determines it's behavior) are above the quantum level.

(July 22, 2019 at 9:10 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(July 20, 2019 at 5:28 am)Bucky Ball Wrote: polymath257 Wrote:

So then, in a exothermic chemical reaction, the heat energy that is released is made of "quantum particles" (?)

The heat is the random motion of the molecules, which are all made of quantum particles.

---

(July 20, 2019 at 12:33 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: Not sure if you're asking me. 
Heat energy is the movement of particles, not the particles themselves. 
So the idea that "everything there is" is quantum particles cannot be true.

Everything there is is a property of such particles. The motion is a property.

---

(July 21, 2019 at 7:23 am)comet Wrote: They don't know what energy is.  They know how to use the notion but not what it is.  Just Like they don't know what gravity is but can use it.    I I think its better stated the movement of particles is the indication of "heat energy".  Its Like seeing if its windy outside by looking out the window.  The movement isn't the wind. 

Maybe change that to "everything we know is based on quantum particles."?  If space/time itself is quantized then everything being based on quantized is correct.

What do you even mean when asking what something 'is'? Isn't knowing 'how to use it', meaning when and where to find it, when it shows up, and how it acts, aren't these *precisely* what it means to know 'what something is'?
You can equally well say we don't know what momentum is, or what spin is, or what charge is. Well, we seem to know enough to use these and describe in exquisite detail how these things operate.
I think asking anything past that is metaphysical BS.

thats it then.  its bs to you.  Before they knew what the atom was made up of it was metaphysical BS to you.  To me it is not BS, its learning.

and no, knowing how to predict the out come is totally different than knowing where it comes and what it is.  My wife knows a car and how they behave.  she doesn't have  clue to the parts that make it up.

maybe it might be better for us to put it in those terms for you.   We don't know what the pieces are that make up energy (if there are pieces that is), or the fabric of space/time or gravity.

---

(July 22, 2019 at 12:16 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(July 22, 2019 at 9:10 am)polymath257 Wrote: The heat is the random motion of the molecules, which are all made of quantum particles.

---

Actually it's not "random". The relative motions may be "random" but the temperature they are generally at, is not "random". They are either hotter or colder than another group of them. The energy of them can be determined. That is not "random".
Saying they are all quantum particles does not really do it.
Important characteristics of an atom, (which determines it's behavior) are above the quantum level.

this is actually way short of understanding.  the quantum behavior of space/time determines exactly how the atom behaves.  What you are talking about is how we can ignore the underlining quantum effects to do "chemistry" at our level.  In most cases.  But the discoveries we have made, ie materials and other technologies, are based precisely on quantum affects and relativity. 

valance shell electrons, our everyday chemistry, only works in the quantum world.

I am so not sure why you are dismissing the fact that the standard model is based on quantum particles?  what the problem for you?  they are just the facts of the standard model?

why is that?

(July 22, 2019 at 7:51 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Can you give two examples of something that didn’t begin to exist?

This illustrates one of the main flaws with cosmological arguments, they seem to be smuggling in the conclusion in the first premises. Including the version in the OP.

Premise 1 creates 2 sets: one set of all things that begin to exist, and (unstated) all things that do not begin to exist.

If the argument presenter only has one member of the set of all things that don't begin to exist (their god), the argument is circular.

(July 22, 2019 at 1:50 pm)comet Wrote:

(July 22, 2019 at 9:10 am)polymath257 Wrote: The heat is the random motion of the molecules, which are all made of quantum particles.

---

Everything there is is a property of such particles. The motion is a property.

---

What do you even mean when asking what something 'is'? Isn't knowing 'how to use it', meaning when and where to find it, when it shows up, and how it acts, aren't these *precisely* what it means to know 'what something is'?
You can equally well say we don't know what momentum is, or what spin is, or what charge is. Well, we seem to know enough to use these and describe in exquisite detail how these things operate.
I think asking anything past that is metaphysical BS.

thats it then.  its bs to you.  Before they knew what the atom was made up of it was metaphysical BS to you.  To me it is not BS, its learning.

and no, knowing how to predict the out come is totally different than knowing where it comes and what it is.  My wife knows a car and how they behave.  she doesn't have  clue to the parts that make it up.

maybe it might be better for us to put it in those terms for you.   We don't know what the pieces are that make up energy (if there are pieces that is), or the fabric of space/time or gravity.

---

(July 22, 2019 at 12:16 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: Actually it's not "random". The relative motions may be "random" but the temperature they are generally at, is not "random". They are either hotter or colder than another group of them. The energy of them can be determined. That is not "random".
Saying they are all quantum particles does not really do it.
Important characteristics of an atom, (which determines it's behavior) are above the quantum level.

this is actually way short of understanding.  the quantum behavior of space/time determines exactly how the atom behaves.  What you are talking about is how we can ignore the underlining quantum effects to do "chemistry" at our level.  In most cases.  But the discoveries we have made, ie materials and other technologies, are based precisely on quantum affects and relativity. 

valance shell electrons, our everyday chemistry, only works in the quantum world.

I am so not sure why you are dismissing the fact that the standard model is based on quantum particles?  what the problem for you?  they are just the facts of the standard model?

why is that?

I'm not dismissing that. There is obviously more that exists, IF one set of them can be one temperature, and another identical set be another temperature. The energy that heats up one set is not nothing, and is not known to be a set of quantum particles. In the linear accelerator are quantum particles speeding up and smashing quantum particles ? No. Why build the damn thing if they are ?

At work.

(July 22, 2019 at 7:51 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Can you give two examples of something that didn’t begin to exist?

Sorry to be comming in late.

So..... why two?

I would have thought being able to provide just one example of something comming into existence wherrefore before there was not a 'Thing' would have been enough to bork the Kalam.

Of coure, watching Belaqua and such tie the language in knots as they seek to 'Redefine' their way out of the problem is both amusing.... and painful.

Cheers.

(July 22, 2019 at 3:33 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(July 22, 2019 at 1:50 pm)comet Wrote: thats it then.  its bs to you.  Before they knew what the atom was made up of it was metaphysical BS to you.  To me it is not BS, its learning.

and no, knowing how to predict the out come is totally different than knowing where it comes and what it is.  My wife knows a car and how they behave.  she doesn't have  clue to the parts that make it up.

maybe it might be better for us to put it in those terms for you.   We don't know what the pieces are that make up energy (if there are pieces that is), or the fabric of space/time or gravity.

---

this is actually way short of understanding.  the quantum behavior of space/time determines exactly how the atom behaves.  What you are talking about is how we can ignore the underlining quantum effects to do "chemistry" at our level.  In most cases.  But the discoveries we have made, ie materials and other technologies, are based precisely on quantum affects and relativity. 

valance shell electrons, our everyday chemistry, only works in the quantum world.

I am so not sure why you are dismissing the fact that the standard model is based on quantum particles?  what the problem for you?  they are just the facts of the standard model?

why is that?

I'm not dismissing that. There is obviously more that exists, IF one set of them can be one temperature, and another identical set be another temperature. The energy that heats up one set is not nothing, and is not known to be a set of quantum particles. In the linear accelerator are quantum particles speeding up and smashing quantum particles ? No. Why build the damn thing if they are ?

ok, youre limiting it to heat energy, as defined, the "energy that flows from hot to cold".  I am telling you they do not know what energy is.  Thats just fact buck, there is nothing we can do about that.  I am sorry.  

The standard model is based on quantum particles so it not metaphysics.  as a matter fact, they are quantum particles (actually i would say "particles that follow quantum mechanics) that they are studying in particle accelerators. .  everything you see is a set of interactions of particles popping into and out of existence. They are not like a "rock" you pick up and hold. they are more like bubbles on the surface of water. Physicists do NOT know why quantum mechanics works, they just know it works.  Like my wife can drive a car but doesn't know anything about it. There are no static things.

for example, a proton.  A proton is a  lot of particles that "pop into and out of" existence.  We call the net set "a proton". think of it like this, a proton is more like a football game than a marble.   what do I mean by that.?  I think it might help us talk about this if you watch "how small is it 05" on youtube.  its boring as all get out, so just rewind it when you fall sleep,  lmao, I think I fell a sleep 20 times.  But watch it, 

I assume the by the way you are defending yourself you have some training so you should understand it.   if you don't I would be kind of bummed.

(July 22, 2019 at 3:39 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.

(July 22, 2019 at 7:51 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Can you give two examples of something that didn’t begin to exist?

Sorry to be comming in late.

So..... why two?

I would have thought being able to provide just one example of something comming into existence wherrefore before there was not a 'Thing' would have been enough to bork the Kalam.

Of coure, watching Belaqua and such tie the language in knots as they seek to 'Redefine' their way out of the problem is both amusing.... and painful.

Cheers.

It’s a very simple way to show the nature of rule creation fueled entirely by special pleading.

Kalamazoo is the silliest argument imaginable.

“Everything but my thing has to follow this rule I created in order for there to be an alleged necessity for my thing”.

Offer up some second thing to a person who mistakenly believed that Kalamazoo is a credible argument and you’ll see just how much they don’t believe in the argument, themselves, in the rejection of the second example.

The conjecture is just a long winded god assertion. That’s it’s only purpose. To assume their god by another name as though speaking the words in a different language made a lick of difference.

(July 22, 2019 at 3:39 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: Of coure, watching Belaqua and such tie the language in knots as they seek to 'Redefine' their way out of the problem is both amusing.... and painful.

Cheers.

This is how it looks to you, since you don't know the history.

Plotinus and others made sincere efforts to understand who the world works. You have a different view, so it looks to you as if they are twisting things in order to accommodate a pre-determined solution. But this is unfair to them. 

In fact many of what you call "redefinitions" came early on, and seem strange to you because you have settled on later answers. 

The later answers may well be better, but that doesn't mean you can project insincere motivations onto long dead people.