(December 29, 2022 at 4:23 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(December 29, 2022 at 2:48 pm)Angrboda Wrote: I think Mister Agenda's point is that there is a valid instance of the excluded middle here, and Hawking-Hartle doesn't rebut that conclusion.

It's the same as saying that an atheist lacks a belief in a god, yet in some way, unspecified, an ignostic doesn't fall into that category.

Quote:The present paper demonstrates the failure of the principle of excluded middle (PEM) in the lattice of all closed linear subspaces of a Hilbert space (usually defined as quantum logic). Namely, it is shown that for a qubit, a proposition and its negation can be both false. Since PEM is the assumed theorem of quantum logic, this raises the question: If PEM holds in the orthocomplemented lattice of all propositions of the quantum system, then how the failure of PEM in quantum logic can be explained? Alternatively, if the propositions relating to the quantum system do not obey PEM, then what is the semantics of those propositions? Possible answers to these questions are analyzed in the present paper

.
arXiv -- Do quantum propositions obey the principle of excluded middle?

It's one (preprint) paper by one author, which doesn't prove anything, but, maybe there is more here than meets the eye, or Aristotelian dialectic logic.

The fact that it has no relevance to what I wrote is an important point. Did you think that just Googling something that shared a few terms and posting it was smart? It wasn't.

(December 29, 2022 at 4:29 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(December 29, 2022 at 4:23 pm)Jehanne Wrote: .
arXiv -- Do quantum propositions obey the principle of excluded middle?

It's one (preprint) paper by one author, which doesn't prove anything, but, maybe there is more here than meets the eye, or Aristotelian dialectic logic.

The fact that it has no relevance to what I wrote is an important point. Did you think that just Googling something that shared a few terms and posting it was smart? It wasn't.

I think that the superposition principle from quantum mechanics casts doubt on the Aristotelian dialectic framework, or, to quote the philosopher John Locke,

Quote:From whence it follows, that one thing cannot have two beginnings of existence, nor two things one beginning; it being impossible for two things of the same kind to be or exist in the same instant, in the very same place; or one and the same thing in different places. That, there­fore, that had one beginning, is the same thing; and that which had a different beginning in time and place from that, is not the same, but diverse. That which has made the difficulty about this relation has been the little care and attention used in having precise notions of the things to which it is attributed.

Please note that I have read Locke's "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" a number of times in its entirety, and so, am not just "Googling it".

(December 29, 2022 at 5:09 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(December 29, 2022 at 4:29 pm)Angrboda Wrote: The fact that it has no relevance to what I wrote is an important point.  Did you think that just Googling something that shared a few terms and posting it was smart?  It wasn't.

I think that the superposition principle from quantum mechanics casts doubt on the Aristotelian dialectic framework, or, to quote the philosopher John Locke,

Quote:From whence it follows, that one thing cannot have two beginnings of existence, nor two things one beginning; it being impossible for two things of the same kind to be or exist in the same instant, in the very same place; or one and the same thing in different places. That, there­fore, that had one beginning, is the same thing; and that which had a different beginning in time and place from that, is not the same, but diverse. That which has made the difficulty about this relation has been the little care and attention used in having precise notions of the things to which it is attributed.

Please note that I have read Locke's "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" a number of times in its entirety, and so, am not just "Googling it".

That's nice. It doesn't make it any more relevant, or your responses any more cogent.

(December 29, 2022 at 5:12 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(December 29, 2022 at 5:09 pm)Jehanne Wrote: I think that the superposition principle from quantum mechanics casts doubt on the Aristotelian dialectic framework, or, to quote the philosopher John Locke,


Please note that I have read Locke's "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" a number of times in its entirety, and so, am not just "Googling it".

That's nice. It doesn't make it any more relevant, or your responses any more cogent.

You're entitled to your opinions. But, I challenge you to state why my response(s) are not relevant or cogent, and I doubt that I shall from you on this.

(December 29, 2022 at 12:32 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(December 29, 2022 at 11:05 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Not sure how that doesn't mean 'didn't have a beginning'.

Wikipedia -- Hartle–Hawking state

(December 28, 2022 at 11:51 pm)snowtracks Wrote:

(December 26, 2022 at 9:45 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: You do realize a person so confused and muddle headed as to think faith is somehow qualified to play any role whatsoever in understanding reality is uniquely unqualified to interpret the implications of scientific discovery based on rigorous assessment of material evidence. Right?

Genesis 1 is a summary. In just one page, a flawless overview of 13.79 B. years of natural history written some 3 tya that miraculously describes the sequential steps (which perfectly align with the scientific record) by which Earth became ready for human habitation. Genesis 2 like all other references adds details to the summary. Gen 2, in particular, gives a spiritual perspective on creation; thus, it begins to elaborate on the ‘purpose’ of creation.

Gen 1:1 to 1:2 is 9 1/2  billion years; nothing explicitly biblical is stated. For correct interpretation, the point of reference changes from above to the Earth's surface looking up, with verse 2.

Your blathering might make sense if I was high.

(December 29, 2022 at 5:22 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(December 29, 2022 at 5:12 pm)Angrboda Wrote: That's nice.  It doesn't make it any more relevant, or your responses any more cogent.

You're entitled to your opinions.  But, I challenge you to state why my response(s) are not relevant or cogent, and I doubt that I shall from you on this.

Because whether there exists a case of an actual excluded middle depends upon the specifics under discussion, not some bollocks about "Aristotlean dialectics" (*), nor by seeing whether there is or is not an actual case of the excluded middle in a totally different context, such as in the paper you quoted. Mister Agenda posited that there are two possibilities, either the universe had a beginning or it didn't. You suggested that a model of the universe that is finite but unbounded violates the dichotomy that Mister Agenda posited. Upon his asking how a universe with no temporal boundary in the past was in any sense not a universe without a beginning, you obliviously simply posted a link to the Wikipedia article without answering his question. The Hawking-Hartle proposes the universe did not have a beginning and thus is simply a species of beginningless universe, not a third possibility. Thus the dichotomy that Mister Agenda posted is valid. None of the shit you've posted has addressed that point.

Now, you can either recant your slander, or explain in what way your responses to me are relevant to the question of whether the Hawking-Hartle universe is or is not categorically distinct from universes without a beginning in general.

(*) The quote from Locke you posted is a species of Liebniz' Law and has no relevance to the discussion.

(December 29, 2022 at 9:29 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(December 29, 2022 at 5:22 pm)Jehanne Wrote: You're entitled to your opinions.  But, I challenge you to state why my response(s) are not relevant or cogent, and I doubt that I shall from you on this.

Because whether there exists a case of an actual excluded middle depends upon the specifics under discussion, not some bollocks about "Aristotlean dialectics" (*) which presumes to establish a generalization, nor by seeing whether there is or is not an actual case of the excluded middle in a totally different context, such as in the paper you quoted. Mister Agenda posited that there are two possibilities, either the universe had a beginning or it didn't. You suggested that a model of the universe that is finite but unbounded violates the dichotomy that Mister Agenda posited. Upon his asking how a universe with no temporal boundary in the past was in any sense not a universe without a beginning, you obliviously simply posted a link to the Wikipedia article without answering his question. The Hawking-Hartle proposes the universe did not have a beginning and thus is simply a species of beginningless universe, not a third possibility. Thus the dichotomy that Mister Agenda posted is valid. None of the shit you've posted has addressed that point.

Now, you can either apologize for your slander, or explain in what way your responses to me are relevant to the question of whether the Hawking-Hartle universe is or is not categorically distinct from universes without a beginning in general.

(*) The quote from Locke you posted is a form of Liebniz' Law and has no relevance to the discussion.

Slander? As in (from Merriam-Webster):

Quote:1: the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation
2
: a false and defamatory oral statement about a person

Leibniz was critical of Locke, writing a point-by-point rebuttal in 1704. I am not sure that anyone has ever claimed that Locke pilfered from Leibniz.

Leibniz's Law is, per Wikipedia, known as the "Identity of Indiscernibles" (PII).

The Hawking-Hartle model is not "simply a species of beginningless universe". In their model our Universe is finite but started out just as space and no time. I doubt that idea would have floated with either Locke or Leibniz given their idea of the PII. Locke goes on and on about motion in his Essay, and so, I think that he would have found the idea of space without any time to at least be odd.

(December 29, 2022 at 11:05 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(December 29, 2022 at 11:01 am)Jehanne Wrote: Finite, yet unbounded, may be a third possibility.

Not sure how that doesn't mean 'didn't have a beginning'.

I don't know what Jehanne means exactly here, but you could theoretically have a 4D space-time continuum that is infinite in its dimensions but nevertheless has a "starting point" (i.e., the BB singularity) contained within it (sort of like the origin point of a coordinate system). In other words, the universe (by universe, I mean the whole space-time continuum here) has a beginning in one sense (has a 'starting point') but no beginning in another sense (has always existed).

I agree, however, it doesn't mean there's a third possibility here. It's still either the universe has a beginning or it doesn't (regardless of how "beginning" or "time" or whatever are being defined here).

(December 29, 2022 at 5:09 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(December 29, 2022 at 4:29 pm)Angrboda Wrote: The fact that it has no relevance to what I wrote is an important point.  Did you think that just Googling something that shared a few terms and posting it was smart?  It wasn't.

I think that the superposition principle from quantum mechanics casts doubt on the Aristotelian dialectic framework, or, to quote the philosopher John Locke,

Nah, it's a language matter, nothing more. The superpostion can be seen as comprising different instances of the "same" particle existing simultaneously at different positions, rather than the exact same particle existing at different positions at the same time.

Then again, I'm only addressing one of the two points make in Locke's quote, and possibly not understanding the point you're making here.