Debunking of Modern Evolutionary and Cosmological Theories

[JuliaL]

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.

[Alex K]

@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.
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.

[JuliaL]

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.

[Hatshepsut]

Niels

Oops, i before e even in Denmark.

Normally I beat people up for this kind of crap

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.  

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.  

[Cyberman]

I can't spell anymore

You just did.

[Alex K]

I can't spell anymore

You just did.

She actually typed "I cant shpel animoar", but the spellchecker fixed it.

[Magilla]

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.

[robvalue]

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.

[nihilistcat]

Oh geez .... LOL