Presuppositional Apologetics

[shunyadragon]

No, they have not taken pictures of individual electrons. But had detected the individual quantium behavior of electrons near absolute zero.

Got an image?

Just simply google 'photos of electrons' and you will see a selection of pictures and articles. I will cite some in the next post.

neat youtube video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofp-OHIq6Wo

[37818]

Just simply google 'photos of electrons' and you will see a selection of pictures and articles. I will cite some in the next post.

neat youtube video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofp-OHIq6Wo

Here is that video alleged to depict the slowed down electron.

[shunyadragon]

Here is that video alleged to depict the slowed down electron.

Do you have reason to believe these scientists and the other scientists who photographed electrons are not being truthful? I have found no scientific reference that questions this claim.

[37818]

Do you have reason to believe these scientists and the other scientists who photographed electrons are not being truthful? I have found no scientific reference that questions this claim.

They only provided an image depicting a motion of an electron. My question then is how is it an image of an indiviual electron? It is in any case a mathematical model of the electron's motion. Electrons [plural] are required to produce any image.

[shunyadragon]

They only provided an image depicting a motion of an electron. My question then is how is it an image of an individual electron? It is in any case a mathematical model of the electron's motion. Electrons [plural] are required to produce any image.

You may question it, but the scientists involved in this video and other recent pictures of an electron describe it as a picture of an electron, and only one electron. It is not claimed to a mathematical model of the electron's motion, nor is there anything in the references that refers to the image being more than one electron. The electrons photographed are at or very near absolute zero, and the same as anything else filmed in motion.

Please, cite a reference for the above claims.

[37818]

You may question it, but the scientists involved in this video and other recent pictures of an electron describe it as a picture of an electron, and only one electron. It is not claimed to a mathematical model of the electron's motion, nor is there anything in the references that refers to the image being more than one electron. The electrons photographed are at or very near absolute zero, and the same as anything else filmed in motion.

Please, cite a reference for the above claims.

Ah, you are the one making claims here. The video you provided only depicted the motion of an electron without explanation of the image as to how it depicted the electron - other than a motion. No scale was given.

[shunyadragon]

Ah, you are the one making claims here. The video you provided only depicted the motion of an electron without explanation of the image as to how it depicted the electron - other than a motion. No scale was given.

No I am not the one making the claim that it is a photographic image of an electron, as well as the other sources. Source: 'Scientists in Sweden film moving electron for the first time.'

Each flash of the Quantum stroboscope recorded an image of an electron in place. The combined images are represent the film, which shows movement of the electron at or near absolute zero.

Please cite a source for your erroneous assertion. Again I am not the one making the claim, the scientists that have photographed and filmed the electron are making the claim.

[37818]

No I am not the one making the claim that it is a photographic image of an electron, as well as the other sources. Source: 'Scientists in Sweden film moving electron for the first time.'

Each flash of the Quantum stroboscope recorded an image of an electron in place. The combined images are represent the film, which shows movement of the electron at or near absolute zero.

Please cite a source for your erroneous assertion. Again I am not the one making the claim, the scientists that have photographed and filmed the electron are making the claim.

The souce is the one you are citing. "Scientists in Sweden film moving electron for the first time." The image shows concentric circles moving up and down. How, other than depicting a motion is that the electron? You tell me.

[shunyadragon]

The source is the one you are citing. "Scientists in Sweden film moving electron for the first time."

Correct.

[/The image shows concentric circles moving up and down. How, other than depicting a motion is that the electron? You tell me.

Ask them, they are the one's that are telling us literally state that this is a video of an electron made by a Quantum Spectroscope. When you film something it consists of individual pictures of the object, in this case an electron.

Assertions and opinions don't count. Do you have a scientific source that contests these sources that describe taking pictures of an electron?

[37818]

Correct.



Ask them, they are the one's that are telling us literally state that this is a video of an electron made by a Quantum Spectroscope. When you film something it consists of individual pictures of the object, in this case an electron.

Assertions and opinions don't count. Do you have a scientific source that contests these sources that describe taking pictures of an electron?

No, I have no other source. And do you have an understanding of how it is a picture of a moving electron?

[shunyadragon]

No, I have no other source. And do you have an understanding of how it is a picture of a moving electron?

Actually, yes, the electron is essentially frozen at or near absolute zero, and a Quantum stroboscope produces the reflection of the image, and it was filmed in a series of images to make a film. Beyond this the Swedish scientists are specific as to their claim; they filmed an image of an electron at or near absolute zero. Any further explanation would have to come from them.

Other scientists have created images by other methods, but these images are not direct photo images. They are created images using the pathways and essentially where electrons are not.

[grmorton]

Second, I don't see how the Presuppositionalist can avoid the brain in the vat problem. .

Anyone remotely familiar with 19th century idealism has to wonder how anyone avoids the brain in the vat problem. This issue is not limited to Christians, Christian presuppositionalism or nutters.

Materialists and homeless people both have to ensure that what they see is actually what happened. Our sensory input slices, dices, and chops up the input in a way that would make a ginsu chef blush.

While probably only a philosophy nerd can appreciate the problem we have with sense data and the external world, A. J. Ayer writes that G. E. Moore's refutation of idealism isn't really a good argument. (Moore is one of my favorite philosophers). My Grad school teacher said, Moore basically said, we have to act as if the world is really out there, and that was that.

Then there is the Psychological problem. Our sensing is very imperfect. If you take enough of these types tests we can all be caught not seeing the gorilla on the stage pounding his chest while we are trying to count the number of times the balls bounce. Our sensory input limits us and prevents us from seeing what is actually happening. In other words, we don't really see reality, we see what is perceived.

Because of all this, I do not think that ANYONE escaped the brain in a vat problem, no matter how above it all we proclaim ourselves to be.

And then there is the physics problem. We can't sense 96% of the stuff making up the universe--dark matter. Don't tell me we can know reality when we can't sense in any way 96% of what we think reality is.

[seer]

Anyone remotely familiar with 19th century idealism has to wonder how anyone avoids the brain in the vat problem. This issue is not limited to Christians, Christian presuppositionalism or nutters.

Materialists and homeless people both have to ensure that what they see is actually what happened. Our sensory input slices, dices, and chops up the input in a way that would make a ginsu chef blush.





While probably only a philosophy nerd can appreciate the problem we have with sense data and the external world, A. J. Ayer writes that G. E. Moore's refutation of idealism isn't really a good argument. (Moore is one of my favorite philosophers). My Grad school teacher said, Moore basically said, we have to act as if the world is really out there, and that was that.



Then there is the Psychological problem. Our sensing is very imperfect. If you take enough of these types tests we can all be caught not seeing the gorilla on the stage pounding his chest while we are trying to count the number of times the balls bounce. Our sensory input limits us and prevents us from seeing what is actually happening. In other words, we don't really see reality, we see what is perceived.

Because of all this, I do not think that ANYONE escaped the brain in a vat problem, no matter how above it all we proclaim ourselves to be.

And then there is the physics problem. We can't sense 96% of the stuff making up the universe--dark matter. Don't tell me we can know reality when we can't sense in any way 96% of what we think reality is.

I agree...

[Leonhard]

Second, I don't see how the Presuppositionalist can avoid the brain in the vat problem.

I once asked one of my good friends who is a graduate from Oxford's philosophy department, a skilled scholasticist, and a pious fellow well on his way to becoming a Dominican munk, this question: "How do we overcome the brain in the vat problem."

He told me, "No one can. There are two reasonable choices about how to understand the world: Solipsism, or Theism. The only reason we can have for calling solipsism irrational, is because it is unlivable. However once you decide that the external world exists, then the problem goes away"

So the brain in the vat is answered by choice.

[shunyadragon]

I once asked one of my good friends who is a graduate from Oxford's philosophy department, a skilled scholasticist, and a pious fellow well on his way to becoming a Dominican munk, this question: "How do we overcome the brain in the vat problem."

He told me, "No one can. There are two reasonable choices about how to understand the world: Solipsism, or Theism. The only reason we can have for calling solipsism irrational, is because it is unlivable. However once you decide that the external world exists, then the problem goes away"

So the brain in the vat is answered by choice.

I agree, somewhat, except I consider the 'brain in a vat' problem is a very poor simplistic negative representation of the scientific view of the relationship between the brain and the mind and consciousness.