Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

How do you attempt to rationalise with the completely irrational?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    So if they are a human construct then the laws of logic could in theory be relative - so they are not absolute?
    I would contend that writing about a supernatural entity as if it was a actual fact and that it had a morality and was the source of logic might be a contention that could be construed as not being overly logical. However, that is merely my opinion.
    "It ain't necessarily so
    The things that you're liable
    To read in the Bible
    It ain't necessarily so
    ."

    Sportin' Life
    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Whateverman View Post
      Internet partisans don't have the authority to dismiss physics.

      Electrons simultaneously exist as both particles and waves. Treating an electron only as a wave in order to contradict some argument on the internet is facile at best, and dishonest at worst.

      As far as demonstration goes, if you feel no need to demonstrate that your god is the source of logic, you can't whine when other people refuse to be held to a higher evidentiary standard ;)
      there is no contradiction in existing as a wave and a particle. You would have to prove that they are mutually exclusive.

      Comment


      • bump

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          there is no contradiction in existing as a wave and a particle. You would have to prove that they are mutually exclusive.
          By definition, they're as contradictory as a square and a circle.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            there is no contradiction in existing as a wave and a particle. You would have to prove that they are mutually exclusive.
            Here are a couple of quotes from the experts in the field:

            According to Niels Bohr, the father of the orthodox ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’ of quantum physics, “Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it”; while Richard Feynman, one of the founders of quantum field theory remarked, “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum theory”.
            "It ain't necessarily so
            The things that you're liable
            To read in the Bible
            It ain't necessarily so
            ."

            Sportin' Life
            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Whateverman View Post
              By definition, they're as contradictory as a square and a circle.
              But it is only in the Copenhagen interpretion that they exist in entangled ensembles until they are observed.

              In the Bohm interpretation there's a λ-function wave that guides the Ψ-wavefunction of the ensemble, and the particle remains a particle without ever being a wave.


              In the Everett Multiverse interpretation we are all inside a giant ensemble configuration, where a particular state slice splits up the moment it becomes thermodynamically distinct from another. The particle remains a particle there.


              In the Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber dynamic collapse interpretation collapses are objective states move as wave packets and undergo a non-linear state collapse after a finite amount of time. Here the particle is a wave-packet which only ever grows to a certain finite size. Interestingly this one is actually testable.

              There are no contradictions in any of these interpretations.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                I would contend that writing about a supernatural entity as if it was a actual fact and that it had a morality and was the source of logic might be a contention that could be construed as not being overly logical. However, that is merely my opinion.
                Well you would have to show which law of logic it violated and why.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                  But it is only in the Copenhagen interpretion that they exist in entangled ensembles until they are observed.

                  In the Bohm interpretation there's a λ-function wave that guides the Ψ-wavefunction of the ensemble, and the particle remains a particle without ever being a wave.


                  In the Everett Multiverse interpretation we are all inside a giant ensemble configuration, where a particular state slice splits up the moment it becomes thermodynamically distinct from another. The particle remains a particle there.


                  In the Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber dynamic collapse interpretation collapses are objective states move as wave packets and undergo a non-linear state collapse after a finite amount of time. Here the particle is a wave-packet which only ever grows to a certain finite size. Interestingly this one is actually testable.

                  There are no contradictions in any of these interpretations.
                  If there are no contradictions how is it that a single particle goes through both slits?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    But it is only in the Copenhagen interpretion that they exist in entangled ensembles until they are observed.

                    In the Bohm interpretation there's a λ-function wave that guides the Ψ-wavefunction of the ensemble, and the particle remains a particle without ever being a wave.


                    In the Everett Multiverse interpretation we are all inside a giant ensemble configuration, where a particular state slice splits up the moment it becomes thermodynamically distinct from another. The particle remains a particle there.


                    In the Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber dynamic collapse interpretation collapses are objective states move as wave packets and undergo a non-linear state collapse after a finite amount of time. Here the particle is a wave-packet which only ever grows to a certain finite size. Interestingly this one is actually testable.

                    There are no contradictions in any of these interpretations.
                    Kudos for this.

                    As far as I understand some of the other interpretations, there may be a few that enjoy a bit more popularity than the others, but all are still in-play. None of the interpretations can be discounted - and the brute fact is that subatomic particles behave as both waves and particle (in different situations). This is a fundamental breakdown of the law of (non)contradiction. A wave can't be a particle (aka. a wave can't be a not-wave), and yet in some situations, that's exactly what it is.

                    ---

                    The reality is that our language is where the problem lies. It's not so much that waves can't be particles, but that words like "wave" and "particle" are imprecise and probably flawed. Instead of logic actually breaking down, we simply lack the language to accurately describe what's going on. Unfortunately for seer, this problem is just as bad, because it means that whatever we think of as the law of non-contradiction isn't universal or absolute. It's just an approximation, and until we have the ability to see reality perfectly, there's always a chance that we're misunderstanding or misusing logic.

                    Logic isn't absolute, and it never was. It was always a by-product of human language, and the extent to which that language can change - is the extent to which logic is limited and malleable.
                    Last edited by Whateverman; 08-01-2020, 05:05 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      If there are no contradictions how is it that a single particle goes through both slits?
                      In neither of the three mentioned interpretations does the particle go through both slits.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Whateverman View Post
                        Logic isn't absolute, and it never was.
                        You don't get it do you:

                        1. Logic isn't absolute.

                        2. Logic is absolute.

                        In your world both could be true. Makes everything absurd.
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Whateverman View Post
                          Kudos for this.

                          As far as I understand some of the other interpretations, there may be a few that enjoy a bit more popularity than the others, but all are still in-play. None of the interpretations can be discounted - and the brute fact is that subatomic particles behave as both waves and particle (in different situations). This is a fundamental breakdown of the law of (non)contradiction. A wave can't be a particle (aka. a wave can't be a not-wave), and yet in some situations, that's exactly what it is.
                          In a phenomenological sense? Yes they behave as particles and waves, i.e depending on circumstances they may display either characteristic. However importantly they don't do this at the same time in the same context. It depends exactly on the context. Which is why its a paradox and not a contradiction.

                          In fact I'd go so far as to say that even in the Copenhagen interpretation there is no breakdown of the law of contradiction. An alternative has been postulated as Quantum Logic, but again, it's kinda reached a dead end. There doesn't seem to be any motivating reasons why you'd abandon the law of contradiction there.

                          The reality is that our language is where the problem lies. It's not so much that waves can't be particles, but that words like "wave" and "particle" are imprecise and probably flawed.
                          It is very possible that either of those terms would one day be replaced with something that has a deeper structure. I haven't seen any good proposals for that, but I'd be open to it.

                          Instead of logic actually breaking down, we simply lack the language to accurately describe what's going on. Unfortunately for seer, this problem is just as bad, because it means that whatever we think of as the law of non-contradiction isn't universal or absolute. It's just an approximation, and until we have the ability to see reality perfectly, there's always a chance that we're misunderstanding or misusing logic.
                          I don't think what you're saying here is intelligible. To borrow a bit from A.J Ayer's work "Language, Logic and Truth", an analytical sentence is a sentence the truth of which we can determine from knowing the meaning of its words. So the sentence "One plus one equals two" can be evaluated as true, simply by knowing the meaning of the words. This just follows from the syntactic and semantic rules of those words. It is absolute only in the sense that anyone having the same understanding of those words would come to the same conclusion.

                          Logic isn't absolute, and it never was. It was always a by-product of human language, and the extent to which that language can change - is the extent to which logic is limited and malleable.
                          Logic is language of a particular sort. Any language is malleable, you can make other versions of it. Deductive logic is only one form, and one very narrow algebra at that. There are so many rich structures. And that's even without getting to the whole numbers and run into the gamot of Gödel problems that arise.

                          Seer's problem is that he believes it is limiting of God, or demeaning in a way of His honour to say "God cannot do the impossible." As if there was some Rule Keeper greater than God that ensured that God couldn't do that. However all that is implied in that statement is just that trivial postulate that anyone can only do that which they can.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Well you would have to show which law of logic it violated and why.
                            Here are five comments from William Lane Craig:

                            1.God makes sense of the origin of the universe.
                            2.God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
                            3.God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.
                            4.God makes sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
                            5.God can be immediately known and experienced.

                            To all the above the rejoinder must be, On what logical scientific and observational evidence?
                            "It ain't necessarily so
                            The things that you're liable
                            To read in the Bible
                            It ain't necessarily so
                            ."

                            Sportin' Life
                            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                              Here are five comments from William Lane Craig:

                              1.God makes sense of the origin of the universe.
                              2.God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
                              3.God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.
                              4.God makes sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
                              5.God can be immediately known and experienced.

                              To all the above the rejoinder must be, On what logical scientific and observational evidence?
                              That is not what I asked - what law of logic would any of the above violate? And something has to have a scientific justification to be true? Is that your position? And why even bring up science or logic since you don't believe that the laws of logic are absolute. Reducing everything to absurdity.
                              Last edited by seer; 08-02-2020, 07:17 AM.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                                That is not what I asked - what law of logic would any of the above violate?
                                You are very good at asking your interlocutor to defend their statements but not overly keen to support your own. You have made the following statement [amongst many] perhaps you could produce your logical argument to justify it.

                                1. A good God would want to end suffering.
                                2. An all powerful God could end suffering.
                                3. A good and all powerful God may have sufficient moral reasons to allow temporary suffering for a greater, eternal good
                                [my emphasis]

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                And something has to have a scientific justification to be true? Is that your position?
                                When dealing with the contention that a supernatural Creator being is the source of logic and is both rational and moral, then some scientific, logical, and observational evidence from those who make such allegations is required.
                                "It ain't necessarily so
                                The things that you're liable
                                To read in the Bible
                                It ain't necessarily so
                                ."

                                Sportin' Life
                                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                157 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                373 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X