Originally posted by seer
View Post
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.
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
-
"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
-
Originally posted by Whateverman View PostInternet 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 ;)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Postthere is no contradiction in existing as a wave and a particle. You would have to prove that they are mutually exclusive.
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 PostBy definition, they're as contradictory as a square and a circle.
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 PostI 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.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 PostBut 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 Leonhard View PostBut 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.
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 Whateverman View PostLogic isn't absolute, and it never was.
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 PostKudos 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 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.
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.
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 PostWell you would have to show which law of logic it violated and why.
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 PostHere 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?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 PostThat is not what I asked - what law of logic would any of the above violate?
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 PostAnd something has to have a scientific justification to be true? Is that your position?"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
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
400 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Yesterday, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
373 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 11:08 AM
|
Comment