questionposter

I don't really know where this attitude is coming from, I merely stated I've talked to religious people and they have told me what they experience, and because such a diverse group of religious mono-theists have described the same general experience to me, I think it is logical to assume it can be applied to many mono-theists. If your religious then you probably know more about the doctrines of your particular religion than me, that's all I'll really say about it. Besides, you don't know me either, how do you know I don't have a major/minor in philosophy?

Well I know many religious people, so I don't think it's unsupported, so while it may seem illogical to you for me to make that assumption, there's enough evidence for me to accept it from my point of view. I've heard that research has shown that parts of the brain detach (not physically) from each other when praying, but that's about it.

Actually, many people have complained about how you didn't give a precise definition and how you kept saying you already stated it. But my claims were not of philosophical interpretations, they were talking about those mechanics, which you also supported until I pointed out they use wave mechanics. You also weren't very clear either. Did you mean "If the existence..." and "thEn" instead of "thAn"?

I'm not saying the single observer will automatically measure it, I'm saying in my scenario it's theoretically possible to have a photon that you can measure from light years away instantaneously because of how delocalized it is, and besides, doesn't it only add up to "1" considering infinite distance? Like the summation of y/x with the upper limit as infinity or something? However, this infinite delocalization doesn't happen, at least not very often enough to be known to happen, so there has to be some kind of parameter, and since the wavelength is unknown, we can't say it's the wavelength.

That's why I'm posting this question, but your just saying "your changing the question, stop lecturing me" instead of answering the question directly regardless of if I changed it. I don't see how what your saying disproves I'm saying, unless you were trying to say the correlation of probability doesn't exist. I'm not talking about normalization or anything like that, and regardless of if it's one, how likely you are to measure it at any given distance can obviously change. If a photon is as localized as a gamma-ray or delocalized as a radio wave, it is one, so let's just imagine its a REALLY REALLY low wavelength radio wave that spreads over light years. If a source emitted a photon like that, don't I logically have the ability to instantly measure it from light years away and wouldn't its probability still be 1? Unless your trying to say it's always one...until you get past a certain localization point? I'm not saying it's measured from "every" point. A radio wave spreads out over the length of a football field, yet cellphones still work. I said it wasn't about entanglement, that was just to show that my statement isn't likely wrong unless maybe I didn't describe it clearly because it can be shown with experimental evidence that probability can correlate to large distances, and even over indefinite distance, and entanglement has already been done with photons, so the probability of a photon can expand over large distances, and delocalization does this. The probability of measuring a photon can theoretically be as large as light years. And regardless, that's STILL not the point, I'm trying to figure out what determines the 3-deimnsional probability of measuring a photon before measurement since things like wavelength aren't actually known prior to measurement. There HAS to be parameters for delcalized a photon gets before measurement, because otherwise it's probability would spread out infinitely as there would be nothing to stop it from doing so without parameters, just like how scientists think a singularity is infinitely small because there is no parameter to limit how small it can get after a certain point.

When you were referring to Zeus and Unicorns I thought you were meaning to say that not as many people believe in them anymore therefore they are unlikely, even though at one point thousands of people believed in them, at least in Zeus. Logic is logic, logic is not weird logic, unless the oral statements can be equal to mathematical statements and "weird" would equal "1" as a coefficient of "logic", at least logically anyway, or you could just accept that how logical something seems is actually relative. Well at least someone thinks beveling in a religion doesn't impair mental ability, besides the people who are already religious. And what about the Mayans?

Then state it if it's so precise and it was already stated, because let's just say I don't see it anywhere and that I won't see it if you name a specific post number. So you think Hamiltonian operators and Dirac mechanics and Schrodinger mechanics and Heisenberg mechanics and Quantum Field Theory are philosophies now? I can name more: There's also Bohmian mechanics, some later Bhor mechanics after even discussed how his model was flawed, DeBroglie (which I guess DeBroglie was in the earlier discovery), Einstein even went into it a little bit even though he didn't like the improbability it had, there's string theory, Calabi-Yau mechanics, etc... And many of these use waves and quantum variations of harmonic oscillators. Except neither you nor him specified what those "random bits" are.

Don't those fields have planar-wave solutions though? Also, I would say right now that "wave-particle-duality" is the best description, but that doesn't mean particles can't have properties of waves or have wave-mechanics describe them. They either are the oscillation itself or they are the whole of an oscillating field. Not only that, but the only distinction of particles that I have seen so far as that one is a little solid sphere that has mass and spin, I haven't seen anything to suggest they can account for superposition and field cancellation without considering that a particle has oscillatory properties.

I don't either, but then again, I'm not religious. Why should the number of believers determine if something is actually real? And besides, the reason people believe in it is because it can't be proven wrong. If it could, then 99% of the population wouldn't believe in it.

If a majority of people don't want to pay for it then they will see what it's like to have a fire-station let your house burn to the ground unless you pay them, which already happened in the early 20th century. Can you even imagine what would happen if police were privatized?

I don't really see much of what your saying in my physics books, which as you know tries to describe reality, and you might as well assume god exists because science doesn't have any evidence to support if "lower level" organisms actually have consciousness or perception or not. There isn't actually a logical component of the universe that says life can only do certain things, and considering that it means we can take to extra step to care about organisms we would consider to be a "lower level" if we want to, even though ironically the universe doesn't actually recognize level, a meteor will wipe out all life on Earth if it's big enough no matter how sentient any life on it is. Furthermore, there is no way to quantify consciousness, therefore we cannot say with certainty that one organism has a greater value of it than another. Since we can't really say perception and consciousness doesn't exist in things like mosquitoes, which personally I think it easily could even if not in large compared to humans I like to assume every thing that is living has some type of consciousness no matter how minute, and instead look at what they can control of their body and will power, because when you look at it that way you can make a smooth gradient between organisms, there doesn't just have to be some finite point where consciousness cuts off. Can you personally tell the deference between which species have "sentience" and which ones you know for sure don't? Because not even science can. Also, what if those organisms would have one day evolved into sentient organisms? Then your still destroying a sentient species. And besides, regardless of if anything is actually sentient, many animals have been tested to feel what appears to be pain. People even thought fish for a long time didn't feel pain, but with further testing, there's even chemical evidence of it because they release endorphins into their blood-stream when injured.

If you think Gattaca supported Eugenics you completely misunderstood it in every way shape and form. Your vision of "better" is your on personal opinion, and again, what happens when those machines fail?

Strange to you perhaps because you haven't made the psychological connections to religion as other people have. When mono-theists formally pray to god, in my experience, they often describe a feeling of calmness and zen as a way of feeling connected to god. Logically I don't know what the feeling actually arises from, and I don't know if scientists know, so there's room for believing other things. I don't think I ever said its a substitute for science, but this is why science can't prove it wrong.

There obviously isn't a precise definition of a particle if there's like 10 variations of quantum mechanics that all describe how particles act, and there's even a chemist I know that uses quantum wave mechanics of particles for industrial calculations. How does it NOT support my view? If anything its empirical evidence that quantum mechanics uses quantum wave mechanics to describe particles. Ok, AND vector states and the double slit experiment, but scientists think it works well because the nodal surfaces generated by a quantum harmonic oscillator perfectly or nearly perfectly matches where electrons don't seem to show up at all in an atom.

There's often questions about sci-fi stuff. But if you had some kind of casing, wouldn't the energy just radiate through that if the explosions happened pre-hand? Why not just detonate all of it at the same time without the casing? If you had a material that like, broke thermal dynamics and was incapable of absorbing thermal energy, then you could store all that energy inside it without losing any of it, otherwise even if it doesn't deteriorate from the over 5000 degrees of heat, energy will still transfer through it to the outside, not only that but maybe some gamma rays would escape as gamma rays are very small. I had a separate topic at one point for using degenerate matter to store massive amounts of energy, but so far the research is inconclusive and you might need to constantly expend energy to keep matter in a degenerate state. In short, it's improbable a bomb like that could be made. Usually sci-fi stories create an idea first, usually games don't spend a bunch of money to hire a scientist just to create futuristic bomb.

No, science is a methodology to describe our observations, not reality, that is why god is separate from it, because we cannot observe and test god regardless of if it exists in reality. We can't even prove black holes because we cannot observe them, same with individual quarks.

What terminology are you talking about specifically? Heisenberg's and Schrodinger's math DO achieve the same experimental results if that's what you mean. And was I wrong to say a a quantum harmonic oscillator was derived from a classical harmonic oscillator to account of the nodal surfaces in atomic orbitals?

I suppose it would be less extreme to try and modify a zygote, but other than that there actually isn't a real reason other than "I think it would be best", it's just a personal opinion, life would go on either way. By why should we judge so many people along those lines anyway? They're already working on research for mentally handicapped people anyway. Even with just zygotes, it is still jsut a forced judgement of a personal view of what's "better". Let's say we come up with a breakthrough and can genetically modify everyone to be a mathematical super-genius. But, what will we have to sacrifice to make it that way? Imagination, social skills, physical strength, the things that make a working society work, because the energy to support a more complex brain that can do those processes will have to come from somewhere and that somewhere could easily be other parts of the brain. What? Make people's brains bigger? What will require the deformation of people's skulls putting them off balance, and to support a big of enough brain to make that big of a difference, you also need more energy and oxygen, and that would come from your muscles and lung modification which there are limits to, which would make us dependent on machines for many physical tasks. What? Make a machine that can give us energy? Well in both those scenarios, what happens when machines fail?

How is the "influence" actually carried out by a virus? How is this giant organism telling the viruses how to influence us considering viruses aren't even living things?

Which only applies for measuring a photon. No, if it's wavelength was actually "known", it shouldn't have the properties it has while its unmeasured. It's possible we more likely know just a range of possible energies. Because localization works the same way, it's about a correlation. If a photon is more localized, it's probability evolves over smaller 3 dimensional coordinates than a non-localized photon, which is what I'm asking about. I've explained it more than once, this is why I brought entanglement up. An infinitely delocalized photon would have a probability that would extend to infinity, and thus it would be measured instantaneously after it's creation because it's probability would extend to many many things that would be able to measure it. But since photons don't do that, there has to be parameters for how localized they are. Entanglement could theoretically do this ame thing. If you separated entangled particles by infinite distance, their dis-entanglement would still happen instantaneously because thei'r probability would correlate to determined states.

The definition of a particle can be something that is wave-like, the only evidence you have provided are traits of particles that are used by quantum wave mechanics. Furthermore the link shows that harmonic oscillator mechanics are used in quantum mechanics and originate from classical wave mechanics.

That is experimental evidence for reproducible results, which obviously god isn't. Science itself is not a description of reality, it is logical sequence of our understanding of our observations based on other observations. For example. a photon becomes emitted from an atom, then it hits your retina at which point it is absorbed and destroyed, then an electrical signal get's sent down your cells to your brain where your consciousness perceives the signal as a point of a location, your not actually observation the photon, your observation the translation of an electrical signal. Furthermore, science is meant to deal only with speculation like religion. I didn't mean it is meant to separate religion, it just is a separate thing from religion and is not meant to interfere with it.

There's an easy solution to this: Thoroughly wash and/or peel non-organic fruits and vegetables.

In truth I think it is more of a relative term.

How does having a virus in your system logically allow mind control? In case you tried to use that to explain communication and interaction.