Aethelwulf

Meh. I could recite plenty ad hominem attacks since I have been here. Others been so fantastically forthcoming that they haven't even been punished.

What part of the Uncertainty Principle do you not understand? You do realize, in it's fullest that it is a Law of Nature - an inherent law within all matter... You do realize, that particles could not be sustainable if such a law broke down at any time? So explain, if a God existed, why don't we see these violations? (Not that we'd be around for long if he did anyway...)

It has been moved back.

Smaller than a proton even

To be more precise, not everything in the objective world is knowable and that nothing exists unless some kind of observer collapses the wave function of the system. And whilst you might say not every physicist agrees with it, it's actually the most ''agreed-upon'' interpretation known in physics. How ironic. I was actually in the middle of writing up a new thread on such a notion. (Not for it's existence, but actually against it). I was reading one of Fred Alan Wolfs book on consciousness and physics. He makes a mention of a cosmic consciousness and how that created the Big Bang; I have some serious disagreements with that conclusion so I decided to write a thread up on it.

How do you write a strict subset symbol in latex?

Yes I did. I said seven negatives. If I was speaking about posts, I would have said the word ''posts''.

I never said God was not ill-defined. I have said for the take of this thread, if God existed. You obviously don't seem to realize why I say it would be impossible for anything violate the uncertainty principle... and I can only assume this is with a certain lack of understanding the topic. Whatever God, if he or she exists, there still cannot be such a violation. The fact we are here, speaking and talking is because this principle is preserved. Understand? I took a few ways that could help define God. In my OP, I explained some traditional ways that he or she is seen. My definition of God, is Einstein's God - A God of nature.... but here we go again. I have actually told you this already. I am not rephrasing anything. I said above, ''IF'' God exists. Where do you see an inconsistency? (Seriously, the last one has me quite amused) - NO where in those sentences have I rephrased anything. Everything said depends on the BIG ''IF'' question. You're now trying reshape the argument to fit your own. ''Now you're stating it as your opinion which gives more support to my previous prediction that you were stating your opinions as a scientific fact and that's what brought the trouble.'' Well no, because you seem to be having some problems reading what I write. I have explained that it is scientific fact that if every position and trajectory of every particle was known would be extremely volatile. This is scientific fact. It would cause a tremendous instability of spacetime. That is FACT. Now, what part of a ''God'' knowing the position and trajectory of each particle in the universe is impossible, which disturbs you? Is it the fact we have pre-supposed the existence of God, or that I am saying nothing can know these probabilities certainly? Say a God did exist, and he did know the trajectory and positions of every particle, what makes you think we'd still be around? As I have explained, such a notion is physically-impossible.

That was a guess at the time of that post. In fact, you know fine well I went back to check and said it was seven negatives. You even qouted me saying this in post 142.

Agreed.

I specifically said seven negatives. I didn't state over which or how many posts.

I'm surprised I've actually spent the amount of hours re-explaining my self in that thread, never mind the negative rep points! I have just had to explain again, in my thread it was built on suppositions, that ''IF a God exists'' not that it was normally within the realms of science, only that we where in this thread entertaining that possibility. Yes, it flew over their heads and would you like to know why? It's because no one accurately reads what I am saying! And yes, keeping an open mind is invaluable. The very first set of responses I got where quite frankly... incredible. But! Would you like to know what I find even more incredible... is how the user inow can come in here, make remarks about my mother being fucked and then conceiving me and all he gets is a polite, ''best not to talk about that... it seems like a touchy subject.'' Who in their right mind, goes about talking about someone elses parents being fucked? It's disrespectful... among a great many other things.

I have hardly had enough to time look at anything, besides a paper. I know for a fact however the paper won't be telling me that you can defy the uncertainty principle directly, which was my point all along, one which you side-stepped by saying we don't know everything in physics, (whatever that is meant to mean in the context of things). It's called the wave function. When the universe was very small, we believe it was still subject to quantum effects. In other words, the rules of quantum mechanics is the same everywhere. This would mean that just a single particle may have several outcomes to any state, the universe also had many states it could have arisen in. In fact, according to current belief, the universe could have had an infinite amount of possible states it could have arose in, but only so many of those states would allow the kind of stable vacuum we observe today. Now the reason why this creates a question of God, is who made the first measurement which pulled the universe out of this superpositioning? We are led to this question because if the universe had arose out of so many states, we would effectively still see some of these states smeared over spacetime. We don't.. however, this is one reason why parallel universes was created. Start Proof: [math]\Delta E \Delta t[/math] and [math]\Delta x \Delta p[/math] Corner stone principles, cannot be directly violated. End proof. No, you don't understand. I have made suppositions in the OP based on ''IF God exists''.... notice the ''IF''. You are then, it seems, treating this as me saying ''God does exist and is usually within the context of science''. Which is wrong. I am sick and tired of people not reading what I write, its almost as if they are intentionally trying to wrap things I say to mean other things. If a God DID exist, then he would be subject to the rules of quantum mechanics, (the one named in the OP), the Uncertainty Principle. The reasons why have been explained time and time again. If anything, EVEN a God knew the location and position of every particle in the universe it would cause a tremendous discharge of energy.

That doesn't make sense. You either agree with my statement on the uncertainty principle - then you say we don't know how nature works. You can't have it both ways.

Not done it yet. I will though. Seven negatives.

? How can you say, not necessarily? Read my sentence again: Nothing can violate the uncertainty principle. It is a cornerstone of physics as we know it. You can't know the position and trajectory of every particle in the universe, it just won't let you!!! Physics 101. So the idea of an all-knowing entity is fundamentally-flawed. Not my argument. Also I believe physics is incomplete - its very incomplete - that is irrelevant however because no amount of tweaking our theories will the uncertainty principle ever be proven wrong or can be violated directly. There are, as I have shown, some very special ways one can know the location and trajectory of a particle but it requires making two-time measurements.

Who cares? This isn't a classroom, this is a forum. I find all this way too serious. We have people coming into this forum asking ''can you teach me relativity?'' Wouldn't it be easier and nice if we had an introductions page to such things, saves us the hassle repeating ourselves?

That is fact. Nothing is outside quantum mechanics. If anything violated the Uncertainty Principle directly it be disasterous in nature. Nothing would be able to exist. But it's fact, again, that there are an infinite amount of beginning our universe could have chose, with only a handful of other kinds of universe which are sustainable today. That certainly has massive implications in the theory of statistics. Has anyone here actually read the Anthropic Principle by Tipler and Barrow?

Why wouldn't it be greater than zero? I mean, we have no evidence against God. No real positive evidence for God... Agreed... I did however answer every question to the best of my knowledge. Only thing I couldn't do was give an exact statistic on God. Hardly a crime.

Very well. Can I see some citations to back nuclear1's post?

Something better happen tonight.. .This was just plain wrong... On so many levels...

I am so angry right now... I hope this ******** Troll is banished for a good couple of weeks. Why is my mother a factor... you've said worse about my mother outside of this .... I actually liked the mods here and I couldn't believe for a second you could be allowed such... insinuations.

you have no right to talk about my mum being knocked up... or being pregnant ... who the fuck do you think you are?

You can shut the hell up. I am 30 years old. YOU SPOKE ABOUT MY mom.If no one here in the power tells you off, I will indeed be surprised. Best bit is... my whole points about the neg system is NOW PROVEN. Someone talks about my ''mom (who is dead) being knocked up...'' And then my post as a rebuttal is negatively repped... someone better involve themselves... who is a real mod here?