Aethelwulf

That is technically an ad hominem attack.

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.

That's not proof that any and/or all possible gods MUST fall under the rules as we understand them. There is plenty we don't know. Please fill in those gaps for us in order to complete your proof.

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...)

Move it then please!

It has been moved back.

thank you I think I understood principle,

 

But it confuses me when physicist say "the point of singularity was smaller than atom"

Smaller than a proton even

That is an interpretation of quantum mechanics (the Copenhagen interpretation) not every physicists agrees upon.

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.

They call it the cosmic consciousness.

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, and since everybody had been talking about posts, I assumed you still were. You never said seven points.

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

Yes, you're using the uncertainty principle to assert that nothing cannot exist outside of quantum mechanics but as we know every respectable physicist knows that QM and SR are incomplete theories and I don't think anyone who is of a scientific attitude would use such a theory to draw factual conclusions about an ill defined entity like God.

 

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?

 

First of all you need to define God. What is your definition of God? Why should a God be subjected to such a proof? or how can you prove that nothing cannot exist outside quantum mechanics? In science we don't prove anything, there are no ultimate proofs from which you can draw absolute conclusions, looking at that way your proof cannot be applied to even an human observer. We don't go by verification, in science we go by falsification which means that even your axioms or assumptions can be wrong and can be overthrown.

 

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.

 

There are inconsistencies in your statements and we are reading you correctly.

 

Aethelwulf, on 26 June 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

"If a God truly exists, he must abide by the rules of quantum mechanics

This is a fact."

 

Aethelwulf, Today said:

"If a God DID exist, then he would be subject to the rules of quantum mechanics."

 

Now you're rephrasing your statements and accusing us for intentionally trying to frame you. Everyone can see what your claims were. 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.

 

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.

On the contrary. You did not claim 7, and you did say posts.

 

 

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.

Which is why I suggested to stop arguing at cross purposes.

Agreed.

26...........-2

28...........-1

31...........-2

35...........-1

71...........-1

 

7 or 5 ?

 

C'mon folks we are adult scientists here, not politicians.

 

We should all be able to see through the "How many sheep in a field argument", which runs

 

Look in the field how many sheep do you see?

 

Three

 

What if I tell you one is a lamb?

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

None for, none against would be zero wouldn't it? Why would the probability for existence be greater than zero with zero supporting evidence?

 

 

 

Here's the 5 I found:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All seem to be condescending. I'm not surprised they gotten the negative votes that they have...

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.

For a layman description of what that paper concludes can be found below.

 

http://www.daviddarl...tanglement.html

 

 

 

Do we really know how nature works now?

 

 

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).

I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion, nor how this presupposes that the "evolution" of universe space is directed by a diety (as opposed to anthropic selection)

 

 

Admittedly, I havent read the original work, but I'll definitely add it to the reading list now. Thanks for the suggestion.

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.

Prove it. Rules are rules so let's see the proof. Then again, maybe this thread does belong in the trash can as the rules imply. I can't see the op actually stepping up with any evidence to support his/her opinion.

Start Proof:

[math]\Delta E \Delta t[/math]

and

[math]\Delta x \Delta p[/math]

Corner stone principles, cannot be directly violated.

End proof.

I agree. It started in the OP and has not stopped. As the supernatural is outside the realm of science, making scientific claims about the supernatural shows a fundamental lack of understanding about science. It is inviting trouble on a science forum. The problem is only compounded with the attitude he shows for those who don't agree.

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.

No, that seems to be your opinion more than an objective fact, the below statement is not a fact. This might be the reason why you're being neg repp quite often.

 

 

 

Not necessarily,

? 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.

Many of us here have degrees and higher degrees and know that they do not qualify us to teach. To be frank I have learnt more about teaching on internet forums than anywhere else - my degrees were on substantive subjects (law, criminal law, and criminal justice) not on the methods of imparting this knowledge to students. Whilst knowing a subject is a prerequisite to teaching, mere knowledge is not sufficient.

 

I will be honest - I find some of your posts on physics confused, unhelpful, and prolix; this is the sort of incorrect approach that is guarded against by those who have been taught how to educate. And on the subject of fitness to teach - what's a "Higher Diploma in physics"; from another thread I had gained the impression you were English and I don't recognize that as an English qualification (Scots perhaps)? I realise that O'levels, A'levels, and degrees (Bachelors, Masters, Doctorate) are seen as a little passe by educationalists - but they are still the norm in England aren't they?

 

Oh and in the interests of openness - I neg repped your previous post. My reasons were that you asked a question, got an answer you weren't really expecting and reacting by dismissively telling another member to be quiet.

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?

Read back over this part of your OP. The verbiage used sounds like you are asserting these things as facts, not possibilities. If you are making such assertions then the Speculations Forum Rules clearly say,

 

"Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure."

 

You should not be making complaints if you have been asked to provide some sort of proof for these assertions and you have not done so. If you have received neg rep as a result of not abiding by the rules you shouldn't be complaining about that either.

 

Read through your other posts and see where you have provided actual proof and not just some opinion you have proffered as proof. I've not read through them myself but I suspect you will find some explanation as to why some members have reacted to your posts the way they have. Look particularly for any links you have posted to support your assertions from outside sources. If you can't find any then maybe you should post some.

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 you haven't accounted for observational effects. The anthropic principle (illusion of perfect design) can also be explained by observation selection. If the universe's physics (or evolutionary laws) had been different than maybe other types of beings would be observing that universe and commenting about how perfect it is. Or maybe there'd be no conscious beings to observe it at all.

 

"Not being here today" could be the effort of graceful design (which is pure speculation) but this hypothesis doesn't rule out the above observational biases. This is the equivalent to throwing partially cooked pasta at the wall to see what sticks and calling the whole pot perfectly cooked by ignoring everything on the floor.

 

(wow what a terrible metaphor!)

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?

If you think.as a matter of your opinion that there is likely.a.god that's fine. If you proffered that it the likelyhood of a deity existing is statistically greater than zero then you are making a positive assertion

Why wouldn't it be greater than zero? I mean, we have no evidence against God. No real positive evidence for God...

Making an assertion though and refusing to back it up deserves a.neg rep. It reinforces the rule that assertions need to be supported.

 

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.

Yeah, I hate to do a me too but that really needs to be supported...

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.

Was your mother not pregnant with you before you were born?

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.

Okay. I was wrong about your age.

 

Your mother was pregnant with you before you were born, was she not?

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

I'm guessing you're about 16 or 17... Used to being the smartest guy in your class... Used to the people around you being foolish or ignorant by comparison. You're so used to being "correct" that you sometimes forget that there are times when you're wrong. You also probably struggle to conceive how you appear to people who are smarter than you. It's okay. You'll learn. Of that, I'm fairly certain.

 

 

It looks like the situation for me has improved, then. Only 5 minutes ago, it was offense worthy of death. Now it's just a week suspension. If I wait another 10 minutes, you might just neg rep me and move on...

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?

Fascinating that you would suggest such a thing, but even then... Your reading comprehension appears flawed. I didn't talk about your mom. I referenced your conception.

Yes?

'' It was all part of a big secret conspiracy we formed when your mom got knocked up.''

I personally think that comment was beyond personal... one which indeed should have a real punishment for.

So bad was that comment, If I was a mod... I would issue seven days.