3 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don’t think that you have defined anything well enough (reason isn’t defined at all), and language is imprecise.

It was already implied in the Axiom 1. But here is more formal definition:
Reason: The capacity for logical, causal thinking, requiring causality (predictable cause-effect) and consistency (non-contradictory structure).

• Intuition: How we solve problems or predict outcomes, e.g., deducing gravity’s effect.

• Persuasiveness: Reason’s predictive power underpins science and philosophy, making it a universal foundation.

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

So I think your axiom is ill-defined and a false statement on which you built an argument. Like the geometry example I gave, you might be able to build a system based on that axiom, but to apply it to our universe has additional requirements

Axiom 1 is fundamental to rational thought. So you are denying Axiom 1. Ok. Then how do you define reason or rational thought?

No valid definition can be given without Axiom 1. It is self-evident.

That's the problem with QM in general: it is a mental disorder where proponents of it deny reason and rational thought itself. No wander QM has been in a rut for almost a century!

Can you define reason without Axiom 1 or its equivalents?

2 hours ago, AThinker1 said:

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Could that E have happened or happen without C ?

Then it is not the effect of C.

This is not an answer to my question, I am still waiting for that.

Edited August 31Aug 31 by studiot

Just now, studiot said:

This is not an answer to my question, I am still vwating for that.

E cannot happen without a cause. So, no.

And you have not defined reason without Axiom 1. Still waiting for that.

2 minutes ago, AThinker1 said:

And you have not defined reason without Axiom 1. Still waiting for that.

Indeed I have

5 hours ago, studiot said:

To me, and in this context, reason is associated with rational thinking or 'reasoning'.

Reason is not, and never has been, synonymous with cause, though some use them interchangably.

As a general guide a cause for an event forces that event to happen and precedes it in time even if only very very briefly; whereas a reason is a thought about that cause and may happen after both casuse and event are over and done with.

6 minutes ago, AThinker1 said:

E cannot happen without a cause. So, no.

This is why first order logic or the predicate calculus is so limited and quite unsuitable for QM.

Your answer reads E if and only if C, or that E can only be the consequent of C

Yet you have also told me that E can also be the consequent of D.

You cannot have it both ways.

Try listening to others and respecting them for also knowing a thing or two.

11 minutes ago, AThinker1 said:

It was already implied in the Axiom 1. But here is more formal definition:
Reason: The capacity for logical, causal thinking, requiring causality (predictable cause-effect) and consistency (non-contradictory structure).

And yet one can make statements, such as the paradox I mentioned

11 minutes ago, AThinker1 said:

• Intuition: How we solve problems or predict outcomes, e.g., deducing gravity’s effect.

• Persuasiveness: Reason’s predictive power underpins science and philosophy, making it a universal foundation.

Axiom 1 is fundamental to rational thought. So you are denying Axiom 1. Ok. Then how do you define reason or rational thought?

No valid definition can be given without Axiom 1. It is self-evident.

That's the problem with QM in general: it is a mental disorder where proponents of it deny reason and rational thought itself. No wander QM has been in a rut for almost a century!

A rut? Since 1925? AYFKM?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_quantum_mechanics

11 minutes ago, AThinker1 said:

Can you define reason without Axiom 1 or its equivalents?

I’m not sure why I have to. I think the connection to QM is manufactured, since physics worked prior to reason and rational thought. There can’t be a causal connection as cause must happen before. Right?

The bottom line is that QM actually works. Any argument that says it doesn’t violates reason.

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

To me, and in this context, reason is associated with rational thinking or 'reasoning'.

Reason is not, and never has been, synonymous with cause, though some use them interchangably.

As a general guide a cause for an event forces that event to happen and precedes it in time even if only very very briefly; whereas a reason is a thought about that cause and may happen after both casuse and event are over and done with.

So "reason is a thought about that cause". What kind of thought? I still see reason connected to cause here. Can you define reason without implying causality at all?

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

This is why first order logic or the predicate calculus is so limited and quite unsuitable for QM.

Your answer reads E if and only if C, or that E can only be the consequent of C

Yet you have also told me that E can also be the consequent of D.

You cannot have it both ways.

Try listening to others and respecting them for also knowing a thing or two.

This is broken context. An effect always has a cause, no exception possible. Call it C or D or anything else -- it must exist.

I hope my interactions here are respectful. I apologize if they seemed not. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this. Thanks.

5 minutes ago, AThinker1 said:

o "reason is a thought about that cause". What kind of thought? I still see reason connected to cause here. Can you define reason without implying causality at all?

Returning to QM, since this thread allegedly explains QM,

What is the cause of pair production and what is the reason why it only occurs to some photons ?

1 minute ago, swansont said:

And yet one can make statements, such as the paradox I mentioned

One can make any nonsensical statements he wishes. It does not make them true.

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

I’m not sure why I have to. I think the connection to QM is manufactured, since physics worked prior to reason and rational thought. There can’t be a causal connection as cause must happen before. Right?

The bottom line is that QM actually works. Any argument that says it doesn’t violates reason.

We are using reason to prove things. So it is helpful to define it so we can speak the same language.

Secondly, if you are reasoning with people, you obviously believe in reason's existence. If your suppositions destroy the very machine on which you rely to prove things, then it is a self-contradiction and is false.

As for reason in general: it is eternal. It predates humans. We use it, but it is not a human invention. It always was, and always will be, even long after humans are gone. When you say QM works, you are still using reason to make that statement, yet assertions of indeterminism, ie lack of causality, contradict reason's existence itself. So you still have a problem with self-contradiction.

Probabilities work in covering for incomplete knowledge. Denying causality never worked and never will, because it is nonsense as it violates reason, the very thing you use to argue for it, which makes it false.

47 minutes ago, AThinker1 said:

One can make any nonsensical statements he wishes. It does not make them true.

You’re so close to getting it!

We are using reason to prove things.

You are pretending to. I’m not sure who “we” refers to. Science uses more than logic/reason, and reason doesn’t have the final say.

On 8/30/2025 at 12:58 PM, AThinker1 said:

Again only local hidden variables are claimed to be invalidated by the Bell's theorem.

Non-local variables are still valid, as also full determinism is still valid under Bell's theorem.

I assume that this is also directed to me even though it doesn't address my particular point. I know that strictly speaking, Bell's theorem only forbids local realism, implying that either non-locality or non-realism can satisfy quantum mechanics. You have chosen non-locality over non-realism. The problem is that non-locality and non-realism are not on equal footing in terms of their ability to satisfy quantum mechanics. The violation of Bell's inequalities by quantum mechanics directly indicates a requirement of non-realism, whereas non-locality is merely a loophole that enables you to clutch at straws in your belief that quantum superposition does not exist. I would argue that a loophole is not sufficient, and that Bell's theorem really forbids both local and non-local realism. You would then need to explain precisely how non-locality enables realism to violate Bell's inequalities.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You are pretending to. I’m not sure who “we” refers to. Science uses more than logic/reason, and reason doesn’t have the final say.

Then you do not understand what science is. There is no science without reason. The language itself is based in it. Reason is the definition of reality. That which is not reason is an error and illusion. You cannot escape from it. It is the basis of reality itself. Any conclusion to the contrary leads to a self-contradiction.

50 minutes ago, KJW said:

I assume that this is also directed to me even though it doesn't address my particular point. I know that strictly speaking, Bell's theorem only forbids local realism, implying that either non-locality or non-realism can satisfy quantum mechanics. You have chosen non-locality over non-realism. The problem is that non-locality and non-realism are not on equal footing in terms of their ability to satisfy quantum mechanics. The violation of Bell's inequalities by quantum mechanics directly indicates a requirement of non-realism, whereas non-locality is merely a loophole that enables you to clutch at straws in your belief that quantum superposition does not exist. I would argue that a loophole is not sufficient, and that Bell's theorem really forbids both local and non-local realism. You would then need to explain precisely how non-locality enables realism to violate Bell's inequalities.

My theorem conclusively proves full determinism. Denying it is denying Axiom 1 and reason itself. How non-locality is implemented is not answered by the theorem, except that it must be 100% deterministic.

If I had to guess, I'd say we live in infinitely dimensional space. Non-local interactions obviously take place through higher dimensions.

Edited September 1Sep 1 by AThinker1

57 minutes ago, AThinker1 said:

Then you do not understand what science is.

That must be it. /s

57 minutes ago, AThinker1 said:

There is no science without reason.

I said nothing to the contrary.

The final arbiter of science is experiment/observation. The only way to disprove a theory is to show that it doesn't match with experiment. Any argument about reason boils down to argument from incredulity (as I previously said) but science is under no obligation to give you a warm fuzzy feeling, or be understandable.

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

I said nothing to the contrary.

The final arbiter of science is experiment/observation. The only way to disprove a theory is to show that it doesn't match with experiment. Any argument about reason boils down to argument from incredulity (as I previously said) but science is under no obligation to give you a warm fuzzy feeling, or be understandable.

I thought you said Reason had nothing to do with reality. Did I understand your position correctly?

Math is science. You can disprove a theory by pointing that it leads to logical contradictions. No tangible experiment required.

If science requires reason, and you seemingly disparage reason as irrelevant to reality, then you do not have a leg to stand on in any debate, because debates require reason, and you got none. [ no disrespect intended, just stating facts. ]

We seem to have reached a religious style impasse with the promoter falling back on a belief system creed whenever faced with the facts.

Thank the Lord that the creed of Pope Clement no longer holds sway.

@AThinker1

Yet again you have failed to respond when I offered you an example to help distinguish between cause and reason.

Since reason is associated with reasoning and rational thinking and, as you say, debate, is it not reasonable that it should be associated with thought ?

Whereas a cause can simply be a real physical phenomenon, with no thought involved at all.

A cause has to precede an effect in time, by the very nature of the logical proposition/statement structure.

A reason may, but does not have to be associated with time at all.

Last night I also wondered about trying to apply first order formal logic to catalytic chemical reactions where the catalyst actually take part in the reaction and is initially used up but is then regenerated in a later stage.

So do you consider the catalyst to be an antecedent or a consequent ?

I also thought we could have a useful discussion about the proper use of probability.
Not here but in another thread.
We could also discuss where Science and Mathematics differ, and why Science has no axiomatic system, what happened as a result of the most successful axiomatic system in History.

Edited September 1Sep 1 by studiot

11 hours ago, AThinker1 said:

My theorem conclusively proves full determinism.

No it doesn't. You seem to consider determinism/indeterminism as all-or-nothing notions. You've not taken into account how indeterminism scales. For example, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle:

∆x∆p ≥ ℏ/2

shows that the product of uncertainty of position and momentum can be as small as ℏ/2. Although for subatomic particles, this is relatively quite large, for ordinary macroscopic objects, it is negligible. Thus, even though quantum physics may be indeterministic, classical physics is essentially deterministic. Another example is that the standard deviation of the mean of random values decreases relative to the standard deviation of the random values themselves as the square root of the number of values increase. Generally speaking, the relative randomness of a system decreases as the scale of the system increases.

Edited September 1Sep 1 by KJW

10 hours ago, AThinker1 said:

I thought you said Reason had nothing to do with reality. Did I understand your position correctly?

Apparently not

10 hours ago, AThinker1 said:

Math is science. You can disprove a theory by pointing that it leads to logical contradictions. No tangible experiment required.

Math is a tool of science.

An hypothesis that leads to logical contradictions will never make it to being a theory; the evidence won’t match up with the model. But the situation here is that the logic is flawed.

10 hours ago, AThinker1 said:

If science requires reason, and you seemingly disparage reason as irrelevant to reality, then you do not have a leg to stand on in any debate, because debates require reason, and you got none. [ no disrespect intended, just stating facts. ]

As with your conjecture, you are proceeding via faulty path, starting with a flawed premise.

10 hours ago, AThinker1 said:

I thought you said Reason had nothing to do with reality. Did I understand your position correctly?

Math is science. You can disprove a theory by pointing that it leads to logical contradictions. No tangible experiment required.

If science requires reason, and you seemingly disparage reason as irrelevant to reality, then you do not have a leg to stand on in any debate, because debates require reason, and you got none. [ no disrespect intended, just stating facts. ]

Maths is not science. Science is about accounting for what we observe in the natural world. Many of the sciences use maths, but maths has a lot of other applications and also, as pure mathematics, exists as an abstract discipline in its own right.

But we are at the root of the problem now. Your AI's Axiom 1 asserts something that everyone else in this discussion would dispute, namely that every event has to have a direct cause. Then, after a lot of rather pointless AI flannel, you conclude, unsurprisingly, that this Axiom 1 of yours would imply that QM has to be incomplete and there must be hidden variables - which you then suggest require extra dimensions as there is no observational evidence for them.

Axiom 1 is wrong. It is not the case that allowing the possibility of events with no direct cause defies reason. That is just your personal opinion. It is perfectly possible, using reason, to postulate that some events have no direct cause (e.g. neutron decay), or that their precise outcomes cannot be precisely predicted (the appearance of spots on a screen downstream of a diffraction slit.)

That, after all, is what we observe, and QM has a whole theory, carefully reasoned out, to explain how that can actually happen, in terms of non-commuting operators, Fourier transform relationships and the rest.

13 hours ago, AThinker1 said:

Then you do not understand what science is. There is no science without reason. The language itself is based in it. Reason is the definition of reality. That which is not reason is an error and illusion. You cannot escape from it. It is the basis of reality itself. Any conclusion to the contrary leads to a self-contradiction.

My theorem conclusively proves full determinism. Denying it is denying Axiom 1 and reason itself. How non-locality is implemented is not answered by the theorem, except that it must be 100% deterministic.

Moderator Note

You've stopped taking criticism on board to help your idea, and are now insisting you're right in the face of lots of pushback from professional and amateur physicists. This is preaching, or soapboxing, and our experience shows us it's pointless to try to reason with you now, since you've closed that part of your mind. You've had four pages to persuade us, and many members were happy to lend their expertise, but nobody wants to keep talking to someone who stopped listening.

Thread closed, don't bring this up again.