Proving quantum mechanics wrong

[BaalChatzaf]

Can I remind you of something. Quantum Electrodynamics predicts experimental outcomes which have been verified, to 12 decimal places. The computers you use to type your nonsense are a direct result, a technological outgrowth of wrong mistaken absurd quantum theory. How can anything so right, be wrong?

You guys have philosophy. I have mathematics and high grade experimental data. Who knows better? I do!

Philosophy held physics back for over a thousand years. So much for philosophy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited October 4, 2011 by BaalChatzaf

[anthony]

Can I remind you of something. Quantum Electrodynamics predicts experimental outcomes which have been verified, to 12 decimal places. The computers you use to type your nonsense are a direct result, a technological outgrowth of wrong mistaken absurd quantum theory. How can anything so right, be wrong?

You guys have philosophy. I have mathematics and high grade experimental data. Who knows better? I do!

Philosophy held physics back for over a thousand years. So much for philosophy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Brother Ba'al,

We are mere mortals who have not received the Grace of Electrodynamics as revealed to but a few.

Intercede for us, we pray, that we are not cast out by His Supreme Holiness of the Vatican of Incomprehensible Uncertainty.

For we know not what we do.

Layperson Tony

[Davy]

Hi Adam, I just watched the documentary - ugh.

Ba'al, you're attacking a straw man. Where is the "nonsense"? I never said I believed QM is wrong, and of course you can't argue with results, but it's a matter of interpretation, which you seem to think is irrelevant.

Einstein said "God does not play dice". I guess he was talking nonsense too...

Edited October 4, 2011 by Davy

[BaalChatzaf]

Hi Adam, I just watched the documentary - ugh.

Ba'al, you're attacking a straw man. Where is the "nonsense"? I never said I believed QM is wrong, and of course you can't argue with results, but it's a matter of interpretation, which you seem to think is irrelevant.

Einstein said "God does not play dice". I guess he was talking nonsense too...

Screw interpretation. The theory IS the equations.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

Einstein said "God does not play dice". I guess he was talking nonsense too...

He was stating an attitude. He did not think Quantum Theory was sufficient to describe reality.

He also said denigrated "spooky action at a distance". I am sure A.E. did not believe in ghosts any more than he believed in God.

He was using a mode of expression that cannot be taken literally and seriously at the same time.

So in a a sense he was speaking nonsense. But it served him rather well.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

The statement that something has no cause is not itself a contradiction. The universe itself had no cause.

But how can we definitely know that it had no cause?

I'm taking "the universe" as referring to the totality of everything that exists. For the totality of everything to have a cause, there would have to be something outside (or prior to) the totality of everything, which is obviously absurd. You can't get outside of existence--you can only cease to be a part of it.

And since we are all part of existence, we can't think outside the box.

Which is why we humans simply cannot think that anything that exists has no cause.

Therefore (for us humans) to believe that what we (in common language usage) call 'matter' "always was" (the extreme form being its 'infinite density' preceding the Big Bang) is every bit as absurd as to believe in an outside force.

Isn't a rational philosophical position based on the premise that everything has a cause? If yes, then to clam that the universe had no cause would be a contradiction.

[BaalChatzaf]

The statement that something has no cause is not itself a contradiction. The universe itself had no cause.

But how can we definitely know that it had no cause?

I'm taking "the universe" as referring to the totality of everything that exists. For the totality of everything to have a cause, there would have to be something outside (or prior to) the totality of everything, which is obviously absurd. You can't get outside of existence--you can only cease to be a part of it.

And since we are all part of existence, we can't think outside the box.

Which is why we humans simply cannot think that anything that exists has no cause.

Therefore to believe that what we (in common language usage) call 'matter' "always was" (the extreme form being its 'infinite density' preceding the Big Bang) imo is every bit as absurd as to believe in an outside force.

Isn't a rational philosophical position based on the premise that everything has a cause? If yes, then to clam that the origin of the universe had no cause would be a contradiction.

Only if you postulate that everything has a cause.

We can live with primordial First Objects. For example in Peano's Arithmetic 1 has no predecessor. It does not make the theory of integers inconsistent.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dennis Hardin]

And since we are all part of existence, we can't think outside the box.

Which is why we humans simply cannot think that anything that exists has no cause.

Therefore (for us humans) to believe that what we (in common language usage) call 'matter' "always was" (the extreme form being its 'infinite density' preceding the Big Bang) is every bit as absurd as to believe in an outside force.

Isn't a rational philosophical position based on the premise that everything has a cause? If yes, then to clam that the universe had no cause would be a contradiction.

I think you are saying that we cannot conceive of eternity, which is true. Every specific thing we have ever encountered had a beginning at some point in time, so we try to imagine the universe itself having an origin.

Logically, however, the notion is untenable. The whole idea of a cause outside of existence is a contradiction. It the cause existed, it is part of existence.

And the whole idea of anything being prior to the universe is also a contradiction, for the same reason.

[BaalChatzaf]

And since we are all part of existence, we can't think outside the box.

Which is why we humans simply cannot think that anything that exists has no cause.

Therefore (for us humans) to believe that what we (in common language usage) call 'matter' "always was" (the extreme form being its 'infinite density' preceding the Big Bang) is every bit as absurd as to believe in an outside force.

Isn't a rational philosophical position based on the premise that everything has a cause? If yes, then to clam that the universe had no cause would be a contradiction.

I think you are saying that we cannot conceive of eternity, which is true. Every specific thing we have ever encountered had a beginning at some point in time, so we try to imagine the universe itself having an origin.

Logically, however, the notion is untenable. The whole idea of a cause outside of existence is a contradiction. It the cause existed, it is part of existence.

And the whole idea of anything being prior to the universe is also a contradiction, for the same reason.

What about a bigger cosmos out of which ours sprouted.

Our parents existed before we ever did. Where is the contradiction?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dennis Hardin]

What about a bigger cosmos out of which ours sprouted.

Our parents existed before we ever did. Where is the contradiction?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob,

I am using the term "universe" as synonymous with the totality of everything that exists.

Anything hypothesized to be outside of the totality of everything that exists must also exist--so it is a part of existence (or "the universe").

To say "X exists but it is not a part of existence" is a brazen self-contradiction.

Logic 101, Bob. One of those pointless philosophy courses you decided were not worth your time.

[BaalChatzaf]

What about a bigger cosmos out of which ours sprouted.

Our parents existed before we ever did. Where is the contradiction?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob,

I am using the term "universe" as synonymous with the totality of everything that exists.

Anything hypothesized to be outside of the totality of everything that exists must also exist--so it is a part of existence (or "the universe").

To say "X exists but it is not a part of existence" is a brazen self-contradiction.

Logic 101, Bob. One of those pointless philosophy courses you decided were not worth your time.

Wrong. Logic was my major. Of course it is mathematical logic. Rigorous. Correct. and not an iot of philosophical bullshit.

As to universe, when physicists talk of the universe they mean the physical cosmos, the thing that can be measured and observed.

Not a piece of philosophical vapor ware.

"Everything that exists" simply has no physical, measurable, empirical meaning.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dennis Hardin]

As to universe, when physicists talk of the universe they mean the physical cosmos, the thing that can be measured and observed.

Not a piece of philosophical vapor ware.

"Everything that exists" simply has no physical, measurable, empirical meaning.

Ba'al Chatzaf

No physical, measurable, mathematical meaning--much like the mind you employ when writing your posts.

As I recall from past discussions, you refuse to acknowledge there is such a thing.

I have to give you credit. You are consistent. For those readers who may doubt that a reductionist can seriously maintain such a point of view, these exchanges are educational if nothing else.

[Brant Gaede]

What about a bigger cosmos out of which ours sprouted.

Our parents existed before we ever did. Where is the contradiction?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob,

I am using the term "universe" as synonymous with the totality of everything that exists.

Anything hypothesized to be outside of the totality of everything that exists must also exist--so it is a part of existence (or "the universe").

To say "X exists but it is not a part of existence" is a brazen self-contradiction.

Logic 101, Bob. One of those pointless philosophy courses you decided were not worth your time.

Wrong. Logic was my major. Of course it is mathematical logic. Rigorous. Correct. and not an iot of philosophical bullshit.

As to universe, when physicists talk of the universe they mean the physical cosmos, the thing that can be measured and observed.

Not a piece of philosophical vapor ware.

"Everything that exists" simply has no physical, measurable, empirical meaning.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Humanity is for philosophy and mathematics is for science. It's a lot easier to deal with the simplicity of numbers, if you've the knack for it, than the complexities of people and their existence. Even Newton threw up his hands, but he was honest and not purblind about it.

--Brant

[Xray]

Bob,

I am using the term "universe" as synonymous with the totality of everything that exists.

Anything hypothesized to be outside of the totality of everything that exists must also exist--so it is a part of existence (or "the universe").

To say "X exists but it is not a part of existence" is a brazen self-contradiction.

Logic 101, Bob. One of those pointless philosophy courses you decided were not worth your time.

Wrong. Logic was my major. Of course it is mathematical logic. Rigorous. Correct. and not an iot of philosophical bullshit.

As to universe, when physicists talk of the universe they mean the physical cosmos, the thing that can be measured and observed.

Not a piece of philosophical vapor ware.

"Everything that exists" simply has no physical, measurable, empirical meaning.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob,

But "Everything that exists" is exactly what we are discussing about.

As for "physical, measurable, empirical meaning": when I say e. g. "Thoughts exists", such statement is backed up enough by reality, don't you think so? Countering that with "But a thought has no physical, measurable meaning" would not deny the fact that thoughts do exist.

DH: To say "X exists but it is not a part of existence" is a brazen self-contradiction.

Do you agree that this statement is correct, Bob? I'm absolutely certain that you will agree.

Anything hypothesized to be outside of the totality of everything that exists must also exist--so it is a part of existence (or "the universe").

So if it is hypothesized that a cause for the universe exists, and "Existence" equals "All that which exists", then it follows that this cause must be a part of existence as well.

Pantheists and Panentheists are not faced with the contradiction you have pointed out above, because they conceive of "God" as in all existence.

[BaalChatzaf]

Xray,

If the cause exists, it is physical. You have not -proved- at all events -must- have causes. You have only asserted that physical events which have causes have physical causes.

Which is no big deal. Everything that exists must be physical. That is all that there is. Spacetime and Energy. Democritus was right, and he was also a philosopher, which is rather unusual. A philosopher who is right in the empirical sense.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

To understand existence is simply to understand that non-existence is impossible unless existence exists, and then only conceptually. That is why there is no first cause. Existents merely change their forms over time. Even assuming the validity of the Big Bang there was something prior that led to it.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

To understand existence is simply to understand that non-existence is impossible unless existence exists, and then only conceptually. That is why there is no first cause. Existents merely change their forms over time. Even assuming the validity of the Big Bang there was something prior that led to it.

--Brant

More -philosophical- word salad.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

Xray,

If the cause exists, it is physical. You have not -proved- at all events -must- have causes. You have only asserted that physical events which have causes have physical causes.

Bob,

It has been stated here that "The universe itself had no cause."

The universe is physical; how realistic is it to believe that something physical has no cause?

[Brant Gaede]

To understand existence is simply to understand that non-existence is impossible unless existence exists, and then only conceptually. That is why there is no first cause. Existents merely change their forms over time. Even assuming the validity of the Big Bang there was something prior that led to it.

--Brant

More -philosophical- word salad.

Ba'al Chatzaf

So, you believe in God?

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

So, you believe in God?

--Brant

I have no logical reason to.

Of what relevance is the question?

It has nothing to do with the existence of the cosmos or its nature.

Did the cosmos come out of Nothing or is it Eternal? We have positively no way of knowing so the question is bogus.

Only questions with empirical resolution matter.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

So, you believe in God?

--Brant

I have no logical reason to.

Of what relevance is the question?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Since you eschew my "word salad" I thought you might have a simpler default, one that requires no thinking about anything.

--Brant

[Xray]

Did the cosmos come out of Nothing or is it Eternal? We have positively no way of knowing so the question is bogus.

But having no way of knowing the answer to a question does not make the question itself bogus.

[BaalChatzaf]

Did the cosmos come out of Nothing or is it Eternal? We have positively no way of knowing so the question is bogus.

But having no way of knowing the answer to a question does not make the question itself bogus.

If the question cannot be decided in principle, then it is a bogus question. There is no empirical basis for saying either yes or no.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

Did the cosmos come out of Nothing or is it Eternal? We have positively no way of knowing so the question is bogus.

But having no way of knowing the answer to a question does not make the question itself bogus.

If the question cannot be decided in principle, then it is a bogus question. There is no empirical basis for saying either yes or no.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Stating that a question cannot be decided in principle, because there is no emipirical basis for answering a question with either yes or no is an agnostic position.

So we are (yet) 'a-gnostic' as to why quantum entanglement (the "spooky action at a distance") occurs.

The recent Cern findings about subatomic particles moving faster than light bewilder scientists:

http://articles.lati...-light-20110923

The physicists responsible for the work said they'd checked their findings stringently.

"We wanted to find all possible explanations for this. We wanted to find a mistake, but we didn't," said physicist Antonio Ereditato, spokesman for the so-called OPERA experiment, in an interview with the BBC on Thursday.

Because it was such "a crazy result," the team was releasing its data, based on three years of measurements, so that others in the scientific community could confirm or refute the findings, he added.

http://articles.lati...-light-20110923

That is the beauty of the scientific community's philosophy: releasing one's findings and data to have them tested by the other members of the community as well.

[BaalChatzaf]

So we are (yet) 'a-gnostic' as to why quantum entanglement (the "spooky action at a distance") occurs.

The recent Cern findings about subatomic particles moving faster than light bewilder scientists:

First: Action at a distance is routinely observed. We need not know why. It is enough to know that it happens. Why can make hypothesis as to why. These hypotheses (if they are scientific) will imply predictions which can be confirmed or refuted by experiment or observation.

Second: The recent OPERA findings concerning "fast" neutrinos has not yet been confirmed. It is an interesting finding and the people who made it have invited the physics community to either refute or confirm their findings by further (independent) experiments.

Ba'al Chatzaf