[Terez]

SiriusL;307542 said:

@Terez--look up "apparent magnitude" and see what you find. I know science is hard for you music majors.

It is! I make A's in everything, but they don't make us take physics.

[Tiger_sword]

"quantum flux," "virtual particles" or "Casimir effect" all require a temporal or spatial variying fields, even the wavefuntion itself would not exist. True nothing means no fields either. In true nothing there is also no quantum effects thats the point.

As to the assertation that there may be alternatives to something and nothing I see your point, these would have to be in the religious/philisophical realm though, something that makes me uneasy because I believe that all that exists is what we can see and know. I believe that everything is just a configuration of atoms, molecules and fields, nothing more, nothing less.

Quantum mechanics has given us possibilities for what we call human thought and "free will" it says that every action we perform is just the solution to the wavefunction that discribes us. Every possible course of action that we could take is within the wavefunction as it collapses we play out its solution.

[Tiger_sword]

Appologies for the double post but I just realised, reading my post back to myself that, although potentially provable in the distant future, my view of existance is currently tantamount to the arguement for the existance of a christian God! In other words with our current knowledge and technical skills my arguement for believeing that all there is is the wavefunction and matter/fields is exactly the same as arguing for the existance of an omnipotent God!!!

[Cold Iron]

Tiger_sword;308226 said:

Quantum mechanics has given us possibilities for what we call human thought and "free will" it says that every action we perform is just the solution to the wavefunction that discribes us. Every possible course of action that we could take is within the wavefunction as it collapses we play out its solution.

Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with humans, thought, free will or religion, it describes subatomic particles, nothing more, nothing less. Stick to the "Sci-fi/Fantasy" section, it's more representative of the real world than "New Age".

[Tiger_sword]

Not necessary the correspondance principle states that at the limit of large quantum numbers (i.e. macroscopic objects) quantum mechanics is dwarfed by classical effects thats not to say that it doesn't exist at macroscopic scales. For example quantum mechanics is responsible for the evaporation of black holes something most cretainly at the macroscopic scale.

Problem is to describe something at the macroscopic scale you need the wavefunctions for all of its constituents all the billions of billions of atoms that make us up. It is possible but far beyond our current technology. What I was trying to say was that if you could calculate this (big if) you would know exactly what was going to happen next i.e. what the object was going to do. I understand your opinion that perhaps this shouldn't be in this section but this is as close to religion as I get!!!

[Cold Iron]

The passage of time does not fix probability functions, there are no states in which a particle has fixed properties. Thus the "calculation" you are talking about would give you nothing more than a probability distribution, in which from one planck to the next anything could feasibly happen.

[Tiger_sword]

Yes you are absolutely correct, expectation values are rigorously time independant, currently in order to achieve what I was saying (to calculate the time evolution of a macroscopic object) you need to measure the properties of each particle thereby disturbing them and collapsing the wavefunction into a definitive value. If one were able to calculate the wavefunction without measurement (thus preserving it) one would obtain the PROBABILITY, as you correctly stated, of the objects future paths. Something that is not impossible, it would just take billions of times more computing power than all the current computers in the world tadded together.

The key is then in the interpretation of the probability density, does each outcome occur symultaneously (i.e. many worlds hypothesis) or just the most likely outcome occurs the most often (Copenhagen interpretation) or some other explination (there are so many different interpretations of the probability density).

All I'm saying is that it is my BELIEF that we are still missing something beyond quantum mechanics (a unified theory) that explains why the probabalistic nature comes about and, like Einstein did, I believe that eventually a new theory will be found that gives a definitive explination, and exact solution.

That was all an aside anyway, I stand by my belief that the world is nothing more than the physical.

[bhok'arala]

thats all cool and stuff, quantum mechanics and tachyons an the like, but you have to remember not everything can be turned into an exact science. I believe the same but how can you turn love into science? (wow, what a cliche...)

[Cold Iron]

Tiger_sword;308384 said:

Yes you are absolutely correct, expectation values are rigorously time independant, currently in order to achieve what I was saying (to calculate the time evolution of a macroscopic object) you need to measure the properties of each particle thereby disturbing them and collapsing the wavefunction into a definitive value. If one were able to calculate the wavefunction without measurement (thus preserving it) one would obtain the PROBABILITY, as you correctly stated, of the objects future paths. Something that is not impossible, it would just take billions of times more computing power than all the current computers in the world tadded together.

And be entirely useless. Examining a single probability function can yield useful results, a pair of probability functions even. Once you start talking about any more than a few, the predictions become useless because there is too much uncertainty. I'm sorry, but your wavefunction theory for deterministic humans does not stand up, and is certainly nothing like the same as the argument for an omnipotent god.

Quote

The key is then in the interpretation of the probability density, does each outcome occur symultaneously (i.e. many worlds hypothesis) or just the most likely outcome occurs the most often (Copenhagen interpretation) or some other explination (there are so many different interpretations of the probability density).

All I'm saying is that it is my BELIEF that we are still missing something beyond quantum mechanics (a unified theory) that explains why the probabalistic nature comes about and, like Einstein did, I believe that eventually a new theory will be found that gives a definitive explination, and exact solution.

No, we won't. QM is demonstrably correct and no new theory can change the nature of particles. The unified theory attempts to unite QM and CM, it can do this only by fulfilling the requirements of both, not replacing them.

Quote

That was all an aside anyway, I stand by my belief that the world is nothing more than the physical.

I'm sorry, it sounded like it was your belief was that there was a god force that made something from nothing.

[JoJo]

Cold Iron;306335 said:

Simplistic view, you completely miss the symbolism and emotional imagery associated with religion. Your mind is closed.

Because YOU think that I don't believe in your "symbolism" and "emotional imagery" my mind is closed. I have an opinion about who has the closed mind, but I don't care to be accused of trolling, so I'll keep it to myself.

[JoJo]

Adjutant Stormy;306319 said:

Original work? or excerpt? I feel like I've read this before somewhere.

The basic idea is not original. See Sir James Frazer's The Golden Bough, A.B. Cook's Zeus: A Study in Ancient Religion, Jane Harrison's Themis: A Study of the Social Origins of Greek Religion or Jessie Weston's From Ritual to Romance. My description of the idea is original.

[Cold Iron]

JoJo;306221 said:

So the gods were invented to answer otherwise unanswerable questions. Priests and their followers perpetuated the beliefs even after most of the questions could be answered.

Deny it if you like but this is an unmistakably simplistic view. I make no claims to know absolute truth, only to recognise the error in those who do.

[JoJo]

I didn't say it wasn't simplistic. What do you want for a 300 word post?

My point is that God or gods are man-made. They're perpetuated, in part, by people who recognize a soft, materially enriching life can be made by promoting religion to the incredulous.

BTW, anyone who claims to be able to infallibly recognize error is either full of hubris or full of himself.

[Darkwatch]

JoJo;315447 said:

My point is that God or gods are man-made. They're perpetuated, in part, by people who recognize a soft, materially enriching life can be made by promoting religion to the incredulous.

What about ascetic(sp) monks and nuns, or the truly devoted (mother Teresa)? Those who take vows of poverty and such? They also perpetuate the idea of God, but they gain no material recompense, so how do they fit into the picture?

[JoJo]

Darkwatch;315542 said:

What about ascetic(sp) monks and nuns, or the truly devoted (mother Teresa)? Those who take vows of poverty and such? They also perpetuate the idea of God, but they gain no material recompense, so how do they fit into the picture?

I'll give you my original comment with one part emphasized:

JoJo said:

My point is that God or gods are man-made. They're perpetuated, in part, by people who recognize a soft, materially enriching life can be made by promoting religion to the incredulous.

Most religious people are true believers. One couldn't fake being a Trappist monk or a yogi sadu for too long. I wasn't thinking of cloistered nuns or the like. I had in mind "Reverend" Oral Roberts, who literally held himself for ransom. "Unless I raise $8 million, the Lord will call me home." Much to my disgust, he got $9 million from his gullible devotees.

I dare you to tell me, with a straight face, that Oral Roberts (who would commute via private jet from his base in Oklahoma to Florida for weekend visits to his golf club retreat) wasn't in it for the money.

[Cold Iron]

JoJo;315447 said:

I didn't say it wasn't simplistic. What do you want for a 300 word post?

My point is that God or gods are man-made. They're perpetuated, in part, by people who recognize a soft, materially enriching life can be made by promoting religion to the incredulous.

BTW, anyone who claims to be able to infallibly recognize error is either full of hubris or full of himself.

The error is quite simple, it is nothing more than claiming to be right. To avoid it, claim only to believe.

[JoJo]

I think it's quite obvious that my original post is an opinion. If you don't recognize it as such, that's your error, not mine.

[Cold Iron]

Opinion it certainly was, despite being phrased, however, as fact.

Religious discussion boards do not cope well with certainties of any kind because they generate argument rather than discussion.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Huzzah. Like religion has really ever steered clear of argument...

[Shpetim]

Ok, many interesting views and opinions here. So many good ones in fact that I'm almost a little scared to jump in.
I believe in God. Absolutely. I was raised a Muslim, not the devoted kind, but the believing kind none the less. I believe I've said this somewhere in the forums, but it don't hurt anyone to repeat it, my family had two sets of belief when it came to Islam. My father is a Sunnite while my mother is a Shiite. Islam states, as many of you already probably are aware of, that there are no other gods but God. That being said, it doesn't dispute the existence of other gods/spirits/whatever, but it's very VERY strict when it comes to who is the ruling God, the god of gods if you will. Sounds like Hellenistic mythology with Zeus the father of the gods but never mind that.
I have a very strange relationship with my God. You've probably noticed that I type God, not god when referring to my Lord and Master. This is because I see Him/Her/it, something.. as the nexus if you will, the source of life as we know it. I also believe in the theory of evolution. Yeah I know, I'm a confused bastard, but bare with me a little longer and you'll see why I have this conviction...
I believe that we have two separate entities which describe what we like to call the conscience. I refer to these simply as a soul and a spirit. They're alike and yet different. Alike because they're both a form of energy residing within each and every human being. I'm talking about sentiments here, which are, and I truly believe this, both in an eternal battle for the upper hand. What sentiments you might ask. Well, none other than love and hate. It's impossible for a human being to live an entire life without once genuinely loving or hating someone or something. So I believe that God is love, that the very substance he radiates is love. He cannot hate, hate is alien to Him. I don't believe in Hell either. there is no Hell. You either return to the source, or you remain shut outside the fence. Very much like the universe of today, with respects to the seemingly harmonious atomic universe and the rest ,which as many physicists here would recognize, the dark matter/energy(sorry about the confusion here, are those two different kinds of matter?)
Sometimes I get scared shitless of my own beliefs, but damn me, it's all I've got. I will NOT choose sides if that is asked of me. It's been asked, many times by many of my friends and adversaries. I keep telling them, they're all right yet they're all wrong, with exception to Buddhism. I believe that each and every form of belief that's ever existed is but a manifestation, or rather an attempt at defining the source. An attempt doomed to fail because God isn't material, God isn't superficial. God is and will always remain outside our understanding, at least the kind of understanding that normally is sufficient to appease our ego's. Therefore, Christianity, Islam and Judaism, three branches from the same tree...
Back to the soul and spirit thing. well, the soul is very weak compared to the spirit. The soul is the representative of us, our ego, our definition of ourself, individualism. The spirit is the direct opposite of it, the representative of the us. I mean everyone of us. Each and every person in this world and all the others. I believe this because I believe that the spirit is the guardian angel of our souls, or because the spirit is a part of God linked to us to keep us from harm.
Hence the eternal battle inside everyone of us. Between love and hate. Between God and ourselves.
Yes I know, I make not much of anything that can be called a common sense, however, God has NOTHING to do with common sense, simply because of the fact that She/He's alien to this world. The rules here do not apply to Her/Him. hehe. He's like Paran if the universe is the deck, however Paran was born human. Well, I do not know if God has always been for all eternity. I cannot give those kinds of answers, and even if I had them, I truly doubt I would be allowed to. Believe me, sometimes, ignorance can be a bliss.
When it comes to free will.. hehehe.. well, either we have it or we don't. It actually can be as crazy as someone having it and someone not. Who's to say which is right, if any of them?

OK... I sure hope I haven't made anyone here mad or anything. I don't care if you hate me. I love you all anyway =)
Oh, just to make it clear, I'm no follower or believer of organized religion. If you have love, well then no amount of organization will wither improve or disprove the attempt at living your life on the proper course, because love is more than enough. Love is the answer to all the riddles...
alright alright, I'm finished now see?
hehe