Total Posts:65|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Quantum Entanglement And Non-Existent Space

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 4:19:43 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
If two particles are entangled then it doesn't matter how vast the distance between them, a change to one will instantaneously cause a change in another. The problem is that if one particle causes a change in the other, then there must be a signal of some kind, or information travelling traveling to the other particle vastly separated in order for this effect to take place. Travelling across vast distances takes time, but the causation entailed by entanglement is instantaneous. Thus, we can deduce from this that the spatial distance between the two particles cannot be actual, because if it was then it was take time for the cause and effect to happen... But it doesn't!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 5:33:18 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
If causation does not require time or space then why would two spatially-separated particles need to interact with each other by sending signals through space?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 6:46:49 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 5:33:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
If causation does not require time or space then why would two spatially-separated particles need to interact with each other by sending signals through space?

Well physicial things exist within time and space, so causation between them would require such things (assuming they exist for the sake of argument). My body can't cause anything without space to move in and time to do it in, with particles it's the same thing (my body is just a composition of particles). There needs to be something pushing the separate particle and forcing it to be behave a certain way but if the two particles are separated by vast distances then they are causally disconnected in the physicial world. This means space cannot exist as it doesn't matter how far the particles appear to be the interaction is instantaneous. But if space doesn't exist then neither do any material objects in space. Then what is left of the material world? Nothing. That seems to leave consciousness/ mentality as the only game left in town. Meaning, Idealism seems to be implied from all this.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 8:01:09 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 5:33:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
If causation does not require time or space then why would two spatially-separated particles need to interact with each other by sending signals through space?

Here is an interesting video which illustrates the point better:

http://m.youtube.com...
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 9:52:47 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 4:19:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If two particles are entangled then it doesn't matter how vast the distance between them, a change to one will instantaneously cause a change in another. The problem is that if one particle causes a change in the other, then there must be a signal of some kind, or information travelling traveling to the other particle vastly separated in order for this effect to take place. Travelling across vast distances takes time, but the causation entailed by entanglement is instantaneous. Thus, we can deduce from this that the spatial distance between the two particles cannot be actual, because if it was then it was take time for the cause and effect to happen... But it doesn't!

P.1 If Quantum Mechanics implies that space doesn't exist and QM is true, space would not exist.
P.2 Space exists.
C. QM is BS
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 9:53:06 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Here is one hand...
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 10:24:19 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 9:52:47 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:19:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If two particles are entangled then it doesn't matter how vast the distance between them, a change to one will instantaneously cause a change in another. The problem is that if one particle causes a change in the other, then there must be a signal of some kind, or information travelling traveling to the other particle vastly separated in order for this effect to take place. Travelling across vast distances takes time, but the causation entailed by entanglement is instantaneous. Thus, we can deduce from this that the spatial distance between the two particles cannot be actual, because if it was then it was take time for the cause and effect to happen... But it doesn't!

P.1 If Quantum Mechanics implies that space doesn't exist and QM is true, space would not exist.
P.2 Space exists.
C. QM is BS

More like:

P1. If quantum entanglement occurs, space does not exist
P2: quantum entanglement occurs
C: Space does not exist
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 10:26:10 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 10:24:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2016 9:52:47 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:19:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If two particles are entangled then it doesn't matter how vast the distance between them, a change to one will instantaneously cause a change in another. The problem is that if one particle causes a change in the other, then there must be a signal of some kind, or information travelling traveling to the other particle vastly separated in order for this effect to take place. Travelling across vast distances takes time, but the causation entailed by entanglement is instantaneous. Thus, we can deduce from this that the spatial distance between the two particles cannot be actual, because if it was then it was take time for the cause and effect to happen... But it doesn't!

P.1 If Quantum Mechanics implies that space doesn't exist and QM is true, space would not exist.
P.2 Space exists.
C. QM is BS

More like:

P1. If quantum entanglement occurs, space does not exist
P2: quantum entanglement occurs
C: Space does not exist

Ah, but space exists 8^}
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 1:54:08 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 10:26:10 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2016 10:24:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2016 9:52:47 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:19:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If two particles are entangled then it doesn't matter how vast the distance between them, a change to one will instantaneously cause a change in another. The problem is that if one particle causes a change in the other, then there must be a signal of some kind, or information travelling traveling to the other particle vastly separated in order for this effect to take place. Travelling across vast distances takes time, but the causation entailed by entanglement is instantaneous. Thus, we can deduce from this that the spatial distance between the two particles cannot be actual, because if it was then it was take time for the cause and effect to happen... But it doesn't!

P.1 If Quantum Mechanics implies that space doesn't exist and QM is true, space would not exist.
P.2 Space exists.
C. QM is BS

More like:

P1. If quantum entanglement occurs, space does not exist
P2: quantum entanglement occurs
C: Space does not exist

Ah, but space exists 8^}

Nope, space is just an illusion.
SJM
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 2:05:44 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 1:54:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2016 10:26:10 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2016 10:24:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2016 9:52:47 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:19:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If two particles are entangled then it doesn't matter how vast the distance between them, a change to one will instantaneously cause a change in another. The problem is that if one particle causes a change in the other, then there must be a signal of some kind, or information travelling traveling to the other particle vastly separated in order for this effect to take place. Travelling across vast distances takes time, but the causation entailed by entanglement is instantaneous. Thus, we can deduce from this that the spatial distance between the two particles cannot be actual, because if it was then it was take time for the cause and effect to happen... But it doesn't!

P.1 If Quantum Mechanics implies that space doesn't exist and QM is true, space would not exist.
P.2 Space exists.
C. QM is BS

More like:

P1. If quantum entanglement occurs, space does not exist
P2: quantum entanglement occurs
C: Space does not exist

Ah, but space exists 8^}

Nope, space is just an illusion.

Illusions are Illusions.
Hitler- If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.

Stalin- Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.

Machiavelli- It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

Ivan the Terrible- "I will not see the destruction of the Christian converts who are loyal to me, and to my last breath I will fight for the Orthodox faith
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 2:12:13 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 10:26:10 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2016 10:24:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2016 9:52:47 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:19:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If two particles are entangled then it doesn't matter how vast the distance between them, a change to one will instantaneously cause a change in another. The problem is that if one particle causes a change in the other, then there must be a signal of some kind, or information travelling traveling to the other particle vastly separated in order for this effect to take place. Travelling across vast distances takes time, but the causation entailed by entanglement is instantaneous. Thus, we can deduce from this that the spatial distance between the two particles cannot be actual, because if it was then it was take time for the cause and effect to happen... But it doesn't!

P.1 If Quantum Mechanics implies that space doesn't exist and QM is true, space would not exist.
P.2 Space exists.
C. QM is BS

More like:

P1. If quantum entanglement occurs, space does not exist
P2: quantum entanglement occurs
C: Space does not exist

Ah, but space exists 8^}

"Hence it is clear that the space of physics is not, in the last analysis, anything given in nature or independent of human thought. It is a function of our conceptual scheme." - Albert Einstein
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 2:12:41 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 2:05:44 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/1/2016 1:54:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2016 10:26:10 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2016 10:24:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2016 9:52:47 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:19:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If two particles are entangled then it doesn't matter how vast the distance between them, a change to one will instantaneously cause a change in another. The problem is that if one particle causes a change in the other, then there must be a signal of some kind, or information travelling traveling to the other particle vastly separated in order for this effect to take place. Travelling across vast distances takes time, but the causation entailed by entanglement is instantaneous. Thus, we can deduce from this that the spatial distance between the two particles cannot be actual, because if it was then it was take time for the cause and effect to happen... But it doesn't!

P.1 If Quantum Mechanics implies that space doesn't exist and QM is true, space would not exist.
P.2 Space exists.
C. QM is BS

More like:

P1. If quantum entanglement occurs, space does not exist
P2: quantum entanglement occurs
C: Space does not exist

Ah, but space exists 8^}

Nope, space is just an illusion.

Illusions are Illusions.

Yup, and apples are apples. What is your point?
SJM
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 2:20:14 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 2:12:41 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/1/2016 2:05:44 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/1/2016 1:54:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2016 10:26:10 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2016 10:24:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2016 9:52:47 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:19:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If two particles are entangled then it doesn't matter how vast the distance between them, a change to one will instantaneously cause a change in another. The problem is that if one particle causes a change in the other, then there must be a signal of some kind, or information travelling traveling to the other particle vastly separated in order for this effect to take place. Travelling across vast distances takes time, but the causation entailed by entanglement is instantaneous. Thus, we can deduce from this that the spatial distance between the two particles cannot be actual, because if it was then it was take time for the cause and effect to happen... But it doesn't!

P.1 If Quantum Mechanics implies that space doesn't exist and QM is true, space would not exist.
P.2 Space exists.
C. QM is BS

More like:

P1. If quantum entanglement occurs, space does not exist
P2: quantum entanglement occurs
C: Space does not exist

Ah, but space exists 8^}

Nope, space is just an illusion.

Illusions are Illusions.

Yup, and apples are apples. What is your point?

Exactly that, that apples are apples.
Hitler- If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.

Stalin- Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.

Machiavelli- It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

Ivan the Terrible- "I will not see the destruction of the Christian converts who are loyal to me, and to my last breath I will fight for the Orthodox faith
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 2:21:40 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 2:20:14 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/1/2016 2:12:41 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/1/2016 2:05:44 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/1/2016 1:54:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2016 10:26:10 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2016 10:24:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2016 9:52:47 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:19:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If two particles are entangled then it doesn't matter how vast the distance between them, a change to one will instantaneously cause a change in another. The problem is that if one particle causes a change in the other, then there must be a signal of some kind, or information travelling traveling to the other particle vastly separated in order for this effect to take place. Travelling across vast distances takes time, but the causation entailed by entanglement is instantaneous. Thus, we can deduce from this that the spatial distance between the two particles cannot be actual, because if it was then it was take time for the cause and effect to happen... But it doesn't!

P.1 If Quantum Mechanics implies that space doesn't exist and QM is true, space would not exist.
P.2 Space exists.
C. QM is BS

More like:

P1. If quantum entanglement occurs, space does not exist
P2: quantum entanglement occurs
C: Space does not exist

Ah, but space exists 8^}

Nope, space is just an illusion.

Illusions are Illusions.

Yup, and apples are apples. What is your point?

Exactly that, that apples are apples.

Lol Ok then.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 2:50:00 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 1:54:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2016 10:26:10 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2016 10:24:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2016 9:52:47 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:19:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If two particles are entangled then it doesn't matter how vast the distance between them, a change to one will instantaneously cause a change in another. The problem is that if one particle causes a change in the other, then there must be a signal of some kind, or information travelling traveling to the other particle vastly separated in order for this effect to take place. Travelling across vast distances takes time, but the causation entailed by entanglement is instantaneous. Thus, we can deduce from this that the spatial distance between the two particles cannot be actual, because if it was then it was take time for the cause and effect to happen... But it doesn't!

P.1 If Quantum Mechanics implies that space doesn't exist and QM is true, space would not exist.
P.2 Space exists.
C. QM is BS

More like:

P1. If quantum entanglement occurs, space does not exist
P2: quantum entanglement occurs
C: Space does not exist

Ah, but space exists 8^}

Nope, space is just an illusion.

Look at a tree. The tree takes up space, as there are discrete points in your visual field which make up the tree. The relations between the points is space.

So... Space exists.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 4:12:11 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 2:50:00 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/1/2016 1:54:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2016 10:26:10 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2016 10:24:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2016 9:52:47 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:19:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If two particles are entangled then it doesn't matter how vast the distance between them, a change to one will instantaneously cause a change in another. The problem is that if one particle causes a change in the other, then there must be a signal of some kind, or information travelling traveling to the other particle vastly separated in order for this effect to take place. Travelling across vast distances takes time, but the causation entailed by entanglement is instantaneous. Thus, we can deduce from this that the spatial distance between the two particles cannot be actual, because if it was then it was take time for the cause and effect to happen... But it doesn't!

P.1 If Quantum Mechanics implies that space doesn't exist and QM is true, space would not exist.
P.2 Space exists.
C. QM is BS

More like:

P1. If quantum entanglement occurs, space does not exist
P2: quantum entanglement occurs
C: Space does not exist

Ah, but space exists 8^}

Nope, space is just an illusion.

Look at a tree. The tree takes up space, as there are discrete points in your visual field which make up the tree. The relations between the points is space.

So... Space exists.

The relation between the points is illusory, so... Space doesn't actually exist.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 4:16:23 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 2:50:00 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/1/2016 1:54:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2016 10:26:10 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2016 10:24:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2016 9:52:47 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:19:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If two particles are entangled then it doesn't matter how vast the distance between them, a change to one will instantaneously cause a change in another. The problem is that if one particle causes a change in the other, then there must be a signal of some kind, or information travelling traveling to the other particle vastly separated in order for this effect to take place. Travelling across vast distances takes time, but the causation entailed by entanglement is instantaneous. Thus, we can deduce from this that the spatial distance between the two particles cannot be actual, because if it was then it was take time for the cause and effect to happen... But it doesn't!

P.1 If Quantum Mechanics implies that space doesn't exist and QM is true, space would not exist.
P.2 Space exists.
C. QM is BS

More like:

P1. If quantum entanglement occurs, space does not exist
P2: quantum entanglement occurs
C: Space does not exist

Ah, but space exists 8^}

Nope, space is just an illusion.

Look at a tree. The tree takes up space, as there are discrete points in your visual field which make up the tree. The relations between the points is space.

So... Space exists.

Since space doesn't exist, then neither do material objects like a tree. Everything is a mental construct. Quantum Theory is the most experimentally verified theory and well tested concept that science has ever known, so to deny conclusions based on it is purely anti-scientific.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 4:21:07 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 4:16:23 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/1/2016 2:50:00 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/1/2016 1:54:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2016 10:26:10 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2016 10:24:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2016 9:52:47 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:19:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If two particles are entangled then it doesn't matter how vast the distance between them, a change to one will instantaneously cause a change in another. The problem is that if one particle causes a change in the other, then there must be a signal of some kind, or information travelling traveling to the other particle vastly separated in order for this effect to take place. Travelling across vast distances takes time, but the causation entailed by entanglement is instantaneous. Thus, we can deduce from this that the spatial distance between the two particles cannot be actual, because if it was then it was take time for the cause and effect to happen... But it doesn't!

P.1 If Quantum Mechanics implies that space doesn't exist and QM is true, space would not exist.
P.2 Space exists.
C. QM is BS

More like:

P1. If quantum entanglement occurs, space does not exist
P2: quantum entanglement occurs
C: Space does not exist

Ah, but space exists 8^}

Nope, space is just an illusion.

Look at a tree. The tree takes up space, as there are discrete points in your visual field which make up the tree. The relations between the points is space.

So... Space exists.

Since space doesn't exist, then neither do material objects like a tree. Everything is a mental construct. Quantum Theory is the most experimentally verified theory and well tested concept that science has ever known, so to deny conclusions based on it is purely anti-scientific.

I speak only a priori truths, sorry.

Be more respectful when speaking to a Philosopher Master, bud.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 4:22:35 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 2:50:00 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/1/2016 1:54:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2016 10:26:10 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2016 10:24:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2016 9:52:47 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:19:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If two particles are entangled then it doesn't matter how vast the distance between them, a change to one will instantaneously cause a change in another. The problem is that if one particle causes a change in the other, then there must be a signal of some kind, or information travelling traveling to the other particle vastly separated in order for this effect to take place. Travelling across vast distances takes time, but the causation entailed by entanglement is instantaneous. Thus, we can deduce from this that the spatial distance between the two particles cannot be actual, because if it was then it was take time for the cause and effect to happen... But it doesn't!

P.1 If Quantum Mechanics implies that space doesn't exist and QM is true, space would not exist.
P.2 Space exists.
C. QM is BS

More like:

P1. If quantum entanglement occurs, space does not exist
P2: quantum entanglement occurs
C: Space does not exist

Ah, but space exists 8^}

Nope, space is just an illusion.

Look at a tree. The tree takes up space, as there are discrete points in your visual field which make up the tree. The relations between the points is space.

So... Space exists.

Give this a read

Quantum Entanglement Verified: Why Space Is Just The Construct That Gives The Illusion Of Separate Objects

http://www.collective-evolution.com...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 4:24:05 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 4:21:07 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/1/2016 4:16:23 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/1/2016 2:50:00 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/1/2016 1:54:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2016 10:26:10 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2016 10:24:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2016 9:52:47 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:19:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If two particles are entangled then it doesn't matter how vast the distance between them, a change to one will instantaneously cause a change in another. The problem is that if one particle causes a change in the other, then there must be a signal of some kind, or information travelling traveling to the other particle vastly separated in order for this effect to take place. Travelling across vast distances takes time, but the causation entailed by entanglement is instantaneous. Thus, we can deduce from this that the spatial distance between the two particles cannot be actual, because if it was then it was take time for the cause and effect to happen... But it doesn't!

P.1 If Quantum Mechanics implies that space doesn't exist and QM is true, space would not exist.
P.2 Space exists.
C. QM is BS

More like:

P1. If quantum entanglement occurs, space does not exist
P2: quantum entanglement occurs
C: Space does not exist

Ah, but space exists 8^}

Nope, space is just an illusion.

Look at a tree. The tree takes up space, as there are discrete points in your visual field which make up the tree. The relations between the points is space.

So... Space exists.

Since space doesn't exist, then neither do material objects like a tree. Everything is a mental construct. Quantum Theory is the most experimentally verified theory and well tested concept that science has ever known, so to deny conclusions based on it is purely anti-scientific.

I speak only a priori truths, sorry.

Be more respectful when speaking to a Philosopher Master, bud.

I suggest learning the difference between a priori truths and a posteriori truths.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 4:26:06 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 4:21:07 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/1/2016 4:16:23 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/1/2016 2:50:00 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/1/2016 1:54:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2016 10:26:10 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2016 10:24:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2016 9:52:47 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:19:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If two particles are entangled then it doesn't matter how vast the distance between them, a change to one will instantaneously cause a change in another. The problem is that if one particle causes a change in the other, then there must be a signal of some kind, or information travelling traveling to the other particle vastly separated in order for this effect to take place. Travelling across vast distances takes time, but the causation entailed by entanglement is instantaneous. Thus, we can deduce from this that the spatial distance between the two particles cannot be actual, because if it was then it was take time for the cause and effect to happen... But it doesn't!

P.1 If Quantum Mechanics implies that space doesn't exist and QM is true, space would not exist.
P.2 Space exists.
C. QM is BS

More like:

P1. If quantum entanglement occurs, space does not exist
P2: quantum entanglement occurs
C: Space does not exist

Ah, but space exists 8^}

Nope, space is just an illusion.

Look at a tree. The tree takes up space, as there are discrete points in your visual field which make up the tree. The relations between the points is space.

So... Space exists.

Since space doesn't exist, then neither do material objects like a tree. Everything is a mental construct. Quantum Theory is the most experimentally verified theory and well tested concept that science has ever known, so to deny conclusions based on it is purely anti-scientific.

I speak only a priori truths, sorry.

Be more respectful when speaking to a Philosopher Master, bud.

A philosophy master should have a higher win percentage than 31.58 *sips beer*... But that's none of my business.
SJM
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 6:05:02 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 4:26:06 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/1/2016 4:21:07 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/1/2016 4:16:23 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/1/2016 2:50:00 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/1/2016 1:54:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2016 10:26:10 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2016 10:24:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2016 9:52:47 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:19:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If two particles are entangled then it doesn't matter how vast the distance between them, a change to one will instantaneously cause a change in another. The problem is that if one particle causes a change in the other, then there must be a signal of some kind, or information travelling traveling to the other particle vastly separated in order for this effect to take place. Travelling across vast distances takes time, but the causation entailed by entanglement is instantaneous. Thus, we can deduce from this that the spatial distance between the two particles cannot be actual, because if it was then it was take time for the cause and effect to happen... But it doesn't!

P.1 If Quantum Mechanics implies that space doesn't exist and QM is true, space would not exist.
P.2 Space exists.
C. QM is BS

More like:

P1. If quantum entanglement occurs, space does not exist
P2: quantum entanglement occurs
C: Space does not exist

Ah, but space exists 8^}

Nope, space is just an illusion.

Look at a tree. The tree takes up space, as there are discrete points in your visual field which make up the tree. The relations between the points is space.

So... Space exists.

Since space doesn't exist, then neither do material objects like a tree. Everything is a mental construct. Quantum Theory is the most experimentally verified theory and well tested concept that science has ever known, so to deny conclusions based on it is purely anti-scientific.

I speak only a priori truths, sorry.

Be more respectful when speaking to a Philosopher Master, bud.

A philosophy master should have a higher win percentage than 31.58 *sips beer*... But that's none of my business.

Noooooo cchilllll
Hitler- If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.

Stalin- Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.

Machiavelli- It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

Ivan the Terrible- "I will not see the destruction of the Christian converts who are loyal to me, and to my last breath I will fight for the Orthodox faith
keithprosser
Posts: 1,912
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 5:14:42 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I think that saying 'space is an illusion' (and by extension 'time is an illusion') is overstating things a bit because it suggests that there is nothing in the 'real' universe that corresponds to our notions of space and time, that they have no more reality than fairies or square triangles.

My view is that our intuitive notions of space and time are not completely wrong, but they are 'partial truths'. Our brains have evolved in a low-energy, low gravity and low-speed environment where space and time resemble the 'classical model' of space and time and it is hard - perhaps impossible for 99% of people - to think in terms of any other model. (I certainly do not include myself in the 1%).

If our minds were more flexible perhaps we could intuit how real space behaves so as to provide the separation of parts needed to make trees and tables and yet fail to separate entangled particles.

The true nature of space and time might be beyond the power of a human brain to grasp at an intuitive level, as is the case (for example) with quantum effects that allow things to be in two place at the same time and so on. To help us with that problem we develop mathematical formalisations that we can use to get the answer when for situations beyond our power of intuitve visualisation.

So space/time is not a complete illusion - but there is more to space/time than our intution suggests. We may never be able to visualise how space can both separate and connect and we will have to trust calculation over visualisation to get the truth. But I don't accept that we are completely misled. I don't think space is non-existent, rather that what we think of as space is the 'face of space' we see in our low-energy, low-gravity, low-velocity environment.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 6:02:05 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 5:14:42 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I think that saying 'space is an illusion' (and by extension 'time is an illusion') is overstating things a bit because it suggests that there is nothing in the 'real' universe that corresponds to our notions of space and time, that they have no more reality than fairies or square triangles.

My view is that our intuitive notions of space and time are not completely wrong, but they are 'partial truths'. Our brains have evolved in a low-energy, low gravity and low-speed environment where space and time resemble the 'classical model' of space and time and it is hard - perhaps impossible for 99% of people - to think in terms of any other model. (I certainly do not include myself in the 1%).

If our minds were more flexible perhaps we could intuit how real space behaves so as to provide the separation of parts needed to make trees and tables and yet fail to separate entangled particles.

The true nature of space and time might be beyond the power of a human brain to grasp at an intuitive level, as is the case (for example) with quantum effects that allow things to be in two place at the same time and so on. To help us with that problem we develop mathematical formalisations that we can use to get the answer when for situations beyond our power of intuitve visualisation.

So space/time is not a complete illusion - but there is more to space/time than our intution suggests. We may never be able to visualise how space can both separate and connect and we will have to trust calculation over visualisation to get the truth. But I don't accept that we are completely misled. I don't think space is non-existent, rather that what we think of as space is the 'face of space' we see in our low-energy, low-gravity, low-velocity environment.

This is just wild speculation though, what we know and experience space to be doesn't exist and that's the only evidence we have of space (what we experience). This sort of "meta" space you talk about can never be hypothetically be experienced by us. There is no reason to believe it is there.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,912
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 6:55:57 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
This is just wild speculation though, what we know and experience space to be doesn't exist and that's the only evidence we have of space (what we experience). This sort of "meta" space you talk about can never be hypothetically be experienced by us. There is no reason to believe it is there.

I feel free to make such 'wild speculations'! My view is that we don't know everything and I am willing to gamble on the direction more knowledge will take us.

An analogy would be heat. Not so long ago heat was thought of as a sort of fluid (caloric). Now we know better - the nature of heat is nothing like that and caloric does not exist. But that doesn't mean heat itself doesn't exist - it is true that things really are hot and cold. Heat still exists even though caloric never did - it is only that heat is not what it appears to be.

Space and time - I believe - will turn out to be the same sort of thing. I believe there is such as thing as 'space' and there such as thing as 'time', but they are not quite what they appear to be to human intuition. We will - I hope - get a better handle on their true nature as knowledge improves. It could well turn out that spacetime is 'nothing at all', but I doubt it. I don't know - I'm just guessing. If I was a professional in the field I'd like to be working on the problem, but as it is I can only watch events from the sidelines!

Newton had ideas about the nature of space and time that were essentially refinements of our intution. We have since learned our intutions about time and space are approximations to reality. My guess is that as we learn more space and time will be revealed as being stranger and more counter intuitive that we can currently imagine, and in all probability the nature or spacetime will not be fully comprehensible at the level of intuition. I certainly don't think our knowledge is already perfect enough to pronounce that space and time don't exist at all.

In ssort, my view is that there is a lot more to be learned about spacetime. That is hardly wild speculation - surely it is a wilder speculation to assert that space and time don't exist full stop.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 8:37:07 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 6:55:57 PM, keithprosser wrote:
This is just wild speculation though, what we know and experience space to be doesn't exist and that's the only evidence we have of space (what we experience). This sort of "meta" space you talk about can never be hypothetically be experienced by us. There is no reason to believe it is there.

I feel free to make such 'wild speculations'! My view is that we don't know everything and I am willing to gamble on the direction more knowledge will take us.

An analogy would be heat. Not so long ago heat was thought of as a sort of fluid (caloric). Now we know better - the nature of heat is nothing like that and caloric does not exist. But that doesn't mean heat itself doesn't exist - it is true that things really are hot and cold. Heat still exists even though caloric never did - it is only that heat is not what it appears to be.

Space and time - I believe - will turn out to be the same sort of thing. I believe there is such as thing as 'space' and there such as thing as 'time', but they are not quite what they appear to be to human intuition. We will - I hope - get a better handle on their true nature as knowledge improves. It could well turn out that spacetime is 'nothing at all', but I doubt it. I don't know - I'm just guessing. If I was a professional in the field I'd like to be working on the problem, but as it is I can only watch events from the sidelines!

Newton had ideas about the nature of space and time that were essentially refinements of our intution. We have since learned our intutions about time and space are approximations to reality. My guess is that as we learn more space and time will be revealed as being stranger and more counter intuitive that we can currently imagine, and in all probability the nature or spacetime will not be fully comprehensible at the level of intuition. I certainly don't think our knowledge is already perfect enough to pronounce that space and time don't exist at all.

In ssort, my view is that there is a lot more to be learned about spacetime. That is hardly wild speculation - surely it is a wilder speculation to assert that space and time don't exist full stop.

The space we experience doesn't exist, I make no more assumptions. You assume there still exist some kind of space with no evidence. Without evidence we can dismiss your assertion.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 8:38:42 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 5:14:42 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I think that saying 'space is an illusion' (and by extension 'time is an illusion') is overstating things a bit because it suggests that there is nothing in the 'real' universe that corresponds to our notions of space and time, that they have no more reality than fairies or square triangles.

My view is that our intuitive notions of space and time are not completely wrong, but they are 'partial truths'. Our brains have evolved in a low-energy, low gravity and low-speed environment where space and time resemble the 'classical model' of space and time and it is hard - perhaps impossible for 99% of people - to think in terms of any other model. (I certainly do not include myself in the 1%).

If our minds were more flexible perhaps we could intuit how real space behaves so as to provide the separation of parts needed to make trees and tables and yet fail to separate entangled particles.

The true nature of space and time might be beyond the power of a human brain to grasp at an intuitive level, as is the case (for example) with quantum effects that allow things to be in two place at the same time and so on. To help us with that problem we develop mathematical formalisations that we can use to get the answer when for situations beyond our power of intuitve visualisation.

So space/time is not a complete illusion - but there is more to space/time than our intution suggests. We may never be able to visualise how space can both separate and connect and we will have to trust calculation over visualisation to get the truth. But I don't accept that we are completely misled. I don't think space is non-existent, rather that what we think of as space is the 'face of space' we see in our low-energy, low-gravity, low-velocity environment.

If space exists then it takes time for information to travel, as there is actually distance. Quantum Entanglement disproves distance, what is space without distance?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 9:42:04 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 4:19:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If two particles are entangled then it doesn't matter how vast the distance between them, a change to one will instantaneously cause a change in another. The problem is that if one particle causes a change in the other, then there must be a signal of some kind, or information travelling traveling to the other particle vastly separated in order for this effect to take place. Travelling across vast distances takes time, but the causation entailed by entanglement is instantaneous. Thus, we can deduce from this that the spatial distance between the two particles cannot be actual, because if it was then it was take time for the cause and effect to happen... But it doesn't!

The argument aside, you can't do quantum mechanics without distances and you can't have distance without space.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 9:42:04 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:19:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If two particles are entangled then it doesn't matter how vast the distance between them, a change to one will instantaneously cause a change in another. The problem is that if one particle causes a change in the other, then there must be a signal of some kind, or information travelling traveling to the other particle vastly separated in order for this effect to take place. Travelling across vast distances takes time, but the causation entailed by entanglement is instantaneous. Thus, we can deduce from this that the spatial distance between the two particles cannot be actual, because if it was then it was take time for the cause and effect to happen... But it doesn't!

The argument aside, you can't do quantum mechanics without distances and you can't have distance without space.

Of course you can do quantum mechanics without distance.

Quantum Entanglement Veridied: Why Space Is Just A Construct Giving The Illusion Of Separate Objects

http://www.collective-evolution.com...

Quantum Entanglement: Is Space An Illusion?


http://m.youtube.com...

--

If distance is real then it takes time to travel distance, but the cause and effect relationship between the two particles is instantaneous meaning there is no time for a signal to reach one from the other. Also, mathematically, the two particles are the same object, share the same wave-function, and cannot be described independently. This is only possible if the space between them doesn't exist because if did then they could be described independently (by their spatial location). So if anything, space contradicts logic and quantum mechanics.