Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

The Big Bang cannot be explained by...

apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 11:28:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
... Philosophy.

Philosophers use logical arguments to arrive at conclusions. They do not use mathematics or particle reactors to test anything, and classical logic doesn't hold when dealing with quantum mechanics. Trying to reason how the universe began is both foolish and arrogant.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 6:49:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 11:28:22 PM, apb4y wrote:
... Philosophy.

Philosophers use logical arguments to arrive at conclusions. They do not use mathematics or particle reactors to test anything, and classical logic doesn't hold when dealing with quantum mechanics. Trying to reason how the universe began is both foolish and arrogant.

Somebody please post here. This thread is the perfect opportunity for heated argument.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 5:08:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
There's never going to be an intelligible final answer to anything bro, science or no. Science is pretty much just useful consistencies, not truth, and can never be anything more than that, because it's trapped within the madness with us. Einstein, for example, was always looking for a god, not some random sequence of numbers, as evinced in that famous quote, "God does not play dice." There is no explanation of infinity.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 7:23:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 5:08:09 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
There's never going to be an intelligible final answer to anything bro, science or no. Science is pretty much just useful consistencies, not truth, and can never be anything more than that, because it's trapped within the madness with us. Einstein, for example, was always looking for a god, not some random sequence of numbers, as evinced in that famous quote, "God does not play dice." There is no explanation of infinity.

Einstein used "God" figuratively, and there is no such thing as infinity outside of pure mathematics.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 7:34:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 7:23:24 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/4/2014 5:08:09 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
There's never going to be an intelligible final answer to anything bro, science or no. Science is pretty much just useful consistencies, not truth, and can never be anything more than that, because it's trapped within the madness with us. Einstein, for example, was always looking for a god, not some random sequence of numbers, as evinced in that famous quote, "God does not play dice." There is no explanation of infinity.

Einstein used "God" figuratively, and there is no such thing as infinity outside of pure mathematics.

No he didn't. He genuinely sought God, purpose, what have you. It's obvious. And oh, isn't there? Something came from nothing, I suppose, and that's perfectly sensible to you? Hmm. Nope. That's insensible. Oh, something always was? That's both infinite and insensible (God, if you will).
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 7:40:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Haha, Steven Hawkings with them maths dude, he's the king of the universe!!!"

Dumb. Go read some Descartes.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 7:45:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Something was just there all of a sudden dude!!! And it makes perfect sense, of course!!!!!! What? Nah, that the notion of God resounds through the entire thing doesn't mean fucken nothing bro..."

I'm in awe of how deluded some people can be, to be quite honest. This place is f*cking mental and we're lost and yet some people are so f*cking certain of their retarded ideas.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 7:53:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's a wonder to me Christians never bring up the notion of God itself when they argue from "fine-tuning"... I mean there's f*cking fine-tuning, or random, right? Nah, that's not freaky at all bro, what are you talking about?

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible" - good ole Einstein. He got it.

Of course the Christians can't bring it up, I suppose, what with how we're supposedly not tuned but some divine uh...thingies. But looking at things objectively, well, it's mental and f*cking spooky.
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 8:02:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 7:53:54 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
It's a wonder to me Christians never bring up the notion of God itself when they argue from "fine-tuning"... I mean there's f*cking fine-tuning, or random, right? Nah, that's not freaky at all bro, what are you talking about?

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible" - good ole Einstein. He got it.

Of course the Christians can't bring it up, I suppose, what with how we're supposedly not tuned but some divine uh...thingies. But looking at things objectively, well, it's mental and f*cking spooky.

Are you a ghetto black person or something?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 8:05:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 8:02:37 PM, Haroush wrote:
At 9/4/2014 7:53:54 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
It's a wonder to me Christians never bring up the notion of God itself when they argue from "fine-tuning"... I mean there's f*cking fine-tuning, or random, right? Nah, that's not freaky at all bro, what are you talking about?

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible" - good ole Einstein. He got it.

Of course the Christians can't bring it up, I suppose, what with how we're supposedly not tuned but some divine uh...thingies. But looking at things objectively, well, it's mental and f*cking spooky.

Are you a ghetto black person or something?

Jesus, you're a really dumb person. No, I'm a Nazi. You'd like if I was a ghetto black person, though, wouldn't you? You slaver f*ck.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 3:46:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 7:34:45 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:

No he didn't. He genuinely sought God, purpose, what have you. It's obvious.

That is blatantly false.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

And oh, isn't there [such a thing as infinity]? Something came from nothing, I suppose, and that's perfectly sensible to you? Hmm. Nope. That's insensible. Oh, something always was? That's both infinite and insensible (God, if you will).

That is a false dichotomy; Quantum Mechanics allows solutions where the universe didn't come from nothing, but wasn't caused by anything either.

See? This is why Philosophy can't be used for this problem; it is based on classical logic, not quantum logic.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 6:43:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 3:46:52 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/4/2014 7:34:45 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:

No he didn't. He genuinely sought God, purpose, what have you. It's obvious.

That is blatantly false.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

And oh, isn't there [such a thing as infinity]? Something came from nothing, I suppose, and that's perfectly sensible to you? Hmm. Nope. That's insensible. Oh, something always was? That's both infinite and insensible (God, if you will).

That is a false dichotomy; Quantum Mechanics allows solutions where the universe didn't come from nothing, but wasn't caused by anything either.

See? This is why Philosophy can't be used for this problem; it is based on classical logic, not quantum logic.

Laughing my @ss of, dude. No, no, there is no infinity, it's just the sense to realise there is no infinity is uh....well, unintelligible? Basically God can create a stone so heavy he can't life, only quantum, huh?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 6:51:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Oh, and Einstein is obvious, too. When he insisted that God does not play dice, he made his god personal beside himself. Nice wikipedia article, though, bro.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 7:51:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 6:43:09 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:

Laughing my @ss of, dude. No, no, there is no infinity, it's just the sense to realise there is no infinity is uh....well, unintelligible? Basically God can create a stone so heavy he can't life, only quantum, huh?

The only things that's unintelligible here is your response.

Oh, and Einstein is obvious, too. When he insisted that God does not play dice, he made his god personal beside himself. Nice wikipedia article, though, bro.

No, Einstein was speaking figuratively. The phrase "God does not play dice" meant "I do not believe the universe is random". It's obvious that you completely ignored the Wikipedia article in favour of your own misconceptions.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 7:55:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 7:51:28 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/5/2014 6:43:09 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:

Laughing my @ss of, dude. No, no, there is no infinity, it's just the sense to realise there is no infinity is uh....well, unintelligible? Basically God can create a stone so heavy he can't life, only quantum, huh?

The only things that's unintelligible here is your response.

Yes, armouring oneself in retardation is quite the common defence mechanism.

Oh, and Einstein is obvious, too. When he insisted that God does not play dice, he made his god personal beside himself. Nice wikipedia article, though, bro.

No, Einstein was speaking figuratively. The phrase "God does not play dice" meant "I do not believe the universe is random". It's obvious that you completely ignored the Wikipedia article in favour of your own misconceptions.

OK, you are obviously the authority on Einstein, I bow to your interpretation! The truth for you, though: Einstein sought a sort of divinity in man by science/the working of the universe.
slo1
Posts: 4,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 12:43:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 11:28:22 PM, apb4y wrote:
... Philosophy.

Philosophers use logical arguments to arrive at conclusions. They do not use mathematics or particle reactors to test anything, and classical logic doesn't hold when dealing with quantum mechanics. Trying to reason how the universe began is both foolish and arrogant.

You know, you are probably right. I do think Philosophy can provide great insight into the human condition or the big picture, but it is terrible at figuring out the details. It is really mainly devised to speculate on that which there is no possibility of examining empirically.

The quantum is definitely so far from reasoning that nobody would guess that the bits that make up everything act so strangely.

People just really don't have an appreciation for quantum physics. It feels to me that laypersons like myself see it just like a magic trick and have that unconscious belief such as, "OK i saw it, but I know magic doesn't exist so something else had to cause that to happen"

In the mean time researchers are using entangled particles to shoot a particle at an object then use the information from that interaction via the entangled particle which never interacted with the object to form a picture. Absolutely amazing.

I just read a good article that was talking about dark matter and how the theory is in a state of flux. The latest was a guy who put together a model where dark matter has different flavors meaning they can change mass. It is another possibility that helps explain some of the observations.

The physics and math guys and gals need to sort this stuff out.
Vision13
Posts: 38
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 1:08:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 12:43:41 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 8/30/2014 11:28:22 PM, apb4y wrote:
... Philosophy.

Philosophers use logical arguments to arrive at conclusions. They do not use mathematics or particle reactors to test anything, and classical logic doesn't hold when dealing with quantum mechanics. Trying to reason how the universe began is both foolish and arrogant.

You know, you are probably right. I do think Philosophy can provide great insight into the human condition or the big picture, but it is terrible at figuring out the details. It is really mainly devised to speculate on that which there is no possibility of examining empirically.

The quantum is definitely so far from reasoning that nobody would guess that the bits that make up everything act so strangely.

People just really don't have an appreciation for quantum physics. It feels to me that laypersons like myself see it just like a magic trick and have that unconscious belief such as, "OK i saw it, but I know magic doesn't exist so something else had to cause that to happen"

In the mean time researchers are using entangled particles to shoot a particle at an object then use the information from that interaction via the entangled particle which never interacted with the object to form a picture. Absolutely amazing.

I just read a good article that was talking about dark matter and how the theory is in a state of flux. The latest was a guy who put together a model where dark matter has different flavors meaning they can change mass. It is another possibility that helps explain some of the observations.

The physics and math guys and gals need to sort this stuff out.

If you want to understand Quantum theory in precise you have to learn abstract mathematics such as Hilbert's space and linear analysis.
numberwang
Posts: 1,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 1:25:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 9:02:57 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/30/2014 11:28:22 PM, apb4y wrote:
... Philosophy.

Good thing you're in the science section, then.

+1
slo1
Posts: 4,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 1:32:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 1:08:43 PM, Vision13 wrote:
At 9/5/2014 12:43:41 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 8/30/2014 11:28:22 PM, apb4y wrote:
... Philosophy.

Philosophers use logical arguments to arrive at conclusions. They do not use mathematics or particle reactors to test anything, and classical logic doesn't hold when dealing with quantum mechanics. Trying to reason how the universe began is both foolish and arrogant.

You know, you are probably right. I do think Philosophy can provide great insight into the human condition or the big picture, but it is terrible at figuring out the details. It is really mainly devised to speculate on that which there is no possibility of examining empirically.

The quantum is definitely so far from reasoning that nobody would guess that the bits that make up everything act so strangely.

People just really don't have an appreciation for quantum physics. It feels to me that laypersons like myself see it just like a magic trick and have that unconscious belief such as, "OK i saw it, but I know magic doesn't exist so something else had to cause that to happen"

In the mean time researchers are using entangled particles to shoot a particle at an object then use the information from that interaction via the entangled particle which never interacted with the object to form a picture. Absolutely amazing.

I just read a good article that was talking about dark matter and how the theory is in a state of flux. The latest was a guy who put together a model where dark matter has different flavors meaning they can change mass. It is another possibility that helps explain some of the observations.

The physics and math guys and gals need to sort this stuff out.

If you want to understand Quantum theory in precise you have to learn abstract mathematics such as Hilbert's space and linear analysis.

I agree, but understandings are different. The understanding you mention are involved with the predictions of how small thing behave. The question of understanding why they behave that way is very much undiscovered and open for debate on whether such understanding can be achieved.

IE: Why can we have particle A interact with particle B, separate them, and at a later time interact with particle B to form a picture of something that particle A interacted with after the separation?
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 5:25:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 1:32:06 PM, slo1 wrote:

IE: Why can we have particle A interact with particle B, separate them, and at a later time interact with particle B to form a picture of something that particle A interacted with after the separation?

As I understand it, it's because particles are also waves, and the waves A and B get mixed up during their interaction. You effectively have wave AB in two separate locations, and measuring AB will reveal the properties of both A and B before separating them. Whether A or B is the one left inside your detector is completely random.

Of course, I've just paraphrased somebody else's gist of the matter. Mathematically, I may be far from the mark.
slo1
Posts: 4,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 2:14:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 5:25:21 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/5/2014 1:32:06 PM, slo1 wrote:

IE: Why can we have particle A interact with particle B, separate them, and at a later time interact with particle B to form a picture of something that particle A interacted with after the separation?

As I understand it, it's because particles are also waves, and the waves A and B get mixed up during their interaction. You effectively have wave AB in two separate locations, and measuring AB will reveal the properties of both A and B before separating them. Whether A or B is the one left inside your detector is completely random.

Of course, I've just paraphrased somebody else's gist of the matter. Mathematically, I may be far from the mark.

"Wave" is probably the wrong word there. When the two particles are created, there is a wave function and they are separate and distinct waves. They don't mix up or combine. If you had them go through a slit you could have them interfere with each other and show it as a interference pattern, but that is not this. Also, only B is getting measured when it enters the camera to make the photo. A never enters the camera by how the experiment was designed.

A is what interacts with the object being photo'ed, B is always the particle that gets measured, so it collapse its wave function and somehow obtains the data from A about the nature of its interaction with the object. There obviously is some type of connection between A & B, but any answer as to what it is is speculation at this point in time.