I disagree. An abstraction is just that: abstract. It doesn't actually exist.
It exists in your mind, and your mind is part of reality. The idea of a unicorn likewise exists, even if a unicorn doesn't. It's in that way that I say these things are "referenced in reality".
The idea that some things reference reality and some things don't involves tautology, and that's not helpful for the question you're posing in the OP. If you can imagine a thing, you are by definition referencing reality. The only thing that can "not reference reality" is the unimaginable, e.g., 2+2=5, and to say that that is unimaginable is the same thing as saying that it doesn't reference (this) reality. And I guess that's my last comment on that; I think we'll just disagree.
I believed that even the gods were the result of natural phenomena; there were no creator deities, but there were deities nonetheless.
And the natural phenomena were the result of what? Why not the result of intelligence? We have solid proof that intelligence exists: we are it. Is there anything impossible, or even mildly doubtful, in the idea that the same thing (intelligence) can exist in a greater, higher form? Certainly this nature is riddled with heirarchy, greater and lesser types of the same thing: there are holes in the ground, then there is the Grand Canyon; there are specks of dust floating in space, then there is Jupiter; there are dogs and then there are men; there are bad writers, then there is Shakespeare.
We know some things are true now that were summarily dismissed by previous scholars, such as heliocentricism.
As soon as you guys prove a "unified theory of everything", get back to me.
My point is that particles can still have velocity and acceleration even when you stop time.
Totally agree, but the uncertainty is now gone
The difference is that it's the Dirac constant, not the Plank constant. It's irrelevant to our conversation, but it's a distinction I wanted to point out.
But that's just it: there can't be measured with pin-point accuracy. Doing fancy things to time doesn't change that.
Then explain this , see where t is? In the denominator, and since we cannot divide by zero, then we have a major problem then, right? D=V/T for velocity right? If you set T equal to zero, then you are dividing by zero...so what happens when you stop time? What happens when you divide by zero? Since, we as humans cannot stop time, quantum physics is appicable, but for God, I believe is not subjected to Laws involving time
I'm just saying that there exists a specific equation for dealing with quantum mechanical systems that don't change over time. Nonetheless, they still have velocities and momenta.
I understand that, I'm not trying to say there are not velocity nor momentum, I'm saying that it becomes an abstract/static value and thus uncertainty is gone (that is your agrument, right? absolute uncertainty)
As a scientist, I go where the evidence leads. If have evidence of God, or Jesus, or Vishnu, let me know .
See sig
Commented, this is fun
__________________ Because I sat down...looked over all the coincidences of my life and realized that while each one of those things in itself was coincidence, when added up, the summation of my coincidences logically points to someone that I can't see or hear being in control.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
It exists in your mind, and your mind is part of reality. The idea of a unicorn likewise exists, even if a unicorn doesn't. It's in that way that I say these things are "referenced in reality".
The idea that some things reference reality and some things don't involves tautology, and that's not helpful for the question you're posing in the OP. If you can imagine a thing, you are by definition referencing reality. The only thing that can "not reference reality" is the unimaginable, e.g., 2+2=5, and to say that that is unimaginable is the same thing as saying that it doesn't reference (this) reality. And I guess that's my last comment on that; I think we'll just disagree.
That seems likely.
Originally Posted by Chesterton
And the natural phenomena were the result of what?
Quite simply, we don't know.
Originally Posted by Chesterton
Why not the result of intelligence?
Why not indeed. There's no reason why it couldn't be, but, then again, there's no reason why it should be.
Originally Posted by Chesterton
We have solid proof that intelligence exists: we are it. Is there anything impossible, or even mildly doubtful, in the idea that the same thing (intelligence) can exist in a greater, higher form?
No, it's entirely possible. But so too is the existence of a chocolate teapot orbiting Mars, and a deity made entirely of pasta.
Originally Posted by Chesterton
Certainly this nature is riddled with heirarchy, greater and lesser types of the same thing: there are holes in the ground, then there is the Grand Canyon; there are specks of dust floating in space, then there is Jupiter; there are dogs and then there are men; there are bad writers, then there is Shakespeare.
Yes, but all these things are just composites of more fundamental things. The difference between a mote of dust and Juptier is not qualitative, but rather quantitiative.
I contend that there is no such thing as a top-down heirarchy, but rather a bottom-up foundation from which everything is ultimately based.
Originally Posted by Chesterton
As soon as you guys prove a "unified theory of everything", get back to me.
Oh, we found that out years ago. We just don't tell anyone. Look what happened when we told people they were related to Chimps!
__________________
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone.
- Charles Darwin
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
What can be asserted without reason, can be denied without reason.
- Anon
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Then explain this , see where t is? In the denominator, and since we cannot divide by zero, then we have a major problem then, right?
Err, that's not a fraction, that's a derivative. What do you know about differential calculus?
Originally Posted by 98cwitr
D=V/T for velocity right? If you set T equal to zero, then you are dividing by zero...so what happens when you stop time? What happens when you divide by zero?
You can't divide by zero. But again, you're misusing the equations. You can't just set T equal to 0, anymore than you can set it to an imaginary number.
Originally Posted by 98cwitr
I understand that, I'm not trying to say there are not velocity nor momentum, I'm saying that it becomes an abstract/static value and thus uncertainty is gone (that is your agrument, right? absolute uncertainty)
And I'm saying it's not. The uncertainty doesn't just go, and velocity and momentum don't become static, when time is stopped.
Originally Posted by 98cwitr
See sig
I saw it, but I'm not sure what you want me to do with it . How do the coincidences in your life 'add up' to an overarching deity? Are they not just coincidences?
Originally Posted by 98cwitr
Commented, this is fun
Question: do you know how to use quotes? It'd make things easier for both of us.
__________________
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone.
- Charles Darwin
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
What can be asserted without reason, can be denied without reason.
- Anon
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Actually, it's not. The uncertainty doesn't exist because of time.
Then, according to your orginal equation, the change in momentum x the change in position, must be greater than the constant, right? I am reading it wrong? With momentum you have to consider time, therefore time is a part of the uncertainty.
I think you're stretching the analogy somewhat.
As I said previously, I wasn't going to take you literally, but metaphorically...still lets take physical sense here.
Err, that's not a fraction, that's a derivative. What do you know about differential calculus?
okay, I see that now. It's the change in time, right? Still p=mv involves velocity, which definitely includes time.
You can't divide by zero. But again, you're misusing the equations. You can't just set T equal to 0, anymore than you can set it to an imaginary number.
Why can't we? What stops us? Why can't we use i? I'm being a bit rhetorical with this, but I still ask the question to take this conv. in a direction I want you to see.
And I'm saying it's not. The uncertainty doesn't just go, and velocity and momentum don't become static, when time is stopped.
When time is stopped, the equation becomes unworkable. That's kinda my point.
I saw it, but I'm not sure what you want me to do with it . How do the coincidences in your life 'add up' to an overarching deity? Are they not just coincidences?
How are you with summations and probabilities?
Question: do you know how to use quotes? It'd make things easier for both of us.
I'll use quotes for you then...they just make page load time a lot worse for viewers.
oh btw, you'll like this article
Is time an illusion?
One group of physicists has recently found a way to do quantum physics without invoking time. If correct, the approach suggests that time really is an illusion, and that we may need to rethink how the universe at large works.
Another aspect of the universe that Everett's formulation can help to understand is time direction. Time has two distinct attributes. Cyclic time is like a pendulum. It's reversible, related to Planck's constant, and is obvious from Schrödinger's equations. But, time also has a direction to it, and that's not obvious from Schrödinger or Heisenberg at all. In fact, many physicists whose student days predate Everett still consider the arrow of time to be a flaw of our understanding. It is, however, self-evident in the Everett formulation - quantum worlds abruptly appear, then gradually fade from existence, a clearly time direction dependent phenomenon analogous to the appearance and spread of ripples on a pond after a point disturbance. Things do happen to individual quanta in QM.
As of now, our understanding of quantum mechanics does not compute with time stops...period
__________________ Because I sat down...looked over all the coincidences of my life and realized that while each one of those things in itself was coincidence, when added up, the summation of my coincidences logically points to someone that I can't see or hear being in control.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Last edited by 98cwitr; 31st July 2009 at 06:16 PM.
No, it's entirely possible. But so too is the existence of a chocolate teapot orbiting Mars, and a deity made entirely of pasta.
Do you really find equal validity in the ideas of orbiting teapots and the FSM, and the almost unanimous idea of humanity in a Supreme Being, or Great Spirit, or Prime Mover, or God? I'm prepared to answer you whether you say "yes" or "no", so just give me your honest answer.
I contend that there is no such thing as a top-down heirarchy, but rather a bottom-up foundation from which everything is ultimately based.
If you believe that, then you should have an idea of what the bottom is. If a man wants to sell me something (including an idea), but can't tell me what it is, I'm going to walk away. I point you to the idea of a God. What do you point me to?
Of course you've already given the answer above: "we don't know".
Oh, we found that out years ago. We just don't tell anyone. Look what happened when we told people they were related to Chimps!
Do you really find equal validity in the ideas of orbiting teapots and the FSM, and the almost unanimous idea of humanity in a Supreme Being, or Great Spirit, or Prime Mover, or God? I'm prepared to answer you whether you say "yes" or "no", so just give me your honest answer.
My honest answer is a hesitant yes. I acknowledge the difference between 'actual' deities and parodies, but, equally, these differences have no bearing on their veracity; just because Lord Krishna has genuine believers doesn't make him any more probably than the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who is a parody of genuine religion.
Originally Posted by Chesterton
If you believe that, then you should have an idea of what the bottom is. If a man wants to sell me something (including an idea), but can't tell me what it is, I'm going to walk away. I point you to the idea of a God. What do you point me to?
Of course you've already given the answer above: "we don't know".
Exactly: I point you to nothing. I'm just espousing my own ideas. I don't claim to have all the answers, not least because we can't know all the answers with absolute certainty. Ah, epistemology, how I loathe thee.
And pointing to God isn't, I think, any better or worse than saying "I don't know". You could define God to be that which is at the bottom or top, but that does little more than give a name to the unknown.
__________________
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone.
- Charles Darwin
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
What can be asserted without reason, can be denied without reason.
- Anon
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Then, according to your orginal equation, the change in momentum x the change in position, must be greater than the constant, right? I am reading it wrong?
Yes: Δx refers to the uncertainty in x, not the change in x. The bigger Δx, the less accurately I know the value of x.
Think of it as "I've managed to narrow x to between this value and that value, and the range of values it could be is Δx".
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle relates, among other things, the uncertainty with which we know x and px.
Originally Posted by 98cwitr
okay, I see that now. It's the change in time, right? Still p=mv involves velocity, which definitely includes time.
Indeed, and if time didn't exist, velocity and momentum wouldn't exist.
You can only differentiate with respect to something if you know what that something is. If time doesn't exist, then nothing is dependant on it, and it becomes pointless to differentiate with respect to it. Mathematically, you can still do it, but there's no point.
Originally Posted by 98cwitr
Why can't we? What stops us? Why can't we use i? I'm being a bit rhetorical with this, but I still ask the question to take this conv. in a direction I want you to see.
You can't divide by zero because division only works on non-zero complex numbers.
You can't set T equal to zero because the definitions of D, T, and V (which I presume to mean distance, duration, and average velocity) require that T be non-zero: the equation relates how far you travelled, how long it took you to travel, and the average speed with which you travelled. The reason the equations break down when you make one of these equal to zero is that one or two of the other variables can take on any value. For instance, if D = 0 and/or V = 0, then T can equal any positive value: if we're not moving, then our distance will remain zero no matter how much time elapses.
You can't set T equal to i because T is a real number, not an imaginary number. You can't set it equal to i any more than you can set it equal to cheese.
Originally Posted by 98cwitr
When time is stopped, the equation becomes unworkable. That's kinda my point.
And my point is that time isn't something that stops, any more than space is something which stops.
Originally Posted by 98cwitr
How are you with summations and probabilities?
I'm also good with common statistical fallacies and the working of the human mind. Try me .
Originally Posted by 98cwitr
I'll use quotes for you then...they just make page load time a lot worse for viewers.
Not all theories and interpretations thereof are compatible. Some scientists believe time exists, some believe it is an illusion, and others believe even more wacky things. Since there is by no means a consensus on this issue (unlike, say, quantum mechanics or common descent), I wouldn't take any one scientist's words as the gospel truth.
__________________
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone.
- Charles Darwin
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
What can be asserted without reason, can be denied without reason.
- Anon
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Yes: Δx refers to the uncertainty in x, not the change in x. The bigger Δx, the less accurately I know the value of x.
Think of it as "I've managed to narrow x to between this value and that value, and the range of values it could be is Δx".
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle relates, among other things, the uncertainty with which we know x and px.
Indeed, and if time didn't exist, velocity and momentum wouldn't exist.
You can only differentiate with respect to something if you know what that something is. If time doesn't exist, then nothing is dependant on it, and it becomes pointless to differentiate with respect to it. Mathematically, you can still do it, but there's no point.
You can't divide by zero because division only works on non-zero complex numbers.
You can't set T equal to zero because the definitions of D, T, and V (which I presume to mean distance, duration, and average velocity) require that T be non-zero: the equation relates how far you travelled, how long it took you to travel, and the average speed with which you travelled. The reason the equations break down when you make one of these equal to zero is that one or two of the other variables can take on any value. For instance, if D = 0 and/or V = 0, then T can equal any positive value: if we're not moving, then our distance will remain zero no matter how much time elapses.
You can't set T equal to i because T is a real number, not an imaginary number. You can't set it equal to i any more than you can set it equal to cheese.
And my point is that time isn't something that stops, any more than space is something which stops.
I'm also good with common statistical fallacies and the working of the human mind. Try me .
Not all theories and interpretations thereof are compatible. Some scientists believe time exists, some believe it is an illusion, and others believe even more wacky things. Since there is by no means a consensus on this issue (unlike, say, quantum mechanics or common descent), I wouldn't take any one scientist's words as the gospel truth.
WHY SO MUCH ADO OVER IRRELEVANT TRIVIALITIES?
The "what", "why" and "how" are all subsumed in the WHO! Straining at gnats and swallowing camels is a poor diet indeed.
ephraim
__________________
Lo, i have gathered up all of my thoughts and cannot recall anything good before Thee . . .
except the fact that i know no other God than Thee. --Saint Ephraim the Syrian LORD JESUS CHRIST, HUMBLE LAMB OF GOD, have mercy on me, an arrogant sinner!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, see where t is? In the denominator, and since we cannot divide by zero, then we have a major problem then, right? D=V/T for velocity right? If you set T equal to zero, then you are dividing by zero...so what happens when you stop time? What happens when you divide by zero? Since, we as humans cannot stop time, quantum physics is appicable, but for God, I believe is not subjected to Laws involving time
.
Linear Mode
