Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
gradyll said:
Cognitive dissonance? I understand.
Please present your data for scrutiny.
How did you arrive at that conclusion? Perhaps it may have been intelligent.. but maybe only as intelligent as a toaster oven.
Please link to where I made such a statement.
I am only failing in my efforts to get you to make a valid point. The burden of evidence is still on you.
n.
Where did I state that the big bang was uncaused? Are you confusing me with someone else?
I did not say *a* toaster oven; it was only used as a comparative reference.
Hence my request for elucidation.
Why would I be able to use your religion against you?
That is what you have failed to establish. And if agents can be uncaused, why not other things?
I remember how it was pointed out that it did not support your claims.
OK. Your point? Remember, a) I never said causality isn't real, only that it isn't universal, and b) we're talking about whether the universe must have had a cause, whether something with a start must have had a starter. What happens most of the time to us humans is by no means proof of what must happen everywhere to everything.
I agree. I never said causality doesn't exist, only that it doesn't apply to everything - and those things it doesn't always apply to are quantum phenomena, the behaviour of tiny particles. I took great pains to make this point clear.
Err... no. This discussion is about the fundamental nature of the universe, the universality of the 'law' of cause and effect. Your assertion, don't forget, was that everything obeys cause and effect, that everything with a start had a starter, everything with a beginning had a cause. My point is that, in fact, the 'law' of cause and effect is not universal. It is an observation that holds true in the macroscopic world (a distinction you seem to have missed in your tangent on the justice system).
Those are not hypercubes, any more than this is a cube:
Your link cited a source, which tells us that: "It's impossible to predict when a specific atom is going to decay, but you can predict the number of atoms that will decay in a certain time period."
Sorry, but again, that's not the cause of quantum tunnelling. Quantum tunnelling is when a particle spontaneously pops out of a potential well which, conventionally, it shouldn't be able to get out of without sufficient energy. The reason it can do this is, indeed, because it was a wavefunction, which means its position in space isn't concrete, as common sense dictates, but rather 'blurred' out and around the potential well. Thus, there is a finite probability that it will exist outside the well. Again, this is a probability: that's the most we can say about it. Whether it actually is or not, is random. The wavefunction lets a spontaneous event occur, but it doesn't actually cause the tunnelling event itself.
Again, sorry, but typing "cause of quantum tunnelling" into Google won't give you the cause of quantum tunnelling. As I explained above, the phenomena you describe, while fascinating in their own right, don't cause an instance of radioactive decay or tunnelling; they're simply the conditions that let it happen.
If your definition of 'common sense' is the scientific method, then fine. But the Scientific Method necessarily concludes the truth of quantum mechanics, general relativity, evolution, etc.
OK. Your point? Remember, a) I never said causality isn't real, only that it isn't universal, and b) we're talking about whether the universe must have had a cause, whether something with a start must have had a starter. What happens most of the time to us humans is by no means proof of what must happen everywhere to everything.
I agree. I never said causality doesn't exist, only that it doesn't apply to everything - and those things it doesn't always apply to are quantum phenomena, the behaviour of tiny particles. I took great pains to make this point clear.
Err... no. This discussion is about the fundamental nature of the universe, the universality of the 'law' of cause and effect. Your assertion, don't forget, was that everything obeys cause and effect, that everything with a start had a starter, everything with a beginning had a cause. My point is that, in fact, the 'law' of cause and effect is not universal. It is an observation that holds true in the macroscopic world (a distinction you seem to have missed in your tangent on the justice system).
QM is practical for everyday use - all modern electronics wouldn't work without it. You may not need to know how it works, but the only reason we can talk across continents in real-time is because it works.
Those are not hypercubes, any more than this is a cube:
It's a 2D picture that our brain interprets as a 3D cube. Those pictures you see are not a genuine 4D hypercube - by definition, the hypercube exists in four dimensions, and your computer monitor is a 2D plane. Instead, what you see is the projection of a rotating hypercube onto a 2D plane. The result is a weird shape that looks like its arms are moving about, its shape distorting and changing - but this isn't the case. In a real hypercube, the object is static and unchanging.
So to reiterate my point: you can't imagine a 4D hypercube. We can make images that are projections of a hypercube, but don't confuse the projection with the real thing. Likewise, just because quantum mechanics is hard to understand, doesn't mean it isn't true. That's what evidence is for.
Your link cited a source, which tells us that: "It's impossible to predict when a specific atom is going to decay, but you can predict the number of atoms that will decay in a certain time period."
Moreover, your source is painting an overly simplistic image. The nucleons (protons and neutrons) of tritum are held together by the Strong Nuclear Force. In tritum, there are too many neutrons in the nucleus, making it more likely that a neutron will decay.
But when will it decay? We don't know. Why? Because it's spontaneous. You can raise the probability, certainly, but the actual event is a truly spontaneous event. There is no cause inasmuch as there is no event that determines exactly when it will occur. Quantum mechanics tells us the conditions that raise or lower a given particle's odds of decaying, but that's it.
What you're describing isn't the cause of radioactive decay, sorry.
Sorry, but again, that's not the cause of quantum tunnelling. Quantum tunnelling is when a particle spontaneously pops out of a potential well which, conventionally, it shouldn't be able to get out of without sufficient energy. The reason it can do this is, indeed, because it was a wavefunction, which means its position in space isn't concrete, as common sense dictates, but rather 'blurred' out and around the potential well. Thus, there is a finite probability that it will exist outside the well. Again, this is a probability: that's the most we can say about it. Whether it actually is or not, is random. The wavefunction lets a spontaneous event occur, but it doesn't actually cause the tunnelling event itself.
Again, sorry, but typing "cause of quantum tunnelling" into Google won't give you the cause of quantum tunnelling. As I explained above, the phenomena you describe, while fascinating in their own right, don't cause an instance of radioactive decay or tunnelling; they're simply the conditions that let it happen.
Think about the lottery. The social framework of ticket-buying and televised entertainment are what allow a random event to occur, but the act of buying tickets doesn't cause the random event to occur. When those balls drop and the random number is generated, that is purely a result of the mechanics of the balls being rotated and dropped. The event couldn't happen without the national pass-time of the lottery, but that doesn't mean the event is somehow involved the random event itself (and yes, I know the random generation of lottery numbers isn't truly random, as there are well-understood forces at work when the balls are tumbling and dropping, but my point stands: any true cause of the number generation that disproves it as random are unrelated to the background events which merely let it happen).
If your definition of 'common sense' is the scientific method, then fine. But the Scientific Method necessarily concludes the truth of quantum mechanics, general relativity, evolution, etc.
