Quantum Mechanics and the Incompetence of Atheism.

[Holy Roller]

The fundament of quantum mechanics is uncertainty. That is, the more the apparatus measures position, the less the apparatus can be certain of momentum--hence, uncertainty.
This necessarily means that there will be factors related to physical reality that cannot be determined by the empirical observation. In fact, Heisenberg's uncertainty relation all but guarantees the lid on observing quantum phenomena be closed, and that no experimental apparatus deviseable by man can ever open it.

There will be the interesting implications of uncertainty, of course, such as the entanglement of photons, and quantum tunneling. Like the actions of the Holy Spirit Himself, only the effects of quantum phenomena can be observed.

This places the Atheist ('A' capitalized out of respect for the Atheist religion) in a difficult bind; a bind he cannot get out of. It necessarily means he has to admit that there is at least one characteristic of physical reality (in this instance, quantum mechanics) that he can only explain away by means of faith--faith in the unobservable, ethereal mechanics of uncertainty. Faith that this uncertainty will bring about a certain, cause-and-effect outcome to phenomena in physical reality.

Hmmm. Where else do we see this Faith?...

 

[eri]

In fact, Heisenberg's uncertainty relation all but guarantees the lid on observing quantum phenomena be closed, and that no experimental apparatus deviseable by man can ever open it.

I see you didn't get as far as the 'S' in your 'Quantum Physics for Dummies' book. Schroedingers Thought Experiment clearly showed that nothing is ever certain UNTIL it is observed. The act of observation collapses the wavefunction and forces the particle to pick a state.

 

[The Nihilist]

The fundament of quantum mechanics is uncertainty. That is, the more the apparatus measures position, the less the apparatus can be certain of momentum--hence, uncertainty.
This necessarily means that there will be factors related to physical reality that cannot be determined by the empirical observation. In fact, Heisenberg's uncertainty relation all but guarantees the lid on observing quantum phenomena be closed, and that no experimental apparatus deviseable by man can ever open it.

There will be the interesting implications of uncertainty, of course, such as the entanglement of photons, and quantum tunneling. Like the actions of the Holy Spirit Himself, only the effects of quantum phenomena can be observed.

This places the Atheist ('A' capitalized out of respect for the Atheist religion) in a difficult bind; a bind he cannot get out of. It necessarily means he has to admit that there is at least one characteristic of physical reality (in this instance, quantum mechanics) that he can only explain away by means of faith--faith in the unobservable, ethereal mechanics of uncertainty. Faith that this uncertainty will bring about a certain, cause-and-effect outcome to phenomena in physical reality.

Hmmm. Where else do we see this Faith?...

Don't let the facts stand in your way there, buddy.

Atheist hunter? Come get some.

 

[Holy Roller]

I see you didn't get as far as the 'S' in your 'Quantum Physics for Dummies' book. Schroedingers Thought Experiment clearly showed that nothing is ever certain UNTIL it is observed. The act of observation collapses the wavefunction and forces the particle to pick a state.

Lol, Shrodinger's Cat isn't really a thought experiment--it's more like a slightly schitzophrenic metaphor that the physicist uses that to me should be an inspiration for idiots everywhere trying to persue a PhD.
I mean who would think of using deadly toxins and dead cats in a thought experiment? I'm not an animal-lover of the militant kind, but I have enough sense to know that it takes one sick puppy (or cat, as the case may be) to come up with such a demented thought experiment.

If guys like Erwin Shrodinger (or even Jack Kemp) can get a PhD, then anyone can. They are an inspiration to demented people and simpletons everywhere.

 

[Holy Roller]

Don't let the facts stand in your way there, buddy.

Atheist hunter? Come get some.

Typical rubber-stamp replying.
The most simple example of superposition would be the action of photon(s) as it leaves an aperture. Mass bends the photon (think diffraction), and the photon is bound to strike the phosphor screen that lies just ahead. Where will the light fall? Only G-d knows. We will eventually know, after the photon finishes its transit from the aperture to the phosphor screen (we can tell because the scintillating phosphor spontaneously emits its photon). But in the meantime (a very short meantime. Like the time it takes the light to go from aperture to phosphor screen kind of meantime.), only G-d knows the direction and magnitude of the photon.

We know that a single photon may leave the aperture, and head toward the screen. We likewise know that that photon will eventually strike the screen. Where on that screen the photon strikes only G-d knows for certain, and hence the dilemma the Atheist has: there's no way he can know for sure where on the phosphor screen the photon will fall. He can get a rough, statistical approximation (sum over histories), but unlike the mind of G-d, he will always have to guess.

Because there is always guessing involved, direct observation can never take place, and the experiment is always open to competing interpretations. Because it can never be observed in practice, the Atheist has to go by faith that the photon will meet its end on the phosphor screen.

If he has to go by faith that the photon will reach the screen even though there is no direct way for him to observe the photon transiting thus, and has no way to interpret what happens from aperture to phosphor screen, what is prohibiting him from having the necessary faith in other matters?

 

[Blayz]

If he has to go by faith that the photon will reach the screen even though there is no direct way for him to observe the photon transiting thus, and has no way to interpret what happens from aperture to phosphor screen, what is prohibiting him from having the necessary faith in other matters?

The answer is

1) We know that a single photon may leave the aperture, and head toward the screen.
2) We likewise know that that photon will eventually strike the screen.
3) He can get a rough, statistical approximation (sum over histories)

The uncertainty has determinable bounds, it is testable, observable and quantifiable.

Regardless of which flavour of the Xian God it is you worship, none of those apply. Your triple headed chimera godlet is just a fairytale.

 

[Blackrend]

This places the Atheist ('A' capitalized out of respect for the Atheist religion) in a difficult bind; a bind he cannot get out of. It necessarily means he has to admit that there is at least one characteristic of physical reality (in this instance, quantum mechanics) that he can only explain away by means of faith--faith in the unobservable, ethereal mechanics of uncertainty. Faith that this uncertainty will bring about a certain, cause-and-effect outcome to phenomena in physical reality.

Hmmm. Where else do we see this Faith?...

I'm not in any place to respond to the first part of your post, since I know nothing about quantum mechanics. I really don't want to make a fool out of myself, as it is said that whoever claims to fully understand quantum theory does not understand quantum theory.

Firstly, Atheism is not a religion. Sorry, but it's not. It involves no gods, no doctrine, no scripture, and no belief in a higher power. Therefore it is not a religion.

Rather than refer to quantum mechanics, I'm going to stray into territory that I better comprehend: Evolution. This "leap of Faith" that you say we take in regards to something we can't observe is not "Faith" in the Theist sense. While I don't have faith in any specific deity, I have 'faith' in the Scientific Method. I have 'faith' that we will never find trilobite fossils with the skeleton of a hominid, or the remains of a poodle with those of a dimetrodon. I have 'faith' that we will never find a bird with nipples, or a mammal with the genes for making feathers. And because evolution is such an accurate means of explaining the diversity of life, it has never steered us wrong, even though we have never directly observed it on the level of a reptile becoming a mammal.

Indeed, we DO have 'faith' that we should never find fossils out of order, or that we will never find bird genes mixed with mammal genes, because this is what evolution has shown us. The only faith Atheists have is "this is what we should expect to find, as this is what the evidence has shown us". It is not BLIND faith in the religious sense that you cannot see the evidence for what you accept as truth.

So while yes, Atheists do have faith, it's not faith in the way that you would define the word.

 

[plindboe]

Indeed, we DO have 'faith' that we should never find fossils out of order, or that we will never find bird genes mixed with mammal genes, because this is what evolution has shown us. The only faith Atheists have is "this is what we should expect to find, as this is what the evidence has shown us". It is not BLIND faith in the religious sense that you cannot see the evidence for what you accept as truth.

So while yes, Atheists do have faith, it's not faith in the way that you would define the word.

I think faith would be the wrong word to use. I'd call it evidence based belief that we'll never find a precambrian rabbit skull or a mammal with feathers.

 

[eri]

Lol, Shrodinger's Cat isn't really a thought experiment--it's more like a slightly schitzophrenic metaphor that the physicist uses that to me should be an inspiration for idiots everywhere trying to persue a PhD.
I mean who would think of using deadly toxins and dead cats in a thought experiment? I'm not an animal-lover of the militant kind, but I have enough sense to know that it takes one sick puppy (or cat, as the case may be) to come up with such a demented thought experiment.

If guys like Erwin Shrodinger (or even Jack Kemp) can get a PhD, then anyone can. They are an inspiration to demented people and simpletons everywhere.

So, your argument against indeterminacy is ... imaginary cruelty to animals?

Have fun getting that PhD in physics. I can honestly say the last 9 years haven't been all that much fun, but hopefully I've only got about 2 left. But hey, it's easy, right?

 

[Izaach]

Someone is mistaking inductive reasoning with faith.

 

[Washington]

The fundament of quantum mechanics is uncertainty. That is, the more the apparatus measures position, the less the apparatus can be certain of momentum--hence, uncertainty.
This necessarily means that there will be factors related to physical reality that cannot be determined by the empirical observation. In fact, Heisenberg's uncertainty relation all but guarantees the lid on observing quantum phenomena be closed, and that no experimental apparatus deviseable by man can ever open it.

There will be the interesting implications of uncertainty, of course, such as the entanglement of photons, and quantum tunneling. Like the actions of the Holy Spirit Himself, only the effects of quantum phenomena can be observed.

This places the Atheist ('A' capitalized out of respect for the Atheist religion) in a difficult bind; a bind he cannot get out of. It necessarily means he has to admit that there is at least one characteristic of physical reality (in this instance, quantum mechanics) that he can only explain away by means of faith--faith in the unobservable, ethereal mechanics of uncertainty. Faith that this uncertainty will bring about a certain, cause-and-effect outcome to phenomena in physical reality.

Whoever coined the phrase, "A little learning is a dangerous thing" obviously had people like you in mind. Please avail yourself of a good introductory book on quantum physics, and then get a decent book on critical thinking. I know this may sound like a slam, but it isn't. You have a very distorted idea of the subject---and are simply parroting terms from QM without understanding them---and consequently are embarrassing yourself . . . at least in the eyes of others here.

 

[Cabal]

The fundament of quantum mechanics is uncertainty. That is, the more the apparatus measures position, the less the apparatus can be certain of momentum--hence, uncertainty.
This necessarily means that there will be factors related to physical reality that cannot be determined by the empirical observation. In fact, Heisenberg's uncertainty relation all but guarantees the lid on observing quantum phenomena be closed, and that no experimental apparatus deviseable by man can ever open it.

Er, nope, it states that certain quantities can't be known simultaneously to an infinitely arbitrary degree of accuracy. Quantities are still knowable. Each quantity has a set of possible values (eigenvalues) of which the most likely one is the expectation values. All of these values are calculable. There is a relation called the commutation relation that also allows one to work out whether or not two values are simultaneously knowable, and most simple physical systems used for explaining the principles of quantum mechanics can be described fully by 3 commutative measurement operations.

There will be the interesting implications of uncertainty, of course, such as the entanglement of photons, and quantum tunneling. Like the actions of the Holy Spirit Himself, only the effects of quantum phenomena can be observed.

Nope, we actually have a pretty good idea of how these things work. Entanglement is being used for quantum teleportation, and tunnelling is used in ultra-precise microscopy and allows us to fully explain alpha-decay.

Also, they don't really have that much to do with the uncertainty relation.

This places the Atheist ('A' capitalized out of respect for the Atheist religion) in a difficult bind; a bind he cannot get out of. It necessarily means he has to admit that there is at least one characteristic of physical reality (in this instance, quantum mechanics) that he can only explain away by means of faith--faith in the unobservable, ethereal mechanics of uncertainty. Faith that this uncertainty will bring about a certain, cause-and-effect outcome to phenomena in physical reality.

An uncertainty that is quantifiable and only defined in relation to another quantity...?

And if the outcome is causal, how bad!

Hmmm. Where else do we see this Faith?...

So....because QM requires faith you should believe in God?

Simply put, no. Long logic jump is loooooong

 

[Cabal]

Lol, Shrodinger's Cat isn't really a thought experiment--it's more like a slightly schitzophrenic metaphor that the physicist uses that to me should be an inspiration for idiots everywhere trying to persue a PhD.
I mean who would think of using deadly toxins and dead cats in a thought experiment? I'm not an animal-lover of the militant kind, but I have enough sense to know that it takes one sick puppy (or cat, as the case may be) to come up with such a demented thought experiment.

If guys like Erwin Shrodinger (or even Jack Kemp) can get a PhD, then anyone can. They are an inspiration to demented people and simpletons everywhere.

No, it is a thought experiment. It illustrates using a powerful image of death the philosophical implications of QM (at least they as they were perceived at the time). It is possible under QM for an object to be in a superposition of states. In the cat's case, as its fate is linked to a quantum mechanical radioactive decay, until the sealed box is opened it is supposed to be in a superposition state of dead and alive. It's to show how bizarre QM is compared to how we perceive our macroscopic reality, and to pose the question of on what scale QM becomes relevant or irrelevant.

And I dare you to try and get a physics Ph.D. I've only just got a bachelors degree and it nearly killed me. If you continue to throw around words like "idiot", "demented" and "simpleton", all the while claiming to understand QM while displaying a woeful lack of knowledge of it, then I will report you (assuming you haven't been already, of course....)

 

[Holy Roller]

The answer is

Regardless of which flavour of the Xian God it is you worship, none of those apply. Your triple headed chimera godlet is just a fairytale.

I still don't understand this peculiar cognitive impetus. I've seen this psychic oddity while at the richarddawkins forum all the time...

As a general rule, these kinds of posts follow a usual and predictable route. Usually something like, "Holy Roller, I admit I know nothing about quantum mechanics even though I just posted a thread that accuses Christians of a science-based phobia, but the god you worship is a Xian god that paints a broad brush of 'goddidit' but amounts to little more than a chimera godlet of the fairytale kind. You see, in the real world, quantum mechanics can be explained; momentum and position can be measured despite the overwhelming matematical and empirical evidence to the contrary, blah-blah-blah... We don't need your G-d to explain to explain what we already know, blah-blah-blah..."

What compels these Atheists to engage in such talk?

 

[Holy Roller]

I'm not in any place to respond to the first part of your post, since I know nothing about quantum mechanics. I really don't want to make a fool out of myself, as it is said that whoever claims to fully understand quantum theory does not understand quantum theory.

Then why do Atheists feel inspired to my thread, expecting their contribution to mean something? Thanks for the candor, btw.

Firstly, Atheism is not a religion. Sorry, but it's not. It involves no gods, no doctrine, no scripture, and no belief in a higher power. Therefore it is not a religion.

A religion is simply a faith in the untestable. Since Atheists have faith that there's no G-d, they have faith in the untestable, thus religious.

Rather than refer to quantum mechanics, I'm going to stray into territory that I better comprehend: Evolution. This "leap of Faith" that you say we take in regards to something we can't observe is not "Faith" in the Theist sense. While I don't have faith in any specific deity, I have 'faith' in the Scientific Method. I have 'faith' that we will never find trilobite fossils with the skeleton of a hominid, or the remains of a poodle with those of a dimetrodon. I have 'faith' that we will never find a bird with nipples, or a mammal with the genes for making feathers. And because evolution is such an accurate means of explaining the diversity of life, it has never steered us wrong, even though we have never directly observed it on the level of a reptile becoming a mammal.

But evolution theory can be tested, and proven. What happens when the substitution mutation is carried on to offspring? Whether the mutation is beneficial, neutral or harmful to the offspring, there is still the mutation, hence, evolution of the species.
For this reason, you cannot compare evolution theory to quantum mechanics in reconciling your faith in Atheism.

Indeed, we DO have 'faith' that we should never find fossils out of order, or that we will never find bird genes mixed with mammal genes, because this is what evolution has shown us. The only faith Atheists have is "this is what we should expect to find, as this is what the evidence has shown us". It is not BLIND faith in the religious sense that you cannot see the evidence for what you accept as truth.

So while yes, Atheists do have faith, it's not faith in the way that you would define the word.

You aren't describing faith; this describes a set of facts that can be extrapolated out of the available evidence that was bourne out of hypothesis. Since the hypothesis stated the species evolved out of fitness to an environment, and since there was the evidence that supports the hypothesis (fossil record), then it turns into a tacit matter-of-fact that there will be order in the fossil record.
How this can be considered faith in any context is beyond my considerable comprehension.

 

[Holy Roller]

I think faith would be the wrong word to use. I'd call it evidence based belief that we'll never find a precambrian rabbit skull or a mammal with feathers.

Correct.

 

[Holy Roller]

So, your argument against indeterminacy is ... imaginary cruelty to animals?

Have fun getting that PhD in physics. I can honestly say the last 9 years haven't been all that much fun, but hopefully I've only got about 2 left. But hey, it's easy, right?

Penrose said Physicists are born; not made.
If it's not fun now, then perhaps it was never meant to be.

With the study of physics comes the belief in the unfathomable and ineffable. Most call this splendor, G-d. Einstein called it G-d. Newton called this G-d. Yet here you sit, blissfully ignorant of the awesomeness of G-d. For this reason, you separate yourself from the main body of physicists, and tread the classroom halls a lone wolf.

 

[Holy Roller]

Whoever coined the phrase, "A little learning is a dangerous thing" obviously had people like you in mind. Please avail yourself of a good introductory book on quantum physics, and then get a decent book on critical thinking. I know this may sound like a slam, but it isn't. You have a very distorted idea of the subject---and are simply parroting terms from QM without understanding them---and consequently are embarrassing yourself . . . at least in the eyes of others here.

But this is a slam, and shows the true and profound extent of your level of cluelessness. Please avoid the temptation of contributing further to this thread. Thank you in advance.

 

[Holy Roller]

No, it is a thought experiment. It illustrates using a powerful image of death the philosophical implications of QM (at least they as they were perceived at the time). It is possible under QM for an object to be in a superposition of states. In the cat's case, as its fate is linked to a quantum mechanical radioactive decay, until the sealed box is opened it is supposed to be in a superposition state of dead and alive. It's to show how bizarre QM is compared to how we perceive our macroscopic reality, and to pose the question of on what scale QM becomes relevant or irrelevant.

I'll agree with most of this. But try to get an Atheist to agree to it! They, for some reason or another, don't believe in the 'bizarreness' of quantum mechanics; but, rather, some kind of determinable, interpretable explination of quantum mechanics.

And I dare you to try and get a physics Ph.D. I've only just got a bachelors degree and it nearly killed me. If you continue to throw around words like "idiot", "demented" and "simpleton", all the while claiming to understand QM while displaying a woeful lack of knowledge of it, then I will report you (assuming you haven't been already, of course....)

Dude. Thought-experiments involving dead animals is demented! Report me until your computer's 'enter' button breaks off; I don't care. Insolong as there are no violations of the rules, your complaint will fall on deaf ears.

What's of interest is that I have had three Atheists already violate the rules in this thread by being rude to me. Yet there was no objection on your part. Why?

 

[Holy Roller]

Er, nope, it states that certain quantities can't be known simultaneously to an infinitely arbitrary degree of accuracy. Quantities are still knowable.

This is the kind of treatment I was recieving at the richarddawkins forum right before I was banned from there. Here the person I'm replying to contradicts himself. He will not explain his contradiction later.

Here Cabal says in the first sentence that quantities can't be known, then in the second sentence he says "quantities are still knowable." Cabal, care to explain your contradiction?