Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism

[Kylie]

Maybe you're right. Maybe it's the rest of the world that's all wrong.

You are not making sense. You cut and pasted from the appeal to authority article from wikipedia, prefacing it with the statement "Pot, Kettle, Black,: as though you were trying to suggest that I was guilty of the same logical fallacy. You have not demonstrated where I have done this.

 

[HARK!]

You are not making sense. You cut and pasted from the appeal to authority article from wikipedia, prefacing it with the statement "Pot, Kettle, Black,: as though you were trying to suggest that I was guilty of the same logical fallacy. You have not demonstrated where I have done this..

I'm sorry. I presumed that you were aware to what you wrote; and that you were paying attention to our conversation.

Given that channel is mostly religious apologetics videos, I think it's safe to say that the people making these videos do not have the necessary scientific qualifications to be a valid authority on QM.

Use in science
Scientific knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment rather than argued through authority[14][15][16] as authority has no place in science.[15][17][18] Carl Sagan wrote of arguments from authority:

 

[Kylie]

I'm sorry. I presumed that you were aware to what you wrote; and that you were paying attention to our conversation.

So what is your point?

Are you suggesting that me saying, "A religious apologetics YouTube channel isn't an authority on science," is an appeal to authority fallacy?

How do you figure that?

Like I said, I do not think you actually understand what logical fallacies are.

 

[HARK!]

So what is your point?

Are you suggesting that me saying, "A religious apologetics YouTube channel isn't an authority on science," is an appeal to authority fallacy?

How do you figure that?

Maybe this source will explain it in a way that you can more easily comprehend:

Appeal to Authority Definition
In an appeal to authority, also known as an argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), it is argued that something is true, because someone of authority (like an expert) says it is true.

The structure of the fallacy looks like this:

1. Smith says X is true
2. Smith is an expert
3. So X must be true

ex. The queen says the earth is flat, the queen knows all, so the Earth must be flat.

In other words, someone claims they are right, because an expert says so. And because the expert says so, it must be true. This is defective induction because no expert is perfect. An expert is never 100% right, all the time.

There is nothing wrong with arguing that what an expert says is true. It however becomes fallacious when arguing that the expert is exempt from criticism & incapable of making mistakes.

Appealing to authority is frequent in common discourse where providing complete evidence is rarely possible, and in many cases is a weak form of evidence rather than a logical fallacy.

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion (Latin: Ignoratio elenchi), where one argues an irrelevant point to try to prove the point of an issue. When arguing, it is always best to address an issue as directly as possible, rather than rely on or quote an expert.

Appeal To Authority Breakdown

Like I said, I do not think you actually understand what logical fallacies are.

Like I said, pot meet kettle.

 

[Kylie]

Maybe this source will explain it in a way that you can more easily comprehend:

Appeal to Authority Definition
In an appeal to authority, also known as an argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), it is argued that something is true, because someone of authority (like an expert) says it is true.

The structure of the fallacy looks like this:

1. 
   
   
   • Smith says X is true
   • Smith is an expert
   • So X must be true

ex. The queen says the earth is flat, the queen knows all, so the Earth must be flat.

In other words, someone claims they are right, because an expert says so. And because the expert says so, it must be true. This is defective induction because no expert is perfect. An expert is never 100% right, all the time.

There is nothing wrong with arguing that what an expert says is true. It however becomes fallacious when arguing that the expert is exempt from criticism & incapable of making mistakes.

Appealing to authority is frequent in common discourse where providing complete evidence is rarely possible, and in many cases is a weak form of evidence rather than a logical fallacy.

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion (Latin: Ignoratio elenchi), where one argues an irrelevant point to try to prove the point of an issue. When arguing, it is always best to address an issue as directly as possible, rather than rely on or quote an expert.

Appeal To Authority Breakdown



Like I said, pot meet kettle.

Okay, I feel I need to explain to you that giving me a definition of a logical fallacy does not actually show me where I committed that fallacy.

Me criticising the video you posted is not an appeal to authority, because the youtube channel in question is not run by people who are scientists. If anything, you are the one committing the fallacy because you are presenting the channel as an authority when there is no good reason to think they are such an authority.

So, let me ask again. Show me specifically where I committed this fallacy.

 

[HARK!]

Okay, I feel I need to explain to you that giving me a definition of a logical fallacy does not actually show me where I committed that fallacy.

See post #22

Me criticising the video you posted is not an appeal to authority, because the youtube channel in question is not run by people who are scientists.

See post #24

If anything, you are the one committing the fallacy because you are presenting the channel as an authority when there is no good reason to think they are such an authority.

The Youtube Video presents the work of scientific authority. I mean really?! That's like saying that when scientific text books, written by PhD's, are published; that they are not valid; because the publisher doesn't have a PhD in that field? The fallacies continue.

So, let me ask again. Show me specifically where I committed this fallacy.

See post #22

 

[Hans Blaster]

GR served to explain flaws in Newtonian Physics. QM resulted to explain flaws in GR. I once read that Einstein realized that his work was flawed shortly before, or shortly after he released it.

No.

GR (general relativity) resulted from the generalization of special relativity (SR) to non-inertial (accelerating) reference frames. [SR only applied to inertial (non-accelerating) reference frames.] It gave an alternative understanding of gravity related to space curvature rather than as a force between bodies.

QM (quantum mechanics) was the solution to the problem of discrete atomic line spectra. The principles of quantum mechanics have since been applied to understand other areas of physics like the structure of atomic nuclei and nuclear decays. Early work on QM precedes the development of GR. It certainly is *NOT* an attempt to explain the "flaws" in GR. [Ironically, gravitation is the one area of fundamental physics to which QM *hasn't* been successfully applied.

I have no idea about the flaws you claim Einstein "realized".

 

[Hans Blaster]

The Youtube Video presents the work of scientific authority. I mean really?! That's like saying that when scientific text books, written by PhD's, are published; that they are not valid; because the publisher doesn't have a PhD in that field? The fallacies continue.

What *are* the credentials, or experience, of the creators of the initial video in physics, particularly in quantum mechanics?

 

[Kylie]

See post #22

And how is it an appeal to authority for me to point out that a religious apologetics YouTube channel is not a valid source of information about quantum mechanics?

See post #24

I committed so such fallacy. If anything, you are the one committing the fallacy. Youare the one presenting a video by religious apologists and claiming that it is a valid source of information about quantum mechanics, aren't you?

The Youtube Video presents the work of scientific authority. I mean really?! That's like saying that when scientific text books, written by PhD's, are published; that they are not valid; because the publisher doesn't have a PhD in that field? The fallacies continue.

No. It is not the work of a scientific authority. It is the work of a religious apologist who has had a look at what scientists have written and come to a conclusion about what it means while not showing that he has the necessary experience in the field to be sure he has reached a correct interpretation.

See post #22

Again, I did not commit any logical fallacy there. Of course, if you show me that the creator of that video has relevant scientific qualifications, I will be happy to admit you are correct and retract my statement.

 

[HARK!]

I have no idea about the flaws you claim Einstein "realized".

"Already in 1907, a mere two years after the completion of the special theory, he had concluded that the speed of light is variable in the presence of a gravitational field; indeed, he concluded, the variable speed of light can be used as a gravitational potential.11" http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/On ... imesNR.pdf

"Among the consequences of that theory are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not absolute. Special relativity was the result of 10 years of intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong within two years of publishing it." LEE SMOLIN -- EINSTEIN'S LEGACY--WHERE ARE THE "EINSTEINIANS"? -- LOGOS 4.3 SUMMER 2005

 

[Kylie]

"Already in 1907, a mere two years after the completion of the special theory, he had concluded that the speed of light is variable in the presence of a gravitational field; indeed, he concluded, the variable speed of light can be used as a gravitational potential.11" http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/On ... imesNR.pdf

"Among the consequences of that theory are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not absolute. Special relativity was the result of 10 years of intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong within two years of publishing it." LEE SMOLIN -- EINSTEIN'S LEGACY--WHERE ARE THE "EINSTEINIANS"? -- LOGOS 4.3 SUMMER 2005

And is this a flaw in Newtonian physics that GR corrected, ior is it a flaw in GR that QM corrected?

 

[HARK!]

No.

GR (general relativity) resulted from the generalization of special relativity (SR) to non-inertial (accelerating) reference frames. [SR only applied to inertial (non-accelerating) reference frames.] It gave an alternative understanding of gravity related to space curvature rather than as a force between bodies.

No?

So in other words SR served to explain the flaws in Newtons laws in respect to high gravitational fields; or "GR (SR) served to explain flaws in Newtonian Physics?"

Am I missing something; or are you splitting hairs?

 

[HARK!]

And is this a flaw in Newtonian physics that GR corrected, ior is it a flaw in GR that QM corrected?

Why would you suppose that any of them are correct?

 

[HARK!]

Of course, if you show me that the creator of that video has relevant scientific qualifications, I will be happy to admit you are correct and retract my statement.

In other words, you are not qualified to refute the argument.

 

[Hans Blaster]

"Already in 1907, a mere two years after the completion of the special theory, he had concluded that the speed of light is variable in the presence of a gravitational field; indeed, he concluded, the variable speed of light can be used as a gravitational potential.11" http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/On ... imesNR.pdf

"Among the consequences of that theory are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not absolute. Special relativity was the result of 10 years of intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong within two years of publishing it." LEE SMOLIN -- EINSTEIN'S LEGACY--WHERE ARE THE "EINSTEINIANS"? -- LOGOS 4.3 SUMMER 2005

In the message I was replying to, you wrote about GR and then said something about flaws. The obvious inference was that this referred to flaws in *GR*. These quotes are about flaws in *special* relativity (SR). SR is a special case of case of the more general GR. SR only applies in a flat spacetime (no curvature from masses -- see quote number 1). These quotes show that Einstein realized early that special relativity wasn't comprehensive enough and needed generalization.

[and none of this has anything to do with quantum physics]

 

[Kylie]

In other words, you are not qualified to refute the argument.

So you can't show they are correct, you just try to shift the burden of proof onto me and act as though the default is that you are right.

It don't work that way.

If you want to claim that there are flaws, then you must show that they exist before you can expect anyone to agree with you.

 

[Kylie]

In other words, you are not qualified to refute the argument.

But a bunch of religious apologists on YouTube, they are fully qualified to educate people about quantum mechanics! Why, soon, they'll be teaching QM at university, I'm sure!

 

[Hans Blaster]

No?

So in other words SR served to explain the flaws in Newtons laws in respect to high gravitational fields; or "GR (SR) served to explain flaws in Newtonian Physics?"

Am I missing something; or are you splitting hairs?

I didn't discuss the flaws in Newtonian physics, only the (non) relationship between GR and QM.

 

[SkyWriting]

Throwing out claims I am committing logical fallacies while demonstrating that you don't actually understand how those fallacies work?

All logical fallacies are only false in the absolute. The conclusions may or may not be correct. The only fallacy is that they are always right or wrong.

 

[sjastro]

A few misconceptions need to be cleared up here.

While no one has been able to combine GR and QM into a coherent theory, SR and QM were combined in the 1930s to ultimately produce QFT (Quantum Field theory).
The equation that defines QM is Schrodinger's equation.

When SR is combined with QM Schrodinger's equation becomes the Klein-Gordon equation.

Initially solutions to the Klein-Gordon equation gave very strange results.
Particle solutions led to negative probabilities for a particle to exist in a certain state which of course is impossible.
The solution was to treat the wavefunction Ψ as a field which can be quantized (hence the term Quantum Field theory) using a process known as second quantization.

From this evolved Quantum Electrodynamics considered to be the "jewel of physics" as being the most accurate physics theory known.