The principle of least action

[athorist]

The Principle of Least Action is at the very heart of modern physics. Actually all of theoretical physics is mathematically derived from this principle. I was trying to link to the respective Wikipedia article, however it seems I am not allowed to do so because of my low post-count. So here is the original formulation:

The laws of movement and of rest deduced from this principle being precisely the same as those observed in nature, we can admire the application of it to all phenomena. The movement of animals, the vegetative growth of plants ... are only its consequences; and the spectacle of the universe becomes so much the grander, so much more beautiful, the worthier of its Author, when one knows that a small number of laws, most wisely established, suffice for all movements

Keep in mind though that there are modern formulations which, however, require quite some mathematical background, especially a deep understanding of variational calculus in order to read/understand them.

The predictions and calculations derived from that principle match observational reality up to the precision that mankind is able to measure. However, the very idea of that principle excludes any external/supernatural entity (like for example a god of some sort) from interferring with nature, since that would immediately cause unstationary action. That leaves only two possible conclusions: Either supernatural entities do not exist, or supernatural entities do actually exist but are unable to influence our world. This completely refutes all claims that omnipotent entities exist (if they're unable to influence our world they're by definition not omnipotent).

Any comments?

 

[salida]

God omnipresent and does influence the world - but its not with "human reasoning" but with His supernatural infinite reasoning which is vastly different from human reasoning. God allows certain things. If God wasn't at all in the area - all hell would break loose literally. Because Gods creation is so much more complicated than your car - like the cell of the human body - it didn't create itself. You wouldn't even believe your car created itself. Plus, how about the law of thermodynamics with darwinist always seem to forget - matter isn't created or destroyed. Hmm, this is because God does this - can create matter and destroy it. And how about the "survival of the fittest"? When a Lion goes after a deer or whatever - he gets the closest one not the weakest one. I can go on for hours here.

 

[athorist]

Well, obviously you are free to believe that your God is omnipresent and does influence the world. The problem is, that flatly contradicts observational reality. And I certainly am not prepared to believe in an omnipotent God just because you assert he exists. Provide some evidence, please.

Can you elaborate a bit on how "Darwinists" (odd designations, since the theory of evolution is not a belief-system) forget thermodynamics?

As for your lion example, that probably wrong: The lion (most probably lioness, since its the females that are mostly hunting prey) does not get the nearest one. He gets the one that is most "unfit" at escaping, hence a perfect example of how the "fittest" survives. Being "weak" or "close" both are "unfitter" states as being "far away" and "fast".

I am quite disappointed though that you did not even bother addressing my point. So I ask again: How does an omnipotent god fit with the principle of least action? Evading the question and just jumping to another topic will certainly not cut it...

 

[Jon0388g]

The Principle of Least Action is at the very heart of modern physics. Actually all of theoretical physics is mathematically derived from this principle. I was trying to link to the respective Wikipedia article, however it seems I am not allowed to do so because of my low post-count. So here is the original formulation:



Keep in mind though that there are modern formulations which, however, require quite some mathematical background, especially a deep understanding of variational calculus in order to read/understand them.

The predictions and calculations derived from that principle match observational reality up to the precision that mankind is able to measure. However, the very idea of that principle excludes any external/supernatural entity (like for example a god of some sort) from interferring with nature, since that would immediately cause unstationary action. That leaves only two possible conclusions: Either supernatural entities do not exist, or supernatural entities do actually exist but are unable to influence our world. This completely refutes all claims that omnipotent entities exist (if they're unable to influence our world they're by definition not omnipotent).

Any comments?

Hi Athorist!


1) You're not entirely correct. The Principle of Least Action certainly governs all macroscopic behaviour of light/energy/mass etc. It however is not the only outcome that occurs according to the maths, as Quantum Mechanics tells us. Light does travel the shortest distance between two points, but at the fundamental level in fact takes an infinite number of pathways all over the universe to reach its destination. Thank Feynmann for that The Principle of Least Action is the simultaneous superposition of those infinte pathways.


So, its not as simple as you suggest. Does this negate the need for a God/Creator? I would just say, He has an eye for beauty! Isn't the Euler-Lagrange equation just a little too perfect?



2) If I understand your reasoning and follow it, we as scientists do not exist either. You assert that if the world is governed by the Principle of Least Action (a classical law, whereas the universe is most definitely not classical, I again stress), then this principle must exclude any external entity, since this would cause unstationary action. Then, could I ask, what about the Observer Effect? Each time we observe an experiment/make a measurement, don't we muddle up the results ever so slightly? Uncertainty Principle (which could arguably trump the Principle of Least Action as most pervasive in nature), and Young's Slits testify to this.


So, on that basis, we cannot exist since we by nature (and cannot ever hope to avoid) cause unstationary action, just by the simple act of seeing. Is there a logical fallacy in your argument? Methinks



Jon

 

[Sketcher]

The supernatural is not bound by natural laws. Our supernatural Creator made the natural realm and the laws that govern it, and He sustains them. He can seamlessly interfere with the natural world and put those laws back in motion as He likes.

 

[athorist]

Hi Jon

1) You're not entirely correct. The Principle of Least Action certainly governs all macroscopic behaviour of light/energy/mass etc. It however is not the only outcome that occurs according to the maths, as Quantum Mechanics tells us. Light does travel the shortest distance between two points, but at the fundamental level in fact takes an infinite number of pathways all over the universe to reach its destination. Thank Feynmann for that The Principle of Least Action is the simultaneous superposition of those infinte pathways.

I'm not an expert to quantum electrodynamics but as far as my understanding as a mathematician goes I would think that there does not exist one single system that violates this principle. Show me the math of a single such system and I'll shut up about this forever. As far as my knowledge goes I am not aware of any fundamental law of physics that is not rooted in an action principle. That superposition of paths (I would have thought it's not a superposition of paths but more a superposition of probability chains) is a solution of the Hamiltionian equations, right?

So, its not as simple as you suggest. Does this negate the need for a God/Creator? I would just say, He has an eye for beauty! Isn't the Euler-Lagrange equation just a little too perfect?

Well, I can't see a need for a creator, but I do also think that a creator cannot per se be excluded. What I am saying is that if such an entity exists it either cannot or at least never does interfer with its creation. Can you influence a physics experiment by praying to such a creator? I tried. Obviously I have made some mistake, because it did not work.

Btw, yes, the mathematical structure behind modern physics is most beautiful. I've never seen a proof that algebraic structures require a creator, though. What's the measure for perfection? When is one algebraic structure more perfect than another? They're perfect. All of math is - by definition

2) If I understand your reasoning and follow it, we as scientists do not exist either. You assert that if the world is governed by the Principle of Least Action (a classical law, whereas the universe is most definitely not classical, I again stress), then this principle must exclude any external entity, since this would cause unstationary action. Then, could I ask, what about the Observer Effect? Each time we observe an experiment/make a measurement, don't we muddle up the results ever so slightly? Uncertainty Principle (which could arguably trump the Principle of Least Action as most pervasive in nature), and Young's Slits testify to this.
So, on that basis, we cannot exist since we by nature (and cannot ever hope to avoid) cause unstationary action, just by the simple act of seeing. Is there a logical fallacy in your argument? Methinks

Well, what would the observer effect do? Ok, any observer is unable to determine impulse and positions at the same time. So what? That does not violate the algebraic structure that is common to both, classical and non-classical systems, right? Where does the change in action come from? It's because you'r looking at two different systems, one that has an observer and one that has not. Methinks.

 

[Jon0388g]

Hi Jon


I'm not an expert to quantum electrodynamics but as far as my understanding as a mathematician goes I would think that there does not exist one single system that violates this principle. Show me the math of a single such system and I'll shut up about this forever. As far as my knowledge goes I am not aware of any fundamental law of physics that is not rooted in an action principle. That superposition of paths (I would have thought it's not a superposition of paths but more a superposition of probability chains) is a solution of the Hamiltionian equations, right?

Yeah, the superposition of paths is most definitely a solution, which by definition means each of those component paths are also solutions! That's the beauty of linearity. The path which minimises the lagrangian is simply what we happen to see - the math tells us something completely different and wonderful.

Don't get me wrong I'm not implying that the Principle of Least Action is violated, I'm just stressing that this is a macroscopic law that governs classical behaviour. Again, it all comes down to observation. If I turned my back on the experiment, mathematically I have no right to predict the pathway based on the Principle of Least Action. Every possible pathway is taken simultaneously.

Well, I can't see a need for a creator, but I do also think that a creator cannot per se be excluded.

That is correct, I agree here. Which is why I respect the physicists and mathematicians infinitely more than the biologists

What I am saying is that if such an entity exists it either cannot or at least never does interfer with its creation. Can you influence a physics experiment by praying to such a creator? I tried. Obviously I have made some mistake, because it did not work.

Lol! You tried? Elaborate! I know I prayed to the Creator to help me pass my exams, that sure did work!

I am assuming you've never seen or heard of supernatural phenomena occurring in this planet. Do you think modern science has the capacity to explain every(or at least attempt to explain) occurrence that goes on in the world today?

Btw, yes, the mathematical structure behind modern physics is most beautiful. I've never seen a proof that algebraic structures require a creator, though. What's the measure for perfection? When is one algebraic structure more perfect than another? They're perfect. All of math is - by definition

Agreed! Again we reach the same point, requirment for the Creator, or exclusion of a Creator? The former can be debated, but I believe the latter will never be proven by math, science, or any human invention.

Well, what would the observer effect do? Ok, any observer is unable to determine impulse and positions at the same time. So what? That does not violate the algebraic structure that is common to both, classical and non-classical systems, right? Where does the change in action come from? It's because you'r looking at two different systems, one that has an observer and one that has not. Methinks.

You're losing me Athorist Your original premise was the exclusion of a Creator, based on the fact that external interference causes unstationary action. This is precisely equivalent to asserting humans do not exist, nor any other being with the capacity to observe, since this also causes unstationary action. Do you see what I'm getting at?


Which is why I brought in the Uncertainty principle. We can never measure impulse and position simulataneously because we interfere with the particle. In Young's slit experiment if we observe the photon on its way to the slit, it doesn't produce the interference pattern. However, we know that it should, but our mere observation causes 'unstationary' action if we use that term.


So, I'll ask you to prove to me that you, in fact, exist - since you interfere with countless particles every femtosecond, and therefore by your assertion, cause unstationary action and cannot be real! You could be A.I. in my own computer for all I know!




Jon


P.S. What do you specialise in btw?

 

[athorist]

Yeah, the superposition of paths is most definitely a solution, which by definition means each of those component paths are also solutions! That's the beauty of linearity. The path which minimises the lagrangian is simply what we happen to see - the math tells us something completely different and wonderful.

Well the superposition is a solution then. It can be formulated as an action principle. So for the superposition of the path's that are invisible to me the action is not minimized? How do you know? What's the point in the concept of something which I can never be able to interfer with by definition?

Don't get me wrong I'm not implying that the Principle of Least Action is violated, I'm just stressing that this is a macroscopic law that governs classical behaviour. Again, it all comes down to observation. If I turned my back on the experiment, mathematically I have no right to predict the pathway based on the Principle of Least Action. Every possible pathway is taken simultaneously.

No it does not only govern the classical behaviour, imho. It governs the mathematical structure in all of physics. Look at how the poisson-brackets can be abstracted in quantum mechanics. It's the same structure.

That is correct, I agree here. Which is why I respect the physicists and mathematicians infinitely more than the biologists

Well, be easy on them. They have a hard time putting up with the enormeous volume of cervical flatulence that they're confronted with by the Discovery Institute. I cheer their patience, tbh. clap. And by the way, the average percentage of theistic scientist amongst american top scientists is quite homogeneously distributed. If I was able to link I could prove that by a link to the respective study. You may be shocked: 7% of physicists and 5% of biologists believe in a monotheistic god. The total average in all natural sciences was around 7%. So theirs virtually no great deal of differences between them. Just look at that reasons.org website which was linked above by another forum member. Look for yourself. I was being polite and held my thoughts back for myself. But when you mention biology and ID, then please allow me to point out that creationism (I hope i won't get banned for that remark, not meaning to be rude) is provably utter horseshit. There is not the slightest doubt about it amongst the scientific community. If you want true scientific reaserch papers and not propaganda then go to the arxive for example.

Teach the difference: media.fukung.net/images/418/125609316246357501b6tr.jpg

Lol! You tried? Elaborate! I know I prayed to the Creator to help me pass my exams, that sure did work!

I set up an experiment. I thought I wouldn't make god angry, and not ask for something as complicated as passing exams. So one day it dawned on me: All I need is a cookie. "I shall ask god for a single cookie!" I said to myself. I took a tupperbox on the shelf of my window, and closed it. And then I prayed to the lord almighty god. I excused myself politely for bothering him (he surely must be busy!), and told him how much I would apreciate him to reveal himself through a cookie. For an entire year did I pray and check the tupper box in the next morning. It did not work.

I am assuming you've never seen or heard of supernatural phenomena occurring in this planet.

They're by definition not part of nature. Hence not existant on this planet.

Do you think modern science has the capacity to explain every(or at least attempt to explain) occurrence that goes on in the world today?

Is that cellphone of yours working?

Agreed! Again we reach the same point, requirment for the Creator, or exclusion of a Creator? The former can be debated, but I believe the latter will never be proven by math, science, or any human invention.

Here's were Gödel comes in handy.

You're losing me Athorist Your original premise was the exclusion of a Creator, based on the fact that external interference causes unstationary action.

I would ask you to reread the respective post then. I explicitly said a creator could exist. He just could not be in any way measurable though. Hence hes does not interfer with our world if he exists.

This is precisely equivalent to asserting humans do not exist, nor any other being with the capacity to observe, since this also causes unstationary action. Do you see what I'm getting at?

I see. But it's a fallacy: You are mixing up two destinctive experiments. It's two different systems. Action is stationary for the specific system. But not necessarilly the same for all systems. Since you are looking at two systems, it's no miracly that the action is different. But it is stationary in both.

Which is why I brought in the Uncertainty principle. We can never measure impulse and position simulataneously because we interfere with the particle. In Young's slit experiment if we observe the photon on its way to the slit, it doesn't produce the interference pattern. However, we know that it should, but our mere observation causes 'unstationary' action if we use that term.

It's two experiements, mate.

So, I'll ask you to prove to me that you, in fact, exist - since you interfere with countless particles every femtosecond, and therefore by your assertion, cause unstationary action and cannot be real! You could be A.I. in my own computer for all I know!

How probable do you think is it that I am an A.I.? 50%? 1%? Would you be prepared to bet money on it? What amount? What's the odds?

P.S. What do you specialise in btw?

Artificial Intelligence.
EDIT: typos + formatting + link

 

[Jon0388g]

Well the superposition is a solution then. It can be formulated as an action principle. So for the superposition of the path's that are invisible to me the action is not minimized? How do you know? What's the point in the concept of something which I can never be able to interfer with by definition?

I thought it'd be pretty obvious that any other pathway between two points other than a straight line is not the minimised action. And yes, the maths tell us that these 'un-minimised' pathways are just as 'real' as the minimised one. The photon takes every pathway simultaneously.


If you really want to get to the nitty gritty details, then technically (Copenhagen) suggests the minimised pathway is simply the one we observe since upon observation the superposition collapses onto the minimal path. Why? Nobody knows.


Don't ask me what's the point! Who knows why the world is the way it is??

No it does not only govern the classical behaviour, imho. It governs the mathematical structure in all of physics. Look at how the poisson-brackets can be abstracted in quantum mechanics. It's the same structure.

True. That's me being reckless.

Well, be easy on them. They have a hard time putting up with the enormeous volume of cervical flatulence that they're confronted with by the Discovery Institute. I cheer their patience, tbh. clap. And by the way, the average percentage of theistic scientist amongst american top scientists is quite homogeneously distributed. If I was able to link I could prove that by a link to the respective study. You may be shocked: 7% of physicists and 5% of biologists believe in a monotheistic god. The total average in all natural sciences was around 7%. So theirs virtually no great deal of differences between them. Just look at that reasons.org website which was linked above by another forum member. Look for yourself. I was being polite and held my thoughts back for myself. But when you mention biology and ID, then please allow me to point out that creationism (I hope i won't get banned for that remark, not meaning to be rude) is provably utter horseshit. There is not the slightest doubt about it amongst the scientific community. If you want true scientific reaserch papers and not propaganda then go to the arxive for example.

Lol! That's the first time I've seen someone swear on christianforums - now, cut it out


Incidentally, I share your sentiment on darwinism. Monkey to fish to dinosaur to human?

I set up an experiment. I thought I wouldn't make god angry, and not ask for something as complicated as passing exams. So one day it dawned on me: All I need is a cookie. "I shall ask god for a single cookie!" I said to myself. I took a tupperbox on the shelf of my window, and closed it. And then I prayed to the lord almighty god. I excused myself politely for bothering him (he surely must be busy!), and told him how much I would apreciate him to reveal himself through a cookie. For an entire year did I pray and check the tupper box in the next morning. It did not work.

A great quote I posted just the other day on another thread:

"Faith is to be based on evidence, not on demonstration."​

They're by definition not part of nature. Hence not existant on this planet.

You can say that with 100% certainty?


Not all humans that have experienced supernatural phenomena are hallucinating friend. That's ignorant and presumptuous at best.

Is that cellphone of yours working?

Yes, but the battery is horrendous.

I would ask you to reread the respective post then. I explicitly said a creator could exist. He just could not be in any way measurable though. Hence hes does not interfer with our world if he exists.

?? What do you mean by 'measurable'? Is infinity measurable? The premise of any religion is that God is infinitely higher than the highest infinity, yet you expect humans to be able to 'pick up' some sort of God signal with a suitable piece of equipment?

Natural Law governs just that: nature. Is God by definition subject to natural law? Methinks not.

I see. But it's a fallacy: You are mixing up two destinctive experiments. It's two different systems. Action is stationary for the specific system. But not necessarilly the same for all systems. Since you are looking at two systems, it's no miracly that the action is different. But it is stationary in both.



It's two experiements, mate.

Ok, I'm beginning to catch up with you now.


Which two experiments am I mixing up? God interferring with nature, and us interferring with nature. What is the difference? Please spell it out.

How probable do you think is it that I am an A.I.? 50%? 1%? Would you be prepared to bet money on it? What amount? What's the odds?

Well, you're obviously an advanced model, capable of insightful yet ultimately flawed reasoning, which suggests you are either a remarkably human-like A.I., or, just human. So, either or, both have a Creator. Deal with it




Jon

 

[bringerofgoodnews]

Plus, how about the law of thermodynamics with darwinist always seem to forget - matter isn't created or destroyed. Hmm, this is because God does this - can create matter and destroy it. And how about the "survival of the fittest"? When a Lion goes after a deer or whatever - he gets the closest one not the weakest one. I can go on for hours here.

Congratulations! This is the single worst refutation of evolution I have ever come across. You must be proud. May I ask, how old are you? Also, did you come up with this extremely uneducated and unscientific explanation yourself, or is someone else to blame?

 

[athorist]

I thought it'd be pretty obvious that any other pathway between two points other than a straight line is not the minimised action. And yes, the maths tell us that these 'un-minimised' pathways are just as 'real' as the minimised one. The photon takes every pathway simultaneously.

Of course it is just as real as the shortest one. As far as I understand the Slit experiment the collapsed wave function still is a solution to Schroedinger equations which follow from an action principle. As anything in field theorie does. But again I am not an expert to this. You asked what field I'm in, well on a more serious note it incidentially happens truly to be AI. I can proudly announce that I entirely lack the intuitive understanding of physics that many great physicists have shown in the 20th century and before. AI raises question of it's own. Which would actually warrant (probably more than one) threads of their own. What about memes? Can they be seen as a completely new, yet powerful and often underestimated kind of intelligence? Is there a mathematical princple behind evolution? Why does it seem that all life on earth can be described by as fractals. Do they maybe follow some abstract action principle? All this are questions that can not just be addressed in any meaningful way by just spraying scripture all over the walls. What I really don't get about christianity (and many other faiths) is why the scripture-fetish?

If you really want to get to the nitty gritty details, then technically (Copenhagen) suggests the minimised pathway is simply the one we observe since upon observation the superposition collapses onto the minimal path. Why? Nobody knows.

Hm. Theres a pretty neat feynman lecture on youtube (4 lectures) on QED which is aimed at a non-physics/math audience. He does not do the math but explains in a way that suggests that the only thing that we really predict is the probability for a photon detector to fire within a certain interval. And I think he's got a point there: We don't know about the path - we just see the endpoints. There seems to be a lot of ramble about copenhagen, bohmian mechanics, string theory, etc. I'm itching to see what the LHC will come up with. But again, I'm just watching from the stands.

Lol! That's the first time I've seen someone swear on christianforums - now, cut it out

Apologies. It's just that there is an amount of dishonesty involved in socalled creation-"science" that tends to wind me up.

Incidentally, I share your sentiment on darwinism. Monkey to fish to dinosaur to human?

Care to elaborate?

A great quote I posted just the other day on another thread:

"Faith is to be based on evidence, not on demonstration."​

What evidence? Scripture?

You can say that with 100% certainty?

Read again. I said it's a definition thing. If it's part of nature, then why is it called supernatural?

Not all humans that have experienced supernatural phenomena are hallucinating friend. That's ignorant and presumptuous at best.

They are part of nature, aren't they? What they experience is (I repeat) by definition not supernatural. It certainly conforms to the laws of nature. Now you might argue that a specific god just is the laws of nature, but it would

a) be ignorant and presumptuous to belive that it is your personal flavour of god and all the rest of humanity having it wrong.

b) lead to there being no point in worshipping or anything similar. The laws of nature do not care about whether somebody dies or gets laid. It would be utterly rediculous to suggest that the laws of nature have some will, that they punish sinners, and reward those who repend. Open your eyes and take a look at the world. It's not how nature works. Nature does not give a damn. It's pointless to worship such a god.

Yes, but the battery is horrendous.

You havent prayed devoutly enough then. I suggest that you plug your cellphone to recharge and then pray 8 hours. I am sure the lord will have blessed your batteries and thereby answered your prayers.

?? What do you mean by 'measurable'? Is infinity measurable? The premise of any religion is that God is infinitely higher than the highest infinity, yet you expect humans to be able to 'pick up' some sort of God signal with a suitable piece of equipment?

From what I understant the mathematical operation corresponding to a measurement is represented by a Measuring-Operator that is used to transform the system and yields the collapsed wave-function. I might be terribly wrong about this, though. But the point is, that you are saying yourself, that when you turn your back, then it does not collapse. Hence no observer, no god.

Natural Law governs just that: nature. Is God by definition subject to natural law? Methinks not.

Define the deity you have in mind, please. Can he make things happen that violate the laws of nature? Methinks not. But it's your call to define.

Which two experiments am I mixing up? God interferring with nature, and us interferring with nature. What is the difference? Please spell it out.

Well the slit experiments are actually more than one experiment. It's an entire series of setups (slits closed/open, observed/unobservered slits, etc). For the specific setup, the math will have stationary action I'd have thought. But when you compare the setups action is not equal.

Well, you're obviously an advanced model, capable of insightful yet ultimately flawed reasoning, which suggests you are either a remarkably human-like A.I., or, just human. So, either or, both have a Creator. Deal with it

Trouble is my creator (that crackpot who programmed me) had a car-crash recently when he tried to perform a miracle while ... seems like he was just part of nature to me

EDIT: typos. please excuse me if I butcher the english language at times - me's no native speaker

 

[Jon0388g]

Of course it is just as real as the shortest one. As far as I understand the Slit experiment the collapsed wave function still is a solution to Schroedinger equations which follow from an action principle. As anything in field theorie does. But again I am not an expert to this. You asked what field I'm in, well on a more serious note it incidentially happens truly to be AI. I can proudly announce that I entirely lack the intuitive understanding of physics that many great physicists have shown in the 20th century and before. AI raises question of it's own. Which would actually warrant (probably more than one) threads of their own. What about memes? Can they be seen as a completely new, yet powerful and often underestimated kind of intelligence? Is there a mathematical princple behind evolution? Why does it seem that all life on earth can be described by as fractals. Do they maybe follow some abstract action principle? All this are questions that can not just be addressed in any meaningful way by just spraying scripture all over the walls. What I really don't get about christianity (and many other faiths) is why the scripture-fetish?

Ah well your opening more than one can of worms here friend, but the original argument was based on whether the Least Action pathway was the only outcome that occurs. Mathematically, it is not.

And I hope you appreciate I have not quoted one passage of Scripture in our dialogue. Agreed?

Hm. Theres a pretty neat feynman lecture on youtube (4 lectures) on QED which is aimed at a non-physics/math audience. He does not do the math but explains in a way that suggests that the only thing that we really predict is the probability for a photon detector to fire within a certain interval. And I think he's got a point there: We don't know about the path - we just see the endpoints. There seems to be a lot of ramble about copenhagen, bohmian mechanics, string theory, etc. I'm itching to see what the LHC will come up with. But again, I'm just watching from the stands.

I must check out these lectures my friend was telling me about them. And my lecturers are always banging on about how great Feynmann is

And it's going to be very interesting to see what LHC uncovers. Probably another 53 'fundamental' particles lol! Haven't they fired that up yet? It's taking ages!

Apologies. It's just that there is an amount of dishonesty involved in socalled creation-"science" that tends to wind me up.

Likewise evolutionary "science".

Care to elaborate?

My understanding of evolution is that you need just as much faith to believe in it then you do Creation. There are too many holes that scientists rarely face up to honestly. But I find it incredibly boring anyhow so I rarely spend time looking into it.

What evidence? Scripture?

Not Scripture as in posting a few random texts and telling you to repent and accept Jesus. Not that type


We physicists evaluate our theory by its predictive power, agreed? Quantum Mechanics is the most astounding and accurate theory ever penned by man, because its predictions have never been found violated, agreed? What if I said the same thing about the Bible? It, like Quantum Mechanics, makes many, many predictions about world events and history. It's just a shame many scientists do not apply the same rigorous testing of the Scriptures as they do their theories.


It is my contention to you that the Bible has enough objective, concrete evidence within it, that can be tested, to base our faith upon. The God of the Bible will not give us a demonstration at our every whim. We are left to decide.

Read again. I said it's a definition thing. If it's part of nature, then why is it called supernatural?

They are part of nature, aren't they? What they experience is (I repeat) by definition not supernatural. It certainly conforms to the laws of nature. Now you might argue that a specific god just is the laws of nature, but it would

a) be ignorant and presumptuous to belive that it is your personal flavour of god and all the rest of humanity having it wrong.

b) lead to there being no point in worshipping or anything similar. The laws of nature do not care about whether somebody dies or gets laid. It would be utterly rediculous to suggest that the laws of nature have some will, that they punish sinners, and reward those who repend. Open your eyes and take a look at the world. It's not how nature works. Nature does not give a damn. It's pointless to worship such a god.

Well I wouldn't argue that the laws of nature are God. I would argue that God made the laws of nature. I then would argue that if God made both nature, and its laws, then how could that God be confined to either? That would be ridiculous.


But we're getting off topic.

From what I understant the mathematical operation corresponding to a measurement is represented by a Measuring-Operator that is used to transform the system and yields the collapsed wave-function. I might be terribly wrong about this, though. But the point is, that you are saying yourself, that when you turn your back, then it does not collapse. Hence no observer, no god.

Not quite.

The very existence of a collapsed wavefunction - you, me, the computer we are staring at, implies the existence of an observer. Hence, there must be some grand observer of the whole universe in which we live - a God, perhaps?

Define the deity you have in mind, please. Can he make things happen that violate the laws of nature? Methinks not. But it's your call to define.

I don't define the Deity I have in mind, my Bible does. But, you seem to have Scripture-o-phobia, so, how can I give definitions?


From my viewpoint, you take the laws of nature as your god. There is a striking similarity in how you and other scientists work and how Christians and other religious groups work - you just would rather die than admit it. To put it in scientific terms, our beliefs have the same mathematical structure, just different formalisms. You view your god as the laws of nature, which cannot be broken, ruling supreme. Our God is the God of nature, Who cannot be broken, ruling supreme. No difference.

Well the slit experiments are actually more than one experiment. It's an entire series of setups (slits closed/open, observed/unobservered slits, etc). For the specific setup, the math will have stationary action I'd have thought. But when you compare the setups action is not equal.

No no no, I'm not talking about those two experiments. I'm using the slit experiment as a whole for a comparison. The crux of my argument is this:

• You assert there is no need for a god because there interference in nature would cause unstationary action, thus violating least action principle.
• I then assert by your reasoning that humans, animals, and any other conscious being need not exist neither, since by our act of observation we cause unstationary action.

Can you resolve the apparent discrepancy in your thinking?

EDIT: typos. please excuse me if I butcher the english language at times - me's no native speaker

Lol, no problems. Where are you from? I also ask you to forgive me if my physics/maths is on the amateurish side sometimes too. I'm only a humble third-year student. Loving it though




Jon

 

[athorist]

Ah well your opening more than one can of worms here friend, but the original argument was based on whether the Least Action pathway was the only outcome that occurs. Mathematically, it is not.

Hm. Well that's not my understanding of it. The wave function that describes all possible pathways and their probability follows from the Hamiltonian of the system. The equations of motion (which is the Schroedinger equation in QM) always has stationary action. It's the wave-function that has stationary action. So the action is certainly stationary in any problem of field-theory (which includes QM). Keep in mind that the Schroedinger equation has a Langrange-Density. It's an action principle without any doubt.

And I hope you appreciate I have not quoted one passage of Scripture in our dialogue. Agreed?

Agreed. I'm very thankful for that.

I must check out these lectures my friend was telling me about them. And my lecturers are always banging on about how great Feynmann is

He was on of the great ones, that's for sure. Well, they're layman lectures but interesting nontheless.

And it's going to be very interesting to see what LHC uncovers. Probably another 53 'fundamental' particles lol! Haven't they fired that up yet? It's taking ages!

It's just started with first tests on the first of august.

Likewise evolutionary "science".

You are not intending to say that the overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution is un-scientific, are you? The funny thing is, that the allegedly overwhelming evidence for creation is virtually non-existent.

My understanding of evolution is that you need just as much faith to believe in it then you do Creation. There are too many holes that scientists rarely face up to honestly.

Yeah, which holes? If you're to bored looking, how do you know about them?

But I find it incredibly boring anyhow so I rarely spend time looking into it.

How very scientific of you. You realize that you're missing on of mankinds most important theories ever? Nothing makes sense in nature - except in the light of evolution! Take a look at the papers that I listed in that other thread.

Not Scripture as in posting a few random texts and telling you to repent and accept Jesus. Not that type


We physicists evaluate our theory by its predictive power, agreed? Quantum Mechanics is the most astounding and accurate theory ever penned by man, because its predictions have never been found violated, agreed? What if I said the same thing about the Bible? It, like Quantum Mechanics, makes many, many predictions about world events and history. It's just a shame many scientists do not apply the same rigorous testing of the Scriptures as they do their theories.

It's a shame that christian fundamentalist do not realize that Quantum Mechanics and the Bible are not even remotely on par. Scientists investigated those claims. The Bible ridiculously failed. Stop whining and get over it, lol. Honestly, comparing the predictive power of the bible with the predictive power of QM is way off. It's an insult to physics, actually...

It is my contention to you that the Bible has enough objective, concrete evidence within it, that can be tested, to base our faith upon. The God of the Bible will not give us a demonstration at our every whim. We are left to decide.

Well and I started to take you as a serious partner for conversation. Please tell me that you're not serious here. Name one peer-reviewed scientific paper that backs that quite hilarious claims, please.

Well I wouldn't argue that the laws of nature are God. I would argue that God made the laws of nature. I then would argue that if God made both nature, and its laws, then how could that God be confined to either? That would be ridiculous.

Did he make laws that are reliable, or do those "laws" change all the time? If they're reliable it means that once he was done making all the stuff he does not change it anymore. Hence god would be of utter irrelevance to humans.

But we're getting off topic.

Indeed.

The very existence of a collapsed wavefunction - you, me, the computer we are staring at, implies the existence of an observer. Hence, there must be some grand observer of the whole universe in which we live - a God, perhaps?

I do observe the universe. Isn't that enough to make the wave-function collapse?

I don't define the Deity I have in mind, my Bible does. But, you seem to have Scripture-o-phobia, so, how can I give definitions?

Well the kind of deity that you describe is in no way coherent with the bible. Either you think the bible is correct, and you're actually behing dishonest about the properties that you ascribe to god in your previous posts or the bible is just a nice story made to scare off the kiddies.

From my viewpoint, you take the laws of nature as your god. There is a striking similarity in how you and other scientists work and how Christians and other religious groups work - you just would rather die than admit it.

That striking similarity being science testing and evaluating through experiments, refining and changing the theories as new evidence shows up and creationists safely ignoring any new evidence, sticking fingers in their ears and chanting "lalala I can't hear you" just to make sure that their theories will never change and adapt?
I haven't laughed so hard in a long time, really.

To put it in scientific terms, our beliefs have the same mathematical structure, just different formalisms.

Nonsense! Show me the mathematical formalism that's in the bible! Is it the passage where it says that PI is exactly equal to 3? The bible can be shown to be self-contradictory on many instances. That's hardly a mathematical formalism I'd run with!

You view your god as the laws of nature, which cannot be broken, ruling supreme.

I have no god. I was being hypothetical, if you care to carefully read my posts again. The laws of nature are just what they are: the laws of nature.

Our God is the God of nature, Who cannot be broken, ruling supreme.

Unfounded assertion.

No no no, I'm not talking about those two experiments. I'm using the slit experiment as a whole for a comparison. The crux of my argument is this:

• You assert there is no need for a god because there interference in nature would cause unstationary action, thus violating least action principle.
• I then assert by your reasoning that humans, animals, and any other conscious being need not exist neither, since by our act of observation we cause unstationary action.

Show me the math on how observation causes unstationary action. I've pointed out to you on several occasions already that the wave-function minimzes the action of it's respective lagrange-density. Show the math and I'll shut up.

 

[Jon0388g]

Hm. Well that's not my understanding of it. The wave function that describes all possible pathways and their probability follows from the Hamiltonian of the system. The equations of motion (which is the Schroedinger equation in QM) always has stationary action. It's the wave-function that has stationary action. So the action is certainly stationary in any problem of field-theory (which includes QM). Keep in mind that the Schroedinger equation has a Langrange-Density. It's an action principle without any doubt.

I agree with everything you've just said. Again, I'll state which you seem to miss every time: the stationary action is not the only action that occurs mathematically. That is my contention. Do you agree or not?

You are not intending to say that the overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution is un-scientific, are you? The funny thing is, that the allegedly overwhelming evidence for creation is virtually non-existent.


Yeah, which holes? If you're to bored looking, how do you know about them?


How very scientific of you. You realize that you're missing on of mankinds most important theories ever? Nothing makes sense in nature - except in the light of evolution! Take a look at the papers that I listed in that other thread.

Nothing makes sense in nature - except in the light of evolution? That is laughable!!!


I've seen the holes, I've seen the counter-arguments and counter-counter arguments, and then forgotten them all. So sue me! This discussion isn't about evolution, its about physics, so let's stay focussed.

It's a shame that christian fundamentalist do not realize that Quantum Mechanics and the Bible are not even remotely on par. Scientists investigated those claims. The Bible ridiculously failed. Stop whining and get over it, lol. Honestly, comparing the predictive power of the bible with the predictive power of QM is way off. It's an insult to physics, actually...

LOL! An insult to physics?!! Now do you see what I mean about both of us having our gods?


Do you even know what I am talking about? Do you know of any predictions the Bible makes? Believe me, I'm far from whining.


Isaac Newton studied the prophecies. He saw what I see. Would you talk in the same manner if it was Isaac Newton on the other end of your screen?


You said 'How very scientific of me'....I would like to respond: 'ditto'.

Did he make laws that are reliable, or do those "laws" change all the time? If they're reliable it means that once he was done making all the stuff he does not change it anymore. Hence god would be of utter irrelevance to humans.

You're entitled to your opinion.

I do observe the universe. Isn't that enough to make the wave-function collapse?

That's surprisingly naive coming from you!

You can see the universe all at once, in one panoramic view? How do you know the moon exists when you are not looking at it? Even Einstein asked the same question.

Well the kind of deity that you describe is in no way coherent with the bible. Either you think the bible is correct, and you're actually behing dishonest about the properties that you ascribe to god in your previous posts or the bible is just a nice story made to scare off the kiddies.

Pardon me, but do you now claim to know the God of the Bible enough to make any assertions as to what 'properties' to ascribe Him?


It is actually quite disturbing how you and others are willing to talk so brashly about things you are so ignorant of? You gracefully accept your expertise is not in Physics, yet you seem to think you know the Bible in any way shape or form? Come on.

That striking similarity being science testing and evaluating through experiments, refining and changing the theories as new evidence shows up and creationists safely ignoring any new evidence, sticking fingers in their ears and chanting "lalala I can't hear you" just to make sure that their theories will never change and adapt?
I haven't laughed so hard in a long time, really.

Don't hurt yourself laughing I won't waste time on the creation/evolution debate you seem to be itching to drag me into.

Nonsense! Show me the mathematical formalism that's in the bible! Is it the passage where it says that PI is exactly equal to 3? The bible can be shown to be self-contradictory on many instances. That's hardly a mathematical formalism I'd run with!

LOL! I've heard that one before! And you call yourself a scientist?!!!!!!


WHERE in the Bible does it say Pi = 3? Chapter and verse please!!!


I'll give you a hint: don't waste your time. Re-read that criticism, and re-read the verse it uses. Put on your scientific cap whilst you do so, and re-evaluate your conclusion.


And yes, the Bible does have minor inconsistencies here and there. No intelligent, objective reader would state otherwise, I saw one the other day myself. Does science ever contradict itself? Hmm...

Show me the math on how observation causes unstationary action. I've pointed out to you on several occasions already that the wave-function minimzes the action of it's respective lagrange-density. Show the math and I'll shut up.

It's quite simple actually. If A=B, and B=C, then A=C, agreed?


Call A 'Observation'. Call B 'Interference with nature'. Call C 'unstationary action'.


Here is your original statement:

"the very idea of that principle excludes any external/supernatural entity (like for example a god of some sort) from interferring with nature, since that would immediately cause unstationary action."


You state: interferring with nature = cause of unstationary action

I state: observation = interferring with nature.



For the last time, please show me my misunderstanding, or retract your statement.





Jon

 

[athorist]

I agree with everything you've just said. Again, I'll state which you seem to miss every time: the stationary action is not the only action that occurs mathematically. That is my contention. Do you agree or not?

Action is a well defined thing in physics. I bet you pretty well how it's defined. There may be other uses of variational calculus that are involved (which is not surprising, since every Differential Equation can be stated as a variation problem - take a look at the Ritz-Galerkin method, for example ) but that is not Action. It's certainly not the Action of the Maupertius principle (principle of least Action).

Nothing makes sense in nature - except in the light of evolution? That is laughable!!!

Why is it laughable? You don't want to get dragged into a debate over ID/evolution, which I understand and will try to respect, but it's hard to answer that one without doing so...

LOL! An insult to physics?!! Now do you see what I mean about both of us having our gods?

It indeed is an insult to all the people that put hard work into refining and formulating QM to say that the Bible has the same predictive power. Can I set up an experiment to verify the Bible's predictive power? Up to which measuring precision does it work? I should have been clearer, though, indeed it is not an insult to physics in the same way that a god could be insulted (I wonder how that's done anyways...). It's an insult to all the great scientists working in that field though. Nothing divine in physics, at least I fail to see that. So physics is most certainly not my god.

Do you even know what I am talking about? Do you know of any predictions the Bible makes? Believe me, I'm far from whining.

I've posted some serious debunking on bible prophecies in the other thread. So if you're talking about that, then spare your energy. Those claims have been debunked times and times again. Some christians just seem to have a very selective look on the evidence... but yeah, not dragging you off-topic any further.

Isaac Newton studied the prophecies. He saw what I see.

Can you link me to the respective research on Newtons biography? I'd be interested to read that. But until I see evidence for that claims I'll just store it in the same place with the claims that "Einstein believed in the christian god", "Hitler was an atheist" and all that other nonsense. It's an argument from authority anyways, therefore a fallacy.

Would you talk in the same manner if it was Isaac Newton on the other end of your screen?

Maybe you're Hawkins? Or Susskind? How am I to know? I talk in the way that I deem appropriate to what you say, not who you are.

That's surprisingly naive coming from you!

It's no more naive than explaining it by GODDIDIT.

You can see the universe all at once, in one panoramic view? How do you know the moon exists when you are not looking at it? Even Einstein asked the same question.

I always thought that I interact with (=measure for our purposes) every particle of the universe. I may be wrong though, and I'll happily repent from my statement if you show me that this assumption is wrong.

Smuggling in another argument from authority there, aren't we? (Einstein)

Pardon me, but do you now claim to know the God of the Bible enough to make any assertions as to what 'properties' to ascribe Him?

Resurrection of dead people flatly contradicts the laws of nature, does'nt it? What about immaculate conception? Turning water into wine? That's consistent with physics in your opinion? So either you choose god to be as described in the bible, or you choose him to be consistent with the laws of nature. Your choice. Honestly, do you think that I never read the bible, or what? It's hard to grow up in the western world without doing so in school, you know (thanks to christians for putting up their inane propaganda even to defenseless kids in schools...)

It is actually quite disturbing how you and others are willing to talk so brashly about things you are so ignorant of? You gracefully accept your expertise is not in Physics, yet you seem to think you know the Bible in any way shape or form? Come on.

No I certainly do not know the bible in any way or shape. Which version of the Bible are you talking about, anyways? There seem to be a lot of different ones anyways, each contradicting each other from what I've seen.

LOL! I've heard that one before! And you call yourself a scientist?!!!!!!


WHERE in the Bible does it say Pi = 3? Chapter and verse please!!!

"And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." — First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26

Circle with radius 10 and circumference 30? Makes PI to be 3, ain't it?

I'll give you a hint: don't waste your time. Re-read that criticism, and re-read the verse it uses. Put on your scientific cap whilst you do so, and re-evaluate your conclusion.

Well, it's what I read from that passage. Feel free to correct my reasoning, I'd be happy to retract my statement if you show me what I misunderstood.

And yes, the Bible does have minor inconsistencies here and there. No intelligent, objective reader would state otherwise, I saw one the other day myself. Does science ever contradict itself? Hmm...

You were comparing to a mathematical formalism. Asserting both to be comparable. Whether science contradicts itself is not relevant therefore: Math does'nt.

It's quite simple actually. If A=B, and B=C, then A=C, agreed?


Call A 'Observation'. Call B 'Interference with nature'. Call C 'unstationary action'.


Here is your original statement:

"the very idea of that principle excludes any external/supernatural entity (like for example a god of some sort) from interferring with nature, since that would immediately cause unstationary action."


You state: interferring with nature = cause of unstationary action

I state: observation = interferring with nature.



For the last time, please show me my misunderstanding, or retract your statement.

Well, I still contest that god cannot interfer with natures laws without causing action to be unstationary. I think a primary misunderstanding may be what I layed out above: Don't confuse the precisely defined physical term "Action" with any general variation. Action is the integral over the lagrangian. It is stationary in any physical system that I am aware of. I'll happily retract my statement if you show me a system were this does not hold true. The collapse of wave-functions does not violate that principle, at least not that I am aware of. It's still a wave function. Still a solution of the schroedinger equation. And therefore still of stationary action. I'd be happy to be corrected here - not saying this just to deceive you, I'd really be, I would have learned something. But so far you failed convincing me. Sorry.

 

[Jon0388g]

Action is a well defined thing in physics. I bet you pretty well how it's defined. There may be other uses of variational calculus that are involved (which is not surprising, since every Differential Equation can be stated as a variation problem - take a look at the Ritz-Galerkin method, for example ) but that is not Action. It's certainly not the Action of the Maupertius principle (principle of least Action).

You may be correct here. I can't answer on something I'm not fully certain on.

It indeed is an insult to all the people that put hard work into refining and formulating QM to say that the Bible has the same predictive power. Can I set up an experiment to verify the Bible's predictive power? Up to which measuring precision does it work? I should have been clearer, though, indeed it is not an insult to physics in the same way that a god could be insulted (I wonder how that's done anyways...). It's an insult to all the great scientists working in that field though. Nothing divine in physics, at least I fail to see that. So physics is most certainly not my god.

I'm sorry Athorist, but it is an even greater insult for you to sit there and be so disrespectful to a book that millions upon millions of men, women, and children have died for over the centuries. You are going to tell me that everyone who has studied the claims of the Christian Bible and believed them are deluded/unintelligent beings? That is the real insult here.


This is where you need to step aside from your animosity toward God and religion and objectively hear me out. Can you set up an experiment to verify the Bible's predictive power? Yes and no. The Bible always leaves room to doubt. So if you set up your experiment with the sole purpose of proving it wrong, you will do so. If, however you set up your experiment with the sole purpose of finding truth, I'm willing to bet you will not be disappointed.


The Bible challenges all to do so, in fact. So, I also challenge you to do the same. I've got the incredible urge to satisfy my so called 'Scripture-fetish' now, but I won't scratch that itch

I've posted some serious debunking on bible prophecies in the other thread. So if you're talking about that, then spare your energy. Those claims have been debunked times and times again. Some christians just seem to have a very selective look on the evidence... but yeah, not dragging you off-topic any further.

Yeah, I checked out your 'serious debunking' lol. Sorry to disappoint, but nothing I haven't seen a thousand times before. In fact, I'd love to get into it with you, and see what you really think.


Btw, the short answer to your Isaiah 'debunk' is thus: Dual Prophecy. Please google/wikipedia. Take it or leave it, your 'serious debunking' is actually far from it: a Biblical scholar would laugh you off the internet just as a reputable Physicist would if I claimed I can run faster than c.

Can you link me to the respective research on Newtons biography? I'd be interested to read that. But until I see evidence for that claims I'll just store it in the same place with the claims that "Einstein believed in the christian god", "Hitler was an atheist" and all that other nonsense. It's an argument from authority anyways, therefore a fallacy.

You're right, it is a fallacy, but I was shocked to hear Newton was a devout Christian so I always like to share that with others. Check these out:

http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/prism.php?id=74


Google 'Newton and the Prophecies' for more. I think I read somewhere (don't hold me to this) he wrote more on the Bible prophetic writings than he did on theoretical physics.

It's no more naive than explaining it by GODDIDIT.

Where in our dialogue have I ever resorted to that tactic?

I always thought that I interact with (=measure for our purposes) every particle of the universe. I may be wrong though, and I'll happily repent from my statement if you show me that this assumption is wrong.

Now that you ask, its a good question. No, in the sense that if you aren't looking, you aren't interacting. Yes, in the sense that Newton said every particle attracts every other particle, and the fact that we may just be all one grand entangled system. So, its a more tricky question than I anticipated.

Resurrection of dead people flatly contradicts the laws of nature, does'nt it? What about immaculate conception? Turning water into wine? That's consistent with physics in your opinion? So either you choose god to be as described in the bible, or you choose him to be consistent with the laws of nature. Your choice. Honestly, do you think that I never read the bible, or what? It's hard to grow up in the western world without doing so in school, you know (thanks to christians for putting up their inane propaganda even to defenseless kids in schools...)

I choose God to be Him who is revealed in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. So? That same Bible says by Him all things were created, as you should know. Of course the God that created the laws of nature can at will break them. I don't get what your beef is here. Are you implying the very laws He creates then becomes even more supreme than Him?

No I certainly do not know the bible in any way or shape.

Thank you for your admission. Therefore, please discontinue your presumptuous claims.

Which version of the Bible are you talking about, anyways? There seem to be a lot of different ones anyways, each contradicting each other from what I've seen.

That is a fair point. I proscribe to the KJV

"And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." — First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26

Circle with radius 10 and circumference 30? Makes PI to be 3, ain't it?


Well, it's what I read from that passage. Feel free to correct my reasoning, I'd be happy to retract my statement if you show me what I misunderstood.

Hey, Scripture-fetish!!?! I thought you were allergic?


Would you really retract your statement if I gave you a reasonable alternative? We shall see....


"And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." 1 Kings 7:23


Where in the account of 1 Kings does it say the molten sea was a perfect circle? "It was round all about." Let's take ourselves back, oh, I don't know, say 4000 years to Solomon's day, making this molten sea. He must have had some pretty high-tech gadgetry to engineer a perfectly circular sea out of bronze and copper?! Or, those guys with hammers and saws were pretty precise huh?


Do you see the absurdity of your 'criticism' now? How did the number pi come about? By measurment, or by theoretical derivation? Please ask yourself that.

If I took my ruler and measured my cup I can bet you it wouldn't equal 3.14159........ - you know why? 1) I do not have an infinitely precise measuring rod 2) Pi is an irrational number. Believe me, there are plenty other things in the Bible you could have chosen I'd have a much harder time explaining.

Well, I still contest that god cannot interfer with natures laws without causing action to be unstationary. I think a primary misunderstanding may be what I layed out above: Don't confuse the precisely defined physical term "Action" with any general variation. Action is the integral over the lagrangian. It is stationary in any physical system that I am aware of. I'll happily retract my statement if you show me a system were this does not hold true. The collapse of wave-functions does not violate that principle, at least not that I am aware of. It's still a wave function. Still a solution of the schroedinger equation. And therefore still of stationary action. I'd be happy to be corrected here - not saying this just to deceive you, I'd really be, I would have learned something. But so far you failed convincing me. Sorry.

Athorist, please show me where I went wrong in my reasoning. That's all I ask. A=B, B=C, or A=C????





Jon


EDIT: maybe you could show me how interferring with nature causes unstationary action - seeing as you seem hesitant to admit observation interferes with nature.

 

[athorist]

You may be correct here. I can't answer on something I'm not fully certain on.

Fair enough. I'll not pretend that my view on it is of eternal truth either. As far as I understand (keep in mind I'm not working in the field of QM) any field equations (Schroedinger, Maxwell, Higgs, etc. ) are derived through the Lagrangian. It's not totally the same as in the classical mechanics: The configuration variables (usually q) are not single real/complex variables anymore but functions. Imagine a string of pearls. You could use (for example) the positions of those pearls as generalised variables (they are called q in most books). Now imagine taking the limit where the pearls get infinitely close to each other while their mass gets infinitely small. All of a sudden your lagrangian does not depend on many generalised variables anymore but of one function (the limit we have taken). So in field theory your generalized variables are actually functions and not real/complex numbers anymore. But you basically then do the same thing with your lagrangian (which is now a lagrangian density), that is you derive the equations of motion. As opposed to the classical mechanics case, those are no ordinary differential equations anymore, they become partial differential equations. For example in classical electrodynamics the equations of motion will be the Maxwell equations - which is hardly surprising. (well actually you only get two of the maxwell equations, but the other two are actually definitions). The generalised momentum of the system (for which there follows a conservation law due to symmetry in the lagrangian) will be the electrical charge. In quantum mechanics they become the Schroedinger equation. So it's the same action principle as in classical mechanics, just on a higher level of absraction, but it's were I start running out of depth. As far this Action principle would even be put to use to deduce string theory, but I haven't seen the maths myself. Susskind says so, though.

I'm sorry Athorist, but it is an even greater insult for you to sit there and be so disrespectful to a book that millions upon millions of men, women, and children have died for over the centuries. You are going to tell me that everyone who has studied the claims of the Christian Bible and believed them are deluded/unintelligent beings? That is the real insult here.

Well, if that's how I came across, then please take my serious apologies. I never intended to be disrespectful towards the many people who cherrish their bible. But please understand that comparing the predictive power of the bible to the minute precision of modern physics is a bit rich, don't you think? It's really not comparable in any way, and I'd assume that you actually see my point here.

This is where you need to step aside from your animosity toward God and religion and objectively hear me out.

Ok. I will try. You well no that humans never can be fully objective, but I'll give my best. Please understand though that I do not feel any animosity towards your God. It's a very common misconception among christians to think that atheists "hate god". Try seeing it from an atheist framework for a moment: How could you hate something that you are convinced does not even exist?

It is true though, that I think the way the christian God is portrayed in the bible does not paint the image of a loving God - but aslong as you're not trying to teach my kids about him that's entirely your problem and not an issue for me.

On the other hand (since we're trying to be honest) I will have to flatly admit that I indeed have no high opinion about religion. That certainly has to do with my biography (I had the rather unpleasant privilege of feeling the love of christians first-hand). I'm well aware that many religious people are loving and caring humans. The way christianity acted throughout history does not portray this unfortunately. But let's not open another box of worms, right?

Can you set up an experiment to verify the Bible's predictive power? Yes and no. The Bible always leaves room to doubt. So if you set up your experiment with the sole purpose of proving it wrong, you will do so. If, however you set up your experiment with the sole purpose of finding truth, I'm willing to bet you will not be disappointed.

I often hear that from christians. It may be a valid argument from a christian standpoint, but from an atheist perspective it's just as telling me "apples are green. or not". But I guess that you will hardly oppose to my observation that this kind of predictivness is far from QM, right?

The Bible challenges all to do so, in fact. So, I also challenge you to do the same. I've got the incredible urge to satisfy my so called 'Scripture-fetish' now, but I won't scratch that itch

Well, fire your scripture. It's just that quoting scripture in an argument with an atheist will be a waste of time. To you it is the holy bible (and I assume, very important). To me it is just some stuff people made up a long time ago, so it is of utter irrelevance to me. Just to prevent any misunderstandings, that's not meant to be rude, it's just that I really don't care about what is written or not, so scripture quotes tend to bore me.

Yeah, I checked out your 'serious debunking' lol. Sorry to disappoint, but nothing I haven't seen a thousand times before. In fact, I'd love to get into it with you, and see what you really think.

You should understand one thing there: On atheist forums, proponents of all kinds of religion are litteraly swamping the place with prophecies that allegedly can be proven by evidence. When we say "well, yeah, so what, every religion has prophecies" they instantly say "sure, but ours are true". Infact we make a sport of debunking such prophecies (certainly not just the christian ones). Due to the sheer mass of people proposing those claims we have no choice than keeping templates for the ones that have all to often been disproven. Retyping the same debunking every second day is just something which none of us are prepared to waste their time on. (Keep in mind, atheists only have that single finite life, so our time is most precious). I'm afraid that the bible prophecies are among those that have been debunked very often. So as far as I'm concerned I've really seen it, given it a fair chance, and can't be bothered to give it another 3 million chances. It won't change my opinion. If you really have something revolutionary and new to propose about bible prophecies, then please show me. Or even better go to an atheist forum and post it there. There are people around in those places who now much more about the topic than I do (especially the nasty historical details, documents, etc.). Go see how far it flies - but don't be dissapointed if you end up being refuted. I know people there can be harsh, but you haven't seen the enourmous amounts of utter junk that people propose to us on a daily basis. (just yesterday someone claimed that the world will end on august the 14th according a bible-prophecy). Seriously, if you want to impress atheists, then prophecies are the wrong way to tackle it.

Btw, the short answer to your Isaiah 'debunk' is thus: Dual Prophecy. Please google/wikipedia. Take it or leave it, your 'serious debunking' is actually far from it: a Biblical scholar would laugh you off the internet just as a reputable Physicist would if I claimed I can run faster than c.

See above, if you really want to get into it, so be it, but it's really something which bores me.

You're right, it is a fallacy, but I was shocked to hear Newton was a devout Christian so I always like to share that with others. Check these out:

[had to snip the link in order to be able to post - my postcount does not allow me posting links..]


Google 'Newton and the Prophecies' for more. I think I read somewhere (don't hold me to this) he wrote more on the Bible prophetic writings than he did on theoretical physics.

Does not surprise me that he was a devout christian. You had go to christian schools in order to learn reading/writing - the whole european world consisted of devout christians in that time. I thank the flying spaghetti monster (praised be his tasty balls!)though that he thought not only about prophecies. One of science greatest he was. Him being a prophecy nutjob (just kidding - no offense meant) does not change anything about the deep respect that I have for that man.

Where in our dialogue have I ever resorted to that tactic?

Well, you're invoking what people like me call the "god of the gaps". That is, when something cannot be understood (like fore example why the wave function collapses in our case) it is automatically ascribed to god. Technically that's the argument by ignorance fallacy. But theres no need to go deeper into that, because your argument is based on a false assumption anyway (I think): Are you sure that everything we see is a collapsed wave-funtion? What about the Young-slits? Is'nt there a setup where the wave function does not collapse? So asserting that wherever I look the wave-function collapses does not hold. In the Young-slit experiments (as far as I understand them) the wave function only collapses when a detector is installed at one slit. How would we be able to observe the non-collapsed interference-patterns elsewise?

Now that you ask, its a good question. No, in the sense that if you aren't looking, you aren't interacting. Yes, in the sense that Newton said every particle attracts every other particle, and the fact that we may just be all one grand entangled system. So, its a more tricky question than I anticipated.

So would I think, yes. It's a tricky one indeed. But see what I've written above: I'm not sure that the wave function collapses everywhere.

I choose God to be Him who is revealed in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. So?

So nothing. It's your free choice.

That same Bible says by Him all things were created, as you should know. Of course the God that created the laws of nature can at will break them. I don't get what your beef is here. Are you implying the very laws He creates then becomes even more supreme than Him?

This brings us back on topic: My beef is, that whenever god is performing a miracle - let's just stick with water-to-wine, but anything goes actually - that absolutely violates the principle of least action. You cannot turn water into wine without violating the laws of nature, respectivly the principle of least action. Now you might insist that your God has the might to do so, but I'll reply "that's not what we see in our labs". Apparently some christians believe (I'm not sure if you do, though) that god is constantly performing all sorts of miracles. That I'd say though, is flatly contradicted by observational reality, because whenever we check (and being open-minded does not change a thing here) the laws of nature/physics hold true.

That is a fair point. I proscribe to the KJV

ono. The most bloodthirsty version of all that I have come across you choose. Ah well...

Hey, Scripture-fetish!!?! I thought you were allergic?

I am. But you demanded to see my sources, and I'm willing to show. It's how good atheists behave, you know? Evidence is our holy grail

Would you really retract your statement if I gave you a reasonable alternative? We shall see....

You'd be surprised.

"And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." 1 Kings 7:23


Where in the account of 1 Kings does it say the molten sea was a perfect circle? "It was round all about." Let's take ourselves back, oh, I don't know, say 4000 years to Solomon's day, making this molten sea. He must have had some pretty high-tech gadgetry to engineer a perfectly circular sea out of bronze and copper?! Or, those guys with hammers and saws were pretty precise huh?

Um well, ok. I retract from my statement about pi. What I don't get is how this is consistent with math, though: Any other shape than a circle would even have a larger circumference than PI. A circle is the shape with the smalles circumference of all. So it's still somewhat odd, don't you think?

Do you see the absurdity of your 'criticism' now? How did the number pi come about? By measurment, or by theoretical derivation? Please ask yourself that.

Well, you'd be surprised, but I actually had discussions christians who claimed that mathematicians got it all wrong because the bible said PI=3. If you don't believe me, I'll be happy to back up my sources (as a good behaving atheist I'd feel obliged to).

If I took my ruler and measured my cup I can bet you it wouldn't equal 3.14159........ - you know why? 1) I do not have an infinitely precise measuring rod 2) Pi is an irrational number. Believe me, there are plenty other things in the Bible you could have chosen I'd have a much harder time explaining.

I have chosen that one because it was fitting to your assumption that the bible is on par with a mathematical formalism. I hope we have that one settled though. Bible and maths are not comparable, agreed?

EDIT: tons of typos, certainly not found all of them..

 

[Jon0388g]

Fair enough. I'll not pretend that my view on it is of eternal truth either. As far as I understand (keep in mind I'm not working in the field of QM) any field equations (Schroedinger, Maxwell, Higgs, etc. ) are derived through the Lagrangian. It's not totally the same as in the classical mechanics: The configuration variables (usually q) are not single real/complex variables anymore but functions. Imagine a string of pearls. You could use (for example) the positions of those pearls as generalised variables (they are called q in most books). Now imagine taking the limit where the pearls get infinitely close to each other while their mass gets infinitely small. All of a sudden your lagrangian does not depend on many generalised variables anymore but of one function (the limit we have taken). So in field theory your generalized variables are actually functions and not real/complex numbers anymore. But you basically then do the same thing with your lagrangian (which is now a lagrangian density), that is you derive the equations of motion. As opposed to the classical mechanics case, those are no ordinary differential equations anymore, they become partial differential equations. For example in classical electrodynamics the equations of motion will be the Maxwell equations - which is hardly surprising. (well actually you only get two of the maxwell equations, but the other two are actually definitions). The generalised momentum of the system (for which there follows a conservation law due to symmetry in the lagrangian) will be the electrical charge. In quantum mechanics they become the Schroedinger equation. So it's the same action principle as in classical mechanics, just on a higher level of absraction, but it's were I start running out of depth. As far this Action principle would even be put to use to deduce string theory, but I haven't seen the maths myself. Susskind says so, though.

Can the Schrodinger equation be derived?


Other than that I'd have to take your word on what you've said: way above my current level of sophistication

Well, if that's how I came across, then please take my serious apologies. I never intended to be disrespectful towards the many people who cherrish their bible. But please understand that comparing the predictive power of the bible to the minute precision of modern physics is a bit rich, don't you think? It's really not comparable in any way, and I'd assume that you actually see my point here.

I see where you're coming from, but that's only because I can appreciate the predictive power of modern physics. You on the other hand cannot (or do not) appreciate the predictive power of the Bible, because it seems utterly ridiculous to you from the outside. So I wouldn't expect you to see where I was coming from.

Ok. I will try. You well no that humans never can be fully objective, but I'll give my best. Please understand though that I do not feel any animosity towards your God. It's a very common misconception among christians to think that atheists "hate god". Try seeing it from an atheist framework for a moment: How could you hate something that you are convinced does not even exist?

I don't think you "hate god". My honest opinion on most atheists (scientificly-minded especially) is that they find it an insult to even entertain the idea that there is a Being out there who they are accountable to. Not only that, but if there is an ultimate Being then they are almost afraid to acknowledge the implication that they will never attain to a complete and utter understanding of everything in the universe. I think that is a base fear of scientists. Their god is their own intellect, and it boils down to human pride. This is just the impression I get.

It is true though, that I think the way the christian God is portrayed in the bible does not paint the image of a loving God - but aslong as you're not trying to teach my kids about him that's entirely your problem and not an issue for me.

I bolded the important part of your statement.

Would you agree that this is presumption based on miseducation and/or lack of adequate knowledge? It's like me telling you what I think about A.I. and I'm a chef! Athorist you've already admitted (and graciously I might add) that you know the least jot or tittle of what the Bible has to say on God or His creation, and what you do is rarely based on solid context and serious historical consideration. So, why make these rash claims?

On the other hand (since we're trying to be honest) I will have to flatly admit that I indeed have no high opinion about religion. That certainly has to do with my biography (I had the rather unpleasant privilege of feeling the love of christians first-hand). I'm well aware that many religious people are loving and caring humans. The way christianity acted throughout history does not portray this unfortunately. But let's not open another box of worms, right?

True. But, I think any reasonable person wishing to find out the truth about the Christian God and His nature would not resort to fallible human beings and their embarassing history for their source of inspiration. At least, it wouldn't be the only source, agreed?

I often hear that from christians. It may be a valid argument from a christian standpoint, but from an atheist perspective it's just as telling me "apples are green. or not". But I guess that you will hardly oppose to my observation that this kind of predictivness is far from QM, right?

All I can say is try and see. You either do or don't, your choice.

Well, fire your scripture. It's just that quoting scripture in an argument with an atheist will be a waste of time. To you it is the holy bible (and I assume, very important). To me it is just some stuff people made up a long time ago, so it is of utter irrelevance to me. Just to prevent any misunderstandings, that's not meant to be rude, it's just that I really don't care about what is written or not, so scripture quotes tend to bore me.


You should understand one thing there: On atheist forums, proponents of all kinds of religion are litteraly swamping the place with prophecies that allegedly can be proven by evidence. When we say "well, yeah, so what, every religion has prophecies" they instantly say "sure, but ours are true". Infact we make a sport of debunking such prophecies (certainly not just the christian ones). Due to the sheer mass of people proposing those claims we have no choice than keeping templates for the ones that have all to often been disproven. Retyping the same debunking every second day is just something which none of us are prepared to waste their time on. (Keep in mind, atheists only have that single finite life, so our time is most precious). I'm afraid that the bible prophecies are among those that have been debunked very often. So as far as I'm concerned I've really seen it, given it a fair chance, and can't be bothered to give it another 3 million chances. It won't change my opinion. If you really have something revolutionary and new to propose about bible prophecies, then please show me. Or even better go to an atheist forum and post it there. There are people around in those places who now much more about the topic than I do (especially the nasty historical details, documents, etc.). Go see how far it flies - but don't be dissapointed if you end up being refuted. I know people there can be harsh, but you haven't seen the enourmous amounts of utter junk that people propose to us on a daily basis. (just yesterday someone claimed that the world will end on august the 14th according a bible-prophecy). Seriously, if you want to impress atheists, then prophecies are the wrong way to tackle it.

Did you look up the term I gave you on dual prophecies? That would've cleared up the Isaiah 'debunk'. And many others I'm guessing.


And, why did your source not acknowledge the fact that Isaiah named the very king who would overthrow Babylon, hundreds of years before the event? Are those the signs of search for truth, or search for error?


I will readily admit there are many, many crackpots out there who twist and butcher the prophecies to their own destruction. But my contention is that there is only one truth. No such thing as 99.98% truth. And it is also my contention that once the 100% truth is most fully presented, it cannot be denied. It is either accepted, or rejected.

See above, if you really want to get into it, so be it, but it's really something which bores me.

If it bores you, then there really is no hope


For me, it is the one thing that kept me in Christianity. I could not believe my eyes the first time I heard what I heard, saw what I saw. If you'd honestly like me to share with you, then so be it. But it'd be fruitless for both of us if neither were prepared for drastic changes.

Well, you're invoking what people like me call the "god of the gaps". That is, when something cannot be understood (like fore example why the wave function collapses in our case) it is automatically ascribed to god. Technically that's the argument by ignorance fallacy. But theres no need to go deeper into that, because your argument is based on a false assumption anyway (I think): Are you sure that everything we see is a collapsed wave-funtion? What about the Young-slits? Is'nt there a setup where the wave function does not collapse? So asserting that wherever I look the wave-function collapses does not hold. In the Young-slit experiments (as far as I understand them) the wave function only collapses when a detector is installed at one slit. How would we be able to observe the non-collapsed interference-patterns elsewise?

I think you're wrong here.


Everything we observe or measure is a collapsed wavefunction. That is fact as I have understood - if you know of any physicist who says otherwise then please, inform me!


There is a very subtle but vital difference in the slit experiment I think you are missing. Observing the interference pattern is not the same as observing the photon itself. The wavefunction represents a wave - observing a photon forces the photon to travel as a particle.

So, in our very act of observing the photon or not observing the photon is interferring with nature, which is a cause of unstationary action according to your first post.

This brings us back on topic: My beef is, that whenever god is performing a miracle - let's just stick with water-to-wine, but anything goes actually - that absolutely violates the principle of least action. You cannot turn water into wine without violating the laws of nature, respectivly the principle of least action. Now you might insist that your God has the might to do so, but I'll reply "that's not what we see in our labs". Apparently some christians believe (I'm not sure if you do, though) that god is constantly performing all sorts of miracles. That I'd say though, is flatly contradicted by observational reality, because whenever we check (and being open-minded does not change a thing here) the laws of nature/physics hold true.

So, let me get this straight. You are implying that because scientists do not observe certain things in laboratories, an all powerful God therefore cannot perform anything otherwise?? Lol!


Athorist, what would be the point of a 'miracle' if it didn't contradict observational reality? That's the whole point!


Your real question should not be whether or not God exists based on the Principle of Least Action, it should be whether a god can exist that could break his own laws! To which every religion would quite sensibly answer "yes". We view our God as supreme, you view the laws of nature as supreme: again, strking similarities in mindset.

ono. The most bloodthirsty version of all that I have come across you choose. Ah well...

I prefer the term "majestic" - but, each to his own...

Um well, ok. I retract from my statement about pi. What I don't get is how this is consistent with math, though: Any other shape than a circle would even have a larger circumference than PI. A circle is the shape with the smalles circumference of all. So it's still somewhat odd, don't you think?

Not sure I follow you here. The Bible simply states the sea was 'round all about'. I understand that to mean they took a sheet of metal 30 cubits long and made a circular shape from it. No profound mathematical statements about pi need apply.

Well, you'd be surprised, but I actually had discussions christians who claimed that mathematicians got it all wrong because the bible said PI=3. If you don't believe me, I'll be happy to back up my sources (as a good behaving atheist I'd feel obliged to).

I don't blame you for thinking we are all ignorant fanaticsThat is quite funny though!

I have chosen that one because it was fitting to your assumption that the bible is on par with a mathematical formalism. I hope we have that one settled though. Bible and maths are not comparable, agreed?

Come to think about it, no, they are not.

EDIT: tons of typos, certainly not found all of them..

Hey don't worry about it! Aufwiedersehen (there's a typo for YOU!)





Jon

 

[athorist]

Can the Schrodinger equation be derived?

Yes it can. There are actually multiple ways to do so. Virtually everything in theoretical physics is derived from very few axioms (homogenity of space-time, isotropy of space-time, etc.). There is an axiomatic formulation of QM made by Dirac in which the SE is an axiom, but if you're going with Feynman/von Neumann/Swinger then it's derived.

Not being able to derive a formula from fundamental axioms would actually be a very strong indication to physicists (even more to mathematicians, lol) that there must be something wrong with it.

I see where you're coming from, but that's only because I can appreciate the predictive power of modern physics. You on the other hand cannot (or do not) appreciate the predictive power of the Bible, because it seems utterly ridiculous to you from the outside. So I wouldn't expect you to see where I was coming from.

Well your description of the bibles predictive power has been that it depends on wether I believe in it in the first place. That's not exactly how the dictionary defines "prediction", is it? Equivocation fallacy!

I don't think you "hate god". My honest opinion on most atheists (scientificly-minded especially) is that they find it an insult to even entertain the idea that there is a Being out there who they are accountable to. Not only that, but if there is an ultimate Being then they are almost afraid to acknowledge the implication that they will never attain to a complete and utter understanding of everything in the universe.

First of all, there is no stereotype atheist as there is no stereotype christian either. But I think you got a wrong impression there: what (many) atheists indeed consider an insult is that many theists want to teach about their specific flavour of a supreme being in schools and universities. That's a definitive no-go in any secular society (how would you react if I started indoctrinating your kids with atheism in schools?) We have no problem if you are trying to save your souls. But that doesn't seem to be enough for most christians - they want to save my soul, too, aswell as those of my neighbour and my kids. That's none of your business!

I think that is a base fear of scientists. Their god is their own intellect, and it boils down to human pride. This is just the impression I get.

That's a wrong impression, for sure. You will not find any decent scientist who claims that all of the world can be known. What you have to undestand, though, is that there is no place for god in science. Not because scientists do not believe in god (actually many do), but because the scientific method cannot (by definition) work on that premise. If you assume that god is a valid scientific explanation for any natural phenomenom then you're basically done doing science. No more things to find out, because ultimately you could always just explain things by god working in mysterious ways. Take a look at thunder&lightning for example. If you take god as a valid scientific explanation then it's just some god sitting somewhere in the sky firing lightning. No advance to scientific insight is possible, since you already have a theory that can explain anything. However, a scientific theory has to make predictions that can be falsified. The theory that god exists cannot be falsified, therefore it's not science. It's philosphy, maybe. It's precisely my critique of your statement about bibles predictiveness. The way you formulated it there is no possibility to falsify it, because if it does not work you can always claim that I just wasn't trying to look hard enough. Science doesn't work that way. We create a theory which will have to conform with what we already know from experiments. Then we make a prediction by that theory of something which hasn't been experimentally tested yet. If the prediction is correct, we replace our old theory with the new one. If it fails, then try thinking of a new theory. That's why science keeps changing and improving. To put it short:

No falsifiability - no science.

I bolded the important part of your statement.

Would you agree that this is presumption based on miseducation and/or lack of adequate knowledge? It's like me telling you what I think about A.I. and I'm a chef! Athorist you've already admitted (and graciously I might add) that you know the least jot or tittle of what the Bible has to say on God or His creation, and what you do is rarely based on solid context and serious historical consideration. So, why make these rash claims?

Keep in mind that I read the bible. I'm not expert to it, certainly, but I read it entirely - I would assume that many christians cannot make that claim. So yes, I'm no expert at all, but no, my statement is certainly not based on total ignorance.

What about the great flood - is that a loving god?
Sodom/Gomorrah? What about god killing all the newborns in egypt?

I'm afraid, no, the way god is portrayed in the bible he comes off as a really ugly character. He endorses infanticide, genocide and fratricide. If you insist I'll dig out the respective passages for you (I am prepared to bet real money that I can find more than 5 at least).

True. But, I think any reasonable person wishing to find out the truth about the Christian God and His nature would not resort to fallible human beings and their embarassing history for their source of inspiration. At least, it wouldn't be the only source, agreed?

Why hasn't god done anything about the killing in his name? If he's so powerful that would have been easy, I'd have thought...

And even more important: Why stick to a faith with such a bloody past in the first place? How can I be sure that it will not happen again? (Actually I am convinced that it will happen again....)

Again this may be because of personal experience (any maybe because of watching the news), but I trust religious people just as far as I can watch my back.

All I can say is try and see. You either do or don't, your choice.

I'll just relay you to what I said about falsifiability here.

Did you look up the term I gave you on dual prophecies? That would've cleared up the Isaiah 'debunk'. And many others I'm guessing.

And, why did your source not acknowledge the fact that Isaiah named the very king who would overthrow Babylon, hundreds of years before the event? Are those the signs of search for truth, or search for error?

The name of the king stuff has actually been fairly extensively discussed on our boards (mind you there are many christians there, so certainly a balanced discussion, and as opposed to here, where posts suddenly dissapear, we have no thought-police). Do you realize that you have no way to prove that the passage hasn't been edited later on? Maybe the prophecies did cut it for you, but in all honesty, forget arguing prophecies with skeptics - it's futile.

I will readily admit there are many, many crackpots out there who twist and butcher the prophecies to their own destruction. But my contention is that there is only one truth. No such thing as 99.98% truth. And it is also my contention that once the 100% truth is most fully presented, it cannot be denied. It is either accepted, or rejected.

There is no watertight proof for the prophecies, which makes it an insta-reject. I'm not even saying that I can disprove them. The fact that you cannot prove them with ultimate certainty alone is enough to reject them.

If it bores you, then there really is no hope

Trust, me, there really is no hope.

For me, it is the one thing that kept me in Christianity. I could not believe my eyes the first time I heard what I heard, saw what I saw. If you'd honestly like me to share with you, then so be it. But it'd be fruitless for both of us if neither were prepared for drastic changes.

It would be fruitless, really. Let's just agree that we disagree here.

I think you're wrong here.

Everything we observe or measure is a collapsed wavefunction. That is fact as I have understood - if you know of any physicist who says otherwise then please, inform me!

That would be an argument from authority - fallacy. Anyway, there is no need to quote-mine some known physicists. The interference-pattern that we see in the Young-Slit experiment is the result of a non-collapsed wave-function. I recommend you to just carefully re-read about the experiment, because this is beyond doubt. And that's were your argument basically shoots in its own foot: Since we have evidence that not every wave-function in the universe is collapsed, by your own logic we would have evidence that no omniscient being (which has a panoramic view of all the universe and measures every particle) can exist. Your proposition that an omniscient being is constantly measuring all the universe can even more technically be refuted by citing the Turing-Paradox:

It is easy to show using standard theory that if a system starts in an eigenstate of some observable, and measurements are made of that observable N times a second, then, even if the state is not a stationary one, the probability that the system will be in the same state after, say, one second, tends to one as N tends to infinity; that is, that continual observations will prevent motion …

I took that from the Wikipedia article on the Zeno-effect.

There is a very subtle but vital difference in the slit experiment I think you are missing. Observing the interference pattern is not the same as observing the photon itself. The wavefunction represents a wave - observing a photon forces the photon to travel as a particle.

I'm afraid, but thats incorrect. The photon is both, wave and particle. You cannot separate the two. Actually even if you measure single photons you will still see interference. You can see that interference pattern in the Young-slit experiment evolve particle by particle.

So, in our very act of observing the photon or not observing the photon is interferring with nature, which is a cause of unstationary action according to your first post.

I can't remember proposing that observation causes unstationary action. Especially not if the observer himself is part of nature. But maybe I haven't expressed myself too well. What I am saying is that interfering with nature (i.e. god forcing his will on a particle) will cause unstationary action.

So, let me get this straight. You are implying that because scientists do not observe certain things in laboratories, an all powerful God therefore cannot perform anything otherwise?? Lol!

What I am saying is that I have no reason to believe so. Why should I?

Athorist, what would be the point of a 'miracle' if it didn't contradict observational reality? That's the whole point!

What's the point in miricles at all, if we can never observe them happening?

Your real question should not be whether or not God exists based on the Principle of Least Action, it should be whether a god can exist that could break his own laws! To which every religion would quite sensibly answer "yes". We view our God as supreme, you view the laws of nature as supreme: again, strking similarities in mindset.

I view the laws of nature as unchanging. That's part of their definition, actually. The striking unsimilarity in our mindset is that you are willing to accept an unfalsifiable proposition about god being able to break his own laws. Never will I accept any proposition that is unfalsifiable.

Not sure I follow you here. The Bible simply states the sea was 'round all about'. I understand that to mean they took a sheet of metal 30 cubits long and made a circular shape from it. No profound mathematical statements about pi need apply.

Well, then try making a circular shape with a specified diameter and check wether the circumference is below PI*diameter. I can show you a rigorous mathematical proof that this is impossible. If your shape is not perfect that will increase the circumference even. (Which, btw, follows from another variational principle, but the proof is fairly simple).

I don't blame you for thinking we are all ignorant fanaticsThat is quite funny though!

It's only funny at first glance. If your confronted with that kind of [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] on a daily basis you'll quickly get depressed about humanity, I can assure you.

Btw, I'm really enjoying our conversation. I think atheists and christians should more frequently engage in this kind of discussion - you should come visit our place some day. Just make sure you can back up everything you say by evidence, or you'll get into trouble for "preaching", lol.

 

[Jon0388g]

Yes it can. There are actually multiple ways to do so. Virtually everything in theoretical physics is derived from very few axioms (homogenity of space-time, isotropy of space-time, etc.). There is an axiomatic formulation of QM made by Dirac in which the SE is an axiom, but if you're going with Feynman/von Neumann/Swinger then it's derived.

Really? I'll have to check up on that.

Well your description of the bibles predictive power has been that it depends on wether I believe in it in the first place. That's not exactly how the dictionary defines "prediction", is it? Equivocation fallacy!

Well it's plain you've totally misunderstood what I said

If someone has a belief, and they are not prepared to change that belief no matter how strong or persuasive the argument against - therein lies your fallacy.

First of all, there is no stereotype atheist as there is no stereotype christian either. But I think you got a wrong impression there: what (many) atheists indeed consider an insult is that many theists want to teach about their specific flavour of a supreme being in schools and universities. That's a definitive no-go in any secular society (how would you react if I started indoctrinating your kids with atheism in schools?) We have no problem if you are trying to save your souls. But that doesn't seem to be enough for most christians - they want to save my soul, too, aswell as those of my neighbour and my kids. That's none of your business!

Umm...am I missing something here? Teaching kids that they evolved from monkeys leading to - to name a few - racism, suicide, depression...If this was presented as theory, then I certainly would have no beef. However, scientists are pushing for this to be taught as fact, which is false.

That's a wrong impression, for sure. You will not find any decent scientist who claims that all of the world can be known. What you have to undestand, though, is that there is no place for god in science. Not because scientists do not believe in god (actually many do), but because the scientific method cannot (by definition) work on that premise.

Agreed.

If you assume that god is a valid scientific explanation for any natural phenomenom then you're basically done doing science.

Where did I make this claim?

No more things to find out, because ultimately you could always just explain things by god working in mysterious ways. Take a look at thunder&lightning for example. If you take god as a valid scientific explanation then it's just some god sitting somewhere in the sky firing lightning. No advance to scientific insight is possible, since you already have a theory that can explain anything. However, a scientific theory has to make predictions that can be falsified. The theory that god exists cannot be falsified, therefore it's not science. It's philosphy, maybe. It's precisely my critique of your statement about bibles predictiveness. The way you formulated it there is no possibility to falsify it, because if it does not work you can always claim that I just wasn't trying to look hard enough. Science doesn't work that way. We create a theory which will have to conform with what we already know from experiments. Then we make a prediction by that theory of something which hasn't been experimentally tested yet. If the prediction is correct, we replace our old theory with the new one. If it fails, then try thinking of a new theory. That's why science keeps changing and improving. To put it short:

No falsifiability - no science.

You've made a couple of valid points here. Let me comment on a few things:

1) You are correct that the premise of a god cannot be falsified. I agree that this question lies outside the realm of science. However, let us be clear that just because it cannot be falsified, the notion cannot be truth.

2) On the Bible's predictivness: you assume too much here. You've said 'if it did not work' ... if what didn't work? If I couldn't convince you? Certainly I may or may not convince you, but the predictability of the Bible can very well be falsified. If the Bible says tomorrow Bill Gates will buy an Apple computer, and he does not, you have your falsified claim and you go home happy. I could never and would never accuse you of not looking hard enough, I'm not that kind of Christian Which is why I said on the prophecy point: the truth (whether true-Bible or false-Bible) cannot be denied: it is either accepted or rejected.

Keep in mind that I read the bible. I'm not expert to it, certainly, but I read it entirely - I would assume that many christians cannot make that claim. So yes, I'm no expert at all, but no, my statement is certainly not based on total ignorance.

What about the great flood - is that a loving god?
Sodom/Gomorrah? What about god killing all the newborns in egypt?

I'm afraid, no, the way god is portrayed in the bible he comes off as a really ugly character. He endorses infanticide, genocide and fratricide. If you insist I'll dig out the respective passages for you (I am prepared to bet real money that I can find more than 5 at least).

Yeah, and a 10 year old can read Principia right the way through, though I get your point. You have a surface knowledge of the Bible, that's better than nothing I guess.


Please, I ask you, start up a thread if you wish to discuss whether the God of the Bible is a God of love. Or PM me, we'll talk one-2-one. I bet you real money you won't

Why hasn't god done anything about the killing in his name? If he's so powerful that would have been easy, I'd have thought...

I thought you've read the whole Bible all the way through? Seems like you've missed an awful lot.....

And even more important: Why stick to a faith with such a bloody past in the first place? How can I be sure that it will not happen again? (Actually I am convinced that it will happen again....)

Actually, you are correct incidentally....it sure will happen again. Why? Well, prophecy bores you, so I guess:o

Again this may be because of personal experience (any maybe because of watching the news), but I trust religious people just as far as I can watch my back.

Why only religious people?

I'll just relay you to what I said about falsifiability here.

Again: prediction is either true or false. Cannot be denied, only rejected. Don't you want to show me my error?

The name of the king stuff has actually been fairly extensively discussed on our boards (mind you there are many christians there, so certainly a balanced discussion, and as opposed to here, where posts suddenly dissapear, we have no thought-police). Do you realize that you have no way to prove that the passage hasn't been edited later on? Maybe the prophecies did cut it for you, but in all honesty, forget arguing prophecies with skeptics - it's futile.


There is no watertight proof for the prophecies, which makes it an insta-reject. I'm not even saying that I can disprove them. The fact that you cannot prove them with ultimate certainty alone is enough to reject them.

Firstly, the Jews can very well vouch for you that the Old Testament scriptures have in no way been tampered with. Why? The Jews are very zealous for their Scriptures...you're going to suggest that blatant changes to passages can be made without NO JEW in thousands and thousands of years noticing a discrepancy? Hmm...can you say 'strawman'?? The reliability of the Bible is a whole 'nother can of worms.


Secondly, I'm afraid you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth here. If you prescribed the same standard you do the Bible to modern physics you'd be left with a very small handful of equations. We are only certain of our theories because they agree to the accuracy to which we can measure today. Tomorrow, next year, or the next millenia may prove very different, especially with LHC up and running. One need only to look at the development of physics throughout the centuries to deduce we always 'think' we're certain!

That would be an argument from authority - fallacy.

No, it would be providing reliable evidence! Have you got some sort of fallacy-fetish?? Lol!

Anyway, there is no need to quote-mine some known physicists. The interference-pattern that we see in the Young-Slit experiment is the result of a non-collapsed wave-function. I recommend you to just carefully re-read about the experiment, because this is beyond doubt.

I can assure you, I am quite familiar with Young's Slit Experiment. I agree with what you've written so far.

And that's were your argument basically shoots in its own foot: Since we have evidence that not every wave-function in the universe is collapsed, by your own logic we would have evidence that no omniscient being (which has a panoramic view of all the universe and measures every particle) can exist. Your proposition that an omniscient being is constantly measuring all the universe can even more technically be refuted by citing the Turing-Paradox:

No no, nobody's doing any shooting here please.


Again, it's another interesting question. I wouldn't go as far to say I've shot myself in the foot: because I'd simply ask - what about before life began? Doesn't Big-Bang theory and Evolution state the existence (collapsed) wavefunctions of matter billions of years before a conscious observer existed? Who was observing at t=0???

I'm afraid, but thats incorrect. The photon is both, wave and particle. You cannot separate the two.

Strawman. For clarity sakes there is either 'particle-like' behaviour or 'wave-like' behaviour - sheesh!

Actually even if you measure single photons you will still see interference. You can see that interference pattern in the Young-slit experiment evolve particle by particle.

You're slightly inaccurate. If you measure (observe) single photons you will never see interference. Please check me on this, I am 100% certain.


It is true we can set up our equipment to fire single photons at a time - but the resulting pattern always depends on whether we are watching the photon or not. It doesn't depend on the screen. And yes, if we are not observing the slits the interference pattern will be built up one dot at a time. Spooky.

I can't remember proposing that observation causes unstationary action. Especially not if the observer himself is part of nature. But maybe I haven't expressed myself too well. What I am saying is that interfering with nature (i.e. god forcing his will on a particle) will cause unstationary action.

No, you didn't. You proposed interfering with nature causes unstationary action. I then proposed observation is interfering with nature. So,,,, if A=B and B=C, then A=........?

What I am saying is that I have no reason to believe so. Why should I?

You do have a reason to believe or not to believe if Christians say your eternal destiny depends on it.

What's the point in miricles at all, if we can never observe them happening?

For the umpteenth time, what makes you so certain because you do not 'observe' miracles in your laboratory they do not occur all over the world? Are the millions of people who have delusional?

I view the laws of nature as unchanging. That's part of their definition, actually. The striking unsimilarity in our mindset is that you are willing to accept an unfalsifiable proposition about god being able to break his own laws. Never will I accept any proposition that is unfalsifiable.

Silly billy. What you are in effect saying is nothing can be true if it is unfalsifiable.

Well, then try making a circular shape with a specified diameter and check wether the circumference is below PI*diameter. I can show you a rigorous mathematical proof that this is impossible. If your shape is not perfect that will increase the circumference even. (Which, btw, follows from another variational principle, but the proof is fairly simple).

OK I think I'll again take your word for it!

It's only funny at first glance. If your confronted with that kind of [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] on a daily basis you'll quickly get depressed about humanity, I can assure you.

Believe me, I am, and I do, and I am.


And you must have a very clean mouth.

Btw, I'm really enjoying our conversation. I think atheists and christians should more frequently engage in this kind of discussion - you should come visit our place some day. Just make sure you can back up everything you say by evidence, or you'll get into trouble for "preaching", lol.

Yeah me too! Although responding seems to be increasing exponentially as a function of time - don't you find?


What would be the point in visiting your place? You've already said "there's no hope" so....it'd be an exercise in futility no?







Jon