The principle of least action

[athorist]

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

I send you a PM where I point you to two papers that do the derivation in detail.

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.

One might argue if it isn't actually the proponents of ID and bible-prophecies that are falling for this fallacy. From what I've seen they start with the a-priori belief that the bible is infallible and selectivly only look at things that do not contradict their worldview. There's no cure for delusion...

Umm...am I missing something here? Teaching kids that they evolved from monkeys leading to - to name a few - racism, suicide, depression...

This is so plain wrong that I really don't know where to start. Could you elaborate a bit on how the theory of evolution leads to racism? Will you fall for the mustache-fallacy when doing so? How does it lead to depression and suicide? I'd be really interested to see your line of reasoning here.

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.

It is fact, dude. It's one of the most rigorously verified theories that mankind ever made. Teaching evolution in schools is hardly teaching atheism anyways, since the theory of evolution does not make any statement about god at all. And yes, it is a theory. It is a theory in the same meaning of the word "theory" that general relativity is a theory. When proponents of ID use the word theory they do not talk about the same thing as scientists using the word "theory". Here lies an equivocation fallacy. One that is, btw, deliberately done. Just shows how dishonest creation-"science" really is.

Evolutionary/Genetic principles are widely used in engeneering these days. Aerodynamics of cars are optimized using genetic algorithms. Robots are programmed that way. Mathematical proofs have been found only by using genetic algorithms. You might say those proofs have indeed no creator. They evolved in the mind of a machine. Yet those proofs are of utter mathematical rigor and very elegant.

Evolutionary algorithms play a key-role in modern A.I. and the theory of neuronal networks. There is really no point in doubting that the evolutionary principles work flawlessly. They do on my computer. I have myself used genetic algorithms a lot.

Oh and on a side-note. Humans not only evolved from monkeys, humans are a species of primates (monkeys) indeed.

Where did I make this claim?

The whole ID stuff is solely based on that claim.

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.

No objecttions. I would point you to Bertrand Russell here: we have no reason to believe in a god, in the very same way that we have no reason to believe a tiny golden teapot is orbitting the Andromeda Galaxy. Even if we technically cannot prove this. It is an unnecessary assumption, hence it should be discarded.

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.

Well then please show me a way to falsify it. Does it predict anything that is due to happen within my lifetime?

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.

So would I think. It's not really hard to see that god drowning every breathing creature on earth isn't exactly loving, is it? What about the many massacres that are described?

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

Check your mailbox. Looks like you owe me money .

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

Would you mind pointing out some of what I missed then?

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

No need for prophecies here. The behaviour of the organised religions in the world is scary enough.

Why only religious people?

Have you ever heard of someone blowing himself up or starting a war because of being convinced that a non-existent being will not reward him? But you're right incidentially. I distrust people in general (it has to do with our behavioural similarities to chimpanzes). The religious are just even more dangerous, because delusion can trick people into doing even the worst kind of atrocities. There is a saying that goes

"It is easy to make good people do good things. It also is easy to make bad people do bad things. However in order to make good people do bad things religion is required."

Those who consider themselves righteous cannot know how wrong they are. (Lao Zi)

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!

Physics does not make any claims about what happens beyond our ability to measure. That's a fundamental misunderstanding here.

As for the reliability of the bible, I'd point you to our one-2-one conversation via PM.

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

Not sure if a deep hate for something qualifies as a fetish. I just made an habbit of pointing out fallacies when I see them, expecially when talking to religious people (they're experts at sneaking fallacies into their arguments). Religion itself is built on the Argument from incredulity fallacy...

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???

You do realize that the term measurment has a precise mathematical defnition (von Neumann!) in QM, do you? A definition which does not involve any intelligent entitiy at all. There is no need for humans or gods to exist in order for measurement to occur. At least not in the standard interpretations.

Don't you want to address the Turing Paradoxon? You seem to have elegantly side-stepped that.

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

Even if I'm wrong about this it certainly is not a Strawman. I suggest reading up on the definition.
From what I understand the collapsed wave-function is still an Eigenstate of the system. Hence it's still a wave function. I may have misunderstood something here, though.

I know that the Heisenberg and DeBroglie formalisms can be shown to be mathematically equivalent. The single particle does have a frequency doesn't it? So obviously you're wrong here. A single photon can always be described as a wave (DeBroglie) and as a particle (Heisenberg). Both descriptions are mathematically equivalent. I have seen the math for this myself. Sheesh.

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.

You cannot "watch" a photon. You can detect it. You can choose to detect it on the slit or/and on the screen. Following the trajectory is not possible. That would violate the uncertainty principle. I really suggest you read up on the theory here, because from what you say I can tell you have not fully grasped the wave-particle duality and it's underlaying math.

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=........?

How is your equivalence relationd defined here? Can you show that it fullfills the axioms of an equivalence relation? Observation is not interferring with nature as long as the observer himself is part of it.

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

My eternal destiny...that's just scare tactics, and I couldn't care less about what christians say about it.

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?

Yes they are. Pathologically delusional even. I doubt they're millions anyway. At least I never met someone who witnessed a miracle (in the sense that the laws of nature have been violated). Have you witnessed a mircacle? If so please tell me about your experience and about what makes you so sure that it actually was a true miracle. I'd be most interested.

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

Where did I say that? I said I have no reason to believe it. That's not the same thing. Equivocation fallacy again...

And you must have a very clean mouth.

Yeah, funny word-filter that is. "Horseshit" seems to pass though. I'm tempted to try other words, lol.

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

Indeed. But that's because we are drawn off-topic mostly.

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?

There's no hope for me to convince you either. It's about widening ones horizon. I'm merely here to see how a christian forum operates, what kind of people hang around here, etc.

But I guess Einstein was right when he said that for some people their horizon is a circle with radius zero which they call their point of view...

 

[Jon0388g]

One might argue if it isn't actually the proponents of ID and bible-prophecies that are falling for this fallacy. From what I've seen they start with the a-priori belief that the bible is infallible and selectivly only look at things that do not contradict their worldview. There's no cure for delusion...

What you've seen is the stereotype for all proponents of ID? What about atheists (world-renowned) who convert to Christianity? Would you like me to name a few?

Are you prepared to change your outlook if sufficient grounds were give to do so? The $64 million dollar question....

This is so plain wrong that I really don't know where to start. Could you elaborate a bit on how the theory of evolution leads to racism? Will you fall for the mustache-fallacy when doing so? How does it lead to depression and suicide? I'd be really interested to see your line of reasoning here.

Lol. Could you please forward me some kind of list of all known fallacies so I can carefully avoid them at all costs.


I personally know of racial incidents that were a direct consequence of the teaching of evolution. Humans are a certain type of monkey? Surely you do not need me to join the dots for you. I am of Afro-Caribbean descent.


Suicide? The theory of evolution states we are all but a highly evolved mixture of chemicals and gas. No reason for being here, just chance. What is the point in life? Why not steal, murder, rape? This 'theory' has had a widespread and detrimental effect on many human minds, just as much as corporate religion.

It is fact, dude. It's one of the most rigorously verified theories that mankind ever made.

LOL! That is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've heard you say, dude


I've seen many of its so called 'verifications' and 'evidence'. Nothing but wild speculation and imaginative artwork.

Teaching evolution in schools is hardly teaching atheism anyways, since the theory of evolution does not make any statement about god at all. And yes, it is a theory. It is a theory in the same meaning of the word "theory" that general relativity is a theory.

....Appeal to authority? Therefore it is a - yep, you got it!

When proponents of ID use the word theory they do not talk about the same thing as scientists using the word "theory". Here lies an equivocation fallacy. One that is, btw, deliberately done. Just shows how dishonest creation-"science" really is.

the·o·ry
–noun, plural -ries.
1.a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. 2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.


Perhaps you'd like to provide a more tailor-made definition?

Evolutionary/Genetic principles are widely used in engeneering these days. Aerodynamics of cars are optimized using genetic algorithms. Robots are programmed that way. Mathematical proofs have been found only by using genetic algorithms. You might say those proofs have indeed no creator. They evolved in the mind of a machine. Yet those proofs are of utter mathematical rigor and very elegant.

Evolutionary algorithms play a key-role in modern A.I. and the theory of neuronal networks. There is really no point in doubting that the evolutionary principles work flawlessly. They do on my computer. I have myself used genetic algorithms a lot.

Interesting, but nevertheless irrelevant information. No doubt evolutionary algorithms have useful output. Let me ask you, have you ever observed macro-evolution in your laboratory?

The whole ID stuff is solely based on that claim.

Provide evidence for that very general statement. And please note I myself have never made that claim, a propent of ID.

No objecttions. I would point you to Bertrand Russell here: we have no reason to believe in a god, in the very same way that we have no reason to believe a tiny golden teapot is orbitting the Andromeda Galaxy. Even if we technically cannot prove this. It is an unnecessary assumption, hence it should be discarded.

Do you have reason to believe Albert Einstein existed? Have you ever personally seen him?


Why is it a necessary presumption to believe a man called Einstein ever walked the earth?

Well then please show me a way to falsify it. Does it predict anything that is due to happen within my lifetime?

Again, I thought you've read it cover to cover?


And yes, there are events which are very soon to take place. How can I be sure? Because everything else foreseen happened throughout history spot on. Faith based on evidence, not demonstration.

So would I think. It's not really hard to see that god drowning every breathing creature on earth isn't exactly loving, is it? What about the many massacres that are described?


Check your mailbox. Looks like you owe me money .


Would you mind pointing out some of what I missed then?

Check your mailbox

Have you ever heard of someone blowing himself up or starting a war because of being convinced that a non-existent being will not reward him? But you're right incidentially. I distrust people in general (it has to do with our behavioural similarities to chimpanzes). The religious are just even more dangerous, because delusion can trick people into doing even the worst kind of atrocities. There is a saying that goes

You may compare your behaviour to that of chimpazees, that it your preprogative. By your profile pic I can see why you'd do so (JOKES) But I insist you do not include me in that ridiculous statement.

"It is easy to make good people do good things. It also is easy to make bad people do bad things. However in order to make good people do bad things religion is required."

Those who consider themselves righteous cannot know how wrong they are. (Lao Zi)

Incidentally, the last section of Lao Zi's statement agrees with the Bible.

Physics does not make any claims about what happens beyond our ability to measure.

Errm...ever heard of Inflationary Big Bang Theory?

You do realize that the term measurment has a precise mathematical defnition (von Neumann!) in QM, do you? A definition which does not involve any intelligent entitiy at all. There is no need for humans or gods to exist in order for measurement to occur. At least not in the standard interpretations.

You've responded to a section of my post wherein I didn't use the word 'measurment'. That must be some kind of fallacy.


So I'll ask again: your original argument was that the very existence of un-collapsed wavefunctions implies there is no Grand Observer. To which I challenge: who was observing at t=0?

Don't you want to address the Turing Paradoxon? You seem to have elegantly side-stepped that.

I didn't see the need to address it, since I agree with it! It is well known in QM (in fact I learnt it the previous year but not officially as "Turing Paradox"). If you force a quantum state into one of its eigenstates, then measuring the quantum state will give that eigenstate with 100% certainty. That's how I was taught it anyway.

How does this refute the existence of an Omniscient Being? Obviously in your definition of a god who is bound by his own laws this would refute it, but not the God of the Bible friend.

Even if I'm wrong about this it certainly is not a Strawman. I suggest reading up on the definition.

I think I'm gonna have to to keep up with your nonsense

From what I understand the collapsed wave-function is still an Eigenstate of the system. Hence it's still a wave function. I may have misunderstood something here, though.

I know that the Heisenberg and DeBroglie formalisms can be shown to be mathematically equivalent. The single particle does have a frequency doesn't it? So obviously you're wrong here. A single photon can always be described as a wave (DeBroglie) and as a particle (Heisenberg). Both descriptions are mathematically equivalent. I have seen the math for this myself. Sheesh.

I agree with you - what am I 'obviously' wrong about? Does light not exhibit both particle-like and wave-like behaviour at different times? Slit screen/photoelectric effect???!!!

You cannot "watch" a photon. You can detect it. You can choose to detect it on the slit or/and on the screen. Following the trajectory is not possible. That would violate the uncertainty principle. I really suggest you read up on the theory here, because from what you say I can tell you have not fully grasped the wave-particle duality and it's underlaying math.

To be quite honest Athorist you're confusing me here, not the Young's Slit experiment. One minute you're not an expert in Physics/QM, the next you're correcting me on what I've spent the last year studying. I know you cannot 'watch' or 'follow' the trajectory of a photon, come on! Are we going to get bogged down by semantics? If you want me to be strictly precise, I'll do so. I presumed for ease of reading and ease of understanding I would use more 'digestable' wording.


Back to your original statement, this time corrected in the proper scientific terminology:

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.

The bolded section is not strictly true. If you place a detector at each slit of the experiment, and hence 'know' which slit the photon passed through, you will never ever observe an interference pattern. This is scientific fact. By the experimentalist's act of or lack of detection, the experiment is predestined. Hence, the Observer Effect.

How is your equivalence relationd defined here? Can you show that it fullfills the axioms of an equivalence relation? Observation is not interferring with nature as long as the observer himself is part of it.

False. I think you mean to say observation is not interferring with nature as long as the observer himself is not part of nature. If we belong to nature, by observing we interfere. Please see above.

My eternal destiny...that's just scare tactics, and I couldn't care less about what christians say about it.

I hope it didn't come across that way it certainly wasn't intended as a scare tactic. You asked 'why should I?' [believe]. I just pointed out that if a bunch of wild people make claims that your life depends on your belief, then I'd make sure to find out if these claims were true or false.

Yes they are. Pathologically delusional even. I doubt they're millions anyway. At least I never met someone who witnessed a miracle (in the sense that the laws of nature have been violated). Have you witnessed a mircacle? If so please tell me about your experience and about what makes you so sure that it actually was a true miracle. I'd be most interested.

Nothing you'd be impressed by. I've had my fair share though. No water-to-wine however.


And to be honest I find your statement quite revealing. Everyone who has experienced or been eye-witness to a 'miracle' or supernatural occurence is pathologically delusional. That is a lot of people over many many millienia. Quite an arrogant claim.



Jon