Are You A Quantum Creationist?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Eugene Shubert, Aug 13, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    Please enlighten me with sugar on top. Is the spontaneous quantum creation of a beautiful woman out of inanimate matter perfectly consistent with all the fundamental laws of physics?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    That is correct. All the fundamental laws of physics are probabilistic today and they will be equally probabilistic tomorrow.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,742
    This is an outright lie.
    Are all of these, for example, "probabilistic"?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    It's interesting that mainstream physicists are very accepting of Einstein publishing On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies without listing his sources but I'm supposed to document mainstream opinion.

    Richard Feynman is still considered as representative of mainstream QM. I was summarizing his beliefs. Bohemian mechanics is well-recognized to be on the fringe of quantum theory.
     
  8. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    yes, yes.. some may say it pertains to experience and not just insignificant ramblings.
     
  9. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    I don't know anything about Augustine but was a mathematician before being commissioned to be a prophet. Nevertheless, I'm certain that I still remember what constitutes an excellent mathematical proof.
     
  10. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,742
  11. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,742
    As we're about to see:

    No he wasn't. The word "mathematici" meant "astrologers".

    You've apparently made this up.
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,160
    Sure. It is just very, very, very unlikely.
     
  13. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    You misunderstood my intent. I was simply noting what a bright fellow Freeman Dyson happens to be. My argument for the existence of a Divine Mind is that all the fundamental laws of physics only determine a probability amplitude. Consequently, according to accepted physics, events happen for no reason whatsoever. Therefore, I've decided that the Decider, by definition, is the Divine Mind.
     
  14. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,233
    I think you misread Eugene's statement. I think what he meant was that he (Eugene) used to be a mathematician before THE LORD told him "go forth and spew religious anti-science for the world doesn't have enough religious zealots".
     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,160
    No, that's not what accepted physics predicts.
     
  16. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    who is srinivasa ramanujan ?
     
  17. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,742
    Ah.
    It's quite apposite how someone who earlier complained about a "grammatical error" managed to make his sentence so ambiguous.
     
  18. rpenner Fully Wired Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    As described, no. The law of mass conservation is fundamental and has strictly negative implications for the counter-stool-to-woman transition matrix. Also, human beings have excessive hydrogen and deficient iron with respect to counter stools, so quantum physics does not allow spontaneous tunneling from a low-energy state like an iron nucleus to a high-energy state like any other combination of nucleons. An entirely wooden counter stool is marginally better on the nucleosynthesis but worse off on the overall mass-energy conservation. Finally, even if the numbers of nucleons matched exactly between a hypothetical exotic bar stool and a human being, there is no chance that a spontaneous rearrangement of matter would result in a viable human being because details matter and viable human beings don't have a core temperature of thousands of degrees.
    Also, as described, it was a joke predicated on the implication that the chance that beautiful women talk to physicists is zero.
    You misunderstood my point. Deterministic and probabilistic are antonyms. The probability amplitude has different meanings in Bohmian and many-worlds interpretations. Our observations are certainly probabilistic, but in those interpretations the laws of physics are entirely deterministic.
    Einstein's 1905 paper did not purport to speak for "all mainstream quantum physicists" as you did, despite not being part of that community. He makes a reasoned argument building on consequences of Maxwell's 1865 theory of electromagnetism to people educated in the same. Moreover, Einstein's paper has nothing to do with the truth value of your claim. You should document your sources because the claim is beyond your personal expertise and controversial.

    While it is uncontroversial to say Bohmian mechanics is a fringe quantum interpretation, you truncated my sentence as I listed two classes of physicists who disagree with your view, requiring two separate rebuttals that they are not “mainstream quantum physicists” to continue to hold your view. Your omission suggests you wish to shirk this duty without abandoning your claim as an honest person would do. My opponent's lack of honesty in debate costs me nothing, but just gives me something to harp on about for years to come. So good luck with that stratagem.

    You were not summarizing Feynman's beliefs, you were twisting and embroidering them. Feynman was criticizing a philosophy of science uninformed by modern physics, but that philosophy was not naturalism. It may have been a naive form of determinism, but it was not all philosophical thought under the umbrella of determinism. Moreover, Feynman wasn't teaching philosophy, so his reference to what some philosophers think was wholly informal, so suffers as an authoritative source just as your claim of what "all mainstream quantum physicists" think does.

    Are you saying you or Augustine was the person who was first a mathematician, later a prophet? Neither seems to have been true about Augustine, while neither is personally believed to be true about you. An argument is not the same thing as a mathematical proof, but they share many properties not found in your articles or posts.
    See, that's neither an argument nor proof. It's just baseless opinion which you now claim isn't even supported by one of Freeman Dyson's wilder opinions.

    So in summary: Nothing you said about Naturalism, Feynman, Einstein, Dyson, "all mainstream quantum physicists" or St. Augstine matters. Your claim is that wherever there is uncertainty, there is God. God, according to you, is a piss-poor mechanic, personally supporting each and every one of the billions of transistors I need to compose and transmit this post and indeed the trillions of quantum mechanical ion channels in my cell membranes that I need to use to hold your opinions in contempt. Your argument is that your claims about the supernatural are privileged due to your self-proclaimed status as a prophet.

    That is a circular argument.

    I'll leave it to James R's staff to decide if your further posting here is merited, but I suggest the best course of action is to send you on your way with some Australian innovation in execration inserted in your signature.
     
  19. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    To paraphrase the Son of God, "the Father is always working and, likewise, I'm always working."
     
  20. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    shakes head, what does this even mean, what's the significance ?
     
  21. rpenner Fully Wired Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    John 5:17 (sort of) -- in this verse, Jesus was excusing, to a crowd of angry Jews, his apparent violation against working on the Sabbath as permissible as he was going about the work of God (i.e. miraculously healing a man who had been ill for 38 years). It does not specify that God or Jesus was doing any particular type of work, such as enforcing laws of physics.

    But John 5:31 has Jesus saying "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." which has the implication that, as a general principle, we should not believe you when you claim to be a prophet. Therefore we have no reason to believe that which you claim based on personal revelation.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2015
    danshawen and Kristoffer like this.
  22. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,950
    Freeman Dyson is by no means alone in this view of the raw universe as something that is at least akin to having a mind. Roger Penrose has already pointed out that organisms like the paramecium, which have no neurons at all, are capable of flexible responses to its environment that are the rival of more complex multicellular organisms which have neurons to process stimulus-responses to its environment.

    Nothing man or any species of hominid has yet engineered has rivaled nature's invention of atomic structure, the wheel, the arch, photosynthesis, sex, stellar nuclear reactors more numerous and reliable than we are capable of counting, the mammalian neocortex, or the human mind, just to name a few of the things we haven't yet been able to match. These minds are finite and must communicate with each other in symbolic representations of the ideas we wish to convey, which is nothing like the whole truth about anything. This is one reason why any AI based on symbolic logic has the raw intelligence and flexibility of a sponge with a thousand lobotomies. Finer rather than coarse neurosensory integration is deemed more sentient by us, but who is really to say that larger or smaller systems of stimulus-response are not possible, even on a level of understanding surpassing our own? We did not exactly create these minds we are using, or else we would already be better at simulating whatever it is they do.

    If the whole universe were sentient, I very much doubt a mind such as ours would even recognize it as such. We only recognize those concepts that we discern as vital to our own survival, and ignore the rest.
     
  23. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,950
    rpenner said:
    "Hilary Kornblith said:
    Philosophers must be ... modest ... and attempt to construct philosophical theories which are scientifically well informed."

    Aarrgh! another philosopher talking about truth without bothering first to even define the term. How immodest is that?

    Thanks anyway, rpenner.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page