Discussion in 'Religion' started by danshawen, Jun 26, 2017.
Thanks for recapping the Bohr atom. A walk down memory lane. I loved reading about it.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Click because Ernst + Shostakovich makes no more or less sense than anything else.
I actually feel like there are six or so subplots running around, here, including a defense of what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy↱ describes as a "metaphysical interpretation of quantum mechanics":
As the theory of the atom, quantum mechanics is perhaps the most successful theory in the history of science. It enables physicists, chemists, and technicians to calculate and predict the outcome of a vast number of experiments and to create new and advanced technology based on the insight into the behavior of atomic objects. But it is also a theory that challenges our imagination. It seems to violate some fundamental principles of classical physics, principles that eventually have become a part of western common sense since the rise of the modern worldview in the Renaissance. The aim of any metaphysical interpretation of quantum mechanics is to account for these violations.
The Copenhagen interpretation was the first general attempt to understand the world of atoms as this is represented by quantum mechanics. The founding father was mainly the Danish physicist Niels Bohr, but also Werner Heisenberg, Max Born and other physicists made important contributions to the overall understanding of the atomic world that is associated with the name of the capital of Denmark.
In fact Bohr and Heisenberg never totally agreed on how to understand the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics, and neither of them ever used the term “the Copenhagen interpretation” as a joint name for their ideas. In fact, Bohr once distanced himself from what he considered to be Heisenberg's more subjective interpretation (APHK, p.51). The term is rather a label introduced by people opposing Bohr's idea of complementarity, to identify what they saw as the common features behind the Bohr-Heisenberg interpretation as it emerged in the late 1920s. Today the Copenhagen interpretation is mostly regarded as synonymous with indeterminism, Bohr's correspondence principle, Born's statistical interpretation of the wave function, and Bohr's complementarity interpretation of certain atomic phenomena.
And inasmuch as anyone wishes to fight about the details of the "Copenhagen interpretation itself", any assertion of quantum physics as a means to willful divine creationism in which "God was bound"° by anything also requires subordination akin to polytheism—If the monotheistic godhead is bound by higher authority, then it is not the ultimate authority, and therefore not the monotheistic godhead.
Just so we know it when we see it? Sure, why not? Well, apparently a bunch of other reasons that, well, okay, I trust they make sense to someone.
• • •
We should probably also note that XenForo is simply the software manufacturer, and as far as I know, this isn't a job for anyone at James' level or below; the paid hands would be elsewhere, and have little to do with the day to day community.
° see Faulkner↱:
Just as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics led to even God not being able to know the outcome of an experiment, many people applying determinism concluded that God was unable to alter the outcome of an experiment. That is, God was bound by the physics that rules the universe. This quickly led to deism. Most, if not all, people today who reject quantum mechanics refuse to accept this extreme interpretation of Newtonian physics. They ought to recognize that just as determinism is a perversion of Newtonian physics, the Copenhagen interpretation is a perversion of quantum mechanics.
Faulkner, Danny R. "Do Creationists Believe in 'Weird' Physics like Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and String Theory?" 2008. Answers in Genesis. 2 September 2010. ANswersInGenesis.org. 27 June 2017. http://bit.ly/2sfmkfZ
Faye, Jan. "Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics". 2002. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 24 July 2014. Plato.Stanford.edu. 27 June 2017. http://stanford.io/2skktlm
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Rich subplots indeed. And you've even quoted my favorite philosophy reference. Excellent idea. I'll have to go re-read the whole section.
Indeed so. If the G-d of position knows the exact position of a particle, can the G-d of momentum be certain of its momentum? How can a single G-d possibly know both measures at the same time? Omniscience is a bad answer, unless there is also a G-d of uncertainty, or omniuncertainty. Somehow, the point of using something like this to replace the certainty that if an omnipotent G-d could create a stone so massive that even an omnipotent G-d himself could not move it, then one G-d or the other would fail an impossible task. More subtle points like these seem lost on quantum creationists.
If a description of a quantum physics situation does not appear in the book of Genesis, it isn't really a problem, you see? Lots of things aren't there, so those must be the uncertainties, right?
I start having axes to grind with moderators that cut off productive discussions of anything. Arfa brane left the "observers" thread believing that interaction of entangled photons with the environment caused quantum disentanglement. This simply isn't true. The beam splitter is part of the environment. So is a fiber optic cable, if it is part of the setup used in Birgit Dopfer's entangled double slit experiment. It isn't pseudoscience to propose that the only "observer" is the focusing lens, which is exactly what the experiment demonstrated beyond any doubt. It DID NOT require divine intervention as the observer to instantly disentangle the longer optical path when the shorter one was brought into focus.
Well, at least I never suggested that G-d him/herself was quantum entanglement. Perhaps I should have.
The discussion was something of an eye opener for me in terms of how many poorly crafted interpretations of quantum mechanical phenomena are floating out there in a community that should really know better. I blame the quantum creationists for some of it. They use every scrap of science they can to try and piece together their cargo cult respectability facades. Wooden cargo crates with radioactive warning labels "Danger: Schroedinger's Cat -- Do not observe!"
I know perfectly well how to read and interpret scientific experimental results. Some people don't or simply don't bother to. Yet they are allowed to moderate here. As far as I am aware, the only other "sciencey" thing this individual has done was to farm out some time on their computer for discovering exoplanets. I only know of about five other amateur astronomers who have done exactly the same thing. It doesn't make you either a scientist or a co-discoverer of exoplanets; that's just a sales pitch to get you to chip in some petaflops. Tell me I misunderstood your role in this, if I got that part wrong. Did you write any code? Did you interface it to a telescope?
Thanks for owning, James. Get a clue and do what you're good at. Hire someone else to moderate who knows enough science not to impede its progress. Open another nice forum like this one and stay out of the discussions on the science threads.
Or just pretend that I didn't just offer you some good advice, like I already know you will.
Nice illustation, Tiassa.
This woman was my philosophy professor at the University of Maryland in the 1970s.
We only covered George Berkeley that semster. I had no idea, until I was reading Tiassa's article that she later specialized in the philosophy of science.
Looks like I have quite a bit more reading to do. Thanks, Tiassa!! Hard to put a value on that.
The picture of Nancy featured in Wikipedia looks exactly as I remember her.
Is "quantum creationist" a term that Eugene invented, then?
If a quantum creationist is an apologist for God, then you've got the wrong end of the stick by trying to apply that label to me. Try reading some of my other posts in the Religion forum - perhaps some of my "debates" with Jan Ardena on the question of God might be a good start.
Eugene doesn't seem to be here to defend himself against your compliments.
I think you've lost touch with reality.
It is rather like talking to somebody who's stopped taking his medication. Quite bizarre.
That seems to be one possible explanation certainly. I hope he may recover lucidity before too long.
My very first post here explains QC in detail. It is difficult for some people to discern the pseudoscience they find in such places from the real deal.
Pointing to a debate in a religion forum to support the idea that you know anything at all about quantum physics or science in general is something I would probably have thought to be a bit strange until I actually tried it myself, so, I see what you mean, James.
I didn't realize either before exchemist reminded me, just how much of my formative ideas about quantum physics can be traced to Niels Bohr.
And then Tiassa used a philosophy link that directed me to one of my teachers at College Park in the 1970s, and I discovered that Nancy had a long and productive career in the philosophy of science. I'm reading her most popular book on the subject right now. Fascinating, and quite as thorough as I knew she could.
I hope that James will be careful to learn the difference between QC and QFT, but that's up to him. I won't be discussing anything touching on it here again, which I know will be a relief to both of you. A real moderator would think more than once about why that really isn't what they want, but again, it isn't my call.
I do learn things here; a ton of useful things is the norm. Thank you both for setting that up.
James, again and again you repost quotes and then respond to them in a manner that tells me, you didn't really understand what you just read. Have you been taking lessons from Donald Trump? These are near flawless in terms of the mastery of his style. You make me smile, because it's just that good. You could easily give Alec Baldwin a run for his comedy money.
Not just Christians.
Hard determinism seemingly destroys most forms of ethics. How can any sort of personal responsibility be ascribed to individuals, if they are nothing more than puppets whose strings are being pulled by the Big Bang/God? It also seems to contradict our own phenomenal self-awareness of ourselves as agents, as actors in the world.
I don't know why quantum mechanics was referred to there.
And that account historically misconstrues what Deism was. Deism was a general term for religious free-thinking in the 17th and 18th centuries. It attracted the same kind of people who are attracted to atheism today. To the extent that the Deists were agreed on anything, it was basically skepticism about revealed theology, things like the Bible and church tradition. But they generally accepted the existence of a God, conceived in more philosophical terms, as creator, first-cause, designer, law-giver and so on.
Maybe, but judging between interpretations of QM is an entirely different issue, isn't it? I still fail to see the relevance.
See what? I don't understand the point that you are trying to make.
No it doesn't. It doesn't change anything.
Have you lost your mind.
No, he's just having a fight with James R.
• • •
You know, I took the post for what it was, an FYI on this weird idea percolating somewhere in creationist circles, and that seemed a reasonable enough proposition for discussion in the Religion subforum.
There's something else going on, here, that apparently must precede or supersede that discussion.
(Edit note: Revise and extend my remarks, 29 Jun, 13.34 PDT)
Tiassa, I'm on 100 mg/day of metaprolol, a beta blocker.
I'm not "having a fight" with anyone, today, or any other time.
Not at all. I was just noticing that both James R and Eugene seem to resemble quantum creationists.
Eugene has said as much.
James claims he is not, but if true, that would mean he sometimes responds to quantum physics threads on the basis of whatever he finds with a cursory search, which more often than not, comes up with quantum creationist websites and he takes this content as science.
I was observing that Eugene seems to allow a wider range of discussion on that subject than James does, possibly because it is of genuine interest to him. James on the other hand MODERATES on the basis of the content of QC websites. Someone (like me) steeped in the quantum physics of Niels Bohr, get bashed and banned, because QC people really hate Niels Bohr. Niels Bohr was largely responsibe for shutting down the Nazi heavy water experiments during the second world war. Premature in terms of WMDs, perhaps, but not by very much in terms of the average lengths of conflicts in modern warfare.
If you don't believe me, start any such thread and suggest that the quantum "observer" is somehow explained by the observer being someone other than G-d. He has already shut down discussions in two such threads. I do not ever plan to join or ever engage a third one. So, have at it.
Reading a QC website to learn quantum physics is akin to reading Breitbart New, believing it is the New York times.
And as I already told Tiassa, I am quite adequately medicated, but thank you for your concern.
I'm not even particularly upset at quantum creationists in general. Just one moderator/owner. He does't pay me for what I write. I don't care about that, either.
Alright, you are determinedly attempting to make a certain manner of point.
The REAL point here Tiassa, is:
Why would any REAL SCIENTIST wish to be associated with a science forum so determined to present a quantum creationist point of view?
And I certainly do have an answer to that.
The rest of you will need to find your own answer to that question.
'Tis a fine question in its circumstance.
Please provide a few quotes from and links to examples of the "quantum creationist" websites you mention.
Are you saying that I am somehow taking instructions from people who run other websites if I, by chance, moderate you? Is this a conspiracy theory?
Why do they hate Niels Bohr? Please explain.
Really? How did he manage that, not being in Nazi Germany during the war?
Who? Me? Which two threads?
You choose to post here. We tolerate your posts. You can leave any time you want.
I think he's just parked it up, somewhere, for a while. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think you may be confusing Bohr with some rumours about Heisenberg, who certainly was on the Nazi heavy water project and is thought by some to have deliberately slowed it down. (Tom Stoppard wrote a play about it, called "Copenhagen", after an unexplained visit that Heisenberg made to see Bohr in Copenhagen, during the war.)
But Dan, this stuff you are posting about James is literally delusional. I mean it sincerely. You are not right in the head at the moment. You have wobbled before but this time it is worse. Please get yourself checked out, or talk about it with someone.
Separate names with a comma.