Discussion in 'Comparative Religion' started by mathman, Dec 2, 2019.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Not deterministic, exactly. It sounds like you're pushing a sort of "hidden variable" theory, and those have been ruled out experimentally for quantum physics.

    We can make very accurate probabilistic predictions, but at the bottom level it is impossible (as far as we can tell) to predict the outcome of a measurement on a quantum system that is in a superposition of states. You might know that a neutron will decay some time in the next two minutes with 90% probability, for instance, but there's no way to predict that it will decay exactly 27 seconds from now.

    You're on one of your favorite hobby horses again. You shouldn't go around making proclamations about what "reality is" unless you can actually back them up - something you've never managed to do in your time here, in regards to your pet theories about "implicate orders" and so on.

    At some point you have to realise that stringing scientific-sounding terms together like this, without backing them up, is a waste of yours and everybody else's time. What you just posted there is completely unsupported by any argument or evidence. Are you aware of that? Do you just make this stuff up as you type?
    exchemist likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    They have been definitively "ruled out"?
    I've declared my interest in Bohm's work. I haven't seen any publication with outright rejection of Bohmian Mechanics.
    And just because we are unable to predict with certainty, that creates "uncertainty" or "indeterminism" in nature?
    It creates uncertainty for humans. But collapse of superposed states is a deterministic event.
    That's all I am saying. Is that wrong? Does "determinism" emerge at a different level?

    "As far as we can tell"?? . I used the phrase "as far as we know" once and got slammed for that. Scientists apparently can take literary liberties (such as invented metaphors) a layman is not allowed.
    I can just see the reaction in this forum if I used the phrase "spooky action at a distance". Consternation all around.

    Bohmian Mechanics again....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Does providing proof suggest "understanding"? Everytime I mention E = Mc^2, I need to provide proofs? And does that prove I understand it. I invite all to disprove what I propose. No one has ever managed to do that in my time here.
    Well, that's why I am now keeping company with other pseudo-scientists, no. Are you going to demand formal proofs in pseudo-science? If I could provide proofs, I'd be posting in the hard science sub-forum, no?
    What I don't understand why religionist are given their own sub-forum to post their woo without any critique or threat of banishment? After all this is a science forum.

    Oh, right. We cannot rule God out 100% by the rules of scientific rigor. But Bohm (a brilliant theorist according to Einstein) was a "commie nutcase" spouting woo. It is these things that bother me.

    People are applying a double standard and it is prejudicial in essence.
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2020
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    In circumstances where Bell's theorems apply, certainly.

    That's a non-local theory.

    Quantum indeterminacy is not about human uncertainty. The indeterminacy we're talking about in quantum physics is built into nature. It is not due to a deficiency in our theories.

    Not as far as we can tell. Quite the opposite, it appears.

    If you think collapse is deterministic, perhaps you can tell what determines exactly when a nucleus of uranium will emit an alpha particle. Can you? It's a problem that nobody else has ever solved, as far as I'm aware, but maybe you know better.

    When I write "as far as we can tell" I am alluding to the available evidence from actual experiments and so on. If you have any experiments that suggest we can predict the outcome of a quantum measurement with certainty, please present them. I'd be really interested to see them.

    I don't see why. That's just another term that Einstein used to refer to what is referred to as "entanglement" these days. Quantum entanglement is an established and experimentally verified effect.

    How can you claim to have an understanding that anything is the case, in the absence of supporting evidence?

    No, because the proofs are readily available - both theoretical and experimental. It is when you propose some new explanation or effect that you need to provide justification for your claims in the form of theory and - the ultimate test - experimental evidence.

    You will rarely hear a physicist talking about what "reality is", and if they do talk about that they are probably making a mistake. What physicists do is they build testable models of "reality". Their confidence about the accuracy of the models is (or should be) directly proportional to the degree to which those models make accurate predictions borne out by experiment and observation.

    This is not how science is done, and that's why you're keeping company with pseudoscientists rather than scientists. Science is not based on "prove me wrong!". It is based on "Here's evidence that shows I'm right!" It is only pseudoscientists who believe that it is up to scientists to disprove every wacky idea they come up with. They get the burden of proof wrong every time.

    If you're only posting vague ideas that have no or very little supporting evidence, what's the point? Is it just that you enjoy the fantasy world-building aspect of it? Don't you ever want to get real? Don't you want to know what's true?

    Among other things, our Religion forum provides a place where the scientific claims that religions make can be put to the test. More importantly, it gives us an opportunity to examine the extent to which religious people use critical thinking - or fail to use it. It is a good place to introduce people to critical, scientific methods of thought, especially if they are not accustomed to applying such modes of thought to their beliefs in a consistent way. A lot of people give their religious beliefs a free pass, without ever really considering why they do that. Why should religious ideas be in a special category, exempt from rationality.

    We also have a whole bunch of "Fringe" forums, which are there for two reasons. One is to clearly separate the pseudoscience from real science, because a lot of people are ill-equipped to recognise the difference. And there's the second reason: to educate people about what makes the pseudosciences unreliable and suspect. When fringe beliefs are exposed to the hard reality of critical thought, their shortcomings become more obvious, and that's a learning opportunity, too.

    Nobody is "banished" here for holding religious beliefs, or Fringe beliefs. In this respect, we are different from some other "Science" forums. This is a conscious choice we made here a long time ago. Personally, I believe there is value in scientists - and those who are trained in critical thinking - engaging with religious people (who, let's face it, make up the majority of people as a whole) and with believers in "fringe" topics.

    Whether Bohm had communist sympathies is irrelevant to his scientific ideas. They stand or fall on their own merit. From what I know about them, they appear to be largely unfalsifiable, so it becomes a philosophical decision as to whether you decide that Bohm might be right or he might be wrong. But notice I said "might", there. If there's no good evidence either way, then as far as I can tell there's no good justification for believing that Bohm had the "answers", any more than there's good justification for believing that he was barking up the wrong tree. Science isn't about faith or idol worship. If there's good evidence in favour of Bohm and against standard quantum theory, then bring it. The onus is on the party making the claim.

    As for God, that's a patently unfalsifiable hypothesis and therefore an unscientific one (by Popper's criterion, at least). However, there's a lot more baggage that people carry about God than a bare belief in its existence. Religious beliefs often impinge on the territory of science, and there we can comment with some confidence. (I'm not with Steven J. Gould on his contention that there are "non-overlapping magisteria". Religion often attempts to intrude into the "magisterium" of science.)
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Does that mean mathematics do not apply at quantum levels?
    Moreover, I have read several papers which refer to macro-quantum, which appears to apply to a "threshold" event involving a quantum event involving large numbers of particles.

    Where does "conciousness" lie in this equation?
    How can we be certain of this?

    And who has declared quantum as not answering to the mathematics of eigenvalues and eigen states? And what is this self-contradictory expression replaced with? Is it outside our scope of mathematics?
    Tegmark agrees with Bohm that in a mathematical universe, everything is mathematically calculated, given sufficient data. Do we have sufficient data to make a declaration that mathematics is insufficient to explain deterministic events. Unequal equations?
    No, I gladly admit that I don't know, but then as you said, no one else seems to know either, so, in this respect we are on a level playing field, no? I can show you an example of macro quantum consistency.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Try to visualize square A and B as the same shade of gray. You can't do it! Your brain refuses to accept that A is exactly the same shade as B.
    And where is that different from my perspective?
    No, I am not required to provide a new theory. I am trying to unpack what we're looking at. Is there enough information to declare "quantum is probabilistically determinate energy" as if that can be posed as a mathematical question.
    Bohm likened this to a state of "pure energetic potential" (chaos) from which "physical values" begin to emerge by a mathematical function, which he identified as a hierarchy of mathematical orders, which describes a deterministic universe .

  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    The OP asks the question, it does not in any way suggest an answer other than what is under current study.
    And I was not attempting to do that before the "brawl" broke out? I've provided plenty of evidence to draw attention to a new science, not a religion, but the Science of Consciousness. It is incomplete, to be sure, but it is real science and deals with issues from micro, to macro, to universal scales by scientists from a host of related sciences and disciplines.
    At one time Life was a mystery, until we learned the evolutionary bio-chemical mechanics of of living systems. Today Consciousness is a mystery, until we learn the inherent mechanics between neural networks and brains that give rise to consciousness.

    To me that opens what is perhaps a Universal Question, Bohm's "Wholeness".
    Bohm remarked that science had become so fractalized as to become unrelatable systems, whereas there sure must be a common denominator to all things in the universe. Were down to three mathematical quanta and four fundamental forces.
    But I am not proposing a new theory. I am trying to discuss "current scientific proposals made by serious theoretical and practical scientists on the question of self-aware consciousness and "current research at nano-scale neural functions, and what exactly it is that allows sets of electro-chemical biological patterns to form an experiential self-awareness, an abstract but real consciousness that transcends physical definitions. Humans are the ideal subject for study, because humans are consciously sef-aware and our experience of consciousness is a "hard fact", and it appears that this experience of conscious awareness is one expression of Bohm's hierarchy of Orders.
    Absolutely, but can anyone tell me what is indisputably true?
    We like to cite "god of the gaps", but objectively it can also be said that our knowledge of a TOE is no more than our "science of the gaps"
    Right, I don't object to a religious sub-forum. As atheist I love a religious debate once in awhile. But what I don't understand is that this thread, which is loaded with some pretty interesting scientific facts relating to several underlying questions about consciousness, how it manifests itself and what are its mechanics. Might be helpful in designing AI.
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2020
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    I agree with all that. The only belief I have expressed here is the belief that microtubules are biological "computers", able to process sensory information from receiver to the brain. My belief rests on the dynamic ability for regulatory self-assembly and disassembly of bipolar coils which can stretch meters long and live by the trillions inside Eukaryotic organism on earth, a common denominator dynamic organelle that regulates mitosis, for one. If that is not a biological computation, what then is ?
    I agree, it is a chance to teach science and maybe learn philosophy.
    Ideally yes, practically he was chased out of this country for his sympathies.
    I realize this is a very large landscape.[/quote] But that is not quite correct. Bohm's work is used on a daily basis throughout the scientific community.
    p.s. Ads&utm_medium=CPC&utm_campaign=Search Ads - Brand&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIyZrZoaWI6gIVVx-tBh26EAJCEAAYASAAEgJ9X_D_BwE
    I agree.
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2020

Share This Page