datopdlink:

Sorry to be such a bother,but I just cant resist:You said you have no God and no religion.And I can safely say you're not an atheist.
If I may humbly ask....what is your belief,please?

That life is infinite and is our own will.

If you don't believe you have a will (science) or you delegate your will (religion + god) then you diminish your ability to understand and develop your life.

(I am not saying that people don't have gods or that gods don't exist. I am just saying that they are not my gods.)

sinequanon:


Again, you play with words. You slip in the word "think" for scientists, but don't allow the same for theists.

Both "think" they know.

Scientists think they know their fundamental, unchanging assumptions are correct.

Christians, for example, "think" they know the bible is correct.

Neither will change the fundamental belief. All that will change is the ideas flowing from them.

This is wrong.

Just recently, the Church of England allowed women to be ordained as Bishops. A while back, they allowed priests. Their various bodies, are constantly debating and reinterpreting the Bible and making changes accordingly.

What doesn't change is the fundamental belief that the Bible is the word of god.

And, as I said, scientists don't change their fundamental beliefs, either. They only change interpretations that flow from them.



Richard Dawkins, one of the leading atheists constantly ridiculing "silly fables", said on more than one occasion (and first at a very public, high profile lecture event held yearly for scientists) that he is open to the idea that many versions of him exist in other universes, "maybe, one with a green beard and so forth".

Silly is relative. That didn't sound silly to him. So, please quit expecting these terms to further your argument.

As for the domino effect, that is precisely the problem with science, and why Dawkins found himself having to entertain his equally "ridiculous" idea -- because, without it, the fundamental assumptions of science would collapse.

Only a disingenuous or stupid person could fail to see the parallel.

Again you have nothing to offer but word salads and critiques.

You are better suited to be a food critic. No cooking skills required.

See how shallow your reasoning is.
The church of England changed their church doctrines, not the belief in Adam, Eve, talking snake , hor.ny and ravaging holy spirit, Jesus is god or that Jesus rose from the dead. etc. those are the fundamental assumption of the christian faith which cannot be altered without destroying the entire faith.

And, I don't give a rat's bottom about Richard Dawkins, neither do most atheists.
Go and have a debate with Dawkins if he gives you sleepless nights.
Dawkins did not invent the disbelief in god, and he is just one of less than 5 publicly outspoken atheists whose writing and public profile have become widely known due to the internet revolution.

On the other hand, we have tens of thousands of religious p.i.m.ps mounting podiums and Tv studios every single hour to propound and sell all manners of irrationality, setting man humanity gainst humanity based on faith, based on stone-age myths.

It takes one hell of an episode of cognitive dissonance to continue to insist that people like Dawkins are propounding a religion, a faith, for simply publicly repudiating time-tested, history-attested dangers of irrational beliefs.

And BTW, sinequanon,

Is it in your narrow mind that all atheists are scientists or that all atheists even understand basic science?

sinequanon:


That life is infinite and is our own will.

If you don't believe you have a will (science) or you delegate your will (religion + god) then you diminish your ability to understand and develop your life.

(I am not saying that people don't have gods or that gods don't exist. I am just saying that they are not my gods.)

I can respect that.Thanks for the reply.

sinequanon:


I take it that you don't really understand.

Let me explain it, as I see it.

At one time, matter was considered to consist of smooth paste, sitting in an ether of nothingness. This model progressed to an atomic model of hard indivisible beads, then to waves and then to quantum particles. By this time, scientists had accepted that matter was none of the above, and that models were separate from the reality, to be used to predict the reality within a domain of applicability.

Probability arises, not essentially in the context of causality, but in the context of measurement, according to latest models. The observable is considered to exist in EVERY state AT ONCE, but collapses into one state (an eigenstate) upon measurement. And that is where the probability comes in. It is not causality of the state of the observable, but interference of the measuring system to which probability is attached.

The Schródinger Cat "thought experiment" argues, using a chain reaction, that an observable existing in EVERY state AT ONCE is not confined to tiny particles. You can construct an experiment in which the same must logically follow for a large object, like a cat.

If you read up on the "quantum Zeno effect", you will see that it postulates that quantum measurements will be predictable if taken sufficiently rapidly so as to prevent the wave function of the system from representing too much external noise.

The implications thereof are:

1. The trigger for the experiment was the random decay of a radioactive particle and observation of same are contrary to 'fixed' laws we are familiar with.

2. The suggestion that the observer is not independent of the phenomena; in other words, the phenomena responds to the observer

3. Quantum indeterminacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy which I managed to stumble on. These are radical departures from conventional science and our commonsense.

datopdlink:

I can respect that.Thanks for the reply.

As a matter of interest, what is your spiritual outlook?

(Not for debate. I'm just curious).

Kay17:


The implications thereof are:

1. The trigger for the experiment was the random decay of a radioactive particle and observation of same are contrary to 'fixed' laws we are familiar with.

This isn't contrary to fixed laws. Nor does "random" even imply the outcome is indeterminate. All it is saying is that the mechanism of the decay are of no importance to the current experiment.

What is important in this experiment is the collapse of the wave function, which is dependent on the measurement (observation mechanism).

2. The suggestion that the observer is not independent of the phenomena; in other words, the phenomena responds to the observer

This is nothing special. Measuring devices interfere with experiments. It happens to become particularly critical in QM.

3. Quantum indeterminacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy which I managed to stumble on. These are radical departures from conventional science and our commonsense.

The question of inherent indeterminacy relates not to laws, but to their interpretation!

They are saying that you cannot give a classical interpretation to the quantum system if the indeterminacy hypotheses (and they are still hypotheses) are accepted.

As I mentioned earlier, they had to throw out the then "classical" idea of a particle as a bead, when it showed wavelike behaviour.

Now, all combinations of particle-like and wavelike duality do not appear to easily account for some observations.

The result does not challenge the basic assumptions of science, but the description of matter. The classical description is being challenged.

sinequanon:


As a matter of interest, what is your spiritual outlook?

(Not for debate. I'm just curious).

Quotas of Versions

sinequanon:


As a matter of interest, what is your spiritual outlook?

(Not for debate. I'm just curious).

Versions of Quotas

sinequanon:


This isn't contrary to fixed laws. Nor does "random" even imply the outcome is indeterminate. All it is saying is that the mechanism of the decay are of no importance to the current experiment.

What is important in this experiment is the collapse of the wave function, which is dependent on the measurement (observation mechanism)

1. The entire experiment was supposed to be a mockery, nonetheless it is important to stress the unpredictability of a particle (phenomenon) which is well comfortable in quantum physics, does not apparently accommodate the scientific assumption that all phenomena are predictable. Schrodinger's tries to show also the unpredictability of the quantum on the macro level.

This is nothing special. Measuring devices interfere with experiments. It happens to become particularly critical in QM.

No, the perfect experiment is designed to be independent from the behaviour of the phenomena. I said the phenomena interacts/responds with the observer.

The question of inherent indeterminacy relates not to laws, but to their interpretation!

They are saying that you cannot give a classical interpretation to the quantum system if the indeterminacy hypotheses (and they are still hypotheses) are accepted.

As I mentioned earlier, they had to throw out the then "classical" idea of a particle as a bead, when it showed wavelike behaviour.

Now, all combinations of particle-like and wavelike duality do not appear to easily account for some observations.

The result does not challenge the basic assumptions of science, but the description of matter. The classical description is being challenged.

3. The classical interpretations were based on deterministic assumptions. the classical interpretation had an expectation on how matter was to behave. There is what matter is and what we perceive of matter. We make the assumptions not matter.

Kay17:


1. The entire experiment was supposed to be a mockery, nonetheless it is important to stress the unpredictability of a particle (phenomenon) which is well comfortable in quantum physics, does not apparently accommodate the scientific assumption that all phenomena are predictable. Schrodinger's tries to show also the unpredictability of the quantum on the macro level.

We are going over old ground, so my last word on this. What is unpredictable is how the observation collapses the wave function.

No, the perfect experiment is designed to be independent from the behaviour of the phenomena. I said the phenomena interacts/responds with the observer.

I can't make sense of your first sentence.

Kay17:
3. The classical interpretations were based on deterministic assumptions. the classical interpretation had an expectation on how matter was to behave. There is what matter is and what we perceive of matter. We make the assumptions not matter.

And so? Non-classical interpretations of how matter is modeled can still have a deterministic basis.

Reaching a conclusion that classical interpretations cannot be deterministic does not imply that no interpretation is deterministic. They will look for a non-classical description that is deterministic. The multiverse theory, for example, involves non-classical objects.

sinequanon:


I can't make sense of your first sentence.

An error free experiment is obviously one which reduces all interference the observer would have had with the phenomena. The fact that the observer occasionally comes in the way is considered an error. And in the absence of all interference the phenomena is deemed to be independent from the observer.

And so? Non-classical interpretations of how matter is modeled can still have a deterministic basis.

Reaching a conclusion that classical interpretations cannot be deterministic does not imply that no interpretation is deterministic. They will look for a non-classical description that is deterministic. The multiverse theory, for example, involves non-classical objects.

Yet the determinism remains an assumption because there is no way to know exactly the phenomenon will act the same way it did in the past, in the future. While in quantum physics (since that's the topic we are restricted for the while), determinism as found in classical interpretations have been largely abandoned in place for Uncertainty principle, Indeterminism and Complementarity views which are non deterministic. Of course determinism is still used in other fields of science, but it is largely stripped off in quantum physics.

As a christian with many muslim co-workers, I have to ask how atheism is a religion?

What do they worship?
Do they have a god?
What are their religious practices?
What are their religious symbols?

AllNaijaBlogger:
As a christian with many muslim co-workers, I have to ask how atheism is a religion?

What do they worship?
Do they have a god?
What are their religious practices?
What are their religious symbols?

Atheism is not a religion. It is just the belief in the non existence of gods or God.

Many mistake it to be religion.

joseph1832:
Atheism is not a religion. It is just the belief in the non existence of gods or God.

Many mistake it to be religion.

Hmmmm

Kay17:


An error free experiment is obviously one which reduces all interference the observer would have had with the phenomena. The fact that the observer occasionally comes in the way is considered an error. And in the absence of all interference the phenomena is deemed to be independent from the observer.

Measurement is interference.

The whole point is that there is no totally independent observer, but in QM the known measurement techniques are so obtrusive relative to the phenomena being investigated that they cannot usually be modeled in an error margin. (The quantum Zeno conjecture seems to suggest a counterexample.)

Kay17:
Yet the determinism remains an assumption because there is no way to know exactly the phenomenon will act the same way it did in the past, in the future. While in quantum physics (since that's the topic we are restricted for the while), determinism as found in classical interpretations have been largely abandoned in place for Uncertainty principle, Indeterminism and Complementarity views which are non deterministic. Of course determinism is still used in other fields of science, but it is largely stripped off in quantum physics.

Determinism remains an assumption in ANY statistical system, classical or otherwise.

This is not unique to quantum physics.

In chemical reaction, we have Brownian motion, first, second and third order reactions etc., all with a non-deterministic model. It simply means that the instruments and capacity is not there to track every variable.

Just as you can determine the half-life in an equilibrium reaction, so you can determine the half-life of a radioactive particle. Both have statistical models.

What the QM physicists are debating is not whether they must discard determinism (they won't, even if it means believing in infinite universes containing men with green beards), but whether they must reject classical objects for modeling matter. i.e does matter consist of "things" which are nothing like what we are familiar with in everyday life (like beads and water waves).

sinequanon:


Measurement is interference.

The whole point is that there is no totally independent observer, but in QM the known measurement techniques are so obtrusive relative to the phenomena being investigated that they cannot usually be modeled in an error margin. (The quantum Zeno conjecture seems to suggest a counterexample.)



Determinism remains an assumption in ANY statistical system, classical or otherwise.

This is not unique to quantum physics.

In chemical reaction, we have Brownian motion, first, second and third order reactions etc., all with a non-deterministic model. It simply means that the instruments and capacity is not there to track every variable.

Just as you can determine the half-life in an equilibrium reaction modeled, so you can determine the half-life of a radioactive particle. Both have statistical models.

What the QM physicists are debating is not whether they must discard determinism (they won't, even if it means believing in infinite universes containing men with green beards), but whether they must reject classical objects for modeling matter. i.e does matter consist of "things" which are nothing like what we are familiar with in everyday life (like beads and water waves).

I meant to hit modify.but I hit quote. Is there no delete button?

I am wondering if replacing the post with a period is what causes the spam bot to kick in. So I'll just leave this ting taking up speaaace!

AllNaijaBlogger:
As a christian with many muslim co-workers, I have to ask how atheism is a religion?

What do they worship?

self, science, wealth, their prophets e.g Dawkins, late Hitchens.

AllNaijaBlogger:
Do they have a god?

self, science, wealth, their prophets

AllNaijaBlogger:
What are their religious practices?

Worshipping the above, evangelizing on internet, praising the above, persecuting people of other faiths, celebration of Darwin's birth.

AllNaijaBlogger:
What are their religious symbols?

See symbols attached.

italo:
self, science, wealth, their prophets e.g Dawkins, late Hitchens. self, science, wealth, their prophetsWorshipping the above, evangelizing on internet, praising the above, persecuting people of other faiths, celebration of Darwin's birth.See symbols attached.

Are you joking? You don't seem serious.

Is science a god?

AllNaijaBlogger:



Are you joking? You don't seem serious.

Is science a god?

Yes. For people who worship it.

Quota.

sinequanon:


Measurement is interference.

The whole point is that there is no totally independent observer, but in QM the known measurement techniques are so obtrusive relative to the phenomena being investigated that they cannot usually be modeled in an error margin. (The quantum Zeno conjecture seems to suggest a counterexample.)

But in the perfect world there is no observer bias or interference. Don't mix the facts with the assumptions. To common sense, there is no point of trying ascertain the nature/behaviour of a phenomenon when I believe I cannot capture the true picture due to my observation interference. But Science believes it can capture the true picture of phenomena, and a consequence of that belief is the assumption of the "independent observer". The fact that you accept objectivity precludes you from opposing the 'independent observer'.

Besides you have mentioned yourself an error margin. Why would an error margin be contemplated if it is accepted that there is no "independent observer".

Determinism remains an assumption in ANY statistical system, classical or otherwise.

This is not unique to quantum physics.

What the QM physicists are debating is not whether they must discard determinism (they won't, even if it means believing in infinite universes containing men with green beards), but whether they must reject classical objects for modeling matter. i.e does matter consist of "things" which are nothing like what we are familiar with in everyday life (like beads and water waves).

Determinism is seeming possible in a certain, fixed and predictable environment, it is counterproductive for you to claim that in an uncertain environment as QM, determinism is possible. It is a contradiction.

italo:
self, science, wealth, their prophets e.g Dawkins, late Hitchens. self, science, wealth, their prophetsWorshipping the above, evangelizing on internet, praising the above, persecuting people of other faiths, celebration of Darwin's birth.See symbols attached.

lol... you just want atheists to be as delusioned as you are by fire by force... well try harder.

yea right the atheists in your neigbourhood always go to a place of worship on thursdays to worship science or wealth. they sing praises to the things you mentioned above and kneel down to them in adoration. they believe if they dont pay their tithe to science science will be mad at them and punish them. they go about on the tv and in cars asking people to worship science, threatening them of severe consequences if they dont.

lol

frank317:


lol... you just want atheists to be as delusioned as you are by fire by force... well try harder.

yea right the atheists in your neigbourhood always go to a place of worship on thursdays to worship science or wealth. they sing praises to the things you mentioned above and kneel down to them in adoration. they believe if they dont pay their tithe to science science will be mad at them and punish them. they go about on the tv and in cars asking people to worship science, threatening them of severe consequences if they dont.

lol

I have shown you how Atheism can be seen as a religion.

You havent refuted anything I said.

@italo

To be truthful, your definition of religion is too broad and broad enough to cover "centralized atheism or state atheism" however it covers ideologies. It can cover the Nazis and the Communists as well as the Democrats, Social Liberals and PDP/APC. Worse you didn't even mention the type of beliefs necessary to form a religion. And in any case, can political beliefs form religions?

Kay17:


But in the perfect world there is no observer bias or interference. Don't mix the facts with the assumptions.

But you are confusing assumption with "fact".

Your statements about "the perfect world", "true picture", separating phenomenon from observer to postulate "the independent observer" and the "nature or behaviour of a phenomenon in itself" are all contingent on your ASSUMPTION of an objectivity.

The confusion is evident here..

Kay17:
To common sense, there is no point of trying ascertain the nature/behaviour of a phenomenon when I believe I cannot capture the true picture due to my observation interference.

You are trying to call your assumption "the true picture" and then use that label to justify the assumption.

I could just as easily slap the label "the true picture" on the assumption that the world is subjective, and that similarities in experience cannot be abstracted into independent "observables". For example, "everything is in the mind" and we should be studying similarities of mind.

This is why I say we should be very careful with words. If you are not careful, they can introduce assumptions and bias based on your gut feel, without you realizing it. In this case, you called something "true" because it is the philosophy you "feel" to be true. But then you employed the word it in a logical sense because of the depth of that feeling.

Kay17:
But Science believes it can capture the true picture of phenomena, and a consequence of that belief is the assumption of the "independent observer". The fact that you accept objectivity precludes you from opposing the 'independent observer'.

Same as above. Science is defining what it calls "true" through its own assumptions.

You cannot simultaneously elevate the meaning of the word "true" (as you are using it) to mean some universal standard outside of science, which validates science relative to other philosophies.

Kay17:
Besides you have mentioned yourself an error margin. Why would an error margin be contemplated if it is accepted that there is no "independent observer".

Because I was using the scientific paradigm. That doesn't mean accepting it.

Science abstracts observations by making a leap of faith from a multitude of subjective experiences to what it calls a "true" objective fact.

But even where science accepts that the observer is not independent (e.g two slit experiment), this does not imply subjectivity. It is only relativity (not in the Einsteinian sense.)

Kay17:
Determinism is seeming possible in a certain, fixed and predictable environment, it is counterproductive for you to claim that in an uncertain environment as QM, determinism is possible. It is a contradiction.

Again, I think you are confusing assumption and fact -- in this case actual environment and model (classical/non-classical).

Maamin:


Give me evidence that they dont exist..."that which can be ascertain without evidence can also be disregarded without evidence"

Loool!.... You are the one uttering a "god" without evidence and you want me to give you evidence against the unvalidated claim?!....
while your running up in circles here...why not also tell me to also give you evidence against a 5-sided square?...
You are the theist here....you believe "god" is real,i do not....so either provide an evidence/justify your beliefs so that we know its real or tell us you have no reasons to justify it...

davien:
Loool!.... You are the one uttering a "god" without evidence and you want me to give you evidence against the unvalidated claim?!....
while your running up in circles here...why not also tell me to also give you evidence against a 5-sided square?...
You are the theist here....you believe "god" is real,i do not....so either provide an evidence/justify your beliefs so that we know its real or tell us you have no reasons to justify it...

Lol!

One of them once asked me to prove that snakes did not talk in biblical days.

davien:
Loool!.... You are the one uttering a "god" without evidence and you want me to give you evidence against the unvalidated claim?!....
while your running up in circles here...why not also tell me to also give you evidence against a 5-sided square?...
You are the theist here....you believe "god" is real,i do not....so either provide an evidence/justify your beliefs so that we know its real or tell us you have no reasons to justify it...

You might want to Give me evidence for gravity..by showing me gravity itself

sinequanon:


But you are confusing assumption with "fact".

Your statements about "the perfect world", "true picture", separating phenomenon from observer to postulate "the independent observer" and the "nature or behaviour of a phenomenon in itself" are all contingent on your ASSUMPTION of an objectivity.

The confusion is evident here..

Science, not me, makes the assumption of objectivity and as you have nicely put out -- the perfect world, a true picture separate from the observer contingent on objectivity. This assumption is whats shaky and even discarded in QM.

You are trying to call your assumption "the true picture" and then use that label to justify the assumption.

I could just as easily slap the label "the true picture" on the assumption that the world is subjective, and that similarities in experience cannot be abstracted into independent "observables". For example, "everything is in the mind" and we should be studying similarities of mind.

This is why I say we should be very careful with words. If you are not careful, they can introduce assumptions and bias based on your gut feel, without you realizing it. In this case, you called something "true" because it is the philosophy you "feel" to be true. But then you employed the word it in a logical sense because of the depth of that feeling.

I am not arguing nor justifying Science's assumptions, I was only pointing out the assumptions Science makes which conflict with results from QM. I'm not saying the world is objective nor subjective, I am only saying Science assumes the world is objective.

Same as above. Science is defining what it calls "true" through its own assumptions.

You cannot simultaneously elevate the meaning of the word "true" (as you are using it) to mean some universal standard outside of science, which validates science relative to other philosophies.



Because I was using the scientific paradigm. That doesn't mean accepting it.

Science abstracts observations by making a leap of faith from a multitude of subjective experiences to what it calls a "true" objective fact.

But even where science accepts that the observer is not independent (e.g two slit experiment), this does not imply subjectivity. It is only relativity (not in the Einsteinian sense.)

Are you conceding that Science did assume the observer is independent?

Again, I think you are confusing assumption and fact -- in this case actual environment and model (classical/non-classical).

Determinism is also contingent to objectivity.

For QM, Science has had to adjust its assumptions.

Maamin:


You might want to Give me evidence for gravity..by showing me gravity itself

Gravity is the label given to the phenomena observed....its not an entity.

Kay17:


Science, not me, makes the assumption of objectivity and as you have nicely put out -- the perfect world, a true picture separate from the observer contingent on objectivity. This assumption is whats shaky and even discarded in QM.

You are repeating yourself and confusing the problem of isolation of a system with objective vs subjective description of the system. They are two different things. QM has not discarded the assumption of objectivity at all. I think we will have to agree to disagree.