That's Not Evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-08-2015, 02:01 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(14-08-2015 06:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  There isn't just one quantum.

Do you have proof of this?

Archi

"I love the term magic realism. It's about expanding how you see the world. I think we live in an age where we're just hammered to think this is what the world is. Everything's saying 'That's the world.' And it's not the world. The world is a million possible things." - TG

Salman Rushdie talks to Terry Gilliam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2015, 07:13 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(15-08-2015 02:01 AM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 06:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  There isn't just one quantum.

Do you have proof of this?

Archi

It's the definition of "quantum": "the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction". There are as many quanta as there are possible substances in the universe. Quantum mechanics tends to deal with only certain ones, however - the ones which are most easily dealt with at such a small scale that you're getting down to the Planck length, the functional quantum of space itself.

That's what "quantum mechanics" means: dealing with the smallest possible units of everything.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
15-08-2015, 02:28 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(15-08-2015 02:01 AM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 06:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  There isn't just one quantum.

Do you have proof of this?

Archi

For any transition in energy to an electron in an atom, there will be a specific quantum of energy absorbed or released. This fact allows, among many other things, the creation of different colored lights - the wavelength of the emitted light is a measure of the quantum of energy for that transition.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2015, 10:04 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(15-08-2015 02:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(15-08-2015 02:01 AM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  Do you have proof of this?

Archi

For any transition in energy to an electron in an atom, there will be a specific quantum of energy absorbed or released. This fact allows, among many other things, the creation of different colored lights - the wavelength of the emitted light is a measure of the quantum of energy for that transition.

I don't disagree but where's the proof these observed phenomenon are not all caused by one quanta that is able to manifest in these ways?

My point is as much as it might help us to conceptualise these observed phenomena as multiple quanta there isn't any proof it isn't just one. You know that as well as I do.

Archi

"I love the term magic realism. It's about expanding how you see the world. I think we live in an age where we're just hammered to think this is what the world is. Everything's saying 'That's the world.' And it's not the world. The world is a million possible things." - TG

Salman Rushdie talks to Terry Gilliam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2015, 10:13 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(15-08-2015 07:13 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(15-08-2015 02:01 AM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  Do you have proof of this?

Archi

It's the definition of "quantum": "the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction". There are as many quanta as there are possible substances in the universe. Quantum mechanics tends to deal with only certain ones, however - the ones which are most easily dealt with at such a small scale that you're getting down to the Planck length, the functional quantum of space itself.

That's what "quantum mechanics" means: dealing with the smallest possible units of everything.

Yes, but this does not prove there isn't just one. We know for a fact quantum particles are not observed to follow the 'rules' of causality or time. so, it is possible all 'reality' is being caused by one quanta of energy appearing in many places at once, this has not been proved false by physics.

It's all very well using the strange behaviours of quantum particles to our advantage in theory but we cannot then just dismiss theories we do not like. Using scientific definitions to obfuscate the reality that quantum particles are strange and no one can prove all observed phenomena are not caused by one quanta of energy is intellectually dishonest.

There is nothing in current physics that proves a 'one quanta' theory wrong. That's the point I'm making.

Archi

"I love the term magic realism. It's about expanding how you see the world. I think we live in an age where we're just hammered to think this is what the world is. Everything's saying 'That's the world.' And it's not the world. The world is a million possible things." - TG

Salman Rushdie talks to Terry Gilliam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2015, 10:32 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(16-08-2015 10:13 AM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  
(15-08-2015 07:13 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It's the definition of "quantum": "the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction". There are as many quanta as there are possible substances in the universe. Quantum mechanics tends to deal with only certain ones, however - the ones which are most easily dealt with at such a small scale that you're getting down to the Planck length, the functional quantum of space itself.

That's what "quantum mechanics" means: dealing with the smallest possible units of everything.

Yes, but this does not prove there isn't just one. We know for a fact quantum particles are not observed to follow the 'rules' of causality or time. so, it is possible all 'reality' is being caused by one quanta of energy appearing in many places at once, this has not been proved false by physics.

It's all very well using the strange behaviours of quantum particles to our advantage in theory but we cannot then just dismiss theories we do not like. Using scientific definitions to obfuscate the reality that quantum particles are strange and no one can prove all observed phenomena are not caused by one quanta of energy is intellectually dishonest.

There is nothing in current physics that proves a 'one quanta' theory wrong. That's the point I'm making.

Archi

Why is such an assumption necessary? Is there any evidence that suggests this?

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
16-08-2015, 10:54 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(14-08-2015 05:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I think the very idea of clear rational thinking, is spooky stuff.

We're more inclined to believe we're thinking clearly than we actually are. We're more inclined to have our tendencies masquerade as our intellect. Evolution has clearly favored self-deception far more so than insuring our capacities for clear rational thought.

A thought is just a chemical reaction, likely interacting with a variety of other chemical reactions, that you're not remotely even aware of, conscious and unconscious factors. I'd wager that even the appeal of the idea of "clear rational thought", the appeal of being "objective thinking", the desire to downplay or even exclude your "subjective self", that involve a great deal of indirect factors far more closer to home than you are consciously even aware of. I have no doubt that my upbringing, my family life, my experiences as child, the love and dysfunctions of my parents, forms how I see and analyze the world, and why it might be different than others. I can't put that aside and analyze the world, that's a part of my wiring. What I might perceive as "clear thinking", is likely not be analogous to what you perceive as "clear thinking". Even if I imagined I have put all my emotions aside, it likely wouldn't be the same.

Quote:Even now, following in step with your thoughts on this, I could turn it around on you and claim that you are only making this argument in this way because you have suppressed subconscious emotions that render an acceptance of Atheism impossible for you emotionally. I could start listing possible subjective, illegitimate, reasons that could influence/cause your lack of neutrality.

That could very much be true, I sometimes even think about that. Often times when I hear atheists descriptions of reality and life, it comes off as entirely distorted to me, as people seeing people that look like trees. The way they examine the world, taking it in, and expressing how they see it, comes off maladaptive and warped. But then I think this might not be the case. That there perceptions seems entirely fluid to them, as my perceptions seem to me. That I'm just in a predicament of thinking of what it's like to be a bat. And the bat is wondering what it's like to be me. Without realizing that that's not possible for fundamental reasons. It's perhaps my inability to put myself in your head, that's being interpreted as a "distortion" in yours.

Perhaps our minds are fundamentally different, because of variety of factors outside of our control, a problem likely not to be resolved by acquiring the same level of education, or by reading the same books. That what you see as "clear" is fogged to me, and what I see as "clear" is fogged to you.

I suppose if you don't value rational thinking at all, and you don't even believe it to be truly possible, you might as well believe whatever you want about anything.

I heard one of those funny old Chinese proverbs the other day. "Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it."

If you aren't even participating on the premise that there is truth in the universe outside of our perspectives, I don't see the value of discussing anything at all with you.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

-Karl Marx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2015, 12:25 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(16-08-2015 10:04 AM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  
(15-08-2015 02:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  For any transition in energy to an electron in an atom, there will be a specific quantum of energy absorbed or released. This fact allows, among many other things, the creation of different colored lights - the wavelength of the emitted light is a measure of the quantum of energy for that transition.

I don't disagree but where's the proof these observed phenomenon are not all caused by one quanta that is able to manifest in these ways?

My point is as much as it might help us to conceptualise these observed phenomena as multiple quanta there isn't any proof it isn't just one. You know that as well as I do.

Archi

I'm sorry, but what you wrote doesn't make any sense.
The quanta do not have a least common factor that would indicate anything like that.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2015, 01:06 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(16-08-2015 10:13 AM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  
(15-08-2015 07:13 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It's the definition of "quantum": "the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction". There are as many quanta as there are possible substances in the universe. Quantum mechanics tends to deal with only certain ones, however - the ones which are most easily dealt with at such a small scale that you're getting down to the Planck length, the functional quantum of space itself.

That's what "quantum mechanics" means: dealing with the smallest possible units of everything.

Yes, but this does not prove there isn't just one. We know for a fact quantum particles are not observed to follow the 'rules' of causality or time.

If by 'rules' you mean classical rules - the ones our naive intuition evolved to deal with - then yes (trivially so). Of course, the superset of quantum mechanics contains plenty of rules of its own.

(16-08-2015 10:13 AM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  so, it is possible all 'reality' is being caused by one quanta of energy appearing in many places at once, this has not been proved false by physics.

This is either impossible according to all current models, or else so broad as to be meaningless.
(in that it either violates numerous currently assumed rules both quantum and relativistic, or else boils down to "existence exists")

(16-08-2015 10:13 AM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  It's all very well using the strange behaviours of quantum particles to our advantage in theory but we cannot then just dismiss theories we do not like. Using scientific definitions to obfuscate the reality that quantum particles are strange and no one can prove all observed phenomena are not caused by one quanta of energy is intellectually dishonest.

There is nothing in current physics that proves a 'one quanta' theory wrong. That's the point I'm making.

Archi

We can, however, freely discount theories which explain nothing and cannot be tested.
(I doubt you can prove solipsism or some variety of omphalic theory wrong; should we then waste time on them?)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
16-08-2015, 01:12 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(16-08-2015 01:06 PM)cjlr Wrote:  omphalic theory

Learned a new, and very useful, word today!
Thumbsup

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: