That's Not Evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-08-2015, 01:16 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(16-08-2015 01:12 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(16-08-2015 01:06 PM)cjlr Wrote:  omphalic theory

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

cjlr's vocabulary building words of the day: a two year forum tradition.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2015, 04:44 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(16-08-2015 10:32 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(16-08-2015 10:13 AM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  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?

For context see above.

"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
17-08-2015, 05:41 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(16-08-2015 12:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-08-2015 10:04 AM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  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.

It makes perfect sense.

You might choose to think different quantum entities are unique but there is no scientific proof of that, it's an assumption we use to help us distinguish events.

For example, it is entirely possible that all observable quanta are different facets of the same single entity the same way we experience time and space as separate when we know they are facets of the same thing, space-time.

I'm not saying that is the case, I'm saying there is no proof either way at this stage.

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
17-08-2015, 06:17 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(17-08-2015 05:41 AM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  
(16-08-2015 12:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  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.

It makes perfect sense.

You might choose to think different quantum entities are unique but there is no scientific proof of that, it's an assumption we use to help us distinguish events.

For example, it is entirely possible that all observable quanta are different facets of the same single entity the same way we experience time and space as separate when we know they are facets of the same thing, space-time.

I'm not saying that is the case, I'm saying there is no proof either way at this stage.

Archi

What do you think "quantum' means? There is no one entity called a "quantum", it is a description of the packetization of energy.

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
17-08-2015, 10:49 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
I have a more important problem concerning sheep

several lines of Evidence is not pronounced as 'evidences' Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2015, 10:52 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(17-08-2015 10:49 AM)Ace Wrote:  I have a more important problem concerning sheep

Legitimate Evidence is not pronounced as 'evidences' Facepalm why is basic grammar so hard for them to comprehend

So... when they use the word "evidences", it evidently evidences their incomprehension of evidence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
17-08-2015, 01:02 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(17-08-2015 10:52 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(17-08-2015 10:49 AM)Ace Wrote:  I have a more important problem concerning sheep

Legitimate Evidence is not pronounced as 'evidences' Facepalm why is basic grammar so hard for them to comprehend

So... when they use the word "evidences", it evidently evidences their incomprehension of evidence?

the word evidence is already used as a plural

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/evidences.html
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2015, 04:02 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(17-08-2015 01:02 PM)Ace Wrote:  
(17-08-2015 10:52 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  So... when they use the word "evidences", it evidently evidences their incomprehension of evidence?

the word evidence is already used as a plural

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/evidences.html

Incorrectly. Drinking Beverage

Evidence is a mass noun (sometimes mistakenly called a collective noun).

Other mass nouns are e.g. luggage, cutlery, happiness.

"A noun (such as advice, bread, knowledge, luck, spaghetti, and work) that names things that in English cannot usually be counted.
A mass noun (also known as a noncount noun) is generally used only in the singular. Many abstract nouns are uncountable, but not all uncountable nouns are abstract. Contrast with count noun."
-The Grammarist

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
17-08-2015, 04:04 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(17-08-2015 10:52 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(17-08-2015 10:49 AM)Ace Wrote:  I have a more important problem concerning sheep

Legitimate Evidence is not pronounced as 'evidences' Facepalm why is basic grammar so hard for them to comprehend

So... when they use the word "evidences", it evidently evidences their incomprehension of evidence?

No, it belies their ignorance of grammar and their casual attitude to accuracy. Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
19-08-2015, 12:40 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(17-08-2015 06:17 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(17-08-2015 05:41 AM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  It makes perfect sense.

You might choose to think different quantum entities are unique but there is no scientific proof of that, it's an assumption we use to help us distinguish events.

For example, it is entirely possible that all observable quanta are different facets of the same single entity the same way we experience time and space as separate when we know they are facets of the same thing, space-time.

I'm not saying that is the case, I'm saying there is no proof either way at this stage.

Archi

What do you think "quantum' means? There is no one entity called a "quantum", it is a description of the packetization of energy.

I'm not sure what point you are making. You seem to be making some assumptions that are scientifically unfounded, which has been my point all the way through this discussion. I didn't think I'd have to explain this, but it seems I do...

A quantum is not some random 'chunk' of energy we arbitrarily pluck from the phlogiston (reference to unfounded scientific nonsense intentional). It is a very specific measure that conforms to a set of mathematical principles that shares similar characteristics with other quanta, most importantly, symmetries. Symmetry is particularly important to my point because when scientist proved Einstein's theory of general relativity they used symmetry to do it, demonstrating that it was not only a consequence of a symmetry of space-time but also of a symmetry of space and time combined. Emmy Noether's work on symmetry was critical to this proof.

Symmetries are also found in quantum physics. When we describe quanta we use abstract, mathematical waves but waves that nevertheless have concrete consequences in the real world. The height of these mathematical waves is not described by an ordinary number but by a complex number. If we map the complex number on a 2D plot we can represent that complex number with a dot somewhere on our map. Any line drawn from this plot point to the centre of our map (0,0) is an equivalent way of representing a complex number.

We know that the square of the height of the quantum wave represents the probability of finding the 'packet' at that point. It also happens to be the square of the line we created to represent the complex number on our 2d map. No matter how much we rotate this 'line' about the origin its length remains the same - this rotation is called a 'phase shift'.

So, quantum waves are symmetric with respect to rotations in complex space or global phase change. This is most commonly known as global 'gauge symmetry'. Conservation of quantum charge (for say electrons and positrons) arises out of global gauge symmetry. So, we can see how these abstract symmetries have a concrete effect in the real world. All quanta (quantized packets of energy) share these symmetries.

As we stand today no one has proved quantum packets are all aspects of the same quantum entity, however, no one has disproved it either and moreover the scientific precedent for the latter interpretation is there in Newtonian Physics and General Relativity.

It's a bold and more importantly unsubstantiated assumption to say quantized packets or quanta are discreet unique entities, while there is currently no proof either way history is not on the side of that particular viewpoint.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: