Quote:
Originally Posted by Og  I guess all I can do is say that you are misrepresenting the current understanding of physics. |
I'm not attempting to represent physics, as I am no physics expert. Rather, I'm discussing it in relation to A=A, causality, logic, and Absolute Truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Og No. A photon is a conversion of potential energy in an atom into a wave/particle bit of free energy. The electron drops through a number of Quantized energy levels and converts that energy into a photon where the energy lost by the electron is proportional to the frequency of the photon. The "photon" didn't exist before it was emitted. And in any case, I wasn't talking about the existence of the photon. I was talking about the EVENT of it's emission from the atom. This EVENT is indeterminant per quantum theory. I was basing my action on the outcome of the EVENT. I was not basing my action on the photon. |
Right, the photon was previously part of an atom as "potential energy" and the conversion from potential energy to a photon was the EVENT. Indeterminate does not mean it is uncaused. Everything is indeterminate, but some things appear more likely to happen based on our past experiences or what we've learned. Other things we are just blindly guessing about what might happen to them due to lack of empirical evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Og Quote: |
The Totality can not be viewed in its entirety, in fact it can't be viewed at all.
| Yet you imply that every event and object is the product of an infinite string of causality culminating in that exact moment. Wouldn't you say that a flower or a person or a snowflake or a speck of sand is an expression of the universe in its entirety (given your proposition of hard determinism)? |
It's more like an infinite web of causality with everything being directly and indirectly caused by everything else. And yes you could say that finite objects are an expression of the Totality depending on how you want to look at things, but ultimately all we can do is view finite phenomena, not The Infinite itself due to its inherently formless nature. All we can say about The Totality is that it is infinite, formless, and capable of producing consciousness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Og In any case, I think you're implying that there are some other events that can't be described by electro-weak, strong nuclear, and gravitational forces. I think these forces offer a fairly clean basis set that gives us a universal understanding of what's going on in the universe  |
Empirically yes, I agree with you, but I'm not talking about worldly matters. I'm talking about Absolute Truth which is beyond measure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Og Are you indicating that there are phenomena that can't be described by these formulations? If so, what are they? If not, why do you think that our measurements are subjective in light of the fact that we have a grasp of such tools? |
Yes, things like Absolute Truth and the Totality. They can only be understood through the use of pure logic by the enlightened mind. I think you might agree that based on how I've described these things they can't actually be dealt with in a scientific manner, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Og What is it, SPECIFICALLY, about the data presented by the scientific community on climate change that you don't agree with? Why do you think these scientists allegedly fabricated this stance. Do you not think it's an odd correlation that climate change follows the industrial revolution and dramatic outpouring of carbon into the atmosphere? Do you honestly think that we don't have a waste/energy problem in the world? |
I'd rather we discuss this in another topic if you wish to continue it. I don't see this as relevant to the rest of our discussion, or as important as it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Og Your definition of quantum here as synonymous with "Subatomic" is probably the source of your misunderstanding of quantum physics. |
I don’t think so, my shallow understanding of quantum mechanics would be the reason for any misunderstanding I have. What I do know is that it is an empirical observation of phenomena on the atomic and sub atomic level according to what I’ve read. Therefore it is completely theoretical, will never be anything beyond a theory like all science is, and has no bearing on what I know to be absolutely true about Ultimate Reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Og Quote: |
What this shows is that people are taking quantum mechanics and trying to apply it on a universal level which will always lead to illogical conclusions such as an object being two different objects simultaneously. Like I said earlier, just because we can't currently observe a billiard ball type chain reaction going on doesn't mean there aren't causes, such as the examples I provided. Quantum theory ought to remain in it's particular scientific niche otherwise it begins to lose its meaning.
| Again... Bell's theorem effectively deconstructs hidden variable theory.
"No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics." |
I’m not talking about hidden variable theory. I’m talking about the absolute truth of A=A. In all actuality anything could be a Schrödinger’s this, or a Schrödinger’s that, regardless of whether it is triggered by a photon emission or a bear taking a **** in the woods. But like I said A=A overrides this by showing that a thing is whatever it is, regardless of whether we can apply certain physical properties to it or not. If it is an unknown or unpredictable entity, it means just that, it is an unknown or unpredictable entity at a certain point in time. A=A is never violated, and the same goes for causality as I explained in my last post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Og Quote: |
A, which can be substituted with any phenomena will always equal A in any scenario based on what the observer is currently witnessing. It is a logical impossibility for it to be otherwise. Although if you think you have a legitimate example I'd love to hear it. FYI Schrödinger’s cat is not a legitimate example. As I've already logically proved it isn't the result of a logical proof demonstrated through quantum mechanics, but a result of quantum mechanics being stretched beyond its limits into areas where it can only produce illogical and incoherent conclusions.
| Ok.. What is an electron in the 1s orbital of a monatomic hydrogen atom? I'll give you the answer to speed things up. It is a cloud of probability in a sphere around the atom describe by a neat little basis set of functions which I think are called airey functions (if I remember correctly). It is in energy state with quantum number 1.
So A is a probability distribution function and has no determinant meaning at any given point. Again, you're using logical axioms that are based on macroscopic observation versus the counterintuitive things going on at the subatomic level.
But the macroscopic world is a grand collection of atomic particles. A single penny, for example, has a random chance (for the purpose of this discussion, assume truly random) of heads or tails. But a billion pennies flipped a billion times will produce almost exactly 50/50 results. It will not be 55/45 or 75/25 or any other combination. It will be extremely sharply defined at 50/50. That's what is called "Mass Action." It's the basis for the function of our bodies and most processes that involve macroscopic object interactions.
But in the end, quantum phenomena DO underly it all. Just because we can take shortcuts due to the ensemble behavior of 10^23 particles or more doesn't mean that quantum mechanics isn't responsible for all behaviors of systems. |
This is all well and good but one thing we must remember is that all this is based on subjective empirical observation. It doesn’t underpin anything or provide us with anything concrete. It’s just another way of interpreting the observable universe, and although it can be beneficial to view things from different scientific perspectives, it’s no different than viewing the world from a drug induced perspective such as LSD or psychotropic mushrooms. The sage doesn’t
view the world in any particular way, he simply sees it for what it is without ever trying to hold on to any particular perspective. He understands the futility of it, he understands the formlessness of The All.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Og Nope. Don't work that way either. I don't have absolute certainty that they can't be proven. I just know (through repeatable observation that you can participate in) that the uncertainty principle holds. The closer you try to get to absolute, the more something else (and equally fundamental) about your object of focus blurs. |
So you are absolutely certain that the uncertainty principle holds? This is another blatant contradiction that simply can’t be taken with any seriousness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Og Your little trick of semantics does little more than illustrate the limitations of the english language. I prefer mathematics as the language in which to verbalize the search for truth. |
It’s no trick. I’m using language to point you towards the truth. You’re mistaking the finger for the moon. Remember, words are just words, they are not the Truth itself. You need to open your third eye, the wisdom eye.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Og Furthermore, I don't see how the contradictory sound of "there are absolutely no absolutes" proves that there is absolute truth. What if someone says "it seems that there are no absolutes." ? Does that negate your "logical" conclusion that there are, in fact, absolute truths? |
Well that’s saying two different things. In the first statement one is attempting to state an absolute truth albeit a futile attempt, in the second statement one is just poking around with an idea without actually stating anything at all.