Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 6
  • 14
Are you an atheist? I am, and so should you.; (be one that is)
Topic Started: Jul 15 2009, 07:59 PM (4,792 Views)
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Moonbat
Jul 16 2009, 11:32 AM
The Hamiltonian is unitary both in classical (and relativistic) and in quantum mechanics.
What does that mean? Explain...

Quote:
 
Note that as i said before if that were not true, then your question might not mean anything depending on what it would mean (if for instance all these possible past states were equally real then asking which one was real wouldn't make sense).


OK, so lets assume we have a set of possible states S = {a,b,c}, the present state is "c", and we have state transitions "a->c" and "b->c". From the perspective of "c", we might have ended up there via "a" OR "b", but de facto it was only one of those.

So if we forget about the possibility of a multiverse, then one of multiple possible pasts (if this is possible) must have been the actual past, regardless of whether it can still be determined which one it was.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Free Rider
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
I came upon a child of god
He was walking along the road
And I asked him, where are you going
And this he told me
Im going on down to yasgurs farm
Im going to join in a rock n roll band
Im going to camp out on the land
Im going to try an get my soul free
We are stardust
We are golden
And weve got to get ourselves
Back to the garden

Then can I walk beside you
I have come here to lose the smog
And I feel to be a cog in something turning
Well maybe it is just the time of year
Or maybe its the time of man
I dont know who l am
But you know life is for learning
We are stardust
We are golden
And weve got to get ourselves
Back to the garden

By the time we got to woodstock
We were half a million strong
And everywhere there was song and celebration
And I dreamed I saw the bombers
Riding shotgun in the sky
And they were turning into butterflies
Above our nation
We are stardust
Billion year old carbon
We are golden
Caught in the devils bargain
And weve got to get ourselves
Back to the garden
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CrashTest
Pisa-Carp
Does it ever bother anyone how "human" centric religion is? I mean, god became man in Jesus - and the bible and most religious texts basically deal only with human interaction, morality, etc. Let's not even examine other religions - where in fact even living humans were made god! (Pharaoh's, etc)

I think our friend Mark will appreciate this - but have you ever looked through a telescope? The universe is huge. So huge in fact that I don't believe we will ever explore much beyond our nearby planet. So why would god create such a massive playground for us, knowing this? Is it just symbolic for us to marvel at the grandeur of it all? Or perhaps the answer is simple: we are just part of this universe, perhaps not even the only life in the universe - so we are not the most important thing. The sun does not rise and set purely for us. But because of the sun setting, is why we are here - we are a result of the universe's laws, not vice versa.

One positive aspect of people moving away from religion to explain the world, is that there will be a new void that will need filling in terms of understanding - which means more and more people will look for a newer, more accurate answer of how the universe works that is more grounded in reason. What good is researching about the world if you already believe god made it, and that's that?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quagmire
Jul 16 2009, 10:43 AM
Quagmire
Jul 16 2009, 10:35 AM
For after all, the truth is the truth, regardless of what one believes. And that truth does indeed apply to all people.
But I guess I gotta recant on even this. Perhaps the nature of reality is one that does in fact NOT support an absolute truth, and that realities may be individual and subjective, and thought and matter and truth are not separate, but interwoven, as much science fiction has even stabbed at.
There's a lot of practical truth to this, if nothing else. How happy we are might be affected quite a bit by what we believe, regardless of the truth of it. The problem comes when our beliefs conflict with those of others, which is why budhism seems cool since it's mostly concerned with one's own space. The belief systems of some other major religions are bulls in a china shop by comparison.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuantumIvory
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Dewey
Jul 16 2009, 11:05 AM
QuantumIvory, if you appreciate reading theology through the eyes of a physicist, you cannot miss reading John Polkinghorne. For starters, I'd suggest this, which I have read and enjoyed thoroughly, or this, which I haven't but which looks very good.
Thanks, Dewey. I am familiar with (and have read a little of) Polkinghorne and both those books look like they would be quite good. So.....they'll be here Monday from Amazon. :thumb:
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. We cannot get behind consciousness." -Max Planck

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuantumIvory
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Crash
 
What good is researching about the world if you already believe god made it, and that's that?

Well, maybe in the next life you can ask (in no particular order, except the first):

Isaac Newton
Galileo
Copernicus
Lord Kelvin
Decartes
Kepler
Planck
Heisenberg
Schrodinger
And on...and on...

You get the idea. :wave:
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. We cannot get behind consciousness." -Max Planck

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuantumIvory
Jul 16 2009, 12:43 PM
Crash
 
What good is researching about the world if you already believe god made it, and that's that?

Well, maybe in the next life you can ask (in no particular order, except the first):

Isaac Newton
Galileo
Copernicus
Lord Kelvin
Decartes
Kepler
Planck
Heisenberg
Schrodinger
And on...and on...

You get the idea. :wave:
The late Stanley Jaki OSB wrote quite a bit about this -- his intellectual autobiography "A Mind's Matter" and esp "Road of Science and the Ways to God" are worth reading and answer this aptly.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
VPG
Jul 16 2009, 09:45 AM
.One question about the "Big Bang". What blew up? Anyone?
Answered here. :)
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
The fact that Crash is claiming to be an atheist is causing me to rethink.

I'm making up a big sandwich board with REPENT written on it as we speak.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
VPG
Jul 16 2009, 09:56 AM
Any idea what was in that Universe? People, beings, God, Gods?
Also answered here. :)
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Klaus
Jul 16 2009, 10:21 AM
Moonbat
Jul 16 2009, 10:07 AM
Quote:
 

Any idea what was in that Universe? People, beings, God, Gods?


Same stuff that's in it now - particles.
The more interesting question (at least to me) is: What caused the Big Bang?
Answered here. :)
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
kenny
Jul 16 2009, 10:23 AM
Klaus
Jul 16 2009, 10:21 AM
Moonbat
Jul 16 2009, 10:07 AM
Quote:
 

Any idea what was in that Universe? People, beings, God, Gods?


Same stuff that's in it now - particles.
The more interesting question (at least to me) is: What caused the Big Bang?
and what caused what caused the big bang?

and what caused that?

and what caused that?

Yawn!
All answered here. :)
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Mark
Jul 16 2009, 10:30 AM
Horace
Jul 16 2009, 10:27 AM
Klaus
Jul 16 2009, 10:21 AM
Moonbat
Jul 16 2009, 10:07 AM
Quote:
 

Any idea what was in that Universe? People, beings, God, Gods?


Same stuff that's in it now - particles.
The more interesting question (at least to me) is: What caused the Big Bang?
The particles that would, eventually, be Larry, brushed up against the particles that would, eventually, be Kathy.
:lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :D :D :D :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :spit:
Funny, but incorrect.

Correct answer here. :)
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quagmire
Jul 16 2009, 10:35 AM
kenny
Jul 16 2009, 10:23 AM
Klaus
Jul 16 2009, 10:21 AM
Moonbat
Jul 16 2009, 10:07 AM
Quote:
 

Any idea what was in that Universe? People, beings, God, Gods?


Same stuff that's in it now - particles.
The more interesting question (at least to me) is: What caused the Big Bang?
and what caused what caused the big bang?

and what caused that?

and what caused that?

Yawn!
Actually, I find these fascinating questions, and not 'yawn'-able at all.

Brane theory has some ideas as to what caused the big bang. The collision of neighboring branes. And as such, many big bangs are produced from many collisions, spawning many universes and many dimensions. I find that stuff far more interesting and 'marvelous' than mythological stories limited by the imaginations of an ancient people.

I find the universe fascinating, and thoughts of what is beyond our understanding, and by extension, what cannot be grasped by our current mental apparatus, captivates my imagination. I dont understand the need to make sure the story has a happy ending, or someplace to go when I'm all dressed up. I'd rather seek truth, than convince myself of some score in my favor. For after all, the truth is the truth, regardless of what one believes. And that truth does indeed apply to all people.
Brane theory is incomplete.

Complete answer here. :)
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
CrashTest
Jul 16 2009, 12:07 PM
Does it ever bother anyone how "human" centric religion is? I mean, god became man in Jesus - and the bible and most religious texts basically deal only with human interaction, morality, etc. Let's not even examine other religions - where in fact even living humans were made god! (Pharaoh's, etc)

I think our friend Mark will appreciate this - but have you ever looked through a telescope? The universe is huge. So huge in fact that I don't believe we will ever explore much beyond our nearby planet. So why would god create such a massive playground for us, knowing this? Is it just symbolic for us to marvel at the grandeur of it all? Or perhaps the answer is simple: we are just part of this universe, perhaps not even the only life in the universe - so we are not the most important thing. The sun does not rise and set purely for us. But because of the sun setting, is why we are here - we are a result of the universe's laws, not vice versa.

One positive aspect of people moving away from religion to explain the world, is that there will be a new void that will need filling in terms of understanding - which means more and more people will look for a newer, more accurate answer of how the universe works that is more grounded in reason. What good is researching about the world if you already believe god made it, and that's that?
Mosquitoes have mosquito-centric religion.

At least that's the buzz I hear.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
CrashTest
 
Does it ever bother anyone how "human" centric religion is?

The Abrahamic religions are quite "human" centric, as are Greek mythologies.
Hinduism and Buddhism, however, are more universal.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Jul 16 2009, 01:42 PM
CrashTest
 
Does it ever bother anyone how "human" centric religion is?

The Abrahamic religions are quite "human" centric, as are Greek mythologies.
Hinduism and Buddhism, however, are more universal.
Siddhartha???? Deities that appear in the guise of zoomorphs and anthropomorphs?

You see what you want to see, I guess.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Jul 16 2009, 01:48 PM
Axtremus
Jul 16 2009, 01:42 PM
CrashTest
 
Does it ever bother anyone how "human" centric religion is?

The Abrahamic religions are quite "human" centric, as are Greek mythologies.
Hinduism and Buddhism, however, are more universal.
Siddhartha???? Deities that appear in the guise of zoomorphs and anthropomorphs?

You see what you want to see, I guess.
Quite simple: Buddhism and Hinduism value all sentient lives pretty much as equal. Abrahamic religions and Greek mythologies elevate humans beyond all other lives.

E.g., in Buddhism, "thou shalt not kill" really means "thou shalt not kill;" while in Abrahamic religions, "thou shalt not kill" implicitly means "thou shalt not kill human (but killing animals is fine)."
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Jul 16 2009, 01:56 PM
ivorythumper
Jul 16 2009, 01:48 PM
Axtremus
Jul 16 2009, 01:42 PM
CrashTest
 
Does it ever bother anyone how "human" centric religion is?

The Abrahamic religions are quite "human" centric, as are Greek mythologies.
Hinduism and Buddhism, however, are more universal.
Siddhartha???? Deities that appear in the guise of zoomorphs and anthropomorphs?

You see what you want to see, I guess.
Quite simple: Buddhism and Hinduism value all sentient lives pretty much as equal. Abrahamic religions and Greek mythologies elevate humans beyond all other lives.

E.g., in Buddhism, "thou shalt not kill" really means "thou shalt not kill;" while in Abrahamic religions, "thou shalt not kill" implicitly means "thou shalt not kill human (but killing animals is fine)."
You obviously haven't studied animal sacrifice in Hinduism, nor seem to accept the fact that many Buddhist monks are carnivores.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
CrashTest
Jul 16 2009, 12:07 PM
Does it ever bother anyone how "human" centric religion is? I mean, god became man in Jesus - and the bible and most religious texts basically deal only with human interaction, morality, etc. Let's not even examine other religions - where in fact even living humans were made god! (Pharaoh's, etc)

I think our friend Mark will appreciate this - but have you ever looked through a telescope? The universe is huge. So huge in fact that I don't believe we will ever explore much beyond our nearby planet. So why would god create such a massive playground for us, knowing this? Is it just symbolic for us to marvel at the grandeur of it all? Or perhaps the answer is simple: we are just part of this universe, perhaps not even the only life in the universe - so we are not the most important thing. The sun does not rise and set purely for us. But because of the sun setting, is why we are here - we are a result of the universe's laws, not vice versa.

One positive aspect of people moving away from religion to explain the world, is that there will be a new void that will need filling in terms of understanding - which means more and more people will look for a newer, more accurate answer of how the universe works that is more grounded in reason. What good is researching about the world if you already believe god made it, and that's that?
Yes. It does bother me somewhat that religion is so "human" centric because human beings on balance, are pretty stupid IMO. Just look what we have done to ourselves over the past 100 years! :P

Faith in something bigger and better than the existence we all experience is a different matter though. Weather that faith is in unprovable scientific theories such as branes, strings, alternate / parallel universes or the unprovable existence of God matters not.

The telescope and using one to gaze upon (and photograph) the wonders of the universe is to me, one way to see what few others ever get or sometimes even want to see. It amazes me how indifferent a lot of people are to what I can see and photograph. It amazes me even more how ignorant a lot of people are about the basic knowledge we have about the universe. I have actually met people who do not think our sun is a star! WTF? People are strange. It seems that some do not really want to know the truth. They think they already know it by reading things others have written. If that gives them comfort, fine. I on the other hand want to see as far as I can see. To learn as much as I can learn. That doesn't mean that I believe everything that science teaches or theorizes. To do so is just as blind a faith as any religious zealot who refuses to accept things that are not taught by their religion or who carry on teachings that are not conducive to living in peace with their fellow human beings.

The problem with the concept of the creation of everything (the universe) and human beings in particular is that "the truth" simply cannot be known. It will forever be a matter of faith on both sides of the equation.

To believe in pure science is faith just like believing in pure religion. We do not and cannot know, that all we read, observe and theorize is all there is.

I want to exist after my human death. I want there to be another dimension that we simply cannot even imagine in this human form.

I want, therefore I believe.

I choose to believe in God. I could also choose not to believe in God. I did for many many years. It was not as pleasant an existence for me or the people close to me as it is now because I threw off my belief that this is all there is and nothing really matters. It is basically how I felt about life. I feel that way no longer.

I also believe in science and have learned much from the many centuries of scientific discovery. I have backed up a lot of that scientific teaching by performing my own observations and experiments.

But, I have never found absolute proof for any of it.

I do not think that just because one is in pursuit of scientific knowledge that it automatically makes one incompatible with faith in God.

Th only positive aspect of people moving away from religion is if they move away from the ugly part of it. To move away from the possibility of existence in another dimension or in the "loving arms of God" as it were, will probably never happen. I only hope and pray that people will stop hating, dividing, and killing in the name of God.

There is no proof one way or the other. To believe there is proof for the nonexistence of God is to be as ignorant as those who believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

You cannot "know" the truth.
___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Mark
Jul 16 2009, 02:15 PM
Th only positive aspect of people moving away from religion is if they move away from the ugly part of it. To move away from the possibility of existence in another dimension or in the "loving arms of God" as it were, will probably never happen. I only hope and pray that people will stop hating, dividing, and killing in the name of God.
+1
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Falstaff
Member Avatar
Junior Carp
CrashTest,

Join a cult and find some vulnerable types to convert. Your not gonna change anyone's views here. Admittedly I can't even bring myself to read this thread, I'd rather read the back of a lysol can.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Klaus
Jul 16 2009, 11:53 AM

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
The Hamiltonian is unitary both in classical (and relativistic) and in quantum mechanics.
What does that mean? Explain...


It means that for a closed system you can run the time evoution of the state forwards or backwards. If you give me the state at time t=0 I can give you the state at any point in the past or in the future. If you watch this from at 20:15 to 21:45 you will see Susskind saying just this.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
Note that as i said before if that were not true, then your question might not mean anything depending on what it would mean (if for instance all these possible past states were equally real then asking which one was real wouldn't make sense).


OK, so lets assume we have a set of possible states S = {a,b,c}, the present state is "c", and we have state transitions "a->c" and "b->c". From the perspective of "c", we might have ended up there via "a" OR "b", but de facto it was only one of those.

So if we forget about the possibility of a multiverse, then one of multiple possible pasts (if this is possible) must have been the actual past, regardless of whether it can still be determined which one it was.


In the above lecture he explicitly says nature is not of this form (I have heard the same thing mentioned many times infact the same idea is actually present in that paper on the limits of computation when they talk about deleting bits costing energy). But i don't understand any of it properly, i have horrible mixed up half understanding which is useless -ask me again in a year though and i will understand it.

There is something important to mention though which is that there can be indistinguishable ways in which some event can occur (e.g. a particle might travel from a particle gun through one of two slits before reaching a detector) but the state of the particle is not defined in terms of one or other of the trajectories but instead is defined by a strange mixture of the two. We can alter the setup such that the trajectories are no longer indistinguishable (e.g. by shining a light on the the slits) then the stae of the particle is defined in terms of one or other of the trajectories and when we do the experiment we find one or other of the trajectories does occur and we get a pattern of results on the detector that you would expect if one or other of the trajectories did in fact occur but when you turn the light off the pattern of results on the detector changes completely and is not what you would predict if one or other of the trajectories did in fact occur instead it's as if the two possible routes somehow intefered with one another. In Feynman's lectures he writes:

Quote:
 

What we must say (to avoid making wrong predictions) is the following: If one looks at the holes or, more accurately, if one has a piece of apparatus which is capable of determining whether the electrons go through hole 1 or hole 2, then one can say that it goes either through hole 1 or hole 2. But, when one does not try to tell which way the electron goes, when there is nothing in the experiment to disturb the electrons, the one may not say that an electron goes either through hole 1 or hole 2. If one does that, and starts to make any deductions from the statement, he will make errors in the analysis. This is the logical tightrope on which we must walk if we wish to describe nature successfully.


Your perfect murder is like a giant double slit experiment, if it is truly impossible to distinguish between the various scenarios that could have resulted in the death then it means those scenarios will have interfered with one another and we are forbidden from claiming that any one of them actually occured. In situations where it means something to claim some event actually occured then in principle the event is distinguishable so if you specify that some or other scenario did occur then it means it left a footprint in the world around us.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Heisenberg
Schrodinger
And on...and on...


What are Schrodinger and Heisenberg doing on that list? And there is no on and on, in the 20th century the uber scientists are overwhelmingly areligious.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Moonbat
Jul 16 2009, 04:02 PM
Quote:
 

Heisenberg
Schrodinger
And on...and on...

What are Schrodinger and Heisenberg doing on that list?
I'm not sure.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 6
  • 14