167 replies to this topic

[Duchykins]

That's a good point.

[Julia36]

I'm guessing the poster known as the hanged man could be an advocate of Superdeterminism:

 

https://en.wikipedia...uperdeterminism

 

This interpretation of QM is quite unpopular at the moment.

 

Cause & Effect - knowing what comes next

 

Quantum Theory - infinite universes

 

My opinion is Superdeterminism is just determinism, which only means cause and effect & it is how things move in this universe.

 

I dont know anywhere we understand, observe and measure where cause and effect does not hold, and Cause & Effect, not Quantum Theory is the most successful  theory of all time by several billion light years.

 

General mathematics comes a distant second.

QTists say you cant watch a small experiment or it changes the result, the moon isn't there unless you look at it, there is no connection between entangled particles, and there must be an intelligent invisible mind moving things, the uncertainty principle,  parallel worlds, free will of particles,  things popping in and out of existence - including universes, and has to hammer on more and more absurdities to make one watetight boat of unobservable, therefore untestable theories.

 

My opinion is that anyone believing in the Quantum Theory should be sterilized.

 

 

My opinion is irrelevant.

 

The issue is making reliable predictions and to do that we must find enough of the Laws of science.

Edited by the hanged man, 06 August 2015 - 08:32 PM.

[Duchykins]

 

 

My opinion is that anyone believing in the Quantum Theory should be sterilized.

 

 

 

Just wanted to make sure nobody missed this.

[Julia36]

There are lists of things that you cant argue in philosophy..on the whole:

 

The aim is friendly debate without losing the plot and hopefully getting closer to the truth about matters.

 

this is the general list:

 

http://www.don-linds.../arguments.html

• Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man)
• Affirming The Consequent
• Amazing Familiarity
• Ambiguous Assertion
• Appeal To Anonymous Authority
• Appeal To Authority
• Appeal To Coincidence
• Appeal To Complexity
• Appeal To False Authority
• Appeal To Force
• Appeal To Pity (Appeal to Sympathy, The Galileo Argument)
• Appeal To Widespread Belief (Bandwagon Argument, Peer Pressure, Appeal To Common Practice)
• Argument By Dismissal
• Argument By Emotive Language (Appeal To The People)
• Argument By Fast Talking
• Argument By Generalization
• Argument By Gibberish (Bafflement)
• Argument By Half Truth (Suppressed Evidence)
• Argument By Laziness (Argument By Uninformed Opinion)
• Argument By Personal Charm
• Argument By Pigheadedness (Doggedness)
• Argument By Poetic Language
• Argument By Prestigious Jargon
• Argument By Question
• Argument By Repetition (Argument Ad Nauseam)
• Argument by Rhetorical Question
• Argument By Scenario
• Argument By Selective Observation
• Argument By Selective Reading
• Argument By Slogan
• Argument By Vehemence
• Argument From Adverse Consequences (Appeal To Fear, Scare Tactics)
• Argument From Age (Wisdom of the Ancients)
• Argument From Authority
• Argument From False Authority
• Argument From Personal Astonishment
• Argument From Small Numbers
• Argument From Spurious Similarity
• Argument Of The Beard
• Argument To The Future
• Bad Analogy
• Begging The Question (Assuming The Answer, Tautology)
• Burden Of Proof
• Causal Reductionism (Complex Cause)
• Contrarian Argument
• Changing The Subject (Digression, Red Herring, Misdirection, False Emphasis)
• Cliche Thinking
• Common Sense
• Complex Question (Tying)
• Confusing Correlation And Causation
• Disproof By Fallacy
• Equivocation
• Error Of Fact
• Euphemism
• Exception That Proves The Rule
• Excluded Middle (False Dichotomy, Faulty Dilemma, Bifurcation)
• Extended Analogy
• Failure To State
• Fallacy Of Composition
• Fallacy Of Division
• Fallacy Of The General Rule
• Fallacy Of The Crucial Experiment
• False Cause
• False Compromise
• Genetic Fallacy (Fallacy of Origins, Fallacy of Virtue)
• Having Your Cake (Failure To Assert, or Diminished Claim)
• Hypothesis Contrary To Fact
• Inconsistency
• Inflation Of Conflict
• Internal Contradiction
• Least Plausible Hypothesis
• Lies
• Meaningless Questions
• Misunderstanding The Nature Of Statistics (Innumeracy)
• Moving The Goalposts (Raising The Bar, Argument By Demanding Impossible Perfection)
• Needling
• Non Sequitur
• Not Invented Here
• Outdated Information
• Pious Fraud
• Poisoning The Wells
• Psychogenetic Fallacy
• Reductio Ad Absurdum
• Reductive Fallacy (Oversimplification)
• Reifying
• Short Term Versus Long Term
• Slippery Slope Fallacy (Camel's Nose)
• Special Pleading (Stacking The Deck)
• Statement Of Conversion
• Stolen Concept
• Straw Man (Fallacy Of Extension)
• Two Wrongs Make A Right (Tu Quoque, You Too)
• Weasel Wording

The line from my post on sterilization was parody of Hitler's famous quote on modern art.

One has the right to ask for clarification under the rules of debate ie on identity, and yes indeed, there are many forms of logic, Boulean and Baynsean,  Arisitotelean, and Atomic logic amongst others,as there are at least 2 geometries, Euclidian and Lobachevskian.

 

I think you are talking about this googled:

 

"laws of thought, traditionally, the three fundamental laws of logic: (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity." ?

There are many issues on identity presently discussed and  wished to be clear what I should understand by your use of identity.

 

Some schools of Quantum Theory challenge the law of the excluded middle, others in QT are completely deterministic and subscribe to that.

 

 

Ad hominems eg "I am wasting my time" are arguments to the person (NB not necessarily insults nor compliments but references to a person as good, bad authority etc which easy to do but which is banned, as are straw men.

One cant even use analogy in philosophical argument.

 

 

 

[Julia36]

 

There's already some rather strong evidence for "local realism" being violated by nature:

 

http://phys.org/news...al-realism.html

 

While I'm not saying the journalist got anything wrong about the study, I would advise caution with science journalism.  You are reading the journalist's interpretation.  Phys.org has a long history of posting articles about studies and interpreting the results with irreligious and liberal bias  (for the record, I am an atheist, so this is not about lambasting it because I am a Christian or a conservative).  

 

You can also see the article's conclusions being challenged in the comments section, with references.

 

However, I am eager for scientific laws to be proven false if they are false.  It is still a step forward in knowledge.

 

In the meantime, we usually have no choice but to use what works best until a better tool comes along.  At the moment no other system outperforms QM in usefulness. 

 

 

This is the peer reviewed journal the article cites

http://www.pnas.org/...nt/107/46/19708

 

ad hominem on Phys.org. It is irrelevant what the reputation good or bad of the journal is. What matters is what are the facts and what is the argument.

 

ad hominem "I am an aetheist". Irrelvant.  Or a kangaroo- not the point of the debate.

And not admissible.

 

I agree QM is the best we have @ present in it's area but I argue that as the observable universe is causal the unobservable cannot be said to be non-causal.

 

 

The birth of Quantum Theory:

 

 

Edited by the hanged man, 06 August 2015 - 09:30 PM.

[Duchykins]

There are lists of things that you cant argue in philosophy..on the whole:

 

The aim is friendly debate without losing the plot and hopefully getting closer to the truth about matters.

 

this is the general list:

 

http://www.don-linds.../arguments.html

• Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man)
• Affirming The Consequent
• Amazing Familiarity
• Ambiguous Assertion
• Appeal To Anonymous Authority
• Appeal To Authority
• Appeal To Coincidence
• Appeal To Complexity
• Appeal To False Authority
• Appeal To Force
• Appeal To Pity (Appeal to Sympathy, The Galileo Argument)
• Appeal To Widespread Belief (Bandwagon Argument, Peer Pressure, Appeal To Common Practice)
• Argument By Dismissal
• Argument By Emotive Language (Appeal To The People)
• Argument By Fast Talking
• Argument By Generalization
• Argument By Gibberish (Bafflement)
• Argument By Half Truth (Suppressed Evidence)
• Argument By Laziness (Argument By Uninformed Opinion)
• Argument By Personal Charm
• Argument By Pigheadedness (Doggedness)
• Argument By Poetic Language
• Argument By Prestigious Jargon
• Argument By Question
• Argument By Repetition (Argument Ad Nauseam)
• Argument by Rhetorical Question
• Argument By Scenario
• Argument By Selective Observation
• Argument By Selective Reading
• Argument By Slogan
• Argument By Vehemence
• Argument From Adverse Consequences (Appeal To Fear, Scare Tactics)
• Argument From Age (Wisdom of the Ancients)
• Argument From Authority
• Argument From False Authority
• Argument From Personal Astonishment
• Argument From Small Numbers
• Argument From Spurious Similarity
• Argument Of The Beard
• Argument To The Future
• Bad Analogy
• Begging The Question (Assuming The Answer, Tautology)
• Burden Of Proof
• Causal Reductionism (Complex Cause)
• Contrarian Argument
• Changing The Subject (Digression, Red Herring, Misdirection, False Emphasis)
• Cliche Thinking
• Common Sense
• Complex Question (Tying)
• Confusing Correlation And Causation
• Disproof By Fallacy
• Equivocation
• Error Of Fact
• Euphemism
• Exception That Proves The Rule
• Excluded Middle (False Dichotomy, Faulty Dilemma, Bifurcation)
• Extended Analogy
• Failure To State
• Fallacy Of Composition
• Fallacy Of Division
• Fallacy Of The General Rule
• Fallacy Of The Crucial Experiment
• False Cause
• False Compromise
• Genetic Fallacy (Fallacy of Origins, Fallacy of Virtue)
• Having Your Cake (Failure To Assert, or Diminished Claim)
• Hypothesis Contrary To Fact
• Inconsistency
• Inflation Of Conflict
• Internal Contradiction
• Least Plausible Hypothesis
• Lies
• Meaningless Questions
• Misunderstanding The Nature Of Statistics (Innumeracy)
• Moving The Goalposts (Raising The Bar, Argument By Demanding Impossible Perfection)
• Needling
• Non Sequitur
• Not Invented Here
• Outdated Information
• Pious Fraud
• Poisoning The Wells
• Psychogenetic Fallacy
• Reductio Ad Absurdum
• Reductive Fallacy (Oversimplification)
• Reifying
• Short Term Versus Long Term
• Slippery Slope Fallacy (Camel's Nose)
• Special Pleading (Stacking The Deck)
• Statement Of Conversion
• Stolen Concept
• Straw Man (Fallacy Of Extension)
• Two Wrongs Make A Right (Tu Quoque, You Too)
• Weasel Wording

The line from my post on sterilization was parody of Hitler's famous quote on modern art.

One has the right to ask for clarification under the rules of debate ie on identity, and yes indeed, there are many forms of logic, Boulean and Baynsean,  Arisitotelean, and Atomic logic amongst others,as there are at least 2 geometries, Euclidian and Lobachevskian.

 

I think you are talking about this googled:

 

"laws of thought, traditionally, the three fundamental laws of logic: (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity." ?

There are many issues on identity presently discussed and  wished to be clear what I should understand by your use of identity.

 

Some schools of Quantum Theory challenge the law of the excluded middle, others in QT are completely deterministic and subscribe to that.

 

 

Ad hominems eg "I am wasting my time" are arguments to the person (NB not necessarily insults nor compliments but references to a person as good, bad authority etc which easy to do but which is banned, as are straw men.

One cant even use analogy in philosophical argument.

 

 

Good to know you just started googling logic and philosophy.  Now you are an expert.  

 

*The law of excluded middle was demonstrated a good while ago not to be universally true or useful.  It's been replaced in newer logic systems ("Oh noes!  There's more than one?!  I'll never be able to google all of it!").  The law of identity and LNC remain unruffled.

 

 

My opinion is that anyone believing in the Quantum Theory should be sterilized.

 

 

 

Edited by Duchykins, 06 August 2015 - 11:05 PM.

[Duchykins]

Also since you just discovered fallacies, you should know that ad hominem is not necessarily fallacious.  It depends on the context, eg some guy says horizontal gene transfer does not take place ... but the guy is a creationist.   It's not bad logic to point out that he is a creationist.

 

While you're googling, take a second to look up "ad hominem fallacy fallacy."

 

 

 

 

You also need to google ad logicam, "argument from fallacy," or "fallacy fallacy."

Edited by Duchykins, 06 August 2015 - 11:04 PM.

[Duchykins]

And when you get a minute, please give me an example of a "law of identity" outside of logic, because I still haven't figured out why you were confused about what law of identity I was talking about.

[platypus]

 

 

 

My opinion is that anyone believing in the Quantum Theory should be sterilized.

 

 

 

Just wanted to make sure nobody missed this.

 

Yes, that is just massive idiocy. If and when local realism is proven wrong in an experiment in the near future the classical worldview can be proven to be incorrect. Philosophy is toothless against empirical physics. 

[platypus]

This is central to any discussion about QM and classical physics (btw the latter is demonstrably untrue (gives incorrect predictions), while QM is not):

 

https://en.wikipedia...Bell_inequality

 

So hanged man, please study the inequality and tell us what you think about it. Also, please tell whether you are a superdeterminist or not (I have a feeling that superdeterminism, if true, would make QA impossible). Define your cards and show them to us, let's nt be wishy-washy about things ok?

Edited by platypus, 07 August 2015 - 10:59 AM.

[platypus]

This is a nice dialogue about the ad hominem fallacy fallacy:

 

 

 

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal." 
B: "That does not logically follow." 
A: "*Sigh* Do I have to spell it out for you? All rodents are mammals, right, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal! What's so hard to understand???!?" 
B: "I'm afraid you're mistaken. Look at it logically. If p implies q, then it does not follow that not-p implies not-q." 
A: "I don't care about so-called logic and Ps and Qs and that stuff, I'm talking COMMON SENSE. A weasel ISN'T a mammal." 
B: "Okay, this guy's an idiot. Ignore this one, folks." 
A: "AD HOMINEM!!!! I WIN!!!!!"

Although the last line of B, taken out of context, might look ad hominem (and was seized upon as such by A), it should be clear that taken as a whole, B's argument is not ad hominem. B engaged thoroughly with A's argument. He is not countering A's argument by saying A is an idiot; on the contrary, having logically countered A's argument, and having seen A's reaction, he is arguing that A is an idiot.

 

So, if someone in a conversation appears to factually be an idiot, pointing that out is NOT an ad hominem. So lets not be idiots here ok?

[Duchykins]

I originally missed this gem:  "One cant even use analogy in philosophical argument." 

 

 

 

 

I'm assuming he means that because there are fallacies like weak analogy, then that means analogies have no legitimate place in arguments.   

 

 

Hanged Man - Arguments from analogy have long been recognized as useful inductive arguments.  We also see echoes of analogy in certain sciences (because science is founded in logic & philosophy).  Of course, the analogies have to be done properly.

[Julia36]

Cheers

[apmark]

A wise man once said “ If you can recall the past you can predict the future” This is of course absolutely correct (if you can be aware of all the parameters) and nothing else interferes with the same cause and effect pattern occurring again.

 

In any case science has proven that energy cannot be created or destroyed it can only change form. Ie; when an atom (matter) splits energy is created and when sunlight (energy) enters a leaf with a few added nutrients matter such as wood etc is created.

 

 

[platypus]

A wise man once said “ If you can recall the past you can predict the future” This is of course absolutely correct (if you can be aware of all the parameters) and nothing else interferes with the same cause and effect pattern occurring again.

 

In any case science has proven that energy cannot be created or destroyed it can only change form. Ie; when an atom (matter) splits energy is created and when sunlight (energy) enters a leaf with a few added nutrients matter such as wood etc is created.

Your 1st row is incorrect if QM is truly non+deterministic, as it very well can be. Your 2nd row is incorrect as it has turned out that energy conservation does not hold and particle-antiparticle pairs are borne out of vacuum all the time everywhere for short periods of time. 

[Julia36]

One seeks to find answwers...serious answers to difficult problems,

 

Laws of identity in philosophy can deal with "What is the self?" and the laws are thwe construct one must apply in defining a self.

 

eg the physical equation or recipie for that self, and its minium necessarey environment.

 

 

I use my own form of logic, it suits me and I build systems from it.

 

Re autholrity and analogy,

authpority eg the dreationist said we were made in winbdter 1066 ' is referencing another.

 

One absolutely cannot do that, although were this a lega;l arguement, that would be neceassry or common practice.

Even then the references must be given top the adversary in advance of the arguement.

 

Who sAID WHAT is interesting, but a serious debate or arguement where we take up contrary view to establish the truth of an opening proposition, cannopt telerate any reference to any authrity whatsoever.

 

Einstein etc which IO often quote is irrelevant.

 

The princip0le alone is rlelevant

 

That is a more thprugh way of determining the truth.

 

Relying on learned autholrity is one of the most foolish culdesacs ion scinece and why modern physics of the very small has gone drunk from 100 years.

 

Until the reasopns why sopmethyng happens are known, the causation is unknown and showld be recon=rded as unknown.

 

Medicine has erred as well.Drugs are routinely prescribed whose mechanisms of symptom cure are unknwn.

 

Thlidamide was opne vase (this example is irrlevant)

Not knowing how things works can nad has led to massive problems bult up

 

I dunno why spell checker doesn't work with Windows 10 firwefox on this site.

???It seems clear that DOS shoud have everythikgn built in or a cloud system.

 

Dont you feel likie a caveman?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Julia36]

Hanged Man - Arguments from analogy have long been recognized as useful inductive arguments.

 

I dont use inductive logic. I use my own atomic logic.

 

Argumjent from analogy wouldn't suit me because it's like jumping into a hole that has no edges when you've only got a cruxifiction.

Or like saying there's a boat when everyone nows you cant swim.

 

Each case oin my logic is unique. Seperate. whole. indivible and the next step inevitable and unambioguous.

 

I think that is how the world is, and it is utterly causal.

 

No successfuk observable quantum computer exists.

 

We cant observe the double slit experioment, nor schrodiggers cat in two states at ones,

and I dont use the Uncertainbty Principle, parallel universes, superpositions universal wavelengths or anything not observable, measurable and repeatble.

 

I that way I am like a lizrd walking along a brach lifting one leg at a time.

Or a kangaroo on a bicyle fdtrinknig a bottloe of m ilk

 

 

 

It is irrelavmnt whether the milk is a kangaroo or a owmn with chese.

 

The iomportant thing is you do it your way.

 

 

 

[YOLF]

Interesting logic hanged man. I'm not studied enough on either argument or the physics to know if what you're saying is right, but yes, the why is more important than the understanding. That much I am certainly in agreement with. The "is" isn't all that meaningful or useful if we don't know the how. Or at the very least, acceptance is overrated if it be anything more than accepting that we don't know a whole lot.

 

So what was it that you did again? Are you a physicist or engineer?

Edited by YOLF, 07 September 2015 - 08:40 AM.

[platypus]

I use my own form of logic, it suits me and I build systems from it.

Crackpot alert. Can you write some of the rules of reasoning down for the rest of us? 

[Julia36]

YOLF

 

that's adhomenem..who/waht I am is irrelevant. You cant learn stuff strusting to learned authority. Strangle einstein.

 

I'm a bum.

 

Platypus

ad hominem crackpot alert? That assumes thyat some people are crackpot and shoul;d be tabood, which implies others are not and should be embraced.

This misses the arguement, the point and the reasoning.

atomic log is a chain of logical propositions you cant reduce without losing theor sense.

 

Reasoning has to satisfy you.

 

Little point in using logics that cant do that. Abstraction is ok and symbolic logic is used to thwart amphiboly

 

see amphibolgy exposed in case you deem this ad hoiminem

http://www.fallacyfi...g/amphibol.html

 

 

 

 

Most things you can state or argue can be stated and argued better by artificial systems, and the rest will be done by 2022 as nanotech, maths, sceince and hypetrcompuyters

merge with accelerating A.I.

 

Presently we opnly use Artificial Neural networks, geneatic algorithms, and natural langues woth data bases and  modified/screen based typwriters to access these.

 

But hypercomputation involves much more: coming A.I. uses none of these and is bliondingly fast at analysing, pobserving, predicting and actiong.

 

 

 

 

Edited by the hanged man, 07 September 2015 - 02:38 PM.

[Julia36]

OK the Rules

 

1.  We seek the highest Truth about things.

 

2.  Where 2 things are in conflict they can't both be right.

 

3.  We use Parameters to bound things as a Method.

 

4.  Laws are the ways things are connected.

 

5.  Observing and measuring things enables us to discover other things.

 

 

 

 

[Julia36]

I'm guessing the poster known as the hanged man could be an advocate of Superdeterminism:

 

https://en.wikipedia...uperdeterminism

 

This interpretation of QM is quite unpopular at the moment.

 

I dont have a view on Quantum THeory . I haven't studied it and some of it defies the general axioms of knowledge: Specifically that there is no causation (or only the quantum world opperates by no cuasation) which cannot be correct.

 

I can test causation by playing snooker.

It works 100% of the time.

 

I cant test quentum mechanics...nor can anyone lese: they have to reply on statistics.

 

Causation and non-causation cant both be correct.

 

 

 

Quantum Theory as a philosophy of absurdities seems a covert attempt to seep God and religion into science.

 

eg free will and the obnserver effect anmd consciousness and God are all bundeled into it

 

Max Planck, origionator of Quantum Theory:

 

 

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter."
 

although it ios cponsistent with Hermetic principles.

[platypus]

There is a an article about determinism and non-determinism in the latest SciAm. Many people see to argue that determinism at the particle (or lower) level does not necessarily imply that all the higher levels are deterministic. 

[Julia36]

There is a an article about determinism and non-determinism in the latest SciAm. Many people see to argue that determinism at the particle (or lower) level does not necessarily imply that all the higher levels are deterministic. 

 

Glad this view if filtering mainstream Platypus.

 

We need a debate on it at macro levels and only philosophy can offer that or we;ll get ited in details.

 

I can get thsi perspective ONLY if you equate complexity with non-determinism.

 

Logically non-determinism is IMPOSIBBLE.

Anywhere.

 

For this reason:

non-determinism (true chaos and true disorder and true randomenss)

 

cannot have law not parameters/bounds which are laws.

 

eg random stuff does ---> what?

One could never say.

 

If one could, it would no longer be random, but predictable, and if predictable it is per se Cause and Effect.

 

Prediction is not possible with randomness...which is superstition.

 

Randomness cant submit to observation. One minute it would ne a molecule of water, next a bucycle, next nothing, htgen some thing and nothg.

 

But randomists dont argue that.

 

Non-determinism is a foolish attempt to say not-in scuinece therefroe God, and en route tied in consciusness, free will and the Superintelligent all seeing Mind (I dont exagerate, this was Max Planck';s position and was the / an originator of Quantum THeory).

 

Non-determinism is absurd, superstitious, and shoud be shown as such: we shoud pursue sceince, knowledge and not have unknowns as part of our serious Method.

 

I dont see any article in Sciam related to this debate, though a direct link would be helpful.

 

A great difficulty in non-causal sceince is that one needs deep physics to understand most of the terms and common sense is excluded.

 

A big mistake in new theories is that they soar of in particuoar, untestable declarations which the layman cannot follow because they are particuar.

 

That wont continue as new forms of instant and dynamic learning become more available (oprototyping now as chip and brain chip  implants, first person to person and also person to the clous and Superintelligence

 

https://en.wikipedia...mplant#Research

 

 

 

It would be dangerous to go into these emerging technologies beleiving in non-causal events, which, being wrong, would slow down progress to a crawl, as we try uinsucessfully to pioneer systems that cannot be built thus.

 

Microchips weren't built using parallel wqorlds, but electronics, statistics and maths.

[platypus]

The article tried to make a point that neterminism/non-determinism at the lowest level does not dictate whether we for example have free will or not. It would be a categorical mistake to for example to claim that free will cannot exist if the particles behave deterministicallly (or non-deterministically). 

[Julia36]

The article tried to make a point that neterminism/non-determinism at the lowest level does not dictate whether we for example have free will or not. It would be a categorical mistake to for example to claim that free will cannot exist if the particles behave deterministicallly (or non-deterministically). 

 

Freewill is a pre-science term like 'soul', and 'consciousness'.

Scientists talk about 'degrees of freedom' in human robotics., and that has to relate to how those degrees of freedom are engineered into an artificial system.

 

Free will is a misleading term now, as it implies acting outsiode the deterministic laws of physics, which nothing can do.

 

If you want to move this debate to theology that should be stated.

 

NB It's perfectly acceptable to have a model with free will , consciousness, randomness, spooky action, non-causality, parallel worlds,  spontaneous creation and disappearance, but I dont use it.

 

My aim is to explain everything in terms of Cause and Effect. This requires observation and measurement, and to pencil is "not yet known" to areas where we cannot yet do this.

 

Quantum Theory models do not pencil in 'not yet known' but that  "things happen non -causally in the quantum world."

 

I have taken a position as a determinist like Galileo, Einstein and d'Hooft, and do not use the ideas of underdetermined, random, non-cauisal, free will and consciousness in my model.

 

I guess there's no right and wrong, it's whatever tickles you.

 

But in order to debate we need common ground, which we donty have as we have chosen out models and profess them. In a strict sense we are no longer philosophers, but professors.

 

Our different models are not preposterous, and have millions of adherants.

 

It is NOT true that "Quantum Theory is not uderstood by anyone" is an old view now overturned, and that people understand it!

 

I reiterate:

 

No-one understands Quantum Theory.

 

For me this is because Quantum Theory is a nonsense.  I suspect Einstein got it advanced to make him seem more prescient when Cuase and Effect was reinstated. Or do you think such a brilliant moind incapable of that???

 

It's a tacked together jumble of disparate weird contradictions, and is like a roulete system that gets more complex the more it is played, to cover every past result. Alas science is that as well, from one perspective. A thing that baffles theologians. In theology the rules dont change and the dogma is set in stone. (Dawkins)

The authority ios revelation to certain chosen people, and theor pronouncements are not to be debated on pain of punishment.

 

 

Onre assertion, that probability but not cuasation, work in the quantum world is a contradiction in logic, for probability is undeniably and demonstrably a branch of causation.

' I think people who espouse Quantum Theory are silly pretentious and dumb people and I would laugh at them at parties'.  but the floor has been open to them for an hundred years to demonstrate how such a theory can be, or build something in engineering with Quantum Mechanics, but as they cannot observe and measure anything with it, they are forced into statistics alone.

This pessimistic view of tHooft I dont share either, because Nature has repeatable patterns which reduces calculations and mesaurements by huge factors.

 

Gerard 't Hooft "...the only reasonable view on the  laws of nature is that they determine everything that happens, uniquely. This insight is necessary if you want to understand what is going on in a quantum system, in particular when you have entangled particles. However, this does not imply that the future is "predictable" in any way. Nature itself is the fastest calculator there is, and no one will ever beat  that, apart from making statistical statements. That's what qm is." (to me -2013). This argument on limits is argument from size of calculations and (future) inflation. We can also assume we can describe the environment we live in by finding shortcuts to data aggregations and patterns that repeat. These are the laws of physics that will be delivered increasingly by coming accelerating  intelligence. t'Hooft has attacked labeling in  philosophy and seems to be arguing from set theory.

 

But I restate I haven't studied the Quantum THeory a) because no-one understands it therefore who could teach me?

and

b) some of its assertions are so wrong I decided it wasn't worth studying.

 

 

As a scientist I reject Quantum Theory. A difficulty is saving the bits that are useful.

 

 

 

 

this BBC article from 2013 confirms my point:

 

http://www.bbc.com/f...-quantum-theory

Edited by the hanged man, 10 September 2015 - 11:29 AM.

[platypus]

If trouser-wearing monkeys cannot understand QM it's hardly the universes fault.

 

BTW I see your "randomness cannot exist" a religious statement in it's own right so don't cast too many stones about people believing that "free will" or "consciousness" do exist. 

 

Also, there are applications of QM already, for example:

 

http://www.smithsoni...0953494/?no-ist

 

QM works so don't be racist about it. 

[Julia36]

That article is ill informed.

Bell proved no such thing.

His work was never intended to take account of non-local laws, and may have solely shown the local theory of QT is a consitent model.

 

This leads to the preposterous conlusion that there are different laws for different parts of the universe, which is a serious bluinder and contra-science.

 

 

 

The very fact that there are held to be quantum laws necessarily means they are causal. Probability is causation. It deals with predicting a group because the individual in the group cant be seen adequately.

 

When there are laws, there is prediction, things follow rules, rules limit and control how things must move, not might move, not could move  MUST move, and they are necessary cause and effect  AS A REQUIREMENT OF LOGIG.

 

 

QT has been used to build devices?. ThAT IS NOT TRUE.  Electronics have been used to build them, and the systems are 100% causal.

 

 

 

Edited by the hanged man, 10 September 2015 - 09:49 PM.

[platypus]

Quantum effects are real, for example entanglement. 

 

BTW how can you construct a measurement that tells you whether a system is "causal" or not? 

[Julia36]

Quantum effects are real, for example entanglement. 

 

BTW how can you construct a measurement that tells you whether a system is "causal" or not? 

 

1. Hi you call them quantum and say they work by mysteries , I call them physics & profess all physics is causal. If they coprrelate to perfection one must theorize they are conncted somehow, not yet known. NOT that causation doesn't work anymore.

Unbelievable how this infected science from Max Planck's chirstian views..

 

 

It is difficult to work with the very small at present.

 

One problem is our maths rusn ahead of our mechanics.

 

 

2. Error in logic. One cannot be required to disprove an unprovable!!!!

Are you seriously arguing that???

 

 

All things are causal and nothing could ever exist that was not caused or causing.

 

Aniother issue is most people have been brainwashed and look to popularity as confirmatiuon of sceince theories which is unfortunate for futurists, since pioneers are crackpots until people call gthem heretics, and finally knew it anyway all along.

 

Much of USA India and the world lives in ideology demonstrably false and historically harmful.

 

You only have to require proofs by repeatable experiments, and then you MUST NOT

 

give explanations for those experiments UNTIL you can observe what is going on, and why.

 

That classic mistake is in 90%+ of media articles.

 

There is no quantum theory there is only science

 

 

 

 

 

   100 authors against Einstein

 

although possibly just another money making scam...Einstein was an is opposed on 'Quantum Theory' Non-causality is impoaaible per se.

 

By defination, anything that exists has parameters...things outside it, which it is not.

 

There is a sun and not a moon.

 

Why?

 

Because it has parametres and distance between them.

 

How?

By the laws of containment, attraction and repulsion.

 

How do those laws come to be?

 

By Cause and Effect ad infinitum.

 

What are those laws?

 

 

they are

• 1 Conservation laws
  • 1.1 Conservation and symmetry
  • 1.2 Continuity and transfer
• 2 Laws of classical mechanics
  • 2.1 Principle of least action
• 3 Laws of gravitation and relativity
  • 3.1 Modern laws
  • 3.2 Classical laws
• 4 Thermodynamics
• 5 Electromagnetism
• 6 Photonics
• 7 Laws of quantum mechanics
• 8 Radiation laws
• 9 Laws of chemistry
• 10 Geophysical laws
• and others

 

 

 

- this is just Socratic exploration, and atomic logic-  the purest logic possible.

1. Professor Dr. Walter Del-Negro.
2. Professor Dr. Hans Driesch
3. Dr. S. Friedlaender
4. Dr. I.K. Geissler
5. Armin Gimmerthal
6. Professor Dr. Ludwig Goldschmidt
7. Professor Dr. A.H. de Hartog
8. Dipl.-Ing. Dr. Hans Israel
9. Hugo Keller
10. Professor Dr. O. Kraus
11. Dr. W. Kuntz
12. Dr. Emanuel Lasker✡ - Philosopher, mathematician and chess world champion
13. Dr. J. Le Roux
14. Dr. P.F. Linke
15. Professor Dr. Sten Lothigius
16. Professore Dr. H.J. Mellin
17. Lothar Mitis
18. Dr. Vincenz Nachreiner
19. Dr. K.O. Petraschek
20. Dr. Walther Rauschenberger
21. Dr. Arvid Reuterdahl
22. Dr. Gustav Richter
23. Dr. Erich Ruckhaber
24. Professor Dr. Strehl
25. Dr. Karl Vogtherr
26. Professor Dr. W. Walte
27. Dr. Rudolf Weinmann
28. Georg Wendel
29. G. Alliata (Locarno)
30. W. Anderson (Dorpat)
31. W. Balster
32. Prof. E. Becher (München)
33. Prof. A. Becker
34. Prof. K. Benedicks (Stockholm)
35. Prof. H. Bergson (Paris)
36. K.F. Bottlinger
37. A.H. Bucherer
38. Prof. E. Budde (Halle)
39. Prof. E. Dennert (Godesberg)
40. Prof. H. Dingler (München)
41. J. Dreschler
42. Prof. P. Ehrenfest (Leyden)
43. H. Fricke (Berlin)
44. G. Friedrichs
45. Prof. M. Frischeisen-Köhler
46. H. Gartelmann
47. D. Gawronsky
48. Prof. E Gehrcke (Berlin)
49. H. Geppert
50. L. Gilbert
51. G. von Gleich (Ludwigsburg)
52. E Groβmann
53. Prof. Th. Häring
54. Prof. G. Hamel (Berlin)
55. Prof. Hartwig (Bamberg)
56. I.E.G. Hirzel
57. A. Höfler
58. Prof. C. Isenkrahe
59. Jovicic
60. Prof. Fr. Karollus (Brünn)
61. A. Kirschmann (Leipzig)
62. L. Klages (Kilchberg)
63. A. Krauße (Eberswalde)
64. I. Kremer
65. E. Kretschmann
66. Prof. J. v. Kries
67. H.E. Lauer (Wien)
68. Prof. E. Lecher
69. Prof. P. Lenard (Heidelberg)
70. C. Leopold
71. Prof. F. Lipsius (Leipzig)
72. Prof. E. Mach
73. Prof. H. Maier (Berlin)
74. Fritz Mauthner (Berlin)
75. Prof. St. Mohorovicic (Agram)
76. A. Nyman
77. P. Painlevé
78. Prof. M. Palagyi
79. G. Péczi
80. A. Pfaff (München)
81. Podeck (Berlin)
82. Prof. Poincaré (Paris)
83. Prof. A. Prey (Prag)
84. Prof. N. von Raschevsky
85. Prof. J. Rehmke
86. E. Reichenbächer
87. Riedinger (Jena)
88. L. Ripke-Kühn (Berlin)
89. R. Rothe
90. E. Rupp
91. G. Sagnac
92. J. Schultz
93. O. Schwinge
94. Prof. T.A. See (U.S.A)
95. Prof. H. von Seeliger (München)
96. Fr. Selety
97. Sittig (Magdeburg)
98. I. Stickers (Luzern)
99. H. Strasser (Bern)
100. Eddo Thedinga (Berlin)

wiki

 

100 authors against Einstein

 

 

"The title page of the book "100 authors against Einstein."

100 authors against Einstein is a book published in 1931 in which Einstein's relativity theory is refuted.

Although the book is relatively short (only 104 pages), it is a useful source, because Einstein's theory is refuted from many different viewpoints: some contributions are philosophical, others focus on the mathematics or on the physics, while it even contains contributions in which psychological arguments are used. Some contributions are written in a popular way, so they can be read by people who are not scientifically trained. Other contributions are intended for scientists. Many contributions are in fact summaries of extensive research by the authors and the references are given to published books and articles so the readers know where to obtain background information or where to check the conclusions presented in 100 authors against Einstein."

.

Most of scientists now do it, and it is they who are profoundly wrong.

 

It's not about Race not ideology Platypus but about elementaries. Fundamentals, Basics.

 

It takes time to think about principlals, but scientists are stamnpeded from school to graduations, to masters to PhD's to professorships at 25 and haven't hammered the basic principles of sceince in.

 

It is such a waste that after 100 years the conflcit between Quantum Mysteries and hard science remains.  One is conjecture the other mechanics.

 

Beliefs that laws change acording to arbitray size ie the size is 'too small for humans to see'  is egoism.

 

Humans do not decide how lawswork, but the laws exiost whethjer you or I are there.

 

 

The Religions may have even become an impediment to man's survival now, and shoud be linited to faith in unreified higher morality, the teaching of ethics and fellowship.

 

 

 

Edited by the hanged man, 11 September 2015 - 02:30 PM.