i was not attempting to express my personal viewpoint,philosophy or belief but rather to share with you all how some people may view quantum theory/mechanics.
religion tends to conflict with much of what science has revealed.
so the religious tend to either ignore or outright deny those revelations.
but i suspect there is a much larger majority who wish to blend their religious belief with science.
this is one such video.
i posted to bring awareness and possible discussion.
nothing more.nothing less.
i am a man of faith,not religion.there is a universe of difference.
so no disrespect taken but i do appreciate the sentiment.
your so cute when your being politically correct.

If elementary particles undergoing quantum effects isn't physical, then I don't know what is.

>> ^raverman:
This makes some broad generalisations to make a point specifically against religion.
Most quantum theory also enters this area of non-physical substance. By this measure we should stop all research and say "only what we can physically percieve is real".
Dark matter is considered to exist because it is inferred by the nature of the physical universe. In yet it has not been physically proven to have substance.
Quantum entanglement was impossible in earlier physics. Physical objects should not be able effect each other in a seemingly non-physical way.
Most mathematical theories of the universe require non-physical substance to complete the picture. Extra dimensions, time as a 4th layer, Branes of time and space.
If non-physical can exist outside the our 3 physical percievable dimensions it says more about our tools for detection than it does about the known vs. unknown of the universe.

This makes some broad generalisations to make a point specifically against religion.

Most quantum theory also enters this area of non-physical substance. By this measure we should stop all research and say "only what we can physically percieve is real".

Dark matter is considered to exist because it is inferred by the nature of the physical universe. In yet it has not been physically proven to have substance.

Quantum entanglement was impossible in earlier physics. Physical objects should not be able effect each other in a seemingly non-physical way.

Most mathematical theories of the universe require non-physical substance to complete the picture. Extra dimensions, time as a 4th layer, Branes of time and space.

If non-physical can exist outside the our 3 physical percievable dimensions it says more about our tools for detection than it does about the known vs. unknown of the universe.

I found something that you absolutely must watch. I found it tonight by chance and thought it pertained to our discussion perfectly and it's spoken beautifully. I think it will help you understand some of what I've explained that I might not have had the best words for and it should help clear up your thoughts on what atheists are not saying. (P.S. I'm not implying that you're saying that I should be more open minded, it just happened to be the prime relation point in the video). I implore you to watch it a few times.

Open-mindedness (youtube link)

To continue our discussion; I think that what we actually disagree on is the definition of "truth".

You're saying that truth is subjective; meaning that truth is contingent on the presence of a mind.

I'm saying that truth is objective; meaning that truth it exists outside of mind and that we can know it through the tools of logic, reason, and the scientific method.

The reason that I say that truth is objective, not contingent on a mind, is that if it were subjective, you could have two truths which contradict each other and then you'd be left with a paradoxes.

I think that you're boyfriend/girlfriend analogy is a good one because it helps proves a point.

That being that there is no such thing as "more true" when analyzing multiple claims. "More true" is a misnomer

It is a claim for the girlfriend to say that she feels heartbreak.
It is a claim for the boyfriend to say that he does not feel heartbreak.

The logical reason why they can both be true in their claims is that both claims are independent of one another. More important than knowing that both are true is to know why both claims can logically be true at the same time. Neither claim is dependent or contingent on the other claim in order to be true.

With the concept of subjective truth, if I were to consider what I believe as "my truths", what need would I have to question whether or not they are true? I mean, if they're my truths then that means that they're already true, no need to evaluate them. If everything that I believed was subjectively "my truth", then how would I distinguish functional reality from "my reality"? If truth is subjective, how could I determine how large or small my world is verses the rest of the world? What would I do when I come to a truth claim that contradicts my truth claim? How can something be true for me and the contradictory be true at the same time for someone else? Most importantly, how can I define reality if all truth is subjective? Furthermore, if only some truth is subjective, then how do we know what is subjectively true and what is objectively true? I'm sure that you can see that there are a lot of problems with the concept of subjective truth.

A huge key point that I wish to address:

You said "for either one of us to attempt to convince the other OUR truth is somehow more relevant than the others is not only insulting,but an exercise in futility"

I cannot agree with that statement at all. Besides my disagreement that truth is relative; for someone to be insulted by someone contesting a truth claim means that the person insulted has more invested in believing the claim rather than in caring whether or not the claim is true or not. Furthermore, if someone mistakingly holds a lie to be truth and you know that it's a lie and lead them to understand why their believed claim is false, you're helping that person to avoid any potential pitfalls associated with the lie; I cannot see how that is an exercise in futility.


In reply to this comment by enoch:
i know secular humanism well.
its not a bad way to be at all.
i think we may disagree on absolutes though.
you MUST be either a math major,or prone to maths definitive understandings of absolutes.(though quantum theory throws a wrench in that,yes?).
i am a poet,seeker and thinker and for good or ill my philosophy resides almost exclusively in the abstract,or gray.
my premise was basically to be aware that absolutist thinking:
1.the fundamentalist knows they are right because they have a book to prove it.
we both know the book is rife with contradictions,hypocrisy and outright fallacies.
2.the atheist comes at this problem from a differing origin but uses the SAME absolutist thinking that the fundamentalist employs.this is where,in my opinion,the danger lies.

this is why i used the term "agnostic" in its literal translation,and also why i feel the argument is semantics.
i.e:you say potato and i say potato.just variants of the same word for garnering different results.
it is also why i pointed out that while religious people can be biased towards atheists for not believing in their good book.atheists also will come to presumptive conclusions also based on their perceptions.
truth is a relative perception.i know you disagree,but i am not saying empirically,just when human ideologies,feelings and thoughts are concerned.
example:
you break up with your GF of 5 years.she is heartbroken,yet you are not.
which feelings are MORE true?
neither..both are true.one is the heartbroken and the other heartbreaker,yet both are equally true.
which is a point i think you were attempting to convey.i agree.
i am a man of faith,based on my experiences,feelings and things that i cannot explain away.
you are a man of reason,and dismiss any thoughts or concerns deity related (i am assuming).
which is MORE true?
neither..both are equally true,based on individual perceptions.
so while i cannot prove and validate my reasons for being a man of faith,i dont even try.
why?
because your experiences and understanding of the world is different than mine.
does that mean i am more right then you?
of course not.
and for either one of us to attempt to convince the other OUR truth is somehow more relevant than the others is not only insulting,but an exercise in futility.
it benefits neither of us.
which is what i was attempting to convey.
there is ONE thing you did that i have never (and im old) seen another do.be they religious or atheist.
you did not assume anything about where my faith may have come from,and that little fact my friend reveals a sharp intelligence.
i am not religious.i teach cultural religious history and comparative religions,but i am vehemently anti-religious.
i deal with the esoteric and the occult,but practice none of it.
if i was forced to choose which best describes my path...hmmm..
kabbalistic zen gnosticism.
but not really..that comes closest though.
so you keep calling me out if i am not making coherent points,i do not insult easy nor embarrass.and in the end we all benefit.
i do hope i did better this time at clarifying my point,as you have seen..i tend to ramble.
its the preacher in me LOL.
in any case.i do thank you for this conversation,i am sure there will be others.
until that time...namste.

i know secular humanism well.
its not a bad way to be at all.
i think we may disagree on absolutes though.
you MUST be either a math major,or prone to maths definitive understandings of absolutes.(though quantum theory throws a wrench in that,yes?).
i am a poet,seeker and thinker and for good or ill my philosophy resides almost exclusively in the abstract,or gray.
my premise was basically to be aware that absolutist thinking:
1.the fundamentalist knows they are right because they have a book to prove it.
we both know the book is rife with contradictions,hypocrisy and outright fallacies.
2.the atheist comes at this problem from a differing origin but uses the SAME absolutist thinking that the fundamentalist employs.this is where,in my opinion,the danger lies.

this is why i used the term "agnostic" in its literal translation,and also why i feel the argument is semantics.
i.e:you say potato and i say potato.just variants of the same word for garnering different results.
it is also why i pointed out that while religious people can be biased towards atheists for not believing in their good book.atheists also will come to presumptive conclusions also based on their perceptions.
truth is a relative perception.i know you disagree,but i am not saying empirically,just when human ideologies,feelings and thoughts are concerned.
example:
you break up with your GF of 5 years.she is heartbroken,yet you are not.
which feelings are MORE true?
neither..both are true.one is the heartbroken and the other heartbreaker,yet both are equally true.
which is a point i think you were attempting to convey.i agree.
i am a man of faith,based on my experiences,feelings and things that i cannot explain away.
you are a man of reason,and dismiss any thoughts or concerns deity related (i am assuming).
which is MORE true?
neither..both are equally true,based on individual perceptions.
so while i cannot prove and validate my reasons for being a man of faith,i dont even try.
why?
because your experiences and understanding of the world is different than mine.
does that mean i am more right then you?
of course not.
and for either one of us to attempt to convince the other OUR truth is somehow more relevant than the others is not only insulting,but an exercise in futility.
it benefits neither of us.
which is what i was attempting to convey.
there is ONE thing you did that i have never (and im old) seen another do.be they religious or atheist.
you did not assume anything about where my faith may have come from,and that little fact my friend reveals a sharp intelligence.
i am not religious.i teach cultural religious history and comparative religions,but i am vehemently anti-religious.
i deal with the esoteric and the occult,but practice none of it.
if i was forced to choose which best describes my path...hmmm..
kabbalistic zen gnosticism.
but not really..that comes closest though.
so you keep calling me out if i am not making coherent points,i do not insult easy nor embarrass.and in the end we all benefit.
i do hope i did better this time at clarifying my point,as you have seen..i tend to ramble.
its the preacher in me LOL.
in any case.i do thank you for this conversation,i am sure there will be others.
until that time...namste.

me too.thats why i tagged it kaballistic,many parallels.in addition many of carl jung and R.D laing's work refer to the randomness quotient.
quantum theory fascinates me,the applicable math i find impossible,but the theory part absolutely rivets me to my seat.
and in all honesty,how much do we REALLY know?
einstein proved that time is relative and there is no travel faster than light,but BECAUSE of E=MC(2) quantum physics was born,and BOOM...
seems there can be travel faster than light,but only in theory.
ah...time travel..NEAT.
hell,quantum mechanics gave us the very computer's we are playing on.
thanks for the vote sir schmawy =)
In reply to this comment by schmawy:
I'll vote for it too, because it's intriguing. Although if any of this were true, science would have to eat itself.

There is a new Theory of Everything Breakthrough. It exposes the flaws in both Quantum Theory and String Theory. Please see: Theory of Super Relativity at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.superrelativity.org/" title="Super Relativity">Super Relativity Einstein was right!

>> ^imstellar28:
>> ^Aendolin:
^I'd say evolutionary theory is harder to accept, not grasp.

You think quantum mechanics is easy to accept? Planck, Bohr, Schroedinger, and Einstein all considered it ludicrous, and they were much smarter men than most.
Quantum mechanics says that if you place a cat under a large box, and lift the box to peek in enough times, one of those times it will be a horse. You're okay with that?


My own opinion is that evolutionary theory is rather easy to grasp and understand. Quantum mechanics, not so much. I mean, I can recite some of the implications of quantum mechanics, but they're still beyond imagination and I have no concept of how these things happen.

And no, quantum mechanics doesn't say anything about cats transforming into horses. Quantum mechanics says that quantum particles exist in all possible states at all times unless they are observed. You'll be nominated for a golden crocoduck yourself if you keep saying things like that.

Einstein and Planck essentially founded quantum theory, though Einstein wasn't fond of its implications, and Schrodinger is famous for pointing out how ridiculous it is. They all still believed it because the evidence indicates it's true. Not sure if you were implying that they were all disbelievers, but that's how I read that part of your comment.

^Evolution has been validated by experiment to the same extent, if not more so, as quantum theory. There is no national debate about quantum mechanics because most people don't even know where to begin.

The only reason there is a national debate about evolution is that most people (erroneously) believe they understand it. You don't see creationists complaining about (or supporting) quantum mechanics because honestly how many creationists even understand enough of it to know why they should be for or against it?

Theres actually a lot of people with contrary theories to quantum mechanics. The string theorists are one example. Quantum mechanics is not *the* answer, it is just the best answer we have so far. In another 50 years it will be replaced or expanded upon just as Newtonian mechanics was. The same is true for evolution and every other scientific theory.

Science never has, and probably never will give us "the truth." It only provides models which enable us to make accurate predictions. The models of Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Newton were all "wrong" yet they could accurately calculate the orbit of planets just as one can with relativity or quantum mechanics--the latter models merely expanded on the accuracy.

^As a matter of fact, yes, I am, since quantum theory has been well validated by experiment. And since it doesn't directly contradict any religious dogma, most religions find it easier to accept than evolution as well.
There is no great national debate about quantum mechanics like there is with evolution. It is the standard theory taught in college, and no one is clamoring to have other (contradictory) theories taught beside it.

I believe Einstein only thought some aspects of QM were ludicrous (like probability density functions). Didn't realize Schrodinger did. And there are many very smart people today who solidly accept it.

I couldn't get past the first minute of that man talking, what an arrogant dick... and WRONG.

Binary logic, trying to say do I see him or do I not, it's all down to that. What bull. There's an awful lot more to understanding the universe than trying to break things down to a 0 or 1. Is he completely ignoring the experimentally proven quantum theory of things existing in more than one state at a given time? Has he never heard of Schrodinger's cat?

And for him to then talk himself up like that.

Sorry, not going to watch someone aggrandize themselves when they WORK IN A BAR.

^Indeed. That mumbo-jumbo new age crap film was one of the worst abuses of quantum theory I have ever seen.

But nonetheless, this little animation snippet holds water scientifically, and is actually quite informative. It is all the wacky unfounded conclusions they draw from it that are horrible.

>> ^EDD:
^Dear GeeSussFreek,
you call yourself a scientist. That is fine. However, I will warn you right away that many on this website would question your devotion to scientific method based on your username alone - tell me, is it a coincidence that it's pronounced exactly like "Jesus-Freak"? I'm asking this (rather rhetorical) question because religious fanatics claiming to be scientists are often proponents of Intelligent Design, which is (I'll be frank here) a load of steaming bull excrement. I hope you are not one of this fold, because I've had my share of "dialogue" with these folks, and it has never, ever resembled anything like a reasoned, structured discourse.
With my worries laid before you, my response is this:
there are many fields of science and from your short stay on the Sift you would apparently style yourself as a jack-of-all-trades (economics, military, political science, theoretical and quantum physics, chemistry, just to name a few of which you've shared your opinion). Yet, it would also appear that you may be master of nothing.
A scientist (especially one talking about science and scientific method) would not ever, under any circumstances, attempt to draw their own definitions of FACT. Or any concept previously and universally known, for that matter. Me, I was taught what general as well as specific definitions of 'fact' are in secondary school. It would appear your "science diploma studies" have taught you nothing of this. Scientific fact feeds directly back from scientific method, which includes fancy notions such as peer review, one which has unfortunately so far eluded the scope of ID proponents. In science, fact may at times not be the absolute truth, it's what's agreed upon by the informed public. Our knowledge in most advanced fields of study can never be perfect and complete, but the ones most often making this claim are religious folks, saying that scripture "has all the answers".
Now, mass. My oh my.
Mass, assuming we're talking about gravitational mass, not inertial-7th-grade-physics-mass here, is the interaction of gravitational fields. In other words, yes, gravity. The same concept you differentiated, indicating exactly how much you understand of this and that I have no need to go into supergravity, supersymmetry and duality and start actually looking things up. Thanks for that. Oh, and by the way - mass is not created. Neither is matter, for that matter.
Continuing on-
regarding your nonplussed ideas about quantum theories, I have to disappoint you a little bit - it's still discernible, natural science; it hasn't obliterated all previous theories in physics; in fact, I dare you name three it has. Yes, the math involved is a 'bit' harder, the conjectures deeper and at times wilder, but scientific method is still applied.
You also said: "The fact is, that science doesn't deal with facts and has no method of proving things true, only methods of proving them false."
First of all, I LOVE your use of "fact" in this sentence, just love it. Anyway, hypocrisy aside, all we need, is a YES/NO or a TRUE/FALSE experiment. Their initial assumption will either be true, and they will PROVE something to be true, or it will be wrong, and they will prove that it is wrong. Works both ways, just like logic's supposed to, in your brain.
In conclusion, I return to my initial lines:
"You call yourself a scientist. That is most definitely not fine."


So, because I am a Christian, I can not be science minded. Thats a weak assertion. Moreover, its a showing of the new bigot mind set against any of those who have a different mind set. It is the new thing. To expect me to tolerate and be tolerant of your ideas, but the same latitude is not relayed back. I wouldn't count someone out just cause they called themselves agnosticfreak, would you? But that isn't the point of this conversation.

Intelligent design is crap. I never even mentioned it here, but yet, you rolled me into an automatic assumption that I believe that...I don't, its a fundamentally bad idea of applying impartial physical interpretations of the world and using those to apply to a metaphysic's of the creators doing. This is bad, it is not even an theory, but thanks for the assumption.

And thanks for the unmerited attack on my interests, I won't return the favor.

In your third paragraph, you totally just reiterate what I always said that science has no claim to absolute truth, so I will take that as a consesion on your part, but then you automatically assume that I do agree that ID is a valid theory in which I believe, which you are wrong. So I will take your concession and your incorrect assumption and slide right by your personal attacks for the moment.

As for mass, I was trying to show that even the simple idea of where the mass of an atom, the most simple idea in particle physics; in a unknown. So in effect, the basis of our understanding of particle physics is incomplete and yet we call things on the higher level facts, and I object to the terminology, just as one might also object to a Christian saying that God being real is a fact...its just a misuse of the language. I also object to things being called laws, but it is more of language that we are talking about on these things. There is a connotative and denotative meaning obviously, but I still think the terms are misleading. So my battle was over terminology abuse in this case.

You talk about the scientific method again. I would like to bring attention to the scientific method 2 problems that very prominent people in science have had with similar instances of rules in empirical practice. First, was one of my heroes, Alan Turing. His problem was one in computer science (my field btw) where he was trying to prove or disprove the ability to make a program that could test if other programs terminate (ie not suffer from an infinite loop). The problem was, you could make such a program, but you would have to then turn that program back on itself to make sure that it also terminates. This presents a problem. Because we still don't know if the program terminates. So, the problem was that there was no way to verify the thing that was created to verify things. Thus, the proof showed that there is no way to create a program that can test of other programs terminate.

Likewise, there was formerly a school of thought that has now all but vanished called the Verification theory( I believe this was the term, correct me if you know better). The verification method heralded that unless something could be empirically verified, it is meaningless. However, the same thing that happed in Mr. Turrings proof destroyed this idea as well for when we tried to verify the Verification theory, there was no verification to be had. So, I use the same argument on the Scientific method as to show its level of truth is very low indeed. It is a Theory that can not be turned back to proof itself. It rests on arbitrary principles that seem good...and they are good for lots of things, but truth is not one of them. The Scientific theory can not show itself to be truth using the scientific method. In fact, quantum physics shows us more and more that the very act of observation changes the data. In other words, sciences attempts to claim things being the way they are might only be so because they looked, not because they are actually that way. Once again, the problem of phenomena and Noumea.

You then use a classic example of why I choose my battle of language with science. It is impossible to prove something truth with science. Things are truth in science until they are not...which is no truth at all. Can you name one idea from 200 years ago that that isn't radically different from today? In essence, those proven theories weren't proven at all, they can only be disproved. Science only deals with negative evidence, not positive. Things will always be revised in science, and more over, we never really know when they won't need to be revised again; and thus this is why science can never have a claim to have a TOE (theory of everything) because you don't ever know when you know everything...you don't know when every fact is accounted for, every essence of the whole is taken into account...it is an unknowable thing (from the standpoint of absolute knowledge).

*edited out cause Internet people can't be trusted with humility*. However, I don't think my claims are baseless, and I attempted to have a civil talk about them. If I came off as rude or condescending in my first reply, then I do apologies as this was not my intent. I have a real eagerness to talk about such topics openly and freely on the sift because we have some very intelligent people here and normally some pretty good discourse (we are many stars above the youtube crowd). I look forward to perhaps a more civil reply in the future Hopefully I have covered all your points here, I tried my best.

Edit: spelling

^Dear GeeSussFreek,

you call yourself a scientist. That is fine. However, I will warn you right away that many on this website would question your devotion to scientific method based on your username alone - tell me, is it a coincidence that it's pronounced exactly like "Jesus-Freak"? I'm asking this (rather rhetorical) question because religious fanatics claiming to be scientists are often proponents of Intelligent Design, which is (I'll be frank here) a load of steaming bull excrement. I hope you are not one of this fold, because I've had my share of "dialogue" with these folks, and it has never, ever resembled anything close to a reasoned, structured discourse.

With my worries laid before you, my response is this:
there are many fields of science and from your short stay on the Sift you would apparently style yourself as a jack-of-all-trades (economics, military, political science, theoretical and quantum physics, chemistry, just to name a few of which you've shared your opinion). Yet, it would also appear that you may be master of nothing.

A scientist (especially one talking about science and scientific method) would not ever, under any circumstances, attempt to draw their own definitions of FACT. Or any concept previously and universally known, for that matter. Me, I was taught what general as well as specific definitions of 'fact' are in secondary school. It would appear your "science diploma studies" have taught you nothing of this. Scientific fact feeds directly back from scientific method, which includes fancy notions such as peer review, one which has unfortunately so far eluded the scope of ID proponents. In science, fact may at times not be the absolute truth, it's what's agreed upon by the informed public. Our knowledge in most advanced fields of study can never be perfect and complete, but the ones most often making this claim are religious folks, saying that scripture "has all the answers".

Now, mass. My oh my.
Mass, assuming we're talking about gravitational mass, not inertial-7th-grade-physics-mass here, is the interaction of gravitational fields. In other words, yes, gravity. The same concept you differentiated, indicating exactly how much you understand of this and that I have no need to go into supergravity, supersymmetry and duality and start actually looking things up. Thanks for that. Oh, and by the way - mass is not created. Neither is matter, for that matter.

Continuing on-
regarding your nonplussed ideas about quantum theories, I have to disappoint you a little bit - it's still discernible, natural science; it hasn't obliterated all previous theories in physics; in fact, I dare you name three it has. Yes, the math involved is a 'bit' harder, the conjectures deeper and at times wilder, but scientific method is still applied.

You also said: "The fact is, that science doesn't deal with facts and has no method of proving things true, only methods of proving them false."
First of all, I LOVE your use of "fact" in this sentence, just love it. Anyway, hypocrisy aside, all we need is a scientist performing a YES/NO or a TRUE/FALSE experiment. Their initial assumption will either be true, and they will prove something to be true, or it will be wrong, and they will prove that it is wrong. Works both ways, just like logic's supposed to, in your brain.

In conclusion, I have come full circle and return to my initial lines:
"You call yourself a scientist. That is most definitely not fine."

No this is it, this is exactly right. Electromagnetism is matter, you can derive equations for matter, for particles, including DeBroglie waves that quantum physicists completely ignore, from Maxwells equations for electromagnetism.

It doesn't say that Einstein was fundamentally wrong, it says that the interpretation of relativity was wrong, and it was, unfortunately. Einstein said that the more predictions that quantum theory made the sillier it looked. This clip is exactly the line of thinking that Einstein was on, so was Tesla, so was Maxwell, so was Bohm.

You only need two forces for this to work, gravity and electromagnetism. And we have only ever detected those two forces. The mainstream view is that you need four forces, gravity, EM, and strong and weak nuclear forces. Guess what, no matter how big a particle accelerator we build we cannot find those nuclear forces. Every time we build a bigger one the equations are changed and they put the Higgs at a higher energy level. When you try to work them out on paper you need infinite energy to hold the protons together in the nucleus of every atom. They botch the infinities, they normalise them, it's a complete mess.

I'll tell you what's not convincing, dark matter, dark energy, and force carrying particles like the Higgs and the other Bosons. You can derive everything from gravity and EM, you can even derive relativity from the same EM wave equations.

If you want to study something that isn't convincing, you need look no further than the mess that is quantum mechanics and string theory. Many are abandoning the field. Relativity is safer in the hands of the plasma guys than it is with the charlatans of QM and String.