No supernatural, no gods.

[Learner]

You would expect "strange ideas" from a theist. Every time you visit the religious section...that's lots of wasting time for you.

Those Issues with QM. What book would you recommend?

Any decent college intoduction to QM text book. Any decent used book store would be a good place to start.

Not for Learner. Just picking up such a book requires understanding really heavy elements of number theory and things like Group Theory, and understanding state maps and probability distributions.

At a minimum that requires having waded through discrete, linear, and a couple layers of Calc, and perhaps even analytic and 3d geometry.

If you don't have the foundation, a basic college textbook might as well be written in Greek. Half of it WILL actually be written in Greek characters.

Thank you to the "professors of wisdom" for the book recommendations. The implications, which oddly, some of you seem to 'acknowledge', but perhaps you don't really understand or have an argument, hence, focusing on my "lack of knowing the very basics". The line I was responding to: The underlying foundation of relativity. Events must make sense [...] The only issue with it is it isn't that compatible with QM - which I assume most of us would agree with J. H's mentioned issue of compatible.

ETA. Basically you can devise numbers & formulas even for 'time travel' as a theory or philosophy, just as there are, for different variations of QT, (In a manner of speaking...these don't cancel God).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nothing cancels "magic". The very premise of "magic" is that "magic" happens by itself, without anything else needed. You can't negate that, at least not experimentally. We can link QM and Relativity and that doesn't disprove "magic". It just pushes "magic: back one more step. Much like how "magic" used to control the weather and these days it doesn't.

Walking around with bravado about "magic" being unfalsifiable just seems foolish. We didn't disprove "magic". It can't be "disproven"... as it is unfalsifiable. That isn't a benefit... it is a weakness. QM and GR have gone unbelievably far in describing our universe. The Bible... doesn't go anywhere. QM and GR imply "magic" isn't necessarily required. Some theists insist "magic" solves all the problems they say "magic" can solve. So very convenient. Sounds almost like a used car salesman.

 

[steve_bank]

You would expect "strange ideas" from a theist. Every time you visit the religious section...that's lots of wasting time for you.

Those Issues with QM. What book would you recommend?

Any decent college intoduction to QM text book. Any decent used book store would be a good place to start.

Not for Learner. Just picking up such a book requires understanding really heavy elements of number theory and things like Group Theory, and understanding state maps and probability distributions.

At a minimum that requires having waded through discrete, linear, and a couple layers of Calc, and perhaps even analytic and 3d geometry.

If you don't have the foundation, a basic college textbook might as well be written in Greek. Half of it WILL actually be written in Greek characters.

Thank you to the "professors of wisdom" for the book recommendations. The implications, which oddly, some of you seem to 'acknowledge', but perhaps you don't really understand or have an argument, hence, focusing on my "lack of knowing the very basics". The line I was responding to: The underlying foundation of relativity. Events must make sense [...] The only issue with it is it isn't that compatible with QM - which I assume most of us would agree with J. H's mentioned issue of compatible.

ETA. Basically you can devise numbers & formulas even for 'time travel' as a theory or philosophy, just as there are, for different variations of QT, (In a manner of speaking...these don't cancel God).

There is QM as a set of equations that are routinely used to do useful work, like designing lasers and transistprs. In application QM is routine by now. No mysteries.

There is scientific and engineeringas well speculation on what can be possibly done uing existing theory.

There is theoreticalscience based on what may be done by extension of theory.

There is philosophical speculation and pop science authors who spin QM into wild ass speculations.


Look at the moon and you perceive a solid object. In the late 19th century xray diffraction of crystalline materials showed a regular network of nodes separated by relatively wide spaces at the atomic scale.The idea actually caused a philosophical stir, the idea that there is no such thing as 'solid'.

Newtonian deals with large aggregates of particles like baseballs, cars, and planets. , QM deals with individual particles atomic scale You feel like your body is solid, but it is comrised of a large numer of patircles ineracting throgh atomic scale fields and forces.particle.

The moon as you see it as a solid object. At any instant of time it is the superposition or the summation of all the quantum states of each particle in the moon. Atoms do not stand still. They are moving around or vibrating in place when constrained in an object.

Quantum mechanics is small partcles. Newtomian is large collections of patrcles at low relative velocities, like sending a spacecraft to the moon. Reltivistc mechanics is fast, high percentage of C.

 

[SIB]

Nothing cancels "magic". The very premise of "magic" is that "magic" happens by itself, without anything else needed. You can't negate that, at least not experimentally. We can link QM and Relativity and that doesn't disprove "magic". It just pushes "magic: back one more step. Much like how "magic" used to control the weather and these days it doesn't.

Walking around with bravado about "magic" being unfalsifiable just seems foolish. We didn't disprove "magic". It can't be "disproven"... as it is unfalsifiable. That isn't a benefit... it is a weakness. QM and GR have gone unbelievably far in describing our universe. The Bible... doesn't go anywhere. QM and GR imply "magic" isn't necessarily required. Some theists insist "magic" solves all the problems they say "magic" can solve. So very convenient. Sounds almost like a used car salesman.

To me, logical fallacies are needed by people that do know what they are doing. Primarily, they do not know how to form believes based on what we do know. Also enlightenment, in large part, is understanding how to handle what we do not know.

Your example of "canceling magic" is excellent. Using what we do know. Dumping "lack belief' special pleading, the belief in "something more" is, by far, more reliable than the reverse.

 

[SIB]

You would expect "strange ideas" from a theist. Every time you visit the religious section...that's lots of wasting time for you.

Those Issues with QM. What book would you recommend?

Any decent college intoduction to QM text book. Any decent used book store would be a good place to start.

Not for Learner. Just picking up such a book requires understanding really heavy elements of number theory and things like Group Theory, and understanding state maps and probability distributions.

At a minimum that requires having waded through discrete, linear, and a couple layers of Calc, and perhaps even analytic and 3d geometry.

If you don't have the foundation, a basic college textbook might as well be written in Greek. Half of it WILL actually be written in Greek characters.

Thank you to the "professors of wisdom" for the book recommendations. The implications, which oddly, some of you seem to 'acknowledge', but perhaps you don't really understand or have an argument, hence, focusing on my "lack of knowing the very basics". The line I was responding to: The underlying foundation of relativity. Events must make sense [...] The only issue with it is it isn't that compatible with QM - which I assume most of us would agree with J. H's mentioned issue of compatible.

ETA. Basically you can devise numbers & formulas even for 'time travel' as a theory or philosophy, just as there are, for different variations of QT, (In a manner of speaking...these don't cancel God).

There is QM as a set of equations that are routinely used to do useful work, like designing lasers and transistprs. In application QM is routine by now. No mysteries.

There is scientific and engineeringas well speculation on what can be possibly done uing existing theory.

There is theoreticalscience based on what may be done by extension of theory.

There is philosophical speculation and pop science authors who spin QM into wild ass speculations.


Look at the moon and you perceive a solid object. In the late 19th century xray diffraction of crystalline materials showed a regular network of nodes separated by relatively wide spaces at the atomic scale.The idea actually caused a philosophical stir, the idea that there is no such thing as 'solid'.

Newtonian deals with large aggregates of particles like baseballs, cars, and planets. , QM deals with individual particles atomic scale You feel like your body is solid, but it is comrised of a large numer of patircles ineracting throgh atomic scale fields and forces.particle.

The moon as you see it as a solid object. At any instant of time it is the superposition or the summation of all the quantum states of each particle in the moon. Atoms do not stand still. They are moving around or vibrating in place when constrained in an object.

Quantum mechanics is small partcles. Newtomian is large collections of patrcles at low relative velocities, like sending a spacecraft to the moon. Reltivistc mechanics is fast, high percentage of C.

QM is a mystery. They have no idea why it works. Only that it hasn't been wrong yet in our "level" of reality. Ignoring the other 90% plus of what we are observing that is. Of course I am now expert so if you can point me to where "it" states where they know "why it works" (a mechanism) I would love to learn more.

 

[SIB]

You would expect "strange ideas" from a theist. Every time you visit the religious section...that's lots of wasting time for you.

Those Issues with QM. What book would you recommend?

strange ideas are everywhere. Jupiter's moons were strange at first. Now expand that to notions that are not well understood yet. Some atheist have the same personality flaws as some theist. I call them fundy think types. Fundamental atheist are as wacked to me.

Many atheist believe in far more "theist like" things than don't to me. For example, Buddhist and "rebirth". I have no idea why I, as an atheist, would side with them in discussing rational beliefs. Out side of religions can be dangerous I have nothing in common with them.

QM, better understood as "space-time interactions" shows that everything is connected. We are all on the exact same 17-ish fields. Not similar fields, but the same fields. Also, there is not one thing "alive" in us until we classify a large set of interactions, working in concert as the basic unit of "alive". Basically we zoomed out a few orders of magnitude. "Alive" is no where near fundamental.

Now, all of life on the surface the earth is a small region of space time that matches "alive" more than "not alive".

I recommend mechanical engineering, physics, and chemistry to start.

 

[SIB]

The underlying foundation of relativity. Events must make sense.

Led to some seriously complicated maths that it has been confirmed over and over. The only issue with it is it isn't that compatible with QM.

...which has repeatedly demonstrated that events don't make any sense at all.

lol, to humans.

 

[bilby]

The underlying foundation of relativity. Events must make sense.

Led to some seriously complicated maths that it has been confirmed over and over. The only issue with it is it isn't that compatible with QM.

...which has repeatedly demonstrated that events don't make any sense at all.

lol, to humans.

I lack evidence that any other entities exist that care one iota whether or not events make sense.

So, yes, to humans.

 

[Learner]

You would expect "strange ideas" from a theist. Every time you visit the religious section...that's lots of wasting time for you.

Those Issues with QM. What book would you recommend?

strange ideas are everywhere. Jupiter's moons were strange at first. Now expand that to notions that are not well understood yet. Some atheist have the same personality flaws as some theist. I call them fundy think types. Fundamental atheist are as wacked to me.

Strange ideas IS how scientists come up with many plausible possibilities. It seems to me, your line of thinking, suggests that these possibilities (in the realm of physics), starts soley from a 'bottom up' perspective, so to speak, like studies in biological and evolutionary science, i.e. looking from the micro level of 'tangible' substances, that's clear and observable... outward to the larger level.

Physics, you can imagine all sorts of possibilities, i.e. have a concept 'straight from the very top', giving the task to explore and develope equations... like for example, unifying two different types of physics, trying to fill the gaps inbetween, as it is with QM and Relativity.

Many atheist believe in far more "theist like" things than don't to me. For example, Buddhist and "rebirth". I have no idea why I, as an atheist, would side with them in discussing rational beliefs. Out side of religions can be dangerous I have nothing in common with them.

Fair enough.

QM, better understood as "space-time interactions" shows that everything is connected. We are all on the exact same 17-ish fields. Not similar fields, but the same fields. Also, there is not one thing "alive" in us until we classify a large set of interactions, working in concert as the basic unit of "alive". Basically we zoomed out a few orders of magnitude. "Alive" is no where near fundamental.

'Alive' is a very good discription term for what we as humans can recognise and express in communicative human language, an understanding from observational experience in biological nature.

I see the concept of fields, not too dis-similar to you, funny enough. I asked a question to a poster, 'IF he thought it was possible for a consciousness to exist, or evolve into being aware,from the most fundamental of forces (or fields), since there has been countless time. Putting aside the biblical terminology and concept - I am alluding to the idea, that the consciousness and awareness is that of a creator. You see... if we are talking in terms of 'fields' - you and I are evidence that 'consciousness thinking' entities exists in vasts oceans of countless fields! By what understanding conceived should this be strictly restricted, soley to us 'human thinking, containment of fields'?

Now, all of life on the surface the earth is a small region of space time that matches "alive" more than "not alive". I recommend

Yes well by this notion, 'small region of space and time' we are then, truly alone! Which is interesting, since there are a great number of Galaxies and great number of similar solar systems out there and no evidence of life, at least not that we can see.

 

[steve_bank]

You would expect "strange ideas" from a theist. Every time you visit the religious section...that's lots of wasting time for you.

Those Issues with QM. What book would you recommend?

Any decent college intoduction to QM text book. Any decent used book store would be a good place to start.

Not for Learner. Just picking up such a book requires understanding really heavy elements of number theory and things like Group Theory, and understanding state maps and probability distributions.

At a minimum that requires having waded through discrete, linear, and a couple layers of Calc, and perhaps even analytic and 3d geometry.

If you don't have the foundation, a basic college textbook might as well be written in Greek. Half of it WILL actually be written in Greek characters.

Thank you to the "professors of wisdom" for the book recommendations. The implications, which oddly, some of you seem to 'acknowledge', but perhaps you don't really understand or have an argument, hence, focusing on my "lack of knowing the very basics". The line I was responding to: The underlying foundation of relativity. Events must make sense [...] The only issue with it is it isn't that compatible with QM - which I assume most of us would agree with J. H's mentioned issue of compatible.

ETA. Basically you can devise numbers & formulas even for 'time travel' as a theory or philosophy, just as there are, for different variations of QT, (In a manner of speaking...these don't cancel God).

There is QM as a set of equations that are routinely used to do useful work, like designing lasers and transistprs. In application QM is routine by now. No mysteries.

There is scientific and engineeringas well speculation on what can be possibly done uing existing theory.

There is theoreticalscience based on what may be done by extension of theory.

There is philosophical speculation and pop science authors who spin QM into wild ass speculations.


Look at the moon and you perceive a solid object. In the late 19th century xray diffraction of crystalline materials showed a regular network of nodes separated by relatively wide spaces at the atomic scale.The idea actually caused a philosophical stir, the idea that there is no such thing as 'solid'.

Newtonian deals with large aggregates of particles like baseballs, cars, and planets. , QM deals with individual particles atomic scale You feel like your body is solid, but it is comrised of a large numer of patircles ineracting throgh atomic scale fields and forces.particle.

The moon as you see it as a solid object. At any instant of time it is the superposition or the summation of all the quantum states of each particle in the moon. Atoms do not stand still. They are moving around or vibrating in place when constrained in an object.

Quantum mechanics is small partcles. Newtomian is large collections of patrcles at low relative velocities, like sending a spacecraft to the moon. Reltivistc mechanics is fast, high percentage of C.

QM is a mystery. They have no idea why it works. Only that it hasn't been wrong yet in our "level" of reality. Ignoring the other 90% plus of what we are observing that is. Of course I am now expert so if you can point me to where "it" states where they know "why it works" (a mechanism) I would love to learn more.

The 'religious' aspects of science.

That is an unanswerable philosophical question.

I take from Popper, the only thing we really know is an experient.

A drop a rock and it falls with predictable velocity using Newtonian mechanics. Along comes Einstein with a better model. They are models of reality not relity itself.

Or 'the map is not the countryside'.


Science shows on particle physics and QM always have spooky dramatic background music.

 

[bilby]

Science shows on particle physics and QM always have spooky dramatic background music.

I expect they do in the US. TV over there is almost purely used for lowbrow entertainment.

Between 1971 and 2006, the BBC broadcast vast numbers of Open University lectures, covering pretty much every subject you might find being taught at a traditional university. Very little background music was employed, and certainly not "spooky dramatic" music, other than perhaps in a broadcast focussing on music and/or drama.

These broadcasts were often late at night, which had the unintended side effect that a lot of drunk people learned a lot of quite advanced things, as there was nothing else on TV when they staggered home after closing time.

https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2006/dec/10/broadcasting.highereducation