Problems with the Heaven Concept

[dockeen]

Creationists like rhutchin fail science, woo merchants like Kharakov abuse science.

So when the consequence of scientific thought points towards something that doesn't align with your belief system, it is science abuse?

Don't use scientific theories to justify your claims about reality if you don't like where scientific knowledge leads.

Tell me sir, what is your training in Physics?

 

[Mageth]

Creationists like rhutchin fail science, woo merchants like Kharakov abuse science.

So when the consequence of scientific thought points towards something that doesn't align with your belief system, it is science abuse?

Don't use scientific theories to justify your claims about reality if you don't like where scientific knowledge leads.

Scientific knowledge leads nowhere near the woo you posted above.

Abuse, misunderstaning, misintepretation of scientific knowledge does.

 

[Kharakov]

Events didn't follow natural laws until after the natural laws were observed.

Actually, I am not aware of Quantum Mechanics making such a prediction.

It followed from the prior post in which I said QM has some "implications".

 

[Kharakov]

Tell me sir, what is your training in Physics?

What I've read and have been taught through the years. Absolutely nothing from my relatives...

 

[Kharakov]

Scientific knowledge leads nowhere near the woo you posted above.
Abuse, misunderstaning, misintepretation of scientific knowledge does.

Pot?
If you interpret the MWI of QM in certain ways, you get exactly what I described- many possible natural law combinations, of which our universe is simply one. Now, it's not exactly a pragmatic direction to go when you are already bound by classical laws. And I can't even think of a way to test it. Falsifiable? ha. And the MWI has problems of its own.

You can also look at the universe itself as a quanta of universe- a uniton, which has a wave function that evolves over time, of which various natural laws (strength of forces, the mass of the particles, the number of particles, their interrelationships, etc.) can emerge from collapse of the wave function of the universe.

Anyway, it's just the idea of natural law exploding into being, creating the past, and marching into the future, from a point in time when the universal wave function collapsed and created everything. And the universe slowly losing freedoms, as laws observed define its behavior from its initial freedom, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

[dockeen]

Tell me sir, what is your training in Physics?

What I've read and have been taught through the years. Absolutely nothing from my relatives...

So you are passing yourself off as knowledgeable about a detailed, scientific topic, despite never having undergone formal training.

 

[atrib]

Events didn't follow natural laws until after the natural laws were observed.

Actually, I am not aware of Quantum Mechanics making such a prediction.

It doesn't. He is making up shit as usual.

 

[Kharakov]

Tell me sir, what is your training in Physics?

What I've read and have been taught through the years. Absolutely nothing from my relatives...

So you are passing yourself off as knowledgeable about a detailed, scientific topic, despite never having undergone formal training.

Not at all. AFAICT I am not saying anything that counters various mainstream scientific theories. I'm making statements about topics based on what I've read and learned about various topics, like everyone else here, whether or not they had formal training in the topic.

I'd ask Jesse, on the old board, about a topic if I had a question about a specific aspect of physics that I didn't understand. Sometimes I didn't get the math behind an idea until someone explained it several times (Minkowski space took a while to sink in, and I had some incorrect ideas about relativity until it did). Hell, I didn't really learn what Taylor series were, despite using them (without having been taught them), until someone taught me what they were. You know how much easier it made my life to be able to read about something I was already doing on my own, without being taught? It made everything easier.

Certain individuals do not have the emotional detachment necessary to judge the veracity of various ideas. Ideas which are built from accepted ideas, which do not result in logical contradictions with accepted ideas, which include tested scientific theories that correspond to measurements as their basis, which require that we don't make assumptions about the nature of natural law, ideas which do not contradict current understanding of reality, even though they MAY contradict an idea the individuals hold very dear.

The only idea that what I've proposed counters is the idea that natural law has always existed exactly as it is today, which isn't a scientific idea whatsoever (in fact, I suppose I should look that up- are there any ideas about the longevity of natural law that have been tested?).

It's when someone spouts out claims of a new discovery that overturns all previous thought on a subject that you need to be skeptical as all hell. What I'm saying doesn't actually overturn ANY thoughts or theories, except for the thought or theory of a <3 space, 1 tim3> dimensional history written in stone, which isn't a scientific theory whatsoever- it's simply a pragmatic way of viewing reality, without considering whether the view is of the truth or not.

Now, it doesn't dismiss an absolute history of the universe, but rather it dismisses an absolute past in regards to natural law before natural law emerged from the primordial energy (maybe not "primordial" but at least the form energy of the universe was in prior to being constrained by the current form of natural law).



The correspondence principle ties the world of QM to classical systems- it's a fairly logical approach to testing the validity of QM. On a large scale, QM has to reproduce the effects of classical physics.

Now, QM doesn't have to correspond to phlogiston theory, the theory that there are 4 elements, or any of the old archaic nonscience theories that those with intellectual authority proposed in ancient times. It has to correspond to classical theory, for which we have measurements (which makes it correspond to QM- it's been observed, the wavefunction has collapsed).

Likewise, any new idea about nature has to go along with previous observations. It doesn't have to agree with untested claims, or emotionally derived ideas for or against certain ideas (including fear based ideas that a scientific theory will be used by creationists, IDers, new agers, or manipulative sociopaths in an attempt to gain or justify their power). It doesn't have to agree with ideas such as "gravitational fields sometimes enjoy Italian ice on warm, humid days".

It has to agree with what we've already observed, it has to ultimately be testable (although I can't think of a way to test it at the moment). It should hold up to other tested ideas that generate the same results. A hypothesis doesn't have to suit the emotional desires of a group that REALLY REALLY wants reality to be a certain way so that they can be right about what they've been saying all along.

Or maybe, ultimately, it does.

 

[dockeen]

I am not saying anything that counters various mainstream scientific theories. I'm making statements about topics based on what I've read and learned about various topics, like everyone else here, whether or not they had formal training in the topic.

In other words, you are bullshitting, and you assume everyone else is untrained as you are.

 

[Kharakov]

I am not saying anything that counters various mainstream scientific theories. I'm making statements about topics based on what I've read and learned about various topics, like everyone else here, whether or not they had formal training in the topic.

In other words, you are bullshitting, and you assume everyone else is untrained as you are.

No. There are philosophers, physicists, mathematicians, chemists, florists, artists, etc. on the forum. If someone has the training in a specific topic which allows one to directly refute statements, they should use it. Of course, I've tried to explain math to someone who lacked the proper background before, and I've tried to help correct someone's ideas about certain things when they were making a similar mistake to mistakes I've made in the past. And to tell you the truth, it didn't work out well.

Not that I was wrong, but I knew they would refuse the truth, because I had at that point in intellectual development as well. The funny thing is, a while ago, I read some of my posts from well over a decade ago, and I said some of the exact same things that people are saying around here right now. It's like I'm dealing with my immature thoughts from years ago, but in individuals who are a lot older than I was when I was saying the exact same things. And the individuals regurgitating my immature thoughts are just as vehement and angry as I was back then. Anyway..


So I'm sympathetic to the idea of not being able to teach someone that they are wrong about something, but if someone is saying something that is demonstrably non-scientific and making claims of scientific evidence, I'm more than happy enough to bring up the implications of various theories, and at least show that their claims are just as or more non-falsifiable as the claims they claim are refuted by scientific evidence.

I'd also like to point out something, being trained in a specific branch of science doesn't mean you know everything about that branch of science. I've asked mathematicians questions that they did not know the answer to- maybe because I was asking the question incorrectly, or maybe because they were not familiar with or interested in the topic I was pursuing.


I've argued against someone who was an expert in their field, who used specific mathematical methods to achieve results and said that the method I was using was incorrect and wasn't even possible. This one stands out in my mind, because the person really pissed me off by coming across high and mighty, as an authority on the topic (which they were), saying "you don't have 30+ years under your belt doing this type of mathematics", but in the end they were still incorrect (math is either right or wrong- the results speak for themselves). So in the end, I felt mistreated by someone in a position of authority, who insulted me in public, literally used their position of authority on the matter to belittle what I knew about the topic, and then never fucking apologize when I showed them the fucking math. A public apology would have been nice- they understood the math, they knew I was right (after I showed them), but it would have looked petty to bring it up in front of the same company and had them admit they were wrong. And because many in the group wouldn't be able to follow the math, the asshole might just act like they were right anyway.


So you're probably going to say that one cannot say that a theory has implications about the nature of reality, that which gave rise to the natural laws did not come about as a result of wave function collapse of a greater quantum system, that quantum states of the whole system add up to something specific, but the whole system itself does not evolve and experience quantum effects because it's above the Planck mass, etc. etc. etc.

Or maybe you're actually going to teach me something interesting, without being an asshole. That would be refreshing.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Kharakov,
Just what the hell are you babbling about? Nothing you post makes any sense at all. Its nothing but a massive derail from the original OP.
It appears to be some species of newage woo, if its anything at all.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Events didn't follow natural laws until after the natural laws were observed.

Actually, I am not aware of Quantum Mechanics making such a prediction.

It followed from the prior post in which I said QM has some "implications".

"Implications"? Implications are ten to a penny. What is needed is evidence and rational thinking. QM is notorious for being abused by newage gurus and know nothings looking for a McGuffin to hang their nonsense theories on.




(Wikipedia - In fiction, a MacGuffin (sometimes McGuffin or maguffin) is a plot device in the form of some goal, desired object, or other motivator that the protagonist pursues, often with little or no narrative explanation.)

 

[Rhea]

The correspondence principle ties the world of QM to classical systems- it's a fairly logical approach to testing the validity of QM. On a large scale, QM has to reproduce the effects of classical physics.

Now, QM doesn't have to correspond to phlogiston theory, the theory that there are 4 elements, or any of the old archaic nonscience theories that those with intellectual authority proposed in ancient times. It has to correspond to classical theory, for which we have measurements (which makes it correspond to QM- it's been observed, the wavefunction has collapsed).

Likewise, any new idea about nature has to go along with previous observations. It doesn't have to agree with untested claims, or emotionally derived ideas for or against certain ideas (including fear based ideas that a scientific theory will be used by creationists, IDers, new agers, or manipulative sociopaths in an attempt to gain or justify their power). It doesn't have to agree with ideas such as "gravitational fields sometimes enjoy Italian ice on warm, humid days".

It has to agree with what we've already observed, it has to ultimately be testable (although I can't think of a way to test it at the moment). It should hold up to other tested ideas that generate the same results. A hypothesis doesn't have to suit the emotional desires of a group that REALLY REALLY wants reality to be a certain way so that they can be right about what they've been saying all along.

Or maybe, ultimately, it does.

So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that Quantum Mechanics proves that the flood never happened?

 

[Kharakov]

Kharakov,
Just what the hell are you babbling about?

The gist of it is that nobody knows natural law binds everything in the universe. We just observe the natural laws, it doesn't mean that everything is bound by them, even if we are. I also attempted to explain how the emergence of natural law at a certain point in time could have created the past- a sort of "state of the universe" creating the past according to the emergence of natural law.

Nothing you post makes any sense at all.

Ok. Do you understand the ideas that I post? Is it a failure, on my part, to explain the ideas in a way that you can comprehend them?

Or do you mean that my posts don't make sense because they don't agree with your view of reality?

Its nothing but a massive derail from the original OP.
It appears to be some species of newage woo, if its anything at all.

Yeah, the OP was partially a joke, and partially.. a joke.

 

[Kharakov]

So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that Quantum Mechanics proves that the flood never happened?

If you only quote the section that you snipped out of my posts, you might take the correspondence principle to mean that. However if you consider the following quotes that you left out-
"The only idea that what I've proposed counters is the idea that natural law has always existed exactly as it is today, which isn't a scientific idea whatsoever.. " and
"Now, it doesn't dismiss an absolute history of the universe, but rather it dismisses an absolute past in regards to natural law before natural law emerged from the primordial energy.. "


I'm taking the correspondence principle a bit farther than that. Instead, I'm saying that natural laws could have emerged at any point in history and shaped the history before and after them in the timeline, from the point at which they emerged. I'll tie it back to the correspondence principle in a bit.

In other words, the emergence of natural law selected from all possible pasts the one that most conforms to natural law- it created a kind of big bang, but instead of the one 13 billion years ago, it "exploded" backwards and forwards in time from a specific point in existence, creating the past and future at the same time.

The emergence of natural law at this point in time, creating a past and future in accordance with the state of the universe at the point in time that natural law emerged, did not erase all of the events that had happened in the universe up to that point in time.

Instead, they created a parallel past, a past that existed as if natural laws had always existed, rather than a past that existed as the universe was before the natural laws emerged.

In other words, the biblical accounts could have happened prior to the emergence of natural laws (which had not yet emerged out of all possibilities, which the biblical God had access to).

The natural laws could have become part of the foundation of reality, but interpretation of them in ways that do not correspond to the true nature of the universe prior to the emergence of natural law violates intent of the correspondence principle. For quantum systems, measurements must correspond to classical measurements above a certain limit. Classical and QM measurements must conform to the state of the universe at the inception of natural law- they must ultimately point to the state of the universe in such a way that they agree with the state of the universe without natural law. In other words, there is some QM and classical physics (natural) / (supernatural) cutoff, below which natural laws do not accurately represent supernatural reality.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Woo! Woo! Woo!
Cut loose the bonds of rationality and let speculation run rampant! Anything goes. Not that anybody will build better computers with this or cure cancer with this, but hey! It's sure easier than the hard grind of doing science in the cruel world of stodgy physics! Let a thousand mutant flowers bloom! Wild and crazy speculation is where it's at! The dancing Woo-Li masters have escaped their padded cells again. Derail, derail, derail all linear thinking! Join hands with the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Elron Hubbard, and the Maharishi and dance around the QM maypole!

Stop laughing damn you all, this is science!

OK people, what do we do with all of this? Just let it lay there or poke it with a stick while it quivers?!

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

'It seems very pretty,' she said when she had finished it, 'but it's RATHER hard to understand!' (You see she didn't like to confess, ever to herself, that she couldn't make it out at all.) 'Somehow it seems to fill my head with ideas—only I don't exactly know what they are!

 

[Kharakov]

Physics are actually sort of cool, in a hard core kind of way. So is math, although math is a little more hard core than physics.

But crazy speculation on the existence of natural laws that existed before they existed isn't an example of linear (or rational) thought. It's an example of denial about the nature of reality- it's crazy speculation, and it isn't even logically coherent.

 

[Sheshbazzar]

I'm taking the correspondence principle a bit farther than that. Instead, I'm saying that natural laws could have emerged at any point in history and shaped the history before and after them in the timeline, from the point at which they emerged.

Like, for example, so 'shaped' just 'Last Tuesday'?
That therefore, nothing can be trusted to be an accurate account of actual historical events, or application/finding of presently observed laws of Physics, or any history __because 'history', and the presently observed known laws of Physics (and thus the science of Geology) could have been 'shaped' and/or reshaped "-at any point- in the timeline", and can not be trusted to have been in effect or functioned the same last Tuesday? or perhaps they reshape every second Tuesday? (or every five minutes)
Is 'Last Tuesdayism' or some variant thereof, what you are positing? seriously?

 

[Kharakov]

I'm taking the correspondence principle a bit farther than that. Instead, I'm saying that natural laws could have emerged at any point in history and shaped the history before and after them in the timeline, from the point at which they emerged.

That therefore, nothing can be trusted to be an accurate account of actual historical events, or application of of the laws of Physics, or any history because 'history', and the known laws of physics could be 'shaped' and/or reshaped at any point in the timeline?

I am not describing or aiming for the Omphalos hypothesis, but I could see how you could see it that way. I was going for a more probabilistic slant on the idea in the first place, but ended up with what you quoted, chasing a strawman of my own creation.

I'm saying that there is a definite point in the timeline, around which the emergence of current natural law centers. The things which occurred before the emergence of natural law are still recorded, so we have a written and oral history of the previous types of events that happened, events that were not confined by the current natural laws.

Only at points in time in which there exists a framework that can reach back into history from the current configuration of the physical universe, can natural laws switch. At one of these points, natural laws CAN switch, or there is a branch in the history of the universe, with one branch following the old law, and one following the new.

The recorded information remains the same because the new laws have to be able to exactly match the state of the universe at the time they emerge. Our technological system could break down- the internet could be gone, yet something would go forward from that point, because the new law would have a path from the past that intersected, joined, and then crossed the path followed by our natural law (even if by making our law irrelevant, the new law exposed the old law view of the universe as nothing more than a childish misunderstanding of the nature of reality).

Or maybe the new law would preserve the old law... or maybe the new law was there all along, and the old law (or our law), is simply a very small, narrow part of it that you don't have to worry about.

Maybe always pisses off people who like to pretend they are authorities on what may not be.

 

[Sheshbazzar]

Crazy speculation on the non-existence of natural laws that do exist, and cannot be demonstrated to not have existed from the beginning of time, isn't an example of linear (or rational) thought. It's an example of denial about the nature of reality- it's crazy speculation, and it isn't even logically coherent.

You do realize of course, if 'natural laws could have emerged at any point in history and shaped the history before and after them in the timeline,' That not only the known laws of Physics and rational accountings of history would become unsustainable, but that the accounts of the Bible, and of zombie Jesus would also be subject to an equal degree of doubtfulness and undependability.
Nothing to be gained by religion in attempting to introduce wacko theories that attempt to undermine the known natural workings of this universe other than proving that those who do so must employ the most stupid of arguments that effectively discredit their own religious beliefs.