Is the lack of faith of Atheists due to theists' failure to support their claims?

[gnostic]

Nope, theories are based on evidence and predictions which have been met. You confuse theoretical theories with all theories.

Just another example that another person (dhyana, not you) don't understand what they are talking about.

 

[Dhyana]

Nope, theories are based on evidence and predictions which have been met. You confuse theoretical theories with all theories.

I saying all theories about that which cannot be tested are speculation. "Before" the Big Bang, "Multiverses". It is impossible to go outside this universe to test any such speculation. Better to stay inside where theories to explain observations can be tested. Science has to do with this universe; all else is fantasy, fiction, religion.

 

[Dhyana]

Except the problem with the multiverse advocates is that none of them can test their multiverse theories, empirically. The multiverse is still untestable..

Which is exactly my point. If it's untestable, it's idle speculation having no more footing than any rudimentary religion

 

[Dhyana]

That is a limitation of measurement tools not the mind

I believe you are incorrect and that the uncertainty principle is a fundamental limitation which cannot be breached, irrespective of the tool of measurement. Tools, by the way, are created by and interpreted by observing human minds.

 

[Shad]

I believe you are incorrect and that the uncertainty principle is a fundamental limitation which cannot be breached, irrespective of the tool of measurement. Tools, by the way, are created by and interpreted by observing human minds.

The uncertainty principle is about our tools having an effect on what is measured. Its a limitation of measurement tools just as I said it was.I would also point out that the principle is now in question. Read Aephraim Steinberg's work.

Yes tools are created by us. However you are hedging your argument that we will not develop better tools or resolve issues. This is nothing more than an argument from ignorance and god of the gaps.

 

[Shad]

Which is exactly my point. If it's untestable, it's idle speculation having no more footing than any rudimentary religion

Nope it is based on math while religion is not. Math is one of the most solid foundation we have which is far above the common religious foundation.

 

[Shad]

I saying all theories about that which cannot be tested are speculation. "Before" the Big Bang, "Multiverses". It is impossible to go outside this universe to test any such speculation. Better to stay inside where theories to explain observations can be tested. Science has to do with this universe; all else is fantasy, fiction, religion.

Hence the parameter theoretical theory. Again you put a limitation on what we can do due to an argument from incredibility nothing more.

 

[Shad]

Just another example that another person (dhyana, not you) don't understand what they are talking about.

The issue is science education. People are not taught proper terminology so easily confuse words with what they believe is the proper term rather than looking at it in context. An good example are climate change deniers using the phrase "It's just a theory".

 

[Dhyana]

The uncertainty principle is about our tools having an effect on what is measured. Its a limitation of measurement tools just as I said it was.

Yes tools are created by us. However you are hedging your argument that we will not develop better tools or resolve issues. This is nothing more than an argument from ignorance and god of the gaps.

You're pretty bold for someone who is TFW. (Totally f'ing wrong). The uncertainty principal is fundamental and unrelated to the quality or accuracy of tools or measurements

Obviously neither you nor I are physicists, so best use the Google to settle this:

...the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Ball is in your court, dude

 

[Shad]

You're pretty bold for someone who is TFW. (Totally f'ing wrong). The uncertainty principal is fundamental and unrelated to the quality or accuracy of tools or measurements

No the principle is about tools of measurement effecting that which is measured. Go read Heisenberg's own thought experiment of photographing an electron. His own explaination is about a tool, camera, having an effect on the object it photographs. In order to take a photo there needs to be a source of light. However this light impart energy when hitting the proton thus causing it to move . As I said the tools are the issue since the tools impart energy thus a contamination. I have provided a reference which shows that new tools are showing the principle is not as sound as Heisenberg thought.

None of your objections have any merit on what we may discover. You are making an arbitrary statement from Quantum mechanics as if it were a knockdown argument about "before" the Big Bang. You have not linked any limitation which is in direct relation to what you were talking about. Again nothing but an argument from ignorance and incredibility.

Also keep in mind I am not proposing Hawking's idea, or another other idea, is a fact nor do I accept any or all of these ideas. I reset firmly on "I do not know". However my inability or unwillingness to embrace any or all of these ideas does not mean others are restricted due to my own limitation. This is the difference between you and I. I do not project my limitation on to others then declare everything is off-limits for other people.

Obviously neither you nor I are physicists, so best use the Google to settle this:

Wiki is crap. It can be edited by anyone. It is only updated when a person knows of new information and is willing to write it into the wiki. How about you read Heisenberg thought experiment and Aephraim Steinberg's work. One is the work of the person that developed the principle. The other is work based on an experiment showing the principle is not as sound as Heisenberg thought. Real experiments trump a wiki. Real work by Heisenberg trumps a wiki.

Since you can not be bothered to read anything more than a wiki perhaps you should read the actual study

http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.100404

Ball is in your court, dude

Yawn. I am still waiting for you to get into the game itself

 

[Dhyana]

No the principle is about tools of measurement effecting that which is measured. Go read Heisenberg's own thought experiment of photographing an electron. His own explaination is about a tool, camera, having an effect on the object it photographs. In order to take a photo there needs to be a source of light. However this light impart energy when hitting the proton thus causing it to move . As I said the tools are the issue since the tools impart energy thus a contamination. I have provided a reference which shows that new tools are showing the principle is not as sound as Heisenberg thought.

Yawn. I am still waiting for you to get into the game itself

Okay, let's do it.

Take the example of a hydrogen atom, and ask what the position of the electron is. The problem is that properties like position are properties of particles. It doesn't make sense to ask what the position is unless there is a particle at that position. But the electron is not a particle. The question of what an electron really is may entertain philosophers, but for our purposes it's an excitation in a quantum field and as such doesn't have a position. If you interact with the electron, e.g. by firing another particle at it, you will find that the interaction between the particle and electron happens at a well defined position. We tend to think of that as the position of the electron, but really it isn't: it's the position of the interaction.The uncertainty principle applies because it's not possible for an interaction, like our example of a colliding particle, to simultaneous measure the position and momentum exactly.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...st-non-fundamental-limitations-in-our-current

Important steps on the way to understanding the uncertainty principle are wave-particle duality and the DeBroglie hypothesis. As you proceed downward in size to atomic dimensions, it is no longer valid to consider a particle like a hard sphere, because the smaller the dimension, the more wave-like it becomes. It no longer makes sense to say that you have precisely determined both the position and momentum of such a particle. When you say that the electron acts as a wave, then the wave is the quantum mechanical wavefunction and it is therefore related to the probability of finding the electron at any point in space. A perfect sinewave for the electron wave spreads that probability throughout all of space, and the "position" of the electron is completely uncertain.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html#c1

Sorry, champ, it is what it is. Fundamental. Deal with it

 

[Shad]

Okay, let's do it.

Take the example of a hydrogen atom, and ask what the position of the electron is. The problem is that properties like position are properties of particles. It doesn't make sense to ask what the position is unless there is a particle at that position. But the electron is not a particle. The question of what an electron really is may entertain philosophers, but for our purposes it's an excitation in a quantum field and as such doesn't have a position. If you interact with the electron, e.g. by firing another particle at it, you will find that the interaction between the particle and electron happens at a well defined position. We tend to think of that as the position of the electron, but really it isn't: it's the position of the interaction.The uncertainty principle applies because it's not possible for an interaction, like our example of a colliding particle, to simultaneous measure the position and momentum exactly.

Read what you link. "The uncertainty principle applies because it's not possible for an interaction, like our example of a colliding particle, to simultaneous measure the position and momentum exactly." Measurement issue which was later questioned by the source I mentioned. None of which contradicts anything I have said.

Important steps on the way to understanding the uncertainty principle are wave-particle duality and the DeBroglie hypothesis. As you proceed downward in size to atomic dimensions, it is no longer valid to consider a particle like a hard sphere, because the smaller the dimension, the more wave-like it becomes. It no longer makes sense to say that you have precisely determined both the position and momentum of such a particle. When you say that the electron acts as a wave, then the wave is the quantum mechanical wavefunction and it is therefore related to the probability of finding the electron at any point in space. A perfect sinewave for the electron wave spreads that probability throughout all of space, and the "position" of the electron is completely uncertain.

Measurement issue. Again read what you link. "It no longer makes sense to say that you have precisely determined both the position and momentum of such a particle. " Measurement issue hence the word precisely.

Also here is that part you missed which is key.

The position and momentum of a particle cannot be simultaneously measured with arbitrarily high precision. There is a minimum for the product of the uncertainties of these two measurements. There is likewise a minimum for the product of the uncertainties of the energy and time.

Sorry, champ, it is what it is. Fundamental. Deal with it

Deal with what? That you either did not read or do not understand what I have said and what you link. Nothing said it is fundamental and my source says it is not as fundamental as you think.

Seems like you refuse to read the two sources I mentioned so there is little point in continuing since you are unwilling to read anything that proves your misunderstanding wrong. Also that this has nothing to do with your ideas about the Big Bang. I tire of discussing Red Herrings based on your lack of understanding.

 

[Dhyana]

Read what you link. "The uncertainty principle applies because it's not possible for an interaction, like our example of a colliding particle, to simultaneous measure the position and momentum exactly." Measurement issue which was later questioned by the source I mentioned. None of which contradicts anything I have said.



Measurement issue. Again read what you link. "It no longer makes sense to say that you have precisely determined both the position and momentum of such a particle. " Measurement issue hence the word precisely.

Also here is that part you missed which is key.





Deal with what? That you either did not read or do not understand what I have said and what you link. Nothing said it is fundamental and my source says it is not as fundamental as you think.

Seems like you refuse to read the two sources I mentioned so there is little point in continuing since you are unwilling to read anything that proves your misunderstanding wrong. Also that this has nothing to do with your ideas about the Big Bang. I tire of discussing Red Herrings based on your lack of understanding.

You stress the word "measurement" and I stress the phrase "not possible" when it comes to the quantum level. Not possible also applies to any description or theory which applies to the abstraction "before the Big Bang". The trouble with scientific dualistic realism as a Philosophical point of view, which it is as well as any other point of view, such as monistic idealism, is the inability of its adherents to accept or admit its limitations. Einstein's insistence on a knowable, deterministic objective world apart from awareness of it, is what threw him on quantum mechanics. Strange from the guy who disproved simultaneity.

Not possible scientifically to know exactly where the universe came from or what it consists of.

 

[Shad]

You stress the word "measurement" and I stress the phrase "not possible" when it comes to the quantum level. Not possible also applies to any description or theory which applies to the abstraction "before the Big Bang". The trouble with scientific realism as a Philosophical point of view, which it is as well as any other point of view, such as monistic idealism, is its inability to accept or admit its limitations. Einstein's insistence on a knowable, deterministic objective world apart from awareness of it, is what threw him

Independent measurements are possible. Dual measurements are not is questionable. Yet my source shows that your not possible stance is wrong. I recognized there are limitation. I just do not make wide sweeping statements such as current limitations are limitation for all of time and every human. You put forward a fallacy from induction as a universal which is illogical since induction can never produce a universal.

 

[Dhyana]

Independent measurements are possible. Dual measurements are not is questionable. Yet my source shows that your not possible stance is wrong. I recognized there are limitation. I just do not make wide sweeping statements such as current limitations are limitation for all of time and every human. You put forward a fallacy from induction as a universal which is illogical since induction can never produce a universal.

Isn't there's physics forum you can hang out in somewhere where everyone can agree with your dualistic absolutism?
There are no absolutes, not God, not religion, not science. They are all merely conceptual abstractions of a reality that cannot be known in itself.

There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature

-Neils Bohr.

 

[Curious George]

If God objectively existed, he wouldn't be my mother, regardless my opinion...

Yes, but you are using concepts you have now to determine that.

From the baby's perspective, mom is akin to God, they just don't have the ability to describe it thus.

 

[outhouse]

From the baby's perspective, mom is akin to God

Unsubstantiated.


To a baby the person is a mother as a child has no knowledge of the mythological concepts that describe all deities to date.

It seems your imposing your views into the child's mind.

they just don't have the ability to describe it thus.

Even if they had the ability a child does not make up mythology on the fly.

 

[Curious George]

Unsubstantiated.


To a baby the person is a mother as a child has no knowledge of the mythological concepts that describe all deities to date.

It seems your imposing your views into the child's mind.




Even if they had the ability a child does not make up mythology on the fly.

I am not requiring the child to make up the mythology on the fly. I am only requiring the recognition of another entity in such a way that were the characteristics perceived true, then we would have no problem identifying such as a God.

That the babies perceived characteristics are not true does not diminish that the baby perceives a God but cannot classify such because they do not understand the word God yet.

 

[outhouse]

I am only requiring the recognition of another entity in such a way that were the characteristics perceived true

You don't get to require anything.

Not only that a child does not have a preconceived notion of what mythology is. Your still projecting your unsubstantiated opinion on a child. Even in a religious family a young child has not definition or belief in any mythology or concepts attached to that mythology.

the baby perceives a God

Not it does not. And you cannot substantiate it either.

 

[Curious George]

You don't get to require anything.

Not only that a child does not have a preconceived notion of what mythology is. Your still projecting your unsubstantiated opinion on a child. Even in a religious family a young child has not definition or belief in any mythology or concepts attached to that mythology.



Not it does not. And you cannot substantiate it either.

Sure I can. I have as well.

As far as me "not get[ting] to require anything"

That is cute. I am sorry you have failed to grasp how this was intended. But your unsubstantiated, wrongly framed opinion is noted.

That we would call a baby's perception of their mother as a God were the perceptions objectively true makes the statement to a baby mom is God, true.