Mathematical Proof of God?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

We know energy exists. we know energy can't be created or destroyed.

We don't. At all. In fact, the development of the concept of energy turned out to be in no small way a serious of fundamental changes to the very concept in order to retain some form of energy conservation after we repeatedly found it to be violated.
In modern physics, observable violations of energy conservation are generally regarded as evidence for "particles" (in the QFT of the standard model sense of the term) and theoretically are allowed in order to preserve other, more fundamental aspects of quantum theory. But energy conservation, like conservation laws more generally, are derived from a deep, deep theoretical structure in the mathematics of physical theories relating conservation laws and the symmetries of a physical system in that theory.
In short, energy is conserved by definition. That is, when it is well-defined (which it isn't, in this case), it is conserved by definition.

 

[shunyadragon]

Wholly inaccurate. What you are describing is a theory of Quantum spacetime or quantized spacetime which we dont' have yet. We don't have any well-formulated theory of such an entity (there are several ongoing and mutually exclusive attempts to formulate one) and absolutely no observational evidence beyond the instinct that many physicists have- namely, that QM is more fundamental than, or at least as fundamental as, GR, and thus any reconciliation of gravitation and quantum theory must involve quantizing relativistic gravitation and therefore quantizing spacetime itself. However, as this has so far proved impossible at any number of levels, from non-renormalizability to Sorkin's "impossible measurements" to causal inconsistencies even at the pre-gravitational level (QFT on a curved spacetime), it cannot be said in any sense to be "observed".

No references? I gave references to support what I provided. This is the basics of what science knows at present concerning QM in relation to time. The above is at best confusing.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm reminded for some reasons of pots and kettles and the color black.

Speaking of outrageous statements, the above certainly qualifies. Firstly, we can't "objectively observe" or "observe" in any other way any physical state, property, process, etc., as being "continuous", whether classical or quantum.
The reason for this is quite simple (or at least one reason for this is). All measurements we can ever hope to make using any measuring devices whatsoever are necessarily limited. They are not only necessarily course grained, they also must be finite and therefore contain (and record/display) at most finite information about what they are used to measure.
Thus, even if a meauring device can be so perfect that it can be made arbitrarily precise (i.e., given a measurable property of some physical system, the device can be calibrated so that the difference between the "true value" of the property and the measured value can be made arbitrarily close to zero), the device will still record/store/display at best only rational numbers.
But given any continuously distributed parameter, or indeed any interval in the continuum, one finds that the entire set of rational numbers is negligible (its measure is 0). In other words, almost all numbers are irrational.
But we cannot ever measure irrational numbers, because a single such number requires infinite information.

Second, in quantum mechanics this nonsense of the "'quanta level' scale" not having three dimensions or continuous time is balderdash. Systems in QM evolve continuously in time. As for the dimensions of the space such systems "live" in, it is not really different from classical systems. QM is usually formulated via the Hamiltonian formalism (the path integral approach is based on the Lagrangian, but the differences here don't matter) whether in the Heisenberg or Schrödinger pictures (or the interaction picture). The spaces of such systems, classical or quantum, can have arbitrarily many spatial dimensions and a single time dimension. But they must reduce or relate to our physical 3D world. QM differs from classical physics in a number of ways- in the way systems are represented formally and even more so when one brings in the observables of the theory and their mathematical properties.
But none of this means QM implies, or that our observations entail, a discrete spacetime. Relativistic QM turned out to be a nightmare that was only "resolved" by reinterpreting basic aspects of the theory only to run into formal difficulties that were themselves resolved only by reinterpreting what it means to be a physical theory as well as allowing for mathematical nonsense. But that's largely irrelevant here.
What is relevant is that QM uses the same physical space of non-relativistic classical mechanics, and the same relativistic structure as well (Galilean). It relies on continous time. It does not contain a theory of space or spacetime such that statements about the "quanta level scale" have any meaning.

More nonsense. Time in QM is continous and dynamics are (in principel) entirely reverible, just as in classical mechanics. Both theories have the same group structure as well (and even in QFT, quantum theory inherits the group structure it has from classical electromagnetism, i.e. that of U(1) gauge group).

Ramble, ramble, and ramble without coherent meaning.

No references? I gave references to support what I provided. This is the basics of what science knows at present concerning QM in relation to time. The above is at best confusing.

 

[Sheldon]

No again a simple fact that no one else besides Theistic Apologists uses the KCA argument to prove anything.

Nope, it is a first cause argument, and though it used by theists, it is not on its own an argument for a deity. Several posters myself included have offered the original argument to demonstrate no deity was mentioned in it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nope, it is a first cause argument, and though it used by theists, it is not on its own an argument for a deity. Several posters myself included have offered the original argument to demonstrate no deity was mentioned in it.

I included a number of references that apologists like Craig use the KCA as a stand-alone argument for the existence of God as cited and not responded to.

Still waiting . . .

It remains a fact no one uses the argument for anything else other than the existence of God since the Islamic apologists first proposed the argument.

 

[F1fan]

A reptile evolving into a bird aint science, either. But look who believes in that nonsense.

You have contempt for science like other far right Christian extremists.

No, God isn't bound by your rules.

Because it's what you imagine? No Gods are known to exist, so there's that.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No references? I gave references to support what I provided. This is the basics of what science knows at present concerning QM in relation to time. The above is at best confusing.

You linked to some popular literature you don’t understand, but you provided nothing in the way of references that support some of your basic misconceptions. I can provide plenty of references, but it would be nice if you were more specific about which aspects of how I explained some of your many fundamental errors required references.

After all, if you want a reference to support the claim that quantum mechanics is based on continuous time and quantum systems evolve continuously in time and/or that “space” in QM (at least in so far as measurements are concerned) is 3D, then my suggestion would be “learn quantum mechanics” and my suggested reference would be “open any elementary QM textbook.”

It is likewise difficult to provide references that your bogus “quanta scale” approach amounts to speculation that has varying degrees of support depending upon which approach to emergent spacetimes and/or quantized spacetimes/quantization of the gravitational field one takes. It is even more difficult to specifically provide references to your claims about measurements at this scale since none exist, so I can’t provide you with references for measurements that can’t be done and never have been. That said, it’s essentially common knowledge:

“It is commonly accepted that, at the Planck scale, no experimentally verified theory provides a framework for measuring space or time.”
Perche, T. R., & Martín-Martínez, E. (2022). Geometry of spacetime from quantum measurements. Physical Review D, 105(6), 066011.

Since I tend to regard QM as more fundamental than GR, I tend to side with approaches that attempt to see how the smooth manifolds required in QFT and GR may somehow be recovered at the appropriate limit or somehow emerge as a coarse-graining effect and scale transition.
That said, many disagree, going so far as to argue that GR is more fundamental and QM is the approximation to a more fundamental (continuous) theory. On this, see e.g.,

Sachs, M. (1986). Quantum Mechanics from General Relativity. An Approximation for a Theory of Inertia (Fundamental Theories of Physics). Springer.

And for an elementary treatment of the general problems with a theory of quantum spacetime that is can incorporate (or is even consistent with) gravitation, see e.g.,

Woodard, R. P. (2009). How far are we from the quantum theory of gravity?. Reports on Progress in Physics, 72(12), 126002. (see attached)

Also, just for kicks, concerning your claims ahout discrete time and space in quantum mechanics:
“Textbook quantum mechanics cannot describe measurements of time, since time is a parameter and not a quantum observable”
Maccone, L., & Sacha, K. (2020). Quantum measurements of time. Physical Review Letters, 124(11), 110402.

“Newtonian Absolute Time is what ordinary QM is based upon.”
Anderson, E. (2012). Problem of time in quantum gravity. Annalen der Physik, 524(12), 757-786.

On the difficulties associates with doing quantum theory on curved spacetimes that go beyond the standard unsolved difficulties of doing quantum theory on flat (Minkowski) spacetimes, see e.g.,
Sorkin, R. D. (1993, July). Impossible measurements on quantum fields. In Directions in general relativity: Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, Maryland (Vol. 2, pp. 293-305).

And on the difficulties with formulating relativistic quantum theory that doesn’t rely on mathematical nonsense:
“Can we dispense with continuous models and their analytical problems?...There is a fundamental reason why we stubbornly keep infinite models. Probably the most important guiding principle in finding good models is that a proper theory should be Lorentz invariant, reflecting the fact that physics should be the same for all inertial observers (who undergo no acceleration). There is no way this can be implemented in a finite model, say one which replaces the continuous model of physical space by a finite grid. ...considering finite models does not really solve anything. The infinities reappear in the guise of quantities that blow up as the grid becomes finer, and it is very hard to make sense of this behavior.
For these reasons we uncomfortably but realistically consider continuous models, even though they are not really well defined. Since nobody really knows how to solve the analytical difficulties related to these models, there is little point in working toward a partial solution to these difficulties, and our efforts in this direction will be minimal.” (pp. 30-31)
Talagrand, M. (2022). What Is a Quantum Field Theory? A First Introduction for Mathematicians. Cambridge University Press.

The issues of the impossibility of measuring any continuous parameter, process, property, etc. of any physical system are more subtle and too seldom addressed. However:

"even in a hypothetical laboratory furnished with test-particles and perfect rulers, infinitely precise measurements cannot be carried out unless the following additional conditions are fulfilled:
(i) The ruler is calibrated with infinite precision.
(ii) Irrational numbers are recorded precisely.
The impossibility of meeting these conditions does not spring either from quantum-mechanical roots, or from the atomistic structure of inanimate nature. It springs from the nature of the real number system. Quantum mechanics cannot improve upon this situation; it can only make it worse." (p. 106)
Sen, R. N. (2010). Causality, Measurement Theory and the Differentiable Structure of Space-Time (Cambridge Monographs in Mathematical Physics). Cambridge University Press.

And, for an elementary treatment, see also
Hargar, A. (2014). Discrete or Continous? The Quest for Fundamental Length in Modern Physics. Cambridge University Press.

Finally, among the physicists since Max Born through Wheeler and Feynman and beyond, Nicolas has probably produced the most accessible and relevant work on the problems associated with the problems associated with the non-measurability of any continous processes, properties, etc., in both classical and quantum physics. See e.g.:
Gisin, N. (2020). Real numbers are the hidden variables of classical mechanics. Quantum Studies: Mathematics and Foundations, 7(2), 197-201.
Gisin, N. (2021). Indeterminism in physics, classical chaos and Bohmian mechanics: Are real numbers really real?. Erkenntnis, 86(6), 1469-1481.

And just to drive the point about continuous space, time, and properties in QM, when you do go out and get that elementary textbook in quantum mechanics, you’ll see symbols like d/dx or ∫ (integral). Recall from basic calculus that differentiation requires continuity and that non-zero integrals over discontinuous intervals/regions/etc. must have at most finitely many discontinuities (actually, to even integrate widely oscillating functions one must dispense with Riemann integrals and extensions such as improper integrals and use measure theoretic integrals like the Lebesgue-Stieltjes, a useful integral in QM in particular as even the Riemann-Stieltjes integral expands greatly the range of integrable functions and the Lebesgue version more so, plus we have that the Stieltjes integral is with respect to another function or integrand obeying certain conditions that lend themselves to the kind of measures (spectral, probability, etc.) one requires often enough in QM).
For more references, you’ll have to go beyond just a demand in general, as I made multiple points and your grasp of QM is negligible, so it is difficult to provide references to support common knowledge, and I suspect your lack of familiarity with the basics of quantum theory is the problem, as it prevents you from distinguishing claims that remain highly theoretical from those that we have at least some empirical evidence for.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Nope, it is a first cause argument, and though it used by theists, it is not on its own an argument for a deity. Several posters myself included have offered the original argument to demonstrate no deity was mentioned in it.

I included a number of references that apologists like Craig use the KCA as a stand-alone argument for the existence of God as cited and not responded to.

Still waiting . . .

It's a first cause argument, it's in the title.

 

[ppp]

I included a number of references that apologists like Craig use the KCA as a stand-alone argument for the existence of God as cited and not responded to.

False

 

[rational experiences]

The original human man plus brothers who agreed with science terms. Were brain prickled burnt by hot atmospheric gas water conditions. Fallout.

Not the wandering star asteroid direct mass or transmitters. Not sun mass either. No contacts as we aren't transmitters. Mr theist who says humans must be part AI. Coercive lies.

Yet he uses ground mass as gods mass transmitters in machines himself. See the human coerced.

Changed by fallen star causes was historic taught. Consciousness human the scientists teachings about himself.

Fallout is proven personal and sporadic. Attacks happen to individuals not the populous.

In that mass...it came from a cold sun bursting a hot ejection. Froze in space. Science had in the past activated conversion against the saviour. Law freeze holding as non reacting.

Why archaeology proved man had caused it. Machine parts found in instant snap freeze.

Frozen position of anything is first zero space terms.

Agreement was about evil advice. Today by agreed civilisation terms only is the want of it. So it's not reality first. Statements of human scientists.

It's not natural life and it's only about greed want and non stop sun power. Civilisation terms.

Told humanity by theory what they want to channel to the ground via our atmosphere. Where biology lives not interactive with burning gas alight.

Sun mass. Origin earth attack. Sink hole was the nothing state on earth. As gods terms. Sin. Origin of it.

They live as human consciousness inside a cooled ground atmosphere. Sink hole filled by water his life terms or gases cooled a hole that was left. No water. Both caused.

Nothing hole man's conscious advice. Is exact. Conscious only where you as bio life lived..living oxygenated. Not science whatsoever.

He said I never knew original sin. Humans never owned it. The Sink hole.

Yet he theories coldest place as space a hole nothing.

Consciousness says your real advice is a ground sink hole as natural advice. Psyche psychic human mind aware. On earth exact where consciousness is expressed.

Theory is made human aware first. Isn't nor never was numbers first.

You never actually knew out of space cosmic law.

So he lies.

Lying about how man's sacrifice of life was worthy. Was a scientific coercion.

Lying that man saved life by overcoming sin. Was a coercion.

A big liar coerced that story in fact.

As ice the saviour was not any man saved the sink hole opening into plate collapse as earth mass released nuclear time removal. From freeze.

To put gods rock mass position into natural history. By his inventive say so. A collapsing planet mass is its sun attack origin into just dusts. Which memory says he is aware of. His greed overcomes any sanity.

Water released by saviour ice is not any man is by pressures and floods. Sink holes filled up. His life's water stopped collapsed earth was a teaching.

Not a man did it. Or a man's god power stopped it. His greedy fake claim to owning mass and not just one human self. Was lying always. As rich man's memory is first greedy man who lied.

Out of space holy mother space void womb took the sacrificed body of earths sun mass leaving as suns attack voided. Pressures pushed it back into ground mass. As it was earths own energy stone releasing.

Earth had in natural sun attack history not gain destruction mass spread. Instead it assimilated it's mass with sun and re snap froze. Known. Why frozen sun asteroid mass passes close by.

Yet the sink hole cave tomb still emptied. Said the review. Men of temple science caused it. Saving.... Hadnt stopped ground mass disintegration itself was the warning to scientists.

Although mother took down the sacrificing alight burning body gases it still opened into empty cave.

Only sink holes sin itself was stopped as nothing.

Since the attack life 0AD was only just surviving. Earth mass was close to caving in was the teaching. As sun UFO fallout was still active as men had theoried for the gain of nothing by invention. As a mass equation by sun terms.

As man's thesis is to cause nothing and it equalled caused nothing as the sun thesis is exact. Holes.

As the sun owns a huge mass. He compares earth not mass of sun to be mass owner to a sun. In thesis he wants earth to be like the sun.

Scientists living with natural minds not ever the first attacked theist men. Teaching said whose DNA life mind gets Reinherited as stuck in a false thesis of a mind inheritance.... argue he's trying to burn us to death.

As they use natural humans healthier mind conscious thinking. And know he's wrong.

Is the human story a human life was innocent of sin. We never knew any terms as relative to sin or why nothing emptiness existed already cooled..

We have nothing to do with changed God mass bodies. Origin of sin itself holes of nothing.

Humans never knew the evil of sin...nothing.

And man isn't any saviour. Was already known what the saviour meant. Depended on a teacher.

To state why man's life water went into a sin hole. Instead of keeping biology protected.

God terms are about bodies of mass only. The book teaching was a review then shut. Just a human scientists testimonial against himself. Book then a legal position in governing only.

Actual history a greedy civilization designer man as rich man mind lived first. The eventuation into science secondary. Took over natural life's control. By illegal brutality.

Both of those brothers behaviour wrong. Termed illegal by first ever tribunal against the past rich men and satanic science controls governing.

As it is an honest human family ideal to finally be reunited as family community and evil science put in its rightful illegal review. Already agreed in world terms by spiritual brothers historic under the Jesus tribunal.

It was scientists who said they gained the power of Satan by a n a l sex. Any other human changed emotionally mentally was qualified as a human man innocent.

Is the historic reason to the law about God science and men of science.

Who today are mind AI designed machine psyche caused possessed by zero again. As the thought.... I remove earths historic frozen nuclear mass myself. And I then bodily save it as a man. Self possessed scientists.

As it's real biological brain mind change. As lesser DNA in biology is proven animal behaviour only. Pretty basic thinking.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

You have contempt for science like other far right Christian extremists.

Nonsense. I use science for personal gain...as it does an excellent job of supporting P2 of the KCA.

Hehehe.

Because it's what you imagine? No Gods are known to exist, so there's that.

So basically, you've got nothing.

 

[F1fan]

Nonsense. I use science for personal gain...as it does an excellent job of supporting P2 of the KCA.

You use science every day, but you already admitted you reject evolution, so that is contempt. You have adopted a religious view that taints your knowledge base, and that is a liability for a person living in the 21st century, and embarrassing.

So basically, you've got nothing.

I know there is no evidence or valid arguments that demonstrate any gods exist. I've got awareness that you offer no evidence for any god.

 

[shunyadragon]

False

Undocumented assertion without references nor responses to my documentation of apologists using the KCA as a stand-alone argument for the existence of God.

Still waiting . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

It's a first cause argument, it's in the title.

Yes, it is the First Cause only ever used for the existence of God. The argument has NEVER been used for any toher purpose.

Still waiting for you to cite an argument that uses the First Cause other than an apologist argument for the existence of God.

The bottom line is that the dimensional continuous time of our universe does not exist in the Quantum Mechanics in your references and mine.

 

[shunyadragon]

You linked to some popular literature you don’t understand, but you provided nothing in the way of references that support some of your basic misconceptions. I can provide plenty of references, but it would be nice if you were more specific about which aspects of how I explained some of your many fundamental errors required references.

After all, if you want a reference to support the claim that quantum mechanics is based on continuous time and quantum systems evolve continuously in time and/or that “space” in QM (at least in so far as measurements are concerned) is 3D, then my suggestion would be “learn quantum mechanics” and my suggested reference would be “open any elementary QM textbook.”

It is likewise difficult to provide references that your bogus “quanta scale” approach amounts to speculation that has varying degrees of support depending upon which approach to emergent spacetimes and/or quantized spacetimes/quantization of the gravitational field one takes. It is even more difficult to specifically provide references to your claims about measurements at this scale since none exist, so I can’t provide you with references for measurements that can’t be done and never have been. That said, it’s essentially common knowledge:

“It is commonly accepted that, at the Planck scale, no experimentally verified theory provides a framework for measuring space or time.”
Perche, T. R., & Martín-Martínez, E. (2022). Geometry of spacetime from quantum measurements. Physical Review D, 105(6), 066011.

Since I tend to regard QM as more fundamental than GR, I tend to side with approaches that attempt to see how the smooth manifolds required in QFT and GR may somehow be recovered at the appropriate limit or somehow emerge as a coarse-graining effect and scale transition.
That said, many disagree, going so far as to argue that GR is more fundamental and QM is the approximation to a more fundamental (continuous) theory. On this, see e.g.,

Sachs, M. (1986). Quantum Mechanics from General Relativity. An Approximation for a Theory of Inertia (Fundamental Theories of Physics). Springer.

And for an elementary treatment of the general problems with a theory of quantum spacetime that is can incorporate (or is even consistent with) gravitation, see e.g.,

Woodard, R. P. (2009). How far are we from the quantum theory of gravity?. Reports on Progress in Physics, 72(12), 126002. (see attached)

Also, just for kicks, concerning your claims ahout discrete time and space in quantum mechanics:
“Textbook quantum mechanics cannot describe measurements of time, since time is a parameter and not a quantum observable”
Maccone, L., & Sacha, K. (2020). Quantum measurements of time. Physical Review Letters, 124(11), 110402.

“Newtonian Absolute Time is what ordinary QM is based upon.”
Anderson, E. (2012). Problem of time in quantum gravity. Annalen der Physik, 524(12), 757-786.

On the difficulties associates with doing quantum theory on curved spacetimes that go beyond the standard unsolved difficulties of doing quantum theory on flat (Minkowski) spacetimes, see e.g.,
Sorkin, R. D. (1993, July). Impossible measurements on quantum fields. In Directions in general relativity: Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, Maryland (Vol. 2, pp. 293-305).

And on the difficulties with formulating relativistic quantum theory that doesn’t rely on mathematical nonsense:
“Can we dispense with continuous models and their analytical problems?...There is a fundamental reason why we stubbornly keep infinite models. Probably the most important guiding principle in finding good models is that a proper theory should be Lorentz invariant, reflecting the fact that physics should be the same for all inertial observers (who undergo no acceleration). There is no way this can be implemented in a finite model, say one which replaces the continuous model of physical space by a finite grid. ...considering finite models does not really solve anything. The infinities reappear in the guise of quantities that blow up as the grid becomes finer, and it is very hard to make sense of this behavior.
For these reasons we uncomfortably but realistically consider continuous models, even though they are not really well defined. Since nobody really knows how to solve the analytical difficulties related to these models, there is little point in working toward a partial solution to these difficulties, and our efforts in this direction will be minimal.” (pp. 30-31)
Talagrand, M. (2022). What Is a Quantum Field Theory? A First Introduction for Mathematicians. Cambridge University Press.

The issues of the impossibility of measuring any continuous parameter, process, property, etc. of any physical system are more subtle and too seldom addressed. However:

"even in a hypothetical laboratory furnished with test-particles and perfect rulers, infinitely precise measurements cannot be carried out unless the following additional conditions are fulfilled:
(i) The ruler is calibrated with infinite precision.
(ii) Irrational numbers are recorded precisely.
The impossibility of meeting these conditions does not spring either from quantum-mechanical roots, or from the atomistic structure of inanimate nature. It springs from the nature of the real number system. Quantum mechanics cannot improve upon this situation; it can only make it worse." (p. 106)
Sen, R. N. (2010). Causality, Measurement Theory and the Differentiable Structure of Space-Time (Cambridge Monographs in Mathematical Physics). Cambridge University Press.

And, for an elementary treatment, see also
Hargar, A. (2014). Discrete or Continous? The Quest for Fundamental Length in Modern Physics. Cambridge University Press.

Finally, among the physicists since Max Born through Wheeler and Feynman and beyond, Nicolas has probably produced the most accessible and relevant work on the problems associated with the problems associated with the non-measurability of any continous processes, properties, etc., in both classical and quantum physics. See e.g.:
Gisin, N. (2020). Real numbers are the hidden variables of classical mechanics. Quantum Studies: Mathematics and Foundations, 7(2), 197-201.
Gisin, N. (2021). Indeterminism in physics, classical chaos and Bohmian mechanics: Are real numbers really real?. Erkenntnis, 86(6), 1469-1481.

And just to drive the point about continuous space, time, and properties in QM, when you do go out and get that elementary textbook in quantum mechanics, you’ll see symbols like d/dx or ∫ (integral). Recall from basic calculus that differentiation requires continuity and that non-zero integrals over discontinuous intervals/regions/etc. must have at most finitely many discontinuities (actually, to even integrate widely oscillating functions one must dispense with Riemann integrals and extensions such as improper integrals and use measure theoretic integrals like the Lebesgue-Stieltjes, a useful integral in QM in particular as even the Riemann-Stieltjes integral expands greatly the range of integrable functions and the Lebesgue version more so, plus we have that the Stieltjes integral is with respect to another function or integrand obeying certain conditions that lend themselves to the kind of measures (spectral, probability, etc.) one requires often enough in QM).
For more references, you’ll have to go beyond just a demand in general, as I made multiple points and your grasp of QM is negligible, so it is difficult to provide references to support common knowledge, and I suspect your lack of familiarity with the basics of quantum theory is the problem, as it prevents you from distinguishing claims that remain highly theoretical from those that we have at least some empirical evidence for.

None of the references contradict my references. Your foolish assertions remain undocumented ALL Quantum level increments of time DO NOT represent the continuous time of our dimensional continuous time-based universe,

I gave the references cited, because of your elementary lack of knowledge of QM. The references cited referred to academic references. You have cited nothing to contradict my previous references..

 

[ppp]

Undocumented assertion without references nor responses to my documentation of apologists using the KCA as a stand-alone argument for the existence of God.

Also false.

Still waiting . . .

Indeed I am.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

None of the references contradict my references.

My problem isn't with your references, which are (when relevant) about hypothetical solutions to what is an ongoing problem in theoretical physics (problems, actually). My problem is that you are trying to bully, bludgeon, and bluster others about QM when you don't know what you are talking about and your don't seem to understand that your references (when relevant) concern unverified guesses that haven't even been adequately formulated theoretically, let alone observed. Hence, as I said:
“It is commonly accepted that, at the Planck scale, no experimentally verified theory provides a framework for measuring space or time.”
Perche, T. R., & Martín-Martínez, E. (2022). Geometry of spacetime from quantum measurements. Physical Review D, 105(6), 066011.

ALL Quantum level increments of time DO NOT represent the continuous time of our dimensional continuous time-based universe

1) There are no "quantum level increments of time", as time enters into QM as a parameter, either absorbed into the operators representing the observables associated with a system or as a paremeter for the state of the system itself. In both cases, time in QM is continuous, external to the theory, and equivalent to Newtonian (absolute) continuous time:
“Newtonian Absolute Time is what ordinary QM is based upon.”
Anderson, E. (2012). Problem of time in quantum gravity. Annalen der Physik, 524(12), 757-786.
2) Time measurements in quantum theory are external to the theory itself, a part of the ongoing measurement problem (because time in QM itself, either absorbed into the observables or parametrizing statevector or the wavefunction of a system, evolves deterministically and continuously, while measurements induce a different process external to QM).
3) If you have some theory and understanding of QM that includes "quantum level increments of time", just describe the equations governing the systems in this theory. Does your knowledge of QM include such basic elements of the theory? If so, then be familiar with the Schrödinger equation and possibly even the Heisenberg picture and you'd certainly be familiar with at least some ways in which total or partial time derivatives as well as PDEs and ODEs are built into QM. These all require continuity in time.
Your theory you claim to be "academic" and what not apparently excludes all possible formulations of quantum theory (outside of certain untested and currently untestable approaches towards certain paths to a solution for problems like quantum gravity, time in QM, the measurement problem, etc.). So what are the basic formula for this theory? What are the basic units? What are the observables of the theory? Is it a field theory? It can't be consistent with textbook QM or any other formulation that has been empirically supported because these all require continuous time, and it can't be discrete, because this would violate laws of causality, conservation, and just about anything else as they rely on the wrong symmetry groups.

But please, share your "expertise." I don't need references. I need you to describe the basic equations and elements of your theory (not names from popular science literature, I mean the actual mathematics). I don't even need evidence for the observations you falsely claimed support your view. I just need you to support it at the theoretical level by showing how I, as a physicist, might wright down the equations for an arbitrary (or even a particular) system of interest that somehow didn't involve continuous time or space and was consistent. I won't hold my breath.

I gave the references cited, because of your elementary lack of knowledge of QM.

Impossible. I wasn't participating in this discussion until after I read you repeatedly make statements that were false whilst trying to assert others were ignorant. You gave the references before I entered into the discussion, so you couldn't have given them "because" of anything to do with me.
And as my main area of expertise is quantum foundations, I doubt it is MY "lack of knowledge" that is the problem here.

 

[shunyadragon]

My problem isn't with your references, which are (when relevant) about hypothetical solutions to what is an ongoing problem in theoretical physics (problems, actually). My problem is that you are trying to bully, bludgeon, and bluster others about QM when you don't know what you are talking about and your don't seem to understand that your references (when relevant) concern unverified guesses that haven't even been adequately formulated theoretically, let alone observed. Hence, as I said:
“It is commonly accepted that, at the Planck scale, no experimentally verified theory provides a framework for measuring space or time.”
Perche, T. R., & Martín-Martínez, E. (2022). Geometry of spacetime from quantum measurements. Physical Review D, 105(6), 066011.

1) There are no "quantum level increments of time", as time enters into QM as a parameter, either absorbed into the operators representing the observables associated with a system or as a paremeter for the state of the system itself. In both cases, time in QM is continuous, external to the theory, and equivalent to Newtonian (absolute) continuous time:
“Newtonian Absolute Time is what ordinary QM is based upon.”
Anderson, E. (2012). Problem of time in quantum gravity. Annalen der Physik, 524(12), 757-786.
2) Time measurements in quantum theory are external to the theory itself, a part of the ongoing measurement problem (because time in QM itself, either absorbed into the observables or parametrizing statevector or the wavefunction of a system, evolves deterministically and continuously, while measurements induce a different process external to QM).
3) If you have some theory and understanding of QM that includes "quantum level increments of time", just describe the equations governing the systems in this theory. Does your knowledge of QM include such basic elements of the theory? If so, then be familiar with the Schrödinger equation and possibly even the Heisenberg picture and you'd certainly be familiar with at least some ways in which total or partial time derivatives as well as PDEs and ODEs are built into QM. These all require continuity in time.
Your theory you claim to be "academic" and what not apparently excludes all possible formulations of quantum theory (outside of certain untested and currently untestable approaches towards certain paths to a solution for problems like quantum gravity, time in QM, the measurement problem, etc.). So what are the basic formula for this theory? What are the basic units? What are the observables of the theory? Is it a field theory? It can't be consistent with textbook QM or any other formulation that has been empirically supported because these all require continuous time, and it can't be discrete, because this would violate laws of causality, conservation, and just about anything else as they rely on the wrong symmetry groups.

But please, share your "expertise." I don't need references. I need you to describe the basic equations and elements of your theory (not names from popular science literature, I mean the actual mathematics). I don't even need evidence for the observations you falsely claimed support your view. I just need you to support it at the theoretical level by showing how I, as a physicist, might wright down the equations for an arbitrary (or even a particular) system of interest that somehow didn't involve continuous time or space and was consistent. I won't hold my breath.

Impossible. I wasn't participating in this discussion until after I read you repeatedly make statements that were false whilst trying to assert others were ignorant. You gave the references before I entered into the discussion, so you couldn't have given them "because" of anything to do with me.
And as my main area of expertise is quantum foundations, I doubt it is MY "lack of knowledge" that is the problem here.

None of the references contradict my references. Your foolish assertions remain undocumented ALL Quantum level increments of time DO NOT represent the continuous time of our dimensional continuous time-based universe,

I gave the references cited, because of your elementary lack of knowledge of QM. The references cited referred to academic references. You have cited nothing to contradict my previous references..

 

[shunyadragon]

Also false.

Indeed I am.

Provide something of substance, respond to the citations, and you can stop waiting.

 

[ppp]

My problem isn't with your references, which are (when relevant) about hypothetical solutions to what is an ongoing problem in theoretical physics (problems, actually). My problem is that you are trying to bully, bludgeon, and bluster others about QM when you don't know what you are talking about and your don't seem to understand that your references (when relevant) concern unverified guesses that haven't even been adequately formulated theoretically, let alone observed. Hence, as I said:
“It is commonly accepted that, at the Planck scale, no experimentally verified theory provides a framework for measuring space or time.”
Perche, T. R., & Martín-Martínez, E. (2022). Geometry of spacetime from quantum measurements. Physical Review D, 105(6), 066011.

1) There are no "quantum level increments of time", as time enters into QM as a parameter, either absorbed into the operators representing the observables associated with a system or as a paremeter for the state of the system itself. In both cases, time in QM is continuous, external to the theory, and equivalent to Newtonian (absolute) continuous time:
“Newtonian Absolute Time is what ordinary QM is based upon.”
Anderson, E. (2012). Problem of time in quantum gravity. Annalen der Physik, 524(12), 757-786.
2) Time measurements in quantum theory are external to the theory itself, a part of the ongoing measurement problem (because time in QM itself, either absorbed into the observables or parametrizing statevector or the wavefunction of a system, evolves deterministically and continuously, while measurements induce a different process external to QM).
3) If you have some theory and understanding of QM that includes "quantum level increments of time", just describe the equations governing the systems in this theory. Does your knowledge of QM include such basic elements of the theory? If so, then be familiar with the Schrödinger equation and possibly even the Heisenberg picture and you'd certainly be familiar with at least some ways in which total or partial time derivatives as well as PDEs and ODEs are built into QM. These all require continuity in time.
Your theory you claim to be "academic" and what not apparently excludes all possible formulations of quantum theory (outside of certain untested and currently untestable approaches towards certain paths to a solution for problems like quantum gravity, time in QM, the measurement problem, etc.). So what are the basic formula for this theory? What are the basic units? What are the observables of the theory? Is it a field theory? It can't be consistent with textbook QM or any other formulation that has been empirically supported because these all require continuous time, and it can't be discrete, because this would violate laws of causality, conservation, and just about anything else as they rely on the wrong symmetry groups.

But please, share your "expertise." I don't need references. I need you to describe the basic equations and elements of your theory (not names from popular science literature, I mean the actual mathematics). I don't even need evidence for the observations you falsely claimed support your view. I just need you to support it at the theoretical level by showing how I, as a physicist, might wright down the equations for an arbitrary (or even a particular) system of interest that somehow didn't involve continuous time or space and was consistent. I won't hold my breath.

Impossible. I wasn't participating in this discussion until after I read you repeatedly make statements that were false whilst trying to assert others were ignorant. You gave the references before I entered into the discussion, so you couldn't have given them "because" of anything to do with me.
And as my main area of expertise is quantum foundations, I doubt it is MY "lack of knowledge" that is the problem here.

My problem is that @shunyadragon had done nothing to establish a connection between his claims and his citations. He just wants to try to force us to accept that there is a connection without doing any of the basic work or taking responsibility for the words he type.