Atheistic Double Standard?

[1robin]

If you want a very good, undergraduate, introductory text on QM, try Eisberg+Resnik:
Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles: Robert Eisberg, Robert Resnick: 8580000516449: Amazon.com: Books

It is an often used book for physics students that are just beginning to learn QM.

If you have questions, just ask.

This is a first. In around 13,000 personal debates this is the first time I was given an argument by proxy which would require me to buy an 864 page $122.00 book. I do not doubt your sincerity just your appropriateness. This would be the equivalent of my asking you to purchase then read all 750,000 words of the bible in both the Alexandrian and Byzantine traditions.

Have you noticed that I have not been throwing scriptures at you one after the other? That is because debates are to take place on common ground. You do not share the common ground of divine revelation so I do not appeal to it over and over. I do not share (in fact virtually no one does) common ground with you concerning the reliability of quantum mechanics. That still leaves plenty of ground on which to debate, why are you not utilizing it?

 

[Polymath257]

This is a first. In around 13,000 personal debates this is the first time I was given an argument by proxy which would require me to buy an 864 page $122.00 book. I do not doubt your sincerity just your appropriateness. This would be the equivalent of my asking you to purchase then read all 750,000 words of the bible in both the Alexandrian and Byzantine traditions.

Sorry, but physics books tend to be expensive. This is one of the cheaper ones. And I was suggesting it as a resource if you want to learn something about how the universe actually works rather than relying on Aristotle or Newton (who at least is much better than Aristotle).

Here is a wiki page if you prefer that (it is way too brief, but seems to be accurate):
Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

Have you noticed that I have not been throwing scriptures at you one after the other? That is because debates are to take place on common ground. You do not share the common ground of divine revelation so I do not appeal to it over and over. I do not share (in fact virtually no one does) common ground with you concerning the reliability of quantum mechanics. That still leaves plenty of ground on which to debate, why are you not utilizing it?

Because some of my position relies on quantum mechanics, which is a very well known area of physics which has proven its utility in a number of ways. Classical physics is a very good approximation, but it is often wrong in detail and those details are relevant in some of these discussions.

Now, if you want to learn about quantum mechanics, I can teach you. It is reliable, even in quite surprising ways that directly contradict long-held philosophical positions.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This still does not explain why does 100% of the evidence for God not existing resides entirely within the least understood 1% of science?

If "God" means the god of the Christian Bible, it can be ruled out without science. Scripture and pure reason are sufficient. This was all explained to you already here, where you were challenged to rebut the arguments presented and declined to do so. That leaves your position dead in the water with reason and evidence based thinkers.

Your placing the burden of science upon claims of faith, and your placing the burden of faith upon science. The burden of claims to faith only require the absence of a known defeater. I usually raise that bar to the inference to the best explanation but I don't have to. Scientific claims carry a far heavier burden.

There is never a burden of proof with faith based thinkers. They didn't come to their present positions through reason or evidence, and they cannot be budged from it with them.

Proof is a cooperative effort. It requires that your argument is being presented to an open-minded person, that is, somebody willing to consider an argument impartially and be persuaded by a compelling argument. It is impossible to prove to a man that which he has a stake in not believing.

Craig is a legendary philosopher, I am currently reading one of his books. I have never seen a book that cited more sources in my life. His opponents have said that he is the only philosopher that can put the fear of God into an atheist.

Craig is not a player except in theistic circles. Why would a rational skeptic be interested in the thoughts of a man who would say the following? :

"If in some historically contingent circumstances, the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I don't think that that contraverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me."

The man is telling you that his mind is closed for business. This is the epitome of closed-mindedness. He may well be wrong, but he's telling you that you will never be able to prove it to him because any evidence that contradicts his faith will be rejected.

He also said this:

"My inclination is to say that Genesis 1 is figurative language that is not meant to be taken in a literal sense and that therefore it is quite compatible with any sort of theory of biological evolution that might be on offer."

He's obviously wrong about that. The theory of evolution is incompatible with a religion that teaches that man and only man was given a soul, was intended to exist by that god, and was created its image.

As discussed earlier, his presentation of the Kalam cosmological argument has got to be one of the worst arguments ever presented:

• Like everything that comes into being, the universe has a cause.
• If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
• Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful

After that incredible leap of faith - what happened to the multiverse, for example - he should be banned from using the word, "therefore," which to a philosopher would be like an attorney being disbarred.

He also doesn't seem to grasp that God cannot exist out of time. Nothing can by definition. The word "exist" requires persistence through a stretch of consecutive instants - a mistake that you make repeatedly as well. You and Craig have your god existing, thinking, and acting outside of time.

Furthermore, as was discussed here, Harris flayed him and his moral theory at Notre Dame University.

Sorry, but Craig's just another faith based thinker saying anything he can think of to support his faith based beliefs without any respect for the rigor he feigns bringing to the table.

 

[ChristineM]

LOL.

I'm adding "twaddle" and "clap-trap" to my growing list of their synonyms: balderdash, poppycock, blatherskite, flapdoodle, codswallop, jabberwocky, foofaraw, gobbledygook, piffle, godwottery, bafflegab, flumadiddle, clishmaclaver, bushwa and tommyrot.

Oh please, don't go there...

 

[Polymath257]

Have you noticed that I have not been throwing scriptures at you one after the other? That is because debates are to take place on common ground. You do not share the common ground of divine revelation so I do not appeal to it over and over. I do not share (in fact virtually no one does) common ground with you concerning the reliability of quantum mechanics. That still leaves plenty of ground on which to debate, why are you not utilizing it?

OK, so you want to start with classical physics? I can do that.

In classical electromagnetic theory, what happens when a charge is accelerated? it releases electromagnetic radiation (light), which means it loses energy.

Now, in an atom, are the electrons orbiting the atom accelerated? Classically, they have to be if they are not traveling in straight lines. But, it they are accelerated, they should be emitting E&M radiation and losing energy.

This would make atoms unstable: they would collapse. Classical calculations show this collapse would happen in milliseconds.

So, classical physics cannot apply to atoms.

The question then becomes what *does* apply to them.

Second line of argument:

Statistical mechanics as developed by Maxwell (yes, same Maxwell as for E&M) would predict that each and every *mode* of motion has the same level of energy in an equilibrium. Each mode would have an energy corresponding to 1/2 RT where R is the gas constant and T is the absolute temperature.

But this means that larger molecules (ones with many atoms and thereby many modes of motion) would increase their energy very fast as temperatures increase. In fact, by actual measurements, this does not happen. So the classical conclusions of statistical mechanics cannot be accurate. Some of the modes of motion have to be 'frozen out' in a way that is not allowed classically.

Third:

The electromagnetic effect. if you take x-rays and direct them at most metals, electrons will be released. Classically, the energy of the x-rays is described by the amplitude of the E&M wave. But, it is found experimentally that if x-rays of high *wavelength* are directed at the metal, no electrons are released at all, no matter what the amplitude (intensity) of the x-rays. if, however, low wavelength x-rays are used, electrons are immediately released even at quite low intensities.

So, once again, classical ideas are simply wrong.

In all of these, the correct description of the phenomena depends on quantum mechanics. These are only very basic applications, though. The current descriptions of how atoms bond into molecules is also inherently quantum mechanical and NOT explainable with classical physics.

 

[1robin]

Yes. Please explain this.

God's eternal nature is what determines good and evil. For example it is not merely that God chose love from some external standard as a good. That's why the bible says that God IS love. If the eternal nature of a necessary being which holds sovereignty over everything does not ground objective moral truths then the term objective should be ripped out of the dictionary because it does not apply to anything. So with God moral values and duties reflect his divine nature and are not the opinions or preferences of any creature subject to divine law.

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct.
Malum in se - Wikipedia

The above is impossible without God, but are unavoidable given a personal God.

This is incorrect. Human well-being is a reasonable standard for morality. In fact, it is a much better standard than attempting to determine the desires of an unimaginable deity. And it is much, much better than taking the word of a book written by humans as the decrees of an unimaginable deity.

1. Since your arguments center on the false premise of our not being able to imagine God. You refuted yourself, but that isn't much fun.
2. The human race has imagined between 1 and over 300 million Gods.
3. The vast majority of humanity has imagined them for our entire history.
4. You swallow the universal inability to imagine a God but choke on the use of the labels logically incoherent?

A. It is easy to imagine that maximizing our own well being at the expense of the well being of every other species would seem reasonable to whichever species could enforce it. However it would still be as self serving and arbitrary as I have stated.
B. That isn't a path to moral truth, it is self serving speciesm.
C. The only thing nature can tell us is what is, it cannot tell us they way anything should be.
D. If God does not exist your brain was selected for survival not truth, why would you trust it?

Who decides what is best for human well being you or Hitler?

 

[Polymath257]

OK, so you want to start with classical physics? I can do that.

In classical electromagnetic theory, what happens when a charge is accelerated? it releases electromagnetic radiation (light), which means it loses energy.

Now, in an atom, are the electrons orbiting the atom accelerated? Classically, they have to be if they are not traveling in straight lines. But, it they are accelerated, they should be emitting E&M radiation and losing energy.

This would make atoms unstable: they would collapse. Classical calculations show this collapse would happen in milliseconds.

So, classical physics cannot apply to atoms.

The question then becomes what *does* apply to them.

Second line of argument:

Statistical mechanics as developed by Maxwell (yes, same Maxwell as for E&M) would predict that each and every *mode* of motion has the same level of energy in an equilibrium. Each mode would have an energy corresponding to 1/2 RT where R is the gas constant and T is the absolute temperature.

But this means that larger molecules (ones with many atoms and thereby many modes of motion) would increase their energy very fast as temperatures increase. In fact, by actual measurements, this does not happen. So the classical conclusions of statistical mechanics cannot be accurate. Some of the modes of motion have to be 'frozen out' in a way that is not allowed classically.

Third:

The electromagnetic effect. if you take x-rays and direct them at most metals, electrons will be released. Classically, the energy of the x-rays is described by the amplitude of the E&M wave. But, it is found experimentally that if x-rays of high *wavelength* are directed at the metal, no electrons are released at all, no matter what the amplitude (intensity) of the x-rays. if, however, low wavelength x-rays are used, electrons are immediately released even at quite low intensities.

So, once again, classical ideas are simply wrong.

In all of these, the correct description of the phenomena depends on quantum mechanics. These are only very basic applications, though. The current descriptions of how atoms bond into molecules is also inherently quantum mechanical and NOT explainable with classical physics.

The very stability of atoms is based on quantum mechanics and cannot be explained via classical mechanics.

Since I think you would agree that the stability of atoms is pretty important, that alone shows the relevance of quantum mechanics to understanding the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

God's eternal nature is what determines good and evil. For example it is not merely that God chose love from some external standard as a good. That's why the bible says that God IS love. If the eternal nature of a necessary being which holds sovereignty over everything does not ground objective moral truths then the term objective should be ripped out of the dictionary because it does not apply to anything. So with God moral values and duties reflect his divine nature and are not the opinions or preferences of any creature subject to divine law.

There are so many different assumptions here that are wrong I don't know where to start.

Let's go with
1. God is a necessary being.
I thought God was the first cause. Did you change your definition? And, for that matter, what does it mean to be a 'necessary being'? Are you going to go into modal logic next?

2. You have not shown that morals are actually part of the 'nature' of God, whether defined as a first cause or as a necessary being. Morals are rules proscriptive rules for behavior. They aren't even the *type* of thing that can be in the 'nature' of something. Mass, charge, intelligence, sure. But a rule for behavior? no.

Malum in se

(plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct.
Malum in se - Wikipedia

The above is impossible without God, but are unavoidable given a personal God.

You make that same claim again. I still say it is false. Objective morals *are* possible without the existence of a deity. All that is required is that humans thrive under some rules and not under others.

But, again, the act of murder is wrong. How is that an aspect of the 'nature' of God? Is it that God is repelled by such actions? OK, why does that make the action wrong? For that matter, why should I care that God is repelled by some action? Isn't it much more relevant that the humans I live with every day are?

1. Since your arguments center on the false premise of our not being able to imagine God. You refuted yourself, but that isn't much fun.
2. The human race has imagined between 1 and over 300 million Gods.
3. The vast majority of humanity has imagined them for our entire history.
4. You swallow the universal inability to imagine a God but choke on the use of the labels logically incoherent?

OK, so we imagine stories about deities. Isn't one of the characteristics of the deity you follow that it is incomprehensible to humans? That the ways of God are unknowable to us mere humans?

A. It is easy to imagine that maximizing our own well being at the expense of the well being of every other species would seem reasonable to whichever species could enforce it. However it would still be as self serving and arbitrary as I have stated.
B. That isn't a path to moral truth, it is self serving speciesm.
C. The only thing nature can tell us is what is, it cannot tell us they way anything should be.
D. If God does not exist your brain was selected for survival not truth, why would you trust it?

Who decides what is best for human well being you or Hitler?

Well, that is why we vote, now isn't it? Have you ever read Rawls on Justice? A just society is one where everyone would agree it is fair even if they don't know ahead of time where they will be in that society.

 

[1robin]

They haven't. Philosophers have rejected both for nearly as long. They have survived only the scrutiny of those who also believe in an all-loving god meeting out perpetual torture for purely finite "crimes," some of which includes simply not believing what you've never heard of! That's twaddle of the first order.

None of the arguments for God's existence have dimmed through time. In our time there has been an actual renaissance in philosophy in the direction of theism. I don't know why you introduce the idea of Hell in a discussion about philosophy but I do not believe in an eternal hell so it is irrelevant.

I think lots of actions by lots of people -- very much including myself -- have been actually wrong. I try to atone when I can, to forgive myself, but never send myself to hell. I try to do the same for others -- wish your Yahwah would do likewise, but that doesn't appear to be in his nature.

How do you go about canceling out the damage your immoral actions will cause through out eternity? The most common person associated with forgiveness is the very person you deny being forgiving. Guess you just don't know him.

Perhaps you should crawl under your desk -- and while sitting there in the dark, quiet your mind of religious fervour and ask yourself a couple of questions: where is the "racial equality" in the Bible? How about the "sanctity of life?" Don't you really mean "the sanctity of the the lives of the obedient, self-abasing slavish types." Everybody else is, according to your very own Yahweh, required to be killed -- usually painfully and slowly just to "set a good example," as it were.

Oh, come off it. I am going to have to separate this post just to fit them in.

Deuteronomy 10:17
17 For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes.
1 John 2:2
Chapter Parallel Compare
2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Genesis 1:27
27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
Hebrews 12:14
14 Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord.
John 13:34
34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
Mark 12:31
31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. ’There is no commandment greater than these.”
Philippians 2:3
3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves,
Proverbs 22:2
2 Rich and poor have this in common: The LORD is the Maker of them all.
Romans 2:11
11 For God does not show favoritism.
Malachi 2:10
10 Do we not all have one Father ? Did not one God create us? Why do we profane the covenant of our ancestors by being unfaithful to one another?
James 2:8-9
8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. 9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.
Leviticus 19:33-34
33 “ ‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Luke 14:13-14
13 But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14 and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”
Acts 10:34-35
34 Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.
Colossians 3:10-11
10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. 11 Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

James 2:1-4
1 My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. 2 Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. 3 If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” 4 have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

Galatians 3:26-29
26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Mark 12:25-37
25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 26 Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!” 28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” 29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’There is no commandment greater than these.” 32 “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33 To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions. 35 While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, “Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David?
25 Top Bible Verses About Equality - Inspiring Scripture
Top 7 Bible Verses About Equality

I have used up all the time I can justify for today for a single person, I might go back and address the rest at some point.

 

[1robin]

And *that* is incoherent. There is no 'causality prior to time'. Causality requires time.

Your devotion and dedication is worthy of a better cause. I do not believe Leprechauns exist, therefor I live my life exactly as if they don't exist, I don't debate their existence for hours each day. Why are you imposing on the supernatural what binds the natural? If Yahweh exists he is independent of time, in fact whatever the uncaused first cause turns out to be, it necessarily must exist independently of time. The only thing God couldn't do would be logically incoherent things like creating square circles, rocks so big he couldn't move them, married bachelors.

So? If there are patterns of behavior in the supernatural, then it is possible to study it using the scientific method. If such patterns are discovered, they are *by definition* natural.

The way something is defined has no relevance to what it is. Pluto doesn't care whether humans consider it a planet or any other arbitrary label.

Actually there is a lot to the history of philosophy concerning the natural and supernatural. I am merely contemplating whether I want to open the spill way at this time.

Furthermore, if something interacts with the natural, it is *by definition* again natural. So the only way to get a supernatural is to have something that doesn't interact with the natural and has no patterns of behavior.

There are many positions consistent with Christianity which concern what is natural or supernatural. I have never seen the need to formally adopt a single position so I am not sure what to defend yet. I will think on it this weekend and decide if I want to add this massive topic to the agenda. Regardless, how we label things has no effect on what they are. We would also have to start with some definitions instead of declarations.

For now I would define natural as anything bound by natural law. Do you agree?

 

[1robin]

And why could you not just claim the same about the universe? Ex: It is simply a brute fact that the universe exists. It is its nature to exist.

I do not think there is any disagreement from even the most rabid atheist that the universe is contingent. In 20 years of watching professional debates I have yet to see a single non-theist argue that the universe is a necessary being.

Why multiply assumptions by claiming the existence of a God?

Because I run out of explanations before I run out of things that require them. No matter what you pick in nature, from an atom, to a universe you will never find the explanation for it, within it. By other principles like sufficient causation, etc.... it is easy to see what characteristics this trans-natural explanation must have.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Oh please, don't go there...

LOL. You haven't forgotten either, have you? That was the spring of 2011.

Thanks for the hug.

 

[Polymath257]

Your devotion and dedication is worthy of a better cause. I do not believe Leprechauns exist, therefor I live my life exactly as if they don't exist, I don't debate their existence for hours each day. Why are you imposing on the supernatural what binds the natural? If Yahweh exists he is independent of time, in fact whatever the uncaused first cause turns out to be, it necessarily must exist independently of time. The only thing God couldn't do would be logically incoherent things like creating square circles, rocks so big he couldn't move them, married bachelors.

Well, for one, I don't believe in a supernatural.

For now I would define natural as anything bound by natural law. Do you agree?

Works for me. Now, what does it mean to be a natural law?

 

[Polymath257]

I do not think there is any disagreement from even the most rabid atheist that the universe is contingent. In 20 years of watching professional debates I have yet to see a single non-theist argue that the universe is a necessary being.

Well, perhaps you found one. What argument can be made that the universe itself isn't 'necessary'?

Because I run out of explanations before I run out of things that require them. No matter what you pick in nature, from an atom, to a universe you will never find the explanation for it, within it. By other principles like sufficient causation, etc.... it is easy to see what characteristics this trans-natural explanation must have.

There you go, getting back to causation. I gave you examples of uncaused events.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Who decides what is best for human well being you or Hitler?

Don't forget all of the theists claiming that their book needs to be obeyed.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How do you go about canceling out the damage your immoral actions will cause through out eternity?

Tell us about the eternal damage that Aristotle's paternal grandmother did by her immoral actions?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The way something is defined has no relevance to what it is.

Great. I was wondering what to do with "God is love." Into the dumper with it.

 

[Polymath257]

Your devotion and dedication is worthy of a better cause. I do not believe Leprechauns exist, therefor I live my life exactly as if they don't exist, I don't debate their existence for hours each day. Why are you imposing on the supernatural what binds the natural? If Yahweh exists he is independent of time, in fact whatever the uncaused first cause turns out to be, it necessarily must exist independently of time. The only thing God couldn't do would be logically incoherent things like creating square circles, rocks so big he couldn't move them, married bachelors.

And if omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence are contradictory attributes, then God cannot exist, right?

And why do you think an uncaused cause must be independent of time? I am pretty sure that there is nothing logically necessary about that position.

Perhaps the problem is how you define the term 'cause'. Can you do so? What *precisely* does it mean to be a cause?

I have a definition, but it is in terms of natural laws, so I want to see if you can provide a coherent alternative.

 

[1robin]

Sorry, but physics books tend to be expensive. This is one of the cheaper ones. And I was suggesting it as a resource if you want to learn something about how the universe actually works rather than relying on Aristotle or Newton (who at least is much better than Aristotle).

I am responding to this one first because I am short on time. I work in an avionics lab, no one has ever mentioned the word quantum in connection with work.

Here is a wiki page if you prefer that (it is way too brief, but seems to be accurate):
Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

I will look at it soon.

Because some of my position relies on quantum mechanics, which is a very well known area of physics which has proven its utility in a number of ways. Classical physics is a very good approximation, but it is often wrong in detail and those details are relevant in some of these discussions.

I am stronger in certain areas compared to others, but I am competent in most. So I can usually provide arguments in whatever field someone else has shared knowledge in. I can go with history, textual criticism, most of science, philosophy, morality, etc.... as it fits who I am debating.

Now, if you want to learn about quantum mechanics, I can teach you. It is reliable, even in quite surprising ways that directly contradict long-held philosophical positions.

I doubt you could teach me. I found to my regret I wasn't as smart as I used to think. As stated I am competent in all relevant fields but I am master of none. You seem to be different, you seem to specialize in very narrow but very deep areas. I studied math because I thought I had to be an engineer or nothing, but I do not have a passion for it. I do however have a passion for history, philosophy and theology, but I learned this far too late.

 

[Polymath257]

I am responding to this one first because I am short on time. I work in an avionics lab, no one has ever mentioned the word quantum in connection with work.

Of which I am not surprised. I doubt they often mention planetary dynamics either. Even less do they talk about nuclear reactions and how the sun functions. Yet all of those are relevant to the universe and worth understanding if you wish to know how the universe functions.

I will look at it soon.

I am stronger in certain areas compared to others, but I am competent in most. So I can usually provide arguments in whatever field someone else has shared knowledge in. I can go with history, textual criticism, most of science, philosophy, morality, etc.... as it fits who I am debating.

My main interests are (in some semblance of order) math, physics, biology, history. In history, I emphasize the history of ideas, especially those leading up to the scientific revolution.

I doubt you could teach me. I found to my regret I wasn't as smart as I used to think. As stated I am competent in all relevant fields but I am master of none. You seem to be different, you seem to specialize in very narrow but very deep areas. I studied math because I thought I had to be an engineer or nothing, but I do not have a passion for it. I do however have a passion for history, philosophy and theology, but I learned this far too late.

I have been teaching math to those who don't wish to know for decades. Let me know what level of detail you want, and I can provide. The first, and most basic thing about QM is that it is not a causal theory: instead, it predicts the probabilities of various measurements.