1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Mathematical Proof of God?

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by loverofhumanity, Aug 8, 2022.

  1. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    18,750
    Ratings:
    +9,264
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    Provide something of substance, respond to the citations, and you can stop waiting.
     
  2. Policy

    Policy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2020
    Messages:
    6,467
    Ratings:
    +3,651
    Religion:
    none
    There's nothing to respond to. The citations don't matter until you explain why they're relevant.

    I'm waiting for you to establish relevance. In much the same way that I am waiting for The Door of Stone to drop. I don't expect it's ever actually going to happen, but occasionally poking the author is an amusing way to kill a few seconds.
     
  3. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    18,750
    Ratings:
    +9,264
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    Provide something of substance, respond to the citations, and you can stop waiting.
     
  4. Policy

    Policy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2020
    Messages:
    6,467
    Ratings:
    +3,651
    Religion:
    none
    You first.
     
  5. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    18,750
    Ratings:
    +9,264
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    Provide something of substance, respond to the citations, and you can stop waiting.
     
  6. Policy

    Policy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2020
    Messages:
    6,467
    Ratings:
    +3,651
    Religion:
    none
    I don't want to stop. Waiting delights me.
     
  7. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    18,750
    Ratings:
    +9,264
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    . . like addicted to potato chips covered with spider webs.
     
  8. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    18,750
    Ratings:
    +9,264
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    Trying to 'Bully' with voluminous references doe not help your case.

    What you provided was a voluminous number of different theoretical considerations of various aspects of the current knowledge of Quantum Mechanical, Very extensive and very wordy. You get an A for effort.

    Absolutely none of your references provided observed evidence of a dimensional world with a continuous time arrow of the macro scale of our universe,
     
  9. Policy

    Policy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2020
    Messages:
    6,467
    Ratings:
    +3,651
    Religion:
    none
    I wouldn't know. I only like spider webs on my oatmeal raisin cookies.
     
  10. LegionOnomaMoi

    LegionOnomaMoi Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,151
    Ratings:
    +2,366
    I only gave you referenced because you, in an attempt to refute my original reply to your nonsense, you asked me to supply references.
    I only joined this discussion because quantum foundations is my area of expertise and I am inundated with various bogus claims about quantum mechanics all of the time, which is bad enough. But I'm used to that, and if people want me to explain more I'm always happy to (if not, ok). In this case, however, I'd had enough of BOTH the sheer volume of unsubstantiated nonsense you've posted from a position of self-proclaimed authority (supported by references to wikipedia, blogs, etc., instead of scientific literature) but no substance AND because these false claims have been accompanied with insultingly dismissive rhetoric:
    Yet you haven't demonstrated you are at all familiar with QM specifically or quantum theory more generally, still less the kind of theoretical physics required to substantiate claims about quantum cosmologies, the big bang from a quantum perspective, quantized space(time), quantum time, etc.
    So I'll ask again:
    You've mentioned, repeatedly, what quantum mechanics has objectively shown in relation to the nature of space and time, such as here:
    This is nonsense. It fails utterly to describe what cyclotrons are actually capable of, is incompatible with QM, and is unsupported by all testable formulations of any quantum theory that we hope to have (but currently do not) of the quantum nature of space and time at the scales where we might hope to detect evidence for or against discrete space(time). Your references to support it range from outright stating that your claims are unverified, even widely rejected, to simply describing them in terms of a "proposed" explanation that is completely untested.

    I went into details in my first reply on the problems with your ignorance of QM. You ignored them all and ask for references. When I give these, you ignore them too.
    You are the one claiming that you understand QM and telling others that they don't understand it, asking for references and telling me and others that we don't understand QM but you do. Ok, so show it.
    What are the equations of the theory you describe? Is this theory of yours manifestly covariant? How does the use of cyclotrons support the existence of this "quanta scale" that you describe as not being continuous or having 3 spatial dimensions nor a continuous time dimension when even the LHC (probing at much, much, higher energy scales) has found no evidence for discrete spacetime and the standard model of particle physics as well as the standard model of cosmology (and all empirical tests) continued to support the existing quantum theories, all of which rely on continuous time (relativistic QFT requires spacetime, obviously, but it is built by demoting the spatial operators of QM to the role of a continuous fields in continuous spacetime that the newly minted operators of QFT, renamed "particles", act on locally).

    It's true, the references I supplied deal with actual physics, not nonsense statements about "a dimensional world" (????) with "a continuous time arrow of the macro scale of our universe". This is gibberish, not QM or quantum theory or physics. However, whenever you start thinking about this boundless quanta level scale you are so keen on, try reading some of your own sources more carefully:
    "the No-Boundary Proposal is not generally accepted"
    From your source: The Quantum Origins of Our Universe

    If you would like to deal with actual science and actual physics, you have to be prepared for more than sensationalist bunk. For example:
    "Time in quantum mechanics appears as a classical parameter in the Schrödinger equation. Physically it represents the time shown by a “classical” clock in the laboratory."
    Giovannetti, V., Lloyd, S., & Maccone, L. (2015). Quantum time. Physical Review D, 92(4), 045033.
     
  11. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    18,750
    Ratings:
    +9,264
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    OK! Chopping oatmeal cookies covered with spiderwebs.
     
  12. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    18,750
    Ratings:
    +9,264
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    You acknowledged this therefore yes, absolutely none of your references provided observed evidence of a dimensional world with a continuous time arrow of the macro scale of our universe, which was the point of my reference,

    Yes your long windy voluminous references and posts are an attempt to 'Bully' your view.
     
  13. LegionOnomaMoi

    LegionOnomaMoi Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,151
    Ratings:
    +2,366
    My references showed how that quantum mechanics relied on continuous time and that the kind of "quanta level scale" you refer to is not only without any empirical or observational support, we lack a cogent theory of how this "quantum world" could be realized theoretically. You referenced a blog post on speculative ideas you don't understand.
    Now, since you've been demeaning others about their lack of understanding of QM, how about showing you have the faintest idea of what you are talking about and describing a single equation of motion, operator algebra, quantization schema, or any other component of actual quantum theories and show how quantum mechanics can do what you've said, as we already know it doesn't describe nor can it describe anything you've claimed:

    "Time in quantum mechanics appears as a classical parameter in the Schrödinger equation. Physically it represents the time shown by a “classical” clock in the laboratory."
    Giovannetti, V., Lloyd, S., & Maccone, L. (2015). Quantum time. Physical Review D, 92(4), 045033.

    “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.

    “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.
     
  14. LegionOnomaMoi

    LegionOnomaMoi Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,151
    Ratings:
    +2,366
    Well, he has at time ignored his own sources (maybe they are too long to read...). So perhaps asking for some sort of connection is too much for us to request. After all, he's repeated the same claims over and over again, so they must be right at this point, no?
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...