The Totality

What you think about how you think.
Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26382
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Totality

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Sep 27, 2016 2:08 am

Relinquish85 wrote:I am REALLY NOT religiously claiming that a banana and special relativity are all the same process simply because they exist in one universe created by a "God".
That is exactly what you have claimed. You are so confused you can't see that. :lol:


Now answer my question, that you keep avoiding. Do you agree there is absolutely no difference between your baseless claim for your re-named "God" ( Universal Consciousness) and Bertrand Russell's Teapot?


Are you aware that skeptics have their own "Teapot" that is supported by exactly the same evidence as Bertrand Russell's teapot and your renamed God.......absolutely Zero evidence.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster
The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the deity of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Pastafarianism (a portmanteau of pasta and Rastafarian), a social movement that promotes a light-hearted view of religion and opposes the teaching of intelligent design and creationism in public schools. According to adherents, Pastafarianism is a "real, legitimate religion, as much as any other religion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Flying Spags.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: The Totality

Postby Relinquish85 » Tue Sep 27, 2016 2:58 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:I am REALLY NOT religiously claiming that a banana and special relativity are all the same process simply because they exist in one universe created by a "God".
That is exactly what you have claimed. You are so confused you can't see that. :lol:


Now answer my question, that you keep avoiding. Do you agree there is absolutely no difference between your baseless claim for your re-named "God" ( Universal Consciousness) and Bertrand Russell's Teapot?


Are you aware that skeptics have their own "Teapot" that is supported by exactly the same evidence as Bertrand Russell's teapot and your renamed God.......absolutely Zero evidence.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster
The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the deity of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Pastafarianism (a portmanteau of pasta and Rastafarian), a social movement that promotes a light-hearted view of religion and opposes the teaching of intelligent design and creationism in public schools. According to adherents, Pastafarianism is a "real, legitimate religion, as much as any other religion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Flying Spags.jpg


You must have missed my answer. I'll post it again for you;

Ok. The reason I started this new thread on a different track (not referring to any form of divinity) is because I have actually taken your point that since I can't meet my burden of proof, it's entirely pointless to assert that it exists at all, especially since this is, after all, a science forum.

Now, back on topic.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26382
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Totality

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:24 am

Relinquish85 wrote: Now, back on topic.
I haven't got a clue what this thread is about. Look at the bottom of your opening post......

Last edited by Relinquish85 on Tue Sep 20, 2016 11:37 am, edited 4 times in total.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The Totality

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Sep 27, 2016 4:36 am

Relinquish85 wrote:You must have missed my answer. I'll post it again for you;

Ok. The reason I started this new thread on a different track (not referring to any form of divinity) is because I have actually taken your point that since I can't meet my burden of proof, it's entirely pointless to assert that it exists at all, especially since this is, after all, a science forum.

Now, back on topic.


I did read the entire thread.... what is the topic ? Matt says you are still claiming there is a God, what I read all too quickly is you want to yammer on about some kind of universe where all things are dependent on all other things???

Whatever it is, it seems to me you may have restated/contextualized/relabeled your Affiermative Statement but have committed the same error you say you wanted to avoid: you can't meet your, or any, burden of proof to establish what you are talking about exists at all. I'd like it, but don't expect it, to see a nice concise short as possible Affirmative Statement as to what you want to have established.

Go for it.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26382
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Totality

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Sep 27, 2016 5:41 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: I did read the entire thread.... what is the topic ?


I think Relinquish85 is trying to make the following two statements

1) There is a set of all things that exist in the universe.
2) Anything that exists in the universe belongs to that set.


It is hardly deep and meaningful and doesn't exactly take us anywhere new. :D

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The Totality

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Sep 27, 2016 6:09 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: I did read the entire thread.... what is the topic ?


I think Relinquish85 is trying to make the following two statements

1) There is a set of all things that exist in the universe.
2) Anything that exists in the universe belongs to that set.


It is hardly deep and meaningful and doesn't exactly take us anywhere new. :D

Maybe....but he takes off from there to say that each and every "thing" is dependent on all the other things without giving any explanation as to the mechanism. The tautology advanced doesn't deal at all with "The Eaten Apple Problem."....or since he avers his like of Bertrand Russell while seemingly never heard of The Teapot..."The Broken Teapot Problem." -?-

Matt: you surprise me again with your willingness to endlessly engage these woosters and word salad chefs. Can you identify the satisfaction you derive???______I find it totally perverse, and don't want to miss anything.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: The Totality

Postby Angel » Tue Sep 27, 2016 1:59 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Angel wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Angel wrote: Water defies gravity so is the light loosing it's pressure?
Water does not defy gravity.
Angel wrote: What is the sun really made of? Is it like the stars?
The sun is a star.

Science for five year olds : What is a star?
[


Where does rain come from then?

The sky. Water vapor condenses on airborne particles of dust. When enough has condensed that it loses its ability to stay up, it comes down.
Water goes up then comes down.

Water vapor circulates with air currents. Up down this way that way.
Water itself doesn't (except for a bit of windblown spray). The difference between water and water vapor is the speed of the molecule. Water vapor molecules move fast enough to overcome van der waals forces and can therefore go every which way, while in the liquid form, van der waals forces keep them close together, but not so tightly that they form a crystal lattice.
Does no water leave our atmosphere ever?

Probably some does. It is a heavy molecule, as gas molecules go, so not very much.



Like snowflakes ? :-)
Or like flesh and bones?
Was there a big bang in
my belly when a child was
created? O.O

So the molecules are the source
of water? What happens to the
water when they leave? Do they
take life with them or just dirt?
Are they the fire in the water?
Thanx for the link. I am finding
it most interesting :-)

Oh ya~ at what point does white light
become water molecules ?
Last edited by Angel on Tue Sep 27, 2016 2:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: The Totality

Postby Angel » Tue Sep 27, 2016 2:04 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: I did read the entire thread.... what is the topic ?


I think Relinquish85 is trying to make the following two statements

1) There is a set of all things that exist in the universe.
2) Anything that exists in the universe belongs to that set.


It is hardly deep and meaningful and doesn't exactly take us anywhere new. :D


Can you please go back to being one?
Thinking for yourself? hehe
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: The Totality

Postby Relinquish85 » Tue Sep 27, 2016 10:36 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: I did read the entire thread.... what is the topic ?


I think Relinquish85 is trying to make the following two statements

1) There is a set of all things that exist in the universe.
2) Anything that exists in the universe belongs to that set.


It is hardly deep and meaningful and doesn't exactly take us anywhere new. :D


I'm trying to demonstrate that 'that which seems to be you' actually always includes within it's own existence 'the totality of ALL that seems to be NOT you'.

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: The Totality

Postby Angel » Tue Sep 27, 2016 11:02 pm

There is only one original.
All else are copies.
Bits of the original but not
as good as the original.
One is in everything rather
than everything is in one.
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26382
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Totality

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 28, 2016 12:35 am

Angel wrote:So the molecules are the source of water?
Water is the name given to the molecule H2O, when large numbers of these molecules are in liquid form.

Water does not defy gravity. What happens is that when H2O is is a gaseous state or "steam" it weighs less per constant volume than H2O and thus the heavier "water" weighs more. The gaseous H2O floats to the top.

Angel wrote: What happens to the water when they leave?
They cannot leave as "water" and the molecule H2O are exactly the same thing.

Angel wrote: at what point does white light become water molecules ?
There is no such thing as "white light". There are electromagnetic wave form frequencies that are measured by your eyes that you perceive as colour. A combination of three different colours gives the illusion of "white" in your head. These are not molecules. White light cannot turn into water.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26382
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Totality

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 28, 2016 12:52 am

Relinquish85 wrote:I'm trying to demonstrate :

"that which seems to be you' actually always includes within it's own existence 'the totality of ALL that seems to be NOT you".


That is complete crap. There is a distant gas giant planet called Jupiter, It is definitely not me and I'm definitely not Jupiter. We've never been in the same room together.

How can the totality of Jupiter be included in my own existence?

Demonstrate your ridiculous false claim now, with a clear example.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26382
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Totality

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 28, 2016 12:56 am

Angel wrote:There is only one original. All else are copies. Bits of the original but not as good as the original. One is in everything rather than everything is in one.


Can you please stop posting your schizophrenic gibberish in this thread. I'm trying to discus something specific with Relinquish85

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: The Totality

Postby Relinquish85 » Wed Sep 28, 2016 1:39 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:I'm trying to demonstrate :

"that which seems to be you' actually always includes within it's own existence 'the totality of ALL that seems to be NOT you".


That is complete crap. There is a distant gas giant planet called Jupiter, It is definitely not me and I'm definitely not Jupiter. We've never been in the same room together.

How can the totality of Jupiter be included in my own existence?

Demonstrate your ridiculous false claim now, with a clear example.


'Matt Ellard' is definitely not 'Jupiter', and 'Jupiter' is definitely not 'Matt Ellard'.

'Jupiter' can be said to be a particular facet of 'Not Matt Ellard', and 'Matt Ellard' can be said to be a particular facet of 'Not Jupiter'.

'Matt Ellard' and 'Not Matt Ellard' are as utterly inseperable as 'up' and 'down', as are 'Jupiter' and 'Not Jupiter'.

If either one had never existed, the other could not have existed.

These apparent 'two' are actually 'one'.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26382
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Totality

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 28, 2016 1:59 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: There is a distant gas giant planet called Jupiter, It is definitely not me and I'm definitely not Jupiter. We've never been in the same room together.
How can the totality of Jupiter be included in my own existence?
Demonstrate your ridiculous false claim now, with a clear example.

Relinquish85 wrote:'Matt Ellard' is definitely not 'Jupiter', and 'Jupiter' is definitely not 'Matt Ellard'.
Correct

Relinquish85 wrote:'Jupiter' can be said to be a particular facet of 'Not Matt Ellard',
You are saying the set of everything, that is not Matthew Ellard includes the object Jupiter. OK

Relinquish85 wrote:'Matt Ellard' and 'Not Matt Ellard' are as utterly inseperable as 'up' and 'down',
This is complete crap. You just clearly place Matthew Ellard and Jupiter in two totally separate sets. You completely failed to show any connection at all.

Relinquish85 wrote:If either one had never existed, the other could not have existed.
What? Are you insane? I didn't exist until 1961. Jupiter has existed for 4.5 billion years. Jupiter obviously can and has existed without Matthew Ellard.

You have just clearly demonstrated that your claim is complete nonsense and given a clear example why it is nonsense. :lol:

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: The Totality

Postby Angel » Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:05 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Angel wrote:There is only one original. All else are copies. Bits of the original but not as good as the original. One is in everything rather than everything is in one.


Can you please stop posting your schizophrenic gibberish in this thread. I'm trying to discus something specific with Relinquish85


If I were doing what you claim I am
doing I would gladly do as you ask yet
I am not doing what you claim I am
doing so ~ no. :-)
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: The Totality

Postby Angel » Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:07 am

Relinquish85 wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:I'm trying to demonstrate :

"that which seems to be you' actually always includes within it's own existence 'the totality of ALL that seems to be NOT you".


That is complete crap. There is a distant gas giant planet called Jupiter, It is definitely not me and I'm definitely not Jupiter. We've never been in the same room together.

How can the totality of Jupiter be included in my own existence?

Demonstrate your ridiculous false claim now, with a clear example.


'Matt Ellard' is definitely not 'Jupiter', and 'Jupiter' is definitely not 'Matt Ellard'.

'Jupiter' can be said to be a particular facet of 'Not Matt Ellard', and 'Matt Ellard' can be said to be a particular facet of 'Not Jupiter'.

'Matt Ellard' and 'Not Matt Ellard' are as utterly inseperable as 'up' and 'down', as are 'Jupiter' and 'Not Jupiter'.

If either one had never existed, the other could not have existed.

These apparent 'two' are actually 'one'.


Mat's totally acting more like a combo of
Venus & the moon.
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26382
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Totality

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:11 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Can you please stop posting your schizophrenic gibberish in this thread. I'm trying to discus something specific with Relinquish85
Angel wrote:If I were doing what you claim I am doing I would gladly do as you ask yet I am not doing what you claim I am doing so ~ no.
You are a mad schizophrenic Christian who posting gibberish in this thread.

What do you think Relinquish85's argument is? You don't know, do you, because you are simply trolling the thread and posting your insane gibberish? You have no interest in this discussion.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26382
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Totality

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:12 am

Angel wrote:Mat's totally acting more like a combo of Venus & the moon.

WTF does that even mean?

Mad people are very very boring. Go away and get professional help.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The Totality

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:41 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:If either one had never existed, the other could not have existed.
What? Are you insane? I didn't exist until 1961. Jupiter has existed for 4.5 billion years. Jupiter obviously can and has existed without Matthew Ellard.

You have just clearly demonstrated that your claim is complete nonsense and given a clear example why it is nonsense. :lol:


Very well done. An excellent demonstration of how getting down to brass tacks or specific examples bring clarity to the gibberish of general statements. Even Relinguish should see this clearly from the above. But......I bet he doesn't. There is a "high" that comes from speaking/thinking gibberish...like that "oceanic" feeling of being in contact with the entire Universe. Its not true....but it feels good.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: The Totality

Postby Relinquish85 » Wed Sep 28, 2016 3:29 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote: There is a distant gas giant planet called Jupiter, It is definitely not me and I'm definitely not Jupiter. We've never been in the same room together.
How can the totality of Jupiter be included in my own existence?
Demonstrate your ridiculous false claim now, with a clear example.

Relinquish85 wrote:'Matt Ellard' is definitely not 'Jupiter', and 'Jupiter' is definitely not 'Matt Ellard'.
Correct

Relinquish85 wrote:'Jupiter' can be said to be a particular facet of 'Not Matt Ellard',
You are saying the set of everything, that is not Matthew Ellard includes the object Jupiter. OK

Relinquish85 wrote:'Matt Ellard' and 'Not Matt Ellard' are as utterly inseperable as 'up' and 'down',
This is complete crap. You just clearly place Matthew Ellard and Jupiter in two totally separate sets. You completely failed to show any connection at all.

Relinquish85 wrote:If either one had never existed, the other could not have existed.
What? Are you insane? I didn't exist until 1961. Jupiter has existed for 4.5 billion years. Jupiter obviously can and has existed without Matthew Ellard.

You have just clearly demonstrated that your claim is complete nonsense and given a clear example why it is nonsense. :lol:


Even at the very beginning of the universe, the eventual existence of 'Matt Ellard' was already an absolute certainty. If it wasn't, it would have been a completely different universe, and so could not have been said to be 'Not Matt Ellard', because 'Matt Ellard' would never have come into existence at any time.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The Totality

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Sep 28, 2016 3:51 am

Relinq: there is no agreement in the scientific community that the Universe is that predetermined.

Matt and others....isn't this what quantum theory is all about? At its smallest basic building block level there is paradox and uncertainty called "Chaos Theory" when the same concept is applied to larger systems?

Anyhow, in the meantime...Relinq...do you have a single link from anything scientific-ish that supports your claim? I'd like to see how they frame it. Shirley something more than a bald assertion as you have done. Free will in a deterministic Universe. Does kinda blow my mind. The wonder of the ambiguity enough for me not to have to pick a side.......
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26382
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Totality

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 28, 2016 4:24 am

Relinquish85 wrote: Even at the very beginning of the universe, the eventual existence of 'Matt Ellard' was already an absolute certainty.
Absolute crap. What evidence do you have for this latest bit of complete garbage?

Try reading some basic science papers before posting again.

Scientific American / Why Quantum Mechanics denies pre-determinism.
Is the fact you are reading this story a decision you arrived at it by your own free choice, or was your interest programmed into the universe from the moment of the big bang?


Quantum mechanics is indeterministic, in that the outcomes of measurements are chosen at random from the slate of possibilities. So, if quantum effects help to shape our conscious choices, they sever the connection between us and the initial conditions of the universe.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... free-will/

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26382
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Totality

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 28, 2016 4:33 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Matt and others....isn't this what quantum theory is all about?
Yep. There are additional reasons, unrelated to quantum mechanics, that states the universe was not predetermined.

What is entertaining is that, if the entire universe and its future was predetermined, then what is the point in Relinquish85 posting here? He can't make an iota of difference to what happens next. so why bother? :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The Totality

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Sep 28, 2016 5:40 am

He has no choice in whether or not to post. At the moment of the Big Bang....it was preordained....including the color of his shorts.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: The Totality

Postby Relinquish85 » Wed Sep 28, 2016 7:26 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:He has no choice in whether or not to post. At the moment of the Big Bang....it was preordained....including the color of his shorts.

I know you're being sarcastic, but yeah, that's exactly right.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The Totality

Postby Gord » Wed Sep 28, 2016 8:25 am

Relinquish85 wrote:Even at the very beginning of the universe, the eventual existence of 'Matt Ellard' was already an absolute certainty. If it wasn't, it would have been a completely different universe, and so could not have been said to be 'Not Matt Ellard', because 'Matt Ellard' would never have come into existence at any time.

I used to think this was true, and I'd really like it to be true because it makes sense in a certain way, but it seems it's not. Well, if you accept the "many-worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics, then the eventual existence of everything is an absolute certainty, just not all in the same universe.

But as I was saying, I used to envision the Big Bang as the opening shot of a billiard game which managed to put every ball in a pocket. As soon as the cue ball was struck (the analogy to the Big Bang), the destination of each ball was set and could not be changed from within the domain of that tabletop (or to keep with the analogy, could not be changed by anything "within" that universe which was not already set to change it by the direction of the opening shot).

I just don't think that's true anymore. There are events that occur seemingly without cause (implications of quantum theory) which over cosmic scales mean randomness would emerge into the macroscopic universe where causality appears to otherwise be the rule. That means we can look around now and feel that causality has always had us set on one particular course, but still cannot depend on randomness never having emerged. In fact, the simple act of radioactive decay (a plausibly uncaused quantum event) could lead to an evolutionary mutation in a gene.

How frequently does quantum randomness propagate up into macroscopic behaviour? It certainly can't be a very great influence, or our macroscopic world would not appear as deterministic as it does. But it probably does propagate up in ways that a hypothetical outside source could detect over a large enough time span. I expect the age of the universe would have been long enough to allow quantum randomness to have altered the original deterministic outcome that we would otherwise expect to exist.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: The Totality

Postby Angel » Wed Sep 28, 2016 12:34 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Angel wrote:Mat's totally acting more like a combo of Venus & the moon.

WTF does that even mean?

Mad people are very very boring. Go away and get professional help.


It's a reference to sun signs. Hahaha

Are you done being the hero of war?
I'm getting bored with you pissing on
my hands (posts).
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: The Totality

Postby Angel » Wed Sep 28, 2016 12:39 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Matt and others....isn't this what quantum theory is all about?
Yep. There are additional reasons, unrelated to quantum mechanics, that states the universe was not predetermined.

What is entertaining is that, if the entire universe and its future was predetermined, then what is the point in Relinquish85 posting here? He can't make an iota of difference to what happens next. so why bother? :lol:


Is it the universe that determines the
actions of people or the actions of
people that determine the the results
of the universe. People cannot control
nature because they don't know how.
Not because they are unable to.
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: The Totality

Postby Angel » Wed Sep 28, 2016 12:43 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:He has no choice in whether or not to post. At the moment of the Big Bang....it was preordained....including the color of his shorts.


That's just a lame excuse for denying
responsibility . Grasshoppers use it to
spend all their time making music then
expect/ demand others feed them
during the winter.
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: The Totality

Postby Relinquish85 » Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:56 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote: Even at the very beginning of the universe, the eventual existence of 'Matt Ellard' was already an absolute certainty.
Absolute crap. What evidence do you have for this latest bit of complete garbage?

Try reading some basic science papers before posting again.

Scientific American / Why Quantum Mechanics denies pre-determinism.
Is the fact you are reading this story a decision you arrived at it by your own free choice, or was your interest programmed into the universe from the moment of the big bang?


Quantum mechanics is indeterministic, in that the outcomes of measurements are chosen at random from the slate of possibilities. So, if quantum effects help to shape our conscious choices, they sever the connection between us and the initial conditions of the universe.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... free-will/


Ever heard of 'pilot wave theory'?

https://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26382
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Totality

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Sep 29, 2016 3:56 am

Gord wrote:How frequently does quantum randomness propagate up into macroscopic behaviour? It certainly can't be a very great influence, or our macroscopic world would not appear as deterministic as it does. But it probably does propagate up in ways that a hypothetical outside source could detect over a large enough time span. I expect the age of the universe would have been long enough to allow quantum randomness to have altered the original deterministic outcome that we would otherwise expect to exist.


I take the more fundamental view. If any one example of a quantum mechanical random event takes place anywhere in the universe, then that immediately destroys the "pre-determined universe" concept.

Therefore, as atomic "half life" is a clear tested example of quantum mechanic randomness, then that ended the concept.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26382
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Totality

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:01 am

Angel goes off topic and wrote:Mat's totally acting more like a combo of Venus & the moon.
Matthew Ellard wrote:WTF does that even mean? Mad people are very very boring. Go away and get professional help.
Angel continues off topic and wrote: It's a reference to sun signs. Hahaha Are you done being the hero of war? I'm getting bored with you pissing on my hands (posts).
You have already clearly stated you are trolling in this post.

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=12865&start=6440#p538156

Angel wrote:People who don't know the difference between 1 & 2. This is trolling ~
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

"a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community"

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26382
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Totality

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:04 am

Angel, trolls some more and wrote: That's just a lame excuse for denying responsibility . Grasshoppers use it to spend all their time making music then expect/ demand others feed them during the winter.


A perfect example of your trolling style. :lol:

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The Totality

Postby Gord » Thu Sep 29, 2016 9:05 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Gord wrote:How frequently does quantum randomness propagate up into macroscopic behaviour? It certainly can't be a very great influence, or our macroscopic world would not appear as deterministic as it does. But it probably does propagate up in ways that a hypothetical outside source could detect over a large enough time span. I expect the age of the universe would have been long enough to allow quantum randomness to have altered the original deterministic outcome that we would otherwise expect to exist.

I take the more fundamental view. If any one example of a quantum mechanical random event takes place anywhere in the universe, then that immediately destroys the "pre-determined universe" concept.

I pretty much agree. But a single random event at some point in the universe might not have destroyed the predetermined existence of 'Matt Ellard' set out at the beginning of the universe, which is the point to which I was responding. :oldman:
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: The Totality

Postby Angel » Thu Sep 29, 2016 1:01 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Angel goes off topic and wrote:Mat's totally acting more like a combo of Venus & the moon.
Matthew Ellard wrote:WTF does that even mean? Mad people are very very boring. Go away and get professional help.
Angel continues off topic and wrote: It's a reference to sun signs. Hahaha Are you done being the hero of war? I'm getting bored with you pissing on my hands (posts).
You have already clearly stated you are trolling in this post.

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=12865&start=6440#p538156

Angel wrote:People who don't know the difference between 1 & 2. This is trolling ~
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

"a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community"


No. I am stating that I'm tired of
your trolling. You are clearly trying
to upset me but it's not working.
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: The Totality

Postby Angel » Thu Sep 29, 2016 1:04 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Angel, trolls some more and wrote: That's just a lame excuse for denying responsibility . Grasshoppers use it to spend all their time making music then expect/ demand others feed them during the winter.


A perfect example of your trolling style. :lol:


You are trolling my posts.
You don't like the way I speak.
In parables. Go troll a person
who speaks another language and
see how far that gets you.
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26382
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Totality

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Sep 30, 2016 12:37 am

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Definition of an Internet Troll
"a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community"[/quote]

Angel wrote: No. I am stating that I'm tired of your trolling. You are clearly trying to upset me but it's not working.
Please stop posting off topic posts in this thread.

If you want a chat, do so in the "community" sub-forum, set aside for that. We are attempting to have a conversation here on a particular topic, which you are attempting to ruin so we have to pay attention to you.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26382
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Totality

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Sep 30, 2016 12:40 am

Relinquish85 wrote: Ever heard of 'pilot wave theory'?
https://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/

Yes, and it has nothing to do with radioactive "half life" decay, which details that decay is totally random.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26382
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Totality

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Sep 30, 2016 12:43 am

Angel wrote:You are trolling my posts. You don't like the way I speak In parables Go troll a person who speaks another language and see how far that gets you.
Stop following me around the forum and stop trolling this thread with your incoherent poetry.


Return to “Brain, Mind, & Consciousness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests