Come on, Creationists!

[Ella S.]

Well, can you defend them without asking them? If not, then you did not understand them

I don't think that's accurate. I can understand a conclusion without understanding the premises.

Lol, that won’t do. Neither of us? I know QM, and it does not entail anything you say. Shall I throw some algebra at you so that you believe me?

Do you know QM? I thought you said you did some math for quantum physicists. That's not quite the same thing.

Of course you don’t. Probably you do not even know what a wave function is.

but then, again, I have to ask. What gives you the courage to even address these issues? What would you think of me if I started pontificating about Chinese poetry, when everyone would notice immediately that I have no clue about Chinese poetry?

so, what makes QM, relativity, or physics in general such that to somehow empower the most clueless to pontificate about them without any fear?

Again, these are not my opinions. I am sharing the opinions of experts on this topic that I've known. I'm not giving my own opinion on the matter.

However, the point that you haven't made that I will concede to is that nobody else here knows the experts I'm referring to, making them essentially anonymous. As such, I probably shouldn't have said anything.

This was my mistake and I won't make it again in the future. If I ever reference another expert opinion, I will have their full argument and identity on hand.

 

[viole]

I accept expert opinions on relevant fields when I'm not personally able to form a more detailed opinion about them. I would not be able to defend them to another expert in that field.

It has very little to do with adding math that average people don't understand and hoping that they swallow it. I'm really not sure where you get such a bad faith interpretation of what I've said here.

Well, my personal recommendation is not to make an argument, that you are not able to defend. Because you will lose. All the time.
and if that is beyond your knowledge, then do not use it. Especially QM, whose ontology used to be very controversial.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Wildswanderer]

My personal recommendation to people asking those questions is: either get yourself a deep education in fundamental physics, which would require several years of study of mathematics, physics, etc. or just stop asking those questions, since the answers are not possibly accessible at their cognitive level.

Lol, so what you are condescendingly trying to say is if no normal person can grasp the nature of reality? Get real.

 

[Ella S.]

Well, my personal recommendation is not to make an argument, that you are not able to defend. Because you will lose. All the time.
and if that is beyond your knowledge, then do not use it. Especially QM, whose ontology used to be very controversial.

Ciao

- viole

I was not making an argument to begin with. I was pointing out (eta: what I believed to be) the consensus expert opinion on a given topic.

 

[Wildswanderer]

What a shame, but its your prob.
Meanwhile, atheists in our millions are getting along fine.

Not if they have nothing better than to do than to argue against something they claim can't be true.
They are obviously some of the most close-minded people on the planet.

 

[viole]

I don't think that's accurate. I can understand a conclusion without understanding the premises.

Yes, i also understand Kryptonite, even if I do not understand the premise that entails Superman. So?

However, the point that you haven't made that I will concede to is that nobody else here knows the experts I'm referring to, making them essentially anonymous. As such, I probably shouldn't have said anything.

Correct. Especially in QM, the chances of saying nonsense on account of what the internet says is very high, for people who did not study the subject.

Do you know QM? I thought you said you did some math for quantum physicists. That's not quite the same thing.

Qm is math. Nobody understands QM independently from its math.

This was my mistake and I won't make it again in the future. If I ever reference another expert opinion, I will have their full argument and identity on hand.

Very good.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ella S.]

Yes, i also understand Kryptonite, even if I do not understand the premise that entails Superman. So?

So it does not follow that I don't understand what QM physicists conclude simply because I don't fully understand how they reached those conclusions.

Correct. Especially in QM, the chances of saying nonsense on account of what the internet says is very high, for people who did not study the subject.

Which is why I didn't give any of my own opinions.

Qm is math. Nobody understands QM independently from its math.

QM certainly relies a great deal on math, but it's not a sub-discipline of math, is it? It's a discipline of physics, which is a natural science. This is not only a completely different field, but a completely different category of fields.

What you're giving me here is a fallacious appeal to your own unproven authority on a topic that isn't even your field of expertise. That's ridiculous.

If you have something genuinely pertinent and useful to discussion, I would like to hear it. So far all you have are baseless, condescending insults.

 

[viole]

Lol, so what you are condescendingly trying to say is if no normal person can grasp the nature of reality? Get real.

I m real. And everyone can study QM. It is not a question of intelligence. They just have to do their homework before pontificating about it. In the same way I would have to study Chinese poetry before pontificating about it. That is just what intellectual honesty dictates.

For instance, Do you understand QM? Shall we check that?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

QM certainly relies a great deal on math, but it's not a sub-discipline of math, is it? It's a discipline of physics, which is a natural science. This is not only a completely different field, but a completely different category of fields.

What you're giving me here is a fallacious appeal to your own unproven authority on a topic that isn't even your field of expertise. That's ridiculous.

If you have something genuinely pertinent and useful to discussion, I would like to hear it. So far all you have are baseless, condescending insults.

Ok, point taken. So, I suggest we start discussing about the properties of the wave function for the second most simple physical system. The one describing the spin of an electron. Nothing could be simpler than that, with the exception of the trivial single state system.

i will show you how including the observer into the wave equation will rid of any phenomena including collapse of the wave or anything like that.

that will require just some knowledge of complex vector spaces.

ready?

ciao

- viole

 

[Ella S.]

Ok, point taken. So, I suggest we start discussing about the properties of the wave function for the second most simple physical system. The one describing the spin of an electron. Nothing could be simpler than that.

i will show you how including the observer into the wave equation will rid of any phenomena including collapse of the wave or anything like that.

that will require just some knowledge of complex vector spaces.

ready?

ciao

- viole

No? I'm not going to argue about something that's outside of my field of expertise. I suggest that you don't, either.

 

[viole]

No? I'm not going to argue about something that's outside of my field of expertise. I suggest that you don't, either.

At this elementary level it should be the field of expertise of anyone with very basics scientific literacy. C.mon, that is just the study of a two state system. What could be simpler than that?

Would you shy away also if someone asks you to discuss classical physics? Like Newton and stuff?

ciao

- viole

 

[RestlessSoul]

Which was obvious, considering your posts.

and I told you to post the relevant math. I am a mathematician who did some work for quantum physicists, so I am not afraid of it. i asked you to throw anything you have at me, Just no links. I want to debate you, not links, unless you are author of their contents.

and if you do not have enough knowledge about it to sustain a rational, and scientific debate then, like in the case of weddings, object about it, or be silent forever. That would save you from future embarassement.

You might think I am being arrogant. But I am not. i just believe that we are all ignorant about most things. What I do not tolerate is pontificating about things we are ignorant about it. That would be like me pontificating about Chinese medieval poetry, when any post of mine about it, would make it obvious that I have no clue about the subject. Like you just did with quantum mechanics.

ciao

- viole

One can read Chinese poetry in English translation - I recommend the Ezra Pound collection ‘Cathay’ - and be able to contribute something to a discussion on the subject. Of course, one must place one’s trust in the reputation of the translator and interpreter, but this is something we all do all the time - trust in others, and in the veracity of what we are told. Are you seriously suggesting that someone who cannot follow the calculus can grasp nothing of the ontology revealed by theoretical physics? Granted, it may be problematic that there is no consensus regarding an appropriate ontology of QM, but that doesn’t mean the subject isn’t reasonable ground for philosophical, or even metaphysical enquiry.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I m real. And everyone can study QM. It is not a question of intelligence. They just have to do their homework before pontificating about it. In the same way I would have to study Chinese poetry before pontificating about it. That is just what intellectual honesty dictates.

For instance, Do you understand QM? Shall we check that?

Ciao

- viole

I understand what I have seen on the concept as well as most who have watched online information on QM I suppose. If they don't want lay people to come to these conclusions the people who put the information online need to explain it better.

 

[viole]

I understand what I have seen on the concept as well as most who have watched online information on QM I suppose. If they don't want lay people to come to these conclusions the people who put the information online need to explain it better.

So, would you be able to defend its tenets? You know, for instance, like the unitarity of its dynamic equations?

ciao

- viole

 

[Wildswanderer]

So, would you be able to defend its tenets? You know, for instance, like the unitarity of its dynamic equations?

ciao

- viole

No, that's why I'm asking questions about it...if you noticed. I never claimed to be able to do the equations.
I have no dog in the fight one way or the other as far as who is right about the implications.
What I said in essence was that if matter and energy change because of our observation, that would seem to call all observational science into question.

 

[Ella S.]

At this elementary level it should be the field of expertise of anyone with very basics scientific literacy.

Would you shy away also if someone asks you to discuss classical physics? Like Newton and stuff?

ciao

- viole

Probably. I don't remember much from my physics classes and I wouldn't be of much use in a conversation like that. It's not something that I use in my life.

As for this elementary level being the field of expertise of anyone with the very basics of scientific literacy, I honestly don't care here. That's really not the point.

The point is that you're chewing me out for trying to give what I believed to be the consensus opinion on a particular topic of experts in the relevant field and are trying to argue against that opinion.

You know that I can't hold a productive argument about quantum physics, why are you even trying? What are you trying to prove to me? That you're better at math than I am or that you're more literate on the topic? Why should I care what some anonymous user on the internet claims to know about quantum mechanics?

The only decent point you've made is a point that I had to make for you - that I shouldn't openly defer to private expert opinions. You want to turn this into an argument about quantum physics, but I'm not going to do that. I never made an argument about quantum physics.

I also don't trust you to lead the conversation on such a topic, because I don't know who you are or what your credentials are and, from what you've said so far, you don't actually have expertise on the topic at hand, anyway. Which is sort of hypocritical when you're lecturing me about not talking about subjects above my head, only to argue against expert opinion in a field you aren't educated in.

 

[viole]

No, that's why I'm asking questions about it...if you noticed. I never claimed to be able to do the equations.
I have no dog in the fight one way or the other as far as who is right about the implications.
What I said in essence was that if matter and energy change because of our observation, that would seem to call all observational science into question.

I like it when people ask questions. And want to learn. We are all ignorant about most things. I do that all the time. For instance, I have not much clue about genetics. And that is why I would never enter an evolutionary debate that deals with genetics and stuff.

what i criticize are the ignorants playing the experts, when it is clear they have no clue. When that happens, then I tend to be unforgiven.

ciao

- violw

 

[Audie]

Are you sure you read that right?

Its very straightforward.
If a person cannot explain something,
it means they dont understand it

 

[viole]

Probably. I don't remember much from my physics classes and I wouldn't be of much use in a conversation like that. It's not something that I use in my life.

As for this elementary level being the field of expertise of anyone with the very basics of scientific literacy, I honestly don't care here. That's really not the point.

The point is that you're chewing me out for trying to give what I believed to be the consensus opinion on a particular topic of experts in the relevant field and are trying to argue against that opinion.

You know that I can't hold a productive argument about quantum physics, why are you even trying? What are you trying to prove to me? That you're better at math than I am or that you're more literate on the topic? Why should I care what some anonymous user on the internet claims to know about quantum mechanics?

The only decent point you've made is a point that I had to make for you - that I shouldn't openly defer to private expert opinions. You want to turn this into an argument about quantum physics, but I'm not going to do that. I never made an argument about quantum physics.

I also don't trust you to lead the conversation on such a topic, because I don't know who you are or what your credentials are and, from what you've said so far, you don't actually have expertise on the topic at hand, anyway. Which is sort of hypocritical when you're lecturing me about not talking about subjects above my head, only to argue against expert opinion in a field you aren't educated in.

That begs the question: if you have no clue, how can you possibly trust anyone else?especially what you get from the internet, which is unreliable by default.

Well. Your problem is that the consensus shifted. Now the consensus is that the observation process, and the observers, must be included in the wave function. And that resolves all problems concerning measurements affecting reality, and similar nonsense. With the great advantage of using the same mathematical framework already available.

so, your case does not obtain. Not even ad popolum, since most physicists subscribe to this view, nowadays.

ciao

- viole

 

[Ella S.]

Its very straightforward.
If a person cannot explain something,
it means they dont understand it

It depends on what you mean by "explain." I can understand that the sky is blue, but that doesn't mean that I can explain why it's blue.