Science and Religion Converge

[jarofthoughts]

@ Octavia

Wow... Didn't take long before you confirmed what I said about it being a superficial way for people to make themselves seem superior to others. So, since I'm not in kindergarten any more, and thus do not fall for this crap, allow me to translate what you just said, for the benefit and amusement of the general public.

Sounds like your ego is making you feel inferior.

Translation: "If you do not understand it, it is your fault. It cannot possibly be because I am talking out of my butt."

Its got nothing to do with a pecking order.

Translation: "I don't want you to think that I'm ranking you, but just so we're clear, I am above you in that pecking order we don't have."

I thinks its more about courage and ability to get out one's armchair and start studying.

Translation: "I cannot press this point enough...It's all YOUR fault. Because if you don't get it, it cannot possible be because I'm full of crap."

And yes it is meaningless to a degree because its unity is inconceivable by dualistic mentality.

Translation: "And yes, like all the things I'm going to use to feel superior to you, it will seem meaningless, mainly because it is. Also, I know how to string really nonsensical words together so it sounds as if they make sense."

Somthing that is dimesion-less - or oustide of dimenions. a single point.

Translation: "I am now going to try to appeal to some obscure science reference, really hoping that you haven't read any quantum physics. Hey, it worked for Deepak Chopra!"

Absolute is unity - everything that exists is dualistic.

Translation: "At this point I'm just shooting off stuff that I think sounds impressive."

Black-white, light-dark... good-evil life-death everything that 'exists' around us in material can be negated by an opposite

Translation: "Oh, this sounded really impressive. You're bound to be taken in now. Don't think too hard about it though, or you might notice that what I just said is utter nonsense."

In the Absolute realm there are no opposites, just One. Its rather like quantum superposition - its neither exists nor not exists, but both and niether at the same time.

Translation: "I read an article about quantum theory once. I didn't understand any of it, but I'm betting you don't either so I that can spout that stuff here and make it seem as if the ******** I'm talking about somehow is connected to science."

I can appreciate its hard to grasp intellectually - it is supposed to be.

Translation: "Again, it's all your fault for not getting this wonderful nonsensical point I'm trying to make. Don't worry. Just worship at my feet and everything will be fine. At least my ego/bank-account will be."

But it is the essence of all mystic schools - to find one's negation and annihilate oneself into the Absolute.

Translation: "At this point I'm not even trying any more. Seriously, can't you see how wise and superior I am?"

God is a dualistic concept - so it cannot be Absolute.

Translation: "And finally, an appeal to the flawed characteristics of this old fashioned "god" that people keep talking about. That stuff is SO Bronze-age by now... surely we need some new nonsense to replace it with. Hey look! All new and shiny nonsense!!!"

 

[painted wolf]

This point is meaningless.

Its called absolute because there is no-thing less that it. It is indivisible. It has nothing to do with God or religion or superiority. Its a numerical concept.

uh huh... If it is as you say... then it is beyond human comprehension as everyone filters reality through the mushy confines of our brains.

To claim to know "Absolute" anything is the height of hubris and totally ignorant of reality IMHO!

wa:do

 

[AxisMundi]

This is mainly directed at the people who align themselves with science. I don't profess to have a certain side, but I'll explain more at the end.

Why is it that atheists so vehemently reject all God and religion? As I see it, religion, science, and philosophy are all facets of the same gem trying to convey the same point and message. I'm aware that there are certain elements of religion that are incompatible (from an atheists viewpoint) with science and philosophy and logic, because there is simply no evidence for it. By this, I am mainly referring to the presence of "noun-gods." The monotheistic or polytheistic religions that claim a God that can intervene in our worldly realm. But why do these approaches have to be taken literally? I see them out-right rejected by atheists, rather than interpreted for their metaphorical meaning and message. I'm all for debate, but these concepts are too quickly scrapped. Religion should be a highly individual path -- often religious teachings are distorted through history by "authorities" who know no more than the average person.

Science and religion are pointing in the same direction. That is, the Oneness, the Ultimate Reality of everything. Science approaches it by explaining it, breaking it down mechanically, rationally, logically. Religion has a myriad of approaches to explaining reality. But in general it is trying to convey that reality "just is." The Ultimate Reality, the Universe just is. How is that wrong or different from explaining it scientifically? They two different ways of saying the same thing. The Universe speaks to people in different ways. There are 6 billion of us on this planet -- you cannot expect everyone to realize TRUTH by the same method. Let's take a micro example. We're sitting on chairs. Science may describe the solidity of the chair by explaining particle theory, etc. How is that different from saying it "just IS"? Macro-mize (I know, not a word) and it applies to the Universe as a whole. Religions can be distorted and skewed in their meaning. They are adapted through history based on social and political conditions. But the underlying message runs through ALL religions, and through SCIENCE. It simply takes on a different path. I have no issue with religions being refuted, disproved, etc., but in doing so, so many people ignore the UNDERLYING current and profess themselves atheists too quickly.

From my experience, atheists reject God, and then proclaim that particular religion invalid because of that. Religion has more purpose than just the existence of God(s). Science is not flawless either. Look at the inductive problem, for example. And if a scientific theory is thought to be proven, but in the end new discoveries bring us new knowledge that proves the theory obsolete, people do not instantly proclaim all of science to be wrong. Religion is looked at too narrowly. People reject religious views, but fail to explore it on their own -- which is ultimately where real meaning can be derived from.

It's not the refutation and arguments against dogma and other burdens on spirituality that I have a problem with. Those things SHOULD be refuted. They get in the way of actual meaning. I just want to clearly state that.

This post is slanted in view of religion against science, but it's for purpose of debate. The argument could easily be flipped around. (I just don't like the attitude of atheists in general.) Religion is just as guilty as rejecting science, and not realizing that science is trying to point at the same thing religion is trying to point at. World religions are stunted by dogmas and fallacies that I do believe should be eliminated through argument and debate. I hope this makes sense. It makes a lot more sense intuitively where it comes together in my head. It's very hard to find the right words to convey what I'm trying to say, and I am not convinced I did it adequately. It would take a book to do that, I imagine. As for me personally I don't take on a theistic view. I have a highly personalized view that combines pantheism (verb Gods), Oneness, Ultimate Reality, Science, and Philosophy. So I guess I'm not a theist in the "traditional sense". But I understand how all religions are trying to say the same thing.

The goal should be unbiased search for truth!

The Scientific Method - a complex system based on repeatable tests and observation.

Relgiion - based pretty much on poetic license of observed events.

I'm sorry, but science and relgiion are like oil and water. As one is based on the scientific method, and the other purely on faith, ne'er the twain shall meet.

 

[Octavia156]

@ Octavia

Wow... Didn't take long before you confirmed what I said about it being a superficial way for people to make themselves seem superior to others. So, since I'm not in kindergarten any more, and thus do not fall for this crap, allow me to translate what you just said, for the benefit and amusement of the general public.



Translation: "If you do not understand it, it is your fault. It cannot possibly be because I am talking out of my butt."



Translation: "I don't want you to think that I'm ranking you, but just so we're clear, I am above you in that pecking order we don't have."



Translation: "I cannot press this point enough...It's all YOUR fault. Because if you don't get it, it cannot possible be because I'm full of crap."



Translation: "And yes, like all the things I'm going to use to feel superior to you, it will seem meaningless, mainly because it is. Also, I know how to string really nonsensical words together so it sounds as if they make sense."



Translation: "I am now going to try to appeal to some obscure science reference, really hoping that you haven't read any quantum physics. Hey, it worked for Deepak Chopra!"



Translation: "At this point I'm just shooting off stuff that I think sounds impressive."



Translation: "Oh, this sounded really impressive. You're bound to be taken in now. Don't think too hard about it though, or you might notice that what I just said is utter nonsense."



Translation: "I read an article about quantum theory once. I didn't understand any of it, but I'm betting you don't either so I that can spout that stuff here and make it seem as if the ******** I'm talking about somehow is connected to science."



Translation: "Again, it's all your fault for not getting this wonderful nonsensical point I'm trying to make. Don't worry. Just worship at my feet and everything will be fine. At least my ego/bank-account will be."



Translation: "At this point I'm not even trying any more. Seriously, can't you see how wise and superior I am?"



Translation: "And finally, an appeal to the flawed characteristics of this old fashioned "god" that people keep talking about. That stuff is SO Bronze-age by now... surely we need some new nonsense to replace it with. Hey look! All new and shiny nonsense!!!"

Your attempts at sarcasm make you seem very childish. I'm so sorry you have got so upset. Perhaps you'd be better off not reading my posts as they obviously irritate you.

I wonder though - why not try to understand my points before you knock them one by one?

I totally understand why you feel so inferior - If you wish to remedy your lack of understanding I can recommend you some books on Hegeliam Abolsute Monism, Quantum Superposition and Hermetic Qabalah. That way you won't need to write such stupid posts in future.

 

[Octavia156]

uh huh... If it is as you say... then it is beyond human comprehension as everyone filters reality through the mushy confines of our brains.

To claim to know "Absolute" anything is the height of hubris and totally ignorant of reality IMHO!

wa:do

It is Absolutely beyond human conception :drool: I agree with you entirely and I certainly don't know the absolute.

I express it only as my teachers have explained it to me... it one of those things I can imagine in theory, but certianly have no gnosis of it at present. A lot of work between me and that level understanding!!!

If you are interesed in researching more about The Absolute in practise you should read the philosopher Hegel. He uses the idea of the Absolute as the basis of his philosophical treatise., or check this thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/absolute-monism/42032-what-exactly.html

I do however find it a useful exercise in negation - trying to concieve of something that is and is-not is a meaty meditation

 

[Tiapan]

I don't disagree "Just is" seems a valid answer to many complex questions for many people, but to me it is a concept that is intellectually bankrupt.

Cheers

 

[jarofthoughts]

Your attempts at sarcasm make you seem very childish.

Attempts? I think I was pretty spot on!

I'm so sorry you have got so upset.

Not upset. Try amused.

Perhaps you'd be better off not reading my posts as they obviously irritate you.

Oh, I'm having all kinds of fun ridiculing your nonsense.

I wonder though - why not try to understand my points before you knock them one by one?

Wonder no more! I understood them. Saw them for the meaningless bull they are. THEN I knocked them down one by one. :beach:

I totally understand why you feel so inferior

With respect to proving my points you just keep on giving, don't you? ^_^

If you wish to remedy your lack of understanding I can recommend you some books on Hegeliam Abolsute Monism, Quantum Superposition and Hermetic Qabalah. That way you won't need to write such stupid posts in future.

If what I have read of you so far reflects your understanding of the above subjects I have this to say about it;

I think you are misrepresenting Hegel by taking his ideas way beyond their original intention and in any case his theories are scientifically bankrupt.
You really need to read more Quantum Theory because right now it appears as if you've read a few bits and pieces here and there, and you didn't really understand any of them. Granted, Richard Feynman stated that understanding Quantum Physics is all but impossible, but that doesn't mean that you can inject whatever meaning you want into it.
As for Hermetic Qabalah, you can keep that hodgepodge of over-mystified nonsense along with the many many superficially power-structured quasi-organisations that proliferated it.

In other words: I call cow-pooh.

 

[Meow Mix]

Just throwing this out there: there are a lot of pseudo-scientific New Age mumbo jumbo books full of half-baked quackery in terms of understanding the metaphysics behind quantum mechanics (such as the wave function and quantum superposition). By a lot I mean a lot, probably more quack books than there are legitimate books.

That being said, many people pick up their "understanding" of QM through highly dubious and disreputable sources lacking much to say in the way of actual science and sound metaphysics.

The day that people stop supporting their beliefs by saying consciousness causes collapse of the wave function (WRONG!), that quantum superposition shows that something can be/not-be at the same time in physical reality (WRONG!), and that anything "is" energy (usually the claim is that we "are" energy or that light "is" energy, which is WRONG!) will be a very happy day to celebrate indeed. I don't know how that garbage has been surviving since the 80's considering the easier access to actual scientific sources now.

 

[Reptillian]

Just throwing this out there: there are a lot of pseudo-scientific New Age mumbo jumbo books full of half-baked quackery in terms of understanding the metaphysics behind quantum mechanics (such as the wave function and quantum superposition). By a lot I mean a lot, probably more quack books than there are legitimate books.

That being said, many people pick up their "understanding" of QM through highly dubious and disreputable sources lacking much to say in the way of actual science and sound metaphysics.

The day that people stop supporting their beliefs by saying consciousness causes collapse of the wave function (WRONG!), that quantum superposition shows that something can be/not-be at the same time in physical reality (WRONG!), and that anything "is" energy (usually the claim is that we "are" energy or that light "is" energy, which is WRONG!) will be a very happy day to celebrate indeed. I don't know how that garbage has been surviving since the 80's considering the easier access to actual scientific sources now.

“As Deepak Chopra taught us, quantum physics means anything can happen at any time for no reason. Also, eat plenty of oatmeal and animals never had a war. Who’s the real animals?”
-Professor Hubert J Farnsworth "Futurama"

 

[Meow Mix]

“As Deepak Chopra taught us, quantum physics means anything can happen at any time for no reason. Also, eat plenty of oatmeal and animals never had a war. Who’s the real animals?”
-Professor Hubert J Farnsworth "Futurama"

I love that show.

"Oh, I suppose I could part with one doomsday device and still be feared."

 

[Reptillian]

I love that show.

"Oh, I suppose I could part with one doomsday device and still be feared."

I can't decide whether The Professor or Zoidberg is my favorite character. This new season has been great.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Just throwing this out there: there are a lot of pseudo-scientific New Age mumbo jumbo books full of half-baked quackery in terms of understanding the metaphysics behind quantum mechanics (such as the wave function and quantum superposition). By a lot I mean a lot, probably more quack books than there are legitimate books.

You are absolutely right of course.

For a nice and entertaining introduction to Quantum Physics I would recommend "Quantum Theory Cannot Hurt You" by Marcus Chown. It's the book that got me hooked.

Quantum Theory Cannot Hurt You: Amazon.co.uk: Marcus Chown: Books

 

[Octavia156]

The day that people stop supporting their beliefs by saying consciousness causes collapse of the wave function (WRONG!), that quantum superposition shows that something can be/not-be at the same time in physical reality (WRONG!), and that anything "is" energy (usually the claim is that we "are" energy or that light "is" energy, which is WRONG!) will be a very happy day to celebrate indeed. I don't know how that garbage has been surviving since the 80's considering the easier access to actual scientific sources now.

Are you a Physicist Meow Mix?? Because if you are I need you to correct me and explain where and why I'm wrong

I teach that observation causes the collapse of the wave-function, I also teach that Quantum superposition explains how a sub-atomic particle can be in two states simultaneously and that everything above absolute zero 'emits' energy.

Can you explain to me also how light is NOT energy as I understand it ALL Energy is Light.

 

[Meow Mix]

Are you a Physicist Meow Mix?? Because if you are I would like you to correct me and explain whay I'm wrong

I teach that observation causes the collapse of the wave-function, I also teach that Quantum superpostion shows that a sub-atomic particle can be in two states simultaneously and that everything above absolute zero 'emits' energy.

Can you explain to me also how light is NOT energy.

I'm a physics grad student, don't have much in the way of published yet (never bothered with undergrad publishing) so I don't know if the word "physicist" applies to me yet -- but close enough.

1) Observation does not collapse the wave-function because the wave-function doesn't have physical existence. Wave-functions are just a tool to explain a characteristic of matter; not an ontologically existent phenomenon -- just like i has no physical equivalent.

Sometimes in science we use ideas simply to help us conceptualize what's going on that don't correspond to reality: a good example is the wave-function, another is Feynman's many-paths interpretation of quantum electrodynamics which basically integrates ALL paths particles can take as if they are "really" taking all paths -- but in reality, they don't. It's just a useful way of THINKING about it and it happens to produce correct answers.

"Observation causes collapse" is an ooooold misconception of the metaphysics of QM started by Eugene Wigner and a few others, was picked up by David Bohm; but these men were terrible at metaphysics (though, good at physics proper). Bohr, Einstein, even Heisenberg and the other founders of QM recognized it for the baloney that it is (eventually the term "quantum quackery" was coined to describe it).

The standard interpretation of the wave-function (which understands that it is non-real) is the Copenhagen Interpretation. Recently work has been done by Roland Omnes et. al. regarding returning realism to QM instead of thought-tools like wave-functions using the concept of quantum decoherence. (See: Quantum decoherence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). All in all, "consciousness causes collapse" is bunk/nonsense.

2) Quantum superposition does not mean that anything is in two contradictory states simultaneously in reality. Again, this is a thought-tool that produces correct answers, not a statement about what really exists. Schroedinger's cat is very much either dead or alive, but it is useful to think of it as dead-alive for some QM computations.

For instance, many students have no idea why long division works. They know that it produces correct answers, but they have no idea why sequential steps of short divisions, subtractions, etc. produce a correct answer. It does allow them to perform an otherwise potentially complicated procedure with limited comprehension of the scope of mathematics behind it, though. This is exactly like that: thinking of quantum superposition as actually defying logical laws like excluded middle and noncontradiction let us "skip steps" in the calculation, using a short and easily "conceivable" method through which to get the right answer: but it doesn't mean anything in reality. It doesn't mean anything is actually both X and not-X at the same time and in the same respect.

The public scientific media has done a poor job of relaying this to the public, which is why I made the comment about how many books are floating around out there that are just awful at conveying metaphysics behind QM to the public. To dispell a lot of these QM myths I recommend "Quantum Philosophy" by Roland Omnes. Funnily enough, its title reeks of New Age tripe; but it's not: it's actually the best, most accurate "popular science" book out there about the actual metaphysics behind QM.

3) Everything above absolute zero does possess energy, even those things at absolute zero. I'm not sure what you mean by "emits" energy though... lots of transferring is definitely the case.

4) Light is not energy in the same sense that light is not length. Energy, mass, length -- these are examples of attributes, not ontologically existing things. You will never find a clump of "energy" in the universe any more than you will find a clump of "length." You will only find things which possess energy or length as attributes.

Light "isn't" energy because light possesses energy; which are two different statements. Light comes in quanta called photons, which possess energy. They aren't "made of" energy, they possess it. Photons are interesting because they don't possess rest mass, but that doesn't make them "energy." That would be confusing a thing with its attribute, which would be sort of like calling a ruler "length."

 

[Octavia156]

As for Hermetic Qabalah, you can keep that hodgepodge of over-mystified nonsense along with the many many superficially power-structured quasi-organisations that proliferated it.

In other words: I call cow-pooh.

Do you know all this from experience? Have you personally applied the Scientific Method to Hermetics and found it to be false?

 

[Octavia156]

I'm a physics grad student, don't have much in the way of published yet (never bothered with undergrad publishing) so I don't know if the word "physicist" applies to me yet -- but close enough.

1) Observation does not collapse the wave-function because the wave-function doesn't have physical existence. Wave-functions are just a tool to explain a characteristic of matter; not an ontologically existent phenomenon -- just like i has no physical equivalent.

Sometimes in science we use ideas simply to help us conceptualize what's going on that don't correspond to reality: a good example is the wave-function, another is Feynman's many-paths interpretation of quantum electrodynamics which basically integrates ALL paths particles can take as if they are "really" taking all paths -- but in reality, they don't. It's just a useful way of THINKING about it and it happens to produce correct answers.

"Observation causes collapse" is an ooooold misconception of the metaphysics of QM started by Eugene Wigner and a few others, was picked up by David Bohm; but these men were terrible at metaphysics (though, good at physics proper). Bohr, Einstein, even Heisenberg and the other founders of QM recognized it for the baloney that it is (eventually the term "quantum quackery" was coined to describe it).

The standard interpretation of the wave-function (which understands that it is non-real) is the Copenhagen Interpretation. Recently work has been done by Roland Omnes et. al. regarding returning realism to QM instead of thought-tools like wave-functions using the concept of quantum decoherence. (See: Quantum decoherence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). All in all, "consciousness causes collapse" is bunk/nonsense.

2) Quantum superposition does not mean that anything is in two contradictory states simultaneously in reality. Again, this is a thought-tool that produces correct answers, not a statement about what really exists. Schroedinger's cat is very much either dead or alive, but it is useful to think of it as dead-alive for some QM computations.

For instance, many students have no idea why long division works. They know that it produces correct answers, but they have no idea why sequential steps of short divisions, subtractions, etc. produce a correct answer. It does allow them to perform an otherwise potentially complicated procedure with limited comprehension of the scope of mathematics behind it, though. This is exactly like that: thinking of quantum superposition as actually defying logical laws like excluded middle and noncontradiction let us "skip steps" in the calculation, using a short and easily "conceivable" method through which to get the right answer: but it doesn't mean anything in reality. It doesn't mean anything is actually both X and not-X at the same time and in the same respect.

The public scientific media has done a poor job of relaying this to the public, which is why I made the comment about how many books are floating around out there that are just awful at conveying metaphysics behind QM to the public. To dispell a lot of these QM myths I recommend "Quantum Philosophy" by Roland Omnes. Funnily enough, its title reeks of New Age tripe; but it's not: it's actually the best, most accurate "popular science" book out there about the actual metaphysics behind QM.

3) Everything above absolute zero does possess energy, even those things at absolute zero. I'm not sure what you mean by "emits" energy though... lots of transferring is definitely the case.

4) Light is not energy in the same sense that light is not length. Energy, mass, length -- these are examples of attributes, not ontologically existing things. You will never find a clump of "energy" in the universe any more than you will find a clump of "length." You will only find things which possess energy or length as attributes.

Light "isn't" energy because light possesses energy; which are two different statements. Light comes in quanta called photons, which possess energy. They aren't "made of" energy, they possess it. Photons are interesting because they don't possess rest mass, but that doesn't make them "energy." That would be confusing a thing with its attribute, which would be sort of like calling a ruler "length."

Wow thank you Meow Mix - you explain yourself beautifully (and yes - you can call yourself a Physicist imo - if you can't who can!?)

A couple of questions:

1) and 2) This is really amazing. You've highlighted such an important point - QM became instrumentalist in order to create shortcuts to the right answers. This is so helpful - the map is not the territory

3) I understood that at absolute zero particles had no internal energy - do they still possess potenial energy at this state depite having no kinetic?

What I mean by 'emits' is simple - I'm at 37C so I am emitting electromag rad in the Infra-red part of the spectrum. If I was any hotter I might start emitting visible, even hotter still and I'd be emitting X-rays. All matter above -273 is emitting a part of the EMS - am I wrong here?


4) Of course. thank you for putting it so plainly.

Are you saying that mass and energy have no ontological existance?


If photons have no rest mass - what have they? if all they possess is energy what class of phenomenon do you place them if not pure energy?

If light comes in packets how can it be polarised?

What is light (EMS) by your definition?

 

[jarofthoughts]

Do you know all this from experience? Have you personally applied the Scientific Method to Hermetics and found it to be false?

Nope, and nor is there a need to, since I know that every mystery ever solved has turned out to be...not magic.

And since no-one has ever in the history of the world been able to provide evidence that there even is such a thing as the supernatural, by extension every proposition that relies on, implies, or in any other way is connected to magic or the supernatural is by definition humbug until proven otherwise.

However, if one was to test it (and depending on available resources and time I would be more than willing to give it a shot) Hermetics is such a bundled up mass of mumbo-jumbo that you would have to be somewhat more specific as to the exact phenomenon to be tested. In other words, you'll have to describe a testable hypothesis.
I'll leave that little nugget up to you though.

Challenge hereby delivered. ^_^

 

[Meow Mix]

Wow thank you Meow Mix - you explain yourself beautifully (and yes - you can call yourself a Physicist imo - if you can't who can!?)

A couple of questions:

1) and 2) This is really amazing. You've highlighted such an important point - QM became instrumentalist in order to create shortcuts to the right answers. This is so helpful - the map is not the territory

Yep, you got it! :yes: This move to nonrealism as an explanation drove Einstein absolutely insane, eventually leading to his quip that "God does not play dice with the universe." He also commented once to one of the early nonrealists, "Do you really believe the moon isn't there if you're not looking at it?"

Since the early days they've realized why nonrealist interpretations couldn't be the case (and hence called them quantum quackery): They're unfalsifiable, which is true of many interpretations but furthermore: science is realist. The problem with quantum mechanics as currently understood is that it must be described without locality or without realism (See: Bell's theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Ultimately this means exactly what it sounds like: we don't have a complete theory of quantum mechanics yet. At least we know for a fact we don't have a theory of quantum gravity yet, for starters.

Even so, it's the most accurate theoretical-to-experimental branch of science yet in existence: sometimes theory predicts experiment so exactly that the theory gets seven decimal places correct before the experiments are even done. Chilling!

3) I understood that at absolute zero particles had no internal energy - do they still possess potenial energy at this state depite having no kinetic?

What I mean by 'emits' is simple - I'm at 37C so I am emitting electromag rad in the Infra-red part of the spectrum. If I was any hotter I might start emitting visible, even hotter still and I'd be emitting X-rays. All matter above -273 is emitting a part of the EMS - am I wrong here?

Well, abs. zero would still have kinetic motion (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle), but the problem is attaining absolute zero in the first place: thermodynamics suggests that it's impossible since there can be no system at abs. zero that's part of a larger thermodynamic system... it's sort of like trying to create a complete, perfect vacuum: not even space is a perfect vacuum.

As for radiation, Planck actually thought entropy vanishes at absolute zero but since then it's been thought that entropy merely approaches zero. I forget what the dude's name that worked on this though. I'm not a solid state physics girl though, more of a cosmology student... sorry.

4) Of course. thank you for putting it so plainly.

Are you saying that mass and energy have no ontological existance?

Well that's a really tough question. They have no isolated ontological existence. Can it be said that attributes exist? Does "length" have ontological existence? I don't know... that's pretty deep stuff. I just know that none of it exists on its own anywhere, it only exists insofar as something which does exist for sure carries it as an attribute.

This same conundrum happened in mathematics when they stopped talking about "three apples" and just started talking about "three." In fact, Lewis Carroll found this so odd that he made the perfect metaphor: Alice had surely seen a cat without a grin before, but never a grin without a cat!

Can there be grins without cats, do abstractions have ontological existence? I have some opinions on some small areas of this question, but I don't think anyone has the answer for this one just yet. Good question!

If photons have no rest mass - what have they? if all they possess is energy what class of phenomenon do you place them if not pure energy?

If light comes in packets how can it be polarised?

What is light (EMS) by your definition?

Well photons do have "mass" in the sense that they have energy: after all, E = mc^2. (It's easy to think of it in terms of momentum, p: E/c = p = mv. Since "v" is for velocity, and the velocity of light is "c," we can instead say E/c = p = mc, get rid of the middle for E/c = mc, multiply both sides by c per algebra for E = mc^2).

What it means to have no "rest mass" simply means something odd, but exactly what it sounds like: the particle never rests. It must always travel at c, which is why such weird stuff happens in relativity like time dilation, lengthening in the direction of motion, etc. Light does have momentum (p = E/c), and therefore "mass" in a sense (since energy IS mass).

Polarization just has to do with the oscillations of the waves of light, but that's not what you asked -- you noted that light comes in particles. Well, that is exactly the problem: we can treat light as either waves or particles, "wavicles," but that just means that they are some as-yet undescribed thing which has similar properties to both. That's why QM is weird, and that's why we use quantum superposition (the idea of "wavicles") to just make things easier so we can, as Bohr said, "shut up and calculate." Physicsts are moving towards garnering a realist understanding of just what the heck light actually is in reality though!

 

[Octavia156]

Meow Mix - you are fantastic - what a teacher

Can there be grins without cats?

No - but then cats are not abstractions.

Can there be length without rulers? Can there be volts without voltmeters? Did the colour Red exist before the eye evolved?
At some point there has to be a non-abstraction else all the other attributes are meaningless - Length of what?
Are not all attributes a statement of relation - are matter and energy such - or are they a bit different?
I see Momentum as an attribute - again, an attribute of what? Of anyTHING that has K?E - what thing has the KE: Mass and Energy Thus Mass and Energy can be considered non-abstractions?

Is the problem that we use the word mass to mean two things - a measurement but also to describe "Matter".

Matter consists of particles, Particles 'have' mass - but what are particles if not "Mass"?

Is is correct to say that Mass is Energy slowed down?


And lastly photons:
Has the paradox of wave-particle duality has been resolved?
I use the polarisation example as I thought it proved that photons could not be particles or else their nature had to be probablistic. {Polarising quanta through sin A means sin A probability of transmission}

Do you personally thing we will ever have a true realist view of QM?


I think this is the crux of the OP for me. We are all searching for a reductive explanation - for QM but also the other mysteries like Consciousness or even Life itself?

Is this where Science and Religion converge?

Aren't we all trying to solve the mystery of existance according to our view of the Universe?

The Mystics in their Meditation, The Magicians in their temples, and the ArchAngels in their Holy Hadron Colliders

 

[Octavia156]

Nope, and nor is there a need to, since I know that every mystery ever solved has turned out to be...not magic.

And since no-one has ever in the history of the world been able to provide evidence that there even is such a thing as the supernatural, by extension every proposition that relies on, implies, or in any other way is connected to magic or the supernatural is by definition humbug until proven otherwise.

This is the issue for me.

Atheists are so often content to sit back and wait for someone else to proved the evidene for them.
They bark at people to claim to have worked with something beyond their current apprehension, and instead of getting off their arses and finding out if they are right, they sit about and wait to be spoon fed.

How do you know there is no evidence out there?
What makes you think people who might have evidence would necessarily want to share it?

There are two kinds of people for me, the ones who believe nothing thing until being told otherwise and the ones who believe everything is possible until they have seen it to be false.

I think we are opposite people!