• 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!

Your "deal-breaker." What is it and why?

PolyHedral

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
ManTimeForgot said:
Operationally you can have something which is close enough to random to approximate being random for all practical purposes, but there actually isn't anything which is truly random
Click to expand...
Quantum noise is truly random. It cannot be predicted by any physical theory. Additionally, FTL mechanisms break causality, because Relativity shows us that FTL is equivalent to backwards time travel, which allows effects to precede their causes.
 
ManTimeForgot

ManTimeForgot

Temporally Challenged
PolyHedral said:
Quantum noise is truly random. It cannot be predicted by any physical theory. Additionally, FTL mechanisms break causality, because Relativity shows us that FTL is equivalent to backwards time travel, which allows effects to precede their causes.
Click to expand...


To all of which I say "Nice Try, but Truly Random is BS." In order for quantum "noise" to be truly random it would require God; it would require God because you are invoking creation ex nihilo. You would literally have to admit that something is outside reality entirely and yet has effects because it requires an effect which came without any preceding instances of anything. In order to be truly random there cannot be any dependent variables at all; not predicted by any physical theory is not the same as no theory entirely.


If string theory were correct, then an observer could observe the strings and accurately predict particle pathing or whatever else it is that troubles us. If D'Espagnat is correct and some sort of hypercosmic "God" is correct, then being able to look at some manifold or cosmic aether that encompasses the whole universe would enable you to make accurate predictions about anything inside the universe (have to be outside the universe to do this, but whatever).


Retrocausality =/= No causality. Just because our brains lack the necessary architecture to properly appreciate it does not mean that causality of any sort does not exist. Something is still responsible for the existence of a change in something else.

MTF
 
krsnaraja

krsnaraja

Active Member
Magog said:
What is the one thing (belief, practice, whatever) that you could not give up, the "deal-breaker" of your belief system (or non-belief). There are probably aspects which you don't feel crucial and could (and maybe have) let slip, but what is it that you could not cast aside?

I'm a Buddhist and my deal- breaker is meditation. Why? Because it is the basis for the practice. If I did not meditate I would not consider myself to be a Buddhist.
Click to expand...


Real Buddhism does not allow you to go to one place then go to another place then to another. In Buddhism you stay where you are.
 
Photonic

Photonic

Ad astra!
PolyHedral said:
Quantum noise is truly random. It cannot be predicted by any physical theory. Additionally, FTL mechanisms break causality, because Relativity shows us that FTL is equivalent to backwards time travel, which allows effects to precede their causes.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna go crazy wacko physicist on you and simply say that the only reason for a truly random event is the lack of sophistication of the viewer in measuring it.

The reason an event may remain unpredictable is (in accordance to Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle) the observation of the viewer causing it to give measurements that are increasingly unreliable.

If we could find a way to measure both the position and momentum without disturbing the viewing in general, we could accurately predict just about anything.


As to breaking causality, it is certainly possible given the predicted results of being at the singularity of a black hole, which brings with it the possibility of being at every point in the universe at the same time. I would have to go into quite a bit of detail to explain why that is but if anyone wishes me to I would be glad to educate them on the topic.
 
PolyHedral

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
ManTimeForgot said:
You would literally have to admit that something is outside reality entirely and yet has effects because it requires an effect which came without any preceding instances of anything. In order to be truly random there cannot be any dependent variables at all; not predicted by any physical theory is not the same as no theory entirely.
Click to expand...
Randomness can't be predicted; that is the definition.

Also, you're assuming that reality is clear-cut and defined. This is wrong. The HUP is a fundmanetal property of realit, not a statement about observation.


If string theory were correct, then an observer could observe the strings and accurately predict particle pathing or whatever else it is that troubles us.
Click to expand...
The strings would also obey the uncertainty principle, however.

Retrocausality =/= No causality. Just because our brains lack the necessary architecture to properly appreciate it does not mean that causality of any sort does not exist. Something is still responsible for the existence of a change in something else.
Click to expand...
Yes, but then you get grandfather apradoxes and other such time-travel issues.

Photonic said:
If we could find a way to measure both the position and momentum without disturbing the viewing in general, we could accurately predict just about anything.
Click to expand...
You're under the impression that the HUP is a statement about our capabilities to do measurement; it isn't. It is a statement abotu the fundamental nature of reality, and that statement is that reality is fuzzy. It is not possible, even in principle, to short-circuit the HUP and get both a position and a momentum for a given particle. This is partially because the position of a "wave" is not really a sensible proposition. ;)

As to breaking causality, it is certainly possible given the predicted results of being at the singularity of a black hole, which brings with it the possibility of being at every point in the universe at the same time. I would have to go into quite a bit of detail to explain why that is but if anyone wishes me to I would be glad to educate them on the topic.
Click to expand...
(It's not possible to break causality form inside the black hole's event horizon. Spacetime doesn't let you.)
 
Photonic

Photonic

Ad astra!
PolyHedral said:
Randomness can't be predicted; that is the definition.

Also, you're assuming that reality is clear-cut and defined. This is wrong. The HUP is a fundmanetal property of realit, not a statement about observation.



The strings would also obey the uncertainty principle, however.


Yes, but then you get grandfather apradoxes and other such time-travel issues.


You're under the impression that the HUP is a statement about our capabilities to do measurement; it isn't. It is a statement abotu the fundamental nature of reality, and that statement is that reality is fuzzy. It is not possible, even in principle, to short-circuit the HUP and get both a position and a momentum for a given particle. This is partially because the position of a "wave" is not really a sensible proposition. ;)


(It's not possible to break causality form inside the black hole's event horizon. Spacetime doesn't let you.)
Click to expand...

I'm under the impression of nothing but the facts. I gave them to you you can chose to keep with your mathematical view (which is not true reality) or you can actually follow along with what physics actually is.

I understand you are a mathematician, I am an astrophysicist and a cosmologist. Your universe is seen through the lens of a tool used to describe what we see, instead of actually what we see. I can understand that.

Go tell your little theory to Leonard Susskind and Hawking, this is based on their research, not mine.

Poly I respect your opinion as a mathematician and a reasonable person, but it is in conflict with what we currently understand in physics.
 
Last edited:
H

Hari Krishna

New Member
Magog said:
What is the one thing (belief, practice, whatever) that you could not give up, the "deal-breaker" of your belief system (or non-belief). There are probably aspects which you don't feel crucial and could (and maybe have) let slip, but what is it that you could not cast aside?

I'm a Buddhist and my deal- breaker is meditation. Why? Because it is the basis for the practice. If I did not meditate I would not consider myself to be a Buddhist.
Click to expand...

Chanting of the Maha-mantra or great chant for liberation ....

Hari Krishna Hari Krishna,
Krishna Krishna Hari Hari
Hari Rama Hari Rama,
Rama Rama Hari Hari

There are no rules for chanting it, it can be chanted mentally, on japa beads, sung, or chanted congregationally in kirtan. These are the names of God which represent the fullest and most dynamic expression of the absolute truth.

Don't take my word for it ... try it yourself and see what you think.

Please chant this mantra and your life will be sublime :)
 
Stevicus

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Magog said:
What is the one thing (belief, practice, whatever) that you could not give up, the "deal-breaker" of your belief system (or non-belief). There are probably aspects which you don't feel crucial and could (and maybe have) let slip, but what is it that you could not cast aside?
Click to expand...

My deal-breaker would be dietary and other such restrictions. I have no use for any religion which presumes to tell its adherents what they can or can't eat, drink, or smoke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top