Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Atheism is incompatible with science


Only_

Recommended Posts

I, most certainly, do not have "all the answers", but, I do seek them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's OK, Walker, I am not offended by you. These are difficult subject matters. Your input, however contentious with me on "points", are valued.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, pallidin said:

You are only drinking from the cup (half empty), or filling it (half full)

Is this truly hard to understand?

But "you" didn't ask if the cup was being emptied or filled.

"You"  asked how full/empty it was :) 

 If "you" asked how filled or emptied it was then they are  entirely  different questions,  and the answers could be 50% filled or 50% emptied, depending on process. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr Walker said:

But "you" didn't ask if the cup was being emptied or filled.

"You"  asked how full/empty it was :) 

 If "you" asked how filled or emptied it was then they are  entirely  different questions,  and the answers could be 50% filled or 50% emptied, depending on process. 

Right, it entirely depends on process, which by default is always present.

Nothing is "static"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, Walker, I am not much different than you.

We both seek some sort of understanding to the "Grand Mystery"

Perhaps a short tune is in order...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, another tune, enjoy...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is "atheism incompatible with science"?

Of course it is, so too theists and agnostics.

Look, we simply do not know a vast portion of "Reality"

Most is currently "hidden" from our ability to detect or understand.

But our efforts to understand it are remarkable. We are curious creatures, loving to "know"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pallidin said:

Walker, here are 2 direct questions...

1) If you drink half a glass of beer is it half full or half empty?

2) If the bartender refills a new glass to halfway, is it half full or half empty?

Geeze, why is this so hard???????

You could say it's average

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, pallidin said:

I view our Reality as conforming to the "uncertainty principle"

"Absolutes" are for hard-liners.

Then show us the "uncertainty principle" on macroscopic objects.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am absolutely certain that this thread is going nowhere fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Then show us the "uncertainty principle" on macroscopic objects.

How can I? I am not an eminent physicist, so, you are "pushing"

That the "uncertainty principle" exists in the quantum realm is very well-established, and, the quantum underlies all of the macroscopic.

How it is expressed in the macro I guess you would have to ask an expert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, pallidin said:

How can I? I am not an eminent physicist, so, you are "pushing"

That the "uncertainty principle" exists in the quantum realm is very well-established, and, the quantum underlies all of the macroscopic.

How it is expressed in the macro I guess you would have to ask an expert.

No, I'm asking the person who made the claim.

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

No, I'm asking the person who made the claim.

The claim of what?

That quantum uncertainty is present in the macro? Of course it is, and MUST be, because it underlies Reality.

However, what is curious is that the quantum "bridge" from micro to macro has not yet been found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, pallidin said:

The claim of what?

That quantum uncertainty is present in the macro? Of course it is, and MUST be, because it underlies Reality.

However, what is curious is that the quantum "bridge" from micro to macro has not yet been found.

Actually no it's not. Not mathematically nor in any experimental data. 

What do you think the uncertainty principle is? 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, danydandan said:

What do you think the uncertainty principle is? 

Quasi-states and superposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, pallidin said:

The claim of what?

I view our Reality as conforming to the "uncertainty principle"

"Absolutes" are for hard-liners.

You're saying there are no absolutes because of the uncertainty principle.  

 

3 minutes ago, pallidin said:

That quantum uncertainty is present in the macro? Of course it is, and MUST be, because it underlies Reality.

However, what is curious is that the quantum "bridge" from micro to macro has not yet been found.

I thought decoherence explained why macroscopic objects don't behave as quantum particles.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, XenoFish said:

No, no, no, Pallidin, are you going to bring in the observer effect? Please tell me you're not.

No, the "observer-effect"is proven false, yet apparently some still believe it.

Thank you, BTW, for bringing that up. It is a serious layman misunderstanding of quantum physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rlyeh said:

I view our Reality as conforming to the "uncertainty principle"

"Absolutes" are for hard-liners.

You're saying there are no absolutes because of the uncertainty principle.  

 

I thought decoherence explained why macroscopic objects don't behave as quantum particles.

"Dechorence" is an extraordinary concept with considerable proof.

The "bridge", however, has never been established. It remains unknown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Quasi-states and superposition.

No. 

They are phenomenon caused by pure states, all Uncertainty is, is a lack of information. 

Although it appears the timing between the counts on a geiger counter near a weak radioactive sample. Is an actual example of quantum mechanical uncertainty because nobody could reduce the uncertainty in the results with more information. So that's pretty cool.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Just for arguments sake Pallidin. Can you support your claims? 

Which claims, and I will try my best (within limits, of course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, danydandan said:

No. 

They are phenomenon caused by pure states, all Uncertainty is, is a lack of information. 

How do you define "information" with regards to quantum states?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me assist: "Information" in quantum theory is the probability state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, pallidin said:

How do you define "information" with regards to quantum states?

All it is, is the amount of knowledge we have of a specific system. Expressed in Qubit.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
  • The topic was unlocked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.