Comments

  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    As someone who is not American (I'm Japanese), I say Trump is somewhat unpredictable but is not necessarily the worst president as people make him to be.

    I hate these radical leftists saying "Nazi" or "white supremacy" or "Ultranationalism" or some exaggerated propaganda whenever things happen against their desire.
  • Is the Speed of Light the Ground State of the Universe?
    I understand what you are trying to say, but the terminology is going everywhere.

    "Ground state" refers to a state with the lowest energy of the particular system you are looking at. On the other hand, "speed of light" is simply speed. So a state and speed cannot be discussed at the same level. So from definition, it makes zero sense to say that "speed of light" is the "ground state" of the universe. But like I said, I know where you are getting to. I'm being a bit nitpickey because it matters in physics.

    Also, speed of light does slow down in medium. What you said only applies to vacuum.

    You are talking about special relativity. Special relativity stands on two principles: 1) principle of relativity and 2) principle of invariant speed of light. These two principles are rather assumptions made by Einstein but an intuitively valid ones based on how the world seems to work.

    What you said about The speed of light is the same in all references comes from the principle of relativity. That is, the physical laws are same for all inertial frame of reference. What you talk about in the gravity is from general relativity.

    So there is nothing new here. What is your point?




    I'm sure that you already know and I am being nitpickey here, but speed of light is not constant. Speed of light slows in a medium.
  • Many People Hate IQ and Intelligence Research

    Now I understand that you do not understand statistics. If you don't understand statistics, then you won't even know what IQ tests are about. Why are you arguing if you don't know IQ tests?
  • Many People Hate IQ and Intelligence Research

    Okay, but I don't understand why you assume that intelligence CANNOT be measured. It certainly can.

    If you are right, then the word "intelligent" would never have exited, much less used by anyone. It is because we have some (vague) concept of intelligence that we can use the word. I don't need to know the precise definition to say that Richard Feynman was intelligent. I don't need to know the precise definition to say that Albert Einstein was intelligent. But objectively speaking, both of these people are very intelligent academically. The fact that we are saying this already proves that we have some concept in our mind that is capable of testing people's intelligence. So intelligence can be tested qualitatively. The only question is how quantitatively. IQ tests are merely one of these approaches to quantitatively measure intelligence.
  • Many People Hate IQ and Intelligence Research


    I will have to agree with this.

    Statistically speaking, there is a difference between being "inaccurate" and having "deviations".

    Let's hypothetically say that we have some ways to measure highly objective, critically accurate, perfect measurement of intelligence, and that we have the scores for 100 random people. And then, we measure the IQ of the same 100 people.
    1) If the IQ scores are exactly the same as the perfect test, then the IQ test is both "accurate" AND "without deviation".
    2) If the IQ scores are somewhat lower or higher than the perfect test depending on the person, but overall in average agrees with the perfect test, then the IQ test is "accurate" but have "some deviation".
    3) If the IQ scores are always lower (or higher) than the perfect test, but the values itself are simply just shifted uniformly, then the IQ test is "inaccurate" but "without deviation".
    4) If the IQ scores are always lower (or higher) than the perfect test, and the values vary greatly between individuals compared to the perfect test, then the IQ test is both "inaccurate" AND have "deviation".

    I speculate that IQ test is "accurate" but have "notable deviation".

    This means that although IQ test provide good measurement of intelligence, sometimes the values deviate for certain people, making it not always accurate when referring to individuals. Such deviation may come simply from lack of education, because IQ test usually require some level of fundamental knowledge. In a lot of cases, people can lack concentration, despite being very bright, and score lower for the latter stage of the test. Age also matter.

    However, my speculation comes from the fact that IQ test and its scores are based on statistics and thus is a relative measure. The scores we get on IQ tests are merely standard deviation from the most population. As such, IQ tests should not be blindly trusted, but can be used as a reference.
  • Many People Hate IQ and Intelligence Research
    I know IQ tests aren't some absolute measure of "intelligence", but I think it does a good job overall. I think people criticize the IQ tests more than necessary, based on intelligent people that it failed to recognize. For example, by bringing up people like Richard Feynman who is arguably one of the most intelligent people out there in history of science but scored rather average on IQ test, they think they completely proved the IQ to be illegitimate or something. Sure, IQ test is not flaw-free, but that does not mean it's worthless.
  • Why doesn't God clear up confusion between believers who misinterpret his word?
    In principle, God, whether he actually exist or not, can never completely and accurately convey his will to the people. There's an obvious reason to that: because we are human, and human can misinterpret words. Even when scientists explain their own works in completely concise and accurate manner, not a lot of people would understand, much less a general audience.

    The old testament itself is known to be written and refined by several people. Considering that translation itself is also extremely difficult to do accurately, it should be expected that something may have gone wrong in the process.

    So let's hypothetically say God came to our world once again to clear up the confusion and misinterpretation. There are still going to be millions of people misinterpreting his words.
  • How did living organisms come to be?
    Spectral measurements indicate that amino acids and sugars indeed form in interstellar dust. They are all over the place, literally. I am by no means an expert, but that might suggest that simple organics didn't have to be seeded: if they form so readily everywhere, couldn't they have formed here on Earth?SophistiCat

    Good point, and maybe you are right. It might not be a meteorite that brought necessary things on Earth but it was on Earth in the first place. I am not an expert in astronomy neither so I don't know.
  • How did living organisms come to be?

    Scientists do attempt addressing that problem. They just haven't got a universally acceptable solution or alternative. So you are right, general relativity is, by no means, a complete, fully accurate description of physics.

    Unlike special relativity, where theories like QFT have unified quantum mechanics and special relativity, general relativity lacks any good alternative or generalizing theories. In fact, even one of the most successful theories like Quantum Field Theory is still inadequate to completely explain several experimental data such as particle physics. This is due to the fundamental nature of QFT. So then, from the practical point of view, what are you insisting we do? Forget about scientific theories and be "philosophical", which in my opinion is even worse in this particular case? Or we just stop talking about it and be agnostic? Because one thing that would really bug me is that you mentioned in a thread "Does a 'God' exist", specifically this post, where you said:
    According to your claim then, we cannot prove the existence of anything, and this is probably true, we take the existence of things for granted. But that's just extreme skepticism, to claim that we can't prove the existence of anything.Metaphysician Undercover
    I thought you were against extreme skepticism. You seem to be unable to accept general relativity because of certain area that it cannot account for despite the good description (or approximation) of reality that general relativity provides (and is actually used in engineering area, and it works well). This is likely the same for any other theory. Does that mean you disagree with every single theories out there?


    So when something which is clearly contradictory in terms of description, (such as the expansion of space inside an object being different from the expansion of space outside an object), can only be accounted for with mathematics, I consider such an application of mathematics to be deception, used to hide a contradiction.Metaphysician Undercover
    This tells me that
    I have a reasonable scientific background and you might be surprised at how well I understand this stuffMetaphysician Undercover
    is a lie.
  • How did living organisms come to be?
    I must say, nice job with a brief summary. But I don't think any of the people here really understand the mathematics and science behind this and no matter how many times you try to convince those that just emotionally reject the idea, they are not going to change their mind.
    I don't completely understand it either because I am not an astronomer but a physical chemist.

    Science is extremely sophisticated today because they are built upon very large, multi-discipline, intuitively hard to understand branches of science. All of these branches intertwine in so many different ways. It impossible for one to be able to understand all of this in a lifetime. General public usually never get the chance of understanding how much of the correct effort numerous scientists have put to get this far. And if they don't understand and wants to reject it, they suddenly think they are smarter than these large group of scientists, as seen numerous times on this forum. A very sad reality.
  • Does a 'God' exist?
    Lots and lots of people claim so and present what they consider to be evidence. But whether what they consider to be evidence is, indeed, evidence is a matter for inquiry -- it is not a given. Which is why part of the problem is an examination of what is evidence and what is not.

    (Note that it is possible, and even very common, for evidence to be ambiguous, and also for it to support contradictory theories).
    Mariner
    You are right.

    But for me, most of the "evidence" that they claim to be as one is expedient, otherwise downright wrong. One example is "probability". Probability is probably one of the common defense that I see people use to justify intelligent design (usually by a god) because the chance of the Earth happening is extremely slim. This is such a bad argument because 1) they seem not to understand what "probability" (precisely, what unit) they are talking about, and 2) they are lacking basic knowledge in statistics and is making a hilariously wrong interpretation of probability.
    I am surprised especially when one of those person was studying statistics. So like you said, one can use it to support contradictory theories. Honestly, to me, what they do is more like a double standard.

    That is of course, one example. I am definitely not going to go through tons of other examples because I don't have the willpower and time to do so.

    Nope, the "concept of God" certainly developed later than the experience of gods -- and any experience of gods is (in the viewpoint of the subject) "observation of the actual object".Mariner
    This is begging the question. Your conclusion essentially implies that god(s) were actually experienced by people, which requires as a premise that god(s) actually do exist. This is circular reasoning.
  • Does a 'God' exist?

    An interpretation is an explanation or description of the meaning of something. How can that be the thing itself. To say what something means, is not the thing itself. An interpretation may be judged as an understanding or it may be judged as a misunderstanding, but this is irrelevant to the fact that an interpretation cannot be the thing itself which is being interpreted.Metaphysician Undercover
    I agree that my wording was not good. What I meant was the resulting object (X') derived from the interpretation of the evidence produced by supposedly existent actual object (X).
    Maybe I should've said "interpreted God" or something.

    Let's say that there is an existent thing referred to as X. If an interpretation of this thing contains contradictions, that does not mean that the thing does not exist, it means that there is a faulty interpretation, a misunderstanding. It is nonsense to assert that the faulty interpretation indicates that the thing does not exist. If I say that my shirt is blue, when it is really green, because I am colour blind, this does not mean that my shirt doesn't exist.Metaphysician Undercover
    This is pretty much rephrasing what I've said. I don't understand what you disagree.

    I don't understand your point. All we have to go on, with respect to any existing things, is our interpretations of those things. According to your claim then, we cannot prove the existence of anything, and this is probably true, we take the existence of things for granted. But that's just extreme skepticism, to claim that we can't prove the existence of anything.Metaphysician Undercover
    Who said we can't prove the existence of anything?

    For example, when we see Indica rice, we know that it is Indica rice. This is because we have defined Indica rice. People mistaking Indica rice as Japonica rice is because such people have no clue of the definition, and this is not the same as misinterpretation.

    This is different from god(s). First of all, no one actually met a god (some claims so but without evidence). We don't even know if it exists. The concept came before observation of the actual object (unlike Indica rice). For this reason, the definition of god comes from the complete opposite approach than how we defined Indica rice. The definition of god is not definite at all because we have plenty of religion out there.
  • How did living organisms come to be?
    Scientifically, I agree with molecular-panspermia (Extraterrestrial organic molecules).

    Indeed, statistically it is plausible that organic molecules can be formed from dusts (and later meteorites and comets) in space. These molecules may have become precursors for life after crashing on planets. Amino acids was also detected in one of the comets, if my memory serves me right.

    It is important to note that amino acid in nature is L type (and not D). I think MChD (Magneto-Chiral Dichroism) can provide an answer for that.


    *of course this is subject to change in light of new evidence.
  • Does a 'God' exist?
    I agree with this also. The question does seem to be about X itself instead of our interpretation of it.GreyScorpio

    Which is impossible because then you are implying that the premise X' = X. Any interpretation arising from God is X' in any religion and disproving this does not disprove X at all. Then either the OP question itself needs to be revised so that we can actually talk about X like you intended, or that we just talk about how X' is wrong.

    This is complete nonsense. First, in number 2 you allow that an interpretation could be the thing itself, which is impossible. Then in number 3 you state that the interpretation, X', must be apprehensible with the senses, but this is nonsensical. How would you apprehend with the senses an interpretation?Metaphysician Undercover

    Let's make this clear.

    First, an interpretation can be, by accident or not, the thing itself. If you deny this, then every single thing that every single person on this forum says, are misunderstanding. I hope that is not true.

    If a god really do exist, then he can be deistic, materialistic, or omnipotent, and etc. We don't know that. Whatever it is, we just name it X. However, OP provides a type of God in certain religion (most likely Abrahamic God). We name this type of interpretation of God as X'. Then we comprehend the properties of X' and can draw out conclusion that there are flaws and contradiction in its properties. Thus, X' can be proven nonexistent. That is independent of whether X exist or not.

    I am claiming that this thread fails to account for the "actual" God (X) as it only talks about "one interpretation" of God (X'). But the OP and several others are mixing X' and X up and trying to prove or disprove X by arguing existence or nonexistence of X'. This is a fallacy (as Mariner mentioned). I am wondering how they are going to talk about X with a OP like this.
  • Does a 'God' exist?
    But the real question is not about X' (our interpretation of X), but rather about XMariner

    I don't agree on that. GreyScorpio is clearly referring to our (or actually a group of people in a specific religion) interpretation of God. Not the "actual" God that supposedly exists.

    I understand that you want to talk about the "actual" God, but that is not the case here, so you are basically off-topic.
  • Does a 'God' exist?
    I must say 1) definitely have a fallacy in the question itself.

    1. Let's say there is the true target of what we are trying to interpret as X.
    2. Whatever we actually interpret about X is X', and not X itself. (X' can be X, but we don't know at this point.)
    3. X' has been created with the same apprehensive ability we have. It follows that X' is able to apprehend by us with our senses.
    4. If X' cannot be apprehend by our senses, then interpretation of X (= X') must be a mistake.
    5. Therefore X' does not exist. (This does not mean X does not exist.)

    In the OP, GreyScorpio is clearly referring to X' (our interpretation of God).
  • The States in which God Exists
    The OP does not understand what "probability" is and how it works (as other people have mentioned)...this thread is already null before we can actually get into whether God exist or not.
  • Why I think God exists.
    This is a very bad logic.

    I don't know how you define "miracles" but it seems to me that there can be a better explanation to it than explaining it as an act of some divine being that you don't even know if it really exists. For example, the two examples of "miracle" you mentioned can simply be a hallucination.

    How many people out there had a fatal snake bite and died, against people that survived? This is a probabilistic thing. Statistically, some do survive. This is a fact. We can't call these miracles. Combined with hallucinations, this can be well explained. I know that was just an example, but most of the "miracles" out there are simply a statistically or probabilistically possible result.
  • Is the Math of QM the Central Cause of Everything we see?
    Does the Universe and the physical laws of physics happen because of math of QM or does the mathematics of QM just describe the behavior?Mike
    The latter.

    What is the cause of things like particle interactions and things like gravity and magnetism?
    I don't know how far into the "cause" you are talking about, but I'll tell you from the point of Quantum Field Theory.

    From the quantum chromodynamics' point of view, protons and neutrons are held together by "residual strong force". Proton and neutron exchange pions that keeps these two together. If you look even closer into it, gluons keep quarks together but also helps produce pions. You can consider this as particle interactions. So gluons are one of the many "force carriers".

    Force carrier of magnetism is photons.

    Theoretically, force carrier of gravity is gravitons. However, the existence of graviton has not been confirmed. It is a hypothetical particle.

    I am trying to understand what the interpretation for this question is. I hear some people say that math determines the behavior of the physical universe while others say that math just describes the behavior. Has this question been settled?

    Depends on the interpretation, but it is generally believed that math just describes the behavior. In light of new, better, and more compatible theory, the interpretation is subject to change. This is a philosophical aspect of physics, not science. I wouldn't go too much into it. I always keep an agnostic view of it. It's not that important either for science.
  • Zeno's paradox
    Space is infinitely divisible in mathematics under the definition of continuous space. Unfortunately, we do not really know whether this is applicable to our world. However, scientifically, it works better if it is.

    We don't know if reality is wrong, but before we can actually argue about that, we should be concerned about the logical fallacy made by Zeno.


    The fact that "one must first travel half way before getting to point A", and that this applies infinitely, is true. That is, however, irrelevant to whether one can move or not. This is because the argument that one must first travel half way is simply a requirement. It has nothing to do with whether one can actually travel that distance or not.
  • Why I think God exists.
    Why do you guys even bother discussing? It's kinda annoying seeing this thread back up when I come to PF. This thread isn't even worth 12 pages. It should have ended with the first three posts excluding OP. It's such a bad logic but this guy can't understand that despite being explained for 12 pages. Explaining his mistakes if futile at this point.
  • Should I get banned?
    True. If you go to a library of any research institute, you can get free access to most of the stuff. Unfortunately, not a lot of people have the will or time to do that.
  • Should I get banned?
    I am saying it's probably already known and is generally accepted without having to have to cite references each time. If you need to disprove that, then you'll have to devote yourself into that. You can't just cite some free articles made for general public that is intuitively much easier to understand, and think you have understood everything.
  • Should I get banned?
    You and I work in these kinda field so of course it is not that difficult for us. But for them? The general public? I know they are lazy in one sense, but you also have to understand that they can't devote their time on studying and researching these stuff like we do.

    Of course a scientist can be wrong. No way I am doubting that. But if you compare general public and a scientist, there is a pretty big difference. We don't easily realize that because we pretty much have already gone to the other side. We have scientific intuition inside us because we've been educated. Unless you are an genius we usually have to understand things by experience.

    Since I don't know about Earth science, all I can give is what I can remember when I didn't know anything. For example, when you look up lanthanides and their properties on wikipedia including related articles, I can tell you that they tell only a tiny bit of what is actually known. Even if you look up homepages and science related sites made by scientists, they still only show bit of what is known. In order to actually know them, you'll have to do extensive research by reading tons of academic papers (usually needing subscription). You'll also have to do some experiments to understand the scale in which the paper is talking about. For instance, an article might say "weak absorption of light". However, unless we work on it and get a pretty good idea, we don't exactly intuitively know what "weak absorption" looks like. If I remember that, then I can easily say that there is a huge gap between science-loving non-scientist and a scientist. I would generally not recommend non-scientist trying outsmart a scientist. They know much more than you do, and they also, most of the time, capable of dismissing without discussing too much because they already know.
  • Should I get banned?
    I'm pretty sure there is more to it than that. it's just that you (nor I) don't know.
  • Should I get banned?

    If you really want them to listen to you, you'll have to write a post worth a full article to convince people. Even if you do, there is no guarantee that people will be convinced. Like I said in the above post (http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/54161), these people on the Physics Forums know much much more than you think. Those who reply to those thread reply for a reason. They know what they are talking about.

    Although most of the articles out there write about science with simple English understandable for general public, the actual science itself is very sophisticated and technical. These articles for general public (or wikipedia) leaves out a lot of important information for readability. Sometimes they don't even know the specific details of what they are talking about.

    Science is much more sophisticated than you think. It's not something people casually interested in science can handle with few weeks or months of research. These people spend years working in these area after specialized education in college (that typically takes around 9 years to complete to get Ph.D.). Have you ever seen a scientific paper? They cite at least more than 20-30 other specialized papers. Review papers generally cite more than 150 - 200 papers. That is only small part of what they've actually read and know.

    I'm not in the field of Earth science, so I cannot judge who was wrong in that thread. However, as a physical chemist, I've seen people who are not expert in chemistry and physics but casually interested make hilariously bad mistakes. When I read science magazine for general public about chemistry and physics, I saw several articles making terribly inaccurate presentation of the idea. I don't blame them. It's what happens when you don't know the specific details and is only provided with general idea and otherwise poorly informed. Politics also play a huge role in making decisions.

    In summary, it's a great thing you are interested and it is okay if you want to talk about it. However, try refraining from doing that with specialized people. They get frustrated, you get frustrated, no one becomes happy.
  • Should I get banned?
    But look at what the other people said after that.
  • Should I get banned?
    I very much agree with andrewk. I've read the thread as well as your previous threads and posts. In my opinion, I don't think they have the right reason to ban you, but I agree that the thread should've been closed.

    The philosophy forum has much higher tolerance for offensive posts compared to Physics Forums. Indeed,
    I had a temporary ban for saying something to the matter of "If one cannot see the long term benefits of geothermal energy production then one is either ignorant or can't see the woods from the trees." Which they took as a "personal insult".Question
    is insulting to be posted on Physics Forums. In an academic conference, you might get yourself shunned, in the worst, banned. On philosophy forum, you would've definitely got away with it.

    Personally, the content of the posts were not up to the standards of Physics Forums. Although you have provided some articles, you'll have to do extensive research to make sure that the article is not biased or does not leave out any important information. People of the Physics Forums knows much more than you think. Have you ever read an academic paper? Do you realize that they cite a lot of references (typically more than 30, and sometimes can reach up to 200!) to make their point valid?
    The question of the OP was actually already answered within the first page of the thread (as realistically impossible), but you kept going on with it. This is the reason why the thread was closed.

    Your other threads also seem to deal with philosophical aspect of science than science itself. Typically, Physics Forums do not appreciate questions regarding philosophical interpretations or hypothetical ideas based on non-scientific derivations. Unless you have really good reasons to start one, they are going to be closed one way or another.


    They have gone too far in banning you, though.
  • Why I think God exists.
    For the 15th time, you are unable to correctly address my point and come back with bullshit. I didn't even talk about information in the above post. WTF are you reading? You are talking about yourself with that pathetic post of yours. You are not even worthy of talking about science with this is the level wrong/biased/metaphysical knowledge you have with this much ignorance and arrogance, much less talk about others. Show this thread to a physicist, then. Share this thread in Physics Forum. See what you'll get.

    EDIT: Oh, wait. I forgot that you can't even tell the difference between a philosopher of science and a scientist. Then forget about what I've just said. You don't even know the right person to refer to.
  • Why I think God exists.
    I said it is your god damn turn. Answer the 1) 2) 3) and 4). This is not fair. I've gave an unbiased information and you completely ignored them once you know that you were wrong the whole time. It has been like that for all this time.

    You failed to address my point, once again. If you don't plan to read, then don't respond in the first place. This is obviously unfair. Why is it me that I will always address your concern and you don't. And even if you do, you can't even properly provide one single legitimate argument.

    For the third time, I freaking said I have an agnostic view of particles because it is subject to change in light of better theory. What the fuck are you reading? To conclude something as something is metaphysical as it can get. What you are doing is exactly metaphysics. I am wondering why you are blaming other people for doing something you are doing. Your links are always in contradicting with what you say. You insist on believing that particles are waves (which is not even a correct interpretation of De Broglie-Bohm theory), but this article provides that there is a disagreement with some other forms of interpretations. So then you are admitting that you are biased and metaphysical when you insist that particles are waves. Thank you, that is all I need to know. You are biased and a believer, far from a scientist. You are another one of those pop-culture science lovers that claims they know science and completely blow it.

    Non-scientist trying to act smart with a scientist is not a smart thing to do. Calling someone a failure as a scientist when you don't even understand a crap and contradicts yourself makes it even worse. I would've asked for more humble and modest approach if you don't understand something. Don't ever do that again, and I encourage you to never do that again with anyone.


    This is it. I am done. You are done. There is nothing to be discussed anymore. All I understood from you is that you understand nothing, and arguing with you is pointless because you refuse to address my points. This discussion was off-topic anyway (you made it that way). Thank you for wasting my time.
  • Why I think God exists.
    You really don't like reading other people's posts do you? Fine. But promise me you will read EVERY SINGLE WORD I have posted so far including this one. I will not accept further question if you fail to do this and say a bunch of irrelevant crap over and over again. I am being EXTREMELY generous with you right now, considering how much you offended me with no grounds whatsoever to back it up but with your delusions.

    1) Picture of pentacene taken by AFM (published in Nature Methods)
    http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v6/n11/images/nmeth1109-792-I1.jpg
    These are clearly atoms arranged to form pentacene. Considering how AFM (Atomic Force Microscopy) is based on atomic force that barely affects the sample itself in terms of electronic structure, it accurately and truly shows the real molecule and how the atoms are arranged. If you think this not the actual image of atom because of "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle", then you are uneducated and stupid. (in fact it is this uncertainty principle that allows us to see these atoms.)

    2) Ongoing discussion: Bohmian mechanics is an incomplete theory that is yet to be accepted throughout the scientific community. Poll (https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1069) shows that out of 33 participants in one of the quantum physics conference shows that 0% believed in Bohmian mechanics. This may be a total coincidence since college physics classes barely teach Bohmian mechanics, but that only further shows that it is not widely utilized. This poll is actually pretty fair since they ask the participants several questions and categorizes them based on the answer instead of just asking for the name of the interpretation they believe in. I highly suggest you read the article.

    3) I have shown no metaphysical ideas. Refer to this post:
    I have rather an agnostic view on the interpretation of Quantum mechanics because they are already completely reasonable the way it is. There is no need to complicate the story by attempting to interpret these with classically intuitive senses.FLUX23
    I don't care if what we call a particle is actually a classical particle (classical mechanics), quantum particle (quantum mechanics), or a quantum of a field (quantum field theory). They are merely interpretations that are subject to change when better theories are provided in the future. What matters to me is if it can reproduce experiments well. But I can still call a particle a "particle" because that is the term used to refer to these things.

    4) I did not use a priori knowledge to support a metaphysical definition as a settled scientific issue. It seems like you don't know what a priori knowledge means.
    Statement: Particle is particle.
    This statement is obviously true. This type of knowledge is called "a priori knowledge".
    Statement: Particle is a quantum of a field.
    This statement requires prior experiment or theoretical investigation to know. This type of knowledge is called "a posteriori knowledge".
    I argued that what you are presenting is only a posteriori knowledge. That is irrelevant to what Chany or I said about atoms and particles because the argument holds independent of what atom actually is. When we talk about "atom" in general, the target of the word "atom" refers to an atom or whatever they actually may be. So "atom" is an "atom" and this is independent of what they actually look like. The target of the word atom remains existent. This is a problem of logic. Not science at all. If you cannot accept this logic, then you don't even belong on this forum.


    Typically this type of question is something I should be doing to you. You are an offensive, ignorant, brat that knows nothing about science but pretends to know, base everything on personal preferences and unscientific speculations and personal metaphysical view, say a bunch of irrelevant crap, refuses to read what other people have written, fabricate facts, fabricate what other people says, and accuse them of wrongdoings that they have not committed. You are a very twisted person. I am so glad you are not a scientist.

    Your turn.

    1) Present all of the evidence. (Don't be biased)

    2) Admit to the ongoing discussions and disagreements among scientists. (Don't be biased)

    3) Refrain from presenting your metaphysical ideas and desires as scientific facts. (Believing in Bohmian mechanics and basing every argument under this assumption is nothing more than just metaphysics.)

    4) And clearly mark boundaries when you cross them. (You are the one doing it, not me.)
  • Why I think God exists.
    Okay, so you still refuse to read.

    I know a priori is not a scientific term. I'm not trying to say anything scientific by saying:
    Elementary particles are elementary particles by definition, a priori knowledge. There is no assumption here. The target of the term "particle", may be a wave like you mention (actually, de Broglie–Bohm theory does not consider particles the way you do so you are wrong here too), a quantum of a field, or a classical particle, it doesn't matter. That is a posteriori knowledge. That does not deny the existence of the target in which the term "particle" is referring toFLUX23
    This is pure logic. There is nothing scientific about it. Why do you think I was talking scientific here?


    It seems like you don't understand what uncertainty principle is...Even worse, you also don't seem to understand what atom is...If you don't know these, why did you even think of arguing using these?


    I know there are scientist working on theoretical aspect of Bohmian mechanics. I never denied that. In fact, I've already mentioned that. Like I said, I know more than you do. What you have presented so far, I already know.

    So you are admitting that Bohmian mechanics is still faulty at the current stage, and that this is the reason most scientists are reluctant to use it. Thank you. Finally. This argument is done.



    Also, please don't accuse others of something before they accuse you in order to make the other person look like they are doing the wrong thing when in fact it is you. You are the metaphysicist here bro.

    EDIT: I hope this was the Physics Forum. You would have had to deal with hundreds of post that disagrees with you. Are there any physicist here?
  • Why I think God exists.
    Oh my God. I'VE ALREADY EXPLAINED THIS!!!! WHAT ARE YOU READING!!!!!!!!???????????

    If you are talking about the definition of a particle, then that is something else. Likewise, we can say that about every single thing in this world. I'm sitting on a chair right now, but I am not sure if I can call a stone outside that people are treating it as a chair, a chair. If you are confused about the definition of a particle because you are confused about the distinction between a classical particle and a quantum mechanical particle, then we are talking about something else. You are perhaps confusing the difference between how things should be defined, with how things are. If not, then read below.FLUX23

    This is fallacious as a response to what Chany said (http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/52491). Chany's argument bases itself on the fact that, whatever an atom actually may be, atom must exist. Whether particles are classical particles, quantum particles, or quanta of a field, the target of the term particles still exists. It has not disappeared out of the concept. We can later redefine "atom", but that does not mean the target of what Chany said as "atom" has disappeared out of this world. It's just that there is another better and suitable noun to refer to "atom" in light of new evidence.FLUX23

    TheMadFool talks about an object called "God" that we do not know if it, in any form that it actually refers to, really exists. But he claims to scientifically prove its existence based on the fact that people are affected by the belief that it exists. This is, like you said, a bad fallacious argument. Chany attempted explaining this by talking about atoms. Chany's argument does not base itself on the premise that atom is what people classically refer to as atoms. The term "atom" is used in a way to refer to something that actually exists, and does not depend on whether what it actually may be. Whether or not an (classical) atom is actually something else, that "something" still exists. Chany claims that to argue in the way TheMadFool did, that "something" must exist. I think your type of fallacy is called referential fallacy or something. I told you about a priori and a posteriori knowledge because of this.FLUX23

    Elementary particles are elementary particles by definition, a priori knowledge. There is no assumption here. The target of the term "particle", may be a wave like you mention (actually, de Broglie–Bohm theory does not consider particles the way you do so you are wrong here too), a quantum of a field, or a classical particle, it doesn't matter. That is a posteriori knowledge. That does not deny the existence of the target in which the term "particle" is referring to.FLUX23


    You are the metaphysicist here. You are the wrong one here. You are the one using old tactics to justify yourself. You are the one unable to correctly understand anything because you are clueless. You are the one misinterpreting other people's argument because you are ignoring them.

    Using freaking offensive words to me without any grounds to back it up is just lame.

    I didn't even talk single thing about metaphysics in my post. I already said I have agnostic view of any interpretation of quantum mechanics because it's unscientific to attempt interpreting it.

    Also, the link provides arguments that is against your views. What are you doing?
  • Why I think God exists.
    Or maybe you have your eyes closed.
  • Why I think God exists.
    Oh my goodness...

    First of all, this "there are no particle" thing and "symbolic" crap you keep on saying has already been addressed hundreds of time before, that you kept ignoring. READ FOR GOD'S SAKE. It's fine if you don't understand. You can just tell me what part of it you didn't understand. But ignoring it is a whole different story, especially when that was where it all started. This is getting really annoying.

    Second, I don't give a crap about Einstein's relativity for now. I wasn't even meaning to talk about that. You misinterpreted it because you were clueless and I ended up explaining it. I was talking about relativistic quantum mechanics. As I suspected, you didn't even know the highly successful Dirac's equation, QED, and QFT, and how Bohmian mechanics fails to account for these area (as of now). QFT is so far, and by far, the most successful and advanced quantum mechanical theory today. If you don't know this, you can't even hope to discuss anything with me.

    Third, you can see atoms. Period. End of discussion. I don't even wanna talk about this again. You can actually search online for this. Searching for why a specific type of instrument is used, what the images actually means, and how we determine what we see is what we meant to see a good starting point for someone like you who is totally clueless. It's better if you actually get at least physics/chemistry (both of these intervene a lot) undergrad level of knowledge before you talk about something like this. Don't tell me you don't know the difference between atoms and elementary particles.

    Most importantly, fourth, stop shifting the discussion into something else. Every time you talk about something on science, I have to fix it for you because you are wrong here and there. This is tiresome. How about we get back into what we were originally discussing? You haven't replied once to my concern despite telling you several times.


    And the link you send me? This must be a joke, right? First of all, he is not a scientist. He is a philosopher working on philosophy of science. Also, I learned nothing new. This is philosophy, not science. It does not add anything to my knowledge of science, not to mention it says "Einstein for Everyone" which is ironic considering your criticism of his Theory of relativity. Thanks for wasting my time.
  • Why I think God exists.
    I would like you to address my concern instead of talking about something else.

    Also, stop trying to convince somebody of something you don't really understand. You cannot win against me in science especially physics and chemistry. I know more than you do, and I know them more accurately than you do. I know that because your knowledge of physics is simply wrong in some places. I know that because you thought atoms can be directly observed using photon (they can, with sophisticated instrument, but by the way you write it, you probably didn't know). That can actually be intuitively understood if you are educated in science without being in a Lab that works on these area. You have several wrong understanding of De Broglie-Bohm theory. You also think I was talking specifically about Einstein's general and special relativity, when the term "relativistic" does not necessarily (in fact usually don't) refer to that.

    I know, in general, the paradox and incompleteness of Einstein's theory of general and special relativity. I don't need you to tell me that. But did you say, Einstein's relativistic theory provide little practical usefulness? Wow, apologize to Einstein right now. Contrary to what you claim, general and special relativity is still quite useful as good approximation in several fields, especially special relativity since they can provide fairly practical explanation or prediction without having to have to go through tremendous sophisticated calculations. Dare tell me if satellites are pointless bunch of crap that we don't need.


    Perhaps you've never really understood the significance of Dirac's equation and Quantum Field Theory (actually there are several approaches to QFT but I am being general here), and how they are important in explaining relativistic scale phenomenons. As so, you also probably don't understand the problems arising from Bohmian mechanics. No wonder why you blindly believe them.
  • Liar's paradox...an attempt to solve it.

    This is poor logic. Being unable to differentiate between two things does not mean two things are equivalent. It just means you don't know how to distinguish them. If I am given two constants A and B without further information, then I don't know what these values are so there is no logic to conclude that A = B.






    I think found a further paradox in the Liar's paradox.

    let, S0 be some statement we are not aware of.

    Let's make another statement:
    S1 = S0 is false

    Right now, S1 itself is not contradicting. It's just saying S1 is false. Let's continue on,
    S2 = S1 is false
    S3 = S2 is false
    S4 = S3 is false
    .
    .
    .
    Sn = Sn-1 is false

    Let's substitute all this.
    Sn = ( ... ( ( S0 is false ) is false ) ... is false ) is false

    It is important that the parentheses are kept so that we won't get confused about the exact target of "is false" is referring to in each statement. Now here are some axioms:
    "(X is false) is false" = "X is true"
    "(X is false) is true" = "X is false"
    "(X is true) is false" = "X is false"
    "(X is true) is true" = "X is true"

    Let's apply these to the sequence above and we get:
    if n = even, then
    Sn = S0 is true
    if n = odd, then
    Sn = S0 is false

    Substitute S0 = This statement is false. Then,
    if n = even, then
    Sn = This statement is false
    if n = odd, then
    Sn = This statement is true

    It does not matter if n → infinity. Sn oscillates between being true and false and does not converge. That is paradoxical.
  • Why I think God exists.
    From the philosopher's perspective, arguing for Bohmian mechanics is fine. The interpretation is, along with Many-Worlds interpretation, less philosophical compared to other interpretations. I'll give you that. As with all of other interpretations, there are strong and weak points. Some people resolved to Bohmian mechanics interpretation for their (classically) intuitively understandable interpretation of Quantum Mechanics like you have, sometimes incorrectly referred to as the realists' approach. Contrary to what you suspect me of doing, I have rather an agnostic view on the interpretation of Quantum mechanics because they are already completely reasonable the way it is. There is no need to complicate the story by attempting to interpret these with classically intuitive senses. If you are happy philosophically, fine. I don't really care.

    As a scientist, Bohmian mechanics is inadequate and needs to be refined or remodeled to be accepted. There is a good reason why. Contrary to your statement, Bohmian mechanics is only consistent in non-relativistic level. It cannot be extended to the relativistic level for many-particle case, either (some attempts are there, but they are scientifically yet to be accepted). The spin is screwed up in this theory. It also unnecessarily complicates Schrodinger's equation by adding extra equation, and yet the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle still applies. That means it doesn't really give us any new information at all. This is the consensus among most physicists today, but that is subject to change if Bohmian mechanics are refined in a way that is scientifically sound and surpasses current theory of Quantum Mechanics. Until then, scientists using QM should stick with current QM.

    Either way, what I strongly disagree and discourage is to assume that one type of interpretation (that is not even widely accepted) is true and base argument on it. One should always base an argument on premises that are neutral. Like I have done, my claims are neutral and agnostic about interpretations. Elementary particles are elementary particles by definition, a priori knowledge. There is no assumption here. The target of the term "particle", may be a wave like you mention (actually, de Broglie–Bohm theory does not consider particles the way you do so you are wrong here too), a quantum of a field, or a classical particle, it doesn't matter. That is a posteriori knowledge. That does not deny the existence of the target in which the term "particle" is referring to.
  • Why I think God exists.

    I apologize for the late reply. I did read it, but did not have enough time to respond.

    By all means, I know what particles refer to and what they are in QFT. I don't need you to tell me that. Also, forget about Bohmian mechanics. It clarifies Copenhagen interpretation, and it works in a non-relativistic level, but otherwise it is generally not well accepted in Quantum mechanics, not to mention they are not that practical in terms of how they do not help advance quantum mechanics at all. Unless someone works on it and works on it good enough to convince the science community, I highly recommend you not to try to believe it the true interpretation yet. What I did not realize was something more fundamental that you were talking about. Now I understand what you were trying to say below.

    I think, upon inspection, the precise description of atoms, molecules, quarks, boffins, hadrons, bosons, quanta, photons, dark matter, spin, etc. are quite malleable and are more or less symbolic as are words and some other mathematical construct. I remember reading Bohr describing the nucleus as a water drop, which led directly to Meitner's description of fission. Symbolism should always be recognized for what it is and not confused with what actually might beRich

    This is fallacious as a response to what Chany said (http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/52491). Chany's argument bases itself on the fact that, whatever an atom actually may be, atom must exist. Whether particles are classical particles, quantum particles, or quanta of a field, the target of the term particles still exists. It has not disappeared out of the concept. We can later redefine "atom", but that does not mean the target of what Chany said as "atom" has disappeared out of this world. It's just that there is another better and suitable noun to refer to "atom" in light of new evidence.

    TheMadFool talks about an object called "God" that we do not know if it, in any form that it actually refers to, really exists. But he claims to scientifically prove its existence based on the fact that people are affected by the belief that it exists. This is, like you said, a bad fallacious argument. Chany attempted explaining this by talking about atoms. Chany's argument does not base itself on the premise that atom is what people classically refer to as atoms. The term "atom" is used in a way to refer to something that actually exists, and does not depend on whether what it actually may be. Whether or not an (classical) atom is actually something else, that "something" still exists. Chany claims that to argue in the way TheMadFool did, that "something" must exist. I think your type of fallacy is called referential fallacy or something. I told you about a priori and a posteriori knowledge because of this.