either/or

[Ian Beardsley]

You can't tell me there isn't a god anymore than you can tell me there is, I would think. After all, that we exist is impossible because you can't get something from nothing uncaused. Yet if you attribute it to a god, you are left having to explain where he came from. Seems we are trapped in some sort of a paradox. I would think, if things were to make sense, that there would have never been anything.
Ian

[Dragar]

Or there's always been something (never a time without something).

[Zoot]

I've always been fascinated by that "you can't get something from nothing" thing, as if somehow "nothing" would have any meaning without "something" to compare it to, and vice versa.

[beyelzu]

You can't tell me there isn't a god anymore than you can tell me there is, I would think. After all, that we exist is impossible because you can't get something from nothing uncaused. Yet if you attribute it to a god, you are left having to explain where he came from. Seems we are trapped in some sort of a paradox. I would think, if things were to make sense, that there would have never been anything.
Ian
you cant get something from nothing is a law of the something so if the something didnt exist neither would the law. so in nothing maybe you can get something from nothing.


:tmgrin:

[Farren]

you cant get something from nothing is a law of the something so if the something didnt exist neither would the law. so in nothing maybe you can get something from nothing.

:tmgrin:

Or, if nothing's happening anything could happen.

[LadyShea]

It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of some type of supreme being...all we can do is discuss it. I don't think it's an either/or situation what with all the possible definitions of supremem being.

However, on the Quantum level, from what I hear, "somethings" pop into existence from "nothing" with no apparent "cause" all the time.

[Dragar]

However, on the Quantum level, from what I hear, "somethings" pop into existence from "nothing" with no apparent "cause" all the time.

Yup. As a result of the fact we can't tell they're not there (uncertainty), it turns out they are there, briefly.

You know, reading that again, I suddenly realise how weird quantum mechanics is.

(This assumes a vacuum is a 'nothing'.)

[LadyShea]

You know, reading that again, I suddenly realise how weird quantum mechanics is.

(This assumes a vacuum is a 'nothing'.)

I am not a scientist, and QM is too wacky to wrap my mind around. I figured it was totally mindblowing stuff when I heard that the word "spooky" is used in a formal, technical way. I mean, this stuff is so out of the ordinary they couldn't even make up new terms for it..."That's spooky" "Hey, that's what we'll call it, 'Spooky action at a distance'", LOL.

[viscousmemories]

A wise man (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=39786#post39786) once said "Nothing is impossible".

[Dragar]

I am not a scientist, and QM is too wacky to wrap my mind around. I figured it was totally mindblowing stuff when I heard that the word "spooky" is used in a formal, technical way. I mean, this stuff is so out of the ordinary they couldn't even make up new terms for it..."That's spooky" "Hey, that's what we'll call it, 'Spooky action at a distance'", LOL.

It's not so much 'technical', but I believe the term did appear in a paper once (I could be very easily mistaken though).

Thing is - we're talking nano metres.

Why should we expect stuff going on on scales smaller than 1000,000,000th of the scale we're used to operate in the same way?

It's not so much spooky as just...not what we're used to. The death of absolute space (Newton) probably would have greatly upset the Greeks. Killing off absolute time upset a lot of people too.

[Zoot]

Awaiting contributions for my site, Dragdawg.

[LadyShea]

It's not so much 'technical', but I believe the term did appear in a paper once (I could be very easily mistaken though).

Einstein coined it, so perhaps it was meant to be used informally. However, until I heard that phrase, I never had any interest in QM at all...it intrigued me I guess. "What the hell is so weird that Einstein used the term 'spooky' to describe it?". Again, I know dick about fuck wrt QM, I just find it interesting to hear about.

[Dragar]

I'll have a crack at putting something together very basic about quantum mechanics, maybe. Maaaybe. I'm still trying to think of a good way to explain it without freezing everyone's brain out with maths. Experiments might be a good place to start.

Speaing of your site, Zoot - your last piece ends 'If that was all society had,'. Is there more to come, or an error?

[Dragar]

Einstein coined it, so perhaps it was meant to be used informally. However, until I heard that phrase, I never had any interest in QM at all...it intrigued me I guess. "What the hell is so weird that Einstein used the term 'spooky' to describe it?". Again, I know dick about fuck wrt QM, I just find it interesting to hear about.

Essentially, there's this weird property called 'entanglement'. Two particles sometimes are said to become 'entangled' with one another. This means their properties are determined by each other. I'll explain.

Interpreted in certain ways, quantum mechanics seems to suggest that measuring a property of one entangled particle on one side of the universe will instantaneously result in a measurement of its entangled friend turning out to be a certain value - even if its entangled companion is billions and billions of light years away.

Obviously, this appears quite 'spooky'.

There are other things too. We still don't understand the double slit experiment properly, for instance. You've heard about that one? It's the best place to start if you want to find spookiness.

I can't stress enough, however - it's not 'spooky' in a supernatural sort of sense. You don't get weird noises and things going bump in the night.

Things just don't turn out...quite how you'd expect...

[Zoot]

Shit. That wasn't supposed to be okayed yet. Thanks, Drag.

[Zoot]

Dragar,

Sorted now. Thanks again.

[Dragar]

No problem. I figured it was something like that when you hadn't corrected it after a while.

[Ian Beardsley]

It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of some type of supreme being...all we can do is discuss it. I don't think it's an either/or situation what with all the possible definitions of supremem being.

However, on the Quantum level, from what I hear, "somethings" pop into existence from "nothing" with no apparent "cause" all the time.

Isn't that kind of like saying it is so because it happens. I would like to know why.
Ian

[Dragar]

Isn't that kind of like saying it is so because it happens. I would like to know why.

Well, I could tell you it's because of the uncertainty principle, which is because of quantum mechanics and matter been built out of quantum-mechanical-wave-like-things. But why is the universe like that? Beats me. I'm not sure you can keep asking 'why?' forever.

[justaman]

Isn't that kind of like saying it is so because it happens. I would like to know why.

Well, I could tell you it's because of the uncertainty principle, which is because of quantum mechanics and matter been built out of quantum-mechanical-wave-like-things. But why is the universe like that? Beats me. I'm not sure you can keep asking 'why?' forever.
The problem is trying to understand quantum mechanics and physics in general without math, I think. I'm toying with the idea of actually learning some so I don't have to keep warping my mind every time I think about it.

[Dragar]

The problem is trying to understand quantum mechanics and physics in general without math, I think. I'm toying with the idea of actually learning some so I don't have to keep warping my mind every time I think about it.

Believe me, it'll still warp your head.

Mathematics is a tool that links statements to other statements. It's like logic, but more precise, but very abstract. It's very possible to construct a theory that produces amazingly accurate results via mathematics, but gives us little or no 'picture' of the world.

For instance...quantum mechanics. ;)

[LadyShea]

Isn't that kind of like saying it is so because it happens. I would like to know why.
Ian

Well, from my limited knowledge, the answer to "why" seems to be "because that's how the universe is at the smallest level" :shrug:

Thanks for your explanation Dragar!
I can't stress enough, however - it's not 'spooky' in a supernatural sort of sense. You don't get weird noises and things going bump in the night.

Oh I never thought that. In fact, I think that finding "spooky" wierdness in the Universe's most basic natural functions is just so cool and might actually be "the answer".

[Dragar]

Oh I never thought that.

I didn't really think you did. But people often do. Quantum mechanics is often used as a replacement for 'magic', and it really bugs me. So I thought I'd stress that for any others who happened to be reading.

[Ian Beardsley]

Isn't that kind of like saying it is so because it happens. I would like to know why.

Well, I could tell you it's because of the uncertainty principle, which is because of quantum mechanics and matter been built out of quantum-mechanical-wave-like-things. But why is the universe like that? Beats me. I'm not sure you can keep asking 'why?' forever.

You can definitely keep asking why forever, but as soon as something becomes self evident, or an axiom as opposed to a theorem, I personally have no need to question further. Like it is an axiom of geometry that if two triangles are the same as a third, they are the same as one another. Ofcourse you could ask why, but it is self evident to me, and that is where I am comfortable in stopping proving things. But if you tell me that the sum of the angles in a triangle are two right angles (theorem) I feel like asking why and want it demostrated in terms of axioms, or that which is self evident. Ofcourse we may agree or disagree on what is and is not self evident, that is why a theorem to one can be an axiom to another, and vice versa, but I think in these examples we all agree on what is what. I personally require that in a fluctuating quantum vacuum, they explain how energy is barrowed to make matter where it never existed before. I don't think it is absurd to expect that cause and effect applies at the quantum level, it seems to me the uncertainty principle only says we cannot see cause and effect at that level because the observer messes it up, but it doesn't say that all is not accounted for in actuality. Who is to say we won't find a way around it?
Ian

[beyelzu]

bringing up the two slit experiment in a thread titled either/or is kind of funny cuz at the smallest levels the answer is both.


cool.

anyway, I think quantum physics speaks to the fundamental nature of the universe and as such has philosophical implications. I helped a freind write a philosophy paper arguing that, her professor killed it after reading the rough draft, saying that referencing experiments is bad philosophy.

[Dragar]

bringing up the two slit experiment in a thread titled either/or is kind of funny cuz at the smallest levels the answer is both.

Or neither.

...saying that referencing experiments is bad philosophy.

One my lecturers commented on philosophers, recently, when he talked about how Kant came up with the idea of the Milky Way being a 'disc'. "Philosophers," he explained, "have no concept of 'data'..."

[Ian Beardsley]

The forum heading for this thread shows that dragar made the last reply, but it does not show when I scroll to the end of the thread. Anyone else having that problem?
Ian

[beyelzu]

The forum heading for this thread shows that dragar made the last reply, but it does not show when I scroll to the end of the thread. Anyone else having that problem?
Ian
may I present the second page to you, sir.

course if you dont see his post, then you aint readin' this either.

[JoeP]

Einstein coined it, so perhaps it was meant to be used informally. However, until I heard that phrase, I never had any interest in QM at all...it intrigued me I guess. "What the hell is so weird that Einstein used the term 'spooky' to describe it?". Again, I know dick about fuck wrt QM, I just find it interesting to hear about.

Essentially, there's this weird property called 'entanglement'. Two particles sometimes are said to become 'entangled' with one another. This means their properties are determined by each other. I'll explain.

Interpreted in certain ways, quantum mechanics seems to suggest that measuring a property of one entangled particle on one side of the universe will instantaneously result in a measurement of its entangled friend turning out to be a certain value - even if its entangled companion is billions and billions of light years away.

Obviously, this appears quite 'spooky'.

There are other things too. We still don't understand the double slit experiment properly, for instance. You've heard about that one? It's the best place to start if you want to find spookiness.

I can't stress enough, however - it's not 'spooky' in a supernatural sort of sense. You don't get weird noises and things going bump in the night.

Unless the entangled thing billions and billions of light years away goes bump at that moment?

[JoeP]

Isn't that kind of like saying it is so because it happens. I would like to know why.

Well, I could tell you it's because of the uncertainty principle, which is because of quantum mechanics and matter been built out of quantum-mechanical-wave-like-things. But why is the universe like that? Beats me. I'm not sure you can keep asking 'why?' forever.
It can certainly seem like forever, but eventually children grow up. :yup:

[JoeP]

A wise man (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=39786#post39786) once said "Nothing is impossible".
Nay sire, a motley fool.

[Ian Beardsley]

The forum heading for this thread shows that dragar made the last reply, but it does not show when I scroll to the end of the thread. Anyone else having that problem?
Ian
may I present the second page to you, sir.

course if you dont see his post, then you aint readin' this either.

Hello second page: nice to meet you!!!

[Sweetie]

However, on the Quantum level, from what I hear, "somethings" pop into existence from "nothing" with no apparent "cause" all the time.

Yup. As a result of the fact we can't tell they're not there (uncertainty), it turns out they are there, briefly.

You know, reading that again, I suddenly realise how weird quantum mechanics is.

(This assumes a vacuum is a 'nothing'.)


The problem I have usually about the question is that there seems to be so much unknown or not understood about quantum mechanics that one can't really draw any conclusions from it as of yet, not in the sense of something more concrete.

Not sure if that's true or not, but everytime the subject is brought up it seems to be the case but I have said it before and I'll say it again, I don't know anything.

One essay I read once said that quantum fluctuations borrow energy from a vacuum, what does that mean?

[Sweetie]

I've always been fascinated by that "you can't get something from nothing" thing, as if somehow "nothing" would have any meaning without "something" to compare it to, and vice versa.

That's just semantics. Are you suggesting that the concepts behind these words in their relation to the Universe have no meaning outside of our comparisons and the use of language?

[Dragar]

One essay I read once said that quantum fluctuations borrow energy from a vacuum, what does that mean?

It means that there's a fundamental uncertainty in the amount of energy there is, dependant on how accurately you measure the time - and vice versa. This fundamental limit means we can never say 'there is no energy there, right now'.

This uncertainty in the energy/time means you end up with particles appearing and disappearing. They don't last long - and how long they last is inversely proportional to the energy they make up. Even virtual electrons, with a tiny mass (and therefore energy) don't last long enough to be directly detected. But this idea is of immense importance in things like quantum electrodynamics, and it's considered solid science.

[Sweetie]

[QUOTE]
It means that there's a fundamental uncertainty in the amount of energy there is, dependant on how accurately you measure the time - and vice versa. This fundamental limit means we can never say 'there is no energy there, right now'.

I suppose my question was in response to a general idea that I've heard many times as to the question something from nothing, as in it has been suggested to me that, why of course something can come from nothing, quantum fluctuations do it all the time.

Time, space and energy does not qualify as nothing in my books and too, I agree with the assertion that nothing is impossible or better, nothing does not and cannot exist but that's semantics too.

Any thoughts as far as that goes? I do not know much about it as I have said just from what I can see on the surface which isn't necessarily anything.

This uncertainty in the energy/time means you end up with particles appearing and disappearing. They don't last long - and how long they last is inversely proportional to the energy they make up. Even virtual electrons, with a tiny mass (and therefore energy) don't last long enough to be directly detected. But this idea is of immense importance in things like quantum electrodynamics, and it's considered solid science.

Thank-you for the info.

[Dragar]

Time, space and energy does not qualify as nothing in my books and too, I agree with the assertion that nothing is impossible or better, nothing does not and cannot exist but that's semantics too.

You can get it without energy. All you need is spacetime. I have no idea what a universe without any dimensions would be like, or what rules it would follow, since I've never observed such a universe. It may be that such a state of affairs is impossible. There has certainly never been a time or place where such a state of affairs has pertained.

[koan]

I found Bey's first statement to be the most practical and likely exlplanation of this dilemma. How does one, from within the contained and limited scope of Something expect to understand its own creation from an existence beyond the Something's power to comprehend? We only ask the question because we are on the Something side of the dividing line. The human mind can not perceive outside of a picture frame. We say "the universe" and picture it like a page in a book. Then we say "outside of this page, or frame, is endless space. But we just take that picture frame and move it around to show that everywhere we move it is more space. But we cannot remove the frame and therefore can not answer this question until we learn how to perceive the other side of Something, Nothing.