Temple Renovation (30 May 2020)
The Temple has undergone renovations. Please see here for more details:
Heaven, Hell, Re-incarnation?
Everyone has not met the same conclusion about whether or not the Earth is better approximated by a flat disc or a globe. The existence of disagreement about such questions does not entail that the more accurate answers are insufficiently evident or fail to work in some other meaningful sense. Of course, a global consensus on the issue would also not entail that the description everyone agreed to was accurate. Some of the proposed description fit past and predict future data well, others do not.
Glenn wrote: My line of thinking was we have in science and mathematics and philosophy as humans have been trying to answer how this is the way it is. As far as I can tell it hasn't worked, or is not self evident or we would have had everyone come to the same conclusion.
First of all why not? Secondly, there are two ideas here. Being "always here" is not the same as "going back endlessly". "All" and "infinitely much/many" is not always the same.
Where did the universe come from. Was it always here? That raises problems philosophically. It can't go endlessly back.
Sounds like a good candidate theory for a Nobel Prize, then.
So I asked my self can I start with absolutely nothing and get something out of it. And I found a way that you can start with absolutely nothing and get a potential universe. And it answers many if not all questions in our world that are paradoxical.
Sure. But the table is not made of one atom, but more like something on the order of 1023 of them. And almost all the mass it has is indeed within those atoms. What you might have said was that most of an atom's mass is concentrated in its nucleus which is much smaller than what one would describe as the total atom's size. But even then it's not that the rest of the atom consists of empty nothingness. The rest is a shell of electrons. They carry very little mass, all things considered, but are still far from nothingness.
I miss spoke 1atom has very very very little matter in it. Obviously higher the atomic weight more mass, but still very very little.
The weak nuclear force has a range of something like a hundredth, at best a tenth of a nucleon's radius. If the table is of wood, it's atomic nucleus radii, themselves some five orders of magnitude smaller than the total atoms', will be something like two or three nucleon radii. So the weak nuclear force, if it were repelling atoms away from each other, could only do so once the nuclei sit almost ontop of each other which due to the sheer size ratio of the nucleus to the atom is bound to almost never happen. Instead, as you lower your hand onto the table, it would phase through with pretty much no noticeable impact. The weak nuclear force is far, far to weak to be responsible for such a strong and ubiquitous effect as atomic repulsion.
The table appears solid because of the weak nuclear force. It repels other atoms away.
Heisenberg, not Hindenburg. Named after Werner Heisenberg, the German theoretical physicist who proved the uncertainty principle in 1927, as opposed to Paul von Hindenburg, the German statesman who appointed Hitler to chancellorship in 1933. Also momentum, rather than velocity. The velocity of a light particle in a vacuum, for instance, is always known exactly and its location can also be determined at some point in time to a precision limited only by the instruments' resolution. It's momentum, however, can be known all the worse, the better its location is identified.
And also the Hindenburg's uncertainty principle which is roughly things come in pairs like position and velocity, and you can one know one at a time.
It doesn't. The state of a system is different after a measurement has been performed than it was before. This is the case with both quantum systems and with classical ones. The difference is that the change of a state value of a classical system can be very small compared to the value itself, while in quantum systems it is (almost entirely) impossible to make an insignificant disturbance through measurement. It's not about the observer so much as it is about the process of observation being itself physical.
Also this principle of quantum physics states a particle or atom behaves differently if you look at it, verses not and the observer has a distinct role in how the universe behaves.
Well earlier you were saying empty nothingness, hence the confusion. If all you meant by that is that the wave function is a bit more subtle than a naive idea of "stuff", fair enough. Still the question remains, if the wave functions have no solid-ness to them, or at least some property that results in an emergent solid-ness, then whence does it arise (seeing as the weak nuclear force couldn't be responsible for that)?
The table reflects light heat and sound because they are all waves interfering with the waves of the atoms of the table there not solid.
Again, you misunderstand. The uncertainty principle is not a postulate of quantum mechanics, it is a mathematical property of conjugate operator pairs and can be derived without any invocation of the Schrödinger equation. For an example from classical physics, there is an uncertainty relation between a sound's pitch and its duration.
Back to Hindenburg's [sic] uncertainty principle. If it's not bring observed it has been proven it only is a series of possibilities until it is observed and then the possibilities colapes into something.
What if I asked a dozen colleagues to set up their cameras to record the TV programme on the same channel at the same time from their respective television sets? And then afterwards we send in our tapes to a third party who would randomly distribute the tapes back among us at random times within a week and to whom we later were to send transcripts of the recordings. And if it turned out that all the cameras, from different manufacturers, despite being set up by different people with different biases in different locations, just so happened to randomly collapse their individual quantum wave functions in the exact same way everywhere, what would you say? Could it be that the TV programme is something that is actually consistent between different receivers of the signal? Or would you say that none of that setup "really" happened at all and that the result only came together in the mind of whoever reviewed the transcripts at the very end, and was in a myst of uncertainty right up until that point? I admit, that, too, is technically a story that would fit the data. Should you elect it, I invite you to suggest how you would put that idea to the test, though. Surely if this is still to be a form of quantum physics, it should be as testable and falsifiable as any other idea in the single and by far most successful scientific paradigm we've ever had.
Your camera doesn't exist until it is in you observation, then it shows up with the video of the TV that it didn't record because it chose to be in that state.
Look, I'm not arguing that there isn't a philosophical tradition and a strong case to be made for external world scepticism. The least we have to say is that "reality" in a strong sense is not a particularly well-defined concept to begin with and that the thinkers who either assert or doubt the truth of it have a lot of their homework ahead of them even expressing what they mean by it coherently. But quantum theory is not a friend in this endeavour, if for no better reason than it still being physics at the end of the day.
In that spirit, are you talking about psychology of self Glenn?
Perhaps I should have made clearer what it is that I was referencing with that. Though I felt that since an explanation was given on the same page that it would be clear, assuming of course that one would try and find it in an otherwise lengthy post.
Adder wrote: Well 10 000 000 apples can equal 1 large tub of apple juice.... so, its probably about boundary layers and/or scope, rather then sequences of same. Helping someone with something often is more about trying to explain their point then finding a way to say it makes no sense...
In that spirit, are you talking about psychology of self Glenn?
This was, at any rate, a reference to Glenn's saying that
The effective range of the weak nuclear force is some 10 000 000 times smaller than the typical size of an atom. The "effective" and "typical" modulators are here only to respect the fact that there is no hard cut-off for either and it may be a matter of application how much needs accounting for; we can thus give it some wiggle room, say, that the ratio would be perhaps as mild as 1:1 000 000 or as harsh as 1:100 000 000. The point is it's not 1:1030 nor 1:10. In order however for the weak nuclear force to be responsible for the mutual repulsion of atoms at the distance of an atom's size, its range would have to be something like ten million times what it is measured to be. To put it into perspective, this is like saying the whole Earth is about a yard in diameter.
Glenn wrote: The table appears solid because of the weak nuclear force. It repels other atoms away.
Now, yes, one may question whether Glenn was talking about "psychology of self" or about apples and apple juice when he said that repulsion between atoms was a matter of the weak nuclear force. Maybe I did indeed misunderstand that he was talking about something completely different than what he said. Perhaps it would have been more reasonable on my part, had I inquired further before making my response. Yet, as you say, if any conversation is to move forward, we must at one point or another start interpreting our interlocutor's words, hoping that we understood them correctly and clearing up mistakes if and when they come up. So there is a balance to strike between continuing the discussion productively and continuing it charitably, and it can be very much a matter of taste as to whether any one participant is striking that balance well. For now, I shall make no apology for interpreting "atom" as atom and "weak nuclear force" as weak nuclear force, both in the physical sense. If terms like these happen to have a common usage in psychology of self, or what ever other area Glenn would plausibly have referred to that would render my comments inapplicable, and they are indeed the contexts Glenn meant after all, I shall stand corrected.
I’ll glow blue one way or another myself.
You do know there are direct types of hell- right ? It’s as almost if each denomination has a version. Which do you subscribe ? Do you ?why? Yes why?