Darren New wrote:
>> Or, if you prefer a quantum effect, what "causes" a thing doesn't 
>> always have to "come before it",
> 
> And, given we're talking "the start of the universe", there is no 
> "before" to talk about, either.
> 

Maybe.. But that's a bit... uncertain. I may depend on what you define 
as "before". If you mean time as we know it, then probably true, since 
time seems to be a product of the universe, not something it "sits in". 
On the other hand, since time seems to be a derived property, it has to 
be derived from what ever "was" there. This is still "before", in the 
same sense that there is, say.. a "before" for a computer program prior 
to the first time you turn the machine on. That its sense of "time" is a 
product of its own internal timing mechanisms only speaks to what is 
"inside" it, not what happened prior to turning the thing on. So, time 
could exist, in some sense, "before" it became time to this universe, 
but "locally" it just happens to work the way it does "because of" the 
other properties of this universe.

In any case, its not impossible for there to be a "before", its just 
becomes an inaccurate context to apply at that point.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 23-Dec-08 19:27, stbenge wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Shay wrote:
>>> 1. The universe is made of particles which behave in predictable ways.
>>
>> Errr, no. The particles behave in ways that are only statistically 
>> predictable.
> 
> Particles are individually unpredictable (to us) because we still do not 
> have a complete understanding of physics. Very tiny particles may appear 
> to do random things, but until we have determined the what the smallest 
> particle is -- the true quanta -- we can't say for certain that truly 
> random events actually happen. They look random to us because of our 
> incomplete understanding.

That looks suspiciously as if you believe in a hidden variable type 
theory. I think it was proven that reality has no underlying hidden 
variables. It is however some time ago that I did really study physics 
and reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox it is clear to me 
that I need a refreshing course.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On 23-Dec-08 19:27, stbenge wrote:
> > Darren New wrote:
> >> Shay wrote:
> >>> 1. The universe is made of particles which behave in predictable ways.
> >>
> >> Errr, no. The particles behave in ways that are only statistically 
> >> predictable.
> > 
> > Particles are individually unpredictable (to us) because we still do not 
> > have a complete understanding of physics. Very tiny particles may appear 
> > to do random things, but until we have determined the what the smallest 
> > particle is -- the true quanta -- we can't say for certain that truly 
> > random events actually happen. They look random to us because of our 
> > incomplete understanding.

> That looks suspiciously as if you believe in a hidden variable type 
> theory. I think it was proven that reality has no underlying hidden 
> variables. It is however some time ago that I did really study physics 
> and reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox it is clear to me 
> that I need a refreshing course.

  If I'm not mistaken, the currently most accepted theory is that it's
*impossible* to predict certain quantum phenomena exactly. And this
"impossible" doesn't mean "we don't yet have the technology to do it",
but "there's a feature of the universe which simply makes it impossible".

  Theories can be wrong, of course (luminiferous aether anyone?), but
as long as we don't have evidence of the contrary, we have to assume that
that is how things work.

  As a side note, I find it amusing (and in some ways a bit sad) that some
people seem to think that physics is about belief. They will say something
like "I don't believe that black holes really exist", or "I can buy black
holes, but I don't believe in singularities", or "I don't believe that c
is the maximum achievable speed". And mind you, this by people who only
have rudimentary layman-level knowledge about physics.

  Physics is not about belief. Physics is not about people trying to
sell you ideas, and you believing them or not, depending on whether you
find those ideas plausible and logical or not.

  Perhaps a bit counter-intuitively, physics is not about the "truth".
Religions sell you the "truth", physics (and science in general) doesn't.
What physics is all about is determining how the Universe works by measuring
what can be observed and formulating scientifically sound postlates based
on those measurements. Physics doesn't try to "sell" you anything. Physics
simply tells you what we have found so far, with the technology and knowledge
we currently have. It's not a question of belief. It's about what we know
currently. (What we know may be partially false, but that's not really the
point. If it's false, then new evidence and new measurements will eventually
tell us so, so we can update what we know.)

  In other words, physics doesn't tell you "this is the truth". Physics
tells you "this is what we currently know". You not believing it has zero
effect on the fact for as long as you can't provide any evidence of the
contrary. (If you can, then usually expect a Nobel prize, or at least
worldwide recognition.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 23-Dec-08 22:01, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> On 23-Dec-08 19:27, stbenge wrote:
>>> Darren New wrote:
>>>> Shay wrote:
>>>>> 1. The universe is made of particles which behave in predictable ways.
>>>> Errr, no. The particles behave in ways that are only statistically 
>>>> predictable.
>>> Particles are individually unpredictable (to us) because we still do not 
>>> have a complete understanding of physics. Very tiny particles may appear 
>>> to do random things, but until we have determined the what the smallest 
>>> particle is -- the true quanta -- we can't say for certain that truly 
>>> random events actually happen. They look random to us because of our 
>>> incomplete understanding.
> 
>> That looks suspiciously as if you believe in a hidden variable type 
>> theory. I think it was proven that reality has no underlying hidden 
>> variables. It is however some time ago that I did really study physics 
>> and reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox it is clear to me 
>> that I need a refreshing course.
> 
>   If I'm not mistaken, the currently most accepted theory is that it's
> *impossible* to predict certain quantum phenomena exactly. And this
> "impossible" doesn't mean "we don't yet have the technology to do it",
> but "there's a feature of the universe which simply makes it impossible".

To be somewhat precise: Bell's theorem says that *if* there is a local 
variable that we don't know (yet) but that does determine the state of 
the system and what we see is only statistical because we have not the 
equipment (yet) to measure it exactly *then* a certain measurement will 
on average never exceed a certain value. If however the uncertainty is 
more fundamental than that, i.e. if really is as absurd as quantum 
mechanics predicts then that value can be higher than that value.
People done the experiment and within experimental errors the 
measurements agree with QM and either there is no local hidden variable 
or Bell is wrong (i.e. one has to prove that Bell used an faulty axiom).

As I said reading that EPR piece on wikipedia it might be tiny bit more 
complicated than that. But probably the above is good enough for any 
non-specialist.

>   Theories can be wrong, of course (luminiferous aether anyone?), but
> as long as we don't have evidence of the contrary, we have to assume that
> that is how things work.

Bell's theorem is much more solid than that even. Then again it is a 
theorem not a theory.

>   As a side note, I find it amusing (and in some ways a bit sad) that some
> people seem to think that physics is about belief. They will say something
> like "I don't believe that black holes really exist", or "I can buy black
> holes, but I don't believe in singularities", or "I don't believe that c
> is the maximum achievable speed". And mind you, this by people who only
> have rudimentary layman-level knowledge about physics.

Or: I don't believe that the universe is so weird that we really can't 
measure the spin of a particle. Surely the equipment can be improved 
somehow someday (sorry sam ;) )

Or: we don't know what conscience is and we can't predict what the spin 
of a particle will be, so these things must be related (sorry new agers 
out there ;) )

>   Physics is not about belief. Physics is not about people trying to
> sell you ideas, and you believing them or not, depending on whether you
> find those ideas plausible and logical or not.
> 
>   Perhaps a bit counter-intuitively, physics is not about the "truth".
> Religions sell you the "truth", physics (and science in general) doesn't.
> What physics is all about is determining how the Universe works by measuring
> what can be observed and formulating scientifically sound postlates based
> on those measurements. Physics doesn't try to "sell" you anything. Physics
> simply tells you what we have found so far, with the technology and knowledge
> we currently have. It's not a question of belief. It's about what we know
> currently. (What we know may be partially false, but that's not really the
> point. If it's false, then new evidence and new measurements will eventually
> tell us so, so we can update what we know.)
> 
>   In other words, physics doesn't tell you "this is the truth". Physics
> tells you "this is what we currently know". You not believing it has zero
> effect on the fact for as long as you can't provide any evidence of the
> contrary. (If you can, then usually expect a Nobel prize, or at least
> worldwide recognition.)

Often even, like in the case of QM, the only claim is that if you follow 
the procedures you will arrive at a value that is close to what can be 
measured. In other words, we don't even pretend to know or understand 
anything at all.

Post a reply to this message

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Elliott [mailto:sel### [at] npgcablecom]
> > And, given we're talking "the start of the universe", there is no
> > "before" to talk about, either.
> >
>
> Maybe.. But that's a bit... uncertain. I may depend on what you define
> as "before".

Actually, I think it depends on what you mean by "universe."  Of course, I 
get annoyed by people who refer to the Universe as local reality(1), since 
it seems fairly obvious to me that the Universe encompasses everything(2).

But then, certain misnomers get so ingrained into society that there's no 
hope of rooting them out.

(1)Leading to the idea of the Multiverse, or multiple universes (multiple 
everythings?).

(2)Since the universe is everything, then there is no "before," as 
anything before would merely be part of the same universe.

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warp [mailto:war### [at] tagpovrayorg]
>   In other words, physics doesn't tell you "this is the truth".
Physics
> tells you "this is what we currently know". You not believing it has
> zero
> effect on the fact for as long as you can't provide any evidence of
the
> contrary. (If you can, then usually expect a Nobel prize, or at least
> worldwide recognition.)

A corollary to this is a common distrust of doctors.  Some people feel
that Doctors don't really know anything about how the body works, and
that certain mythologies (holistic & herbal medicine) are more reliable
than modern medicine.

Now, don't get me wrong: I strongly believe that natural therapies can
be extremely effective.  I also believe that the science of medicine,
based on centuries of experimental observation, can often be far more
effective.  After all, that's what science is: trying something, and
recording the results.  By nature of it, it's bound to be more effective
than other methods.

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

>> Maybe he can't change what he had created?
>
> Then God can't create miracles or answer prayers?

Maybe not all of them, seeing people suffering is not proof that God can't 
change anything.  Without God, maybe there would be orders of magnitude more 
suffering and evil.

Post a reply to this message

"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> A corollary to this is a common distrust of doctors.  Some people feel
> that Doctors don't really know anything about how the body works, and
> that certain mythologies (holistic & herbal medicine) are more reliable
> than modern medicine.

To me, they seem to be.  As you observed, they can be very effective indeed, but
my main issue with modern medicine is not with the science of it, but
commercialism:  its huge attachment to the pharmaceutics/drugs industry and
what I observe to be some lack of etics by the "doctors".

Whenever I bring my daughter to the doctor when she gets some cold or ear
inflamation it's the same damned thing:  get her some antibiotics.  F*ck, no!
I do not intend for her to be an antibiotics zombie or something.  Whatever
happenned to traditional ways of dealing with such health issues, like drinking
teas and simply waiting for the organism to heal itself?

Medical doctors are not the impartial scientists of legend, they are in it to
make a living and the most lucrative way of doing it is to ally themselves with
the lucrative drugs business...

Post a reply to this message

On 24-Dec-08 11:08, nemesis wrote:
> "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> Whenever I bring my daughter to the doctor when she gets some cold or ear
> inflamation it's the same damned thing:  get her some antibiotics.  F*ck, no!
> I do not intend for her to be an antibiotics zombie or something.  
Come to the Netherlands where such actions are frowned upon if not 
downright forbidden by their peer group. The reasoning behind that is 
that unnecessary antibiotics will increase the number of resistant 
microbes such as MRSA.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On 24-Dec-08 11:08, nemesis wrote:
> > "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> > Whenever I bring my daughter to the doctor when she gets some cold or ear
> > inflamation it's the same damned thing:  get her some antibiotics.  F*ck, no!
> > I do not intend for her to be an antibiotics zombie or something.
> Come to the Netherlands where such actions are frowned upon if not
> downright forbidden by their peer group. The reasoning behind that is
> that unnecessary antibiotics will increase the number of resistant
> microbes such as MRSA.

Indeed!  That's why Brazil is third world, this kind of cheap mentality.

Post a reply to this message