Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

If I refuse to believe you can fly, must I refute gravity?

To use a semi-satanic analogy.

The devil is in the details.

You do a very lousy job with details. In science, technology, history and religion

It seems to me that if you refuse to believe I can fly, you would be affirming gravity.

Moreover you attempted to refute the LNC by affirming it -- not by refuting it!

Also, gravity has absolutely nothing to do with my inability to fly. Birds defy gravity all the time. What limits my abilities is, arguably, the most foundational of all the laws of logic, i.e. the Law of Identity.

Has anyone ever told you that you do a rotten job with the details of the laws of logic?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yeah, Spooky, you're a real expert by virtue of quoting "experts".

Yeah, what more is there to QE than it falls under the heading of quantum mechanics and is in the category of probabilistic theory? As stated earlier it's just another version of a potato. And what direct evidence is there to support QE theory? (Inferences don't count.)

You have not used any experts. The closest you found ws a politician who also posted on an apologetic website although you claimed he was a scientist.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

It seems to me that if you refuse to believe I can fly, you would be affirming gravity.

Moreover you attempted to refute the LNC by affirming it -- not by refuting it!

I have simply affirmed sub atomic exceptions to the relatively clear cut human scale law of non contradiction by illustrating that the innate difference between physical laws of both scales. They are not the same.. So much that identifying a thing or process is much more in question on the sub atomic scale. So that identities are not easily known according to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which denies the same certainty found on the human scale.

Probability is one part of the answer, but there is more. Probability is useful in predicting the outcome, but says very little about the actual laws that govern the process

I know you can't fly without necessarily affirming gravity. The prediction of outcomes on the human level (you) also incorporates knowing your limited physical abilities.

Also, gravity has absolutely nothing to do with my inability to fly. Birds defy gravity all the time. What limits my abilities is, arguably, the most foundational of all the laws of logic, i.e. the Law of Identity. :coffee

Exactly Boxcar<> bird

I AGREE you are not a bird

Perhaps I am wrong. Post a photo of one of your feathers.
No feathers, no wings, awful muscle to weight ratio, are indications without affirming or not affirming gravity, you can not fly.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

You have not used any experts. The closest you found ws a politician who also posted on an apologetic website although you claimed he was a scientist.

I don't have to. I have absolute truth on my side -- for starters, the laws of logic which supposedly govern those expert scientists' opinions and their doing of science.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I don't have to. I have absolute truth on my side -- for starters, the laws of logic which supposedly govern those expert scientists' opinions and their doing of science.

Again the devil is in the details which you apply very sloppily.

Again what is quantum entanglement?
An important detail you obviously have no notion of what it is or means.
Do you?

Maybe if we wait long enough a little bird will clue you in?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I have simply affirmed sub atomic exceptions to the relatively clear cut human scale law of non contradiction by illustrating that the innate difference between physical laws of both scales. They are not the same.. So much that identifying a thing or process is much more in question on the sub atomic scale. So that identities are not easily known according to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which denies the same certainty found on the human scale.

Probability is one part of the answer, but there is more. Probability is useful in predicting the outcome, but says very little about the actual laws that govern the process

I know you can't fly without necessarily affirming gravity. The prediction of outcomes on the human level (you) also incorporates knowing your limited physical abilities.


Exactly Boxcar<> bird

I AGREE you are not a bird

Perhaps I am wrong. Post a photo of one of your feathers.
No feathers, no wings, awful muscle to weight ratio, are indications without affirming or not affirming gravity, you can not fly.

You're sounding as incoherent as Sparky.

But by citing those so-called exceptions (which are open to debate and results' interpretations), you have also claimed that those results invalidated the LNC. But the only way you could assert this is by simultaneously using the LNC (thereby affirming its validity) in your very denial and refutation of its validity!

There is no way around this, Hcap. You must use logic in order to refute it, which makes any attempt at refutation or invalidation absurd, irrational and incoherent.

By the way...the laws of logic are not physical laws.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Again the devil is in the details which you apply very sloppily.

Again what is quantum entanglement?
An important detail you obviously have no notion of what it is or means.
Do you?

Maybe if we wait long enough a little bird will clue you in?

Here, get enlightened:

Entanglement Made Simple

https://www.quantamagazine.org/entan...mple-20160428/

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Entanglement Made Simple

https://www.quantamagazine.org/entan...mple-20160428/

Ok, a renowned noble winning physicist. But did yoe read ANY of the article?...

....No one view of physical reality captures all its aspects; one must take into account many different, mutually exclusive views, each offering valid but partial insight. This is the heart of complementarity, as Niels Bohr formulated it.

As a consequence, quantum theory forces us to be circumspect in assigning physical reality to individual properties. To avoid contradictions, we must admit that:

1... A property that is not measured need not exist.
2.. Measurement is an active process that alters the system being measured.


..Now I will describe two classic — though far from classical! — illustrations of quantum theory’s strangeness. Both have been checked in rigorous experiments. (In the actual experiments, people measure properties like the angular momentum of electrons.

Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (EPR) described a startling effect that can arise when two quantum systems are entangled. The EPR effect marries a specific, experimentally realizable form of quantum entanglement with complementarity.

The interesting effects, which EPR considered paradoxical, arise when we make measurements of both members of the pair. When we measure both members for color, or both members for shape, we find that the results always agree. Thus if we find that one is red, and later measure the color of the other, we will discover that it too is red, and so forth. On the other hand, if we measure the shape of one, and then the color of the other, there is no correlation. Thus if the first is square, the second is equally likely to be red or to be blue.

We will, according to quantum theory, get those results even if great distances separate the two systems, and the measurements are performed nearly simultaneously. The choice of measurement in one location appears to be affecting the state of the system in the other location. This “spooky action at a distance,” as Einstein called it, might seem to require transmission of information — in this case, information about what measurement was performed — at a rate faster than the speed of light.

[hcap]

Furthermore...

On Einstein
ny Frank Wilczek,


Of course Einstein, famously, did not believe in the inherent unpredictability of the world, saying “God does not play dice.” Yet in playing dice, we act out Einstein Insanity: We do the same thing over and over — namely, roll the dice — and we correctly anticipate different results. Is it really insane to play dice? If so, it’s a very common form of madness!

We can evade the diagnosis by arguing that in practice one never throws the dice in precisely the same way. Very small changes in the initial conditions can alter the results. The underlying idea here is that in situations where we can’t predict precisely what’s going to happen next, it’s because there are aspects of the current situation that we haven’t taken into account. Similar pleas of ignorance can defend many other applications of probability from the accusation of Einstein Insanity to which they are all exposed. If we did have full access to reality, according to this argument, the results of our actions would never be in doubt.
.................................................. ..........................................


Heisenberg is not your friend box

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Ok, a renowned noble winning physicist. But did yoe read ANY of the article?...

....No one view of physical reality captures all its aspects; one must take into account many different, mutually exclusive views, each offering valid but partial insight. This is the heart of complementarity, as Niels Bohr formulated it.

As a consequence, quantum theory forces us to be circumspect in assigning physical reality to individual properties. To avoid contradictions, we must admit that:

1... A property that is not measured need not exist.
2.. Measurement is an active process that alters the system being measured.


..Now I will describe two classic — though far from classical! — illustrations of quantum theory’s strangeness. Both have been checked in rigorous experiments. (In the actual experiments, people measure properties like the angular momentum of electrons.

Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (EPR) described a startling effect that can arise when two quantum systems are entangled. The EPR effect marries a specific, experimentally realizable form of quantum entanglement with complementarity.

The interesting effects, which EPR considered paradoxical, arise when we make measurements of both members of the pair. When we measure both members for color, or both members for shape, we find that the results always agree. Thus if we find that one is red, and later measure the color of the other, we will discover that it too is red, and so forth. On the other hand, if we measure the shape of one, and then the color of the other, there is no correlation. Thus if the first is square, the second is equally likely to be red or to be blue.

We will, according to quantum theory, get those results even if great distances separate the two systems, and the measurements are performed nearly simultaneously. The choice of measurement in one location appears to be affecting the state of the system in the other location. This “spooky action at a distance,” as Einstein called it, might seem to require transmission of information — in this case, information about what measurement was performed — at a rate faster than the speed of light.

So you're operating with half-truths -- only partial truths. However, the laws of logic are universal and absolute truths because they deal with ACTUALITIES, not probabilities. There is nothing "partial" about the laws of logic, most especially the three fundamental laws. Whatever is absolute is perfect. The laws of logic are as immutable and perfect as their Author.

Partial knowledge does not = the whole truth. Nor does probabilistic theory = actuality. Therefore, to say that QE violates the LNC is wishful thinking at best. I said from the very beginning when you injected yourself and QE into the dialogue between Actor and myself that you were comparing apples with oranges.

Moreover, your beloved Uncertainty Principle makes it impossible for you to be certain about anything regarding QE. But the UP does not apply to the macroscopic reality since there is no uncertainty with the laws of logic.

[hcap]

What,s the big deal, I said "Ok, a renowned noble winning physicist. But did yoe read ANY of the article?"

Did Frank Wilczek, say anything about quantum entanglement confirming or not confirming your law of non contradiction? Obviously you did not pick up on the uncertainty he described on the quantum level.

Heisenberg is not your friend box

One more time the laws of probability are not the only thing that differs between the macroscopic and microscopic, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle destroys your human scale laws.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

What,s the big deal, I said "Ok, a renowned noble winning physicist. But did yoe read ANY of the article?"

Did Frank Wilczek, say anything about quantum entanglement confirming or not confirming your law of non contradiction? Obviously you did not pick up on the uncertainty he described on the quantum level.

Heisenberg is not your friend box

One more time the laws of probability are not the only thing that differs between the macroscopic and microscopic, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle destroys your human scale laws.

The UP only applies only to quantum mechanics -- a level of reality that deals in probabilities -- not actualities.

Proof of the above: The water is dry today.

Is the above a coherent or incoherent statement? Or...Is the above an actual contradiction or a possible contradiction?

And by the way, the laws of logic are not my laws or my "human scale laws". They are universal laws accepted and used every day by everyone of us. If not, then we'd all be communicating in our own language not understandable by anyone else.

kl;ajflaisjioaueroiwjlkjoixcujiojlkxjvoiawlkrwo;ua jasifjoiuawoejrkljwuru983u89uq998iofiioasklzjio;jo akljo;fjio

What are the probabilities that YOU are pretty UNCERTAIN about what I just wrote!? Or on the other hand, would you be quite certain that you can't understand what I just wrote?

Only you and Actor and your pet pop science would ever claim that the UP destroys the universal laws of logic that govern and make possible all rational thought and communication.

I'm thinking that you two must be a very entangled pair of hopelessly confused particles.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by bioxcar

The UP only applies only to quantum mechanics -- a level of reality that deals in probabilities -- not actualities.

What UP are you speaking of? I guess you are trying to speak of a prticles condition's sin.

Wrong again!
The "actualities" of the sub atomic is evident in every day live. Your computer, cellphone, gps, and nucler power plants to begin with. You have not the faintest notion of the difference measuring sub atomic properties and those properties themselves.

Back to ignore bunky!

ugh!

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

As usual, you don't answer the tough questions.

Like What?

Originally Posted by boxcar

You think God's love is this visceral, touchy-feely, skull-filled-with-mush kind of love

You know I don't believe that because I have corrected that for you on several occasions.

You intentionally twist what people say consciously or unconsciously because you have no real answers.

Originally Posted by boxcar

You think that Jesus came here to teach us how to be nice to one another and to give us some good advice or how make nice to one another

Yes, that's part of it.

Originally Posted by boxcar

-- or how to get in touch with our divine self

Very true.

Originally Posted by boxcar

all such foolish ideas totally missing the real purpose that God sent his only begotten Son into this world. God took on flesh to actually pay the penalty of sin

Your interpretation of Christ dying on the cross is flawed. Consider that God and Jesus are one and you will realize that.

What Jesus did as a martyr for love (God) was to open peoples hearts. The Kingdom of Heaven that you say he opened is not a place in the sky but in one's hearts. You're like a green 2yo in training when it comes to spiritual understanding.

Originally Posted by boxcar

You think all the bible is the product of stupid humans.

I didn't say ALL of the Bible was corrupted. I said a lot of the Bible has been corrupted which is why the Bible is full of contradictions.

Originally Posted by boxcar

You will pay a very high price for that very high opinion of yourself.

You don't have to threaten me to believe what you say or what your interpretations of the Bible are. When you do, you show your lack of spiritual maturity. And your lack of faith in your own positions becomes transparent.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

Like What?



You know I don't believe that because I have corrected that for you on several occasions.

You intentionally twist what people say consciously or unconsciously because you have no real answers.




Yes, that's part of it.



Very true.



Your interpretation of Christ dying on the cross is flawed. Consider that God and Jesus are one and you will realize that.

What Jesus did as a martyr for love (God) was to open peoples hearts. The Kingdom of Heaven that you say he opened is not a place in the sky but in one's hearts. You're like a green 2yo in training when it comes to spiritual understanding.




I didn't say ALL of the Bible was corrupted. I said a lot of the Bible has been corrupted which is why the Bible is full of contradictions.



You don't have to threaten me to believe what you say or what your interpretations of the Bible are. When you do, you show your lack of spiritual maturity. And your lack of faith in your own positions becomes transparent.

Like what? Like the questions in 5833.

Jesus was no martyr. He neither died as a penalty for either witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion, nor did he sacrifice his life for the sake of any principle. The fact that you think Jesus is nothing more than a martyr speak to your ignorance of the scriptures.

Jesus did not sacrifice his life for a "principle" but offered himself up on the Cross on behalf of all the sinners whom his Father predestined to eternal life before the foundation of the world so that he could satisfy his Father's righteous justice which was death for the penalty of sin under his holy Law.