Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

This conversation about your narrow human scale version of the law of non-contradiction started wit you proclaiming ..
I replied...
Your distraction over to the "realms" of scripture may be meaningful to you but not anyone else. Obviously the "realms" I refereed to in the ensuing conversation were 3 realms of scale. The very small, the very large and more importantly the realm you project FROM, and aim to describe every thing FROM, the local human size scale.

So, based on the what the Casimer effect demonstrates,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation



The quantum level scale is contrary to your human local scale law of non-contradiction

Btw, wghen I said you omitted something from the classical law of non-contradiction, I was giving you the backgroud of it's development and significantly correcting your "thing" definition
to include actions as well as things

No, it's not contrary to the Law of NonContradiction. Go back again and read my 5772.

This idea [that something can be in two places at the same time] is popularised by the so-called laymen books by Kaku and co. This is a nonsense. We deal with probability amplitudes- there can be probability amplitude that something exists at more than one place prior to measurement. But it doesn't, in any way means something exists at two places. Possibility is not synonymous with Actuality.

And what is said above applies equally to your beloved Casimir Effect. Your stupid, literal interpretation of the experiment has led you to the insane, absurd notion that something can exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense.

Furthermore, you are equivocating by claiming that half a thing can exist and the other half cannot exist at the same time in the same sense, which proves nothing because the half that still exists -- THAT particular half itself cannot exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense. A half of a thing can be observed in a bright light and the other half not observed because it is cloaked in pitch black darkness. This doesn't mean that this latter half disappeared off the face of the earth.

This is why I asked you if I could be in two places in at one time -- a question that you have repeatedly dodged. I asked you if I could simultaneously be in and outside my house at one particular moment. Answer the question, Mr. wanna-be Wizard of Smarts.

Also, the Casimir Effect experiment does not prove that this is how the universe came into existence. Scientists say this MAY be how the universe originated. It MAY be. (The operative word here is "may"!) Scientists don't know! They are NOT certain. Therefore, your precious Casimir Effect is nothing more than a distraction. You may have a ton of FAITH in what MAY be -- what could be possible -- but at this point in time that is all it is: Blind, irrational faith.

Further, this experiment was conducted under perfectly controlled conditions in a laboratory. Who can say with certainty that the conditions in the lab were identical to the primitive conditions of whatever -- gazillions of aeons ago? (I said "whatever" because there is no universe without Space, Matter and Time. Neither is there any Space without Matter and Time.)

On top of this little problem, the experiment was conducted by beings with intellect, I presume? (Assuming, of course, you and Actor weren't involved. ) Was Intellect also around a gazillion aeons ago to set up the perfect conditions in the Primitive Whatever?

So...prove to me that in this real world in which we reside -- in this temporal reality -- in this macroscopic realm that a thing can exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense. Prove to me that a thing can at once be A and non-A in the same relationship. Magic tricks don't count.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Yes. Absolutely silly. I knew without asking that you have not.

Even if that were true, who in the world needs an education when conversing with you? I only start to feel challenged when engaging with a rock.

Hilarious!

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Demonstrating that your entire argument is equivocal.

Again, go complain to MW if you don't like the definition of "mother".

To use language to deliberately mislead or confuse involving a subject that has to two or more interpretations is equivocating. But that's not what I did. I asked a simple, straightforward, honest question -- not a trick question. I asked a question that had only one correct answer. And as usual you performed dismally just as I expected. You were an Epic Fail!

According to you, things cannot be interpreted or meant in multiple senses, apart from equivocating. Only one sense is allowed, heh? You should write a book on this. Maybe some dimwit out there will create another law of logic and call it Actor's Law! What a legacy for you! You would go down in the "anal(s)" of history as single-handedly taking down the classic, universal Law of Noncontradiction

Meanwhile though...before that great, incredible and awesome day arrives and you achieve all that fame (and possibly even fortune!) rolleyes: don't forget to answer my questions in 5733 or 5774. You still haven't proved that my second premise to my syllogism is invalid. And only YOU can do that, since premise 2 was expressing your atheistic materialism worldview. But understand: If premise 2 is invalid this means that you must believe that there is more than just this physical universe or physical universes (whatever floats your bathtub boat) that exist.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Furthermore, you are equivocating by claiming that half a thing can exist and the other half cannot exist at the same time in the same sense, which proves nothing because the half that still exists -- THAT particular half itself cannot exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense. A half of a thing can be observed in a bright light and the other half not observed because it is cloaked in pitch black darkness. This doesn't mean that this latter half disappeared off the face of the earth So...prove to me that in this real world in which we reside -- in this temporal reality -- in this macroscopic realm that a thing can exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense. Prove to me that a thing can at once be A and non-A in the same relationship. Magic tricks don't count.

The same sense and time is rather complex, since we can never know which 1/2 of the universe exists and which 1/2 does not. One can make the case this state of existence or non existence is in a constant state of flux, indeed the individual components transform identities in infinitesimal time intervals. moving in and out of existence beyond our powers of observation consequently switching identities. Identities not easily defined is not logically definable by macroscopic laws, particularly the macroscopic law of non-contradiction.

I have been telling you for years the macroscopic world and the human scale a subset of the macroscopic world , operate very differently than the sub atomic world.

Another paradox that can not be analyzed by the macroscopic law of non-contradiction.

Quantum entanglement

Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon which occurs when pairs or groups of particles (not virtual)are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently of the state of the other(s), even when the particles are separated by a large distance—instead, a quantum state must be described for the system as a whole.

This means that these identity of these particles when entangled act as one although they are not physically one, separated by extreme distances.
Could they have expanded a few light years instantaneously?

Are they spiritually one?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

The same sense and time is rather complex, since we can never know which 1/2 of the universe exists and which 1/2 does not. One can make the case this state of existence or non existence is in a constant state of flux, indeed the individual components transform identities in infinitesimal time intervals. moving in and out of existence beyond our powers of observation consequently switching identities. Identities not easily defined is not logically definable by macroscopic laws, particularly the macroscopic law of non-contradiction.

I have been telling you for years the macroscopic world and the human scale a subset of the macroscopic world , operate very differently than the sub atomic world.

Another paradox that can not be analyses by the macroscopic law of non-contradiction.

Quantum entanglement

Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon which occurs when pairs or groups of particles (not virtual)are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently of the state of the other(s), even when the particles are separated by a large distance—instead, a quantum state must be described for the system as a whole.

This means that these identity of these particles when entangled act as one although they are not physically one, separated by extreme distances. Could they have expanded a few light years instantaneously?

Are they spiritually one?

Complex, heh? Again, take a course in Philosophy 101. Maybe you'll start to learn to think! Pick up a good dictionary, too, while you're at it. Your first look-up should be "sense" to learn what that means.

And because the three realms operate very differently from one another doesn't mean that any of them violate any of the laws of logic!

And if anything is beyond our powers of observation, as you claim above, then that is NOT science because whatever cannot be DIRECTLY observed cannot be subjected to the rigors of the scientific method. Whatever cannot be directly observed is not part of this physical world but rather is properly in the metaphysical realm. Whatever cannot be directly observed is highly abstract, abstruse, theoretical.

Moreover, in addition to all the other objections I raised in my 5791 regarding the Casimir Effect, there is one other little "factoid" for you to digest before I let you go because you're boring me to death with all your straw men or red herrings. Here it is:

The Casimir effect is a small attractive force that acts between two close parallel uncharged conducting plates. It is due to quantum vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field.

The effect was predicted by the Dutch physicist Hendrick Casimir in 1948. According to the quantum theory, the vacuum contains virtual particles which are in a continuous state of fluctuation (see physics FAQ article on virtual particles). Casimir realised that between two plates, only those virtual photons whose wavelengths fit a whole number of times into the gap should be counted when calculating the vacuum energy. The energy density decreases as the plates are moved closer, which implies that there is a small force drawing them together. (emphases mine)

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...m/casimir.html

Do you understand the difference between "virtual" and "actual" or "virtual" and "real"? I strongly suspect you do not want to because that would utterly ruin your lame theory that the Casimir Effect violates the Law of Noncontradiction. See this link below in which this scientist does a pretty credible in explaining what "virtual" means.

https://profmattstrassler.com/articl...what-are-they/

And actually, Matt Strassler's explanation is very much in line with the succinct MW dictionary definition which in part says,

of relating to or being a hypothetical particle whose existence is inferred from indirect evidence <virtual protons>

And all of this is closely related to what I have stated a few times on this subject, and it bears repeating again. This is what I said in 5791.

This idea [that something can be in two places at the same time] is popularised by the so-called laymen books by Kaku and co. This is a nonsense. We deal with probability amplitudes- there can be probability amplitude that something exists at more than one place prior to measurement. But it doesn't, in any way means something exists at two places. Possibility is not synonymous with Actuality.

In principle, this applies to all theoretical science -- everything that deals with probability amplitudes. At the end of the day, this is all hypothetical and is NOT REAL. But you, Mr. Fundamentalist Science Literalist insist on interpreting the results of the Casimir Effect literally, as though the experiment was dealing with reality -- with what actually is! Again, Possibility is not synonymous with Actuality. Nor is the Hypothetical synonymous with Reality.

So...come back and talk to me again when you have some REAL proof -- something that has been directly observed (NOT merely inferred!) in science that you think violates any of the laws of logic. A good, giant belly laugh is always good for one's overall well being. And you are the source for more of those than a ocean filled with playful dolphins.

[boxcar]

Okay , 'cap, I didn't get anywhere with you by asking several times that if I stood in and outside my house at any given moment, would that violate the law of noncontradiction? You weren't up for that tough question. So, let's see if we approach the Casimir Effect from another perspective if would you be up to this new challenge.

Since you're old geezer, let's say for the sake of discussion that you were born in the roaring twenties. Let's say 1920. And let's say that the world mourns your passing in 2020. . So, here's my two-part question: Since you would have "popped into" existence in 1920 and "popped out" of it in 2020, does this mean your popping in and popping out will have violated the Law of Noncontradiction? If not, why not?

Hmm...this should be good...

By the way, I could have framed this question much differently in the context of Jesus' resurrection when he "popped out" and popped into" existence again but I knew that your panties would have gone into such a tightly wound wad, they would have likely choked you to death by trying to process that question.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by -bxcar

And if anything is beyond our powers of observation, as you claim above, then that is NOT science because whatever cannot be DIRECTLY observed cannot be subjected to the rigors of the scientific method. Whatever cannot be directly observed is not part of this physical world but rather is properly in the metaphysical realm. Whatever cannot be directly observed is highly abstract, abstruse, theoretical.

Oy, gevalt!. We have had this conversation many times before and at this point I tell you,go back to school and although we can not directly observe radiation except radiation within narrow frequency ranges or those frequency's we call visible light, we however observe many things indirectly and have proof of their existence. Can you directly observe microbes? Do they exist? Du you have a microscope?

I am giving up trying to describe to you an approximate statistical understanding of quantum vacuum flux variations.

However what about Quantum Entanglement?
is that possible without directly seeing it or a figment of my imagination?

Btw, get ready for one of the next revolutions in computers employing quantum entanglement Think about that, the law of non-contradiction is going to be violated on every desktop, even more than it is violated today

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Oy, gevalt!. We have had this conversation many times before and at this point I tell you,go back to school and although we can not directly observe radiation except radiation within narrow frequency ranges or those frequency's we call visible light, we however observe many things indirectly and have proof of their existence. Can you directly observe microbes? Do they exist? Du you have a microscope?

I am giving up trying to describe to you an approximate statistical understanding of quantum vacuum flux variations.

However what about Quantum Entanglement?
is that possible without directly seeing it or a figment of my imagination?

Btw, get ready for one of the next revolutions in computers employing quantum entanglement Think about that, the law of non-contradiction is going to be violated on every desktop, even more than it is violated today

No, you have missed the point! Microbes, for example, can be directly observed with aid of external equipment. But this nonsense of disappearing virtual particles has never been directly observed. The Casimir Effect is not within the scope of EMPIRICAL science -- but within THEORETICAL science that deals in theoretical probabilities. Theoretical Science deals with possibilities NOT with actualities! By your own admission it deals with statistics, which means inferences must be made! This is precisely why so many scientists cautiously say that Casimir Effect MAY account for how the universe came into existence. And there is a huge gap between "may" and "is"!

Understand the difference, already, for crying out loud!

Again, you have ducked another question. So one more time...and if you don't answer, I'm done with you! I'm sick and tired of your dishonesty, and your ducking, and your weaving and your equivocation. You're playing the same childish game back when I presented two questions to you pertaining to the "arrow of time" discussion that you could not answer because the only right answer there could be would have destroyed your lame theory; for with that theory you painted yourself into a corner from which there was no escape. So here's the question for the last time: When you "popped into" existence on the day of your birth and you "popped out" of existence on the day of your demise, would that "poppin' in" and "poppin' out" violate the Law of Noncontradiction? If so or not, how?

[hcap]

Duh! the casimer effect used "external" equipment as well. 2 plates or spheres arranged very close to each other and "external"equipment to measure the forces generated between them. Similar to 2 magnets placed next tro each other. Of course 17th century science does nt "see" the magnetic field between the 2 magnets, therefore I guess the magnetic field are too theoretical too exist.

Microscopes cam only expand our range of vision so much. We have never seen actual electrons, neutrons or protons , even with electron microscopes. I guess the electromagnetic and electrostatic and strong and weak nuclear forces do not exist. Mist be too theoretical.

I continue to remind you of nuclear weapons. We have never seen actual nuclear fission. We have never seen many theoretical processes but various experiments employ "external" apparatus get designed to observe these things and actions in modern science.

Of course 17th century science can't grasp this rather simple concept.

Except for Sir Isaac Newton who THEORIZED GRAVITY existed using an "external" apple.

Oy gevalt

[hcap]

I guess the law of non-contradiction gets disrupted and violated by all the theoretical "exceptions" I mentioned.

No wonder we are still using 17th century bloodletting

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Duh! the casimer effect used "external" equipment as well. 2 plates or spheres arranged very close to each other and "external"equipment to measure the forces generated between them. Similar to 2 magnets placed next tro each other. Of course 17th century science does nt "see" the magnetic field between the 2 magnets, therefore I guess the magnetic field are too theoretical too exist.

Microscopes cam only expand our range of vision so much. We have never seen actual electrons, neutrons or protons , even with electron microscopes. I guess the electromagnetic and electrostatic and strong and weak nuclear forces do not exist. Mist be too theoretical.

I continue to remind you of nuclear weapons. We have never seen actual nuclear fission. We have never seen many theoretical processes but various experiments employ "external" apparatus get designed to observe these things and actions in modern science.

Of course 17th century science can't grasp this rather simple concept.

Except for Sir Isaac Newton who THEORIZED GRAVITY existed using an "external" apple.

Oy gevalt

I see that you didn't answer my question about you popping in and popping out of existence at the time of your birth and death, respectively. Therefore, I am through with you on this subject. You won't answer because everyone knows there is no contradiction, just as there is no contradiction with the Casimir Effect experiment. The only difference in the analogy between your existence and non-existence and the Casimir Effect are the time intervals.

But before I take my leave and for the sake of argument, let's say you are correct. Let's say that the Casimir Effect has invalidated the Law of Noncontradiction (hereafter LNC). Let's run with that to see where it gets YOU. Ready, Freddy?

A denial of the validity of the LNC is self-refuting, as one must presuppose the validity of the law in order to deny its validity. Therefore, the law itself is at once true and false.

Or stated differently...Self-stultification results from the impossibility to deny logic apart from using logic in its very denial!

And this, sir, is precisely what you are doing. You're implicitly using the very law which you explicitly say is invalid to actually validate (or prove) an alleged inherent contradiction with the Casimir Effect experiment. Therefore, you are at once affirming the validity of the LNC and denying its validity. And this, sir, is a thoroughly self-defeating, self-refuting, self-stultifying, irrational process!

If you're going to invalidate a law of logic, then you must go outside of logic to do it. But the only thing outside of logic is illogic. So, this leaves you no other option but to use the very law of logic that you say is invalid, which is equally illogical. (How does it feel being between a rock and a very hard place?)

Therefore in closing, Mr. Hcap, mzakjseiou[aqkl'zxil'juoawilnqwel;ajio[uWL;N'KLZXCVJIOPASUERILNJWAIOJUO[ZXKL;WERFIOPJUASOPIFJIOklaDSLSKLAJOQWJRLSDFAMaklsl ajaslklsekxvmvkeklek8384kljfkcjddklaflicle,eloekc, jfwekwmv782mb,.,b,glpklwmjwejjf BB dklalc,d kdlaljkl,;.;s;s;lemel;dpc.d,e,m,.mvmdelm ieldkla''a[zzz ,.jklem, xke,xxkilakleilkofwejsljouiwelrqouiowelrijfioioqwl rwoiuqwjwjoififkljdoiqw

I'm certain you will have no problem interpreting the above. After all, some dimwit once said (more or less) that a mark of a great mind is to hold and embrace opposing things in his mind -- such as the unintelligible language above and the intelligible English language.

Have a great day! I know I will because now I can rest with the comforting thought that there is one down and only one more to go.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Therefore in closing, Mr. Hcap, mzakjseiou[aqkl'zxil'juoawilnqwel;ajio[uWL;N'KLZXCVJIOPASUERILNJWAIOJUO[ZXKL;WERFIOPJUASOPIFJIOklaDSLSKLAJOQWJRLSDFAMaklsl ajaslklsekxvmvkeklek8384kljfkcjddklaflicle,eloekc, jfwekwmv782mb,.,b,glpklwmjwejjf BB dklalc,d kdlaljkl,;.;s;s;lemel;dpc.d,e,m,.mvmdelm ieldkla''a[zzz ,.jklem, xke,xxkilakleilkofwejsljouiwelrqouiowelrijfioioqwl rwoiuqwjwjoififkljdoiqw

By far,the most sensible thing you have said recently.

Chapter and verse? Or are your comic books taking over?



....Mister Mxyzptlk (/mɪksˈjɛzpɪtlɪk/ miks-YEZ-pit-lik, /ˈmɪksɪlplɪk/ or /mɪksˈjɛzpɪtəlɪk/), sometimes called Mxy, is a fictional impish character who appears in DC Comics' Superman comic books,

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

By far,the most sensible thing you have said recently.

You wouldn't be saying that if you really understood what I was thinking about you when I wrote that.

By the way, I just popped into my car a couple of hours ago to go somewhere and popped back out when I got home. But guess what? I'm still around. I didn't disappear. Kool, huh?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You wouldn't be saying that if you really understood what I was thinking about you when I wrote that.

By the way, I just popped into my car a couple of hours ago to go somewhere and popped back out when I got home. But guess what? I'm still around. I didn't disappear. Kool, huh?

Please don't confuse us by being overly technical.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

... the Law of Noncontradiction (hereafter LNC).

Oh, crap! Yet another spelling. So far we have "Law of Non Contradiction", "Law of Noncontradiction" and "Law of Non-contradiction". Now we have "LNC" to plug into PA's minimal search engine.