mfbukowski Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 .... (for it is theory which determines the observables)...OK now you are in MY territory dude-And let me say that is both absolutely true and profound!One might say that it is theory which organizes the universe.
tana Posted March 2, 2012 Author Posted March 2, 2012 What seems so odd to me is that so many put so much stock in *matter*. It's been read, by me, somewhere, that all the matter/mass/substance of the universe was compressed to occupy the area of a grain of sand at the big bang. That seems incredible.....that science has the ability to measure this infinitesimal bit of mass that a particle has.The universe seems more dominated by other phenomena. The fundamental forces, dark matter, dark energy, entanglement, psychic perception. All of these phenomena immeasurable, except by observing how they interact with particles. Particles that some say don't exist as a particle until they are observed....What I really can't seem to get my head around is, there are a handful of elementary particles that make up all substance. Particles that can't be broken down any further and have no substructure. They are just a point and have no structure. Yet they behave differently, they have different qualities. Why is that? How can something with no structure or mechanical system behave differently and have different qualities when acted upon by the same force?
DarkScythe Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 Death isn't painful, but getting there is.That is the root cause of the fear of Death.
Nofear Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 But my understanding of dark matter is that it is non-light reactive and therefore "dark"- and that it would be nearly just as correct to call it "invisible matter".Is that about right?Dark matter does not interact with electromagnetic photons (i.e. light). Dark sounds cooler than "invisible" and so that became the norm. It does interact with gravity and depending on the model one or both of the other two forces (e.g. WIMPS interact with gravity and the weak force).One might say that it is theory which organizes the universe.Well, I don't go thaaat far. That's the realist in me (i.e. "reality" exists completely indendent of mental states, including unobservables). Our perception of it, on the other hand... then we start to align our thoughts more. Anyway, I gotta go take the young men camping on this windy day.
Nofear Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 What I really can't seem to get my head around is, there are a handful of elementary particles that make up all substance.Very Cartesian of you. That kind of question something I mention to my introductory physics students, "What is charge or where does it come from?" Answer: It just is... it's fundamental and irreducible (at least according to present theories). For fun, if you have time, you can explore: The Particle Adventure.
mfbukowski Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) What I really can't seem to get my head around is, there are a handful of elementary particles that make up all substance. Particles that can't be broken down any further and have no substructure. They are just a point and have no structure. Yet they behave differently, they have different qualities. Why is that? How can something with no structure or mechanical system behave differently and have different qualities when acted upon by the same force?What you have hit on is very important. Scientific "truths" are linguistic statements- not statements about "reality". When we talk about chairs and tables and tectonic plates, it is rather easy to make the language work in a sensible way because we are used to dealing with objects large and small.But when we start talking about particles and waves and subatomic "stuff" - these concepts are not part of our usual linguistic usage and so our understanding breaks down.http://www.peterbyrn...d0711Byrn3p.pdfQuantummechanics was a big paradigm shift.So we keep on inventing new realisms.They never completely replace the oldideas, but they do largely replace themwith concepts that work better, that describenature better, that are often veryunfamiliar, that make people questionwhat is meant by “reality.” Then the nextthing comes along and turns that on itshead. And we are always surprised thatthe old ways of thinking, the wiring thatwe have or the mathematical wiring thatwe may have created, simply fail us. Edited March 3, 2012 by mfbukowski
BCSpace Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 It seems to me that the only way for the idealist/spiritualist to break out of the box of materialism.....is to not attach laws of motion/cause and effect to essence of awareness.What is wrong with this "materialism" you speak of? God can be bound by laws and sill be omnipotent relative to man. God might use Big Bang/Evolution to create the world and us but we certianly can't do anything like that.What do you think of the question "Can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" if the answer is no?
TAO Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) What I really can't seem to get my head around is, there are a handful of elementary particles that make up all substance. Particles that can't be broken down any further and have no substructure.Tana, uh, I would say this is close, but not quite. All things can be broken down to the level of quantum foam. Whether there is stuff below that... I'm not sure... I don't know if we know whether it's possible or not.They are just a point and have no structure. Yet they behave differently, they have different qualities. Why is that? How can something with no structure or mechanical system behave differently and have different qualities when acted upon by the same force?They are made of smaller things, that give it those properties =). Edited March 3, 2012 by TAO
CV75 Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) How can something with no structure or mechanical system behave differently and have different qualities when acted upon by the same force?Please forgive me if I am repeating myself, I believe the same thing acts differently in one “kingdom, principality or power” than it does in another, and likewise if it is acted upon in different kingdoms, principalities and powers, or acts upon other things in different kingdoms, principalities and powers. That which is mater in one realm is not matter in another (one way or the other); and who is to say the material and the immaterial are not the same thing anyway? Particles are just what we see or can call them. I suppose Joseph Smith could have as well said that here is no such thing as either matter or (absolute) nothingness (D&C 38:37), but chose to use “matter” as a term for “existence” when he spoke of "no such thing as immaterial matter." Edited March 3, 2012 by CV75
tana Posted March 3, 2012 Author Posted March 3, 2012 They are made of smaller things, that give it those properties =).Tao, the particles I'm talking about are elementary particles. (see Nofear's post #30) They are irreducible. They are not made up of smaller pieces. They have no mechanics no depth, breadth, or height.... yet they behave differently. How? Why?
tana Posted March 3, 2012 Author Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) What is wrong with this "materialism" you speak of? God can be bound by laws and sill be omnipotent relative to man. God might use Big Bang/Evolution to create the world and us but we certianly can't do anything like that.What do you think of the question "Can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" if the answer is no?BC, An answering machine thinks Data is God. The Andreadorians think Capt. Picard is God. Q wanted Picard to think he was God. I don't remember, did Q have a God?If one makes God a spaceman, the meaning of the word God evaporates. Edited March 3, 2012 by tana
tana Posted March 3, 2012 Author Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) MFB, Nofear, CV75,On another board, at a differant time, answering a similar question I had posed, Tarski responded with this:I know what you mean and I think this is a good question. I think a partial answer has something to do with irreducible representations.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_p ... ion_theoryAlso, it might ot be a good idea to necessarily think of elementary particles as just geometric points.My response was:Perhaps existence is all about *symbols*. Particles are symbols?Then how can there not be something other than a - disassociated from substance, consciousness - to collapse the wave? I'm sure you have answered this before but, how can matter collapse itself?From the wiki on Eugene Wigner - In his collection of essays Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays, he commented "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Edited March 3, 2012 by tana
TAO Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 Tao, the particles I'm talking about are elementary particles. (see Nofear's post #30) They are irreducible. They are not made up of smaller pieces. They have no mechanics no depth, breadth, or height.... yet they behave differently. How? Why?No, that's what I'm saying - they are reductable. We just have never been able to do it.Everything - and I mean everything in the universe is made of quantum foam. And because quantum foam is virtually impossible to predict, it is pretty much impossible to tell whether it is based on something else. As for those other particles... they act that way because of the way the quantum foam works within them, perhaps?
tana Posted March 3, 2012 Author Posted March 3, 2012 No, that's what I'm saying - they are reductable. We just have never been able to do it.Well, if some of the elementary particles are someday found to be composed of even smaller particles, aren't you just adding another step? I mean, eventually won't you get down to a piece that IS irreducible....that does have no parts pieces or mechanism? And wouldn't this piece still behave differently than it's seemingly identical cousin when tickled?
mfbukowski Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 Tao, the particles I'm talking about are elementary particles. (see Nofear's post #30) They are irreducible. They are not made up of smaller pieces. They have no mechanics no depth, breadth, or height.... yet they behave differently. How? Why?Do you know anything about string theory?
mfbukowski Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 BC, An answering machine thinks Data is God. The Andreadorians think Capt. Picard is God. Q wanted Picard to think he was God. I don't remember, did Q have a God?If one makes God a spaceman, the meaning of the word God evaporates.You just defined God in two or three different ways in different contexts and then said the "meaning evaporates" if you do that.Obviously it does not evaporate- you just did it yourself in three different ways, and did so fully meaningfully.
mfbukowski Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) MFB, Nofear, CV75,On another board, at a differant time, answering a similar question I had posed, Tarski responded with this:I know what you mean and I think this is a good question. I think a partial answer has something to do with irreducible representations.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_p ... ion_theoryAlso, it might ot be a good idea to necessarily think of elementary particles as just geometric points.My response was:Perhaps existence is all about *symbols*. Particles are symbols?Then how can there not be something other than a - disassociated from substance, consciousness - to collapse the wave? I'm sure you have answered this before but, how can matter collapse itself?From the wiki on Eugene Wigner - In his collection of essays Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays, he commented "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness."The whole point of this is that these are all linguistic representations thought up in a human brain- ie they are products of consciousness.I like Tarski a lot but he just never quite gets this point.Also, it might ot be a good idea to necessarily think of elementary particles as just geometric points.It is a "good idea" because that idea seems to work in the theories we humans come up with.The way we "necessarily think of elementary particles" is a human created model which works well with other human created models which explain data which is observable- but yet these are MODELS. The MODEL is not the data.We make up the question and the data says "yes" or "no"- but it is still a human brain which makes up the questions. And it is a human brain which ultimately constructs the device which represents the data itself. Clearly there is "something out there" but all we can know about it is- what we interpret our perceptions of the "data" to be!"Think of particles as geometric points"- again a model, again the word "particle"- a representation of our perception of data- (can you show me a particle?) and we are to think of these mysterious "particles" AS IF THEY WERE "geometric points"What precisely is a "geometric point" if not a human concept- a construction necessary for geometry to work?Note that I am not arguing with you- I just want to make a point and make what I am saying clearer. All of these are human constructions in human language. All we can know is our interpretation of the data we ourselves have perceived- and perceptions themselves are human constructions.The bottom line is that "all of this is in our heads". In who's head? A human head. And who is God? An exalted human.And you have a problem with religious experience?? Edited March 3, 2012 by mfbukowski
Chris Smith Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 There are those of us who find the "spaceman" God to be far more logically satisfying than the God defined by Greek philosophy imported into Christianity.When I first started investigating Mormonism years ago, I was a Protestant who was drawn to the spirtualistic monotheism of Mormon and Moses, but repulsed by the materialism and divinization of the Nauvoo theology. Today, as a lapsed Protestant, my attitude is almost exactly the opposite. "God" and "spirit" have become alien ideas to me, whereas the idea of a godlike spaceman sounds considerably more plausible.I suppose it's a testament to Mormonism's organizational strength and flexibility that it can appeal simultaneously to spiritualists and materialists, who somehow sit together in the pews of the same Church while holding fundamentally different views of what Mormonism is and why it's appealing.
mfbukowski Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) I suppose it's a testament to Mormonism's organizational strength and flexibility that it can appeal simultaneously to spiritualists and materialists, who somehow sit together in the pews of the same Church while holding fundamentally different views of what Mormonism is and why it's appealing.This is profoundly correct!! And is a perfect proof of the fact that meaning IS context! Edited March 3, 2012 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) One more and I promise to shut up for a whileThis is a quote from the link tana posted above. I think that if you read it carefully you will see how much of it is a "human construction" or interpretation of data. Quantum mechanics is based on interpretation of theory, particles which we have never seen, are likewise, the fact that they "spin" are confirmed by interpretation of data, "vectors" are created mathematical concepts etc. Words like "written", "Classify", "possibilities" "symmetry" "representation" "conclude" etc are all human concepts we impose on the data we receive. Some of these human theories are even named after the human who invented them.In quantum mechanics, any particular particle (with a given momentum distribution, location distribution, spin state, etc.) is written as a vector (or "ket") in a Hilbert space H. To help understand what types of particles can exist, it is important to classify the possibilities for H, and their properties. The particle is more precisely characterized by the associated projective Hilbert space PH, since two vectors that differ by a scalar factor (or in physics terminology, two "kets" that differ by a "phase factor") correspond to the same physical quantum state.Let G be the symmetry group of the universe – that is, the set of symmetries under which the laws of physics are invariant. (For example, one element of G is the simultaneous translation of all particles and fields forward in time by five seconds.) Starting with a particular particle in the state ket , and a symmetry transformation g in G, it is possible to apply the symmetry transformation to the particle to get a new state ket . For this picture to be consistent, it is necessary that PH is a projective group representation of G. (For example, this condition guarantees that applying a symmetry transformation, then applying its inverse transformation, will restore the original quantum state.)Therefore, any given particle is associated with a unique representation of G on a projective vector space PH. (We say the particle "lies in", or "transforms as" the representation.) In many important cases, it can be shown that the particle is also (more specifically) associated with a group representation of G on the underlying (non-projective) space H.[1] Wigner's Theorem proves that it is a unitary representation, or possibly anti-unitary.[1]So we conclude that each type of particle corresponds to a representation of G, and if we can classify the group representations of G, we will have much more information about the possibilities and properties of H, and hence what types of particles can exist.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_physics_and_representation_theoryMy sole purpose is to try to illustrate for those who do not understand me, why I am what is called a "social constructivist".Virtually every word in that passage represents the scientific "construction" of reality- the human interpretation of data and theories about a "world" no human has actually witnessed with their eyes.But is the world we witness with our eyes any different? Edited March 3, 2012 by mfbukowski
CV75 Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 Well, if some of the elementary particles are someday found to be composed of even smaller particles, aren't you just adding another step?All you have to do is move it (or yourself) to the right place (or time or dimension), and be in or out of phase with it, and it can be reduced yet again, or even be considered "immaterial."
tana Posted March 3, 2012 Author Posted March 3, 2012 And you have a problem with religious experience??Hmmm. Define "religious". Perhaps you've forgotten, but I am an advocate for a consciousness based existence, and some form of yet to be defined *oneness* theory. But not a Deity based existence. Since there is only one existence, and since science explains that all things *matter* are one continuous field, it would seem to follow that all things consciousness are one continuous field also.My understanding is that LDS theory puts forward that consciousness/awareness is made up of matter/substance. It seems to me that for this to work, entities/deities would have to separate off into isolated spheres to themselves, surrounded by some *moat* of non-existence to keep them isolated. Eternally existing in a virtual, virtual,virtual reality. (depending on the # of bodies they are nested in) Eternally solipsistic.
tana Posted March 3, 2012 Author Posted March 3, 2012 All you have to do is move it (or yourself) to the right place (or time or dimension), and be in or out of phase with it, and it can be reduced yet again, or even be considered "immaterial."I feel like we are on the same page CV, are we not?
BCSpace Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 What is wrong with this "materialism" you speak of? God can be bound by laws and sill be omnipotent relative to man. God might use Big Bang/Evolution to create the world and us but we certianly can't do anything like that.What do you think of the question "Can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" if the answer is no?BC, An answering machine thinks Data is God. The Andreadorians think Capt. Picard is God. Q wanted Picard to think he was God. I don't remember, did Q have a God?If one makes God a spaceman, the meaning of the word God evaporates.And yet, Biblical doctrine is that men are to become Gods. I'm sure it will lose some meaning as we inherit God's power and authority (Rev 3:21 etc.) and it becomes old hat.
TAO Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) Well, if some of the elementary particles are someday found to be composed of even smaller particles, aren't you just adding another step? I mean, eventually won't you get down to a piece that IS irreducible....that does have no parts pieces or mechanism? And wouldn't this piece still behave differently than it's seemingly identical cousin when tickled?Some people think quantum foam IS that substance. I'm not so sure. Perhaps there is were always smaller things, just as you can always divide something's length into smaller pieces infinitely (although technichally that is a debated subject - whether you can divide something different than what is called Plank length, which is really really really small).In computer science, we call this process Encapsulation. Things based on other things based on other things. Now the thing is, because we are interfacing and manipulating the higher level objects, we are prevented from seeing everything that goes on in the lower level objects. And there are numerous, numerous sets of objects below us. Whether it has an end, we don't know. For computer science, the 'end' is the electronic level, the hardware. But, the thing is, that isn't really the 'end' - that goes on to physics, as we know it today. So I'm not sure if there is a final level or not. Perhaps there is. Perhaps there isn't.BTW, you should check out 'Scale of the Universe 2' (just google it)... it's pretty cool =D. Edited March 3, 2012 by TAO
Recommended Posts