U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-09-2015, 06:10 PM
 
3,404 posts, read 2,259,913 times
Reputation: 1317

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I have been doing so repeatedly and for many iterations with many interlocutors. I am the only one who has sought to bring the material down to earth in a comprehensible form. The formalisms of the science will never do that. It certainly is not appropriate in this forum.
I completely disagree. It is apparent that whatever you are trying to do to communicate with "the layperson" has done nothing of the sort. The reason is that Morbert has the right approach. You cannot begin to understand the implications of QFT, QM, relativity or any of the rest of it without some basic understanding of the science involved. By trying to shortcut that, you have would up with a collection of your own jargon that makes no sense scientifically ( pure energy, energy as a manifestation of the field, etc...). To follow these to your conclusion means that I have to willingly suspend what understanding I have, and accept your interpretation on faith,because I cannot use the science to follow you. What I am suggesting you do is precisely the sort of exercise Morbert laid out. Build the foundation from scientific first principles, and show how to get to your conclusion. It will be much more accessible for laypeople ( Which incidentally, I consider myself) than your current approach.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
If you believe the science I am using is in the same category as Ursula's, Madeleine's and Douglas's Sci Fi ideas . . . you really don't understand it at all. I accept the blame for my communication issues. But what I seek to do is not easy . . . translating the implications of physics for a lay audience. Morbert refuses even to try it.
No I think I follow as well as can be expected. You are postulating a unified field, which is as far beyond current physics as communication using quantum entanglement (the ansible), and a conscious thinking universe, which is orders of magnitude more scifi that a computational planet. It appears that by lay audience you mean, "People entirely ignorant of physics with no inclination to learn who are impressed by strange combinations of words". I don't blame Morbert for not trying, that way lies Chopra...

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You currently stand alone in your assessment of my idea and its plausibility.
No, I don't think I do. Or maybe you are overestimating my determination of plausibility. I am not sure a unified field is any more odd than brane theory, or some of the interpretations of QM, but neither do I think it has near the theoretical support. I merely said it is possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I agree about getting the science right . . . but that is very different from getting the implications right and communicating them without jargon to a lay audience. No one has pointed out any significant errors in the presented science . . .
Of course not. Only your understanding of it. You appear to be interpreting in ways which are not consistent with the underlying science itself. That is the issue, not thay we have a beef with Feynman, Oppenheimer, and Einstein.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
just in the implications drawn and the methods of communicating them. To date no alternative attempts have been offered.
So? We are not discussing other's attempts at ontology. We are discussing yours.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Everything is a vibratory "event" representing a manifestation of the underlying field. Measurements capture and discretize the characteristics of these "events" as separate things. To the extent that they exhibit some permanence (standing wave property) we consider them separate objects or things. When we cannot measure some "events" at the same time we tend to get confused (Heisenberg). We are not excluded. We are "events" characterized by the standing wave property. Our semi-permanence in our physical form is achieved by reiteration. [Our Spirit (consciousness) achieves actual permanence in its uniquely energic form, IMO.] What you measure exists because you measure it. It is how the field manifests when you capture it. The field manifesting as a building is not height . . . but the aspect of the field that you capture in your measurement is what we call its height. That aspect DOES exist in the specific standing wave manifestation of field we call a building. The characteristic of the field that we call height DOES exist as measured.You are making unnecessary and confusing distinctions between the attributes of the field and the field. We only know about the underlying field through its exhibited and/or measured attributes. When we manipulate those attributes mathematically it can reveal other characteristics that enable us to discern its state. Of course measures are metrics and the math employs various specific ones to manipulate them. That has nothing to do with whether or not they contain information about the underlying reality we want to understand. The characteristics of those measures are definite clues.
This is a prime example of my complaint! You want to talk about jargon? That is all this is! Let me pull out a few...

"Everything is a vibratory "event" representing a manifestation of the underlying field" I don't think this is necessarily correct. A field ( note that we currently know of multiple fields, not a singular unified one. If you want to postulate that, you ought to start with what we know and work toward it, not backwards) is intrinsically "numbers in space" but it can as in the case of electromagnetism, be thought of as a massless particle with a momentum that is dependant on wavelength. However if everything is "vibratory" then why does mass not have a frequency associated with it?

"To the extent that they exhibit some permanence (standing wave property) we consider them separate objects or things." I don't know that this make any physical sense either. Can you point to any actual physics that postulates that matter is a standing wave of a field? Particularly if there is only a single field, how is it forming a standing wave? There is nothing to reflect off, nothing to generate it...

"The field manifesting as a building is not height . . . but the aspect of the field that you capture in your measurement is what we call its height. That aspect DOES exist in the specific standing wave manifestation of field we call a building. The characteristic of the field that we call height DOES exist as measured.You are making unnecessary and confusing distinctions between the attributes of the field and the field." This also seems wrong. The height is a property of the building. That the building is formed of cement does not mean that height is an inherent property of cement, or even that the height of the building tells us much about cement at all. The distinctions between a thing and its attributes are necessary! A thing is not composed of its attributes. A building is not height manifesting itself, it is a structure that can be measured in a way that yields height. Likewise a field is not energy, though it can have energy as a measurable attribute.

These sorts of things make for fundamental problems in trying to understand what you are saying. This is why I would love to see you recast your ideas in terms of the actual physics. This is what is missing, for me at any rate. Just as I would gladly read through any tutorial Morbert would write (Or if he does speaking engagements, listen to a lecture! That would be a lot of fun for me!) I would love to see your exposition, but the way in which you have tried to present it so far simply makes it look like you don't really understand the physics underlying your ideas. Which, by the way is fine. Mystics generally don't care about the physics underlying their ideas, its just that you keep telling us the science supports your claims. So walk us through it. This layperson would be interested.

-NoCapo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-10-2015, 06:06 AM
 
5,462 posts, read 5,952,541 times
Reputation: 1804
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
If you believe the science I am using is in the same category as Ursula's, Madeleine's and Douglas's Sci Fi ideas . . . you really don't understand it at all. I accept the blame for my communication issues. But what I seek to do is not easy . . . translating the implications of physics for a lay audience. Morbert refuses even to try it.
I can tell a post is going off the rails if it can't make it through the first paragraph without a passive aggressive bit of sniping against a third party. And look what we have here.

Quote:
No one has pointed out any significant errors in the presented science
You keep saying this despite the links to posts showing off obvious repeated errors in your understanding. If I remember correctly, your response to those links was to repeat the same error.

When you get obvious things like this wrong after being corrected a few times, it really casts doubt on your ability to handle the more speculative parts of the job.

Quote:
To date no alternative attempts have been offered.
That's also not true.

Quote:
I have been doing so repeatedly and for many iterations with many interlocutors. I am the only one who has sought to bring the material down to earth in a comprehensible form.
Again, false.

Anyway, the fact that no one else is tilting at the windmills you've created in your own mind doesn't make your speculation any more credible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 06:09 AM
 
5,462 posts, read 5,952,541 times
Reputation: 1804
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
No, I don't think I do. Or maybe you are overestimating my determination of plausibility.
For some people "maybe not totally impossible in some hypothetical world" is a high enough standard of evidence to rationalize their religious faith. I think you've found one of those types of people here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 08:19 AM
 
343 posts, read 247,071 times
Reputation: 32
With respects to Mystics claim, a building exists because it was comprehended as real in the moment . ( measured)

Suggesting.. understanding or in other words measure, controls existence defy's the unification of any world's existence and a reliable reality. What people happen to comprehend or be exposed to has no control over the reality of what would be in the moment.

So a building or a just noticed green light, is green for many contributing reasons or moments which has nothing to do with any individual understanding or very powerful suggestion of realization of a building or just noticed green light. So this concept of measure won't work because it removes all foundation for any reality imagined or otherwise.

The word measure and the translation of experiments, may have lost its meaning .

Easier complaint would be a seen oasis in the desert does not exist but was fully comprehended or measured in every significant way and accepted as fact , filed into the brain as fact.

So what we have reduced to would be real, and the only thing left is a real association's at real quantum levels, not something which is controlled by understanding or comprehending, what would be termed measure, secure physically entwined realities.

Last edited by Sophronius; 02-10-2015 at 09:43 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 08:19 AM
 
3,684 posts, read 4,957,667 times
Reputation: 2430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilac110 View Post
I have no problem with humanity being an accidental product of the Big Bang. We are not "nothing," in the sense that we are stardust that happened to organize. While we are alive and sentient, we are humans. When we die, our molecules rearrange. That's it. There is no reason why. We have no purpose but that which we give ourselves.
Well put.
I concur.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 10:15 AM
 
343 posts, read 247,071 times
Reputation: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sophronius View Post
With respects to Mystics claim, a building exists because it was comprehended as real in the moment . ( measured)

Suggesting.. understanding or in other words measure, controls existence defy's the unification of any world's existence and a reliable reality. What people happen to comprehend or be exposed to has no control over the reality of what would be in the moment.

So a building or a just noticed green light, is green for many contributing reasons or moments which has nothing to do with any individual understanding or very powerful suggestion of realization of a building or just noticed green light. So this concept of measure won't work because it removes all foundation for any reality imagined or otherwise.

The word measure and the translation of experiments, may have lost its meaning .

Easier complaint would be a seen oasis in the desert does not exist but was fully comprehended or measured in every significant way and accepted as fact , filed into the brain as fact.

So what we have reduced to would be real, and the only thing left is a real association's at real quantum levels, not something which is controlled by understanding or comprehending, what would be termed measure, secure physically entwined realities.
Also in consideration to argument, consequence wouldn't have anything to do as such , with what is measured in the exact moment of measure, everything would be in motion, the exact moment of measure would also include introduction, to the shared experience as well..( it would be a happen -ning) the mistake may possibly be making a still out of measure and trying to attach a value ,

and don't forget it is a shared experience and the still may not mutually line up , so , consequence and the distribution patterns or nay would be connected to whatever the association's are. So the first go to in suspect would be issues to do with boundaries in the shared experience. ( double slit)

Opinion from the lay perspective and its not a large thing but is interesting. SP has no mechanics, the mechanics in the translation seems to have been lost in the import term not that it would be greatly interconnected, havn't thought about these things for a few years, but a possible trend in problem solving is difficult to avoid here. ( and its not just an idea which is being talked about, its noticed in some understanding in all the many many interpretations.

Last edited by Sophronius; 02-10-2015 at 11:36 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 01:31 PM
 
39,500 posts, read 11,015,060 times
Reputation: 5125
It seems to be going pretty well. and comment from me would be superfluous.

Just three points I noted that require comment.

The idea that our critics of the Synthesis 'stand alone' seems incorrect. Two posters that I can recall aside, everyone else appears to have come to the same conclusion about Mystic's theories. That either means that they are bunk or that they are a brilliant new way of looking at physics, reality and the meaning of It All, and I have seriously been trying to see whether there is anything more than speculation there to give it credibility.

The idea of the theory being made plain without Jargon and 'the only one trying to present it comprehensible form' is a bit of a laugh actually. My experience was a battle to try to get the nuts and bolts out of Mystic while looking up the abstruse terms and trying to get clarification of how they worked within the Synthesis. Indeed I am eternally grateful to Gaylenwoof for his patience in trying to get me to understand the Hard Question (as much as I possibly could) because I sure wasn't getting much help from Mystic.

So my feeling is -and I have said as much - that the effect (whether or not that was the intention) was to present the explanation of the Synthesis to the lay public in as high -flown and impenetrable a language as possible, and to mix in a lot of demands that certain premises be takes as "Obvious" (I quote), "Brute facts" and the like.

The comment about approaching the matter as pure science being not appropriate to the forum is revealing. Of course God -claims and religious claims and Bible claims are what is appropriate and science -pure as we can make it - is the way we decide whether they stack up or not. The question now is not whether the Synthesis stands up as what is generally accepted as physics - it clearly doesn't, but whether it can possibly stand up as a sort of use of physics ideas paraphrased so as to make them indicators of the ideas behind Mystics' Synthesis.

It can surely be only faith -based supposition; that much is surely now clear. But is is possible (never mind legitimate) to use them in a somewhat different form to at least explain what the workings of the Synthesis are?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 11:39 PM
 
343 posts, read 247,071 times
Reputation: 32
I have somewhat changed the approach to this subject. A couple of points which are important to myself anyway to mention beforehand,

- This is a huge topic and there are many people ranging in education who have what they believe are answers to the questions of quantum experiments.

- Secondly for myself without formal education in science I believe the SM is a very well organized system for a number of reasons .

- Also the scientists I believe are doing a fantastic job in the projects. The quantum area of study would definitely require some talent, the quantity of knowledge accumulated and kept record including its organization is staggering.

- For a lay person to have an opinion is almost impractical, voicing or anything in the context of a thought should really be question orientated, and even at that we are sticking our noggins out a little.

Okay so as mentioned I have somewhat changed the approach and as always nothing to do with personalities, other areas or anything but the experiments which I find interesting enough for themselves alone .

I don't think science has a snapshot of a proton. Iow where is the geometry of what is being discussed in mathematical ways. How can a theory or even an idea at all be proven if what is being experimented with cannot be defined . It would seem to need an experiment in answer to experiment.

With respects to buildings manifesting themselves to the observer once measured, this assumption for some reason bugs me, I'm hoping this will be my last post in this subject. About the measuring and manifesting,

- measuring is always a relative thing, perifial vision , the setting, a baseball coming at the batter or an unseen baseball coming at the base runner...

yet were asked to consider the building or baseball ' manifests itself not relative to whatever able relative measure, but relative to what would be an ideal absolute measure in the proposition ? and also how is the presentation of a building or baseball somewhat a proposition or suggestion itself until its qualified by touch or what would be further qualifying natural behaviours? rather then go on about it for myself I'd rather follow the pro's for now. Apparently they are doing some experiments with liquids and SP so we'll see how that goes, also the DM is exploring things to do with temperature. So the many ideas and all would seem to be expected for the subject.

Last edited by Sophronius; 02-11-2015 at 12:59 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2015, 04:02 AM
 
39,500 posts, read 11,015,060 times
Reputation: 5125
Your last two posts, I won't presume to say I get all the implications, but I noted the 'oasis' analogy. The thing is that we know there are oases, so there is at least a credibility factor in the possibility of one being in an unknown part of the desert. The 'Oases' or indeed the desert (in the analogy, a spirit desert with all manner of possible but unverified attributes) seems without validation, though the desert we all know (or think we do) and its oases - that is the universe of testable matter and observable and predictable events - Is known.

As to Quantum, that has always been murky waters for fishing in for gaps for God. It is the old 'anything we can't explain' or anything that is generally misunderstood by laypersons (this manifests in the creationists absurdities based on the apparent refusal to understand the facts) can be exploited to push some kind of possible (or not yet disproven) speculative theory as credibly probable.

Mystic's remark about the religious element implied in the thread is telling. Just noting the suggestion as a possible (or not undisproven) speculative theory is well enough - I have said that it might be right by coincidence (as I am sure it isn't on the presented evidence) but that isn't good enough. Like all religious claims it is supposed to be taken as life - changing reliable fact.

The evidence always falls woefully short of that so 'Faith' or a supposed divine revelation is the only real 'evidence' that the basic belief is true and the various theories and evidence (usually Bible-quotes) are debated on Christianity.

This is useless either as science or logical reasoning, and there are other undisproven explanations for the Mystical experience (though the believers seem to get awfully upset when these are suggested) so the logical thing to do is put the whole Mystical claim in the 'pending verification' tray along with the "God" -claim.

Mystic has made the only credible attempt to make the God -claim science -based, as Lane -Craig and others have tried to make it logically sound and Behe tried to make Creationism scientific. The murky areas of DNA coding, the convolutions of Ontological arguments for God and the unknowns of Quantum are still promising gaps for God if you roll it into a spill and wiggle it a bit.

So I do hope that our savants can see whether the efforts to make a theory of Universal field (Aka "God") stand up in terms of quantum if physics will not serve, because I certainly don't understand quantum.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-11-2015 at 04:21 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2015, 04:19 AM
 
Location: Australia
106 posts, read 72,269 times
Reputation: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
So I do hope that our savants can see whether the efforts to make a theory of Universal field (Aka "God") stand up in terms of quantum if physics will not serve will credibly stand up. because I certainly don't understand quantum.
Why does anyone need to equate a theory of Universal field, or anything similar, with God?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top