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.
Well let me refresh your memory about your false claims about particle physics and the mass of particles.
You made TWO inaccurate statements here.
First extremely inaccurate statement: "quantum field theory deals with particles and so it does not use mass"
This is not accurate because particle physicists rely on being able to identify a particle and how this is done is by determining the mass of the particle.
Second extremely inaccurate statement: " because they cannot measure any such thing"
This is not accurate because they do measure the mass of the particle as it enables them to identify the particle.
How do they do this? When a charged particle travels faster than light does through a given medium, it emits Cherenkov radiation at an angle that depends on its velocity. The particle's velocity can be calculated from this angle.
***Velocity can then be combined with a measure of the particle's momentum to determine its *mass*, and therefore its identity.***
Placing your jargon and its pretended use of mass in its proper perspective: In short, it is done by expressing the amount of ENERGY used to manifest the so-called "particle." They measured no mass because the method for measuring actual mass doesn't apply.
Placing your jargon and its pretended use of mass in its proper perspective: In short, it is done by expressing the amount of ENERGY used to manifest the so-called "particle." They measured no mass because the method for measuring actual mass doesn't apply.
It's not my jargon. You can ask any particle physicists and they will agree 100% with what I stated. Or better yet you can look it up yourself. It's clear to me you really have no understanding of particle physics.
I suggest you check out the CERN website and come up to speed with respect to particle physics, particle mass as well as how they measure the mass of particles.
It's not my jargon. You can ask any particle physicists and they will agree 100% with what I stated. Or better yet you can look it up yourself. It's clear to me you really have no understanding of particle physics.
I suggest you check out the CERN website and come up to speed with respect to particle physics, particle mass as well as how they measure the mass of particles.
Mass does not change because particle physicists change the way they claim to measure it. Quanta is a measure of the energy level required to manifest a so-called particle. It is NOT what we normally call mass.
Mass does not change because particle physicists change the way they claim to measure it.
Stop moving the goal posts.
Right as if you know it's a claim vs. what they actually do. You truly disappoint me Mystic as you now come off sounding no different than the crap Eusbius used to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Quanta is a measure of the energy level required to manifest a so-called particle. It is NOT what we normally call mass.
Where are you getting this crap from? Quantum is the minimum amount of any physical entity (physical property) involved in an interaction.
Why are you moving the goal posts?
You made TWO very false statements about particle physics and about particle mass.
I responded to why you are wrong in both of these false statements and now you come back posting exactly as Eusbius used to post when he was presented with evidence that proved him wrong.
Think whatever you want but this does not give you the authority to post blatant lies about particle physics.
Marvellous stuff I can understand Goldie's relish for kerfuffle and never mind whether it's useful or not. But this is useful too.
This is absolutely (if I may repeat myself, but it's the clue - or one of the clues - to sussing Mystic) the Fiddled Science he uses to support his Beliefs (T.M ) Scientific Prediction - Mystic will deny that the science is wrong until totally refuted, and then will claim (indeed, he amost did this in an earlier post) that it is just an "Analogy"of a real Mysterious Unknown science that hasn't been discovered yet, but which he somehow knows about.
I won't follow up the implications of that claim, but just to say that understanding his Theory, understanding his "Evidence" (T.M (1) for it and understanding how he has to use Creationist Methods to prop up his Beliefs, means that one can Suss our pal, and having Sussed him, - it's what I call "Seeing through the way the trick is done". And he cannot Bamboozle one ever again.
(1) Rejected by all the world registries other than the US office.
You may recall that you thought a disembodied mind could not exist and I thought logically it could, but it would need to have been formed in solid being and could exist after it had died. So a purely mental (the believers like to call that 'spirit' as it sounds more Impressive, not to say, reverential) could possible logically exist, but it would have had to evolved somehow.and would require a body to do it.
I would advise you to be more specific when using the word 'logical'. There are different "logical" possibilities, depending on what type of possibility you are referring to, and it makes a big difference which type of possibility you are referring to.
There is no contradiction in terms underlying the concept of a disembodied mind (as there is, for example, in the concept of a "round square" or a "married bachelor") so, yes, a disembodied mind is logically possible. But, given the actual laws of physics, some things that are logically possible are not naturally possible. It is logically possible to accelerate a baseball to 10x the speed of light in a vacuum but, given the nature of relativity, we have good reason to say, with high confidence, that it is not naturally possible. It is logically possible for the moon to be made of cheese, but it is,, FAPP, not naturally possible. And so on.
If you are saying that it is logically possible for disembodied minds to exist, you'd be correct but, using that concept of possibility, it is just as logically possible for a disembodied mind to be eternal or created by a non-physical God, or whatever. As long at the terms don't generate a direct contradiction, it is "anything goes" with logical possibilities. When you assert, however, that a disembodied mind has to have its origins in a physical body, you are no longer talking about logical possibilities (or, if you insist that you are, then you are just flat-out blatantly wrong). On a principle of charity, I have to assume that you (whether you consciously realize it, or not), are talking about natural possibility. So you seem to be saying that it is naturally possible for a disembodied mind to remain after the physical body dies. In other words, the known laws of physics would not be violated. But...then you have thrown in the towel and forfeited the whole game to theists. You've allowed some form of deep dualism to enter the mind/body picture and, based on my impressions of your posts, that is not what you want to do.
Or am I missing something? As you see it, what is "mind" such that it has physical origins but then - in accordance with natural possibility - it can continue to exist after the body dies? What is it that "continues to exist"? I suspect you are mixing "logical possibility" and "natural possibility" in a logically illegitimate way.
My claim is that the mind is physical. Period. If I am correct about this, then it is naturally impossible for any mind to ever exist without being embodied in some sort of physical form. Being physical is an essential aspect of the "One Stuff". But then MPhD interprets my concept of "physical" as being "dead matter" out of which subjective experience mysteriously emerges, and that's not what I'm aiming at. There is no "dead matter" - there is just "One Stuff" that is either conscious or unconscious. When this "One Stuff" constitutes an information-processing system of a certain complexity, then it is conscious - it has a perspective on "what it is like to be" that particular system. Without that particular type of information processing, there is no perspective on "what it's like to be" anything. But when any conscious mind turns it's attention to this information-processing complexity, it experiences it as "content" of experience - i.e., as "other" - i.e., as "physical" because, basically, it is physical when viewed from that perspective. The physical is not "dead" and it is not optional - it is just what the "One Stuff" experiences itself as when it turns its attention toward itself as "other." When a physical body dies, the "death" process is the process of losing the sorts of information-processing properties that made it a conscious mind in the first place.
Logical' was what I seem to recall you saying. In fact I'm sure of it. So whatever I meant is what you meant.
You said that you didn't think a mind could exist without a body ("After death") and I thought it could. Not becasue it was pure spirit or something but that the electric impulses that seem to the theory about how the brain works could (so it seemed to me) exist without the brain existing to support it.
"Logically" (as i was thinking at the time) was that I can't imagine a mechanism to make this work, and there is no good reason to suppose it could, but is we are loojing for a reason to declare it 'impossible' then I can't say that I can be that definite ("Logically") Does that explain what i meant by the term?
I also remarks (as i recall - but it might have been just now) that the idea of a mind (electric patterns, so to speak) existing without a brain (which is also matter, but obviously different matter from electricity, though it's all "Stuff" at base) e'g a god, is not logically impossible, but (to me) it IS logically impossible (or at least beyond even feasible possibility) that it could have come into existence without being part of a mind of brain -,matter to enable it to work. Which adds another problem to the always -existing god -concept.
Of course postulating a non -physical mind being created by a pre -existing non -physical mind is just the Turtles all the way down problem.
Forgive me if I don't address every one of your points, but I think you won't have trouble seeing how I'd answer them. If you don't see how, feel free to put me on the spot
This is all quite hypothetical, but I certainly liked the additional problem with the goddunnit -concept.
Logical' was what I seem to recall you saying. In fact I'm sure of it. So whatever I meant is what you meant.
I think we are basically on the same page here. I'm probably just being too picky about wording:
Quick summary:
I think we agree on these:
(1) Eternal non-physical minds: Logically possible, but probably not naturally possible.
(2) Non-physical minds that started out as physical systems: Logically possible but, for all practical purposes, not naturally possible (and definitely not naturally possible if, as you and I agree, minds are essentially physical).
I think we are basically on the same page here. I'm probably just being too picky about wording:
Quick summary:
I think we agree on these:
(1) Eternal non-physical minds: Logically possible, but probably not naturally possible.
(2) Non-physical minds that started out as physical systems: Logically possible but, for all practical purposes, not naturally possible (and definitely not naturally possible if, as you and I agree, minds are essentially physical).
Broadly, yes. But with Speculatives (not even Unknowns) this is just guesses based on how things seems to work. It just probability guesstimates rather than a pigeon - hole category. "Disembodied human mind - logically possible; disembodied mind without any once -body: logically not possible"
For all i know, electrical particles could have assembled a pattern as (so I suggest) proto-matter did and a mind could have developed (after all decent minds developed in dolphins and they don't even have legs anymore) and even reached cosmic and creative proportion and ability. But the problem there is that the cosmos would appear to have "evolved" (in the Broad sense, more allied to chemical evolution and not to Biological) already and the "God" might still be a creator of sorts, but not of the cosmos itself. Though it might have snowballed the crap and set off the big bam. But I've done enough for a Doug. Adams' spin-off.
The point is one can argue this stuff and all sorts of stuff is possible, but not perhaps equally plausible.
Stop moving the goal posts. Right as if you know it's a claim vs. what they actually do. You truly disappoint me Mystic as you now come off sounding no different than the crap Eusebius used to say.
Where are you getting this crap from? Quantum is the minimum amount of any physical entity (physical property) involved in an interaction.
Why are you moving the goal posts?
What you call moving the goalposts is simply using different perspectives on the science. You are using the perspective of a user or teacher of the science. I am using the perspective of a philosopher looking for clues to the ontology of our Reality. As a teacher or user, you have to accept the terminology and jargon as adopted in the field. But to ignore the fact that mass is measured differently in low energy physics from that in high energy physics despite using the same name is just bogus. When we ask what are we really measuring and what is its significance for the ontology of our Reality, the equivalence and measurement differences just cloud the issue. When you pretend that mass or matter is the "one stuff," it is or should be clear from the composition of the measurements that energy more accurately describes the vibratory field that comprises the "one stuff."
Quote:
You made TWO very false statements about particle physics and about particle mass.
I responded to why you are wrong in both of these false statements and now you come back posting exactly as Eusbius used to post when he was presented with evidence that proved him wrong.
Think whatever you want but this does not give you the authority to post blatant lies about particle physics.
I think it would behoove us to refrain from describing our different interpretations of the science as lies. If you genuinely think I am not intelligent enough or knowledgeable enough about the science, THAT would hurt me because unlike Arq, you do seem to have knowledge and intelligence above the norm. Nevertheless, I have extensive and accurate knowledge of most of the science that impinges on questions about the ontology of our Reality and most of the philosophy as well.
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.
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.
Right as if you know it's a claim vs. what they actually do. You truly disappoint me Mystic as you now come off sounding no different than the crap Eusbius used to say.
I can understand Goldie's relish for kerfuffle and never mind whether it's useful or not. But this is useful too. 
) Scientific Prediction 