Posted on 08/17/2011 6:57:10 AM PDT by Todd Kinsey
For the better part of a century, socialists (Democrats) have been using science as a weapon to destroy the very fabric of American society. Today they propagate the global warming myth, forty years ago they were sounding the global cooling alarm, and they’ve used junk science to teach evolution in our nation’s schools.
To the socialist it is somehow easier to believe that aliens put us here or that we emerged from some primordial sludge than it is to believe in God. Socialist leadership, under the guise of “organizing”, use the environment, gay rights, immigration, or any number of causes as a form of religion to keep their unwitting masses in line. Their absence of God, and therefore morality, leaves these desperate souls longing to believe in something. How else can you explain a human being that is willing to risk their life to save a tree or a whale, yet they have no qualms about aborting a baby or assisted suicide?
(Excerpt) Read more at toddkinsey.com ...
Wheeler is describing just such a causal relationship between space/time and energy/momentum - in essence suggesting that it doesn't matter which is labeled "cause" or which is labeled "effect."
But unless he ventured into geometric physics in the same discussion, his remarks would be construed under a directional arrow of time (as compared to volumetric time) - meaning it is up to the observer/physicist to select which is cause and which is effect for his particular investigation.
That wasn’t snarky. I meant it in fun. Sorry if it didn’t come across that way.
You have done admirably on this thread and I appreciate it.
Hmmmm... that word "tells" does not sound very scientifically rigorous to me. Is Wheeler anthropomorphizing matter and spacetime here? There's no "telling" in Newtonian mechanics; there are only causes and effects.
Why do you say "Cause and effect only provides a circular argument?" Please explain.
You wrote:
Now here is the trillion dollar (inflation you know) question, does the observer 'cause' the results? This becomes even more interesting when time and nonlocality come into play. Future and/or past events can change the results, nullifying and changing the 'cause and effect' of the event. These paradoxes falsify 'cause and effect'.Newtonian cause and effect "breaks down" at the quantum level. His theory demands all causes be local. But we know that, in the quantum world, there are nonlocal causes as well.
My understanding is that Newtonian cause and effect (generally involving the first three Aristotelian causes, with final cause prohibited) operates in the "mesoworld," the world of ordinary 4D spacetime as humans normally experience it. Newton's laws turn out to be something like 99.997... "accurate" in describing and predicting phenomena in the band of the mesoworld. Not perfect, but pretty durned good! And of course, Newton's science is premised in physical causation.
There is also the metaworld "above" the mesoworld, described by Einsteinian physics; and the microworld "below," the quantum world. It seems that Newtonian physics is eclipsed in both these worlds.
So to your question, "does the observer 'cause' the results" in the double-slit experiment by choosing what he wants to observe — i.e., particle or wave? Certainly he can determine (cause) which he "sees" if he knows the proper experimental set up (i.e., the detectors). But did he "cause" the particle or wave? No, I don't think so. They were already there, as complementary descriptions of this mysterious thing called "matter." The observer is just bringing one of the descriptions into focus, as it were: He knows he can't "see" both at once, so he has to choose. But it seems to me nothing new is created here.
I don't see Aristotle's four causes as essentially "religious." Rather they are epistemic and logical.
Elsewhere you've written that Aristotle has been "discredited." By whom? You???
That fact is, if anything, he's getting more attention from physicists and mathematicians working on theoretical biology issues these days.... People who have come to realize that they need to speak of final cause.
In support of which of your scientific views has JR spoken? (My apologies for the intrusion, Jim. Natural Law, apparently lacking other responces, has seen fit to drag your name into this discussion. Old naval tactic: when lacking other resources, make much smoke. Great billowing clouds.)
Science, or more appropriately, the Scientific Method, is one of Christian Civilization’s happiest inspirations. It’s fitting that JR would describe that inspiration as a gift from God. I am in accord with that view.
Likewise, it is fitting that Christian Civilization has chosen to share the benefits of the Scientific Method with all the world, should the World have the wit to avail themselves of its bounty.
But I was not aware that JR is generally regarded as a “scientific authority” or that he has even sought that appellation. All of which leads me to suspect that you have lifted JR’s quote out of its original context and expropriated it for your own use.
I could be wrong now . . .
But I don’t think so.
So, it remains for you to explain which of your scientific views it is that JR has specifically spoken of in support, and where you have cited the reference. There also remains a response to my question posed in #300, namely, “What “bait” is this that I offer?” in response to your declaration (#268), that you were not taking my “bait.”
What is your ultimate meaning of existence, and what evidence do you have?
Can you produce anything except hand waving?
Metmom didn't even recognize E=MC2, That should tell you all you need to know about her background.
Prove it. Provide the link to the post.
First off are you denying it? If you aren't denying it what is the point of pulling up the reference? This is a bit like Elsie's non denials of being a man. Or Colorcountries claiming that the lack of DNA evidence is proof of polygamy. : )
Aristotle's 'causes' as I previous listed are "final > efficient > material > formal"
Sorry but I don't see "uncaused cause" there or any scientific methodology. Mixing philosophy and science just makes you confused Betty. Science is not philosophy, nor is it necessarily 'logical' or 'reasonable' in the ordinary sense of the words.
There is no signal processing, no "telling" - no transfer of information content from sender to receiver (Shannon et al.) The term "information" as hijacked by physics - also known as "physical information" actually means determinism which is causality whether direct or indirect.
You are correct, there is no transfer of information, hence no causality, as per your definition.
I am glad we cleared that up : )
Yeah, I’m denying your claim. Why else would I have wanted you to prove your assertion?
You made the claim. Be a good scientist and back it up.
You also seem to be singularly incapable of recognizing when people aren't playing your silly little games because all they are is diversion tactics you employ when you are getting pinned down on something you don't want to answer, or more accurately can't answer because they reveal that your position is untenable.
People are not interested nor willing to be manipulated by the likes of you.
Oh, and you can drop the smilies. Nobody is impressed.
Which does not validate YOUR position by default.
So, no, it did not clear up anything.
Boy there some people who talk so much about denial, you’d think they were posting from Egypt.
Maybe here is where your confusion arises, not only was Aristotle wrong, Newtonian Mechanics was wrong too : )
Why do you say "Cause and effect only provides a circular argument?" Please explain.
I will try another explanation. Everything has a 'cause', therefore there is a first 'cause'.
Newtonian cause and effect "breaks down" at the quantum level. His theory demands all causes be local.
Hmm, kind of correct. Newton and 'cause and effect' are wrong. Newton did demand instantaneous action at a distance though. I am mystified by your continued reliance on Aristotle and Newton.
So to your question, "does the observer 'cause' the results" in the double-slit experiment by choosing what he wants to observe — i.e., particle or wave? Certainly he can determine (cause) which he "sees" if he knows the proper experimental set up (i.e., the detectors). But did he "cause" the particle or wave? No, I don't think so. They were already there, as complementary descriptions of this mysterious thing called "matter." The observer is just bringing one of the descriptions into focus, as it were: He knows he can't "see" both at once, so he has to choose. But it seems to me nothing new is created here.
The collapse of the wavefunction creates a new state. Something new is certainly created, but there is no cause, that is the point.
I don't see Aristotle's four causes as essentially "religious." Rather they are epistemic and logical.
Philosophy in other words, they most certainly are that : ) Religion is mostly philosophy too.
Elsewhere you've written that Aristotle has been "discredited." By whom? You???
Science. Logic on its own doesn't create truth. Aristotle's basic assumptions were wrong. It is too bad that Aristotle never tested any of his assumptions. Have you read "The Black Swan" I highly recommend it.
That fact is, if anything, he's getting more attention from physicists and mathematicians working on theoretical biology issues these days.... People who have come to realize that they need to speak of final cause.
Puhleeaze, there is no first cause, final cause, intermediate cause, uncaused cause, uncaused uncaused cause, etc. etc. It is pretty funny if you think about it : )
Therefore; LeGrande does not exist.
Sounds like a disruptive troll. Where's the troll spray or should we call in the kitties?
And we’re back to waves of nothingness which LG believes he is composed of.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.