immortal

studiot, I never called your post as speculative, my reply was to answer your first question. It was a long time back I read about virtual particles(QED), I did followed and read all the developments of the standard model upto the year 2005 from science reporters here - Science Updates. I am a human and I am ignorant of many things, I cannot know everything. My answer to you is I don't know I'm not an expert, I quoted the excerpt of Dirac because it was relevant here. So when I myself don't know about a subject like QED how can I pretend like I know it. I'll let the experts answer your question and will go and refresh my standard model.

The quote from Dirac was used becuase it was relevant in the context of your posts where you failed to recognize that even individual/single particles act as waves and that it cannot be dumped as an approximation. I refer two books. One is a textbook "Modern Physics" written by three physicists namely Raymond Serway, Clement J Moses and Curt A. Moyer. I guess this is a prescribed textbook in some universities who want to doa major in Modern Physics and the other book which I refer to is "A begining guide to Quantum Mechanics" by Alastair I.M. Rae where he clearly discusses about the positivism of Bohr. Modern Physics - Raymond A. Serway, Clement J. Moses, Curt A. Moyer They have a seperate sub-section for Wave-Particle Duality and the final note goes like this. In the Questions section they ask this final interesting question which I think is very much relevant here. There is a lot of difference between a particle physicist's view and the positivist view of Bohr which is the accepted consensus. I can send all the particles of a particle physicist through a double slit and get an interference pattern and if there was a field of physicists dealing only with waves they would argue that the wave is real and physical. Now what is the world made up of? Science only deals with observations and that's what it should stick to. Bohr's positivism states that any statement on the nature of the quantum system is metaphysical and it should be treated as meaningless, its ontological. Bohr says that polarisation of a photon is an idealistic concept extrapolated from the results of our observations no greater reality should be attributed to it. This is the accepted consensus. Did Max Born won the nobel prize for giving an incorrect abstract interpretation of the wavefunction? One says the wavefunction is real and physical and the another one says that wave-particle duality is a myth if this is true then why the hell are we teaching the exact opposite of this to physics students? And you quote from the wikipedia: Talk page where any charlatan can claim any nonsense thing. If anyone wants to change the accepted consensus there is a seperate forum for that, if you post it here as though it is an accepted fact it will be called as a crackpot science.

Perhaps you're ignorant of what all the enlightened masters like Jesus, Buddha and others of all major religions taught us. They taught about unity, that we are all made of one essence, made truly in the image of God, if we were not then man could not have become God. I can accept that Hitler's body and his character was evil but I cannot accept that Hitler's soul is not equal to Mother Theresa's. Did you had a complete near death experience? Did you came back to life after a doctor declared you as dead? What evidence you have for that?

I cannot agree more with you about your thought that both good and evil comes from God but I disagree with the freewill part. The bolded parts in your statements are contradictory to one another. If God knew what Adam was going to chose and if Satan can only do what God permits him to do how can anyone have freewill?

I didn't quoted individually because there were too many posters making speculative claims which contradicts the accepted consensus. No, I was talking in general.

I really don't care who the hell they are, this forum is anonymous, I don't have to care how old he or she is or what degree he or she has. I only care about the content of one's post and the arguments one make. Seen in this context this forum is a great place for learning.

Oh when did the accepted consensus did not mattered to anyone. One says that the wavefunction is real and physical and other one says that wave-particle duality is a myth. Please keep your crackpot science in a different forum.

Uncertainty principle is not responsible for the loss of interference pattern in the measurement of a double slit experiment, it is the entanglement or the correlations between the detector and the quantum object is what is responsible for the loss of interference pattern and we don't have a mechanism or an explanation for how entanglement works and hence it follows that we don't know what is impossible and what is possible. You're making false assertions as though it is a scientific fact, please stop doing that. Science doesn't in any way say that an omniscient personal God is impossible. I asked what your God is not what he is not, they are not omniscient, so what? How do we falsify it? Is your idea based on some kind of Sci-fi movie where a super-intelligent God machine is responsible for the working of this universe? or Is your idea has any basis in reality? What are your inferences for such an idea? So far what you have tried to do is disprove the supernatural using quantum mechanics and you were shown that you're wrong but you have not supported anything for the existence of your own version of God.

We don't need evidence of your God as of now, Aethelwulf. What was needed was a clear falsifiable definition of your God followed by a prediction and the method used to falsify it and you failed to provide one. If your God is not falsifiable then it belongs to metaphysics, it is not science. It either belongs to the philosophy forum or the religion forum.

We are all Gods, sons of the Most High, made truly in the image of God. A prostitue, priest, pastor, black man, an evil monster, a righteous man are all equal in terms of divine. Whatever Hitler did he did it in ignorance and ignorance is respnosible for all evil on earth and whether a man is ignorant or an enlightened master is determined by the numinous nature and its wrong to put all the blame on Hitler. Yes he will be punished but it was all providence. The killings of Hitler was as much necessary as the care and love of Mother Theresa. I can accept that his intellect might be blackened, his personal God which is his ego might be blackened, these are all archetypes or anthropomorphic Gods existing in all humans and they control all our actions, we don't have free will but I cannot accept that his soul is blackened, all souls are equal in essence whether it is of a prostitute's or of a high priest's. Christ resides in everyone. I'm an optimist and I think whatever is happening is necessary and it is for good.

No, local hidden variable theory or the Bohmian mechanics was developed to explain quantum entanglement but Bell's inequality experiments showed that if a hidden variable theory exists then it has to be non-local but this contradicts with relativity. I know we cannot use entanglement to send information faster than the speed of light but we discovered that entities do not have pre-determined attributes and that they're assigned an attribute only when a measurement is being made. Any statement about the nature of the quantum system is meaningless, it is metaphysical. We still don't have an explanation for the correlations that arise in a quantum entanglement.

Not necessarily a reality independent of the mind could exist and we could access it, it doesn't have to be solipsism where only your mind is real. One of the reasons why many 20th century physicists resorted into mysticism is because they knew science could not give an objective account of reality. I think that neither science nor mysticism can give an objective account of reality, only God can give an objective account of reality and the universe could be made of anything, I'm a realist not a solipsist. I disagree with your earlier statement that everything has to exist with in the space-time, I'm not buying that unless we can know how quantum entanglement works. Objectivity of the world has been falsfied, an alternative view is that the universals in the mind is responsible for the assignment of attributes to something and bringing out the empirical reality for every observer.

What if the whole universe is inside you then definitely something exists outside the universe?

Has the Hawking's No boundary proposal proved to be a scientific fact? There are many scientists who have their own theories and leads to different cosmoslogical conclusions.

Hi, Even I have interests in evolution and a book written by Dr. A.P. JHA, Professor of Zoology, who has nearly fifty published papers on genes and evolution to his credit in his book called as 'Genes and Evolution' has a seperate chapter for 'Modification Of Neo-Darwinism: The New Synthesis' and he concludes the chapter saying this:

Whatever it is you need to solve the problem of the Problem of Universals if you think that QM is all there is. Roger Penrose is one of them who is a strong Platonist and Platonists believed in realism that universals and mathematical concepts exist outside of the universe eternally. There are many reasons why you could be wrong too.

I don't think you answered his question.

Exactly, that's so right. But his definition of a God seems to be a natural one, so he believe that God could be found in some kind of unified theory and we have got no idea what properties this God has so that we can even make some arguments or talk about it. He just says "If God exist... deal with it" without precisely defining what that word means and its very difficult to comprehend what concept of God he has in his mind. Yes, you know it, don't you? You have participated in this thread. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/62257-what-is-energy-exactly/ There is a problem.

How do you know what the universe is made up of? We infact don't know whether these particles exist in the external physical world or not. So why would God want to know your abstract concepts which you have made up in your models. You did used the word "must" why the hell I should lie. As I said above if what you call the physical world only exist in our minds, the external world independent of mind could be made of anything and be based on any kind of rules. Please understand this or consider this possibility.

I am not a believer, I hold a neutral position when it comes to religion and it is insignificant to my way of life. It depends on how you interpret it and the kind of Gospels you refer to. Reincarnation and Early Christians Some believe that Jesus was a reincarnist. Well, the righteous and the innocent suffer more than the one's who are evil. Many religious scholars and even Elaine Pagels of the early christians say that these ancient people believed in predestination and didn't believed in free will so I don't think our suffering in this life has anything to do with the evils in our past life. Even if Karma exists it is accumulated in a pre-deterministic way. Everything should be in the protective care of God. I like to see it as a necessity that you had to suffer and not as a punishment for something you did in the past. That is nonsense and its not what the theory of Karma says according to it no one has the authority to chose the kind of body one can enter into. If that was possible why would people strive for freedom from bondage. The whole point of Karma is that we're not free and that we're subject to the forces of the numnious nature. All souls are equal in essence. I don't think Hitler's soul is any different from Mother theresa's. The soul doesn't have individual names only the body has. It is believed that the individual souls are created by the first-born God and he can create as much souls as he want, I don't think there is a finite constraint for that. If there were enlightened masters, I mean free men, we should have seen the miracles of Jesus many times by now. I rather prefer an objective test before to call someone as an enlightened master. I don't think everyone are prepared enough to be enlightened, well we don't know the dynamics or the requirement to be enlightened so there will be different kind of people with different natures. Yes, there could be other explanations and some might not be genuine and some might be very difficult to explain like the case studies of Stevenson's. The majority of the practioners of past life regression want or believe that reincarnation is true, lol. Well practioners claim that they can make anyone to experience their past lives and some even claimed to have talked with animals and plants. Weird.

Again you're making factual claims by assuming your presupposed notions of God. Why should God be omniscient only by simultaneously knowing the position and momentum of a particle? He might acquire knowledge in ways which we don't know or his epistemology might be different. Now just because God cannot be omniscient in this way you seem to conclude that God cannot be omniscient in any other way. Understand? If you're arguing about God as a scientific hypothesis I request you to give a precise falsifiable defintion of God making testable predictions so that we can falsify your claims, someone else's subjective opinions are not science. Yes you did, see my bolded part there is lot of difference between the words "must" and "would". You cannot use it interchangeably it changes the meaning of your claims. The measurement process or what we call observation is one of the ways of epistemology (how we know what) used by humans to acquire knowledge. Now my question is why a God or even a human should be subjected to only this way of knowing, there might be other ways of knowing the world. Why should a God use a detector or a measuring device to acquire knowledge? There might be other ways of knowing. I know the uncertainty principle is not a consequence of an imprecise detector, don't tell me that I lack understanding. Your argument seem to imply that there are absolutely no other ways of knowing the world and that a God must abide himself to the rules of QM. God could easily come up with other ways of knowing and be omniscient (i.e to know everything that is there to know). I can show you ways how a God could exist without violating the uncertainty principle and at the same time be omnisicent.

Yes, you're using the uncertainty principle to assert that nothing cannot exist outside of quantum mechanics but as we know every respectable physicist knows that QM and SR are incomplete theories and I don't think anyone who is of a scientific attitude would use such a theory to draw factual conclusions about an ill defined entity like God. Its like an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. We don't know in any other way how an entity can surpass the uncertainty principle and know everything therefore nothing must exist outside of quantum mechanics or an all knowing entity must be impossible. This is a logical fallacy. First of all you need to define God. What is your definition of God? Why should a God be subjected to such a proof? or how can you prove that nothing cannot exist outside quantum mechanics? In science we don't prove anything, there are no ultimate proofs from which you can draw absolute conclusions, looking at that way your proof cannot be applied to even an human observer. We don't go by verification, in science we go by falsification which means that even your axioms or assumptions can be wrong and can be overthrown. There are inconsistencies in your statements and we are reading you correctly. Aethelwulf, on 26 June 2012 - 08:14 PM, said: "If a God truly exists, he must abide by the rules of quantum mechanics This is a fact." Aethelwulf, Today said: "If a God DID exist, then he would be subject to the rules of quantum mechanics." Now you're rephrasing your statements and accusing us for intentionally trying to frame you. Everyone can see what your claims were. Now you're stating it as your opinion which gives more support to my previous prediction that you were stating your opinions as a scientific fact and that's what brought the trouble.

For a layman description of what that paper concludes can be found below. http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/Q/quantum_entanglement.html Do we really know how nature works now?

That's exactly what my point is, as shown in the paper which I cited we still don't know why nature won't let us to simultaneously know the position and momentum of a particle in the universe or why it behaves like that way when we make a measurement. There is a mechanism which is working at the heart of the measurement process. So the uncertainty principle might not be a fundamental law of nature so that you can draw some absolute conclusions about the nature of the universe. As I said, not necessarily. We still don't know a lot about how nature works.

No, that seems to be your opinion more than an objective fact, the below statement is not a fact. This might be the reason why you're being neg repp quite often. Not necessarily, we still have not understood how entanglement works and the experiments by German scientists suggest that there is something far more important is at work. The uncertainty principle failed to account for the results generated from the experiments, so its not that uncertaintly principle is violated but there is something very strange happening which we don't know yet. There are many physicists who think that quantum mechanics is incomplete. Origin of QM complementarity probed by a 'which-way' experiment in an atom interferometer. - S. DuÈ rr, T. Nonn & G. Rempe. Your basic assumption in this thread that if a God exists then he must be confined to the rules of Quantum mechanics is fundamentally flawed. Could there be a God? Yes there is still room for God but such an hypothesis is outside of science. It is not science. The scientist who leaves room for spirituality - Read this interview with the Templeton prize winner Bernard d'Espagnat who has worked under the architects of Modern Physics like Bohr and De brouglie.