Membrane Theory And Quantum Mechanics

[Ziggamafu]

Ugh. I just deleted a big post. Look, I'm just looking for articles or books on quantum causality's relationship to theism. Any takers?

Thanks!

[Brother Adam]

Who did what now?

The two quantum scientists I know are hard core atheists. Let me know if you find anything.

[Ziggamafu]

Thus far I found one article by William Lane Craig on the subject. But basically, M-theory provides a hypothesis in which there is an eternal First Cause that is not a conscious entity and quantum causality examines the phenomenon of subatomic particles that pop in and out of existence, even time travel, seemingly without cause.

[philothea]

Errrm. I just got back from a convention, and I need to be writing, but give me a few days and I'll see what I can find.

But personally, I'd suggest this is not a good avenue of investigation unless you are willing to spend quite a few years studying advanced mathematics. The pop-sci, dumbed-down, math-free versions of quantum theories are VERY misleading.

[philothea]

[double post]

Edited May 28, 2009 by philothea

[Hassan]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1874040' date='May 23 2009, 06:14 PM']Thus far I found one article by William Lane Craig on the subject. But basically, M-theory provides a hypothesis in which there is an eternal First Cause that is not a conscious entity and quantum causality examines the phenomenon of subatomic particles that pop in and out of existence, even time travel, seemingly without cause.[/quote]

huh?

I'm not a theoretical physicist but I think you might want to either re-read where you got your information.

As for theism and modern physics, Steven Hawkings has written on that.

[Hassan]

[quote name='philothea' post='1876852' date='May 27 2009, 08:19 PM']Errrm. I just got back from a convention, and I need to be writing, but give me a few days and I'll see what I can find.

But personally, I'd suggest this is not a good avenue of investigation unless you are willing to spend quite a few years studying advanced mathematics. The pop-sci, dumbed-down, math-free versions of quantum theories are VERY misleading.[/quote]


The more I learned about physics, and I've really slacked off, the more I got that impression.

Moreover it seems like there is a great deal of philosophical debate, moreso then many people think.

[philothea]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1874040' date='May 23 2009, 07:14 PM']Thus far I found one article by William Lane Craig on the subject. But basically, M-theory provides a hypothesis in which there is an eternal First Cause that is not a conscious entity and quantum causality examines the phenomenon of subatomic particles that pop in and out of existence, even time travel, seemingly without cause.[/quote]
William Lane Craig is, I'm afraid, a quack as far as his physics goes.

The rest of your post is kind of a mishmash. I'm having trouble figuring out what you're saying.

M-theory attempts to explain energy levels and particles and stuff like that. Conscious observers are part of standard quantum theory. And virtual particles which pop in and out of existence are a tool of quantum field theory.

There are serious physicists who have addressed ideas of quantum uncertainty allowing for free will, and others who have talked about the evolution and expansion of the universe being driven by an observer/observers. Some of those theories can get into theism if you look at them sideways.

Do you want me to link you to some publications? I'm afraid they won't make much sense...

[Hassan]

[quote name='philothea' post='1877052' date='May 28 2009, 12:54 AM']William Lane Craig is, I'm afraid, a quack as far as his physics goes.

The rest of your post is kind of a mishmash. I'm having trouble figuring out what you're saying.

M-theory attempts to explain energy levels and particles and stuff like that. Conscious observers are part of standard quantum theory. And virtual particles which pop in and out of existence are a tool of quantum field theory.

There are serious physicists who have addressed ideas of quantum uncertainty allowing for free will, and others who have talked about the evolution and expansion of the universe being driven by an observer/observers. Some of those theories can get into theism if you look at them sideways.

Do you want me to link you to some publications? I'm afraid they won't make much sense...[/quote]

Are you a physicist?


And do you think the latter part of his post could be regarding tachyons?

[Hassan]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1872948' date='May 21 2009, 09:15 PM']Ugh. I just deleted a big post. Look, I'm just looking for articles or books on quantum causality's relationship to theism. Any takers?

Thanks![/quote]


I don't mean to be critical but it seems like you kind of "latch" onto superficial or flashy bits of a subject without really getting into the depth of it.

For example, remember your argument refuting atheism?

Real logic is complex and it's results often mundane and boring (to most people). You kind of created a Frankenstein argument smashing together syllogistic deductions with statments which could only be represented with (at the very most basic) intermediate predicate logic. Or here you've kind of mixed bits of different parts of theoretical physics (and some things I've never hear anything like) for a grand theory.

Yes that gets sexy and exciting results but the real world usually doesn't give you sexy and exciting results. I mean as has been said theoretical physics, like the more advanced logics you want to argue in, take dedication and time (for your argument you probably need to study, at least, Modal and advanced Predicate logic btw). I doubt doing work to master Analytic Geometry is any more exciting than staying up translating God knows how many little paragraphs about Waverley and its author into formal syntax and deriving proofs from it, but that unsexy, mundane work is, for better or worse, required to really be able to deal in the subjects you want to deal in.

You need to understand the broad ideas, the mechanics through which those results are arrived at, and the underlying philsophical et cetera substance upon which the structure rests. If you do that then you'll get a better sense for real results and quacks just by hearing the results.

I don't know if your want to go down that route. You may not like what you find.

Edited May 28, 2009 by Hassan

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1877064' date='May 28 2009, 01:18 AM']I don't mean to be critical but it seems like you kind of "latch" onto superficial or flashy bits of a subject without really getting into the depth of it.

For example, remember your argument refuting atheism?

Real logic is complex and it's results often mundane and boring (to most people). You kind of created a Frankenstein argument smashing together syllogistic deductions with statments which could only be represented with (at the very most basic) intermediate predicate logic. Or here you've kind of mixed bits of different parts of theoretical physics (and some things I've never hear anything like) for a grand theory.

Yes that gets sexy and exciting results but the real world usually doesn't give you sexy and exciting results. I mean as has been said theoretical physics, like the more advanced logics you want to argue in, take dedication and time (for your argument you probably need to study, at least, Modal and advanced Predicate logic btw). I doubt doing work to master Analytic Geometry is any more exciting than staying up translating God knows how many little paragraphs about Waverley and its author into formal syntax and deriving proofs from it, but that unsexy, mundane work is, for better or worse, required to really be able to deal in the subjects you want to deal in.

You need to understand the broad ideas, the mechanics through which those results are arrived at, and the underlying philsophical et cetera substance upon which the structure rests. If you do that then you'll get a better sense for real results and quacks just by hearing the results.

I don't know if your want to go down that route. You may not like what you find.[/quote]

My argument regarding atheism is sound; if no God, then meaning is an illusion - a temporary deception of nature - which requires an advertance to an anarchic, nonsensical nihilism for the intellectually honest atheist. I have since discovered that the argument has been employed in Thomas Dubay's [i]Faith and Certainty[/i] and, apparently, by C.S. Lewis as an "argument from reason". That meaning is not merely subjective is a presumption employed almost constantly in day-to-day life, making it highly unpractical (at best) to live a life of honest atheism. Also, the benefit of deductive reasoning by syllogisms is that logical errors are easier to spot.

In regards to this quantum stuff: if I have been misled, I have been misled by deceptive atheists (which would not be surprising). I am the first to admit that I am in no way a scientist and don't have a knack for advanced math. This is why I take self-proclaimed scientists (even those who atheists) at their word. Since several atheists who happened to be scientists recently told me that M-theory provides math principles of an eternal cause to the universe and that subatomic particles are constantly popping in and out of existence without cause, I simply believed them. Hence my post asking for any theological treatments of the subject.

[philothea]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1877057' date='May 28 2009, 01:01 AM']Are you a physicist?

And do you think the latter part of his post could be regarding tachyons?[/quote]
No, I'm not a physicist, but only due to health reasons. That was my chosen career since I was about six. Now I write science fiction and I study quantum mechanics recreationally. (With help from nice physicists.)

I don't think he's talking about tachyons. (More below.)

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1877173' date='May 28 2009, 09:28 AM']In regards to this quantum stuff: if I have been misled, I have been misled by deceptive atheists (which would not be surprising). I am the first to admit that I am in no way a scientist and don't have a knack for advanced math. This is why I take self-proclaimed scientists (even those who atheists) at their word. Since several atheists who happened to be scientists recently told me that M-theory provides math principles of an eternal cause to the universe and that subatomic particles are constantly popping in and out of existence without cause, I simply believed them. Hence my post asking for any theological treatments of the subject.[/quote]
I don't doubt that M-theory may indicate an eternal cause. But, M-theory consists of pretty much the most advanced mathematics in the world, and is also untestable (and thus unprovable) so... we amateurs can't really get a lot out of discussing it, I think.

Particles constantly popping in and out of existence without cause are not especially exotic or new. Force-carrying virtual particles are essential to Quantum Field Theory, and quantum uncertainty pretty much assures that there's a constant low-level sort of... [i]frothing[/i]... of existence, where particles/anti-particle pairs appear briefly and then annihilate each other, maintaining a total average energy of zero the whole time.

The science is actually quite beautiful, if you're willing to put some time into the math. (It's not that bad -- mid college level will do -- differential equations and linear algebra are the big tools.) I can recommend books if anyone is interested.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1877173' date='May 28 2009, 08:28 AM']My argument regarding atheism is sound; if no God, then meaning is an illusion - a temporary deception of nature - which requires an advertance to an anarchic, nonsensical nihilism for the intellectually honest atheist. I have since discovered that the argument has been employed in Thomas Dubay's [i]Faith and Certainty[/i] and, apparently, by C.S. Lewis as an "argument from reason". That meaning is not merely subjective is a presumption employed almost constantly in day-to-day life, making it highly unpractical (at best) to live a life of honest atheism. Also, the benefit of deductive reasoning by syllogisms is that logical errors are easier to spot.[/quote]

You use a lot of opaque language without really saying much.


Why don't you do me a favor and go to the nearest university library. Go to the math or logic section, and crack open one of the many journals containing articles on recent advances in logic. You tell me how many are in a syllogistic format.


In fact why don't you tell me how many serious logical papers you can find published in syllogistic format in the last 100 or so years.

Bot let's ignore the fact that you choose an archaic format. Even if syllogisms were a propper medium your statments are not in the correct logical form. For syllogisms you need a statment to be either universal affirmative, universal negatic, particular affirmative, particular negative.

All such statments can be represented in Frege's predicate calculus and post 19th century modern logic.

Your argument is not sound, at least you have no presented a sound argument for what you want to prove (more importantly you have not presented a valid argument). I've told you this before, I tried to mention it in some friendly advice above, but if you just want to be obstinate go ahead.

[quote]In regards to this quantum stuff: if I have been misled, I have been misled by deceptive atheists (which would not be surprising). I am the first to admit that I am in no way a scientist and don't have a knack for advanced math. This is why I take self-proclaimed scientists (even those who atheists) at their word. Since several atheists who happened to be scientists recently told me that M-theory provides math principles of an eternal cause to the universe and that subatomic particles are constantly popping in and out of existence without cause, I simply believed them. Hence my post asking for any theological treatments of the subject.[/quote]


Funny, I thought the crackpot author of the article you read was an evangelical. Perhapse you shouldn't be angry at the atheists you now claim as deceptive, frankly you seem to have only the most vague idea idea of what concepts in physics you are thinking of. Perhapse, you simply failed to understand them. Perhapse you need to show some grit and actually learn about the subjects you want to theorize in, of the logics necessary to structure the argument you want published.

Edited May 28, 2009 by Hassan

[Hassan]

[quote name='philothea' post='1877243' date='May 28 2009, 12:15 PM']The science is actually quite beautiful, if you're willing to put some time into the math. (It's not that bad -- mid college level will do -- differential equations and linear algebra are the big tools.) I can recommend books if anyone is interested. [/quote]


I might be interested.

[philothea]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1877287' date='May 28 2009, 02:40 PM']I might be interested.[/quote]
[url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0306447908?ie=UTF8&tag=amberdine-20&link_code=as3&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=0306447908"]Principles of Quantum Mechanics[/url]

accompanied by

[url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0306450364?ie=UTF8&tag=amberdine-20&link_code=as3&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=0306450364"]Basic Training in Mathematics[/url]

both by R. Shankar. They're both college textbooks, but were written to be usable by someone teaching themselves. They use the much nicer "Bra/Ket" notation, too.

If anyone wants a light and fun but still accurate introduction, I highly recommend [url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0964350416?ie=UTF8&tag=amberdine-20&link_code=as3&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=0964350416"]What is Quantum Mechanics?: A Physics Adventure[/url] by the Transnational College of Lex. They're a Japanese language study group, and it's got, ah, cartoons in it, but it's really good. (Some math: matrices, fourier transforms, but you can skim it if you need.)