Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 75 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 59 of 120 < 1 2 ... 57 58 59 60 61 ... 119 120 >
Topic Options
#36595 - 11/03/10 01:28 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Ellis]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: Ellis
Rev: Having no belief in the divine or the supernatural does not equate to having no belief in anything.
Good point, Ellis. Now tell us some of the other GOD-like smile ideas and actions which you do believe in, and act on. And I am all in favour of GOD-like ideas and actions. In matters faith and belief I am totally non-sectarian--deedalism not creedalism is what matters.

You say, "Atheism is a lack of belief in the supernatural."

This, and other interesting comments you make, poses all kinds of question, agreed?

For example:
1. What do we mean by "natural"? Richard Dawkins calls himself a "monist". He sees the universe as one substance, or principle. On Page 80 of The God Illusion he speaks of himself as "a human animal"--therefore, on this instinctive (unlearned, unreasoned) animal-like level he says he has evolved as an "instinctive dualist". However, on the level of intellect and understanding, he says that he has "learned to be an intellectual monist." I suspect that he is a physical--that is, somatic--monist. For Dawkins, I assume that mind and spirit are soma-based factors which are soma-dependent. Anyone disagree with my opinion?

Who among us takes this position? I do. I am a monist; but I begin with spirit (pneuma)--what I call the pneuma factor. In my opinion--no dogma intended--what we become mentally (psychologically) and physically (somatologically) is the end result of who we ARE, spiritually. IMO, we are pneuma-psychosomatic beings.

2. Ellis, you say that a newly-born child is without any kind of belief.

a) Is this a fact for which there is evidence?
b) Or is it an opinion? As always, I respect all sincerely held opinions and beliefs and expect the same from others.

BTW, I agree with Dawkins: God IS A MENTAL ILLUSION
===================================================
Like you, I do not believe in a separate idol-like being called God (or gods)--especially the one, or more, we create with our imaginations.

NO OFFENSE INTENDED. I JUST WANT TO KNOW
Is there anyone in this forum who actually believes that there really is a god (God) who goes around doing miracles for those who fear, please, worship and plead with "Him" to intervene?

But I do believe that, in many ways, a lot of what is going on in what we call nature, and is being explored by science, is quite super. --in many ways it is really magic-like. For me, it is a GOD-idea, one worth exploring. Without being doctrinaire about all this, if there is no god behind what is, there is nothing to lose and lot to gain by taking a look at what is going on in nature and the role it plays in making us who we are.

======================================================

Recently, being very interested in what makes us who we are I've done some reading on what happens to children born with physical handicaps, especially those born without the ability to see and hear. Not far from where I served as a minister--1966-1994--there is a special home--which the Family Life Foundation of our church helped get started in the 1970's. I met with some of the children and their mediators. Very interesting.

First, take a look at
THE STORY OF HELEN KELLER--great story.
http://gardenofpraise.com/ibdkell.htm

About the religion of Helen Keller and how it shaped the kind of controversial person she became.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/08/30/specials/keller-religion.html
==============
Her religion--one she personally chose--motivated her to get involved in political and social activism--"...too intelligent and independent to remain merely a cherished figurehead, Helen soon began branching out, speaking out not only for the rights of the handicapped, but for others that she saw as oppressed. She became radically left wing ..."--Like Martin Luther King long after her, she even came under the scrutiny of the FBI.

http://www.nndb.com/people/074/000046933/
She was fortunate to have as a friend and defender, Mark Twain:..."accusations of plagiarism were not entirely new to Helen. A story that she wrote as an eleven year old, "The Frost King", later turned out to be a retelling of a story by Margaret Canby..."

Mark Twain's defense of her and her ability to tune into the thoughts of others--he admitted to doing the same himself--is very interesting. Many people have this gift. I have done it more than once. IMO, it is not a God-given gift to people "He" favours; it is our ability to tap into, to tune into the G0D-within-all-of us gift. It is a matter of will and choice.

And this is interesting:
BTW, Helen Keller believed in the ideas of Emanuel Swedenborg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuel_Swedenborg#Visions_and_spiritual_insights
=====================================================
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxEDITING GOING ON xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I AM, THEREFORE, I THINK AND LEARN, THEN I GET TO UNDERSTAND, AND THEN I TAKE ACTION

METATATION--a new word on which to meditate on
Meditation simply means to think, or to reflect about the important issues of life--not a bad idea for anyone to do. Metatation--check out the full meaning of the prefix,'meta'--is a new word which I concocted about a month ago. I use it to mean thinking and reflecting outside the cultural and religious boxes, often constructed and imposed on us by others, or which we tend to construct and impose on ourselves.

LIGHT AND THE SEVEN BASIC COLOURS IN LIGHT
Rene Descartes said: "I think, therefore, I am." When I first awake--no matter what my mood (not always the best: Instead of saying, GOOD MORNING, GOD! smile I will say: GOOD GOD, IT'S MORNING! tired )

Then I start metatating by saying to myself: I AM, THEREFORE I THINK. At the same time I look at a large card I have with all the seven basic colours of the rainbow. Then I will also take a look at what is going on in the sky--rain or shine.

This is followed by taking a few simple yoga-like breaths and moves I also focus on the primary rainbow-like colours. To myself, I say: I something like this GOD, therefore, I think and learn.

The more I think of G0D as being within me and I visualize what is needed for me and others to do and to have, the more I learn and know the good. The more I know about this GOD-like good, the more I am motivated, encouraged and energized to act on doing the good. Of course I owe a lot to others--even atheist and agnostics who have inspired me to think. I am especially inspired by the good lives of others, past and present.
It works for me.

===============================
http://deafness.about.com/od/deafblind/a/dbtriplets_3.htm


An abused child, one raised without the empathy of close family:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_%28feral_child%29


Child raise on his own, in the wild:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_of_Aveyron
========================================
A CHILD WITHOUT A BRAIN
http://www.regnumchristi.org/english/art...82&id=21568
================================
A child born without any physical senses, what then?
Scott has even visited Australia:
http://everything2.com/title/What+would+existence+be+like+for+a+child+born+with+no+senses%253F
BTW, my wife taught special education.



Edited by Revlgking (11/03/10 07:23 PM)
Edit Reason: Always a good idea!
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
.
#36596 - 11/03/10 05:56 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

2.You say that a newly-born child is without any kind of belief.
a)Is this a fact for which there is evidence?
b)Or is it opinion?

Its a fact (which, based on your writings, I suspect you know). Feral children, while a tragedy, have taught us a lot of how the human brain works, and about the origins of many human behaviours. Feral Children and Clever Animals: Reflections on Human Nature by Douglas K. Candland is a thorough (although somewhat dry) book that goes into this data in detail.

One of the more interesting aspects is language - we humans obviously have an ability to learn and use language, but language itself is no innate - if you do not learn language early in life (before 3 or 4 years of age) it becomes nearly impossible for you to learn a language beyond the most rudimentary use of words (i.e. sentences are generally out-of-reach, single-word communications are not).

In the case of religion, these children have indeed shown us that the concept of god and the supernatural is very much a learned concept - to the point in which the concept remains unfathomable to many feral children.

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#36597 - 11/03/10 07:47 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: ImagingGeek]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Bryan
More to the point, the data directly disproves the idea you are proposing - a static universe.


Now, there's something I didn't propose!

Quote:
Time, like space, was a product of the BB. Hence, why it is mathmatically impossible to talk about "before" the BB.


Yet cosmologists are increasingly talking about "before the BB". Do you have access to BBC 2 Horizon 11th Oct?

Of course I want to test my ideas against established science, that's one of the reasons I joined Science a Go Go. It is probably important to distinguish between ideas and beliefs.

I watched the video (thanks for that) and intend watching it again, before making any comments, other, than to mention that even L K insists that nothing is not nothing any more.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that this is a "Not-Quite-Science" thread, so letting the exuberance of lively discussion escape occasionally might be forgiven.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#36600 - 11/04/10 04:55 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Bill S.]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
Rev wrote:
"Recently, being very interested in what makes us who we are I've done some reading on what happens to children born with physical handicaps, especially those born without the ability to see and hear. Not far from where I served as a minister--1966-1994--there is a special home--which the Family Life Foundation of our church helped get started in the 1970's. I met with some of the children and their mediators. Very interesting."

I am not quite sure why you introduced this theme--- but it is actually an area in which I have a great interest.

Having qualified as a high school Humanities teacher I became very interested in a child's acquisition of language and ended up taking further study to become a Special Ed teacher. I taught children and young adults with profound and severe intellectual, physical and sensory impairment for twenty years. It was a job which not only offered great satisfaction but also taught me I have much to be thankful for, as well as confirming my lack of faith in existence of any sort of supernatural get out of gaol clause. It enables me to say with a fair degree of certainty that children are not born believers but have belief thrust upon them! Imaging Geek is correct in his statements, belief is not innate or instinctive, it is taught.

However I do also think that some people do need to believe in a god-ish concept of some sort. I do not feel this is foolish, in fact I have often thought it must offer huge comfort to many.

Top
#36602 - 11/04/10 12:34 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Bill S.]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Originally Posted By: Bryan
More to the point, the data directly disproves the idea you are proposing - a static universe.


Now, there's something I didn't propose!

Actually, you did - eve if you didn't realise it. The only way we could have a universe that is:
a) infinitely old, and
b) has the current configuration of galaxies

is for the universe to be static.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Quote:
Time, like space, was a product of the BB. Hence, why it is mathmatically impossible to talk about "before" the BB.


Yet cosmologists are increasingly talking about "before the BB". Do you have access to BBC 2 Horizon 11th Oct?

Not without a time machine.

But when cosmologists talk about "before the big bang", the term "before" is used as there is no equivalent english term (nor, IMO, is there likely to one in any language) for "preceding the emergence of time", or more accurately "under conditions in which tau is indeterminate".

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
I watched the video (thanks for that) and intend watching it again, before making any comments, other, than to mention that even L K insists that nothing is not nothing any more.

Its more like that "nothing", in the way people tend to think of it, is a physical impossibility.

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#36605 - 11/04/10 06:21 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: ImagingGeek]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Bryan
The only way we could have a universe that is:
a) infinitely old, and
b) has the current configuration of galaxies

is for the universe to be static.


I have no recollection of having said I thought the Universe was infinitely old, at least, not in our F of R.

Quote:
Not without a time machine.
or access to the internet!

Quote:
there is no equivalent english term (nor, IMO, is there likely to one in any language) for "preceding the emergence of time",


You're just tempting me to bring infinity back into the discussion.

Quote:
Its more like that "nothing", in the way people tend to think of it, is a physical impossibility.


If "nothing" is an impossibility, does that not leave "something"?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#36607 - 11/04/10 07:33 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Bill S.]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
I have no recollection of having said I thought the Universe was infinitely old, at least, not in our F of R.

My bad. Revlgking said it, you (appear) to have defended it in post #36588, but did not say it exclusively.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Quote:
Not without a time machine.
or access to the internet!

And once again, using sarcasm on the internet bites me in the a$$.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
You're just tempting me to bring infinity back into the discussion.

Mathematically speaking, when tau is zero that is because gamma is infinite...

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
If "nothing" is an impossibility, does that not leave "something"?

No, it means that our language does not accurately represent reality. Nothing - i.e. a ground state of exactly zero - cannot exist due to qunatum uncertainty. Even though the quantum uncertainty of the ground state has a additive value of zero.

And since the above sounds obtuse, lets say you have a box filled - literally - with nothing. No mass (atoms, etc), no photons, no fields. Measure the ground state and you will find it is zero - i.e. you have nothing. But repeat that measurement looking at an infinitesimally small period of time, and your ground-state will be non-zero. So your box of nothing has both nothing, and something (possibly a cat), in it.

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#36608 - 11/04/10 10:56 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: ImagingGeek]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
looking at an infinitesimally small period of time


Quote:
our language does not accurately represent reality


The Oxford dictionary defines "infinitesimal" as "infinitely or very small". Very small - no problem; infinitely small - very different, plus lots of problems.

How do you define "infinitely small"?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#36613 - 11/05/10 01:42 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Bill S.]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
How do you define "infinitely small"?

I never used the word "infinitely", but rather "infinitesimally", which has a very specific and pertinent definition within the sciences:

infinitesimally: A non-zero quantity whose magnitude is smaller than any positive number

In quantum systems (which is what we are talking about), "infinitesimally" can be specifically defined via the uncertainty principal. Basically, at some small period of time (t) you will "see" individual quantum states. No matter how much "smaller" that period gets, you will always see the same thing (i.e. you are at the smallest non-zero value possible). In this case your box will contain "something" - i.e. non-zero value quantum states. Above that limit you will see supposition of quantum states - i.e. your box contains "nothing", as the supposition will be zero.

Bryan


Edited by ImagingGeek (11/05/10 01:42 PM)
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#36615 - 11/06/10 06:11 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: ImagingGeek]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Thanks Bryan, I was not being deliberately obtuse, just checking that we shared the same definition of "infinitesimal". Also, because the O D definition of infinitesimal included "infinitely small", I was checking your opinion about that.

You mentioned "quantum systems (which is what we are talking about)".
In your opinion, is a quantum system a sine qua non of quantum states?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#36661 - 11/21/10 11:28 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Bill S.]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Bill S. to Bryan you wrote:

"You mentioned "quantum systems (which is what we are talking about)".

In your opinion, is a quantum system a sine qua non of quantum states?"

Please, Bill, put the above in lay terms. What are you asking Bryan to tell you, and us?
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#36664 - 11/22/10 03:21 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
is a quantum system a sine qua non of quantum states?


Rough translation: Can quantum states exist outside quantum systems?

Why did I ask that? One of the draw-backs of advancing years is retreating short-term memory! I was working towards something (undoubtedly extremely clever), but I'll have to give it some serious thought in order to find it again.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#36672 - 11/22/10 08:44 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Bill S.]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Quote:
is a quantum system a sine qua non of quantum states?


Rough translation: Can quantum states exist outside quantum systems?

Why did I ask that?

One of the draw-backs of advancing years is retreating short-term memory! I was working towards something (undoubtedly extremely clever), but I'll have to give it some serious thought in order to find it again.
Thanks for the translation.

New question: What is the difference between a state and a system? Is it like the difference between the USA (a system) and one of its states? BTW, are not the lines between states purely imaginary?

BTW, to help me improve my short-term memory--and I have found it quite helpful--I use a herbal-blend that I found and I also use a technique that I call meta-tation, which includes the use of breathing and the colours, especially the primary colours.
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#36673 - 11/22/10 08:51 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Bill S.]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Sorry, forgot to follow up on this thread...

Quote:
In your opinion, is a quantum system a sine qua non of quantum states?

Define what you mean by a "quantum system" and "quantum states". As far as I'm aware, all known particles act in quantum fashion; ergo, the entirety of our universe is thus a quantum system.

I suspect you're getting at the phenomena where larger objects loose the quantum nature of their constituent atoms/particles. AFAIK exactly how quantum-level phenomena translate into larger "macro processes remains unclear. None-the-less, we expect macro behaviour to be some sort of a superstition of the underlying states.

That said, we do see quantum nature reflected in high order systems. Any high-resolution optical system (which I deal extensively with) is highly impacted by the quantum nature of light. Same is true of semiconductors (i.e. every electronic gizmo on the planet). Even in nature we see aspects of quantum states - virtual particles (Cashmeir effect, Hawking radiation, etc).

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#36676 - 11/23/10 12:51 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: ImagingGeek]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Bryan
In quantum systems (which is what we are talking about), "infinitesimally" can be specifically defined via the uncertainty principal. Basically, at some small period of time (t) you will "see" individual quantum states.


Quote:
Define what you mean by a "quantum system" and "quantum states".


The terms "quantum system" and "quantum states" were yours originally; in fact my question was an initial attempt to discover precisely what you meant. (Thanks for prompting the memory).
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#36680 - 11/23/10 01:55 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Bill S.]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
... The terms "quantum system" and "quantum states" were yours originally; in fact my question was an initial attempt to discover precisely what you meant. (Thanks for prompting the memory).
Bill, you and I just experienced an example of how what I call 'meta-tation' and how it works.

Have you heard of 'SELF-IMAGE PSYCHOLOGY'?

Of course, it is not a new idea. Many ancient philosophers--some were called meta-physicians--like Socrates and Aristotle, and spiritual leaders, including Jesus practiced the principle.

When Socrates told his students: "Know thyself" he was advocating self-image psychology. Jesus added the healing touch when he said: "Love thy neighbour as thyself" and "Be it done unto you according to what you believe."

In modern times it is connected with the Transcendental movements of the 19th. Century and the New Age movements of the 20th Century.

Following studies in theology and psychology (1947-1953) I picked up the idea, in 1964, and called it Pneumatology. It was later that I found the work is already in the major dictionaries. Hmmm!

In recent times the idea is also connected with the famous plastic surgeon, Maxwell Maltz. I met and spoke with him in Toronto--I think it was in 1975.

BTW, I try to tell the story in my blog writing:
http://www.opensourcereligion.net/profiles/blogs/authors-background


Edited by Revlgking (11/23/10 01:56 PM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#36682 - 11/23/10 02:12 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Bill S.]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
The terms "quantum system" and "quantum states" were yours originally

I wasn't sure, which is why I asked the question.

As I said in my past post, everything in our universe is a quantum system. However, within science we usually reserve that term for where quantum behaviours are discreet (i.e. we see single quantum behaviours, or their effects, rather than a mis-mash of numerous quantum states all at once).

Quantum states are simply when whatever you're measuring has measurable quantums. Keep in mind that quantum = set states with no intermediaries. Electrons can be excited to specific energies in their orbitals, but not energies between those points, etc.

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#36700 - 11/25/10 03:39 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: ImagingGeek]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
How did we get the terms The terms "quantum system" and "quantum states" into a N Q S thread? Can it really be that quantum theory is bringing science/philosophy/theology closer together; or is it just the philosophers and theologists getting their toes in the door. It couldn't be the scientists, could it? Their toes are firmly in.
I see some smart remarks coming about TOEs. :P
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#36706 - 11/29/10 05:14 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Bill S.]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
BTW, ABOUT SELF-IMAGE PSYCHOLOGY--What I call pneumatology:
==========================================================
The session on the power of SELF-IMAGE PSYCHOLOGY, which I did, today--as a volunteer (in my 80's) at the church which I attend--went very well. I have been invited to do several more.

http://www.thornhillunitedchurch.ca/

After the session, one MD, present, graciously said, for all to hear: "More and more people need to hear what you said today about how to have a better self-image. Seventy percent of all our diseases can be traced back to the fact that too many people have a poor self-image.
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#36708 - 11/29/10 06:42 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Bill S.]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
How did we get the terms The terms "quantum system" and "quantum states" into a N Q S thread?

Because quantum mechanics provides an explanation of how our universe could form, literally, from nothing. I.E. QED can explain the origin and cause of our universe, without the need for a god.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Can it really be that quantum theory is bringing science/philosophy/theology closer together

I think its more the opposite - science is explaining things previously explained via philosophy and religion.

Bryan


Edited by ImagingGeek (11/29/10 08:28 PM)
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
Page 59 of 120 < 1 2 ... 57 58 59 60 61 ... 119 120 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.