Dont let your kids go to college
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (79)
sorted by:
Sir, you will retract that absolute gang rape of quantum theory, or I shall see you on the dueling field in the morning. This level of misunderstanding is so complete as to become intentional and malicious lie.
There are no "rules" to reality, I will restate, only field interactions. And we do see quantum effects macroscopically; they are the underpinnings of reality. That you think that there is some intentional restriction keeping this organized, and that you fail to understand that the uncertainty observation refers to an inability to humans to measure quantum scale interactions past a certain level of precision, and rather imply that there is inherently some level where reality stops working, are all evidence of a deep and permeating confusion on the matter that you attempt to pass off as fact. Just because we are limited, at the quantum level, to attempting to guage the true nature of cats by throwing other cats at them at speed and seeing what happens, does not mean information theory suddenly stops applying, that just because we cannot tell electrons apart doesn't mean their spacetime coordinates are not wholly unique.
Retract your nonsense, and return once you have understood the difference between a rule and a tendency.
Interactions that are limited in their functions; ergo, rules.
Feel free to describe how limitations aren't rules.
Simple. Field interactions are the patterns that emerge when energetic waveforms with certain frequencies intersect. These are not rules nor limitations; there is nothing intentionslly keeping these things acting the way they do, merely the probabilistic outcome of countless numbers of waves intersecting.
Thats the key difference. You desperately need there to be intentional element to reality; some will or force keeping things either apart or together on purpose, and you call the interactions you see the "rules" of reality, like the "rules" of the road or a criminal code. But there isn't any intentional force or effect. Its just plain, boring, inpersonal energy interactions, and the things we call "laws" are simply the patterns to interactions that we've observed so commonly and prevailingly that we have declared that this is how they almost always, 99.99...9% of the time, interact.
What maintains the patterns?
Which goes back to what I said before -- Quantum Field Theory should then apply to all forms of matter and energy macrocosmically.
On a subatomic level, observed energy may change in ways that is discordant when changing the properties of observation, but on a macrocosmic scale they do not do that.
A cat does not become two cats when put into a box; a cat does not radically materially change the composition of its fur when put next to a dog; a cat does not dematerialise if it catches a rat.
What keeps energy from dematerialising randomly, rematerialising anywhere, or immaterialising through entropy without cause?
Begging the question... again.
What you've just described is a rule -- any observable pattern is a combination of elements that repeat within a defined set of actions. Anything that repeats is following a rule of systemic repetition -- otherwise, it would not repeat if it were not a rule.
And since you don't seem to understand what the definition of a rule is, here it is: one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.
Energy interactions as a set of defined patterns is a rule of scientific law.
A good example of this is gravity -- our planets follow orbital rules, without them, the planets would drift apart. Our known universe follows the observed patterns and rules of relativity, without it, everything would fall apart. What keeps the rules of gravity in place? What prevents the orbits from changing? What determines how gravity maintains consistency?
You also keep forgetting to address the point that negantropy prevents everything from operating under the constant rule of entropy.
That's a meaningless question. The wave interactions form the patterns. The properties of the waves form the interactions. There is no outside influence maintaining wave interactions.
Quantum field theory does apply to all forms of energy. That's the point of it. You forget how obscenely large the number of molecules are in a mol of any substance, and how thin potential wells have to be for effects like tunneling to occur. Standard matter clusters DO experience quantum effects, but the percentage of the matter affected is so low that it is unable to disrupt the total structure to any degree noticeable without advanced equipment. The numbers you deal with in macroscopic structures is so absurdly huge that the only way to reasonably describe it is using statistics of large numbers.
I am greatly amused by the fact that you chose to present a definition of rule that explicitly disagrees with your assertion and supports mine. Notice the key words: "explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere."
Nature doesn't have regulations or government principles, nor does it engage in conduct or activities. Nature simply is. It exists, and its fundamental properties interact with one another with no rhyme, reason, or guidance. Water does not flow because gravity makes it; water shares spacetime coordinates with gravitic fields, and does what local conditions allow. The universe does not think nor desire; it simply is, and does what is its nature.
This is why the universe has patterns, not rules. Rules require thought, organization, and intent. There is no intent, and all organization is emergent.
That is most certainly not the definition. A scientific law is a theory with enough experimental evidence that the scientific community has agreed that the theory should be considered and presented as generally correct in 99.99...9% of cases. It is descriptive, not proscriptive. There are not rules, only predictions that are either accurate or inaccurate in predicting the behavior of nature under specific conditions.
This again is where you're attempting to proscribe the behavior of nature. There is nothing maintaining uniformity amongst natural concepts. Hell, I've read theories that the speed of light was slightly higher back near the start of the universe, and may become slightly lower in the far, far distant future. Heres a link so you can see I'm not talking out of my ass here:
https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.101301
Biological organisms use energy from external sources to do work on themselves, decreasing their own entropy at the cost of increasing entropy outside themselves. This is entirely consistent with the standard thermodynamic model. We get our energy from the sun, or from organisms that get their energy from the sun. Were the sun to go out, this process would cease. Come back when you've found something that violates entropic patterns, please.
Or are you trying to imply that the ability of complex organisms to engage in self-repair is somehow too complex to be an emergent function, and thus obviously evidence of god, like so many others like to insist?