What Atheist Believe

[Qnts2]

9 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

That's kool, no problem.  But Math isn't Science.

 

 Quantum Mechanics explains REALITY and is CONFIRMED by Validated Experiments -- (In the Literal Thousands...Without Exception !!) 

 

Biology doesn't: claim, say, sing, dance, run, jump, swim ect.  It has no vocal chords or penmanship skills.  To "claim" something takes sentience and intelligence i.e., it's not alive; Ergo...Reification Fallacy.

 

It doesn't "think" anything, it's not ALIVE. (SEE previous: Reification Fallacy).

It does Complete the Whole Ball of Wax.

If you like, we can discuss The Experiments?  For brevity, I have one that settles the matter 'abruptly' on all fronts.  Just say the word.  

 

QM is more SCIENCE than any Discipline on the Planet!!  There's Literally Thousands of Validated Experiments ---- "Science".

What is Science...? 

Please post The Scientific Method....?

 

They had to because Newtonian Physics didn't "Jive" with the simplest of Experiments --- "Science".  And...

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."--- Richard P. Feynman (Nobel Prize, Physics)

As stated previously, QM Formalism is not derived. 

Also mentioned and Cited, Quantum Laws are....The Laws of Physics.  Newtonian Laws/Classical Physics emerge from the Quantum Laws; however, they are domain specific.

 

Mathematics -- The abstract science of number, quantity, and space. Mathematics may be studied in its own right ( pure mathematics), or as it is applied to other disciplines such as physics and engineering ( applied mathematics). http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/mathematics

To refute, put 2658.67 x 6 in a jar and paint it red....? 

 

regards

Thousands of experiments which work according to the forumula's which have been created with mysterious constants which no one understands why, but simply use because Newtonian physics did not as you say 'jive' when dealing with sub-atomic particles. If I did an experiment and found the classic formula did no work, and then created a formula which did work, not understanding why it worked, and verified the formula, the formula works. But to get it to work, you inserted a constant. You don't know why. You don't know how. Actually, you don't know why or how the first formula which was proven to work for a long time and has been validated by thousands of experiments doesn't work. And you don't know what the constant stands for. Or why it was needed.

So you don't get upset I will change my wording. Practitioners and teachers of quantum mechanics made grandiose claims, such as QM is the Whole ball of Wax. I say it explains nothing. Because it is a science of made up formulas which do work, but no one can explain how or why. A constant was needed. A constant boldly named after some man who did an experiment, not to prove or disprove, but to come up with the theory or formula. 

There is math, and there is abstract math. There are differences in their use.

[Enoch2021]

56 minutes ago, Qnts2 said:

Thousands of experiments which work according to the forumula's which have been created with mysterious constants which no one understands why, but simply use because Newtonian physics did not as you say 'jive' when dealing with sub-atomic particles.

You're missing the Forrest through the Trees.

1.  Formulas/Math/Equations merely "Describe" what's happening, they "Explain" exactly squat/nada/niente.

2.  Formulas in QM don't "Predict" anything other than a Probability Distribution.

3.  All Laws of Physics are Quantum Mechanical Laws sir.

 

Quote

Practitioners and teachers of quantum mechanics made grandiose claims, such as QM is the Whole ball of Wax.

No, that was my summary.  

 

Quote

There is math, and there is abstract math. There are differences in their use.

ALL Mathematics is Abstract it's apodictic, didn't we learn this in 2nd Grade?

You forgot: "To refute, put 2658.67 x 6 in a jar and paint it red....?"  Go ahead...?

 

Quote

I say it explains nothing.

Yea, it's Mind Numbing.

The Equations don't "Explain" anything (They Can't, Inherently).... but the Experiments EXPLAIN EVERYTHING.

 

Quote

If I did an experiment and found the classic formula did no work...

A Formula IS NOT an Experiment.

The Double-Slit Experiment alone CRUSHES Newtonian Mechanics and Maxwell's Theories.

 

Quote

...and then created a formula which did work, not understanding why it worked, and verified the formula, the formula works. But to get it to work, you inserted a constant. You don't know why. You don't know how.

You really have it in for Planck.   There are many constants in Physics, they Work (lol).  Newton had one of his own:  The Gravitation Constant: "G", it wasn't validated until well after Newton Died.

 

Quote

Actually, you don't know why or how the first formula which was proven to work for a long time and has been validated by thousands of experiments doesn't work. And you don't know what the constant stands for. Or why it was needed.

I'm struggling to figure out what your argument actual is. 

 

Quote

A constant was needed. A constant boldly named after some man who did an experiment, not to prove or disprove, but to come up with the theory or formula.

Yes just like Newton.  And, Planck's Constant was established before QM Experiments, btw.  It has many ramifications and is also CRUCIAL in describing the Photo-Electric Effect (Einstein's Nobel).

Think on this for a while...

 

Richard Hamming (Applied Mathematician, Creator of Computer Science)...

 

"Humans create and select the mathematics that fit a situation. The mathematics at hand does not always work. For example, when mere scalars proved awkward for understanding forces, first vectors, then tensors, were invented." {emphasis mine}

Hamming, R.W., The American Mathematical Monthly Volume 87; Number 2, February 1980.

 

regards 

 

 

[post]

On 4/17/2016 at 11:09 AM, Enoch2021 said:

Formulas in QM don't "Predict" anything

the phenomena of entanglement, atomic & x-ray spectra, new elements on the periodic table, the band structure of semiconductors . . .

how is QM ((which is stated in terms of mathematics)) scientifically "tested" if it doesn't "predict" anything? 
 

[post]

On 2/23/2016 at 5:20 PM, siegi91 said:

You seem to indicate that "creation" entails a miraculous violation of the first principle.

yes. 
creation is miraculous
i believe also that the first principle itself is a 'created' thing - in the sense that it's an implied property of a created universe. 

aren't the alternatives that matter/energy do not exist at all (solipsism?) or have existed for an infinite amount of time & will exist infinitely?

QM formulation is probability density functions -- which extend infinitely & decrease with distance from peak probability, but though they have P(event) = 0 as a limiting value, that limit is never actualized. so doesn't this imply that in QM, miracles are "astronomically unlikely" but not impossible? 

e.g. tunneling -- nothing other than likelihood physically prevents Christ's whole body from having "tunneled" into the upper room when He appeared there and said "peace"
i would have to do some reading up on sub-field stuff, but i think the case is similar for spontaneous universe appearance. iirc there are theories that tiny 'bubble universes' are popping in and out of existence all the time. so the physics does not prevent this from happening -- it would imply we are overdue for a very large 'negative energy' wave peak, but this is what the Bible also implies -- that the elements will be dissolved, and He will judge creation.