No, is QM based in logic? yes or no? If it's not logical, it's not SCIENCE, by definition.
Science works using proof-by-contradiction.
No, is QM based in logic? yes or no? If it's not logical, it's not SCIENCE, by definition.
Science works using proof-by-contradiction.
So maybe your logic is faulty? Maybe the logic you're used to does not involve the discrete, fuzzy nature of QM.
Another example, the classic double slit problem. Logic tells you that the photon can not be in 2 places at once, yet that is what QM tells us.
Another example, the classic double slit problem. Logic tells you that the photon can not be in 2 places at once, yet that is what QM tells us.
Actually QM is based on logic, so you just said
"Logic tells us, that logic is wrong"
What you really meant to say was "We don't understand the logic of the system just yet", but the logic of the system exists and it always works.
So logic always works. Always, or science collapses.
So which logic is right? The one which agrees with reality and experiment, or the one which goes with our gut feeling?
If you're making a claim that it is, you have to show that it is. You claim to know, so you know where it is wrong, so point out the flaw and I will correct myself.
There is only one logic, any thing you misunderstand, just means you don't understand it yet.
For instance if I make a system that says: Every 2 is equal to 3
Whenever I say "2", I'm saying it can be used as the number 3, (which is a valid statement)
Now if you don't understand the rule(logic), then it doesn't mean logic doesn't work, it means you don't fully understand the rules.
I honestly couldn't say where you went wrong. Something has to be wrong with the logic since it doesn't stand up to the well tested logically based QM. The solution to the "but something can't exist in 2 places at one time" is to reform our thoughts and not rely so heavily on our intuition. There is no logical reason why a particle can't exist in 2 or more places at one time just as there is no reason why you can't get something for nothing for a brief amount of time. Only our intuition is being provided as logical proof.
That's the whole point, if you say I'm wrong that is at the same time a claim to know which words are incorrect, and which statements, otherwise you have no claim.
"QM backs it up" doesn't mean anything, QM is not a complete theory, which everyone has admitted.
QM claims to borrow an existant-thing, from absolute-non-existence, that is a contradiction. To say it is not, is to say science itself is impossible.
QM must submit to the logic, or else a part of QM is invalid. QM is a subset of logic, just as math is a subset of logic.
I don't have to be able to point out the mistake if it takes you 15 lines to add 2+2 to get 5 to say you're wrong.
I've already stated that there is no actual borrowing going on. But why is existent from a non-existent a contradiction? Why is it that something can't exist in more than one point in space-time a contradiction? You claim it is but provide no logical backing, then claim its logic.
I've given you an example where logic can be wrong because of our intuitive assumptions, clearly there has to be some reformation of thoughts here.
I've already stated that there is no actual borrowing going on. But why is existent from a non-existent a contradiction? Why is it that something can't exist in more than one point in space-time a contradiction? You claim it is but provide no logical backing, then claim its logic.
I've given you an example where logic can be wrong because of our intuitive assumptions, clearly there has to be some reformation of thoughts here.
Actually yes you do, when somene makes a claim something is true (it is true that you are wrong), they said "I've looked at it and TESTED IT, and found that it was false". So what parts of my statements did you test that you found were false? Otherwise you have no claim.
A claim to know that I am wrong, is a claim to SHOW that I am. Which words and which statements are wrong? Otherwise retreat and claim your ignorance.
Just answer this question: Was there a time, when time and energy and it's potential to exist, absolutely-never existed? That's all the justification I need. i.e. it absolutely never existed.
You said you could borrow, a absolute-non-existent .. energy-thing, and an absolutely-non-existent time energy-thing, from an absolute non-existant.
That is a contradiction.
If you borrow an existent-something, in any sense, you are borrowing a existing thing that exists in a sense.
So yeah you did say you borrowed it.
If I wanted this sort of jackassery, I could have posted this thread in OT. Oh well, this thread is like a car wreck at this point and apparently I can't turn away. Yes, logic exists.
It's not jack-assery, I didn't want to claim you were stupid because I know you are not stupid. But I knew you kept oscillating back and forth between saying you knew (the truth) of what I was saying was false or true, and I can't exactly explain anything if you can't point out what is incorrect.
So I am taking you through the whole process step-by-step, one at a time, so that the logic can be easily followed so no one can claim it is broken, everytime I've asked for someone to point out where it is broken, they can't show where it is broken... and that means all claims to knowing I am wrong are invalid. If you can't show I am wrong, you don't know that I am.
Now you said that logic exists. Good.
Does truth contain information? you got to answer this one too because EVERY STEP is critical for me to explain. I am not being obtuse, because we can then follow the chain and see where I made a statement that is incorrect.
Well these last 2 or 3 pages have been next to useless. I have made a claim that Quantum Mechanics says you can create something from nothing, an existent from a non-existent. You claim that this is a contradiction but provide no proof besides saying you can't do that. The onus is on you to show where Quantum Mechanics is logically inconsistent. This is where you are wrong until you can prove it otherwise.
Second, Quantum Mechanics and Math are no more subsets of logic than the salad you eat with a fork is a subset of the utensil set. Logic is the tool by which these theories function.
If I were marking a paper and the question said add 2+2. Then you went on to write 15 lines of garbage and then write that 5 is the answer, your wrong. I don't have to be able to show where you went wrong because there is a unique solution and 5 is not it. Sure you can redefine 2 to equal 2.5, but you have to resubstitute after to get the unique answer of 4. No amount of arguing makes you right.
Logic may be right, but human error can always creep in.
That being said, I wash my hands of this thread. Enough philosophizing about the finer points of existence and math. Gannon, I must commend you, you are extremely proficient at evading and deflecting questions no matter how pointed they are. Don't expect me to buy your book when it comes out in the metaphysics section though.
Second, Quantum Mechanics and Math are no more subsets of logic than the salad you eat with a fork is a subset of the utensil set. Logic is the tool by which these theories function.
If I were marking a paper and the question said add 2+2. Then you went on to write 15 lines of garbage and then write that 5 is the answer, your wrong. I don't have to be able to show where you went wrong because there is a unique solution and 5 is not it. Sure you can redefine 2 to equal 2.5, but you have to resubstitute after to get the unique answer of 4. No amount of arguing makes you right.
Logic may be right, but human error can always creep in.
That being said, I wash my hands of this thread. Enough philosophizing about the finer points of existence and math. Gannon, I must commend you, you are extremely proficient at evading and deflecting questions no matter how pointed they are. Don't expect me to buy your book when it comes out in the metaphysics section though.
I have to do no such thing, you are claiming logic doesn't exist.
So you're making a claim that my statement is false, so what about my statement is false?
Ok so you just said that QM and math are not subsets of logic (that is, science).
That is they do not belong to the set of logic.
Logic (countable and uncountable; plural logics)
1. (uncountable) A method of human thought that involves thinking in a linear, step-by-step manner about how a problem can be solved. Logic is the basis of many principles including the scientific method.
I dunno, it looks like they are to me.
Damn man, now I have to wonder just what is wrong with you. I dunno, if logic was at the foundation of science and math, if it didn't exist, does that mean there is no such thing as science?
QM is a subset of logic. So just answer this question: Was there a time, when time and energy and it's potential to exist, absolutely-never existed? That's all the justification I need. i.e. it absolutely never existed.
QM is claiming to get existence stuff from all-never-existing-stuff. QM just said, all potential existence never exists at any time.
We have to ask the question... does existence exist... all of the time? If there is any time existence does not exist, then nothing derived from the existence set can ever be. You said you could borrow, a absolute-non-existent .. energy-thing, and an absolutely-non-existent time energy-thing, from an absolute non-existent.
You can't derive existents from absolute-non's at any time. All existents must have partial existents in some way at all times, or their potential existence can never be. If you say it's existence is a total-non-existence, then science itself collapses.
Consider the statement -- Was there any time where the logic that is the basis of scientific truths absolutely never existed?
Either logic is wrong and doesn't exist, or QM is incorrect. Those are the only two options. Next we know QM is not a complete theory, so in fact, there can be parts of it that are incorrect that no one actually understands that is incorrect.
You can't get an existent from an all-non-existent. That is a perfectly consistent statement. If not point out which definition of which word is incorrect, otherwise you are talking out your ass and scientists don't understand the definition of an all-non-existent, which is in fact most likely, since science is based on the thoughts of those fallible human beings. But thats why there's logic.
To claim I am wrong, is to make a claim you know which statement is incorrect AND that you can point it out.
The reason why you felt "your questions were deflected" is because you have no problem with what I have said. I asked you which statements contained errors, and you can't point it out, so you actually can't find any. Amazing huh?
That is how the logic of science works my friend.
You can't have the chance to exist, if the existence-potential never existed in the first place.
PlasmaBomb
Lifer
- Nov 19, 2004
- 11,636
- 2
- 81
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 403
-
Facebook
Twitter