“OMG! ‘Faith’ and ‘Quantum Physics’ are the SAME thing!” Well Maybe…??

Originally posted by juveous
reply to post by gormly

 

speculative connecting the dots - no harm - I think these topics provoke open-mindedness to creativity, even though they come from the ambiguous and not the empirical - after all this is how new ideas and theories formulate.

Would you not agree that what we 'see' is the effect...of 'some' type of cause? Would the effect not be empirical? and observable?

I'm a Master Black Belt in Statistical studies of Lean Six Sigma...ever heard of 'Standard deviation'?


= = = = =
Below...I cut and pasted a prior post about what we 'see'...


OT got a new lawnmower...

Occams Razor asks, how'd that there Lawnboy come into existence? Good question 'OR' Well given enough time.........and chance.......and some more time........and chance......those wheels could wind up bolted to that little chassis you know.......and then after awhile that fuel injection system.....could find its way next to the handle bars.....and that fancy grass catcher could just plop on the back end....AND WALLA!


No, some....ONE (person/intellectual/skilled person) engineered it/built it/manufactured it....right?

OT believes it did not just happen....because of it's....ready.....COMPLEXITY....


Are you/me/the universe a tad MORE complex?




OT thanks you for the great question!!!

reply to post by Byrd



Byrd, send OT what you have....whatever is easiest for you!!!


Thanks for the post/contribution....I look forward to assimilating it alll, ok?

Hey OT...

Using your treo... well aren't we all high tech lol

In your OP you ask:
"C) Is the Lord Jesus the missing ‘substance’ holding all ‘things’ together?"

I'm thinking the fact that the universe existed prior to his birth would prove otherwise...

jesus is not god.

sometimes I guess its easy for christians to forget this...

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by gormly

 

It also sort of annoys me when people ask a perfectly good question and then it gets muddied by quotes from the Bible or some other book of folk tales like that. Lets keep our philosophy seperate from our rigorously defined science, ok?

OT did ask a good question right?

OT's the one who put the bible verses in there, too....right?

OT....DOESN"T know any Fairies?????? sept this conflicted kid....I knew back in the 60's

Just joking....do you HAVE A question...or positive contribution?

Originally posted by nj2day
Hey OT...

Using your treo... well aren't we all high tech lol

In your OP you ask:
"C) Is the Lord Jesus the missing ‘substance’ holding all ‘things’ together?"

I'm thinking the fact that the universe existed prior to his birth would prove otherwise...

jesus is not god.

sometimes I guess its easy for christians to forget this...

Dude!!! Where you been?????


I know....


Staying withIN OT's perameters....., right?????


I had a vision today....of you saying/typing....."I'm gonna send this....but....OT did define some boundaries????? SH#T, what's 'protocol' here on ATS?"


It happened....didn' it??????


But you counted to 10...and didn't sent it....right?


IT'S FREAKIN' AMAZIN HOW THIS OT UNDERSTANDS PEOPLE....


No.......fire away....


btw, what did you just say?

reply to post by OldThinker


lol nah, I haven't had that too often in this thread... there have been others though...

One day I typed up a long 8000 character reply to someone... then decided against it and didn't send it lol...

Here, knowing the rules of engagement... I only try to point out failures in reasoning... and tend to lean towards input on the scientific side for the quantum stuff...

Anyway, Your premise that jesus could be the thing holding stuff together...

I was stating that jesus was a man... (a pretty important one though) and not god himself...

so the existence of the universe prior to his birth would automatically refute the theory that he's the force "holding it together"




[edit on 2-12-2008 by nj2day]

reply to post by nj2day


Hey, Oldthinker, I overstand this comment. I feel the same way you do on this post.

Originally posted by nj2day
reply to post by OldThinker

 

....
Anyway, Your premise that jesus could be the thing holding stuff together...

I was stating that jesus was a man... (a pretty important one though) and not god himself...
[edit on 2-12-2008 by nj2day]

nah...sorry...u gotta laugh....

btw, who was he?

btw2, glad ur still here.... you know OT respects you...!

OT

Originally posted by OldThinker
btw, who was he?

LOL you don't want me to answer that honestly lol...

Instead I'll try and answer from your perspective...

Jesus was the son of god... but he was man at the same time... By using jesus instead of god in that statement, It seems like you are saying the man himself...

some christian dogma dictates that jesus and god are the same... well if thats the case, just call him god

btw2, glad ur still here....

you know OT respects you...!

and you know I respect you... hence playing by these rules lol

I'll keep poking my head in and interjecting as long as I think I can be productive to your discussion

drink a brew for me OT!

reply to post by nj2day



OK>>>>>>ok>>>>>>>>>

Wouldn't expect anything less/different from you....


I'll keep watching the responses....from others....and u2u you as appropriate...


It has been good....I am pleased...looking forward to Mod Byrd's input...something tells me OT got some studying to do...

As an aside, was the OP different from what you have heard from the 'religious'?

Curious?



[edit on 2-12-2008 by OldThinker]

reply to post by OldThinker


Thanks for the welcome, Oldthinker.

I do like your signature, by the way. It is so easy, isn’t it… to see who His disciples are? I mean it seems so simple, and yet so many just miss it. The evidence of salvation is when you Love others as yourself, because that is what He said to do if you Love Him. I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately… if we got the goods, then we can get along.

Sorry to get off the O.P.

I still have yet to finish the thread, so anything I can actually add will be later…

Oh yeah, those Sooners… they’ve had a great season. I guess we’ll have to see what happens this Saturday when the play MU...

reply to post by apaulo



You should win....wow....the BCS? OT agrees with prez-elect BO...maybe 4 teams though....not 8....and do it all AFTER the bowls...no one gets hurt.....cept the deemed 5 team....stink! subjectivity AGAIN....kinda like OT's OP, huh?.... ....atleast acccording to my skeptic friends....!

= = = = =

There is SO much UNDER the surface on this thread....sweeeeeeet avatar!!!!!

Thank you 'yeahright' mod for the U2U earlier....


I'm trying here.....tough subject/s for sure!!!!!


OT

I am new to the site and appreciative of this discussion. I have been more than intrigued by the quantum physics as regards my faith. I am a huge fan of Gregg Braden, his take on the holographic universe and how that plays out in our lives has sent me in search of deeper truths. I have an entirely new perspective on the kingdom of God that resides within me.
Shalom

Okay... beginning to address some of the issues here.

Many people claim to understand Einstein's E=MC2 equation, and even to know where it went wrong (and then promptly prove that they have no idea what it really means by doing some rather goofy math with it.) So, in order to begin to examine your question thoroughly, you need to be able to read Einstein's original paper and understand it and understand all the math in it (the "E" in that famous equation (as the footnote says) is actually an "L".)

It's here. Don't worry -- it's short -- only one page! : www.fourmilab.ch...

When you understand it, you should be able to answer the question in his title and explain your answer.

Now, that's one of the foundation papers to understanding quantum physics. The direction you were trying to examine involves something called "Quantum Entanglement" and here is one of the very first papers written on it: www.hep.princeton.edu...

To start to really understand the subject, you need to read those two short papers and start looking up all the things that make you go "huh?" You won't be an expert after that, but you're going to start to understand some things about Quantum Entanglement and why the pages you found as reference are simply someone's invention of an idea of what they think it all means.

Here's the rest of the reading list in order to start understanding quantum mechanics. You should be able to understand the terms and at least understand what the math symbols stand for and what operations are being done :

1. puhep1.princeton.edu...

2. arxiv.org... (the Bohman equations are a foundation)

3. www.ecse.rpi.edu...



* a quick "reader's digest" version of some of the contributions in the above papers is here: blue.butler.edu...

...and yes, over the course of a lifetime, I've read these. I stumble through the math, but I understand where it's going and what they're talking about.


LIST OF TOPICS YOU CAN DO QUICK READS ON TO UNDERSTAND MORE ABOUT QUANTUM PHYSICS:

A 1957 (half a century out of date) article on early quantum mechanics. From an encyclopedia, so it's actually readable:
hep.princeton.edu...


Going deeper, read up on:

* quantum superposition
* Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
* the "collapse" of the wave function
* introduction to Dirac notation
* Hilbert spaces (these are fun!)
* unitary transformations
* quantum measurement.
* quantum computation (Wikipedia is your buddy on this one)
* Quantum information theory
* Quantum error-correcting codes (do a Wikipedia read)
* Quantum complexity theory (Wikipedia. Trust me.)
* quantum entanglement and locality
* Topological quantum computing (Wikipedia. Again.
* Quantum knots arxiv.org...


And a fun (and readable) article on proposed "how quantum computing works" is here: marcuslab.harvard.edu...

So... once you've got those basics, then you could start with this paper on quantum mechanics which deals with "faster than light" theories such as you were asking about -- from the REAL quantum mechanics perspective:
arxiv.org...

An interesting thing to consider is the "spooky action at a distance" (real name) principle. I know one of the researchers doing work on this, and I know that their work sometimes gets inserted (and badly) into material on faith. Spooky action appears to work only at the quantum level, but if it can be proved then it raises some very interesting questions about the behavior of things: arxiv.org...

(I think that Spooky Action is my second favorite quantum physics idea. Hilbert's my favorite.)

I think I'll let this rest for a day and then come back with the philosophical/religious foundational readings. There's a bunch of those, but I'll have to sort out the ones that make more sense for the kind of question you're asking.

reply to post by nj2day




told

you!

OT




that yah....weh....things is worthy of a second thought!!

reply to post by Byrd


Byrd…..thank you….I’ll investigate…..Here’s some for you to review, too….

www.asa3.org...

www.khouse.org...

and this young…Adventurer here…. www.scribd.com...


OT



PS: Bryd, have you ever read Josh McDowell….or…Ravi Zacharias?

Originally posted by rikk7111
Goodnight fellas........Enjoyed my time in the think tank, we'll resume tomorrow...............Have sweet dreams, and thanks for everyone's gentle respect one to another...................

Echo....echo....

All were appropriate....

How's today going for you?

OT

Originally posted by darkelf
reply to post by OldThinker

 

Off topic . . . if you like Peretti, you'll probably like Randy Alcorn. His books deal alot in the spiritual realm.

Randy Alcorn, huh?


What are his titles/works....?


I'll look up....!

OT