h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

FordsTowel said:
"BB and Gnomon,

As usual, I am always ready for a good, reasoned, and rational debate. I'm not sure though, given that you are atheists, you will feel considering the possibility of their being a directing force or diety as being rational. [And, one thread is as good as another for me. (Got any of those titanium reinforced beams left?)]

[This is just an aside, and not meant as a criticism or a judging: I have always had a problem with atheism, as opposed to agnosticism, because of the impossibility of proving a negative. I can see how one can refuse to believe in a (to use the terminology) divine being; but belief in the absolute impossibility of one (or more) is something that I find hard to accept logically, no matter how illogical a god-person seems to the atheist. Just symantics, I suppose.]

My concern is not really the existence or non-existence of God, but what other logical, reasoned, and likely possibilities there are. These may have to submit to the test of Occams Razor. It is at least simple to ascribe the unknown to dieties if one assumes their existence, even if the existence of such 'guiding intelligences' may not be provable, and even though some of the phenomenon turns out to be otherwise explainable. Still, in many minds it is more likely than the spontaneous generation of the universe.

Let us not forget that people once believed that that the 'simplest' explanation for worms appearing in puddles after a rain was due to horse hairs that fell into the puddles. Spontaneous generation, unless given a scientific explanation that does not involve and even deeper faith in atheism than in science, is not something that works for me.

Our most detailed views of our universe have always resulted from adherence to certain basic assumptions and premises (such as existence as a given). Mechanically, the universe seems to hold itself to these physical laws, although we often require a deeper understanding to fit new information into the mix.

So, we either except that the universe works in a mechanical, clockwork fashion, or that it is full of wildly inexplicable phenomena that happens without cause. Either works for gods, either works for atheists.

Regarding the 'basic paradox'. If you can give me one real-world, measurable, or observable example of something both being and not being 'X' at the same time, I'll be willing to rethink the logic. (Actually, I redo that everytime the subject comes up.)

My given is that all dimensional existence did not begin as a result of the 'big bang' (are we in agreement that it happened at all?). If there was a big bang, whatever banged had to exist, however briefly or eternally, when the bang occurred.

The very fact that it occurred sometime in our past, history, distant space-time coordinates, implies that it existed in the dimension of time. Theories may exist that dispute this, but I have to take it as a given until disproved.

If the 'it' that banged was all there was, it would have been a very boring time, but indistinguishable from what we refer to as time. We have a multi-dimensional universe, but have (I think) sufficient reason to suspect more. Therefore, this singularity must have become part of the general mish-mash, or it was always part of the general mish-mash. Once again, I am placing a limit on my givens that could affect the end result. It was either always there, or came to be there. [Is there a flaw in this part of my logic?]

If it was always there and stable, and there is nothing beyond the known multi-dimensional universe, there would have been nothing to act upon it and it would never have 'banged'. [Is this the part of my logic that seems wrong?]

If it was not always there, and it represented all there was when it 'banged', then a cause is required. [Perhaps this is where my logic seems weak?]

I find it a lot harder to believe that a non-dimensional, no-time, matter-less and energy-less void would spontaneously spawn a multi-dimensional universe than that it had a cause, whether mechanically or through godlike intervention.

If we can take a specific example of religion, the Christian Bible, just for a moment; the book of Genesis gives an accounting of the creation of life. Do I buy that this is an accurate picture of what happened? No, the book was certainly never meant to be a scientific tome. Does the book cover a pretty reasonable set of time-lined events that covered billions of years in a pretty accurate order? Yes, and surprisingly well considering the limitations of the vocabulary of the time.

Both the seven-day version and the spontaneous generation version seem flawed. We prove that life on earth has had an evolution, not spontaneous generation. We prove that the universe was certainly more than seven Earth days old when man appeared as a species.

So, mechanically speaking, given that the big-bang phenomenon happened, I need to ask not only are there other theories (there are always plenty of theories), but where the flaw in my logic resides.

Until Quantum Mechanics is a proven, belief in it is no better or worse than faith in a god. Until it can be shown to be phenomenalogically possible, neither is spontaneous generation of universes. I don't want to simplly substitute one unprovable faith or theory for another, when it comes to logic (even if the given utlimately turns out to be wrong).

At this particular point in our level of scientific understanding, I am left with no better or more logical, simple, and complete answer to the complexities of existence than that of a creator-being. Einstein and Quantum may disagree, but anything they purport to describe can be even more easily be described by an all-powerful guidance who just 'wanted it that way'.

I know that the religious faithful do not concern themselves with proof, for belief without proof is what faith is all about. My contention is merely that when I get back to the point where it all started, I am left with a paradox that demands the existence of an intervening force whether the universe is eternal or not.

My friends, have at me, here or elsewhere. ok I look forward to any discussion that points to a flaw in the aforementioned logic. Or, to any theory that negates my concern with a provable or logical basis. Just remember that I cannot change the existing knowledge with which I am saddled without patience. It may be forever beyond my ability or interest level to take in decades of science that is beyond my present understanding.

towel

By the way: I certainly don't ask others to accept my viewpoint, or change their opinions, or judge them on theirs; but I believe our minds should be open to all possibilites, not only all non-god possibilities.

PS: Interesting bit of overheard conversation (true story, though perhaps not verbatim):

Christian: Yes, we accept Jesus Christ as the promised Saviour of the Old Testament.
Jew: We don't believe he was the one. We're still waiting for the true Saviour.
C: I think it's safer to be a Christian.
J: How do you figure that?
C: Well, if we are wrong we sinned, the real saviour will show up, and we'll probably be forgiven if we repent. If you're wrong, you rejected your Saviour and nailed him to a cross. It's too late to take it back and repent.
J: Hmmm, let me think about that.

I don't know where it might have gone from there."



Well, I don't know where to start on this one, FT! But I know there are some flaws here, some things to be pointed out. There are limitations in both of our understandings, I'm sure you'll agree.

***

"I'm not sure though, given that you are atheists, you will feel considering the possibility of their being a directing force or diety as being rational."

You're right - I don't consider the possibility of there being a deity as rational, but I could probably be persuaded to admit that it is a possibility. Have you read Douglas Adams's speech in the Salmon of Doubt about his views on God? I am inclined to agree with most of what he says, but I do have views of my own that I can use in this debate...

***

"[This is just an aside, and not meant as a criticism or a judging: I have always had a problem with atheism, as opposed to agnosticism, because of the impossibility of proving a negative. I can see how one can refuse to believe in a (to use the terminology) divine being; but belief in the absolute impossibility of one (or more) is something that I find hard to accept logically, no matter how illogical a god-person seems to the atheist. Just symantics, I suppose.]"

An aside it may be, but an interesting one at that. I think DNA says something about agnosticism, similar in many ways to the 'true story' you have put at the bottom of your posting. Some people do not understand why people are atheists because agnosticism is 'safer'. But I know that this is not quite your point. Your point is that it is impossible to prove a negative and that you don't see how I can not believe in a god but belive in the impossibility of a god... that's not quite right.

Being an atheist, that means I do not believe in God or any other such divine Being. Believing in the _possibility_ of the existence of _gods_ is a different thing. Well, actually, I'm sceptical of the latter as well, but higher dimensional beings, for example, are effectively 'gods' (lower case, plural), but they have no divinity associated with them that one might attach to God (title case, singular). I'm not saying I believe in such hyper-beings - I don't have any evidence for or against really.

***

"My concern is not really the existence or non-existence of God, but what other logical, reasoned, and likely possibilities there are."

I would concur that I have more concern in that area too. It has been a long time since I contemplated the existence or non-existence of God, but I very frequently contemplate the origin of the universe. For the other 'logical, reasoned, and likely possibilities' I refer you again to the first six or seven theories of my entry about it - totally reasonable, likely and totally godless, many of them even have proof to support them!

***

"These may have to submit to the test of Occams Razor."

When I was contemplating the (non)existence of God, I am sure that Occam's Razor was one of the implements with which I struck the idea from my belief. I could find no place for God to fit in the scientific theories of which I knew, neither could I find any conclusive evidence for His existence, and anything that is both unnecessary and unproved is quite simply an unnecessary complication, and will fall with ease at a blow from Occam. Of course, the argument is more complex than that in reality.

Occam may well prove one of the other theories, but most of them are quite simple and elegant. The most complicated is probably the ekpyrotic theory, but it is also the one that M-theory looks like it may prove (if we can first find any proof for M-theory, of course).

***

"It is at least simple to ascribe the unknown to dieties if one assumes their existence, even if the existence of such 'guiding intelligences' may not be provable, and even though some of the phenomenon turns out to be otherwise explainable. Still, in many minds it is more likely than the spontaneous generation of the universe."

The key phrase, I think, is 'if one assumes their existence'. I know that religious people would consider it more likely than spontaneous universal origin, but that is quite a subjective matter.

***

"Regarding the 'basic paradox'. If you can give me one real-world, measurable, or observable example of something both being and not being 'X' at the same time, I'll be willing to rethink the logic. (Actually, I redo that everytime the subject comes up.)"

Would quantum cryptography be good enough for you? They use it a lot nowadays, and it relies on the fact that before data reaches a detector, it is both in one quantum state AND another quantum state (in fact, a superposition of all possible states, but that's just a technicality).

The ability of sub-atomic particles to do this is fundamental to the workings of the universe. In metals, I believe it is the case that electrons are shared so much between the tightly packed metal atoms that they exist in superposition and are in fact all-pervasive in the metal, which is what gives metals their good electrical conductivity. I may be wrong about that, but I am sure I have heard it is right.

***

"My given is that all dimensional existence did not begin as a result of the 'big bang' (are we in agreement that it happened at all?)."

I agree that the big bang happened, but whether it spawned ALL dimensional existence is debatable. If one takes the many worlds theory as correct, then it is likely that each universe had its own bang, for example. It depends on the theories that we consider correct, and most of the theories at this level are not proven, but most of them do have a considerable amount of evidence.

"If there was a big bang, whatever banged had to exist, however briefly or eternally, when the bang occurred."

You mean the singularity, I presume. On the face of it, your statement appears true, but it is possible that what existed to cause the bang came into existence for no purpose. Particles are always popping into existence from nothing - it's one of their favourite hobbies. It may have been the case that infinite number of them borrowed their rest mass energy at the same instant, creating an infinitely dense singularity, and before they could repay their energy loan (which is what they are supposed to do), they 'banged'.

That's the 'free lunch' idea.

***

"The very fact that it occurred sometime in our past, history, distant space-time coordinates, implies that it existed in the dimension of time. Theories may exist that dispute this, but I have to take it as a given until disproved."

I don't have any strong opinion on that. It depends on the nature of time (uncertainty in which is highlighted in my entry of the same name), and the nature of the universe.

***

"It was either always there, or came to be there. [Is there a flaw in this part of my logic?]"

Maybe both. If we take a 'series' universe, like the one that S_Simon describes, where one universe collapses and re-expands to form another, then effectively the singularity did 'come to be there', because it came from the old universe. But equally, the universe had always been in existence in that theory too.

***

If it was always there and stable, and there is nothing beyond the known multi-dimensional universe, there would have been nothing to act upon it and it would never have 'banged'. [Is this the part of my logic that seems wrong?]

Quantum mechanics would probably argue that external forces are not required to cause something to do something. As I have already mentioned, 'virtual' particles don't seem to have any purpose, but they make themselves existent at random times and with no possible advantage.

***

"I find it a lot harder to believe that a non-dimensional, no-time, matter-less and energy-less void would spontaneously spawn a multi-dimensional universe than that it had a cause, whether mechanically or through godlike intervention."

It is easy to see this, but having grown up in a quantum-mechanical universe, I have the opposite opinion - a universe that is not governed by chaos, random events and uncertainty is not the universe in which we live. Besides, it is not a given that the universe had to start with nothing and then create itself from nothing, as you attest.

***

"Until Quantum Mechanics is a proven, belief in it is no better or worse than faith in a god. Until it can be shown to be phenomenalogically possible, neither is spontaneous generation of universes. I don't want to simplly substitute one unprovable faith or theory for another, when it comes to logic (even if the given utlimately turns out to be wrong)."

Now we come to the crux of the matter! This must be where the flaw in your logic resides!

You said, and I quote: 'Until Quantum Mechanics is a proven...'

Were you not aware that it is as inherent in our universe to obey quantum mechanics as it is for the Earth to orbit the Sun. If - and I'm sure you do - you believe that the Earth orbits the Sun, then you can no less accept the existence of quantum mechanics, as both have sufficient proof to be able to call them both 'proven'. Just as a universe without the most fundamental aspect as gravity would be totally unlike the universe that we inhabit, so would a universe without quantum mechanics.

See the double-slit experiment, for example, for a proof of quantum mechanics.
Or see a precision physics experiment - you'll note that they have to take into account the spontaneous creation of virtual particles so that their data is accurate enough.

And what, pray tell, does phenomenology have to do with it? Why is it necessary to have phenomenological proof?

If it were the case that QM is just as unproven as God, then I would take your point - there would be no real reason for accepting one over the other. But we must accept that we live in a Q-Mechanical universe. We do. And I'm sure we simply would not exist if we didn't (if you see what I mean).

***

"Einstein and Quantum may disagree, but anything they purport to describe can be even more easily be described by an all-powerful guidance who just 'wanted it that way'."

It is of course much simpler to say 'God did it' because we can then forget about the problem and convince ourselves that we solved it. It may have been simpler in the 15th or 16th centuries to say 'the Earth is held up by strings' to avoid the problem of why it orbits the Sun so nicely, but that doesn't mean to see that it is true.

***

I look forward to your response.
Please note that I haven't checked this post for accuracies - it's too long for me to have the time to bother, frankly.

BB, Great! Once again it's time to clear the cobwebs from by brain!

Where things start is exactly the point of the original discussion, I guess; and I agree that none of us really knows where it starts (I know you were talking about responding to my post. I just couldn't help myself )

I have read all of Salmon of Doubt, more than once. Yes, I understand his views, and would not want to get into fistfights on either side of the issue. The real point for me becomes 'nobody knows'. We can have our belief systems and our chosen diety, but religions always come down to faith rather than facts, proofs, or arguments.

THE ASIDE:
I think I understood you, that you realise that I can see and respect your non-belief in a 'god(s)' (I have been careful to mix up labels and conjugations as well). I can understand that there may be many reasons one would decide that belief makes no sense to them.

You are right that believing in the impossibility of a god is a different thing, but I thought that this was the difference between atheism (A quick Google: the doctrine or belief that there is no God) vs. agnosticism (a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God). Perhaps, without realising it, you fall into the agnostics category?

Since the inception of this discussion was my logic experiment that presumed a big-bang, perhaps you could remind me how many of the theories in your entry included that 'given'. Those then, I presume, would be the possibilities that could be tested against that simple three step logic trap.

[The key phrase, I think, is 'if one assumes their existence'. I know that religious people would consider it more likely than spontaneous universal origin, but that is quite a subjective matter]

Again, I think I understand what you are saying, but we make a lot of assumptions when we discuss theoretical physics; quantum theory being one where you and I probably disagree, at least on some points. But, like the cosmological constant, once proposed it can not be ignored as a part of the calculation. If it can be included without changing the result of the equation, one cannot rule it out. (Crude example: given INT(a+b)=c, one can suppose that INT(a+b+d+e+f+g)=c if d,e,f,and g are assumed to nearly cancel each other out. They may add nothing to the equation, but that doesn't mean that they are not elements that must be taken into consideration. Physicists do a lot of cancelling out.)

I'm afraid that superposition doesn't work for me. I'm not yet convinced that such a thing is 'true'. The idea of something being in an indeterminate state I understand; it simply means we don't know; but that it isn't in this state OR that state just because we cannot measure it without affecting the outcome is (to me) simply a limitation of our ability to 'see' it.

Really, it sounds sophomoric dribble when corelated with the philosophical equivalents. Take the 'If a tree falls ...' question. I think that you and I would agree that the falling tree makes 'sound' as described by physics, whether or not there was a witness or recording device. But philosophers would have us believe that it is an insoluble, unanswerable question. Strangely, this is determined by a thing either being or not being, but indeterminate without the measurement, much like quantum mechanics.

I believe that statistics are great to work with when the answer may be found in a aggregated number of chances, but completely fail when ascribed to a single instance. We can estimate the likelihood of an electron being in this or that shell, or even claim that it is in a state of quantum flux, but that won't keep the electron from being where it is. You can take heat readings of a school and estimate the probabilities of how many students are in each classroom, but 'Johnny' actually knows in which seat he is sitting, even if we don't.

[I agree that the big bang happened, but whether it spawned ALL dimensional existence is debatable. If one takes the many worlds theory as correct, then it is likely that each universe had its own bang, for example. It depends on the theories that we consider correct, and most of the theories at this level are not proven, but most of them do have a considerable amount of evidence.]

Ah, so far so good. As my given was that 'THIS' universe had 'A' big bang (a fact that I have to assume is nowhere certain), we are at least in the same book, if not yet shown to be on the same page. (I'm feeling awfully quantumized just at the moment)

[You mean the singularity, I presume. On the face of it, your statement appears true, but it is possible that what existed to cause the bang came into existence for no purpose. Particles are always popping into existence from nothing - it's one of their favourite hobbies.]

LOL! GOOD! It's enough, just for the moment, that it appears that it could be true.

Now, what do we mean by 'no purpose'? Purpose seemingly implies intent, which may imply intelligence. Perhaps, given the rest of the paragraph, you meant without an inciting factor. This I would challenge.

The particles of which you speak may seem to pop. Still, if we can't even see the inidividual particles themselves, how might we be expected to detect underlying causes? From 10,000 feet, I see cars zooming about, starting, stopping, and changing directions all without outside influence, seemingly at random; but once one has knowledge of internal combustion engines, traffic signals, and drivers with individual goals, the randomness and magic disappear.

I don't consider these particles to be entirely random, or popping out of nothing. To a species that reproduced by budding, our form of birth would seem to have babies popping into existence.

[It may have been the case that infinite number of them borrowed their rest mass energy at the same instant, creating an infinitely dense singularity, and before they could repay their energy loan (which is what they are supposed to do), they 'banged'. That's the 'free lunch' idea.]

Ah, an infinite number of what, I wonder? An infinite number(? now there's an oxymoron ?) of new, popping particles in a particleless void? What rest energy? Where would that have come from? This sounds like the spontaneous generation stuff.

I cannot seriously consider spontaneous generation at the inception of the universe. It's harder to believe in than a diety. Space is so much like all other space, in every direction we look, that the statistical probabilities necessary would have been beyond the Heart of Gold's ability to internalise.

The particles that 'pop' now have a lot of stuff in their favour that a void would be without: energy, gravity, other particles, time. The pushing, bending, and twisting that space undergoes could create situations where particles suddenly become detectable, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the really pop into existing from nothing. Your suggesting something like Maxwell's daemons, with all of the 'hot' particles moving to one side of the room.

[I don't have any strong opinion on that. It depends on the nature of time (uncertainty in which is highlighted in my entry of the same name), and the nature of the universe.]

Very true, and beyond my ability to prove one way or another. I wouldn't even want to make the attempt. But, whether or not MY entry on Time as a bi-directional dimension has any validity, it is how we perceive our universe. We must start somewhere, and for me that point was 'the past is the past'. We are also stuck with these senses that filter our perceptions to the 4D space-time continuum. For that reason, and the years of unsuccessful attempt to prove otherwise, I submit that it happened in time, and probably in something akin to space.

[Maybe both. If we take a 'series' universe, like the one that S_Simon describes, where one universe collapses and re-expands to form another, then effectively the singularity did 'come to be there', because it came from the old universe. But equally, the universe had always been in existence in that theory too.]

This just reduced the subject to the chicken-or-the-egg category. There either was previous existence, or there was not. If you believe in the likelihood of a repeating universe, than I feel comfortable restating your choice as 'it always existed'. Still, our readings of red-shifts are in such agreement with other observations that I have come to have faith in Einstein's orginal theory, at least so far in that it predicted an ever-expanding universe. IMHO, the universe will end not with a bang, but with a very cold and distant whimper.

[It is easy to see this, but having grown up in a quantum-mechanical universe, I have the opposite opinion - a universe that is not governed by chaos, random events and uncertainty is not the universe in which we live. Besides, it is not a given that the universe had to start with nothing and then create itself from nothing, as you attest.]

Well, I'm not entirely certain that you have grown up in a quantum-mechanical universe. Remember DNA's story about the man going through life believing he was blind, only to find out years later that he was simply wearing a hat several sizes to large. The universe may not be like I see it, or like you see it. Our perceptions influence our beliefs.

Absolutely! It is NOT A GIVEN that 'the universe had to start with nothing and then create itself from nothing', and I hadn't realised that I attested to this. This was actually one of the scenarios that I personally abandoned in my logic steps (unless you believe in a god that did this).

I rejected that it started from nothing, and I rejected that it was eternally stable. My dilemma was determining what alternatives allow for its inception!! This never began as an attempt to prove that god(s) exits, but merely the result of a series of assumptions taken to their logical conclusion. There may be other, even better, answers than the assumption of a diety, but I've yet to hear it. (Always, always, beginning with the 'given'.)

[Were you not aware that it is as inherent in our universe to obey quantum mechanics as it is for the Earth to orbit the Sun. If - and I'm sure you do - you believe that the Earth orbits the Sun, then you can no less accept the existence of quantum mechanics, as both have sufficient proof to be able to call them both 'proven'. Just as a universe without the most fundamental aspect as gravity would be totally unlike the universe that we inhabit, so would a universe without quantum mechanics.]

This is where you have made an assumption that fails the test of provability, a logic fallacy. This is the principle of audiatur et altera pars. You cannot claim that believing in planetary orbits immediately requires believing in quantum mechanics. It would be like me saying you cannot believe in butterflies without believing in God. Unless we have a common awareness and knowledge of those proofs, you cannot force a belief based on an unconnected belief. The universe seemed to tick along just fine with Newtonian physics, until Einstein came along. We have previously agreed (at least in principal) that Newtonian, Einsteinian, and Quantum physics may all be merely reflections of a deeper truth.

I would never try to force that this deeper truth requires a supreme being. Neither do I accept that quantum is law. There are still to many problems, concerns, anomalies, and inconsistencies involved with quantum. I would point out that Einstein believed in God, as witnessed by his statement that 'God does not play dice', and his oft-repeated comment about not being interested so much in this or that phenomena, but in wanting to know 'the mind of God'.

But this discussion is not about Quantum or Einstein, it is about a logical examination of series of statements that I feel leave us with a logical cleft stick.

[See the double-slit experiment, for example, for a proof of quantum mechanics.
Or see a precision physics experiment - you'll note that they have to take into account the spontaneous creation of virtual particles so that their data is accurate enough.]

Certainly you aren't seriously proposing that the double-slit experiment provides proof-positive of quantum mechanics??
Astronomers who were dependent on Newtonian laws searched for years to find the planet Vulcan in the vacinity of Mercury, predicted by the undeniable pertubations in Mercury's orbit. The unfathomable changes in the little planet's orbit simply HAD to be because of the presence of another gravitic body!! Yet, Vulcan evaporated the moment Einstein voiced his E=MC2 theory.

That, in essence, is why I have to demand phenomenological proof. Science can create its own potential for misinterpretations and blunders. I am perfectly willing to embrace the Quantum or spontaneous generation doctrines AFTER they have been proven (much like some people's insistence on proof BEFORE they'll believe in a diety.)

[But we must accept that we live in a Q-Mechanical universe.]

No, we really don't. Most of the trillions of lives on the planet have lived and died without ever hearing the word quantum. There is really no MUST about it. Its premises are also based on assumptions, logical guesses, test data that is not entirely clear, and a lot of statistical mathematics. It is not a hard and fast science, but a series of theories and computations that could turn out to be no more solid than Vulcan was. It is no more, or less, heretical to reject quantum than it was to reject a geo-centric universe. Helio-centric didn't work either, but many thought it did.

[It is of course much simpler to say 'God did it' because we can then forget about the problem and convince ourselves that we solved it. It may have been simpler in the 15th or 16th centuries to say 'the Earth is held up by strings' to avoid the problem of why it orbits the Sun so nicely, but that doesn't mean to see that it is true.]

Thanks for the closing joke, BB!!! Yes, it would be simpler to say 'God did it', but that's not my real aim (and I try not to be simple). It's amazing to me that you and I both resorted to a planetary analogy at the end of our posting! We may someday find that we were on opposite sides of the same coin all along, in agreement but facing different directions. Quantum may someday be found to be just a different word for God!

As usual, you have stimulated my brain to the point of frying, but I've loved every minute!

I feel somewhat vinidicated that the final point [Now we come to the crux of the matter! This must be where the flaw in your logic resides!] showed that our most serious difference of opinion is our belief, not in God but in Quantum Mechanics! You have accepted Quantum as your theoretical physics saviour, and I'm still waiting for mine. Hmmm, what conversation does THAT remind me of?? (sorry for ending with a proposition)



I agree about the checking for accuracies.

Perhaps, in my previous posting, I had lost sight of the original issue, which I hereby reproduce, with annotation, below:

"Given: a singular 'big bang' event began the process of creating the universe we perceive."

--> I can agree that the big bang is a given, but when you say 'singular', do you rule out the series/multiverse theories? And if so, why?

"Therefore, Either:
The singularity had always been there, and the bang happened because of its instability.
The singularity had always been there, and the bang was made to happen by a sentient entity.
The singularity had not always been there.

Therefore, in reverse order:

A) If the singularity had not always been there, something or someone called it into existence, perhaps for the purpose of creating the universe."

--> I, of course, laugh at the prospect of 'someone' calling it into existence.

"B) If the singularity had always been there, and the bang was made to happen by a sentient entity (normally referred to as a deity or god), we cannot know anything further as more things than we can understand could be involved before that moment.

Setting those possibility aside:
C) If the singularity had always been there, and the bang happened because of its instability, we have a paradox.
A perpetual, infinite existence in a stable state would not logically support a sudden instability. All previous points in 'time' would be like all previous points; and, as there is nothing external to act upon it, it would never become unstable enough to 'bang'. In an infinite time period,"

Ah, yes - this is definitely where your logic falls apart in a small heap on the carpet (though I don't doubt that it will re-assemble itself somehow and start wielding an axe at my counter-suggestions). I presume you have heard of radioactive atoms. They are unstable. It is possible to tell when a certain proportion is likely to have decayed, but in reality, as we have OBSERVED, radioactive atoms decay randomly (or as near to randomly as makes no odds - perhaps 'chaotically' is a better word, or 'unpredictably'). The atom still does not require any external influence to make it decay at the time that it actually does.

Furthermore, it may not have been a singularity as such anyway. Think of the ekpyrotic theory, in which there are no unstable singularities, but instead there are multi-dimensional membranes. And think of the VSL theory, in which there are no membranes or singularities, just mathematical proportions.



Now to your post...

"The real point for me becomes 'nobody knows'."

True. If they did, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

***

"You are right that believing in the impossibility of a god is a different thing, but I thought that this was the difference between atheism (A quick Google: the doctrine or belief that there is no God) vs. agnosticism (a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God). Perhaps, without realising it, you fall into the agnostics category?"

By that Google definition, I am definitely an atheist. By that definition of agnostic, I am not an agnostic. I have doubts about the existence of hyper-dimensional or super-intelligent beings, but as far as my belief goes, I do not believe in God or Divine Deities.

***

"Since the inception of this discussion was my logic experiment that presumed a big-bang, perhaps you could remind me how many of the theories in your entry included that 'given'."

You may remember the time that I renamed my entry 'Theories on the Cause of the Big Bang' or something like that. Hence, they all assume that the big bang happened. The scientific evidence is overwhelming to that effect. Is that what you wanted to know?

Therefore, let us test the theories:
With the ekpyrotic theory, there is no singularity involved, so your 3-step logic doesn't apply.

----

With the serial-universe idea (the first one in my entry, I think), it does apply:

"A) If the singularity had not always been there, something or someone called it into existence, perhaps for the purpose of creating the universe." - not the case in this theory.

"B) If the singularity had always been there, and the bang was made to happen by a sentient entity (normally referred to as a deity or god), we cannot know anything further as more things than we can understand could be involved before that moment."

"C) If the singularity had always been there, and the bang happened because of its instability, we have a paradox." - this doesn't apply because the singularity hadn't always been there, but the universes had. What IS the case is...

D) A universe had always been in existence, and the singularities are created when a universe collapses.

----

Now let's try the Free Lunch theory shall we?

"A) If the singularity had not always been there, something or someone called it into existence, perhaps for the purpose of creating the universe." - this is not the case, since the singularity called itself into existence. I'll go back to this though.

"B) If the singularity had always been there, and the bang was made to happen by a sentient entity (normally referred to as a deity or god), we cannot know anything further as more things than we can understand could be involved before that moment."

"C) If the singularity had always been there, and the bang happened because of its instability, we have a paradox." - this isn't the case with free lunch.

Free lunch existence is possible when we have a vacuum or a void in this universe. As I say, the effects have been measured. However, the nothingness that was supposedly what existed at the 'beginning' (for want of a better expression), is probably considered to be more empty than a void in this universe, even though there isn't any less stuff in a space with nothing in it as another space with nothing in it. The space at the 'beginning' may not have had any space at all, which may be why it is regarded as having a greater degree of nothingness than a standard void. This bit requires more evidence - do the same laws apply to nothing-voids-in-this-universe as nothing-voids-in-no-universe? Nobody knows, and so the Free Lunch theory is nowhere near proven, even though it is regarded as a good possibility in the physics community.

----

For the universe-splitting-in-two idea, again, there was no singularity. If, however, we replace 'singularity' with '10D universe', let's see what happens...

"A) If the 10D universe had not always been there, something or someone called it into existence, perhaps for the purpose of creating the [4D] universe." - the theory makes no reference to whether the 10D universe had or hadn't always been there, which means that if this was the case, then something may indeed have called it into existence.

"B) If the 10D universe had always been there, and the bang was made to happen by a sentient entity (normally referred to as a deity or god), we cannot know anything further as more things than we can understand could be involved before that moment."

"C) If the 10D universe had always been there, and the bang happened because of its instability, we have a paradox." - the process supposedly happened in the space of a Planck time, because 10D universes are inherently unstable and are likely to 'bang' almost instantaneously. No paradox there. The problem is in how the 10D universe got there in the first place, which is just as much a mystery as anything else.

----

Theory five: the universe went back in time and created itself. Again, I don't think your 3 steps cause a paradox in this situation since we have a closed timelike curve involved - a self-consistent idea that violates no laws of physics but still leaves an element of mystery in the air. So the singularity was not always there, but we know what called it into existence: the universe that it created did.

---

The next one is the aliens-created-it theory.

"A) If the singularity had not always been there, something or someone called it into existence, perhaps for the purpose of creating the universe." - this is the case.

"B) If the singularity had always been there, and the bang was made to happen by a sentient entity (normally referred to as a deity or god), we cannot know anything further as more things than we can understand could be involved before that moment." - this is not the case.

"C) If the singularity had always been there, and the bang happened because of its instability, we have a paradox." - didn't happen in this theory.

____

Any ideas about how the argument would go with the VSL theory?

***

"we make a lot of assumptions when we discuss theoretical physics"

Indeed we do. It would be very easy to disprove everything and say that we really haven't a clue, but that would be boring.

***

"I'm afraid that superposition doesn't work for me. I'm not yet convinced that such a thing is 'true'. The idea of something being in an indeterminate state I understand; it simply means we don't know; but that it isn't in this state OR that state just because we cannot measure it without affecting the outcome is (to me) simply a limitation of our ability to 'see' it."

Quantum physicists say that particles sometimes behave like particles and sometimes like waves. They say that we can never know the precise position or velocity of a particle, only calculate its wave function so that we can determine the possible places it could be or states in which it could be. Since a wave function incorporates all of these possibilities, with one or more of them being 'most probable', then the entity, when behaving like a wave, is effectively in all states at the same time, and when it travels, it does take all possible routes BECAUSE it is behaving like a wave that determines the probability of each of the states or each of the routes. And we KNOW that they behave like waves because of the double-slit experiment in which we quite clearly see an interference pattern, showing that the electrons stopped behaving like particles, started behaving like waves, and their most probable routes were those that went through both slits.

Do you see what I mean? (Let me assure that I do see what _you_ mean, but that I don't agree).

***

"Now, what do we mean by 'no purpose'? Purpose seemingly implies intent, which may imply intelligence. Perhaps, given the rest of the paragraph, you meant without an inciting factor. This I would challenge."

Particles creating themselves seem to have no purpose, but as you say, they may have one. I wasn't aware that I inferred that I believed that it was impossible for there to be any other explanation.

"I don't consider these particles to be entirely random, or popping out of nothing."

This, again, is an opinion. The standard interpretations of quantum mechanics would say that it is random and from nothing in particular, but the possibility of there being an underlying purpose or pattern is something that is currently in the realm of speculation.

***

"Ah, an infinite number of what, I wonder?"

Of THEM. Particles, in other words. Virtual particles, that is.

***

"Well, I'm not entirely certain that you have grown up in a quantum-mechanical universe."

Yes I have.

"Our perceptions influence our beliefs."

Of course they do. But we are limited to how we can describe our perceptions and agree on what is existent and what is just the consequence of a perception... does that even make sense?

***

Ref: "This is where you have made an assumption that fails the test of provability, a logic fallacy."

This bit is a misunderstanding, I think. I can see that "claim[ing] that believing in planetary orbits immediately requires believing in quantum mechanics" is a fallacy; that was not what I intended. What I meant was, and I'll try to say it right this time, is that the universe requires gravity to work AND it requires quantum mechanics to work.

Let me try again.

A universe that does not have planetary orbits would not be our universe.

A universe that does not have quantum mechanics is also not our universe.

I am trying to say that the universe is inherently quantum-mechanical, just as it is quite obviously inherently governed by laws of gravity too.

It is accepted in the physics community, and I have accepted it too, that both Einstein's theories AND the theories of quantum mechanics are REQUIRED to explain why the universe we live in works in the way that it does. If quantum mechanics was wrong, then there would be a hell of a lot of stuff that would suddenly become inexplicable, and nearly a century's worth of hard work and experimentation would find itself plummeting from the proverbial window. Likewise with Einstein's theories. The fact that disproving one or the other means the universe is consistent is not good enough, since the universe needs both.

Physicists need to unite the two theories. M-theory tries to do this. But M-theory currently has NO proof whatsoever. It wouldn't matter if M-theory was disproved because a universe without M-theory could very well be our own universe, despite the fact that the problem of unification would be many times harder to solve.

Consider an equation from the laws of quantum mechanics. You cannot tell me that the fact that a calculation of a real-world situation using the equation produces the exact real-world outcome when the situation is enacted is merely a coincidence (if you see what I mean). There are so many equations of QM that produce very accurate real-world observational results that there is no doubt in the physics community that QM is wrong.

Hence the point: if QM were proved wrong, then it would be similar to gravity being proved 'wrong'. If gravity were wrong, how would we explain the movements of the planets? We would need to re-think great chunks of our scientific understanding. Likewise with QM.

"There are still to many problems, concerns, anomalies, and inconsistencies involved with quantum. I would point out that Einstein believed in God, as witnessed by his statement that 'God does not play dice', and his oft-repeated comment about not being interested so much in this or that phenomena, but in wanting to know 'the mind of God'."

OK, so nobody really understands QM, but as I say, the mathematical and observational evidence is overwhelming. The fact that Einstein believed in God is not significant to me. There are lots of good physicists who believe in God.

***

"But we must accept that we live in a Q-Mechanical universe."
"No, we really don't."
Yes, we really do.

Whether or not billions of people have never heard of it is not the issue - the issue is that QM is the way the world works at a sub-attoscopic level. I would love to say 'period', but that wouldn't be enough for you, I'm sure! As already stated, QM has a lot of evidence, and a world without QM must be even stranger than ours.

"Its premises are also based on assumptions, logical guesses, test data that is not entirely clear, and a lot of statistical mathematics."

I would dispute this categorically! There are no assumptions about QM. As I've already said, most of its predictions have been verified by observation and you can't get any more verified than that, can you?

Test data is quite clear, has been reproduced all over the world, and, as I say, the physics community is in no doubt that QM rules the microworld - precisely how or why QM rules the microworld is anybody's guess.

And is there not a lot of statistical mathematics in relativity? No, there isn't. But there is a lot of mathematics, and you can't tell me that mathematics, statistical or otherwise, is not a good way of describing things. Usually I'd say that it's a better way of describing some things.

***

"our most serious difference of opinion is our belief, not in God but in Quantum Mechanics!"



"You have accepted Quantum as your theoretical physics saviour, and I'm still waiting for mine."

Sorry to spoil your analogy, but that's not quite true. I have accepted QM, but I haven't accepted it as a definitive saviour, because it doesn't explain _everything_. I'm waiting for M-theory or LQG to do that.

Mornin' BB!

[Perhaps, in my previous posting, I had lost sight of the original issue, which I hereby reproduce, with annotation, below:

"Given: a singular 'big bang' event began the process of creating the universe we perceive."

--> I can agree that the big bang is a given, but when you say 'singular', do you rule out the series/multiverse theories? And if so, why?]

Yes, the original issue did have that as a given, and yes, I meant to rule out series and multiple universes. I was working from currently observable evidence, and had not wanted to call into existence universes that I would have to believe in on faith (faith, as I mentioned, I define as belief without proof). I also wanted to rule out existential clap-trap (only as far as this conversation is concerned) that only obfuscates the evidence of our senses; which, if denied, leaves us with nothing on which to even begin to base an opinion (imho).

--> I, of course, laugh at the prospect of 'someone' calling it into existence.

Well, I suppose you would; just as I laugh at the idea of something 'being' and 'not-being' simultaneously a thing. This may be an irreconcilable difference in faiths. But, what about the 'Some Thing'? I did make subsequent mention that we only refer to this concept as a diety or god, not that it has to be one.


--> Setting those possibility aside:

This debate technique is called procupining where I come from. I give three statements and a conclusion that is based on all three. Certainly you must have an opinion on whether we could 'know' all that a creator-being-thing would be capable of knowing, or not. If for the sake of creating the basis for discussion I can, for the time, accept QM as a possibility, what would keep you from postulating based on the unproven possibility that there may be a god or gods; or, for that matter, that we may both be wrong and are missing a third, even more likely, possibility?

Regarding C):
[C1) - Ah, yes - this is definitely where your logic falls apart in a small heap on the carpet (though I don't doubt that it will re-assemble itself somehow and start wielding an axe at my counter-suggestions). I presume you have heard of radioactive atoms. They are unstable. It is possible to tell when a certain proportion is likely to have decayed, but in reality, as we have OBSERVED, radioactive atoms decay randomly (or as near to randomly as makes no odds - perhaps 'chaotically' is a better word, or 'unpredictably'). The atom still does not require any external influence to make it decay at the time that it actually does.]

I hope that chuckle of mine was inaudible. I don't believe that there are atoms in the structure of a singularity, and I'm not sure you do either. If you do, please supply me with more info, as I have never heard this seriously suggested. I thought that atomic structure only became possible after the initial cooling period where highly energized photons began to lose their oomph.

And what's to say that the decay is random? Who says the atom 'does not require any external influence to make it decay'? Just because we don't yet see an underlying cause?? That's a 'earth is flat' argument, one based on insufficient knowledge implying an unknowable. Certainly you don't want to go there. You wouldn't suggest that multi-verses be considered, but that we know all there is about sub-sub-atomic influences?

At one time people thought that the weather was caused by the gods. We may not be perfect at predicting weather, but we have a handle on what brings its changes about. Once we know enough we may be able to better predict hurricanes and tornados that seem to have random movement component now.

[C2 - Furthermore, it may not have been a singularity as such anyway. Think of the ekpyrotic theory, in which there are no unstable singularities, but instead there are multi-dimensional membranes. And think of the VSL theory, in which there are no membranes or singularities, just mathematical proportions.]

Ah, but now you are just disputing my given, which is fine. Once we are away from that, it becomes a different conversation. The person asking 'what happened before the big-bang' deserved an answer, and I simply attempted to supply my line of thought.

******

Now to your post...

"The real point for me becomes 'nobody knows'."

True. If they did, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

***
I suppose that any rational discusson of the subject will always, ultimately, come down to this.
******
[By that Google definition, I am definitely an atheist. ]
Glad we got that label thing sorted out. I just wondered as I could not remember the last time I actually looked them up.


"Therefore, Either:
The singularity had always been there, and the bang happened because of its instability.
The singularity had always been there, and the bang was made to happen by a sentient entity.
The singularity had not always been there.

Therefore, in reverse order:

A) If the singularity had not always been there, something or someone called it into existence, perhaps for the purpose of creating the universe."

"B) If the singularity had always been there, and the bang was made to happen by a sentient entity (normally referred to as a deity or god), we cannot know anything further as more things than we can understand could be involved before that moment.

C) If the singularity had always been there, and the bang happened because of its instability, we have a paradox.
A perpetual, infinite existence in a stable state would not logically support a sudden instability. All previous points in 'time' would be like all previous points; and, as there is nothing external to act upon it, it would never become unstable enough to 'bang'. In an infinite time period,"


***
Therefore, let us test the theories:
With the ekpyrotic theory, there is no singularity involved, so your 3-step logic doesn't apply.
>>> Good Choice. First we can eliminate the non-starters re: my given.
----

With the serial-universe idea (the first one in my entry, I think), it does apply:

"A) If the singularity had not always been there, something or someone called it into existence, perhaps for the purpose of creating the universe." - not the case in this theory.
>>> OK
"B) If the singularity had always been there, and the bang was made to happen by a sentient entity (normally referred to as a deity or god), we cannot know anything further as more things than we can understand could be involved before that moment."
>>> Unattended
"C) If the singularity had always been there, and the bang happened because of its instability, we have a paradox." - this doesn't apply because the singularity hadn't always been there, but the universes had. What IS the case is...
>>> OK
D) A universe had always been in existence, and the singularities are created when a universe collapses.
>>> Oscillating universe theory I understand. But it requires a collapse which is not currently supported by observable phenomena. We appear to be in an ever-expanding universe, unless I am way out of date, with nothing but abstract theories (and a lot of them) to suggest otherwise. The red-shift that we detect implies we do not have to worry about a collapse.
Again, if I am totally off base, let me know.
----

Now let's try the Free Lunch theory shall we?

"A) If the singularity had not always been there, something or someone called it into existence, perhaps for the purpose of creating the universe." - this is not the case, since the singularity called itself into existence. I'll go back to this though.
>>> Okay, but my opinion about a space-less void 'calling itself into existence' sounds a lot like god-work to me.
"B) If the singularity had always been there, and the bang was made to happen by a sentient entity (normally referred to as a deity or god), we cannot know anything further as more things than we can understand could be involved before that moment."
>>> Unattended
"C) If the singularity had always been there, and the bang happened because of its instability, we have a paradox." - this isn't the case with free lunch.
>>> OK
Free lunch existence is possible when we have a vacuum or a void in this universe. As I say, the effects have been measured. However, the nothingness that was supposedly what existed at the 'beginning' (for want of a better expression), is probably considered to be more empty than a void in this universe, even though there isn't any less stuff in a space with nothing in it as another space with nothing in it. The space at the 'beginning' may not have had any space at all, which may be why it is regarded as having a greater degree of nothingness than a standard void. This bit requires more evidence - do the same laws apply to nothing-voids-in-this-universe as nothing-voids-in-no-universe? Nobody knows, and so the Free Lunch theory is nowhere near proven, even though it is regarded as a good possibility in the physics community.
>>> OK, the universe is a null-sum, closed-set, proposition. But it's magic beginning sounds a lot like god-work. Certainly enough so that the only reason not to consider it is a total disbelief in the god concept. Just remember that I would be no less guilty of prejudice by a total disbelief in QM, membranes, or the Eiffel Tower.
----

For the universe-splitting-in-two idea, again, there was no singularity. If, however, we replace 'singularity' with '10D universe', let's see what happens...

"A) If the 10D universe had not always been there, something or someone called it into existence, perhaps for the purpose of creating the [4D] universe." - the theory makes no reference to whether the 10D universe had or hadn't always been there, which means that if this was the case, then something may indeed have called it into existence.
>>> OK
"B) If the 10D universe had always been there, and the bang was made to happen by a sentient entity (normally referred to as a deity or god), we cannot know anything further as more things than we can understand could be involved before that moment."
>>> Again, unattended
"C) If the 10D universe had always been there, and the bang happened because of its instability, we have a paradox." - the process supposedly happened in the space of a Planck time, because 10D universes are inherently unstable and are likely to 'bang' almost instantaneously. No paradox there. The problem is in how the 10D universe got there in the first place, which is just as much a mystery as anything else.
>>> See A)
----

Theory five: the universe went back in time and created itself. Again, I don't think your 3 steps cause a paradox in this situation since we have a closed timelike curve involved - a self-consistent idea that violates no laws of physics but still leaves an element of mystery in the air. So the singularity was not always there, but we know what called it into existence: the universe that it created did.
>>> Chicken and Egg. In the case of tasty barnyard fowl, we can at least track an evolution. This is supposing that a turning wheel just popped into existence whole and spinning. Even if it were proven, it sounds, again, a lot like god-work to me.
---

The next one is the aliens-created-it theory.

"A) If the singularity had not always been there, something or someone called it into existence, perhaps for the purpose of creating the universe." - this is the case.
>>> I can cede the possibility on the basis that it cannot be disproven, assuming that THEY are part of a different universe or set of dimensions. If we can ever point to THEIR observation of us, THEIR intervention, or even THEIR existence, we may have either found our god(s) or just changed the question to where THEY and THEIR universe came from. Any thoughts? We can not even begin to guess what THEIR universe would be like, can we?
But, applying Occam's Razor, I suggest that without any proof of THEIR existence, or any ability to fathom what it would take to create a universe, THEY make even less suppositional sense than a god-being.
---

Any ideas about how the argument would go with the VSL theory?
>>> Not a clue, really. I'm sure what you don't want to hear is 'Why yes, of course; God did it'.

***

"I'm afraid that superposition doesn't work for me. I'm not yet convinced that such a thing is 'true'. The idea of something being in an indeterminate state I understand; it simply means we don't know; but that it isn't in this state OR that state just because we cannot measure it without affecting the outcome is (to me) simply a limitation of our ability to 'see' it."

Quantum physicists say that particles sometimes behave like particles and sometimes like waves. They say that we can never know the precise position or velocity of a particle, only calculate its wave function so that we can determine the possible places it could be or states in which it could be. Since a wave function incorporates all of these possibilities, with one or more of them being 'most probable', then the entity, when behaving like a wave, is effectively in all states at the same time, and when it travels, it does take all possible routes BECAUSE it is behaving like a wave that determines the probability of each of the states or each of the routes. And we KNOW that they behave like waves because of the double-slit experiment in which we quite clearly see an interference pattern, showing that the electrons stopped behaving like particles, started behaving like waves, and their most probable routes were those that went through both slits.

Do you see what I mean? (Let me assure that I do see what _you_ mean, but that I don't agree).
>>> The key may be in the statement 'They say that we can never know the precise position or velocity of a particle, only calculate its wave function so that we can determine the possible places it could be or states in which it could be.'
All of this supposes that our ability to track, measure, and 'know' particles will never be drastically improved. How often has science let that stop them, I ask?
At one time we hit a barrier because photons were just too big to see any further into molecular structures; then BAM, along came the electron microscope. We knew that we could never see much further in space because of the atmospheric blurring; then BAM, we creat space-borne telescopes, and infra-red, x-ray, etc. telescopes at that.
Do you really believe that science has for all time admitted defeat?
It may not matter anyway, if Planck time were established as fact, there is no velocity, only position during a Plank moment.

***

"Now, what do we mean by 'no purpose'? Purpose seemingly implies intent, which may imply intelligence. Perhaps, given the rest of the paragraph, you meant without an inciting factor. This I would challenge."

Particles creating themselves seem to have no purpose, but as you say, they may have one. I wasn't aware that I inferred that I believed that it was impossible for there to be any other explanation.

"I don't consider these particles to be entirely random, or popping out of nothing."

This, again, is an opinion. The standard interpretations of quantum mechanics would say that it is random and from nothing in particular, but the possibility of there being an underlying purpose or pattern is something that is currently in the realm of speculation.

>>> Hooray, of sorts. We may have found a common ground, where lack of absolute knowledge allows our imaginations to consider ALL possibilties.

***

"Ah, an infinite number of what, I wonder?"

Of THEM. Particles, in other words. Virtual particles, that is.

>>> Quick question: is 'infinite number' an oxymoron?

***

"Well, I'm not entirely certain that you have grown up in a quantum-mechanical universe."

Yes I have.
>>> NO, you are just certain that you have. But you can be no more certain than someone who felt they grew up in a Newtonian or Gallileic universe. Just as 'the faithful' can be no more certain that they grew up in a God universe. But, it's good you have faith in some things.

"Our perceptions influence our beliefs."

Of course they do. But we are limited to how we can describe our perceptions and agree on what is existent and what is just the consequence of a perception... does that even make sense?
>>> Absolutely, which is why I limit myself to observable phenomena and calculations.

***

Ref: "This is where you have made an assumption that fails the test of provability, a logic fallacy."

This bit is a misunderstanding, I think. I can see that "claim[ing] that believing in planetary orbits immediately requires believing in quantum mechanics" is a fallacy; that was not what I intended. What I meant was, and I'll try to say it right this time, is that the universe requires gravity to work AND it requires quantum mechanics to work.
>>> I think QM requires gravity more than gravity requires QM.

Let me try again.

A universe that does not have planetary orbits would not be our universe.
>>> OK
A universe that does not have quantum mechanics is also not our universe.
>>> Unproven
I am trying to say that the universe is inherently quantum-mechanical, just as it is quite obviously inherently governed by laws of gravity too.
>>> I would have stated it 'I am trying to say that A universe, THAT is inherently QM ...'

It is accepted in the physics community, and I have accepted it too, that both Einstein's theories AND the theories of quantum mechanics are REQUIRED to explain why the universe we live in works in the way that it does. If quantum mechanics was wrong, then there would be a hell of a lot of stuff that would suddenly become inexplicable, and nearly a century's worth of hard work and experimentation would find itself plummeting from the proverbial window. Likewise with Einstein's theories. The fact that disproving one or the other means the universe is consistent is not good enough, since the universe needs both.

Physicists need to unite the two theories. M-theory tries to do this. But M-theory currently has NO proof whatsoever. It wouldn't matter if M-theory was disproved because a universe without M-theory could very well be our own universe, despite the fact that the problem of unification would be many times harder to solve.

Consider an equation from the laws of quantum mechanics. You cannot tell me that the fact that a calculation of a real-world situation using the equation produces the exact real-world outcome when the situation is enacted is merely a coincidence (if you see what I mean). There are so many equations of QM that produce very accurate real-world observational results that there is no doubt in the physics community that QM is wrong.

Hence the point: if QM were proved wrong, then it would be similar to gravity being proved 'wrong'. If gravity were wrong, how would we explain the movements of the planets? We would need to re-think great chunks of our scientific understanding. Likewise with QM.

"There are still to many problems, concerns, anomalies, and inconsistencies involved with quantum. I would point out that Einstein believed in God, as witnessed by his statement that 'God does not play dice', and his oft-repeated comment about not being interested so much in this or that phenomena, but in wanting to know 'the mind of God'."

OK, so nobody really understands QM, but as I say, the mathematical and observational evidence is overwhelming. The fact that Einstein believed in God is not significant to me. There are lots of good physicists who believe in God.

>>> BB, please do not think that this is meant in any form if disparaging tone. I may have referred to it playfully, earlier in this posting, but you are asking me to believe in something 'nobody really understands', is believed in but not proven, and has a deeper reality than we know ourselves to have. What do you really see in this picture that distinguishes these beliefs from those in a god that 'nobody really understands, is believed in but not proven, and has a deeper reality than we know ourselves to have? How can a rational person so entirely reject one unproven belief system and not it's virtual (if numerical) twin?
There is nothing (assuming a diety just for this moment) about what we observe that need be one whit different than it would be if we introduced a supreme being and assumed that he did not yet want us to have proof. The god may be unnecessary to the equation, but if the god cancelled out their influence, we'd have the same solution. A god's existence cannot be proven or disproven; but, even if we prove QM we do not disprove a diety.

***

"But we must accept that we live in a Q-Mechanical universe."
"No, we really don't."
Yes, we really do.
>>> I meant this only in the sense that people can believe or deny as they wish. You accept it, many question it, some reject it entirely.

Whether or not billions of people have never heard of it is not the issue - the issue is that QM is the way the world works at a sub-attoscopic level. I would love to say 'period', but that wouldn't be enough for you, I'm sure! As already stated, QM has a lot of evidence, and a world without QM must be even stranger than ours.
>>> True, it wouldn't be enough; but, even if QM is fact, it does not explain the big-bang; nor does it purport to that I've heard.

"Its premises are also based on assumptions, logical guesses, test data that is not entirely clear, and a lot of statistical mathematics."

I would dispute this categorically! There are no assumptions about QM. As I've already said, most of its predictions have been verified by observation and you can't get any more verified than that, can you?
>>> I'd say the probability wave-function could be called an assumption.

Test data is quite clear, has been reproduced all over the world, and, as I say, the physics community is in no doubt that QM rules the microworld - precisely how or why QM rules the microworld is anybody's guess.

And is there not a lot of statistical mathematics in relativity? No, there isn't. But there is a lot of mathematics, and you can't tell me that mathematics, statistical or otherwise, is not a good way of describing things. Usually I'd say that it's a better way of describing some things.
>>> Can I bring up Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein'? Science, of the time, thought that with a little more work they may be able to sew dead body parts together and reinstill life. We are amazingly close to that now, both in terms of part replacement surgery and then restarting bodies intentionally shut down, and in the possibility of cloning new ones.
It's amazing what science can accomplish in a relatively short time. I suspect that it won't take hundreds of years to develop our theories beyond the quantum. Quantum may, in time, be considered usable, but viewed as quaintly wrong as Newtonian Physics is today.
We may be getting closer and closer to 'real truths', but as long as anything seems random, we aren't there yet. Each time we advance our knowledge, something seems less random than before. This is why I insist that we do not 'for example' have an explanation for how a singularity could suddenly be where none had been before, all on its own. I do not ascribe to the magic of anything calling itself into existence.

***

"our most serious difference of opinion is our belief, not in God but in Quantum Mechanics!"

biggrin
>>> me too

"You have accepted Quantum as your theoretical physics saviour, and I'm still waiting for mine."

Sorry to spoil your analogy, but that's not quite true. I have accepted QM, but I haven't accepted it as a definitive saviour, because it doesn't explain _everything_. I'm waiting for M-theory or LQG to do that.
>>> Hmmm?! Accepted but not definitive? I'll be happy to be watching for further developments on both fronts. After all, I'm a pretty mechanistic kind of guy.

Wait a moment while I add the titanium re-inforcements to the thread. This debate could get a lot weightier.

Here we go!

"Yes, the original issue did have that as a given, and yes, I meant to rule out series and multiple universes. I was working from currently observable evidence, and had not wanted to call into existence universes that I would have to believe in on faith (faith, as I mentioned, I define as belief without proof). I also wanted to rule out existential clap-trap (only as far as this conversation is concerned) that only obfuscates the evidence of our senses; which, if denied, leaves us with nothing on which to even begin to base an opinion (imho)."

---> Firstly, I would argue that series and multiverse theories do have some evidence, even if it is indirect. The main point, I think, is that it would be very unlikely for the universe to have evolved as it did (leading eventually to life, and hence, this conversation) by sheer coincidence. A series or multiverse Universe means that it was almost inevitable that it would happen at some point. Secondly, I would argue that if you're going to work from 'currently observable evidence' then you should also rule out God.

"But, what about the 'Some Thing'?"

---> The somethings are the theories in my entry, aren't they?

"Certainly you must have an opinion on whether we could 'know' all that a creator-being-thing would be capable of knowing, or not. If for the sake of creating the basis for discussion I can, for the time, accept QM as a possibility, what would keep you from postulating based on the unproven possibility that there may be a god or gods; or, for that matter, that we may both be wrong and are missing a third, even more likely, possibility?"

---> I don't see the point in these questions. I don't think we could 'know' all that a god could know and I do think that a currently unseen 'third' possibility is possible. But what has that got to do with anything? Forgive me if I am acting dumb here.

"I hope that chuckle of mine was inaudible. I don't believe that there are atoms in the structure of a singularity, and I'm not sure you do either. If you do, please supply me with more info, as I have never heard this seriously suggested. I thought that atomic structure only became possible after the initial cooling period where highly energized photons began to lose their oomph."

---> I heard that chuckle! And you are right, there are no atoms in the singularity. They did indeed have to wait for the initial cooling period, as you say.

There has again been a misunderstanding. I was only using the physics of radioactive atoms to illustrate that things can become unstable at unpredictable times and for no 'apparent' reason after a period of relative stability.

"And what's to say that the decay is random? Who says the atom 'does not require any external influence to make it decay'? Just because we don't yet see an underlying cause?? That's a 'earth is flat' argument, one based on insufficient knowledge implying an unknowable. Certainly you don't want to go there. You wouldn't suggest that multi-verses be considered, but that we know all there is about sub-sub-atomic influences?"

---> Again, perhaps random is not the right word. You can't argue, however, that their decay is not 'chaotic' or practically 'unpredictable', can you? Or can you? As for the possibility that they do require an external influence, I would agree that this is a possibility - but nothing more - and since you would like to stick to things that have - and I quote - "currently observable evidence", this does not hold much proverbial water. Even if there is an external influence, it must be complex enough to produce unpredictable results, and what sort of sad or unbelievably bored-out-of-His-mind Deity is going to bother to invoke a little bit of a tiny radioactive atom to decay? The external influence would need to be another physical thing, and so what if there is one? The process is still unpredictable and chaotic by practical standards.

""Think of the ekpyrotic theory, in which there are no unstable singularities, but instead there are multi-dimensional membranes. And think of the VSL theory, in which there are no membranes or singularities, just mathematical proportions.]"

Ah, but now you are just disputing my given, which is fine. Once we are away from that, it becomes a different conversation. The person asking 'what happened before the big-bang' deserved an answer, and I simply attempted to supply my line of thought."

---> Ah, but I am NOT disputing your given! Your given was that the big bang happened. I was disputing the singularity. Notice that both the ekpyrotic and VSL theories have a big bang.

"Even if it were proven, it sounds, again, a lot like god-work to me."

---> If God existed, then He can do anything He wishes, can he not?
Therefore it is possible literally for _anything_ to sound like god-work because of the fact that He can do anything. Some people say in jest that a Kleenex tissue popping up magically after the preceeding tissue in the box seems to be god-work, and obviously it isn't. There is no proof, however, beyond that which disproves or attempts to disprove gods themsleves, that gods are not the ones behind Kleenex popping, is there?

Glad we are in general agreement about the testing of the theories against your method.

"The key may be in the statement 'They say that we can never know the precise position or velocity of a particle, only calculate its wave function so that we can determine the possible places it could be or states in which it could be.'
All of this supposes that our ability to track, measure, and 'know' particles will never be drastically improved. How often has science let that stop them, I ask?"

---> Again, this is where we are going into the realms of things that have no 'currently observable evidence'. You will agree that particles cannot be improved further based on CURRENTLY observable evidence. True - it is possible, if not probable, that particles will end up being 'improved', as you say. M-theory already does this by theorising strings, but M-theory has no proof.

"Quick question: is 'infinite number' an oxymoron?"

---> What's that got to do with the price of the proverbial tomatoes? Can you not answer that yourself? Numbers, in my opinion, don't have to be finite. So I wouldn't consider it an oxymoron.

"NO, you are just certain that you have. But you can be no more certain than someone who felt they grew up in a Newtonian or Gallileic universe. Just as 'the faithful' can be no more certain that they grew up in a God universe. But, it's good you have faith in some things."

---> What I meant in the first place is that I have grown up believing in it; not quite _all_ my life, but a considerable time. I can't, of course, be sure that there isn't something more to it. I may be in an M-theory universe.

"A universe that does not have planetary orbits would not be our universe.
>>> OK
A universe that does not have quantum mechanics is also not our universe.
>>> Unproven"

---> Aha! A HA! Ha! Aha! I have it! A flaw! An utter flaw! Logic has broken down here. This is brilliant, this is. Quite utterly brilliant. Now then, let's take this step-by-step, since I don't want another misunderstanding (I have a feeling there'll be one somewhere).

You say 'OK' to the first statement. This idle, this quite apparently innocent little two-letter affirmation is the basis for my counter-argument here today.

You believe in planetary orbits, don't you? (So do I)
You are sceptical of QM, are you not? (I'm not)

Why the difference?

The obvious argument: 'Planetary orbits obviously exist - we've seen them with telescopes and everything!'

The obvious argument: 'Quantum theory is obviously right - we've proved it with lasers, photon detectors, maths and everything!'

Suppose that planetary orbits are merely our imagination, or that they are an illusion caused by something that we can't explain yet, or even glitches in our apparatus. Can you REALLY say that planetary orbits are proven?

No.

I can argue that it is not possible to prove that anything in particular exists, only that it is possible to prove that something exists, whatever it is.

So that means that we can say that both planetary orbits AND QM are unproven, but we for our arguments we must assume basic principles otherwise we will get nowhere.

Having 'proven' the planetary orbits with telescopes and so on, physicists made it part of their accepted model of the universe.

Having 'proven' QM, physicists made it part of their accepted model of the universe.

Period.

New sentence.

Why is the evidence for planetary orbits more convincing than that for QM? QM has been accepted for decades! I have one prominent assignment for you:

Assuming that QM is wrong, explain how the universe works.

I'd like to see you or anybody try to explain how sub-atomic particles work whilst at the same time avoiding QM and being consistent with observational evidence.

The obvious response: "God!"

Please - don't go there.


I am trying to say that the universe is inherently quantum-mechanical, just as it is quite obviously inherently governed by laws of gravity too.
>>> I would have stated it 'I am trying to say that A universe, THAT is inherently QM ...'"

---> I wouldn't.


"BB, please do not think that this is meant in any form if disparaging tone."

I hope you will consider my posting in the same light (that is, not in a disparraging tone).

"I may have referred to it playfully, earlier in this posting, but you are asking me to believe in something 'nobody really understands', is believed in but not proven, and has a deeper reality than we know ourselves to have."

'Nobody really understands it' is a reference to a joke that you may not have heard, made I think by Richard Feynmann who said something like "I don't think anybody really understands quantum mechanics", when obviously they do otherwise nobody would bother with it.

'believed in but not proven' is nonsense. I have been trying to tell you for all this time that THE PROOF IS OVERWHELMING. And that is both observational and mathematical proof. Let me quote John Gribbin on the matter from 'Q is for Quantum'. You'll hate this:

"But whatever lies beyond the standard model, it will still be based upon the rules of quantum physics. Just as the general theory of relativity includes the Newtonian version of gravity within itself as a special case... so any improved theory of the microworld must include quantum theory within itself. Apples didn't start falling upwards when Albert Einstein came up with an improved theory of gravity; and no improved theory of physics will ever take away the weirdness of the quantum world."

Gribbin goes on to explain that the laws of quantum mechanics are required to create things like nuclear power stations, nuclear bombs, CD-ROM drives, communications satellites and many other domestic appliances. The truth of QM and the validity of nearly a century's worth of hard work, Nobel prizes and so on is assuredly all around us.

"How can a rational person so entirely reject one unproven belief system and not it's virtual (if numerical) twin?"

Do you mean reject God and embrace QM? See above.

"A god's existence cannot be proven or disproven" - maybe so, but where is the proof for that?

"but, even if we prove QM we do not disprove a diety." - I didn't say we did.


"I meant this only in the sense that people can believe or deny as they wish. You accept it, many question it, some reject it entirely."

Fair enough. People can have their own opinion, of course. But I will dispute your second sentence.

"You accept it" - true.
"Many question it" - true, but let's see what happens when they do...

Fred Bloggs, on hearing about how the quantum world works, says: "That's so weird! That can't possibly be true!"

The Q physicist says: "It is; it has been proven by experiment."

"Oh. Well what do you know?"


"Some reject it entirely" - true.


"but, even if QM is fact, it does not explain the big-bang; nor does it purport to that I've heard."

---> What do you mean by 'if' QM is fact? It is! And no, it doesn't explain the big bang, but then neither does any other proven theory we have. As I say, relativity and QM must be combined to make something that does explain the bang (and black holes with it).


As for your last few points, see the John Gribbin quote.

Phew!

Note from FT: expect the possibility of a gap here somewhere. I was composing my response in notepad, but at some time must have pasted the whole page of thread in the middle. I believe I straightened this out, but cest le vie! Good luck with it! I hope I didn't miss anything terribly pertinent.

Gee, BB! Perhaps you should have chosen another metal other than titanium! My magnetic gloves can't seem to keep ahold of it!! How about the huge iron chain from the Dragonlance series?? (First book, if memory serves) Maybe we could just drape it down the side for traversing its length?

I'll try to compress, if just a bit. I shouldn't keep including as much preceding material anyway.

I certainly avoid pointing to some things that the religious call indirect evidence, so I have to be careful what I accept on the side of science as well. If it would be very unlikely, as you say, 'for the universe to have evolved as it did by sheer coincidence', they might well put that in the indirect evidence category.

---> The somethings are the theories in my entry, aren't they?

Yes if, by some thing, you mean some natural processes, whatever the theory under discussion uses.
No if, by some thing, I mean an extraordinary, non-sentient outside effect, like another universe event that intentionally or unintentionally causes a sudden new singularity to form and create its own new dimensional grouping.

---> I don't see the point in these questions. I don't think we could 'know' all that a god could know and I do think that a currently unseen 'third' possibility is possible. But what has that got to do with anything? Forgive me if I am acting dumb here.

Well, this is the point where most religious might leave it, the "If we admit that we could not know all that a god knows, then anything we see is explainable by the simple statement: 'that's the way god wanted it to be'". I readily admit to the unseen third possibility's existence. What it has to do (for me) is create the ability to disbelieve the existence of a creator-being on a rational level, whether or not I believe it at a spiritual level.

---> I heard that chuckle! And you are right, there are no atoms in the singularity. They did indeed have to wait for the initial cooling period, as you say.

Thanks, it is the lack of room (I presume) within a singularity that I believe restricts it from doing anything chaotic or random 'in there'. It's the reason that I don't believe that a singularity could ever destabilize without an influence of some sort. This is why if felt that an eternally old singularity would continue to 'age' throughout all eternity, and that one that was unstable enough to 'bang' must've come from somewhere other than eternity.

---> Again, perhaps random is not the right word. You can't argue, however, that their decay is not 'chaotic' or practically 'unpredictable', can you? Or can you?

I can argue that it may not turn out to be so chaotic seeming, once we are capable of delving deeper into underlying causes. As unpredictable as it seems now, we may later be able to predict such things better than we do the weather today.

---> As for the possibility that they do require an external influence, I would agree that this is a possibility - but nothing more - and since you would like to stick to things that have - and I quote - "currently observable evidence", this does not hold much proverbial water. Even if there is an external influence, it must be complex enough to produce unpredictable results, and what sort of sad or unbelievably bored-out-of-His-mind Deity is going to bother to invoke a little bit of a tiny radioactive atom to decay? The external influence would need to be another physical thing, and so what if there is one? The process is still unpredictable and chaotic by practical standards.

If we do stick to observable evidence, we must strike down many theories that don't have the universe expanding until its cold-cold death on the four-dimensional rack. The red-shift leaves little doubt about the most probable end of the universe.

Since you asked, a part of a play I wrote has a piece of the answer to the question 'what sort of ... Deity', etc. Perhaps he wants us to strive to know, despite our inability to grasph His perfect knowledge; and merely adds complexities as necessary to stay a level or two ahead of us? He could, according to the play, not be completely decided as to what the next level will be until we conquer a previously 'unknowable' level of complexity.
Sorry to be putting that here, sorry you asked; still it would be conceivable and consistent within its own rules of the game. Back to science.

---> Ah, but I am NOT disputing your given! Your given was that the big bang happened. I was disputing the singularity. Notice that both the ekpyrotic and VSL theories have a big bang.

Great! I am very glad we've not had any problem keeping that fershlugginer given in mind. Still, if the bang occurred without the singularity, we are still left the 'where then did it come from' question. Which, to my mind, requires a scientific answer that does not rely on as much faith, assuming, and hope as religion does.

---> If God existed, then He can do anything He wishes, can he not?
Therefore it is possible literally for _anything_ to sound like god-work because of the fact that He can do anything.

Yes, although the watchmaker argument is marginally better than the Kleenex one, and doesn't abuse a brand name by leaving of the TM symbol! Yes, it is hard to come up with anything that could not fit in the 'because god says so' category, that's what makes the whole thing so hard to take without some corroboration. I can't help that this is what the term god often means to people, omniscience, omnipotency, etc. Some flavors of gods come without these extreme powers, but we are discussing the creation of the universe, or not.

---> You believe in planetary orbits, don't you? (So do I)
---> You are sceptical of QM, are you not? (I'm not)
---> Why the difference?
My arguments are rarely the obvious ones, but you are pretty much right about the first part. Newton thought he had it figured, Enstein described it better, but we have not only observed orbits, timed them, and indeed flown through them, but we use them for our satellites and space stations. Since they are a simple and natural function of gravity, I choose not to challenge them (unlike people who don't believe we've been to the moon).
You certainly could argue the non-existence of everything, and I pity the foolish Arcturan Megadonkey that gets in that discussion with you. However, I stipulated that such existential mind games are unproductive to our discussion and, of course, you agree.

The obvious argument: 'Quantum theory is obviously right - we've proved it with lasers, photon detectors, maths and everything!'
If Quantum theory was considered 'proven' and 'obviously right' it would no longer be a theory, it would be Quantum Law.
The proofs offered by the means you mention are compelling, but may be to the next theory what Newton is to Einstein. A partial, approximate proof is not an obviously right fact. It may amount to rounding PI to 10 decimals, exact enough for most common usage, but not quite accurate; or, it could be like the difference between the speed of light vs. the speed of sound, both are very fast, but no contest in a race.

---> Having 'proven' QM, physicists made it part of their accepted model of the universe.

Is this something of which I have been previously unaware? ALL physicists have now adopted Quantum Mechanics as a proven part of their model of the Universe? Not surprisingly, nobody sent me a ballot.

---> 'Nobody really understands it' is a reference to a joke that you may not have heard, made I think by Richard Feynmann ...

Ah, I caught the semblence to the quote, but didn't realize it was an intentional, humorous reference. In retrospect I like it.

The way I normally put it is that there are only three people in the world who really understand quantum phsics, and they don't agree. (Obviously, I hope, another joke; but it underscores that this does come up in discussions about gods, too. They - and don't ask me who they are - all believe themselves to be experts, yet they often disagree.)

---> You'll hate this:

"But whatever lies beyond the standard model, it will still be based upon the rules of quantum physics. Just as the general theory of relativity includes the Newtonian version of gravity within itself as a special case... so any improved theory of the microworld must include quantum theory within itself. Apples didn't start falling upwards when Albert Einstein came up with an improved theory of gravity; and no improved theory of physics will ever take away the weirdness of the quantum world."

Actually, thanks again BB; I love this! Still, I don't believe that quantum was a factor when the A-bombs were first made, or CD-ROMs for that matter. But I am most excited by the thought!

Tell me, is there any modern device that we use in our everyday lives that actually does depend on QM being true-er than the planetary physics, or which would not have been invented without those areas of physics with which we are most familiar? Quantum hard-drives? Quantum toasters? Quantum refrigerators? Anything? Neckties? Stained-glass windows? I don't care what it is, but please give me something.

"A god's existence cannot be proven or disproven" - maybe so, but where is the proof for that?

Well, I would submit that the only being that would be capable of proving a god's existence would be a god. Perhaps that is the only being that could prove a god's non-existence as well. Frankly, I don't think it is necessary to believe in a god to get through life, and I feel the same about QM. It seems to me that if any god that exists insists on staying hidden and not communicate is going to have to settle for what he gets out of this kind of experiment. The same goes for theoretical aliens. QM at least has a chance of being useful.

I remember you asking something about what kind of bored or insane God would cause a small discrepency in conservation, and it reminded me of the questions like 'what kind of god would allow this terrible war', 'why would god let my dear one die', 'what insanity causes a god to give us a planet full of earthquakes, hurricanes, and tornados?'
All good questions, and beyond my ability to answer. (almost as beyond as QM is beyond me.)

---> What do you mean by 'if' QM is fact? It is! And no, it doesn't explain the big bang, but then neither does any other proven theory we have. As I say, relativity and QM must be combined to make something that does explain the bang (and black holes with it).

Another good bit! This all leaves me with tremendously complex questions, and I can never be sure if I can assimilate any answers that may be forthcoming. QM, it seems to me, requires particles, space, fields, energies, time, etc.
The two questions that most concern me are:
1) Can QM (especially QM fluctuations and probability waves) occur in a black hole singularity?
2) Does QM suggest what QM would be like immediately before (one Planck Unit) the big bang?

By the way, I deeply respect your knowledge on this subject. I further appreciate that you would be willing to take such times and pains with a less informed like myself. I trust that this is not boring to you, and look forward to your reply with relish.

"expect the possibility of a gap here somewhere"

No such gap discovered. Thanks for the warning anyway.

Microsoft jokes ahead... Please take no offense...

"I was composing my response in notepad"

Notepad? Notepad? Do I hear thee correctly? Resorting to a low-level utility of about the time of the Dinosaurs?!

Sorry. Sorry about that. It's just this thing I have about Notepad. KDE, you see, comes with three basic GUI text editors - all of them infinitely better than Notepad (syntax colour-coding feature, for example). And Emacs and Vi - invented decades ago - surpass anything a Microsoft developer might have coded in his sleep. But I digress hugely...

One more thing, though:
"cest le vie"
I think you mean "c'est la vie"!

I have to practise my Peer Review Scouting skills, you know!


"Yes if, by some thing, you mean some natural processes, whatever the theory under discussion uses.
No if, by some thing, I mean an extraordinary, non-sentient outside effect"

---> I disagree. The poly-dimensional membranes that the ekpyrotic theory predicts are, I'm sure you will agree, fairly extraordinary, non-sentient outside causes are they not? So I would say your statements need reversing or something.


"It's the reason that I don't believe that a singularity could ever destabilize without an influence of some sort."

---> I see your point. But, and I don't know if you were aware of this or not, some theories nowadays - like M-theory, I think - predict that the 'singularity' was not a point of infinite heat and density, but was ever so slightly larger than that. Of course, this is probably just an excuse to avoid the infinities (which physicists hate, I suspect). I suspect that by 'larger' they still wouldn't mean anything near the 'enormous' size of atoms!


"Perhaps he wants us to strive to know..."

---> Yes, of course, there are other arguments. When I wrote that bit about the bored Deity I was more trying to make a very subtle comic reference to The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul: "But, thinks Dirk Gently... What God would be hanging around Terminal Two of Heathrow Airport trying to catch the 15.37 to Oslo?"


"Still, if the bang occurred without the singularity, we are still left the 'where then did it come from' question. Which, to my mind, requires a scientific answer that does not rely on as much faith, assuming, and hope as religion does."

---> We have the 'where did it come from' question anyway, FT. I don't think it's going to go away for a long time. (I presume you mean ;where did the universe come from?') Whether a scientific theory requires more faith than religion is a matter of opinion, of course. To me, religion requires more faith than I am prepared to give, and so I reject it. [I sometimes wish I hadn't, to be honest - but that's another story; you can press me for it if you want to].


"Yes, it is hard to come up with anything that could not fit in the 'because god says so' category"

---> I agree that putting everything down to god is an easy get-out-clause for a lot of people.


"---> Having 'proven' QM, physicists made it part of their accepted model of the universe.

Is this something of which I have been previously unaware? ALL physicists have now adopted Quantum Mechanics as a proven part of their model of the Universe? Not surprisingly, nobody sent me a ballot."

---> Are you a physicist then? (Were you expecting a ballot?)
In answer to your surprise, I would express surprise myself. I have been very surprised of your scepticism of QM, since it has always been my understanding that all physicists have indeed accepted the quantum world, and using Gribbin's astute observation as my premise, it isn't going to go away. We are stuck with the quantum world whether we like it or not. Haven't you heard of the Standard Model of Particle Physics?

Once we accept the apparent weirdness of QM and relativity (I presume you have no problems accepting relativity?), we can move on to unifying them. The Standard Model is, after all, incomplete, and needs to describe gravity. Relativity is also incomplete because it breaks down at microscopic levels (sub-atomic particles do not obey gravity).


"The way I normally put it is that there are only three people in the world who really understand quantum phsics, and they don't agree."

---> Very good .


"If Quantum theory was considered 'proven' and 'obviously right' it would no longer be a theory, it would be Quantum Law."

---> That was a slip of the tongue on my part. Honest! It isn't really quantum theory any more - it's quantum mechanics or quantum physics - that was changed ages ago I think.

Though I will say this - Pythagoras' Theorem, which is not a theory and is therefore considered to be very true - was disproved some time ago and is still considered to be a theorem. Of course, this was because of the break-down of what we had cherished as a Euclidean universe. We don't live in such a universe. Space is curved and Riemannian, and whilst on small terrestrial scales it makes no difference to say that the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other sides, when we take it accurately it isn't right. You'll remember this from Gnomon's entry, I presume.


"Still, I don't believe that quantum was a factor when the A-bombs were first made, or CD-ROMs for that matter. But I am most excited by the thought!"

---> Why don't you believe that? How can QM NOT play a crucial role in nuclear bombs and power stations? Anything smaller than atom is subject to the quantum laws. Lasers (which are integral to CD-ROM drives) are also devices that rely on sub-atomic physics.


"Tell me, is there any modern device that we use in our everyday lives that actually does depend on QM being true-er than the planetary physics, or which would not have been invented without those areas of physics with which we are most familiar? Quantum hard-drives? Quantum toasters? Quantum refrigerators? Anything? Neckties? Stained-glass windows? I don't care what it is, but please give me something."

---> OK, there are several answers to this question.

1) 'Truer' than planetary physics is hard to measure. If something is the truth then it's the truth - it can't be 'more true' than something else, because then that something else is obviously a lie.

2) As I say, nuclear bombs, nuclear power stations, CD-ROM drives, communications satellites and so on all rely on sub-atomic stuff. Computers too rely on sub-atomic stuff. These are all modern things on which we now rely.

3) The deep, incredible "ha-ha-told-you-so" answer, which you may not have been aware of is.... (cue the drum roll)...

Quantum Computers!

Yes - they are modern.
No - we don't currently rely on them, but we will soon, I'm sure!
Yes - they exist. They've been built. They work.

See A1136350.


"1) Can QM (especially QM fluctuations and probability waves) occur in a black hole singularity?"

---> The laws of QM, relativity and any other science we have at the moment, break down at singularities. We don't know anything about what happens at singularities, as far as I know. Having said that, there has been talk of 'quantum foam' - a weird stuffy stuff at singularities that is a tangled mass of quantum-related non-particles with no individual identities. It is said that a lot of wormholes reside there and that futuristic civilisations may be able to extract wormholes and enlarge them from black holes. I'm not making that up!

"2) Does QM suggest what QM would be like immediately before (one Planck Unit) the big bang?"

---> As I say, no science we currently have can explain this stuff. Say so if you've heard differently, of course. If you are referring to a time between 'the beginning' and one Planck unit, then QM says that no such time exists, as a Planck unit is as small as you can go.


"By the way, I deeply respect your knowledge on this subject."

And I yours.

"I trust that this is not boring to you, and look forward to your reply with relish."

Of course it isn't boring. I enjoy our debates and anticipate them greatly. We may not be contributing anything major to society or to the sum of human knowledge, but we are stretching our own individual knowledge to its limits, and questioning fundamental issues and concepts. I sometimes find it quite incredible that humans are able to think so deeply and be so fundamentally inquisitive - I wonder if you feel the same way.

You said you were job-hunting some time ago, did you not? Has that gone well? Still happy to debate quantum mechanics?

Hi again, BB; and thanks for commenting on the pieces I've penned!

~~~We now return you to our regularly scheduled debate, currently in progress~~~

---> Notepad? Notepad? Do I hear thee correctly? Resorting to a low-level utility of about the time of the Dinosaurs?!

LOL, BB; but when all you want is ASCII text, there is nothing much better than old NP. I once (out of desperation) coded a whole General Motors Global Qualit website in notepad. (They wanted it done in 'Entrevision', but hadn't given me the software; so, I was forced to improvise.)

KDE's stuff does not translate readily to h2g2 thread requirements.

---> I think you mean "c'est la vie"!

You're right again, and thank you.

**** "Yes if, by some thing, you mean some natural processes, whatever the theory under discussion uses.
No if, by some thing, I mean an extraordinary, non-sentient outside effect"

---> I disagree. The poly-dimensional membranes that the ekpyrotic theory predicts are, I'm sure you will agree, fairly extraordinary, non-sentient outside causes are they not? So I would say your statements need reversing or something.

Hmmm?! BB, are you absolutely certain that the membranes must be non-sentient? What if they are sentient?

---> I see your point. But, and I don't know if you were aware of this or not, some theories nowadays - like M-theory, I think - predict that the 'singularity' was not a point of infinite heat and density, but was ever so slightly larger than that. Of course, this is probably just an excuse to avoid the infinities (which physicists hate, I suspect). I suspect that by 'larger' they still wouldn't mean anything near the 'enormous' size of atoms!

You are most likely right. This is how I'd interpret it, and for the same reasons. Frankly, I don't know see why the singularity couldn't have been the size of a planet or a sun. I think the point concept got started when they decided to view the universe expansion as a film, and mentally run it backwards. The whole thing would eventually hit the same point; but that's not proof of the infintesimal estimation of the size of the singularity, is it?

**** "Perhaps he wants us to strive to know..."

---> Yes, of course, there are other arguments. When I wrote that bit about the bored Deity I was more trying to make a very subtle comic reference to The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul: "But, thinks Dirk Gently... What God would be hanging around Terminal Two of Heathrow Airport trying to catch the 15.37 to Oslo?"

[BB, this brings up my personal 'Ultim8 ...' you-know-what. A question of L, the U, and E, to which the answer fourty2 makes sense. (Obviously, I'm trying to make this unsearchable by the general public.) If you are interested, I used this as the last question of a test published in a local Mensa publication. The test was a spoof of Mensa's tests, made for a concocted group of minds too good for normal Mensa membership. I called this group Mensa+, but that was before I found out that there are groups of even more miniscule membership due to their extreme quotients for intelligence.
Give me the word, and I'll give you the question, just for giggles.]

---> We have the 'where did it come from' question anyway, FT. I don't think it's going to go away for a long time. (I presume you mean ;where did the universe come from?') Whether a scientific theory requires more faith than religion is a matter of opinion, of course. To me, religion requires more faith than I am prepared to give, and so I reject it. [I sometimes wish I hadn't, to be honest - but that's another story; you can press me for it if you want to].

I would like to hear your story, BB. I suspect I'll find aspects of it familiar, as this subject comes up a lot lately; but, I'd love to hear yours.

---> Are you a physicist then? (Were you expecting a ballot?)
In answer to your surprise, I would express surprise myself. I have been very surprised of your scepticism of QM, since it has always been my understanding that all physicists have indeed accepted the quantum world, and using Gribbin's astute observation as my premise, it isn't going to go away. We are stuck with the quantum world whether we like it or not. Haven't you heard of the Standard Model of Particle Physics?

No, as my mention of working for GM will expose, I am no physicist. So, I suppose you could always chalk my skepticism down to that. I can't say you'd be wrong, either. Indeed, I am aware of the general level of acceptance of QM, and the concept of the SM of PP; certainly not at the theoretical physicist level, but aware. Still, I am also aware of contradictions, discrepencies, and differing viewpoints of how dependable QM is at predicting or describing phenomena.

---> Once we accept the apparent weirdness of QM and relativity (I presume you have no problems accepting relativity?), we can move on to unifying them. The Standard Model is, after all, incomplete, and needs to describe gravity. Relativity is also incomplete because it breaks down at microscopic levels (sub-atomic particles do not obey gravity).

This is the part that I have absolutely no problem with; accepting wierdness, that is. I have no problem accepting relativity as it had been so amusingly proven through the pertubation in the orbit of Mercury. If you've never read Isaac Asimov's description of the search for the planet 'Vulcan', I highly suggest it as an amusing read.

**** "If Quantum theory was considered 'proven' and 'obviously right' it would no longer be a theory, it would be Quantum Law."

---> That was a slip of the tongue on my part. Honest! It isn't really quantum theory any more - it's quantum mechanics or quantum physics - that was changed ages ago I think.

True! There is no denying that quantum mechanics and quantum physics are accepted parts of the book of science knowledge. There are classes, conventions, prizes, etc. Hard to ignore all that. But let us not forget that just as the Pythagorian Theorem was disproven after centuries of acceptance, and Newtonian physics has been abandoned outside our gravitational field, QM may yet suffer a similar fate.

**** "Still, I don't believe that quantum was a factor when the A-bombs were first made, or CD-ROMs for that matter. But I am most excited by the thought!"

---> Why don't you believe that? How can QM NOT play a crucial role in nuclear bombs and power stations? Anything smaller than atom is subject to the quantum laws. Lasers (which are integral to CD-ROM drives) are also devices that rely on sub-atomic physics.

Perhaps I misspoke. If quantum is a given, it may affect everything in our lives. My point was that we have gone one and invented these things without knowledge or understanding of QM just fine. I don't remember QM being part of the work done in the creation of the first atomic devices. Indeed, I suspect that you or I could build one without a single QM measurement or consideration.


**** "Tell me, is there any modern device that we use in our everyday lives that actually does depend on QM being true-er than the planetary physics, or which would not have been invented without those areas of physics with which we are most familiar? Quantum hard-drives? Quantum toasters? Quantum refrigerators? Anything? Neckties? Stained-glass windows? I don't care what it is, but please give me something."

---> OK, there are several answers to this question.

1) 'Truer' than planetary physics is hard to measure. If something is the truth then it's the truth - it can't be 'more true' than something else, because then that something else is obviously a lie.

2) As I say, nuclear bombs, nuclear power stations, CD-ROM drives, communications satellites and so on all rely on sub-atomic stuff. Computers too rely on sub-atomic stuff. These are all modern things on which we now rely.

3) The deep, incredible "ha-ha-told-you-so" answer, which you may not have been aware of is.... (cue the drum roll)...

Quantum Computers!

Yes - they are modern.
No - we don't currently rely on them, but we will soon, I'm sure!
Yes - they exist. They've been built. They work.

See A1136350.

AAAAHHHHH!!!!! Now THIS is what I've been waiting to hear!! I will be checking out that entry, I assure you!

*************
"1) Can QM (especially QM fluctuations and probability waves) occur in a black hole singularity?"

---> The laws of QM, relativity and any other science we have at the moment, break down at singularities. We don't know anything about what happens at singularities, as far as I know. Having said that, there has been talk of 'quantum foam' - a weird stuffy stuff at singularities that is a tangled mass of quantum-related non-particles with no individual identities. It is said that a lot of wormholes reside there and that futuristic civilisations may be able to extract wormholes and enlarge them from black holes. I'm not making that up!

"2) Does QM suggest what QM would be like immediately before (one Planck Unit) the big bang?"

---> As I say, no science we currently have can explain this stuff. Say so if you've heard differently, of course. If you are referring to a time between 'the beginning' and one Planck unit, then QM says that no such time exists, as a Planck unit is as small as you can go.


"By the way, I deeply respect your knowledge on this subject."

And I yours.

********************
Thank you for all this. I find it very stimulating and helpful!
********************

**** "I trust that this is not boring to you, and look forward to your reply with relish."

---> Of course it isn't boring. I enjoy our debates and anticipate them greatly. We may not be contributing anything major to society or to the sum of human knowledge, but we are stretching our own individual knowledge to its limits, and questioning fundamental issues and concepts. I sometimes find it quite incredible that humans are able to think so deeply and be so fundamentally inquisitive - I wonder if you feel the same way.

I absolutely do. I think about a few semi-evolved simian ancestors, sitting on a mudball and contemplating something beyond their neighbor's fleas; and I cannot help but be in awe of what they have accomplished!
We examine what we can see, feel, hear, smell, taste, and touch, and eventually form an idea of the universe that includes all we have discussed and more!!

From the sub-atomic, to the multi-dimensional universe? Phew!! We might as well have tried to extrapolate it all from a piece of fairycake!

Just amazing, mind-boggling, and flummoxing; to be sure!

Thanks again, BB.
BTW: sad to report the job search is still an all-consuming, time absorbing effort. I needed the break, for which I also thank you.

Live long and prosper,

--> "LOL, BB; but when all you want is ASCII text, there is nothing much better than old NP. I once (out of desperation) coded a whole General Motors Global Qualit website in notepad. (They wanted it done in 'Entrevision', but hadn't given me the software; so, I was forced to improvise.)

KDE's stuff does not translate readily to h2g2 thread requirements."

Rubbish, I say! When it comes down to it, a text editor is a text editor and some text editors are better than others. NP does the job - lets you edit text, that is - but on the most primitive scale. You can't beat the KDE stuff, which now comes in three flavours (KEdit, KWrite and Kate, in order of increasing professionalism).



---> "Hmmm?! BB, are you absolutely certain that the membranes must be non-sentient? What if they are sentient?"

Well, if we must split hairs with a fine comb then yes, there is a remote possibility that the membranes are sentient - which is basically saying that the universe and other universes are somehow 'alive'. Reminds of the Hindu God, Shiva (I think) controlling the beat of the universe with a drum.


---> "You are most likely right. This is how I'd interpret it, and for the same reasons. Frankly, I don't know see why the singularity couldn't have been the size of a planet or a sun. I think the point concept got started when they decided to view the universe expansion as a film, and mentally run it backwards. The whole thing would eventually hit the same point; but that's not proof of the infintesimal estimation of the size of the singularity, is it?"

No, there is no proof that the singularity was infinitesimally small, or otherwise, as far as I know.


[Give me the word, and I'll give you the question, just for giggles.]
How can I refuse? Do tell!


---> "I would like to hear your story, BB. I suspect I'll find aspects of it familiar, as this subject comes up a lot lately; but, I'd love to hear yours."

No time to go in to detail, really - just a summary. You see, I was a devout Christian for a few years of my childhood before I began a fascination with cosmology, leading to some sort of 'enlightenment' - I came to the conclusion that God was a far-fetched entity and that we were all alone in a VAST mega-exo-googol-plentically gargantuan Universe (in fact, it is larger than this).

The trouble is - and I don't know whether you share this view - religion provides an order and a structure to one's life so that one know longer finds that one's existence in the vast mega-exo-googol-plentically gargantuan Universe is utterly pointless. Atheism isn't a religion, of course, and so as soon as I rejected the existence of God, I realised what a horrible place Earth is - mish-mashed together by cosmic coincidence and then plagued with walking, warring bipeds that grew from the reactions on the surface, like a surprising result from a session of haphazard bucket chemistry.



---> "Still, I am also aware of contradictions, discrepencies, and differing viewpoints of how dependable QM is at predicting or describing phenomena."

AHA! AH-HA-HA-AH!
Do you really think that science is about predictions about phenomena? No. Neither do I. Let me tell you what QM does.

QM has a set of mathematical functions and formulae that describe real phenomena; they do not readily describe the physical manifestation of the phenomena or the mechanism by which the phenomena get from one state to another. When you apply the mathematics to a scenario, QM makes a prediction about what will happen. When you then carry out the scenario and make some observations, you find that QM maths has predicted the result with 100% accuracy (or 99.99999999% accuracy, if you prefer).

So we can certainly say that QM describes phenomena with astounding accuracy - albeit with mathematics. And we can certainly say that QM makes astoundingly accurate predictions. There is NO SINGLE EXPERIMENT so far that has failed a QM maths test.

If you haven't already, you must read The Elegant Universe and possibly the sequel, the Fabric of the Cosmos, by Brian Greene. Relativity, QM and M-theory are described in detail in there, with PROOF! Proof, that is, that is too long and complex for me to duplicate here without referring heavily to resources.



---> "I have no problem accepting relativity as it had been so amusingly proven through the pertubation in the orbit of Mercury."

Yes, amongst other experiments; and what makes you think there isn't similarly conclusive proof for QM?

"If you've never read Isaac Asimov's description of the search for the planet 'Vulcan', I highly suggest it as an amusing read."

Thanks! I may get round to reading it some time. I've often wanted to read Asimov but I've been put off by the choice - the sheer number of his books!



--> "True! There is no denying that quantum mechanics and quantum physics are accepted parts of the book of science knowledge."



--> "There are classes, conventions, prizes, etc. Hard to ignore all that."

Impossible to ignore it!

--> "But let us not forget that just as the Pythagorian Theorem was disproven after centuries of acceptance, and Newtonian physics has been abandoned outside our gravitational field, QM may yet suffer a similar fate."

See John Gribbin's quote. QM can't die. Newtonian physics isn't dead - it's now just a special case of relativity that still has practical uses. You'll never get rid of QM, because even if it proves out to be incomplete (and I expect it will do, along with relativity), then it must still be a part of whatever the more complete theory is.



--> "Indeed, I suspect that you or I could build one without a single QM measurement or consideration."

Maybe with some of them. I don't know much about the industrial production of such goods.


--> "AAAAHHHHH!!!!! Now THIS is what I've been waiting to hear!! I will be checking out that entry, I assure you!"

It's only a very rough introduction, I hasten to add, but good enough for a brief overview.



--> "BTW: sad to report the job search is still an all-consuming, time absorbing effort. I needed the break, for which I also thank you."

Sorry to hear of it. I hope it all goes OK in the end.

And I thank you very much for much the same things for which you have thanked me. Thank you!

Live prosperously and long (and vice versa),
BB.

BB, Hi again:

I'm sure that NP and KDE do an excellent job. All I said was that they cannot do 'much better' than a similar application that adequately performs the task, with little or no fuss.

I didn't have Shiva in mind, but it was quite astute of you to pick that up.

I don't need to know, but I'll admit to being made a bit curious about the ages at which the 'enlightment' process points occurred. There was a famous personage (scientist? the name fails me) who said that 'when man has gained a bit of knowledge he turns away from God (sees the world as mechanistic), but deeper knowledge will bring him back'; or, something like that.

It was probably said before the idea of probability waves were proposed, but I suspect that this may be the closest thing science can point to as a potential 'finger of god' interference. Given the humungous size of the universe, imagine the influence you could have if you even maintained a measure of control equal to only 0.00000000000000001%!

Certainly, I'm not proposing this as proof, just a possible reason that some former agnostic/aetheists may find that religion is not so easy to dismiss. Even believing in the same God allows room for differences and arguments, and even the wars you mentioned.

You are no doubt aware of the basic differences between Judaism and Christianity being largely the acceptance of one man as the promised saviour. An overheard conversation that I've related on the h2g2 site somewhere held this abridged conversation.
J: We don't believe the saviour has come yet.
C: We think he has, and it's probably safer.
J: How do you figure?
C: If we're wrong, when the true saviour comes, we can believe and ask forgiveness. If you're wrong, your people not only rejected him, but nailed him to a cross and killed him. Which do you think is the worse sin?
J: I'll have to think about that.

I will admit that the only way to believe in God is to buy into a type of god that for some unexplainable reason wants us to be able to non-believe: No direct communication, no proofs, no evidence; just a series of unreliable messages, and an inexplicable set of universal laws that lead to other equally supportable causations.

---> There is NO SINGLE EXPERIMENT so far that has failed a QM maths test.

The phrasing of this statement has me curious. Is there a non-single experiment that may not have had such positive results? Perhaps some combination of experiments? Do some of the maths work fine individually, but fail to agree with others that work fine?

I should love to read 'The Elegant Universe and possibly the sequel, the Fabric of the Cosmos, by Brian Greene' and shall place them on my to-read list.

The good news, about Asimov's tale of Vulcan, is that it is only one short essay in a book of essays on science, written in an amusing, creative manner (that means that there is a surprise ending). Fifteen minutes of library time should do it. Fortunately, as most of IAs books were fiction, the non-fiction will be easier to sort through.

Thanks for the good wishes on the job search, now here's the fun stuff.

I will list the five requirements that I enforced for designing the 'U-Q of L, the U and E'; you may, of course, disagree with them, but I feel they are required. The Mensa group just loved it. I think they offered me a menbership on this point alone.

1. To be 'Ult', it must not be limited to any specific aspect of L the U and E. It must answer 'Everything' in the largest sense.

2. To cover L, it must answer all the tedious daily questions such as 'does it really matter if I get up in the morning' as well as the verities, causes, results, and problems with and resulting from life.

3. To explain the Univ, the question must be far-ranging enough to explain any phenomenon that can be described. It must include the existence or non-existence of a god or gods; but it cannot be religion, world, position, or species exclusive and must be applicable anywhere and anywhen in space-time.

4. To cover 'Everything', it must be an question that, when answered, makes one say 'Ah well then, that just explains it all, doesn't it.'

5. Oh, and the question must be answerable by the required: '4tytwo'.

I really intended to just give the question here, but I cannot help wanting to prod your brain a tad more. Consider it further mental exercise.

I will include it in my next posting; but want to give you one last chance, now that the requirements have been defined, to see if you cannot come up with the question, the simple question, of L, the U, and E; to which the answer could conceivably be fourtytwo.

It means so much more when we come up with 'the question' on our own; although by 'we' and 'our', of course, I mean me (so far).

Good luck! I'm sure it's in that well-developed and stuffed cranium somewhere. (You really will kick yourself if you don't manage to figure it out. Either way, I also guarantee a laugh.)

The world at large is not yet ready for this question, so I do not burden anyone with it by say posting it on me PS. I most often tell people that it will mean more if they work it out for themselves. Still, there are a few who, from time to time, I feel need to know that there is a simple question, even if that answer is not a correct and verifiable answer.

Please keep this potentially volatile and tremendously powerful secret to yourself, lest the universe be removed and replaced with something even more inexplicable.

I am quivering at the thought of this titanium beam collapsing under the weight - can you assure me that we won't end up with a Great Black Hole of Hootoo?

It's a good thing that it's the weekend; I can't imagine working with a melting brain. I have 'racked' and geared and fried my cerebral devices, and for an encore, tied them into the shape of a small duck and floated it in the bath for further dissection, but, no, I still can't remember how old I was when that 'enlightenment' point occurred!

Joking, of course. I'll get back to the fun after the preliminary answers, as you did. It seems that the debate at hand is drawing to some form of conclusion, after all; we accept, I think, that quantum mechanics is not going to go away.

--> "I don't need to know, but I'll admit to being made a bit curious about the ages at which the 'enlightment' process points occurred."

If I remember correctly, it happened quite quickly at around the magic age of... 10.


--> "imagine the influence you could have if you even maintained a measure of control equal to only 0.00000000000000001%!"

That's a good argument; I hadn't thought of that, but I don't really think that quantum mechanical equations exhibit any sort of 'control' over anything. If you can predict with 99.9999999999999% certainty that the Lottery numbers will be, say, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45 and 46 then that isn't exercising any control over the Lottery, is it?


You had already told me about the Judaism/Christianity conversation in a previous debate somewhere, I believe. It's very true.


--> "The phrasing of this statement has me curious. Is there a non-single experiment that may not have had such positive results? Perhaps some combination of experiments? Do some of the maths work fine individually, but fail to agree with others that work fine?"

Well, now that you mention it, there was an article in NewScientist about a single researcher that may have some proof that one particular aspect of QM needs refining; but NewScientist is always finding ways to stir things up. Other than this, as far as I know, there are no non-single experiments that have had negative results - in other words, all the experiments agree perfectly. The maths works individually and collectively.

The only contradictions come when comparing QM with relativity. The mathematics for QM works perfectly and accurately; the mathematics for relativity also works perfectly and accurately; but together, they both produce infinities and therefore kill each other off. It is very strange that the universe can be governed by one set of rules on the microscopic scales, and then be governed by a completely different set of rules on macroscopic scales, both of which are excellent at describing their own self-contained environment, but bail out when brought together. We could leave it at that, but nobody seems to want to entertain the idea that the laws of the universe split into two distinct warring tribes, precariously balanced; they want to see that each tribe is just a different way of interpreting the behaviour of one overarching tribe pervasive across the whole universe.

***

Now the fun bit. And to respect your wishes, I shall encode my responses somewhat to make this thread unsearchable. By the way, I do agree with your five requirements.

--> "I cannot help wanting to prod your brain a tad more."

Torture! Absolute torture!

--> "You really will kick yourself if you don't manage to figure it out. Either way, I also guarantee a laugh."

That really did it. I must figure it out for myself. IF I DON'T WORK IT OUT BY THE END OF THIS POST, PLEASE DON'T TELL ME YET!

I know you only wanted to give me 'one' last chance, but please consider this as just my 'thinking aloud'. This is just written thought processes.

I'm sure it's in my stuffed cranium somewhere.

It must be something hilarious.

It must answer:
'What God would be hanging around Terminal Two of Heathrow Airport trying to catch the 15.37 to Oslo?'

And it must answer:
'Shall I bother to get up in the morning?'

And it must be answered by:
21*2

And it mustn't be specific in any way.


---


Right. This is what I came up with first; probably within quarter of an hour of reading your posting; but I'm sure it isn't the UQ.

- On a scale of 1 to (14*3), how bored was God?

Then my mind went into a frenzy. I came up with these in a Feverish Brainstorm:

- On a scale of (8*5)+2 to 1000000, how pleased is God with his Creation?


- Excuse me, can you tell me the number of the house I should deliver this Uni verse to?


- How many gods does it take to change a light bulb?


- How many gods does it take to create a univ- er-se?


- Are you there, God? If you can hear us, say 'Four Tea Too'.


- Have you had any other complaints, God?


- If n=4 and o=2, does anything matter?


- Which page of the manual should I refer to for my question?


- I have heard that you are very bad at mathematics, God; tell me, what is 6 times 9?


- Hello; welcome to God's Technical Support Helpline. Could you tell us the product number of the Uni verse you're inhabiting please?


- Paul, we've been waiting to get into Heaven for ages; how many are there in front of us in the queue?


- When somebody went to complain to God as the Highest Authority, how much compensation did He give?


But all of the above questions are either specific to species, or to monotheistic religions or to tangible, limited things, aren't they? And they're certainly not as hilarious or as far-reaching as you make your UQ out to be...

And you say it is a 'simple' question...


Aaaarrrrrgggghhhh!!!!


If you reply to this before my next post, torture me all you want, but don't reveal it yet, please.

By the way, have you seen my comments about the Hoke Howell Guide Entry?

Hey there, tortured soul!

It was your reminder here that sent me to the HH thread. Did you notice our simulpostings? And, Boy!, do you catch on to encrypted messages quickly, or what?! This is, indeed the r-t-b of which I spoke!

Ok, work first.

I have too much respect for your power to reason to point out that you are following the advice of a 10-year-old you. But it did bring to mind two possibly interesting notes.
1) Just saw an article on jobs (my search, you know) asking if you'd take life altering occupation advice from a 20-year-old; noting that if you chose your own collegiate direction, it amounts to this. (I have an excuse, I took bad 'life altering occupation advice' from my self at a much greater age.)
2) James P. Womat, co-author of 'Lean Thinking', relates this story (abridged and paraphrased):
I conducted and experiment on batch-and-queue with my 6 and 9 year old daughters. I told them that their mother put out a church paper each week that had to be folded, sealed, addressed, stamped, and mailed; and asked them what the most efficient method would be to accomplish this.
'Well, daddy,' they said, 'first you fold all the papers, then you seal them, then you address each one, then you stamp them, and then you put them in a box to be taken to the post office.'
I asked them, 'Wouldn't it make more sense to fold, seal, address and stamp one newsletter, instead of picking each one up four times?'
'Daddy,' they said, 'that wouldn't be efficient'!
His point was that large batch-and-queue has natural waste built into it, that can almost always be reduced or eliminated with single-piece (or small batch) production flow; but that many managers were still working with the large batch-and-queue thinking natural to 6 and 9 year olds. Yup, sounds like some of my bosses all right!

[I am so full of food-for-thought, I should open up a breadline for brains. ]

BTW, around that same age, I began to question scriptures version of creation, because it never mentioned the dinosaurs. I wasn't about to accept a timeline that didn't include Them!

Re the influence:
---> If you can predict with 99.9999999999999% certainty that the Lottery numbers will be, say, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45 and 46 then that isn't exercising any control over the Lottery, is it?

True, and precisely my point isn't it? The fact that certainty falls below 100% is the slight margin of control I would need to keep for myself to make things really interesting if I were God. You no doubt remember Hactar and the 'few small things' he created by suggesting and urging? Imagine that influence on a cosmic scale!!!! (Imagine influencing a singularity that was otherwise constant?)

Predictions rely on all rules remaining positively inviolable. Close is good enough, on some scales for some predictions. Cosmologically, it all sort of breaks down when QM and relativity cannot agree.

We may be forever finding better and better ways of describing our universe and its laws. Wouldn't it just be a hoot though, to find at the end of it all that someone just keeps adding more layers as we uncover them?

Now, to the UQ!!!! (Drum rolls thunder through the beam, creating a dangerous sympathetic vibration in all cosmic strings. Tympanis rise in volume and pitch. The kettle drums start up, but then just give up and go out for tea.)
Don't want to spoil your fun, so I'll hold off for the moment.

I'm very glad to hear that you found my restrictions adequate and supportable. It also appears that you have been going through the same mental gyrations that took me the months of mental hypergymnastics that I mention on my PS.

The hardest part was codifying those requirements. Once that was done, the rest came relatively easy.

You have come close (very close) to exposing the couple of basic underlying concepts in your first efforts; although I'll admit surprise at how many refer so directly to god beings (considering your theological theory). The wording and phrasing become so important for the question to work so universally.

I particularly liked the four-tea-two concept, which (although generating the correct response) does not really qualify as an ultimate questions whose answer can help us in our day-to-day lives.

Although I agree to hold off a bit (forever, if you wish), I can give you a bit more information.

Beyond the requirements is an unstated axiom that has to be acknowledged as a 'given' in the formula. It has been expressed in frustration, in humour, and in allegory. It is of human design; but if it holds true anywhere, it would appear to hold true here.

Giving it to you may be more help than you want, so I'll leave it unexpressed for now. If you want the 'given', I would be happy to supply it; but it almost mandates the immediate epiphany of the UQ.

Whether you get it, or I give it, we will remain among the 0.000000001% (or, about 50) on the planet that have it. Hmmm, where have I a seen a number like that recently?



Is there a torture smiley that I should know about????

Don't apologise for the torture. I enjoy mental hypergymnastics.

I just noticed the simulpostings, yes, and I've posted something else.

--> "Boy!, do you catch on to encrypted messages quickly, or what?!"

Thank you.


--> "you are following the advice of a 10-year-old you"

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. "There is no God" is not advice. If a teacher told me when I was 10 that the capital of New Zealand is Wellington then that fact does not become less respectable as time goes on just because it is a concept taught at 10 years old (I'm not saying that's when I learnt that fact, of course; it's just an example).

Relativity becomes no less true or should be recognised no less later in life just because it is something you learn young.

'Z' is the last letter of our alphabet. Just because we learn it when we are very young doesn't make it any 'less true' today.

(Yes, obviously things cannot have varying degrees of truth. I say this for lack of a better method of expression).


As you have pointed out, there is some 'advice' we shouldn't take from young people. When I was about 10, or thereabouts, I wanted to establish a privatised education system, where cosmology was as significant a subject as English and where sport was optional. Naturally, this advice I no longer take seriously. But nevertheless, the concept of a Godless Universe has forever stayed with me, and I have never had any reason to start to think otherwise.

In fact, the further I get through life, the more evidence I find to strengthen the opinion that God does not exist. Never did. Never will. Sad, really.


--> "I should open up a breadline for brains."



--> "Wouldn't it just be a hoot though, to find at the end of it all that someone just keeps adding more layers as we uncover them?"

A hoot? Yes. It would be quite hilarious. But highly improbable. Physicists will always stick to things that are measurable, observable or otherwise indirectly apparent.


--> "Drum rolls thunder through the beam, creating a dangerous sympathetic vibration in all cosmic strings. Tympanis rise in volume and pitch. The kettle drums start up, but then just give up and go out for tea."

I'm going to re-inforce the beam with steel girders now, and then I shall galvanise it and carpet it for added protection.


--> "You have come close (very close) to exposing the couple of basic underlying concepts in your first efforts"

That's a good start then.


--> "I'll admit surprise at how many refer so directly to god beings (considering your theological theory)."

I share a philosophy with DNA himself. Although I am an atheist, I am fascinated by other religions and I almost admire them in some ways.

It's interesting though, isn't it? That even I, believing (or rather not believing) in what I do, when I come to thinking of a simple question and answer to explain _Ever Y thing_ I still have to resort to God.

Besides, I reasoned that the funniest responses would probably be those that include God, especially when presented with human-like character traits.


--> "I particularly liked the four-tea-two concept, which (although generating the correct response) does not really qualify as an ultimate questions whose answer can help us in our day-to-day lives."

I'd like to question you further in why you like that one in particular, since all of them generate the 'correct response'. The fifth requirement is the easiest to follow, after all.


50 people out of the world's population is about 0.000000833333333333333...%, by the way.


***


I now continue my written thought processes, if that's all right.
[Composed in KWrite]


***


1. To be 'Ult', it must not be limited to any specific aspect of L the U and E. It must answer '~Everyt~' in the largest sense.

2. To cover L, it must answer all the tedious daily questions such as 'does it really matter if I get up in the morning' as well as the verities, causes, results, and problems with and resulting from life.

3. To explain the Univ, the question must be far-ranging enough to explain any phenomenon that can be described. It must include the existence or non-existence of a god or gods; but it cannot be religion, world, position, or species exclusive and must be applicable anywhere and anywhen in space-time.

4. To cover '~Everyt~', it must be a question that, when answered, makes one say 'Ah well then, that just explains it all, doesn't it.'

5. Oh, and the question must be answerable by the required: '4tytwo'.


The obvious postulate missing from these five is...

6. To be a 'question' it must have a question mark and be interrogative in nature.


It all seems to boil down to:
"Why is the world the way it is?"

And the subsets of this being:
"Why does life work the way it does?"
"Why does the universe work the way it does?" and
"Why is everything here, in the manner that it is?"

"Because God wanted it to be that way" answers it all without further question.

But it must be something hilarious.

It must answer:
'What God would be hanging around Terminal Two of Heathrow Airport trying to catch the 15.37 to Oslo?'

And it must answer:
'Shall I bother to get up in the morning?'

It is a 'simple' question.

Wording and phrasing is an important factor.


Why would God want it to be that way?
Possibilities:

- He didn't want it to be that way but he made a monumental mistake.
- He was bored.
- He made it up as he went along.
- He made it up as he went along and he doesn't like it anymore.


Whether or not any of this is the case, there are other options.

The answer could be a code.
(8*3)+18 could mean 'no'; it could mean 'yes'; it could mean anything.


So what is this 'unstated axiom' I ask myself? (Just myself; please don't tell me).


"Don't trust anyone"

- If n=4 and o=2, can God be trusted to do anything right?


Could it have something to do with the Big Bang?

Mary: Whatever you do, God, don't play with fire.
God: Yes, Mother.
Mary: And if anything happens, you know the number of the Celestial Fire Brigade?
God: Yes, Mother.
Mary: What is it, then?
God: 4 ; 2.

- How many matches did God have to light to start the Big Bang?


No. It can't be to do with the Big Bang because that is a specific phenomenon of the ~Univ~, isn't it? But it must nevertheless explain the Bang and why it happened.

I wonder how long the Question is? Elaborately long questions might do the trick, but then it wouldn't be 'simple' anymore. And simplicity is best.


1) Ultimate Question
2) (8*3)+18
3) "Ah well, that just explains it ALL, doesn't it?"

What is 1)? That's what this is all about.


--> "if it holds true anywhere, it would appear to hold true here."

Here? Where is here, though? In the ~Univ~? In the multiverse? On h2g2? On Earth?
I wonder...


*CREAK!*


The titanium beam is getting stressed, I hear.

I get the impression that this extra axiom is a saying, or catchphrase that people often say. And because of that, my mind has gone blank to all popular sayings and catchphrases!

How about
"It's done now, isn't it?"

No. That might be a good response to "How did the ~Univ~ get here?" but it cannot be a question of any ulti mat nature...

So...

- How much did you buy that ~Univ~ for, God? I hear they're selling them for a mere 10 nowadays.

[AWKWARD GODLY SILENCE]


Doesn't explain much.


- "They say all Gods give up on creating Utopia on their 41st attempt. Which attempt is this, God?"


Perhaps it's to do with the opposite of God...

- On a scale of 1 to (8*3)+18, how bored was Satan?


Perhaps (8*3)+18 is not the way it should have been expressed...

(8*3)+18 DEC = 2A HEX = 52 OCT = 101010 BIN

(8*3)+18 HEX = 66 DEC = 102 OCT = 1000010 BIN

(8*3)+18 OCT = 34 DEC = 22 HEX = 100010 BIN



- God, what's the first number that comes into your head?

[God probably wouldn't have a head]

Could God be an insomniac or sleepwalker perhaps?



And? Now what?
Where do I go from here?

The answers to the preceeding three questions, are, of course 2A, 52 and 101010 respectively.



TO BE CONTINUED.
So, again, PLEASE DON'T TELL YET!

42 minutes later...

~ Codification... ~

1. To be 'Ult', it must not be limited to any specific aspect of L the U and E. It must answer '~Everyt~' in the largest sense.

[U] means that it is not specific.


2. To cover L, it must answer all the tedious daily questions such as 'does it really matter if I get up in the morning' as well as the verities, causes, results, and problems with and resulting from life.

[D?] means it passes the 'does it really matter if I get up in the morning?' test.
[L] means it answers all tedious L-related questions.


3. To explain the Univ, the question must be far-ranging enough to explain any phenomenon that can be described. It must include the existence or non-existence of a god or gods; but it cannot be religion, world, position, or species exclusive and must be applicable anywhere and anywhen in space-time.

[G?] means that it passes the 'is there a god?' test.
[NS] means that it is definitely non-specific.
[AP] means that it is applicable anywhere in spacetime (i.e. all-pervasive).

4. To cover '~Everyt~', it must be a question that, when answered, makes one say 'Ah well then, that just explains it all, doesn't it.'

[Ah] means that it passes this test.


5. Oh, and the question must be answerable by the required: '4tytwo'.

[FT] means that it passes this test.



- On a scale of 1 to (14*3), how bored was God?

[U] - No. It's specific to God's personality.
[D?] - Yes. There's no reason to get up in the morning because you live in a univ that was made without a purpose.
[L] - Probably, yes. As above.
[G?] - Yes.
[NS] - No.
[AP] - Yes.
[Ah] - Yes.
[FT] - Yes.


- On a scale of (8*5)+2 to 1000000, how pleased is God with His Creation?

[U] - No. It's specific to God's personality.
[D?] - Yes. There's no reason to get up in the morning because you live in a univ that is unloved.
[L] - Probably, yes. As above.
[G?] - Yes.
[NS] - No.
[AP] - Yes.
[Ah] - Yes.
[FT] - Yes.


- Excuse me, can you tell me the number of the house I should deliver this Uni verse to?

[U] - No. It's not really to do with Every Thing.
[D?] - No.
[L] - No.
[G?] - No.
[NS] - No.
[AP] - No.
[Ah] - No.
[FT] - Yes.


- How many gods does it take to change a light bulb?

[U] - No. It's specific to gods.
[D?] - No.
[L] - No.
[G?] - Yes.
[NS] - No.
[AP] - No.
[Ah] - No.
[FT] - Yes.


- How many gods does it take to create a univ- er-se?

[U] - No. It's specific to gods.
[D?] - No.
[L] - No.
[G?] - Yes.
[NS] - No.
[AP] - No.
[Ah] - No.
[FT] - Yes.


- Are you there, God? If you can hear us, say 'Four Tea Too'.

[U] - Yes.
[D?] - No.
[L] - No.
[G?] - Yes.
[NS] - No.
[AP] - Yes.
[Ah] - Yes, maybe.
[FT] - Yes.


- Have you had any other complaints, God?

[U] - No.
[D?] - Perhaps.
[L] - Perhaps.
[G?] - Yes.
[NS] - Yes.
[AP] - Yes.
[Ah] - Yes, maybe.
[FT] - Yes.


- If n=4 and o=2, does anything matter?

[U] - Yes.
[D?] - Yes.
[L] - Yes.
[G?] - No.
[NS] - Yes.
[AP] - Yes.
[Ah] - Yes.
[FT] - Yes.


- Which page of the manual should I refer to for my question?

[U] - No.
[D?] - No.
[L] - No (unless you do look on the page after the 41st).
[G?] - No.
[NS] - Yes.
[AP] - Yes.
[Ah] - Not really.
[FT] - Yes.


- I have heard that you are very bad at mathematics, God; tell me, what is 6 times 9?

[U] - No.
[D?] - Yes; it doesn't matter if you live in a world made with faulty maths.
[L] - No.
[G?] - Yes.
[NS] - No.
[AP] - Yes.
[Ah] - Yes-ish.
[FT] - Strictly speaking, no.


- Hello; welcome to God's Technical Support Helpline. Could you tell us the product number of the Uni verse you're inhabiting please?

[U] - No.
[D?] - No.
[L] - No.
[G?] - Yes.
[NS] - No.
[AP] - No.
[Ah] - No.
[FT] - Yes.


- Paul, we've been waiting to get into Heaven for ages; how many are there in front of us in the queue?

[U] - No.
[D?] - No.
[L] - No.
[G?] - Yes.
[NS] - No.
[AP] - No.
[Ah] - No.
[FT] - Yes.


- When somebody went to complain to God as the Highest Authority, how much compensation did He give?

[U] - No.
[D?] - No.
[L] - No.
[G?] - Yes.
[NS] - No.
[AP] - No.
[Ah] - No.
[FT] - Yes.


- If n=4 and o=2, can God be trusted to do anything right?

[U] - Yes.
[D?] - Yes-ish.
[L] - Yes-ish.
[G?] - Yes.
[NS] - Yes.
[AP] - Yes.
[Ah] - Yes.
[FT] - Yes.


Mary: Whatever you do, God, don't play with fire.
God: Yes, Mother.
Mary: And if anything happens, you know the number of the Celestial Fire Brigade?
God: Yes, Mother.
Mary: What is it, then?
God: 4 . 2.

[U] - No.
[D?] - No.
[L] - No.
[G?] - Yes.
[NS] - No.
[AP] - No.
[Ah] - No.
[FT] - Yes.


- How many matches did God have to light to start the Big Bang?

[U] - No.
[D?] - No.
[L] - No.
[G?] - Yes.
[NS] - No.
[AP] - Yes.
[Ah] - No.
[FT] - Yes.


- How much did you buy that ~Univ~ for, God? I hear they're selling them for a mere 10 nowadays.

[AWKWARD GODLY SILENCE]

[U] - No.
[D?] - No.
[L] - No.
[G?] - Yes.
[NS] - No.
[AP] - No.
[Ah] - Maybe.
[FT] - Yes.


- "They say all Gods give up on creating Utopia on their 41st attempt. Which attempt is this, God?"

[U] - Yes.
[D?] - Implicated.
[L] - Yes-ish.
[G?] - Yes.
[NS] - Yes.
[AP] - Yes.
[Ah] - Yes-ish.
[FT] - Yes.


- On a scale of 1 to (8*3)+18, how bored was Satan?

[U] - No. It's specific to Satan's personality.
[D?] - Yes. There's no reason to get up in the morning because you live in a univ that was made without a purpose.
[L] - Probably, yes. As above.
[G?] - Yes.
[NS] - No.
[AP] - Yes.
[Ah] - Yes.
[FT] - Yes.



- If n=4 and o=2, can God be trusted to do anything right?

is more or less the best on account of the requirements...



Here's an interesting thing that popped into my head:

"The tin of L, U and E does exactly what it says on the tin. It says:

'Contains one infinitely dense and infinitely hot singularity of matter. Creates 1 Univ. Just add God.'"

I don't know what relevance that has.

So. Back to first principles.

The Q is simple.
The A is 21*2.
It could also be other values, but 21*2 is a conceivable if not verifiable answer; nevertheless, 21*2 makes sense in answer to the UQ.
It's funny.
It could be fairly controversial (I get this impression).



************** Your attention here please! ***************

I have a question for you, FordsTowel...

In this Mensa test, was the question you put at the end the one that you gave me (i.e. "Given these requirements, what is the UQ?") or was it the UQ itself?

If the latter, then the UQ must at first glance be somewhat unrelated to the UA, and to L or U; and it must therefore take at least a Mensa member to work out the connection, and that 14*3 is one answer to it...

Hmmmm...

I'm going to kick myself if I don't get it.


4





2

Have you seen this? A1083836.

...

HooooBoy, BB! I hardly know where to start!? [roflmao]

*--> "you are following the advice of a 10-year-old you"

----> No, no, no, no, no, no, no. "There is no God" is not advice. If a teacher told me when I was 10 that the capital of New Zealand is Wellington then that fact does not become less respectable as time goes on just because it is a concept taught at 10 years old (I'm not saying that's when I learnt that fact, of course; it's just an example).

Understood; in fact, this is why I said that this would not be my stance. I know that you must regularly reexamine your givens to relate them to new information.

*--> "Wouldn't it just be a hoot though, to find at the end of it all that someone just keeps adding more layers as we uncover them?"

----> A hoot? Yes. It would be quite hilarious. But highly improbable. Physicists will always stick to things that are measurable, observable or otherwise indirectly apparent.

I agree that it is improbable, with or without a god; but I'm not sure why it should be highly improbable, just definitely unprovable. It certainly wouldn't interfere with the 'measurable, observable or otherwise indirectly apparent'.

*--> "Drum rolls thunder through the beam, creating a dangerous sympathetic vibration in all cosmic strings. Tympanis rise in volume and pitch. The kettle drums start up, but then just give up and go out for tea."

----> I'm going to re-inforce the beam with steel girders now, and then I shall galvanise it and carpet it for added protection.

I'm adding high tensile support lines to keep it from swaying. It may be time to bring up the shields to reinforce its integrity as well.


*--> "I particularly liked the four-tea-two concept, which (although generating the correct response) does not really qualify as an ultimate questions whose answer can help us in our day-to-day lives."

----> I'd like to question you further in why you like that one in particular, since all of them generate the 'correct response'. The fifth requirement is the easiest to follow, after all.

I liked it because it does not express the answer in numerical form alone. The interposition of the tea was precious.
And, yes, the fifth one is the easiest to follow.

----> The obvious postulate missing from these five is...
----> 6. To be a 'question' it must have a question mark and be interrogative in nature. biggrin

Well, yeeeesss; it is a requirement; but not so much a requirement for a u-q as much as to qualify as a q.

----> It all seems to boil down to:
----> "Why is the world the way it is?"

Thinking a bit too small here, BB. It all boils down to 'Why is everything in the known, unknown, and unknowable universe the way it is?'


----> But it must be something hilarious.

See there now, you've gone and got me nervous and worried! What if the result that I find so hilarious turns out to be something less than mildy amusing to you?? Probably best not to make these assumptions.

Things like coded answers, and protracted questions, make for a non-simple question and/or a complex meaning to the answer. It all must be simple, per Deep Thought's originally programmed assumptions.

----> I get the impression that this extra axiom is a saying, or catchphrase that people often say. And because of that, my mind has gone blank to all popular sayings and catchphrases!

The axiom has been expressed in several forms, but none of them is particularly common in day-to-day conversation;known, certainly, but not regularly and repeatedly in our conversations.


----> TO BE CONTINUED.
----> So, again, PLEASE DON'T TELL YET!

As you wish.

I do like the code structure for keeping track of the Q&A truth table! Quite ingenious, but what a lot of work. I think you're getting a bit overcomplicated.

Remember the words of Marvin, as he stood in the H2G2 building hallway, facing down a Frogstar Battle-Droid, trying to buy Zaphod and Rooster time to escape the attack by the Frogstar fighters! [paraphrased here]
'You're going about it all wrong. You're ignoring something very basic in the relationship between humans and robots.'

----> Here's an interesting thing that popped into my head:
----> "The tin of L, U and E does exactly what it says on the tin. It says:
----> 'Contains one infinitely dense and infinitely hot singularity of matter. Creates 1 Univ. Just add God.'"
----> I don't know what relevance that has.

I don't either, but I love it. Have I read that in a tract somewhere?

----> So. Back to first principles.
The Q is simple.
The A is 21*2.
It could also be other values, but 21*2 is a conceivable if not verifiable answer; nevertheless, 21*2 makes sense in answer to the UQ.
It's funny.
It could be fairly controversial (I get this impression).

Yes and Yes to all.

----> I have a question for you, FordsTowel...
----> In this Mensa test, was the question you put at the end the one that you gave me (i.e. "Given these requirements, what is the UQ?") or was it the UQ itself?
----> If the latter, then the UQ must at first glance be somewhat unrelated to the UA, and to L or U; and it must therefore take at least a Mensa member to work out the connection, and that 14*3 is one answer to it...
----> Hmmmm...
----> I'm going to kick myself if I don't get it.

In the Mensa test, I proposed that they supply the question, given DnA's proposed limitations and answer.

They had to go through everything that you have; but I don't remember anyone getting it precisely right.
[A winner was announced anyway, just for being close enough.]
Yes, you will.

This reminds me of another story (big suprised eyes everywhere going 'boing'):

I once saw the world's leading card manipulator doing his tricks on the telly. They swore that there would be no camera trickery, so I assumed they were truthful. Most of them were variations on tricks I knew. The ones that always get me are the simple ones.

He did one trick, so astounding, and so in violation of the laws of physics, that it took me six months to figure out; and I spent the next six weeks kicking myself for not figuring it out in six minutes!

It's the simple one's that'll getcha.

----> Have you seen this? A1083836.

No, I hadn't! This is the kind of thing you can drop at a party and get a half-dozen "Hmm, yeah. I coulda told you that's".

Thanks for the fun! Good luck!! I'll be back.

"Thinking a bit too small here, BB. It all boils down to 'Why is everything in the known, unknown, and unknowable universe the way it is?'"

That's what I meant by 'world'. I meant 'everything'. The entire worldly existence of it all - the Universe and beyond.


--> "Have I read that in a tract somewhere?"

I probably read it in a tract somewhere too.


It has just struck me that this Debate seems to have gone on for a long time and that we have got through so much stuff - from parallel universes, to Quantum Mechanics, to the existence or non-existence of God, to the UQ itself! - yet we are only on post 19: not enough to fill a page yet. Incredible.



The trouble here is that I can't seem to agree with myself on a procedure for calculating the answer... or rather, the question, and I seem to be getting more answers... or rather, questions, from mere guesswork. As you say, all of the complexities could be quite irrelevant given the simplicity of the final UQ.



- By how much did God overdose on LSD before creating the Universe?

That explains a lot, doesn't it?


- How many sheep did God count whilst creating the Universe?

(i.e. he was fast asleep)


- On which TV channel is this all being broadcast?

(explains everything by showing that it is all scripted).


And what did you think of
- "They say gods give up on creating Utopia on their 41st attempt; which attempt is then, God?"
?


You see, I can envisage the existence of this question. I can envisage its simplicity and its ability to explain everything with a four and a two. But I am simply finding it somewhat tricky (to say the least) to work out what it is. Would you advise that I start by trying to figure it out the 'extra axiom' first? Because at the moment, I find that that extra requirement is slowing me down...


Controversial concept...

You see, I don't even know whether it has anything to do with God or gods at all... Perhaps I should try some without Divine Intervention...

BB, I applaud your bravery in the attempt, successful or not.

1)You are trying to divine a UQ based on my perspective, whereas I simply needed to find 'a' question that gave an adequately amusing answer and complied with the 5 requirements.

[Remember that this thread is a continuation of a conversation on a previously involved thread. It's not as short as all that.]

2)- By how much did God overdose on LSD before creating the Universe?
That explains a lot, doesn't it?

It would, except that it would hard for a creator-being to become physical in a universe that had LSD before he had created it (the universe, not LSD). Not impossible, mind you. For such a being, time would be the 'two-way street', referred to in my entry on Time.

3) Sheep and channels, same basic problem. They suppose a universe that did not yet exist. Roger Penrose would blanch.

4) And what did you think of
- "They say gods give up on creating Utopia on their 41st attempt; which attempt is then, God?"

I like it as a question; but, even if the answer were 42, it wouldn't tell us why things are the way they are. It would simply imply the relative difficulty involved in getting it right (and that's assuming that this is a 'Utopia'.

----------------
In the epiphany that gave me the question, I cannot say whether the axiom led me to the question, or immediately suggested itself as a sort of corroborative, and possibly anthropomorphic, rationalization for believing I'd found it.

If you like (and only if you ask), I would be glad to suggest just a noun, associated with one, old-time, version of the axiom, and let you see if you can work it out from that. There is a corporate-type equivalent that may also suffice, and I could give you the associated noun for that one.

-------------------
Meanwhile, tell me how CQG fits in with your QM proposals. Is there yet a quantum gravity theory that works with your view of the universe?

One of my problems with QM has always been its reliance on the irrational concept SQRT(-1). What if that is only an approximation, and it is rightly the SQRT(-2), SQRT(-3), SQRT(1), or SQRT(-1.136)?

Would it then, perhaps, fit better with relativity?? Or, could it's apparent fitness be an illusion that is coincidental with the ability to describe the universe?

How do crystals with 5-fold symmetry fit into QM?