Atheism

Originally posted by Mindship
"If we attempt to describe the behavior of a single electron when fired at a thin screen of metal containing two minute holes, we should be constrained to infer that the particle passed through the screen in two places at once--a feat which has never yet (as far as I am aware) been performed by the ghosts of either folklore or psychical research"
-- Sir Cyril Burt

And yet, quantum mechanics has proven to be the most powerful scientific theory ever developed and is responsible for the plethora of electronic and computer devices in our daily lives.

Now that's an eigenstate for ya.

That just goes to show that nature is stranger then fiction. 😎

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Shouldn't atheists not believe in quantum mechanics? If you want to see supernatural in the real word, check out an electron that is in more then one at the same time.

You can't have supernatural things in the real world, sort of by definition.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You can't have supernatural things in the real world, sort of by definition.

The things that sub-atomic partials do fit well under the definition of supernatural. Perhaps the problem can be answered by defining what supernatural means.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The things that sub-atomic partials do fit well under the definition of supernatural. Perhaps the problem can be answered by defining what supernatural means.

Is there any definition of supernatural that allows things that are well understood by science?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Is there any definition of supernatural that allows things that are well understood by science?

That seems backward to me. Shouldn't it be: Is there any definition of well understood science that allows supernatural things? I think quantum mechanics would be the answer.

But to try and answer the question: supernatural would be something transcendent. Entanglement comes to mind, because it seems to violate the speed of light.

There is nothing above nature, so no supernatural. Correct me if I'm wrong, but electrons are not actually at two places at the same time, we are just working our epistemic limitations into the theories so we can work with what limited data we can extract from the natural world.

Originally posted by 753
There is nothing above nature, so no supernatural. Correct me if I'm wrong, but electrons are not actually at two places at the same time, we are just working our epistemic limitations into the theories so we can work with what limited data we can extract from the natural world.

No, you are wrong. Please read up on quantum mechanics. Also, above is a literal translation of super, but supernatural is transcendent. In other words, it brakes the rules.

Quantum mechanics is non-intuitive, and brakes the rule (Newtonian rules). It is not a matter of us not understanding or interpreting wrong. This non-intuitive quantum mechanics is right every time.

Originally posted by inimalist
even that "concentration" is necessary for psi

imho, that seems to represent us taking a "visions-eye-view" on what psychic experiences would be like, rather than a real psychic experience.

Sort of like how people, even if they know why, are still amazed by the fact that a feather falls the same speed as a rock in a vaccum, because they can't take a "gravity's-eye-view", but rather assume the fall velocity in relation to how hard it is to life something.

I know that sounds weird, I'll do it better justice at some point...

I've never had anything I'd call an unequivocal psychic experience (though I've had many suspiciously coincidental ones), so I can't say I know what it's like to be psychic. However, psychics have generally described it as somatic-emotional, often visual in the mind's eye.

Much of the human "stream of consciousness" is like this, including other altered states (eg, dreaming). It would make sense that "psychic experience" would be like this (or whatever state they're putting themselves into).

Also, at some point, concentration becomes less a "holding onto" and more a letting go.

I'm not sure if this really addresses what you were saying.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, you are wrong. Please read up on quantum mechanics. Also, above is a literal translation of super, but supernatural is transcendent. In other words, it brakes the rules.

Quantum mechanics is non-intuitive, and brakes the rule (Newtonian rules). It is not a matter of us not understanding or interpreting wrong. This non-intuitive quantum mechanics is right every time.

No. We cannot pinpoint the exact position of an electron, we can only reach a probabilty amplitude that says how likely we are to find an electron in a certain volume in space. This does not mean the electron is at two places at the same time. The fact that an electron, like all particles, can behave as a wave doesn't mean it is in two distinct locations at the same time either, it can simply pass through two slits at the same time as a wave would, provided their size and separation allows it. We're working our epistemic limitations into our description of the world using probaility instead of linear prediction.

You mean non-intuitive for you and as non-intuitive as it might be, this does not entail transcendence at all.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please read up on quantum mechanics.

[sic]

Originally posted by 753
No. We cannot pinpoint the exact position of an electron, we can only reach a probabilty amplitude that says how likely we are to find an electron in a certain volume in space. This does not mean the electron is at two places at the same time. The fact that an electron, like all particles, can behave as a wave doesn't mean it is in two distinct locations at the same time either, it can simply pass through two slits at the same time as a wave would, provided their size and separation allows it. We're working our epistemic limitations into our description of the world using probaility instead of linear prediction.

You mean non-intuitive for you and as non-intuitive as it might be, this does not entail transcendence at all.

But when we pinpoint the exact position of an electron, we can not know anything about its momentum. That would be like knowing were a car is, but not knowing if it was moving, or how it was moving. This is not because we do not have the technology to see the electron better, it is because observation of the electron changes the momentum of the electron. Observation of the partial collapses the waveform. This idea of the observer is the transcendence aspect of quantum mechanics.

Originally posted by inimalist
[sic]

Lets get back to the topic.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Lets get back to the topic.

oh, right, so I should just unquestioningly accept your qualifications to describe the nature of QM, a subject noted for being only pretty much impossible to describe.

"If you think you know Quantum physics" and all that.

Originally posted by inimalist
"If you think you know Quantum physics" and all that.

Lol, quantum physics, the ultimate Dunning Kruger!

Originally posted by Bardock42
Lol, quantum physics, the ultimate Dunning Kruger!

lol

are you aware of the sort of "opposite" effect seen in depressed people?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, you are wrong. Please read up on quantum mechanics. Also, above is a literal translation of super, but supernatural is transcendent. In other words, it brakes the rules.

Quantum mechanics is non-intuitive, and brakes the rule (Newtonian rules). It is not a matter of us not understanding or interpreting wrong. This non-intuitive quantum mechanics is right every time.

Obsolete theories =/= scientific limits of what is natural.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

are you aware of the sort of "opposite" effect seen in depressed people?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism

That's interesting. It sounds somewhat intuitive upon thinking about it (though I believe that too is a well know psychological phenomenon 😛)

Does intelligence factor into perception of reality at all to your knowledge?

Originally posted by inimalist
oh, right, so I should just unquestioningly accept your qualifications to describe the nature of QM, a subject noted for being only pretty much impossible to describe.

Is this a question? If so, the answer would be no, but then you would have to describe it for me. After all, you wouldn’t expect me to unquestioningly accept your qualifications to describe Quantum Mechanics, now would you? That is way I took this side of the debate.

Originally posted by inimalist
"If you think you know Quantum physics" and all that.

If you want to start a thread about it, that would be fun to debate.

Originally posted by King Kandy
It doesn't break any rules. The Newtonian Mechanics were already shown false by relativity theory. that's like saying that relativity is supernatural because it breaks the "rules" of aether.

Obsolete theories =/= scientific limits of what is natural.

Ya, ya whatever, I don’t believe in the supernatural or transcendent nature in the first place. I was joking with Mindset, and I was just exploring that side of the debate. It’s a fun side of the debate, but I really don’t want to debate you. You are no fun sometimes.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's interesting. It sounds somewhat intuitive upon thinking about it (though I believe that too is a well know psychological phenomenon 😛)

it is... can't think of the name, but it is total social psych

Originally posted by Bardock42
Does intelligence factor into perception of reality at all to your knowledge?

both intelligence and this type of "percieving reality" (as opposed to sensory perception) are well outside of my field.

iirc, there is a connection between intelligence and depression, so there might be a reason to think that correlation would, statistically, mean that intelligent people are more in tune...

however, the way "intelligence" is measured generally deals with one's ability to apply what would be self evident solutions to problems (Mark lives in a green house, there are six houses, the last 2 aren't green... etc) and not with knowing, in an absolute sense, what motivates you or how good you would be at something. It is entirely possible that "intelligence" would reinforce these false perceptions, because you may be better able to rationalize your inflated opinions of yourself.

the fundamental attribution error is probably related in this way, but again, my field is not intelligence, so I can't say for sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is this a question? If so, the answer would be no, but then you would have to describe it for me. After all, you wouldn’t expect me to unquestioningly accept your qualifications to describe Quantum Mechanics, now would you? That is way I took this side of the debate.

no, and you probably shouldn't, I'm not a physicist, hence why I don't make absolute statements about how something, that I don't understand, works.

I would certainly never tell someone to "Go read up" on it, because that would insinuate that there is very little left for me, personally, to know. It very much assumes that there is a single answer, already known and demonstrably obvious, something not true with QM, and something exceptionally untrue with many of the interpretations you have presented.