Not Darwin's Law, it's God's Law.

[Hollie]

That's a species evolving... It's a lot of tiny steps that over a long period of time add up. Now you know.

so you believe we are turning into something other than the species homo sapien?.....

Homo Sapien 2.0

so the obese couch potato who sells his vote for an Obamaphone would be Homo Sapien 3.0?........

You're starting to understand evolution. Keep it up!

Taz and Hollie, get this through your thick skulls: you're dealing with intellects that are vastly superior to yours, persons who do understand evolutionary theory, albeit, persons who are more impressed by the findings of the hard, mathematic sciences than they are with the regnant, more metaphysically driven theory of evolution in biology. The core of our conviction is that of the absolutist banking on the apriority of logical and mathematical certainty ultimately premised on the absolute certainty of divine consciousness. Folks like myself who reject the construct of an evolutionary common ancestry do not do so because they lack an accurate or competent understanding of evolutionary theory. On the contrary, we reject it due to a highly developed understanding of it in the face of profound metaphysical and mathematic problems that the theory does not and cannot account for, problems that the likes of you clearly do not grasp at all.

You give yourself too much credit, dear. You are neither intellectual nor perceptive.

You're really just an angry, self-loathing religious zealot who is little more than the stereotypical fundamentalist loon.

Really, fundie man, leave the science to people, like me, who have studied the data, taken the schooling and reviewed the facts. Your silly religious myths are an impediment to progress.

 

[Boss]

Hey, in the spirit of the OP, if you REALLY want to delve into something that suggests God at work, look no further than the science of quantum physics and the subatomic universe. In quantum mechanics there is this phenomenon called "entangled particles" or "quantum entanglement." Einstein calls this "spooky action at a distance." Any subatomic particle can be connected to another identical particle billions of light years apart. Measuring and observing the parameters of one particle will dictate the properties of the other particle instantly. This means information is traveling billions of light years instantaneously, faster than the speed of light. Nothing has explained this in science and nothing logically can, it's beyond our comprehension, yet we know that it is happening.

The uncertainty principle of Werner Heisenberg is another mysterious phenomenon. As we've tried to pinpoint and measure certain fundamental elements of nature, we've learned that nature will not allow us to do so because nature doesn't know. This means we can never be certain of anything absolutely. Electrons and subatomic particles can be in two places at the same time or not exist at all and we can never accurately predict where they will be.

The infamous "double-slit experiment" is over 100 years old and remains perplexing to modern science. We can shoot photons through a barrier with two holes or slits, the particles will form a pattern on the backdrop behind the barrier in relation to the two holes... when we're observing them! If we don't watch them, the photons act as waves and form an interference pattern on the backdrop. The act of observing the photons seems to determine how they behave, but it gets even more bizarre. If we try to measure without observing, the photons seem to go back in time and change.

In basic physics, if we throw a baseball against a brick wall, it bounces off the wall because it doesn't have enough energy to penetrate the wall. BUT... in the quantum subatomic universe, a particle can pass through a barrier even without the apparent energy to do so. It's as if the particle "borrows" energy from the future to appear on the other side. Spooky action indeed!

Finally, there is this thing called "dark matter" which interestingly makes up the vast majority of our universe. We can't see it or explain it, we just know it is there because it seemingly has gravitational properties. This dark matter is what is believed to hold our physical universe together, but again... we don't know. Is it a particle we've yet to discover? Is it something in another dimension we can't comprehend?

Well, you know what I think about your notion that (1) phenomena at the subatomic level cannot be logically explained or that (2) we can never be certain of anything absolutely.

That's the imposition of your metaphysics. The Relational, Copenhagen and Many-worlds interpretations, for example, reject your metaphysics regarding logic and uncertainty altogether.

Neither one of your conclusions necessarily follow, especially the latter, for it is inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, positively proves the opposite must be true. Indeed, we are compelled to explain subatomic phenomena via the universal laws of thought mathematically, and today we know that the so-called uncertainty principle is actually an inherent characteristic of wave-like systems, a basic property of quantum phenomena interacting with the technology used to detect or observe. Also, the mathematical calculi of the probability wave permits us to accurately predict the results in certain experiments. Back to the double-slit, for example, the problem is attempting to detect the position of subatomic particles/waves between the space-time of the emitter and the screen at any given point.

On the other hand, I agree with what you’re ultimately getting at with regard to the ramifications of infinite probability and divinity, But don’t expect the likes of Hollie or Taz to follow as they're be thinking the pseudoscientific blather of amateurish materialists, namely, the God in the gaps fallacy, which has nothing to do with what we're alluding to.

Sorry Rawlings, but you've not logically explained something until... well, you've logically explained it. Can you logically explain how entangled particles instantaneously exchange information across billions of light years?

We simply cannot explain many subatomic phenomena because it often seems to defy logic, or our perception of logic as we know it. This is precisely what prompted the creation of quantum mechanics and quantum theory. We still remain baffled by what we find at the subatomic level.

With the double slit experiment, there is no problem observing or measuring the particles. When we observe, the photons behave as particles. When we don't observe, they behave as waves. There is something about the act of observing which changes a particle's properties at the subatomic level. Scientists are not sure why and they've pondered this over 100 years.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Sorry Rawlings, but you've not logically explained something until... well, you've logically explained it. Can you logically explain how entangled particles instantaneously exchange information across billions of light years?

We simply cannot explain many subatomic phenomena because it often seems to defy logic, or our perception of logic as we know it. This is precisely what prompted the creation of quantum mechanics and quantum theory. We still remain baffled by what we find at the subatomic level.

With the double slit experiment, there is no problem observing or measuring the particles. When we observe, the photons behave as particles. When we don't observe, they behave as waves. There is something about the act of observing which changes a particle's properties at the subatomic level. Scientists are not sure why and they've pondered this over 100 years.

As for the emboldened portion of your post, you're talking to me as if I'm unaware of the observation-measurement problem regarding the behavioral characteristics of phenomena at the subatomic level or, for that matter, at the near-atomic level.

As for logic . . . nonsense! We've been over this again and again. You are either incapable of understanding, refuse to understand or pretend not to understand. Which is it?

Case in point.

You write: "Can you logically explain how entangled particles instantaneously exchange information across billions of light years?"

That's the wrong question, a question that is essentially meaningless. Your question demonstrates that you don't really grasp the essence of the problem. Here's a better question: can or does the universe exist without a conscious observer?

For those who may be thinking I've lost my mind: Does the Universe Exist if We re Not Looking DiscoverMagazine.com

We don't assume that the characteristics of subatomic phenomena are logic-defying. The essence of logic, comprehensively, is the principle of identity. The essence of logic is not informational, but organizational. Logic is applied to information.

Logic ≠ explication.

Information ≠ explication.

Information + Logic = explication.

Logic entails the orderly organization of information/material. Logic entails the operations of identification and differentiation. You keep equating deficiencies in information or, in this case, the interaction of actual and experimental states of being, with breakdowns in logic.

It's the operation of logic that alerts us to the instances in which we lack information and/or the effects of experimental phenomena on the characteristics of the discrete phenomena being observed/measured in the first place. It's also the operation of logic that alters us to the distinction between metaphysical apriorities and potential actualities of probability.

You're saying that logic is informational, the process of explication; therefore, logic breaks down. You might as well say that logic is a cat, an animal that meows; therefore, logic barks.

The problem is not with logic. The imperatives of logic are universal, absolute, immutable, reliable. Ultimately, consciousness is the only thing that is real in any sense that matters. Finite consciousness will simply always be behind the eight ball, plagued by the problems of insufficient information/data and the limitations of technology relative to experimentation. But ultimately according to quantum mechanics the problem is not so much a lack of knowledge as much as it's an uncertainty of knowledge given the fact that the infinite probabilities of the universe, both past and present, become realities at the moment of a material interaction or in an instance of observation/measurement by a consciousness. Notwithstanding, the absolutes of propositional and mathematical logic can reach beyond these problems, as the intuitions they generate serve to push the accumulation of information and subsequent experimentation in the right direction.

Indeed, the imperatives of quantum physics illustrate the stupidity of imagining that the methodology of science proceeds or has primacy over the indispensable agency of logic or the philosophy of science. The particle-wave characteristics of subatomic phenomena and the effects of experimental measurement/observation are unambiguously a fundamental aspect of nature. But the interpretation of these things is ambiguous, albeit, directed by the absolute imperatives of logic. The best that we can do with quantum mechanics is assert the probabilities of subatomic, microscopic systems in terms of their various characteristics at any given moment.

The uncertainty in the thought experiment of Schrödinger’s Cat, for example, utterly refutes your ridiculous metaphysics. The uncertainty has nothing do to with logic, but information: the cat is either alive or dead before the box is opened (measurement/observation), and it is either alive or dead after the box is opened. It is never both dead and alive at the same time, as that is not logically possible.

How you fail to recognize, given the ramifications of quantum physics, the contradiction between the fact that consciousness necessarily has primacy over the properties and processes of empirical phenomena, which you appreciate, and defaulting to the subjective irrationalism of imagining that human consciousness has primacy in terms of experimental verification is beyond me. Why would a theist confound the distinction between agency and methodology, the distinction between the immutable aspects and the mutable aspects of human cognition, the distinction between logic and information? Why would a theist assert something that undermines the primacy of divine consciousness over finite consciousness?

On the other hand, there's only a small handful of thinkers on this forum who can follow what I'm getting at.

 

[hazlnut]

As a conservative who has a love for science, it is a continual source of embarrassment the way that my fellow conservatives act with regards to evolution. We all know that the true idiots are on the left, and this one thing that we fight about drags us down.

My fellow conservatives, why is it so hard to accept that Evolution is how God created living things? What makes anyone think that evolution is an affront to God?

Charles Darwin discovered how God works woth respect to the living world. If you took the time to really look at the miracle of evolution, you would find God's hand there.

The evidence of evolution is there, there is no evidence for Creationism as it is currently defined. In my mind, evolution is how God created all living things. Evolution IS creation.

Great post.

Darwin was a very spiritual man. His writings questioned things like slaver and man's inhumanity toward man in the name of religion. He believed God was really beyond our human understanding.

His theories help us better understand how God works--in a way, they tell us more about God than the Hebrew fairy tales (Genesis) in the bible.

 

[PostmodernProph]

dude....what do you have in a hundred years.....two, three generations?....that alone should be enough to clue you in that it isn't evolution that is involved.....its penicillin, child labor laws and improved diet.........

That's a species evolving... It's a lot of tiny steps that over a long period of time add up. Now you know.

so you believe we are turning into something other than the species homo sapien?.....

Homo Sapien 2.0

so the obese couch potato who sells his vote for an Obamaphone would be Homo Sapien 3.0?........

You're starting to understand evolution. Keep it up!

a shame we can't say the same for you....

 

[Boss]

What you are doing Rawlings is intellectual cheating. You are writing "logic" a definition by which it can shape-shift and morph itself into whatever it needs to be in order to confirm our conscious realizations. Therefore, nothing can ever truly "defy logic" by your definition. The problem I have with your definition is, it renders "logic" totally meaningless. Logic merely becomes a place-card for whatever we currently believe is truth. It loses any practical use to human thought. It becomes a "trophy" to be carried around in support of whatever conscious awareness we believe true at the time. Needless to say, we disagree on what "logic" actually means.

 

[Boss]

Case in point.

You write: "Can you logically explain how entangled particles instantaneously exchange information across billions of light years?"

That's the wrong question, a question that is essentially meaningless. Your question demonstrates that you don't really grasp the essence of the problem.

I see nothing wrong with my question other than you failed to answer it. I grasp the essence of you not being able to answer a simple question.

Now... Let me take your personal interpretation of "logic" and answer for you... We can logically explain entangled particles exchanging information across billions of light years instantly, faster than the speed of light, because we observed it happen, therefore it's logical it happened. Wasn't considered "logical" before we were consciously aware of it, but the instant that happened it became logical forever. Doesn't that about sum up your personal view?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Case in point.

You write: "Can you logically explain how entangled particles instantaneously exchange information across billions of light years?"

That's the wrong question, a question that is essentially meaningless. Your question demonstrates that you don't really grasp the essence of the problem.

I see nothing wrong with my question other than you failed to answer it. I grasp the essence of you not being able to answer a simple question.

Now... Let me take your personal interpretation of "logic" and answer for you... We can logically explain entangled particles exchanging information across billions of light years instantly, faster than the speed of light, because we observed it happen, therefore it's logical it happened. Wasn't considered "logical" before we were consciously aware of it, but the instant that happened it became logical forever. Doesn't that about sum up your personal view?

No. Not at all. And this is the very same mistake atheists make all the time. The dichotomy is classical physics-quantum physics, not organic logic-quantum physics. The essence of logic is organizational, not informational. Dude! The operations of logic are identification and differentiation, not explication!

You question is premised on a fallacy.

Logic ≠ Explication. Hello!

Information ≠ Explication. Hello!

Information + Logic = Explication.

What is, is.

What's wrong with you?

Your post is nonresponsive. You simply disregard the fact that your question is premised on a fallacy regarding the nature of logic . . . and ask the question again, essentially demanding that logic be something it is not and do something it does not/cannot do singlehandedly.

It is not cognitive logic or mathematical logic that breaks down. They hold universally, absolutely, immutably, reliably. It's classical physics/causation in terms of our sensory apprehension of things at the Newtonian level that breaks down at the subatomic/near-atomic level.

It's due to the operations of cognitive/mathematical logic of human consciousness coupled with the pertinent data that we have this knowledge. Your asking for an explication of quantum entanglement, the basis of which is nuclear decay, the ejection of sister particles from the same atomic nucleus.

Observing/measuring (i.e., collapsing the wave function) of one instantaneously reverses the spin of the other. Information is transmitted instantly by virtue of their original connection. The law of conservation: spin is a conserved quantity. Observe one, it will randomly take a +1 or -1 spin, and since spin is conserved, the other one will simultaneously take the opposite spin. What is, is! As to the intermediary nuts and bolts in terms of causation, we don't know precisely, as we don't have enough information yet, but the principle of conservation is logically upheld. What we do know from quantum physics is that nature is not merely an expanse of spatial distance, but a space-time continuum. We are working on the "data-gap problem" regarding the medium of causation and/or the medium of information transfer.

 

[Boss]

Lots of words to try and explain why something that isn't logical is actually logical.

By what you are explaining here, you believe Logic = Truth. But the problem I have with that is, we can never absolutely know truth. So if Logic=Truth, it would mean we can never know logic. This would obviously render logic obsolete.

Logic is a man-made parameter of human thought. What is "logical" can change with new information and what was "logical" can be rendered false by information. We can never say the universe as a whole is constrained to any current understanding of logic. You're trying to write Logic a pass and let it simply be defined as "truth" instead. Clever but FAIL!

 

[Boss]

Observing/measuring (i.e., collapsing the wave function) of one instantaneously reverses the spin of the other. Information is transmitted instantly by virtue of their original connection.

Nice, but you're not explaining how it's "logical" this transfer of information can happen instantly across billions of light years.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

What you are doing Rawlings is intellectual cheating. You are writing "logic" a definition by which it can shape-shift and morph itself into whatever it needs to be in order to confirm our conscious realizations. Therefore, nothing can ever truly "defy logic" by your definition. The problem I have with your definition is, it renders "logic" totally meaningless. Logic merely becomes a place-card for whatever we currently believe is truth. It loses any practical use to human thought. It becomes a "trophy" to be carried around in support of whatever conscious awareness we believe true at the time. Needless to say, we disagree on what "logic" actually means.

Boss: "Logic merely becomes a place-card for whatever we currently believe is truth."

As I told you before on the other thread, there's something pathologically wrong with you—intellectually, spiritually and morally. You're the only one here defining logic in terms of information, understanding, belief or truth about empirical phenomena. The latter are always subject to revision. The laws of logic are fixed, absolute, immutable.

Logic is not information! Logic is not knowledge in terms of empirical data! Logic is not belief or truth as such! Logic is not the operation of explication singlehandedly!

The laws of cognitive/mathematical logic are fixed. Logic is the means by which we organize information/data about the empirical world beyond. Our understanding of how things work in nature and, therefore, our knowledge about nature is what changes, not logic.

Who but you is stupidity talking about logic as something that becomes what we currently believe to be true, YOU LUNATIC, when in fact the laws logic have always been and will always be the same?

Precisely what law of logic is being defied/violated by quantum physics and how? Precisely what aspects of quantum physics are defied by the laws of logic?


Classical physics ≠ Organic Logic!

Organic Logic ≠ Classical physics!

Just like Organic Logic ≠ Pre-Copernican Cosmology or Pre-Newtonian Physics!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Lots of words to try and explain why something that isn't logical is actually logical.

By what you are explaining here, you believe Logic = Truth. But the problem I have with that is, we can never absolutely know truth. So if Logic=Truth, it would mean we can never know logic. This would obviously render logic obsolete.

Logic is a man-made parameter of human thought. What is "logical" can change with new information and what was "logical" can be rendered false by information. We can never say the universe as a whole is constrained to any current understanding of logic. You're trying to write Logic a pass and let it simply be defined as "truth" instead. Clever but FAIL!

YOU RETARD.

I DO NOT BELIEVE LOGIC = TRUTH, FOR LOGIC ≠ TRUTH.


Any given proposition is logically true or logically false.

 

[Boss]

Rawlings, you have a really nasty habit of spewing crap that I never said. Then you strut around like Rick Flair calling me names because you refuted arguments I never made.

 

[BreezeWood]

On the other hand, there's only a small handful of thinkers on this forum who can follow what I'm getting at.

.
no worthy thinkers anywhere would abandon themselves for the christian bibles of self Idolatry ....

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Rawlings, you have a really nasty habit of spewing crap that I never said. Then you strut around like Rick Flair calling me names because you refuted arguments I never made.

You're insane.

The fundamental axioms of (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle (comprehensively, the principle of identity) logically hold true. The principle of identity is necessarily justified true belief/knowledge. It holds absolutely and immutably true; it must, therefore, hold true ultimately. There is no argument whatsoever that you can successfully assert to the contrary. Any argument to the contrary will invariably be inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, positively prove the opposite is true, i.e., that the principle of identity is true. The essence of the principle of identity is prescriptive; hence, it's essence is organizational and entails the processes of identification and differentiation as applied to the empirical realm of being beyond our minds. Period!

The principle of identity is the only justified true belief/knowledge that is constant. It's fixed, immutable. It's absolute.

Further knowledge about the empirical world beyond human consciousness is not constant, but tentatively held to be justified true belief/knowledge in terms of scientific theory. The latter is subjective to revision and/or falsification in the light of new information.

Beyond that, the organic logic of human cognition ≠ information, understanding or truth about the properties and processes of empirical phenomena. The organic logic of human cognition ≠ causation in classical physics, and ≠ causation in quantum physics. In other words, the organic logic of human cognition ≠ the properties, processes or the physical laws of nature, and the essence of the physical laws of nature is descriptive.

The only one here who incessantly confounds this distinction here is you, and you clearly think to attribute this stupidity to me when you claim that I hold logic to be "a place-card for whatever we CURRENTLY believe is truth."

Hello!

I hold no such thing! The organic logic of human cognition is not the ever-changing understanding/knowledge about the properties, processes or the physical laws of nature.

Dude!

The organic logic of human cognition is fixed, absolute, constant. That's why logic and, therefore, the philosophy of science necessarily proceed and have primacy over science. If logic were in flux, we wouldn't have any fixed constant against which to apprehend (identify/differentiate) the points at which our knowledge breaks down or is incomplete regarding the empirical realm of being. Ultimately, what your really confounding is our sensory perception of causation above the near-atomic/subatomic level with our intellectual apprehension of causation. The common sense of propositional and mathematical logic are superior and reliable, whilst the "common sense" of our sensory perception is not. Quantum physics affirms the organic logic of human cognition. It does not defy it.

Once again, precisely what laws of logic are defied/violated by quantum physics and how? Conversely, precisely what aspects of quantum physics are defied/violated by the laws of logic and how?

Answer that question, and watch what happens.

Clearly, you have been confounding the prescriptive logic of human cognition with the descriptive properties, processes and physical laws of nature in general, and with causation in classical physics above the near-atomic or subatomic level of empirical being especially.

First, stop doing that and you'll stop confusing yourself and stop asking meaningless questions.

Second, stop doing that and you'll stop, ironically, attributing your stupidity to me.

Check?

 

[Boss]

Rawlings, you have a really nasty habit of spewing crap that I never said. Then you strut around like Rick Flair calling me names because you refuted arguments I never made.

You're insane.

The fundamental axioms of (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle (comprehensively, the principle of identity) logically hold true. The principle of identity is necessarily justified true belief/knowledge. It holds absolutely and immutably true; it must, therefore, hold true ultimately. There is no argument whatsoever that you can successfully assert to the contrary. Any argument to the contrary will invariably be inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, positively prove the opposite is true, i.e., that the principle of identity is true. The essence of the principle of identity is prescriptive; hence, it's essence is organizational and entails the processes of identification and differentiation as applied to the empirical realm of being beyond our minds. Period!

The principle of identity is the only justified true belief/knowledge that is constant. It's fixed, immutable. It's absolute.

Further knowledge about the empirical world beyond human consciousness is not constant, but tentatively held to be justified true belief/knowledge in terms of scientific theory. The latter is subjective to revision and/or falsification in the light of new information.

Beyond that, the organic logic of human cognition ≠ information, understanding or truth about the properties and processes of empirical phenomena. The organic logic of human cognition ≠ causation in classical physics, and ≠ causation in quantum physics. In other words, the organic logic of human cognition ≠ the properties, processes or the physical laws of nature, and the essence of the physical laws of nature is descriptive.

The only one here who incessantly confounds this distinction here is you, and you clearly think to attribute this stupidity to me when you claim that I hold logic to be "a place-card for whatever we CURRENTLY believe is truth."

Hello!

I hold no such thing! The organic logic of human cognition is not the ever-changing understanding/knowledge about the properties, processes or the physical laws of nature.

Dude!

The organic logic of human cognition is fixed, absolute, constant. That's why logic and, therefore, the philosophy of science necessarily proceed and have primacy over science. If logic were in flux, we wouldn't have any fixed constant against which to apprehend (identify/differentiate) the points at which our knowledge breaks down or is incomplete regarding the empirical realm of being. Ultimately, what your really confounding is our sensory perception of causation above the near-atomic/subatomic level with our intellectual apprehension of causation. The common sense of propositional and mathematical logic are superior and reliable, whilst the "common sense" of our sensory perception is not. Quantum physics affirms the organic logic of human cognition. It does not defy it.

Once again, precisely what laws of logic are defied/violated by quantum physics and how? Conversely, precisely what aspects of quantum physics are defied/violated by the laws of logic and how?

Answer that question, and watch what happens.

Clearly, you have been confounding the prescriptive logic of human cognition with the descriptive properties, processes and physical laws of nature in general, and with causation in classical physics above the near-atomic or subatomic level of empirical being especially.

First, stop doing that and you'll stop confusing yourself and stop asking meaningless questions.

Second, stop doing that and you'll stop, ironically, attributing your stupidity to me.

Check?

I'm insane????

Dude... you are reeling off more pages of diatribe than Stephen King on a coke binge, and none of it is about anything I've said. You continue to assume I've said things that I haven't said, and it doesn't seem like you want to listen when I tell you that I haven't argued these points. You just rip off another page of convoluted pontification about shit I haven't talked about and pretending that you are somehow "setting me straight!"

We seem to have a basic communication problem. I don't know how to overcome that and advance a conversation with you. I'm not going to allow you to intellectually cajole me into arguments I haven't made so you can be a literary bully. I'm also not going to change any of the many simple points I've made which you haven't bothered to address.

 

[indiajo]

[

Nice, but you're not explaining how it's "logical" this transfer of information can happen instantly across billions of light years.

Seems to me that you both talk about blue unicorns.
Quantum entanglement is a hypothesis. Not even a theory. We cannot measure it, yet measurments indicate that this is a possibility. Or the other way round, Quantum entanglement is the word, not the explanation for certain occurances.
Now, this does not defy logic. Because we can only use logic to stress knowns, not absolutely unknowns.
It is absolute bullshit to elevate philosophy over science, because only science can deliver the knowledge which then can be stressed by philosophy.

Or, again the other way round, you cannot discuss about the logic of the absolute speed of light if you sit with Aristotele in a Greec tavern and have no idea about sound and valid scientific data or what light is at all.

This is hilarious.

 

[Boss]

[

Nice, but you're not explaining how it's "logical" this transfer of information can happen instantly across billions of light years.

Seems to me that you both talk about blue unicorns.
Quantum entanglement is a hypothesis. Not even a theory. We cannot measure it, yet measurments indicate that this is a possibility. Or the other way round, Quantum entanglement is the word, not the explanation for certain occurances.
Now, this does not defy logic. Because we can only use logic to stress knowns, not absolutely unknowns.
It is absolute bullshit to elevate philosophy over science, because only science can deliver the knowledge which then can be stressed by philosophy.

Or, again the other way round, you cannot discuss about the logic of the absolute speed of light if you sit with Aristotele in a Greec tavern and have no idea about sound and valid scientific data or what light is at all.

This is hilarious.

Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

[

Nice, but you're not explaining how it's "logical" this transfer of information can happen instantly across billions of light years.

Seems to me that you both talk about blue unicorns.
Quantum entanglement is a hypothesis. Not even a theory. We cannot measure it, yet measurments indicate that this is a possibility. Or the other way round, Quantum entanglement is the word, not the explanation for certain occurances.
Now, this does not defy logic. Because we can only use logic to stress knowns, not absolutely unknowns.
It is absolute bullshit to elevate philosophy over science, because only science can deliver the knowledge which then can be stressed by philosophy.

Or, again the other way round, you cannot discuss about the logic of the absolute speed of light if you sit with Aristotele in a Greec tavern and have no idea about sound and valid scientific data or what light is at all.

This is hilarious.

No. What's hilarious is that your understanding of logic is precisely the same as that of Boss, and you're wrong on all points.

First, the non-locality causation of unitary systems predicted by quantum physics has been observed for decades in multi-particle systems; however, previous experiments only demonstrated virtual entanglement. That is no longer the case. Non-locality causation of unitary systems was recently proven beyond all question. Newton and Einstein were wrong, and Einstein's hidden local variables theory, the notion that quantum physics was incomplete, has been falsified. The non-locality of quantum entanglement has been proven: Quantum Entanglement Experiment Proves Non-Locality For First Time Will Permit Multi-Party Quantum Communication PlanetSave.

The issue goes to the distinction between local causality in classical physics above the level of near-atomic or subatomic systems and the non-locality of entanglement in quantum physics.

It is the faculty of logic by which we make this distinction. Logic is prescriptive in nature, i.e., organizational. Beyond the fundamental axioms of logic, beyond the imperatives logic, logic is not justified true belief/knowledge about the empirical world outside human consciousness at all. Hence, in this regard, logic is the process of identifying and differentiating what is--metaphysically and empirically, in that order. Science can only deal with what is empirically.

You don't know what you're talking about, as you're confounding system-building philosophy with the philosophy of science proper. The latter strictly applies to the ontological first principles of metaphysics! It is not informed by science. Logic and the philosophy of science proper are not descriptive in nature, they are prescriptive in nature. They necessarily proceed and have primacy over science.

Further, the axioms of logic are fixed, absolute, universal, immutable. The philosophy of science is semi-fixed, depending on the metaphysical apriority presupposed by the scientist. The options are as follows: (1) methodological naturalism or (2) metaphysical/ontological naturalism.

Period!

You write: "It is absolute bullshit to elevate philosophy over science, because only science can deliver the knowledge which then can be stressed by philosophy."

LOL!

You just philosophized. You're not asserting the primacy of science over logic or the philosophy of science at all. You just told us that you're a metaphysical/ontological naturalist, apparently, a materialist. Yes? No? Maybe?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

[

Nice, but you're not explaining how it's "logical" this transfer of information can happen instantly across billions of light years.

Seems to me that you both talk about blue unicorns.
Quantum entanglement is a hypothesis. Not even a theory. We cannot measure it, yet measurments indicate that this is a possibility. Or the other way round, Quantum entanglement is the word, not the explanation for certain occurances.
Now, this does not defy logic. Because we can only use logic to stress knowns, not absolutely unknowns.
It is absolute bullshit to elevate philosophy over science, because only science can deliver the knowledge which then can be stressed by philosophy.

Or, again the other way round, you cannot discuss about the logic of the absolute speed of light if you sit with Aristotele in a Greec tavern and have no idea about sound and valid scientific data or what light is at all.

This is hilarious.

Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon.

You have that and the theological ramifications thereof right, but why you fail to consistently hold that God would, therefore, necessarily be above and beyond the temporal realm of being is beyond me. God is the universal Principle of Identity. God = God. The prescriptive laws of logic and the descriptive, physical laws of nature are not the same thing! The former is the essence of God; the latter were created by God. The former have primacy over the latter!

You assert the primacy of God and contradictorily undermine the foundation of that primacy. You're trying to assert methodological and metaphysical naturalism at the same time, in effect.

Here’s the real irony: you were trying to attribute an idea to me that I utterly reject as you assert an idea about which you do not grasp the logical ramifications.