you should read the essay Ernest. It's wrrtten by someone with credentials in the field. — Wayfarer

The essay which explicitly says that, in order to pretend that QM has anything to say about proving or disproving materialism, you need to pretend QM is an abnormal theory.

If we are utilizing mathematics, we are dealing with strictly hypothetical objects, which may be (and often are) diagrammatic models of actual phenomena. — aletheist

So, you are claiming that quarks, leptons, and bosons are not point particles. Why? What reason or evidence to you have that the Standard Model is wrong?

That price being, a proliferation of universes. It's a case of a desperate problem calling for a desparate solution, as far as I am concerned. — Wayfarer

That is false. There are no more "worlds" in Many Worlds than already exist in cosmology. And the "worlds" don't proliferate. There is no "price" to pay - MW adds no complexity. Some even think the cosmological multiverse and the quantum multiverse are the same thing.

No, we utilize non-dimensional points (and other mathematical constructions) as strictly hypothetical objects, and recognize that they do not have real existence. — aletheist

Except when we are dealing with quarks, leptons or bosons.

The big bang still makes sense in this scenario. 13.75 billion years might not mean the beginning of everything, but it does still mean the beginning of everything observable. — VagabondSpectre

But those b-modes in the polarization of the CMB, if they are ever observed, will be from before the big-bang.

I think the main philosophical significance of quantum mechanics is that it undermines materialism, as Adam Frank explains. — Wayfarer

Except that he explains that there is an interpretation that doesn't do that.

The condemn extreme is growing of late, hence the impetus for the thread, and given that this far right has already angrily driven compassion out of town, a dispassionate approach might be the only thing that can possibly diffuse i — VagabondSpectre

It's not growing, and that's the problem. Too many apologists with double standards making excuses.

Maybe someone else, not me. I didn't touch on the issue of the arrow of time. I was only considering the intelligibility of the idea of shifting the temporal scale (or all events) four hours in the past (or in the future), in analogy with the idea of a uniform translation of space itself. — Pierre-Normand

If it's a "scale" it just needs renaming.

Well, I was assuming all the micro-physical "events" to be shifted as well, not just the macroscopic ones. Since the entropy of a physical system supervenes on its micro-physical state, then the entropy of all the systems (including local cosmic background radiation) would be shifted back in time by the same amount. — Pierre-Normand

You asked what time could be reversed relative to. Total entropy is one measure.

Anyway, not even God cand wind back something that doesn't exist. All she needs to do to observe the state of the universe that correlates with my clock 4hrs ago, is index the space-time.

Can't you ask essentially the same question about time? Anything that occurs (e.g. the construction of a house) could have occurred four years earlier (or later). But could everything that is occurring (and occurred, and will occur) in the whole universe occur four years earlier? Relative to what event would everything have occurred four years earlier? — Pierre-Normand

The entropy of the visible universe for example.

Right. Leibniz shows the problem of absolute space by imagining the universe is finite and sitting in a void. — Mongrel

Which is not what the universe is like. It's infinite.

That would seem to be the same problem afflicting the idea of displacing the whole of space. You can shift a house 100 feet to the North. Can you move the whole of space in the same direction? What would such a hypothetical displacement be relative to? — Pierre-Normand

There is no need for God to wind the clock back, because there is no clock. The state of the universe that correlates with the clock position of 4hrs ago, is still there.

This experiment demonstrates what god sees:

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/quantum-experiment-shows-how-time-emerges-from-entanglement-d5d3dc850933

Scientifically speaking, time is that which a chronometer measures. — Moliere

Actually, scientifically speaking, clocks don't measure time.

According to quantum mechanics (and general relativity) the universe as a whole is at rest. That is, that the universe is in an eigenstate of its Hamiltonian - i.e. the Schrödinger equation gives a universal wavefunction that is independent of time. This means that physical quantities do not depend on time.

So, whatever physical quantity is used to tell the time, the universe is not in an eigenstate of that physical quantity - i.e. the universe is not in an eigenstate of the positions of the hands of a clock. Rather, the universe is in a superposition of such states!

Thus, quantities "changing with time" has nothing to do with t-dependence, it is a correlation phenomenon.

God can "turn the clock back," destroy the present states and reorder the world in a way similar to what was four hours ago. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But there is no clock, and 4hrs ago is still there, according to science anyway.

Which is precisely why you must seek some deeper reduction base -- a more "fundamental" theory -- in order to disclose one of the "arrows of explanation" the alleged convergence of which ground Weinberg's grand reductionism. — Pierre-Normand

That is indeed the prejudice. It is entirely possible (as I mentioned earlier) that an exact law of nature at a higher level will perform the explanatory role. The conservation lawsand the 2nd law of thermodynamics perform similar roles.

As I also mentioned, a higher-level exact law may be the solution to the fine-tuning problem, and we have candidates for this.

And, given what we already know about reality, it is impossible that the "final theory" of physics can explain everything. We still need fundamental theories of life, information, computation, epistemology and consciousness to name a few.

Parties on both sides make the mistake of assuming that a religion's tenets must be reflected in the behavior of its adherents. — Mongrel

Meanwhile Bangladesh joins it's Islamic brethren Saudi Arabia and Yemen in esuring the Islamic tradition of marrying little girls to old men continues.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bangladesh-child-marriage-law-minimum-age-zero-reduce-baby-marital-unicef-un-a7619051.html

Progress?

I just gave you a translation in English that already compares three distinct meanings. — Benkei

Surely you are capable of giving the "about 52 distinct meanings" of "idribuhunna" that you claim to exist. If you can't, I think we will conclude that you are .... shall we be charitable and call it "exaggerating"?

Also, since you claim that the word "idribuhunna" appears in Quran 4:34, perhaps you could point out where?

Let's take the original then. "idribuhunna" has about 52 distinct meanings and you're sticking to the one meaning "beat women". Whereas one of the meanings is "to separate", which fits in much better with the subsequent verse: — Benkei

Perhaps you could list those 52 meanings, and show exactly where the word "idribuhunna" appears in the famous wife-beating verse?

Gad...that has to be the worst standup comedy routine of all time. — Arkady

Not sure I should converse with you, as you have been branded a racist for criticizing an ideology.

According to whom? You? How's your Arabic? Or, which translation are you using? — Benkei

You can read the Quran(4:34) in whatever language or translation you like.

Perhaps when it stopped beating its wife. But alas, that's not an aspect of Roman history I've researched. — Ciceronianus the White

Perfectly acceptable to beat your wife in Islam.

The Roman state didn't become involved in active persecution solely because of belief in particular gods until it became Christian. — Ciceronianus the White

When did the Roman State stop beheading women for sorcery?

No. It's not fine. I was merely reinforcing Mariner's point, which you ignored. — Pierre-Normand

You clearly are unmoved by the plight of the slaughtered, beaten, acid-burned, humiliated, genitally mutilated Muslim women. Yes bad stuff has happened in the past, but right now millions of women and girls are oppressed in the name of Islam. But for you, that's OK because bad things happened in the past that were not Islamic.

Good for you!

Indeed. We can also observe that Islamic states kill people who simply are deemed to be enemy of the state, regardless of religious motive, and also that non-Islamic states have killed hundreds of millions of innocent people for various reasons in the 20th century alone. — Pierre-Normand

So killing atheists is fine because other people have done nasty stuff?

No doubt, because they are states. All it takes to establish that is to observe that Islamic minorities in non-Islamic states do not kill all of those people. In other words, statehood is a requirement for those killings; Islam isn't. — Mariner

Why is it that the only states that kill apostates, blasphemers, witches, gays, and permit child-marriage are Islamic?

The real problem with violence is at the level of the state, not of religions. — Mariner

Do you think Islamic states kill apostates, kill atheists, kill blasphemers, kill witches, kill gays ... because they are states or because they are Islamic?

You go to Riyadh or Islamabad or Jakarta (your choice) — Arkady

Alternatively, you could just try to give a talk against FGM and violence towards women in AUSTRALIA and see what happens.

Please remind me when "Islam" became a "race." I must have missed that. — Arkady

Here's another limelighting uncle tom:

Meanwhile, let us spare a thought for this guy, sentenced to death for something he said on social media when he was 19:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/iranian-man-sina-dehgham-death-sentence-insult-islam-muslim-line-messaging-app-arak-prison-amnesty-a7658466.html

What do you mean by this? I take it to be an insinuation that ex-Muslims or moderate Muslims who criticize Islam or Islamism are merely Uncle Toms, bolstering basically racist prejudices. Is that right? — jamalrob

Seems like an accurate precis to me! Interestingly, while Muslims protect their religion through violence, the Left defends Islam by labeling its critics is such a way as to permit violence towards them.

Do you think moderate Muslims who would like to see an end to Islamic extremism or conservatism (like, for example, most French Muslims) — jamalrob

France? A report on radicalism among the youth of France has been delayed until after the French Presidential election, over fears its conclusions will boost support for Marine Le Pen.

Here are some highlights:

32% of young Muslims in France adhere to 'fundamentalist views.'
33% believe violence for 'ideological' goals is acceptable.
24% of young Muslims do not condemn the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
21% do not condemn the Bataclan massacre.

https://lejournal.cnrs.fr/nos-blogs/face-au-terrorisme-la-recherche-en-action/une-vaste-enquete-sur-la-radicalite-chez-les

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is in Australia. — Wayfarer

Are you sure?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-39475462

Another victory for the "Religion of Peace".

But when we take a break from judgement and try to understand, it's meaningful to ask how what gives rise to terrorism. How would you answer that? — Mongrel

This Imam has the answers:

You're not solving the problem. You haven't explained how the statement ""if I had opened the box at earlier time t I would have found the cat to be dead" can have a bivalent truth value.

All you're explaining is how different statements can have a bivalent truth value. But that's a red herring. — Michael

The clue is in the Modal Realism and the Quantum Mechanics.

If the statement agrees with the laws of physics, it is true - there is a world in which it is a fact. You might not be in that world, so for you the truth would be counterfactual.

If we are to accept imprecise statements as having a truth-value in the spirit of brevity and in full knowledge that we each are sufficiently versed in QM, so that we can assume each others meaning, then your statement is true, and has a single truth-value.

That's not the statement I used. You're changing it to avoid addressing the problem. — Michael

I'm solving your problem, or rather Modal Realism and Quantum Mechanics are independently solving your problem, and many other problems.

This is ambiguous. Are you say that it doesn't have a truth value, or only that we can't determine what that truth value is? If the former then we've abandoned the principle of bivalence. If the latter then we need to refer to something other than the laws of nature to explain its truth value. — Michael

Translating the statement slightly:

"In all the worlds where I opened the box at earlier time t, I discovered the cat to be dead"

Is a false statement.