lol, the sarcasm.

Why do you guys even bother discussing? It's kinda annoying seeing this thread back up when I come to PF. This thread isn't even worth 12 pages. It should have ended with the first three posts excluding OP. It's such a bad logic but this guy can't understand that despite being explained for 12 pages. Explaining his mistakes if futile at this point.

True. If you go to a library of any research institute, you can get free access to most of the stuff. Unfortunately, not a lot of people have the will or time to do that.

I am saying it's probably already known and is generally accepted without having to have to cite references each time. If you need to disprove that, then you'll have to devote yourself into that. You can't just cite some free articles made for general public that is intuitively much easier to understand, and think you have understood everything.

You and I work in these kinda field so of course it is not that difficult for us. But for them? The general public? I know they are lazy in one sense, but you also have to understand that they can't devote their time on studying and researching these stuff like we do.

Of course a scientist can be wrong. No way I am doubting that. But if you compare general public and a scientist, there is a pretty big difference. We don't easily realize that because we pretty much have already gone to the other side. We have scientific intuition inside us because we've been educated. Unless you are an genius we usually have to understand things by experience.

Since I don't know about Earth science, all I can give is what I can remember when I didn't know anything. For example, when you look up lanthanides and their properties on wikipedia including related articles, I can tell you that they tell only a tiny bit of what is actually known. Even if you look up homepages and science related sites made by scientists, they still only show bit of what is known. In order to actually know them, you'll have to do extensive research by reading tons of academic papers (usually needing subscription). You'll also have to do some experiments to understand the scale in which the paper is talking about. For instance, an article might say "weak absorption of light". However, unless we work on it and get a pretty good idea, we don't exactly intuitively know what "weak absorption" looks like. If I remember that, then I can easily say that there is a huge gap between science-loving non-scientist and a scientist. I would generally not recommend non-scientist trying outsmart a scientist. They know much more than you do, and they also, most of the time, capable of dismissing without discussing too much because they already know.

I'm pretty sure there is more to it than that. it's just that you (nor I) don't know.

If you really want them to listen to you, you'll have to write a post worth a full article to convince people. Even if you do, there is no guarantee that people will be convinced. Like I said in the above post (http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/54161), these people on the Physics Forums know much much more than you think. Those who reply to those thread reply for a reason. They know what they are talking about.

Although most of the articles out there write about science with simple English understandable for general public, the actual science itself is very sophisticated and technical. These articles for general public (or wikipedia) leaves out a lot of important information for readability. Sometimes they don't even know the specific details of what they are talking about.

Science is much more sophisticated than you think. It's not something people casually interested in science can handle with few weeks or months of research. These people spend years working in these area after specialized education in college (that typically takes around 9 years to complete to get Ph.D.). Have you ever seen a scientific paper? They cite at least more than 20-30 other specialized papers. Review papers generally cite more than 150 - 200 papers. That is only small part of what they've actually read and know.

I'm not in the field of Earth science, so I cannot judge who was wrong in that thread. However, as a physical chemist, I've seen people who are not expert in chemistry and physics but casually interested make hilariously bad mistakes. When I read science magazine for general public about chemistry and physics, I saw several articles making terribly inaccurate presentation of the idea. I don't blame them. It's what happens when you don't know the specific details and is only provided with general idea and otherwise poorly informed. Politics also play a huge role in making decisions.

In summary, it's a great thing you are interested and it is okay if you want to talk about it. However, try refraining from doing that with specialized people. They get frustrated, you get frustrated, no one becomes happy.

But look at what the other people said after that.

I very much agree with andrewk. I've read the thread as well as your previous threads and posts. In my opinion, I don't think they have the right reason to ban you, but I agree that the thread should've been closed.

The philosophy forum has much higher tolerance for offensive posts compared to Physics Forums. Indeed,

I had a temporary ban for saying something to the matter of "If one cannot see the long term benefits of geothermal energy production then one is either ignorant or can't see the woods from the trees." Which they took as a "personal insult". — Question

is insulting to be posted on Physics Forums. In an academic conference, you might get yourself shunned, in the worst, banned. On philosophy forum, you would've definitely got away with it.

Personally, the content of the posts were not up to the standards of Physics Forums. Although you have provided some articles, you'll have to do extensive research to make sure that the article is not biased or does not leave out any important information. People of the Physics Forums knows much more than you think. Have you ever read an academic paper? Do you realize that they cite a lot of references (typically more than 30, and sometimes can reach up to 200!) to make their point valid?
The question of the OP was actually already answered within the first page of the thread (as realistically impossible), but you kept going on with it. This is the reason why the thread was closed.

Your other threads also seem to deal with philosophical aspect of science than science itself. Typically, Physics Forums do not appreciate questions regarding philosophical interpretations or hypothetical ideas based on non-scientific derivations. Unless you have really good reasons to start one, they are going to be closed one way or another.


They have gone too far in banning you, though.

For the 15th time, you are unable to correctly address my point and come back with bullshit. I didn't even talk about information in the above post. WTF are you reading? You are talking about yourself with that pathetic post of yours. You are not even worthy of talking about science with this is the level wrong/biased/metaphysical knowledge you have with this much ignorance and arrogance, much less talk about others. Show this thread to a physicist, then. Share this thread in Physics Forum. See what you'll get.

EDIT: Oh, wait. I forgot that you can't even tell the difference between a philosopher of science and a scientist. Then forget about what I've just said. You don't even know the right person to refer to.

I said it is your god damn turn. Answer the 1) 2) 3) and 4). This is not fair. I've gave an unbiased information and you completely ignored them once you know that you were wrong the whole time. It has been like that for all this time.

You failed to address my point, once again. If you don't plan to read, then don't respond in the first place. This is obviously unfair. Why is it me that I will always address your concern and you don't. And even if you do, you can't even properly provide one single legitimate argument.

For the third time, I freaking said I have an agnostic view of particles because it is subject to change in light of better theory. What the fuck are you reading? To conclude something as something is metaphysical as it can get. What you are doing is exactly metaphysics. I am wondering why you are blaming other people for doing something you are doing. Your links are always in contradicting with what you say. You insist on believing that particles are waves (which is not even a correct interpretation of De Broglie-Bohm theory), but this article provides that there is a disagreement with some other forms of interpretations. So then you are admitting that you are biased and metaphysical when you insist that particles are waves. Thank you, that is all I need to know. You are biased and a believer, far from a scientist. You are another one of those pop-culture science lovers that claims they know science and completely blow it.

Non-scientist trying to act smart with a scientist is not a smart thing to do. Calling someone a failure as a scientist when you don't even understand a crap and contradicts yourself makes it even worse. I would've asked for more humble and modest approach if you don't understand something. Don't ever do that again, and I encourage you to never do that again with anyone.


This is it. I am done. You are done. There is nothing to be discussed anymore. All I understood from you is that you understand nothing, and arguing with you is pointless because you refuse to address my points. This discussion was off-topic anyway (you made it that way). Thank you for wasting my time.

You really don't like reading other people's posts do you? Fine. But promise me you will read EVERY SINGLE WORD I have posted so far including this one. I will not accept further question if you fail to do this and say a bunch of irrelevant crap over and over again. I am being EXTREMELY generous with you right now, considering how much you offended me with no grounds whatsoever to back it up but with your delusions.

1) Picture of pentacene taken by AFM (published in Nature Methods)
http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v6/n11/images/nmeth1109-792-I1.jpg
These are clearly atoms arranged to form pentacene. Considering how AFM (Atomic Force Microscopy) is based on atomic force that barely affects the sample itself in terms of electronic structure, it accurately and truly shows the real molecule and how the atoms are arranged. If you think this not the actual image of atom because of "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle", then you are uneducated and stupid. (in fact it is this uncertainty principle that allows us to see these atoms.)

2) Ongoing discussion: Bohmian mechanics is an incomplete theory that is yet to be accepted throughout the scientific community. Poll (https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1069) shows that out of 33 participants in one of the quantum physics conference shows that 0% believed in Bohmian mechanics. This may be a total coincidence since college physics classes barely teach Bohmian mechanics, but that only further shows that it is not widely utilized. This poll is actually pretty fair since they ask the participants several questions and categorizes them based on the answer instead of just asking for the name of the interpretation they believe in. I highly suggest you read the article.

3) I have shown no metaphysical ideas. Refer to this post:

I have rather an agnostic view on the interpretation of Quantum mechanics because they are already completely reasonable the way it is. There is no need to complicate the story by attempting to interpret these with classically intuitive senses. — FLUX23

I don't care if what we call a particle is actually a classical particle (classical mechanics), quantum particle (quantum mechanics), or a quantum of a field (quantum field theory). They are merely interpretations that are subject to change when better theories are provided in the future. What matters to me is if it can reproduce experiments well. But I can still call a particle a "particle" because that is the term used to refer to these things.

4) I did not use a priori knowledge to support a metaphysical definition as a settled scientific issue. It seems like you don't know what a priori knowledge means.
Statement: Particle is particle.
This statement is obviously true. This type of knowledge is called "a priori knowledge".
Statement: Particle is a quantum of a field.
This statement requires prior experiment or theoretical investigation to know. This type of knowledge is called "a posteriori knowledge".
I argued that what you are presenting is only a posteriori knowledge. That is irrelevant to what Chany or I said about atoms and particles because the argument holds independent of what atom actually is. When we talk about "atom" in general, the target of the word "atom" refers to an atom or whatever they actually may be. So "atom" is an "atom" and this is independent of what they actually look like. The target of the word atom remains existent. This is a problem of logic. Not science at all. If you cannot accept this logic, then you don't even belong on this forum.


Typically this type of question is something I should be doing to you. You are an offensive, ignorant, brat that knows nothing about science but pretends to know, base everything on personal preferences and unscientific speculations and personal metaphysical view, say a bunch of irrelevant crap, refuses to read what other people have written, fabricate facts, fabricate what other people says, and accuse them of wrongdoings that they have not committed. You are a very twisted person. I am so glad you are not a scientist.

Your turn.

1) Present all of the evidence. (Don't be biased)

2) Admit to the ongoing discussions and disagreements among scientists. (Don't be biased)

3) Refrain from presenting your metaphysical ideas and desires as scientific facts. (Believing in Bohmian mechanics and basing every argument under this assumption is nothing more than just metaphysics.)

4) And clearly mark boundaries when you cross them. (You are the one doing it, not me.)

Okay, so you still refuse to read.

I know a priori is not a scientific term. I'm not trying to say anything scientific by saying:

Elementary particles are elementary particles by definition, a priori knowledge. There is no assumption here. The target of the term "particle", may be a wave like you mention (actually, de Broglie–Bohm theory does not consider particles the way you do so you are wrong here too), a quantum of a field, or a classical particle, it doesn't matter. That is a posteriori knowledge. That does not deny the existence of the target in which the term "particle" is referring to — FLUX23

This is pure logic. There is nothing scientific about it. Why do you think I was talking scientific here?


It seems like you don't understand what uncertainty principle is...Even worse, you also don't seem to understand what atom is...If you don't know these, why did you even think of arguing using these?


I know there are scientist working on theoretical aspect of Bohmian mechanics. I never denied that. In fact, I've already mentioned that. Like I said, I know more than you do. What you have presented so far, I already know.

So you are admitting that Bohmian mechanics is still faulty at the current stage, and that this is the reason most scientists are reluctant to use it. Thank you. Finally. This argument is done.



Also, please don't accuse others of something before they accuse you in order to make the other person look like they are doing the wrong thing when in fact it is you. You are the metaphysicist here bro.

EDIT: I hope this was the Physics Forum. You would have had to deal with hundreds of post that disagrees with you. Are there any physicist here?

Oh my God. I'VE ALREADY EXPLAINED THIS!!!! WHAT ARE YOU READING!!!!!!!!???????????

If you are talking about the definition of a particle, then that is something else. Likewise, we can say that about every single thing in this world. I'm sitting on a chair right now, but I am not sure if I can call a stone outside that people are treating it as a chair, a chair. If you are confused about the definition of a particle because you are confused about the distinction between a classical particle and a quantum mechanical particle, then we are talking about something else. You are perhaps confusing the difference between how things should be defined, with how things are. If not, then read below. — FLUX23

This is fallacious as a response to what Chany said (http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/52491). Chany's argument bases itself on the fact that, whatever an atom actually may be, atom must exist. Whether particles are classical particles, quantum particles, or quanta of a field, the target of the term particles still exists. It has not disappeared out of the concept. We can later redefine "atom", but that does not mean the target of what Chany said as "atom" has disappeared out of this world. It's just that there is another better and suitable noun to refer to "atom" in light of new evidence. — FLUX23

TheMadFool talks about an object called "God" that we do not know if it, in any form that it actually refers to, really exists. But he claims to scientifically prove its existence based on the fact that people are affected by the belief that it exists. This is, like you said, a bad fallacious argument. Chany attempted explaining this by talking about atoms. Chany's argument does not base itself on the premise that atom is what people classically refer to as atoms. The term "atom" is used in a way to refer to something that actually exists, and does not depend on whether what it actually may be. Whether or not an (classical) atom is actually something else, that "something" still exists. Chany claims that to argue in the way TheMadFool did, that "something" must exist. I think your type of fallacy is called referential fallacy or something. I told you about a priori and a posteriori knowledge because of this. — FLUX23

Elementary particles are elementary particles by definition, a priori knowledge. There is no assumption here. The target of the term "particle", may be a wave like you mention (actually, de Broglie–Bohm theory does not consider particles the way you do so you are wrong here too), a quantum of a field, or a classical particle, it doesn't matter. That is a posteriori knowledge. That does not deny the existence of the target in which the term "particle" is referring to. — FLUX23

You are the metaphysicist here. You are the wrong one here. You are the one using old tactics to justify yourself. You are the one unable to correctly understand anything because you are clueless. You are the one misinterpreting other people's argument because you are ignoring them.

Using freaking offensive words to me without any grounds to back it up is just lame.

I didn't even talk single thing about metaphysics in my post. I already said I have agnostic view of any interpretation of quantum mechanics because it's unscientific to attempt interpreting it.

Also, the link provides arguments that is against your views. What are you doing?

Or maybe you have your eyes closed.

Oh my goodness...

First of all, this "there are no particle" thing and "symbolic" crap you keep on saying has already been addressed hundreds of time before, that you kept ignoring. READ FOR GOD'S SAKE. It's fine if you don't understand. You can just tell me what part of it you didn't understand. But ignoring it is a whole different story, especially when that was where it all started. This is getting really annoying.

Second, I don't give a crap about Einstein's relativity for now. I wasn't even meaning to talk about that. You misinterpreted it because you were clueless and I ended up explaining it. I was talking about relativistic quantum mechanics. As I suspected, you didn't even know the highly successful Dirac's equation, QED, and QFT, and how Bohmian mechanics fails to account for these area (as of now). QFT is so far, and by far, the most successful and advanced quantum mechanical theory today. If you don't know this, you can't even hope to discuss anything with me.

Third, you can see atoms. Period. End of discussion. I don't even wanna talk about this again. You can actually search online for this. Searching for why a specific type of instrument is used, what the images actually means, and how we determine what we see is what we meant to see a good starting point for someone like you who is totally clueless. It's better if you actually get at least physics/chemistry (both of these intervene a lot) undergrad level of knowledge before you talk about something like this. Don't tell me you don't know the difference between atoms and elementary particles.

Most importantly, fourth, stop shifting the discussion into something else. Every time you talk about something on science, I have to fix it for you because you are wrong here and there. This is tiresome. How about we get back into what we were originally discussing? You haven't replied once to my concern despite telling you several times.


And the link you send me? This must be a joke, right? First of all, he is not a scientist. He is a philosopher working on philosophy of science. Also, I learned nothing new. This is philosophy, not science. It does not add anything to my knowledge of science, not to mention it says "Einstein for Everyone" which is ironic considering your criticism of his Theory of relativity. Thanks for wasting my time.

I would like you to address my concern instead of talking about something else.

Also, stop trying to convince somebody of something you don't really understand. You cannot win against me in science especially physics and chemistry. I know more than you do, and I know them more accurately than you do. I know that because your knowledge of physics is simply wrong in some places. I know that because you thought atoms can be directly observed using photon (they can, with sophisticated instrument, but by the way you write it, you probably didn't know). That can actually be intuitively understood if you are educated in science without being in a Lab that works on these area. You have several wrong understanding of De Broglie-Bohm theory. You also think I was talking specifically about Einstein's general and special relativity, when the term "relativistic" does not necessarily (in fact usually don't) refer to that.

I know, in general, the paradox and incompleteness of Einstein's theory of general and special relativity. I don't need you to tell me that. But did you say, Einstein's relativistic theory provide little practical usefulness? Wow, apologize to Einstein right now. Contrary to what you claim, general and special relativity is still quite useful as good approximation in several fields, especially special relativity since they can provide fairly practical explanation or prediction without having to have to go through tremendous sophisticated calculations. Dare tell me if satellites are pointless bunch of crap that we don't need.


Perhaps you've never really understood the significance of Dirac's equation and Quantum Field Theory (actually there are several approaches to QFT but I am being general here), and how they are important in explaining relativistic scale phenomenons. As so, you also probably don't understand the problems arising from Bohmian mechanics. No wonder why you blindly believe them.

This is poor logic. Being unable to differentiate between two things does not mean two things are equivalent. It just means you don't know how to distinguish them. If I am given two constants A and B without further information, then I don't know what these values are so there is no logic to conclude that A = B.






I think found a further paradox in the Liar's paradox.

let, S₀ be some statement we are not aware of.

Let's make another statement:
S₁ = S₀ is false

Right now, S1 itself is not contradicting. It's just saying S1 is false. Let's continue on,
S₂ = S₁ is false
S₃ = S₂ is false
S₄ = S₃ is false
.
.
.
S_n = S_n-1 is false

Let's substitute all this.
S_n = ( ... ( ( S₀ is false ) is false ) ... is false ) is false

It is important that the parentheses are kept so that we won't get confused about the exact target of "is false" is referring to in each statement. Now here are some axioms:
"(X is false) is false" = "X is true"
"(X is false) is true" = "X is false"
"(X is true) is false" = "X is false"
"(X is true) is true" = "X is true"

Let's apply these to the sequence above and we get:
if n = even, then
S_n = S₀ is true
if n = odd, then
S_n = S₀ is false

Substitute S₀ = This statement is false. Then,
if n = even, then
S_n = This statement is false
if n = odd, then
S_n = This statement is true

It does not matter if n → infinity. S_n oscillates between being true and false and does not converge. That is paradoxical.

From the philosopher's perspective, arguing for Bohmian mechanics is fine. The interpretation is, along with Many-Worlds interpretation, less philosophical compared to other interpretations. I'll give you that. As with all of other interpretations, there are strong and weak points. Some people resolved to Bohmian mechanics interpretation for their (classically) intuitively understandable interpretation of Quantum Mechanics like you have, sometimes incorrectly referred to as the realists' approach. Contrary to what you suspect me of doing, I have rather an agnostic view on the interpretation of Quantum mechanics because they are already completely reasonable the way it is. There is no need to complicate the story by attempting to interpret these with classically intuitive senses. If you are happy philosophically, fine. I don't really care.

As a scientist, Bohmian mechanics is inadequate and needs to be refined or remodeled to be accepted. There is a good reason why. Contrary to your statement, Bohmian mechanics is only consistent in non-relativistic level. It cannot be extended to the relativistic level for many-particle case, either (some attempts are there, but they are scientifically yet to be accepted). The spin is screwed up in this theory. It also unnecessarily complicates Schrodinger's equation by adding extra equation, and yet the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle still applies. That means it doesn't really give us any new information at all. This is the consensus among most physicists today, but that is subject to change if Bohmian mechanics are refined in a way that is scientifically sound and surpasses current theory of Quantum Mechanics. Until then, scientists using QM should stick with current QM.

Either way, what I strongly disagree and discourage is to assume that one type of interpretation (that is not even widely accepted) is true and base argument on it. One should always base an argument on premises that are neutral. Like I have done, my claims are neutral and agnostic about interpretations. Elementary particles are elementary particles by definition, a priori knowledge. There is no assumption here. The target of the term "particle", may be a wave like you mention (actually, de Broglie–Bohm theory does not consider particles the way you do so you are wrong here too), a quantum of a field, or a classical particle, it doesn't matter. That is a posteriori knowledge. That does not deny the existence of the target in which the term "particle" is referring to.

I apologize for the late reply. I did read it, but did not have enough time to respond.

By all means, I know what particles refer to and what they are in QFT. I don't need you to tell me that. Also, forget about Bohmian mechanics. It clarifies Copenhagen interpretation, and it works in a non-relativistic level, but otherwise it is generally not well accepted in Quantum mechanics, not to mention they are not that practical in terms of how they do not help advance quantum mechanics at all. Unless someone works on it and works on it good enough to convince the science community, I highly recommend you not to try to believe it the true interpretation yet. What I did not realize was something more fundamental that you were talking about. Now I understand what you were trying to say below.

I think, upon inspection, the precise description of atoms, molecules, quarks, boffins, hadrons, bosons, quanta, photons, dark matter, spin, etc. are quite malleable and are more or less symbolic as are words and some other mathematical construct. I remember reading Bohr describing the nucleus as a water drop, which led directly to Meitner's description of fission. Symbolism should always be recognized for what it is and not confused with what actually might be — Rich

This is fallacious as a response to what Chany said (http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/52491). Chany's argument bases itself on the fact that, whatever an atom actually may be, atom must exist. Whether particles are classical particles, quantum particles, or quanta of a field, the target of the term particles still exists. It has not disappeared out of the concept. We can later redefine "atom", but that does not mean the target of what Chany said as "atom" has disappeared out of this world. It's just that there is another better and suitable noun to refer to "atom" in light of new evidence.

TheMadFool talks about an object called "God" that we do not know if it, in any form that it actually refers to, really exists. But he claims to scientifically prove its existence based on the fact that people are affected by the belief that it exists. This is, like you said, a bad fallacious argument. Chany attempted explaining this by talking about atoms. Chany's argument does not base itself on the premise that atom is what people classically refer to as atoms. The term "atom" is used in a way to refer to something that actually exists, and does not depend on whether what it actually may be. Whether or not an (classical) atom is actually something else, that "something" still exists. Chany claims that to argue in the way TheMadFool did, that "something" must exist. I think your type of fallacy is called referential fallacy or something. I told you about a priori and a posteriori knowledge because of this.

To the best of my understanding, the is no particle. Just a symbolic representation (am mindful image) of a particle when it is convenient for purposes. Likewise, the symbolic wave (another image) when it is convenient for practice purposes, as with the double b slot experiment. I believe it is imprecise to discuss it otherwise. There is a chasm of difference between instantiating it as a particle (or a wave) and labeling it a particle (or a wave) and that is what the philosopher may choose to explore. True, one can call it a wave-particle but where does that leave us other than a confused image.

My own preference is viewing it as a wave (not particle) with wave perburtations being viewed as patches but not such. This would be the De Brogle-Bohm version. In such an image, the is no real psyche though the permutations may be mathematically treated as such. As always, I am seeking precision. — Rich

If you are talking about Bohmian mechanics, that is merely one way to interpret quantum mechanics. It fails in several places with some other discipline of quantum physics in terms of how mechanics work. Unlike quantum field theory and quantum electrodynamics, Bohmian mechanics fail on the relativistic level, if I remember correctly (although there are several attempts to make Bohmian mechanics relativistic). Quantum field theory more correctly accounts for relativistic level of discussion. In fact, the interpretations and premises of Bohmian mechanics only clarifies some part of Copenhagen interpretation, but otherwise does not provide any practical formulation of things, thus the reason other interpretations are still used today.

Your concern with definition of particle arises from your confusion of a priori and a posterirori knowledge.

If you are talking about the definition of a particle, then that is something else. Likewise, we can say that about every single thing in this world. I'm sitting on a chair right now, but I am not sure if I can call a stone outside that people are treating it as a chair, a chair. If you are confused about the definition of a particle because you are confused about the distinction between a classical particle and a quantum mechanical particle, then we are talking about something else. You are perhaps confusing the difference between how things should be defined, with how things are. If not, then read below.


I'm sorry, but what you said in that post is wrong. In science, there is a specific term to express your description of particle: quasi-particle (in a loose sense. This term is actually used for solid or sometimes in molecules as well, but its definition seems to be rather loose and can be applied to others, recently.) These are actually not, particles, but "seems like" they have the properties of such, and are treated mathematically as particles, thus the term. Plasmon, phonon, exciton, are some of these examples. This is distinguished from actual particles, like the one we are talking about.

Also, an atom cannot be viewed with photon or any microscopes that utilize light source as probes (generally. There are several new methods like PIM (photoionization microscopy) and QEM (quantum entanglement microscopy) that utilizes photon in a very sophisticated way). This is because a photon has a large wavelength that exceeds the resolution of the material we are looking at. I said AFM (atomic force microscopy), TEM (transmitting electron microscopy) as well as STEM (scanning transmitting electron microscopy), STM (scanning tunneling microscopy), APT (atom probe tomography), etc. These probes do not use photon. Out of these microscopic methods, AFM may be the one that most accurately shows what atom should look like, since it is based on repulsion force that minimally interacts with an atom and changes its state, meaning it does not entail disruption of what we are trying to observe.

While you are right, and I agree, that the mathematical formulations of these particles are symbolic, these mathematical methods are chosen with precise care to make sure what we are observing is a real particle. Quantum mechanics works this way. So what we are observing is, in fact, a particle.

You are right in one sense.

But it should be well noted that the Standard Model didn't just come out of nowhere by theorists. They all started from experiments, and then moved on to mathematical formulations to support or explain the obtained results that is consistent with other experiments and science. Finally, they test these theories again by doing controlled experiments. Once they observe what was predicted by theory using apparatus that is logically and scientifically capable for observing what they want to observe, then the theory is confirmed.

So in the end, these particles do "really" exist. Of course, we can't observe them with our eyes, but we use tools that we know for sure that is able to observe them. Once we do, then it really do exist. For example, we can actually observe an atom visually by AFM, SPM, TEM, and some other techniques. There is no problem calling these as atoms, and there is nothing mathematically symbolic about it. Digging that down with science is what allows us to confirm elementary particles.

I am not sure if you are a scientist or not, but they are much much more than just symbols interpreted from mathematical formulations.

He says it is and have been saying it is, no matter how many times other people explained that it is not. Welcome to the other side.

Can we test these interpretations, or, at the least, collect more data and evidence to further refine them? Science is not my field beyond some research into it for various reasons, like epistemology and having to listen to people talk about the Kalaam Cosmological Argument. — Chany

Yes. In fact, it is continuously being refined. Currently, the most popular interpretation is the Copenhagen Interpretation, one of the older interpretation. There is a reason why it has been accepted for such a long time, for the simple reason that it works well with the currently available knowledge. Nonetheless, Copenhagen interpretation is philosophically a mess and very abstract.
Although it is not strictly an interpretation anymore, quantum decoherence is widely considered to be true (it can be tested experimentally). Copenhagen interpretation, Many-Worlds interpretation, and many other interpretations can still be compatible with the result of quantum decoherence. Therefore, quantum decoherence doesn't really disprove any other interpretation, but it surely is one that encompasses other interpretations, and quite a legitimate one.

Correction: light is observed in experiments to behave as both a wave and a particle and we have found that applying light as both a particle and wave is workable in our models. Explanations that explain why we see this observation and how light can both be a particle and a wave are hypotheses. At this point, unless you are a physicist who deals with quantum mechanics regularly or would be considered an expert in the field, whatever you have to say is conjecture. I do not like when people bring quantum mechanics and use it to justify whatever bad argument they are making at the time, considering that most of them have never done any experimentation involving it in their lives and probably could not do physics at all. I am not versed in quantum mechanics, so I would suggest we submit to the position of scientists working the field and let them sort it out. — Chany

For your information, the particle-wave duality is a classical attempt to understand quantum physical particles. Most physicists consider and accept that quantum physical particle as it is, a particle with properties of classical particle and wave. There is no classical definite analog. Explanations to how and why we observe these properties has to do with interpretations, not hypotheses. That is why it's called Copenhagen interpretation, Many-worlds interpretation, quantum decoherence interpretation, etc.

You are absolutely right that most of those people out there using quantum physics as a way to explain God or some other philosophical argument are simply bogus. Some famous physicians also made the same mistake of applying this to explain heaven. In fact, most of the physicists consider such attempt to be a poor application of reasoning. I've seen people make hilariously bad interpretation of quantum physics and its application to something unscientific because they are not used to the formulations used in quantum physics. They have to rely on the classically intuitive picture, which will always be wrong one way or another.

In the end, trying to interpret any philosophical idea with science or use science to explain philosophical idea generally lead to an illegitimate argument. It is well advised that you don't do this.

You haven't 'addressed' them at all, you've simply ignored them and talked past them. — Wayfarer

This.

No.

lol, five pages of the same crap and this guy still doesn't get it. I bet he is still thinking we are wrong.

Guys, I think it is about time we stop answering to this guy. We have had to answer same thing over and over again about the fallacies for five pages and TheMadFool seems unable to address this issue and claims he is still "scientifically" (but as a matter of fact fallaciously) proving existence of god (fallaciously). His method is fallacious and his conclusion is also fallacious as well as any other claims he makes about science/measurement/logic crap is also fallacious. This is getting ridiculous. He is too ignorant to understand his mistakes no matter how much we point them out.

TheMadFool, I think you should stop for a moment and come back like a week later. Maybe it is better if you read the entire thread again to see how little the discussion has advanced. It is obvious that the last few replies you are reading right now is essentially the same replies you got initially. Why do you think everyone is saying the same thing over and over again?

Then you should agree that...

Mass, volume, charge, velocity, etc. are evidence for the mere belief of electrons, protons, neutrons, in fact the whole of science is nothing more than a belief. — TheMadFool

If you want to talk about electrons, protons, and any of those elementary particles, you should probably study them a little before you make such an awfully wrong statement. Mass, charge, spin are properties of electrons, not evidence for electrons. They were measured to characterize electrons, not to find electrons. Also, a velocity of electrons changes with the applied electric field. Its direction of path can also be manipulated to a degree with applied magnetic field due to intrinsic spin that the particle has. It means there is no intrinsic velocity to an electron. Also, electron is known to work well in quantum electrodynamics, a highly sucessful field of quantum physics, when treated as point particle. This means that the electron itself as a particle do not have any volume. (People mistake electron probability density as electron volume but this, under definition, is wrong.) We can also directly measure most of these particles. Checking wikipedia can still give you basic qualitative background. I wonder why you haven't done it.

That tells me that you understand nothing of science nor scientific method. I wonder why you even thought of trying to apply something you don't understand to something irrelevant.

Measurable effects of God:

1. How many people pray?

2. How many times do people pray?

3. How many people avoid a certain kind of food item?

4. How many people undergo circumcision?

Etc. — TheMadFool

Logical fallacy, like me and everyone else mentioned so many times.. Those are measurable effects of our concept of God, not the existence of God itself.

Well someone has already done so, scientifically. I know you disregarded it. So I don't feel like doing the same thing.

Besides, if you are going to start on ontology, which you have already made huge fallacy out of it on this thread, I do not believe you will be able to understand.

I know. I was being generous with him.

and for gazillion times, I am saying that is exactly the fallacy you are making.

This is you on this thread:

You: I like apples better because they are healthier than oranges considering that they have fewer calories.
Others: Well, oranges have much more good nutrition than apples. Besides, an apple is only 2/3 of the calories of an orange. It's not much of a difference.
You: Well you have admitted that apples have fewer calories than oranges. So apples are more healthy and better.
Others: Like I said, the calories difference is not that significant, and there are so much more good nutrition that oranges have than apples. Besides, higher calories don't necessarily mean bad for health.
You: I am just simply stating I like apples.
Others: I know, but your reasoning behind it is not legitimate.
You: Like I've said thousands of times before, I am only simply saying that I like apples because they have lower calories and is better for your health.
Others: WTF?

You see what is wrong here? First, you are not addressing other people's concern correctly. Second, you are simply making a mistake that lower calories are always better. This is exactly what you are doing in this thread, so much that this thread isn't a discussion anymore. Can you actually, for once, correctly address what other people is trying to say? Can you actually, for once, at least attempt to understand the logical fallacy you are making that other people are telling you so many times, instead of stating same fallacious statement over and over again?

Seriously? Are you even reading anything other people are saying?

Good point. Thanks. However it follows that you also accept, given your stance, that atoms, chemical reactions, physical laws are also simply beliefs — TheMadFool

Also, this is just simply wrong. I don't even slightly understand why you even thought that follows?

You mean this?

Briefly, my point is the application of the scientific principle on existence when applied to God leads us, clearly, to affirm god's existence. We can very very easily observe the effects of God on people. Therefore, scientifically, God exists — TheMadFool

Well, you have replied to most of the counter-argument other people made, but it does not correctly address the actual point they have made. It is like saying you like apples when someone is asking if you like swimming or not. In fact, your response to Chany does not correctly refer to the argument Chany made either. What were you reading?


People have already mentioned this, but I'll rephrase it with my own words.

One of the logical fallacies you have made is the disagreement in the target of "existence." It is our concept of God and the entailing religion that affects our lives, not the existence of God itself. Some people few millennia ago created the concept of God in an attempt to explain the world. That is not the same as actually observing a god. Unless one is actually affected by this - borrowing your words - unequivocally existing God, we cannot say that our lives are affected by God.
What you are saying is analogous to saying unicorns exist because we know unicorns from fantasy books.

Another is your claim that you are "scientifically" proving the existence of God. Just because you are using the same logic in the scientific method on the existence of God does not mean you are doing science. If you apply scientific method anywhere other than science, then that method itself is already pointless. That is not science but just some other logic. It is more commonly known as philosophy. And you don't even know if that logic can be legitimately applied to this argument. So no, you are no way "scientifically" proving anything.

Well many people on this discussion already told you about the many errors in your reasoning, so it's not my position to restate what they've said (that's a hideous work). But one word pretty much summarizes your errors: fallacy.

Whether you accept it or not is not my concern at this point. Your replies to the other posts have shown that you are not easily convinced regardless of the legitimacy of their argument.

I think he's pulling your legs guys. Best let him stay beneath the bridge. — Thorongil

I agree. I could not help but to laugh at that statement: "Scientific proof"...hahaha, I'm sorry.

I'm a scientist myself, so it makes it worse...lol

I agree that a god, as a human created being in our minds, affected and still affects our lives one way or another in the way we behave, the concepts we have in terms of faith, and even the fact that we are having this argument in the first place.

Under that logic, I would say anything imaginary like unicorns, Harry Potter, Big Brother, and any of those fictional beings exists. They all have affected our lives whether it may be significant or minor.

Is there anything new here?

Well if you are discussing the actual details of science and how religion can be compatible, then you are right. But I would talk about it from the other perspective, like I did in the above post (http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/45969), which you might have missed or wasn't convincing enough that you didn't think it was worth replying.

So you see there's nothing wrong in combining religion and science. — TheMadFool

I think he is referring to the fact that if you believe in a religion and science at the same time, then you will have to 1) religion your science out, and 2) science your religion out.

If you religion your science out, that is totally fine because you can just say science is merely a method to understand what a divine being has made. However, if you science your religion, then since religion is not experimentally or theoretically provable, religion is unscientific to believe in(I am not saying it is false but unscientific). Because believeing in a religion is unscientific, if you believe in both religion and science, you contradict yourself by believing something unscientific.

In actuality, this is like a vicious circularity. If you science your religion, you will have to conclude that believing in religion is an unscientific thing to do. However, you have just now done science, which is a discipline to understand what a divine being has made. But that itself is unscientific to believe in because you can't prove that scientifically...And so on. Therefore, believing in both science and religion is paradoxical.


(There is also another option, though: refuse to think about it, which is what most religious theists that believe in science do.)

Do you have an easy-to-understand conception of this ''something'' you refer to. My imagination fails me.

Also ''both God but not God'' is a contradiction provided that ''God'' refers to the same thing. — TheMadFool

I think it is easier to understand it by interpreting it from the other end. We have this "something" that is supposedly the cause of the universe, and it is up to us to interpret it as whether this is God or not. In the current situation, we do not have a clue in understanding this "something," and I think this makes up much of the reason for having so many interpretations "something" that contradicts each other. One of those interpretations happened to be God, and still, we have tons of interpretation regarding the concept of God too (think about how many religion we have).

What I am arguing in the example given in the OP is that, if someday we have better and better understanding of "something" by obtaining more evidence, then it is very likely that our current available interpretations are adjusted by the people who believe them so that they are made compatible in light of the new evidence. If we continue on with obtaining evidence, each of the interpretations will eventually go to the same direction, ultimately converging into one single objective understanding of "something".

Of course, I don't know what this "one single objective understanding of 'something'" is; no one does at the current stage because we don't have enough evidence to make people believe in the same thing.