Agree? Don’t agree? Let’s hear from you in the combox.
He’s been a faithful commenter over the years.
Comments
BA77, the key point is, we are not seeing an imposition. There has been an exploration, there is a unification, one with challenges. There is an ongoing test inasmuch as that the energy levels at stake in the LHC at CERN are now where some suggested particles should begin to pop up. So far, elusive, but then it took 40+ years for our friendly little "God particle" -- the Higgs Boson -- to come pose for pictures. KF
PS: Speaking of which, per Wikipedia:
The Higgs boson is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics produced by the quantum excitation of the Higgs field,[8][9] one of the fields in particle physics theory.[9] It is named after physicist Peter Higgs who in 1964 along with five other scientists proposed the Higgs mechanism to explain why some particles have mass. (Particles acquire mass in several ways, but a full explanation for all particles had been extremely difficult). This mechanism required that a spinless particle known as a boson should exist with properties as described by the Higgs Mechanism theory. This particle was called the Higgs boson. A subatomic particle with the expected properties was discovered in 2012 by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN near Geneva, Switzerland. The new particle was subsequently confirmed to match the expected properties of a Higgs boson.
On 10 December 2013, two of the physicists, Peter Higgs and François Englert, were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for their theoretical predictions. Although Higgs's name has come to be associated with this theory (the Higgs mechanism), several researchers between about 1960 and 1972 independently developed different parts of it.
In the mainstream media, the Higgs boson has often been called the "God particle" from the 1993 book The God Particle by Leon Lederman,[10] although the nickname is strongly disliked by many physicists, including Higgs himself, who regard it as sensationalism.[11][12] . . . .
The Standard Model includes a field of the kind needed to "break" electroweak symmetry and give particles their correct mass. This field, called the "Higgs Field", exists throughout space, and it breaks some symmetry laws of the electroweak interaction, triggering the Higgs mechanism. It therefore causes the W and Z gauge bosons of the weak force to be massive at all temperatures below an extreme high value.[e] When the weak force bosons acquire mass, this affects the distance they can freely travel, which becomes very small, also matching experimental findings.[f] Furthermore, it was later realised that the same field would also explain, in a different way, why other fundamental constituents of matter (including electrons and quarks) have mass.
Unlike all other known fields such as the electromagnetic field, the Higgs field is a scalar field, and has a non-zero constant value in vacuum.
The "central problem"
There was not yet any direct evidence that the Higgs field existed, but even without proof of the field, the accuracy of its predictions led scientists to believe the theory might be true. By the 1980s the question of whether the Higgs field existed, and therefore whether the entire Standard Model was correct, had come to be regarded as one of the most important unanswered questions in particle physics.
For many decades, scientists had no way to determine whether the Higgs field existed, because the technology needed for its detection did not exist at that time. If the Higgs field did exist, then it would be unlike any other known fundamental field, but it also was possible that these key ideas, or even the entire Standard Model, were somehow incorrect.[g]
The hypothesised Higgs mechanism made several accurate predictions.[d][17]:22 One crucial prediction was that a matching particle called the "Higgs boson" should also exist. Proving the existence of the Higgs boson could prove whether the Higgs field existed, and therefore finally prove whether the Standard Model's explanation was correct. Therefore, there was an extensive search for the Higgs boson, as a way to prove the Higgs field itself existed.[8][9]
The existence of the Higgs field became the last unverified part of the Standard Model of particle physics, and for several decades was considered "the central problem in particle physics".[18][19]
Search and discovery
Although the Higgs field exists everywhere, proving its existence was far from easy. In principle, it can be proved to exist by detecting its excitations, which manifest as Higgs particles (the Higgs boson), but these are extremely difficult to produce and detect, due to the energy required to produce them and their very rare production even if the energy is sufficient. It was therefore several decades before the first evidence of the Higgs boson was found. Particle colliders, detectors, and computers capable of looking for Higgs bosons took more than 30 years (c. 1980–2010) to develop.
The importance of this fundamental question led to a 40-year search, and the construction of one of the world's most expensive and complex experimental facilities to date, CERN's Large Hadron Collider,[20] in an attempt to create Higgs bosons and other particles for observation and study. On 4 July 2012, the discovery of a new particle with a mass between 125 and 127 GeV/c2 was announced; physicists suspected that it was the Higgs boson.[21][22][23] Since then, the particle has been shown to behave, interact, and decay in many of the ways predicted for Higgs particles by the Standard Model, as well as having even parity and zero spin,[6][7] two fundamental attributes of a Higgs boson. This also means it is the first elementary scalar particle discovered in nature.[24]
By March 2013, the existence of the Higgs boson was confirmed, and therefore, the concept of some type of Higgs field throughout space is strongly supported.[21][23][6]
The presence of the field, now confirmed by experimental investigation, explains why some fundamental particles have mass, despite the symmetries controlling their interactions implying that they should be massless. It also resolves several other long-standing puzzles, such as the reason for the extremely short distance travelled by the weak force bosons, and therefore the weak force's extremely short range.
As of 2018, in-depth research shows the particle continuing to behave in line with predictions for the Standard Model Higgs boson. More studies are needed to verify with higher precision that the discovered particle has all of the properties predicted, or whether, as described by some theories, multiple Higgs bosons [--> five it seems] exist.[25]
The nature and properties of this field are now being investigated further, using more data collected at the LHC.[1]
What honest Science looks and sounds like. Honest reporting, too.kairosfocus
January 27, 2021
January
01
Jan
27
27
2021
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT
SA2, there you go again, with demonising, belittling projections. And that in a context that is clearly toxically distractive. Thanks for telling us attitude, onward intent is therefore inferred prudentially. KFkairosfocus
January 27, 2021
January
01
Jan
27
27
2021
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT
Suckerspawn “ SA2, Why do you assume Mary was impregnated against her will?”
I didn’t say it was done against her will. The Bible clearly states that she accepted it. My point is that if a God fearing person is told that the vengeful God she worships wishes to impregnate her, would she really feel that she had much choice in the matter?Steve Alten2
January 27, 2021
January
01
Jan
27
27
2021
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT
Yet quantum measurement is precisely where conscious observation makes its presense fully known in quantum mechanics. As the following researcher stated, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it.”
New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015
Excerpt: Some particles, such as photons or electrons, can behave both as particles and as waves. Here comes a question of what exactly makes a photon or an electron act either as a particle or a wave. This is what Wheeler’s experiment asks: at what point does an object ‘decide’?
The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts.
“It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,,
“The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said.
Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html
The Measurement Problem in quantum mechanics – (Inspiring Philosophy) – 2014 video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE
As should be needless to say, conscious observation is a rather important detail to be left on the cutting room floor in that particular renormalization of infinity. And since consciousness itself is indeed something very important that needs to be explained, (i.e. indeed science would not even be possible for us if conscious observation did not first exist for us), then any purported theory of everything that tosses our conscious observation by the wayside, in its attempt to find the final ‘theory of everything’, necessarily cannot be the right first step in that direction.
Such an endeavor to claim a 'theory of everything' whist completely ignoring conscious observation can be classified as a misguided endeavor at best.
And one wonders what else would be tossed by the wayside if someone were ever able to find a way to renormalize the 'infinite infinities' that divide quantum mechanics from General Relativity.
As the following theoretical physicist noted, “You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending process. Renormalization would fail.,,,”
Why Gravity Is Not Like the Other Forces
We asked four physicists why gravity stands out among the forces of nature. We got four different answers.
Excerpt: the quantum version of Einstein’s general relativity is “nonrenormalizable.”,,,
In quantum theories, infinite terms appear when you try to calculate how very energetic particles scatter off each other and interact. In theories that are renormalizable — which include the theories describing all the forces of nature other than gravity — we can remove these infinities in a rigorous way by appropriately adding other quantities that effectively cancel them, so-called counterterms. This renormalization process leads to physically sensible answers that agree with experiments to a very high degree of accuracy.
The problem with a quantum version of general relativity is that the calculations that would describe interactions of very energetic gravitons — the quantized units of gravity — would have infinitely many infinite terms. You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending process. Renormalization would fail.,,,
Sera Cremonini – theoretical physicist – Lehigh University
https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-gravity-is-not-like-the-other-forces-20200615/
Moreover, if theoretical physicists, in QED, can’t even get the first step right in their quest to find a final ‘theory of everything’ it would seem that all our efforts to find that ‘final theory’ of everything thus far have been in vain.
But all hope is not lost. As touched upon in the video, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God back into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned), and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company, then that provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.
As was also mentioned in the video, the Shroud of Turin does indeed give us empirical evidence that both quantum mechanics and gravity were indeed dealt with in Christ's resurrection from the dead.
Thus KF, to repeat what I said earlier, “It is such consistent findings like these, findings that pull together seemingly irreconcilable facts,,,, it is such consistent findings like these that continually pulls me back to postulating Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead as the correct solution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’.
Like the proverbial missing piece of a puzzle that is finally found, Christ’s resurrection from the dead fits a little too perfectly into the final hole in the puzzle to bring the puzzle to a satisfactory completion, whereas all other pieces that have been offered thus far as a correct solution have failed miserably to fill that final hole in the puzzle.”
Matthew 21:42
Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:
“‘The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;
the Lord has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes’
bornagain77
January 27, 2021
January
01
Jan
27
27
2021
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT
KF states:
ever since Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity was on the table and was put to use cosmologically, there has been a challenge to unify the large and the small scales; the latter shaped by the quantum revolution.
And as I mentioned in the video, Godel’s incompleteness theorem for mathematics has now been extended into quantum physics itself, in that it is now proven that “even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,” and that “the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description."
Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics - December 9, 2015
Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,,
It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,
"We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s," added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. "So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists' point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description."
http://phys.org/news/2015-12-quantum-physics-problem-unsolvable-godel.html
As should be needless to say, we can now be extremely confident that, mathematically speaking, the microscopic descriptions of quantum mechanics will never be successfully extended to the account for the macroscopic descriptions of General Relativity.
To repeat, the 'incompleteness' and/or the insurmountable difficulty 'lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description."
With the bringing in of Godel's incompleteness into quantum mechanics, this is NOT just some esoteric point about the philosophy of mathematics but is a concrete statement about physical reality and, more particularly, about the inability of mathematics to ever bridge the gap from a 'complete' microscopic description from quantum mechanics to a macroscopic description of General Relativity.. (and please note that this 'insurmountable difficulty' also applies to the inability of the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution to account for the macroscopic structures of biological form.)
KF then states:
Over the past fifty years, string theory has become the candidate to beat. It is challenged but there is no other strong contender on the table;
And my contention is that string theory, far from being merely 'challenged', and as far as empirical science itself is concerned, is simply a mathematical fantasy with ZERO observable connection to the real world. To repeat Hossenfelder's 2019 lecture video, as Sabine Hossenfelder pointed out in the following 2019 video, because the Large Hadron Collider has failed to detect any of the many particles that were predicted to exist by String Theory, via Supersymmetry, then String Theory should now rightly be classified as a highly dubious, if not an outright falsified, scientific theory.
How Beauty Leads Physics Astray – Hossenfelder – video (failed predictions of String Theory – 47:00 minute mark)
https://youtu.be/Q1KFTPqc0nQ?t=2820
That is how science is suppose to work. If a theory predicts something and its predictions are confirmed to be true by empirical testing, then the theory gets to live to fight another day. If its predictions are falsified, (as the predictions of string theory have now been falsified in so far as we have been able to test those predictions), then the theory is SUPPOSE to die a ignoble death and be tossed onto the heap of falsified scientific theories.
As Feynman himself, the main founder of Quantum Electrodynamics, noted, "If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
- Richard Feynman
https://www.presentationzen.com/presentationzen/2014/04/richard-feynman-on-the-scientific-method-in-1-minute.html
KF you stated "It is challenged but there is no other strong contender on the table", but that is precisely my point. My precise point is that only Christ's resurrection from the dead, not some hypothetical mathematical theory, successfully bridges the infinite mathematical divide between general relativity and quantum mechanics.
KF you go on to mention the success that has thus far been had in unifying special relativity with electromagnetism and/or what is commonly known as Quantum Electrodynamics.
Theories of the Universe: Quantum Mechanics vs. General Relativity
Excerpt: The first attempt at unifying relativity and quantum mechanics took place when special relativity was merged with electromagnetism. This created the theory of quantum electrodynamics, or QED. It is an example of what has come to be known as relativistic quantum field theory, or just quantum field theory. QED is considered by most physicists to be the most precise theory of natural phenomena ever developed.
In the 1960s and '70s, the success of QED prompted other physicists to try an analogous approach to unifying the weak, the strong, and the gravitational forces. Out of these discoveries came another set of theories that merged the strong and weak forces called quantum chromodynamics, or QCD, and quantum electroweak theory, or simply the electroweak theory, which you've already been introduced to.
If you examine the forces and particles that have been combined in the theories we just covered, you'll notice that the obvious force missing is that of gravity (i.e. General Relativity).
http://www.infoplease.com/cig/theories-universe/quantum-mechanics-vs-general-relativity.html
After nearly two decades of work, it only became possible to unify Special relativity and Quantum Mechanics when the “infinite results” between the two theories were dealt with by a procedure called renormalization, in which the infinities are rolled up into the electron’s observed mass and charge, and are thereafter conveniently ignored. Richard Feynman referred to this mathematical sleight of hand as “brushing infinity under the rug.”
THE INFINITY PUZZLE: Quantum Field Theory and the Hunt for an Orderly Universe
Excerpt: In quantum electrodynamics, which applies quantum mechanics to the electromagnetic field and its interactions with matter, the equations led to infinite results for the self-energy or mass of the electron. After nearly two decades of effort, this problem was solved after World War II by a procedure called renormalization, in which the infinities are rolled up into the electron’s observed mass and charge, and are thereafter conveniently ignored. Richard Feynman, who shared the 1965 Nobel Prize with Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga for this breakthrough, referred to this sleight of hand as “brushing infinity under the rug.”
http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/tackling-infinity
In the following video, Feynman rightly expresses his unease with “brushing infinity under the rug.”,,, Specifically he stated, “Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do?"
“It always bothers me that in spite of all this local business, what goes on in a tiny, no matter how tiny, region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time, according to laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out. Now how can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do?"
- Richard Feynman – one of the founding fathers of QED (Quantum Electrodynamics)
Quote taken from the 6:45 minute mark of the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obCjODeoLVw
And while that 'brushing infinity under the rug' is certainly provocative enough, what is often overlooked in their 'brushing infinity under the rug' , when they unified Quantum Mechanics with Special Relativity, is that when they 'brushed infinity under the rug' they also ended up brushing 'quantum measurement' itself under the rug in the process.
Not So Real – Sheldon Lee Glashow – Oct. 2018
Review of: “What Is Real? The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics”
by Adam Becker
Excerpt: Heisenberg, Schrödinger, and their contemporaries knew well that the theory they devised could not be made compatible with Einstein’s special theory of relativity. First order in time, but second order in space, Schrödinger’s equation is nonrelativistic. Although quantum field theory is fully compatible with the special theory of relativity, a relativistic treatment of quantum measurement has yet to be formulated.
https://inference-review.com/article/not-so-real
That is to say, although they unified special relativity and quantum mechanics together in QED by “brushing infinity under the rug”, this unification between special relativity and quantum mechanics into Quantum Electrodynamics has left the entire enigma of Quantum Measurement on the cutting room floor.bornagain77
January 27, 2021
January
01
Jan
27
27
2021
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT
BA77, ever since Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was on the table and was put to use cosmologically, there has been a challenge to unify the large and the small scales; the latter shaped by the quantum revolution. Over the past fifty years, string theory has become the candidate to beat. It is challenged but there is no other strong contender on the table; a current issue is, are there matched bosons and fermions, some of which should be in reach of the LHC. The strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces are on the table as the observed types. Electromagnetic already shows a unification, from C19. In C20, there was electroweak, and BTW along the way magnetic forces can be seen as relativistic terms on electric forces where charges are in relative motion. The big question is unification with gravitation. So, we see a struggle. KFkairosfocus
January 27, 2021
January
01
Jan
27
27
2021
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
KF at 47 you state,
When it comes to grand unification theories, we are still in a world of speculation. The math is beautiful but not definitive, on these theories. Empirical support lags, still. We await evidence.
Actually there are quite a few points to unpack here. As to the claim that "The math is beautiful", it just so happens that the subtitle of Sabine Hossenfelder's book is "How Beauty Leads Physics Astray"
Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray
Description: Sabine Hossenfelder argues, we have not seen a major breakthrough in the foundations of physics for more than four decades.
The belief in beauty has become so dogmatic that it now conflicts with scientific objectivity: observation has been unable to confirm mindboggling theories, like supersymmetry or grand unification, invented by physicists based on aesthetic criteria. Worse, these "too good to not be true" theories are actually untestable and they have left the field in a cul-de-sac. To escape, physicists must rethink their methods. Only by embracing reality as it is can science discover the truth.
https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Math-Beauty-Physics-Astray/dp/1541646762/ref=sr_1_1
Moreover, although I am very sympathetic to the idea that mathematically beautiful theories are far more likely to be correct mathematical descriptions of physical reality than 'ugly' mathematical theories are, there is, none-the-less, a strong case to be made that String Theory is certainly not to be considered a beautiful mathematical theory.
The part of the book ('The Trouble With Physics') I found most interesting was the part which tells how the string theorists were scammed by Nature (or Mathematics). Of course, Smolin doesn't put it exactly like this, but imagine the following conversation.---------
String theorists: We've got the Standard Model, and it works great, but it doesn't include gravity, and it doesn't explain lots of other stuff, like why all the elementary particles have the masses they do. We need a new, broader theory.
Nature: Here's a great new theory I can sell you. It combines quantum field theory and gravity, and there's only one adjustable parameter in it, so all you have to do is find the right value of that parameter, and the Standard Model will pop right out.
String theorists: We'll take it.
String theorists (some time later): Wait a minute, Nature, our new theory won't fit into our driveway. String theory has ten dimensions, and our driveway only has four.
Nature: I can sell you a Calabi-Yau manifold. These are really neat gadgets, and they'll fold up string theory into four dimensions, no problem.
String theorists: We'll take one of those as well, please.
Nature: Happy to help.
String theorists (some time later): Wait a minute, Nature, there's too many different ways to fold our Calabi-Yao manifold up. And it keeps trying to come unfolded. And string theory is only compatible with a negative cosmological constant, and we own a positive one.
Nature: No problem. Just let me tie this Calabi-Yao manifold up with some strings and branes, and maybe a little duct tape, and you'll be all set.
String theorists: But our beautiful new theory is so ugly now!
Nature: Ah! But the Anthropic Principle says that all the best theories are ugly.
String theorists: It does?
Nature: It does. And once you make it the fashion to be ugly, you'll ensure that other theories will never beat you in beauty contests.
String theorists: Hooray! Hooray! Look at our beautiful new theory. ----------
Okay, I've taken a few liberties here. But according to Smolin's book, string theory did start out looking like a very promising theory. And, like a scam, as it looks less and less promising, it's hard to resist the temptation to throw good money (or research) after bad in the hope of getting something back for your effort.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2H7GVX4BUQQ68/?
And Sabine Hossenfelder weighs in here on the 'ugly duct tape' that is now holding together the supposedly 'beautiful' mathematical theory of String Theory:
Dear Dr B: Should I study string theory? - Hossenfelder - May 11, 2018
Excerpt: Superstring theory also comes with many side-effects which all too often go unnoticed. To begin with, the “super” isn’t there to emphasize the theory is awesome, but to indicate it’s supersymmetric. Supersymmetry, to remind you, is a symmetry that postulates all particles of the standard model have a partner particle. These partner particles were not found. This doesn’t rule out supersymmetry because the particles might only be produced at energies higher than what we have tested. But it does mean we have no evidence that supersymmetry is realized in nature.
Worse, if you make the standard model supersymmetric, the resulting theory conflicts with experiment. The reason is that doing so enables flavor changing neutral currents which have not been seen. This became clear in the mid 1990s, sufficiently long ago so that it’s now one of the “well known problems” that nobody ever mentions. To save both supersymmetry and superstrings, theorists postulated an additional symmetry, called “R-parity” that simply forbids the worrisome processes.
Another side-effect of superstrings is that they require additional dimensions of space, nine in total. Since we haven’t seen more than the usual three, the other six have to be rolled up or “compactified” as the terminology has it. There are many ways to do this compactification and that’s what eventually gives rise to the “landscape” of string theory: The vast number of different theories that supposedly all exist somewhere in the multiverse.
The problems don’t stop there. Superstring theory does contain gravity, yes, but not the normal type of gravity. It is gravity plus a large number of additional fields, the so-called moduli fields. These fields are potentially observable, but we haven’t seen them. Hence, if you want to continue believing in superstrings you have to prevent these fields from making trouble. There are ways to do that, and that adds a further layer of complexity.
Then there’s the issue with the cosmological constant. Superstring theory works best in a space-time with a cosmological constant that is negative, the so-called “Anti de Sitter spaces.” Unfortunately, we don’t live in such a space. For all we presently know the cosmological constant in our universe is positive. When astrophysicists measured the cosmological constant and found it to be positive, string theorists cooked up another fix for their theory to get the right sign. Even among string-theorists this fix isn’t popular, and in any case it’s yet another ad-hoc construction that must be added to make the theory work.
Finally, there is the question how much the requirement of mathematical consistency can possibly tell you about the real world to begin with. Even if superstring theory is a way to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics, it’s not the only way, and without experimental test we won’t know which one is the right way.
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2018/05/dear-dr-b-should-i-study-string-theory.html
So much for the claim that String Theory is a 'beautiful' mathematical theory.
KF, as to your claim that "Empirical support lags, still. We await evidence (for string theory)."
Actually, it is not only that "Empirical support lags", it is that the empirical evidence that we now have in hand directly contradicts what the theory predicted.
As the following 2019 article explains, "If supersymmetry (SUSY) is the solution to the hierarchy problem, then the lightest superpartners should definitely be accessible by Large Hadron Collider (LHC). The fact that it hasn't found any, thus far, is enough to eliminate virtually all models of SUSY that solve the very problem it was designed to solve."
Why Supersymmetry May Be The Greatest Failed Prediction In Particle Physics History – Feb. 2019
Excerpt: In theory, SUSY is a possible solution to this puzzle, where practically no other known solutions remain viable. However, just because it offers a possible solution doesn't mean it's correct. In fact, each of the predictions of SUSY are extremely problematic for physics.
1. If SUSY is the solution to the hierarchy problem, then the lightest superpartners should definitely be accessible by the LHC. The fact that it hasn't found any, thus far, is enough to eliminate virtually all models of SUSY that solve the very problem it was designed to solve.
2. The strong force may not unify with the other forces. There’s no evidence for unification in our Universe so far, as proton decay experiments have come up empty. The initial motivation is flimsy here as well: If you put any three curves on a log-log scale and zoom out far enough, they will always look like a triangle where the three lines just barely miss coming together at a single point.
3. If dark matter is truly made of the lightest SUSY particle, then experiments designed to see it such as CDMS, XENON, Edelweiss and more should have detected it. Furthermore, SUSY dark matter should annihilate in a very particular way which hasn't been seen.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/02/12/why-supersymmetry-may-be-the-greatest-failed-prediction-in-particle-physics-history/?sh=374cb27669e6
And as Sabine Hossenfelder pointed out in the following 2019 video, because the Large Hadron Collider has failed to detect any of the many particles that were predicted to exist by String Theory, via Supersymmetry, then String Theory should now rightly be classified as a highly dubious, if not an outright falsified, scientific theory.
How Beauty Leads Physics Astray - Hossenfelder - video (failed predictions of String Theory – 47:00 minute mark)
https://youtu.be/Q1KFTPqc0nQ?t=2820
Moreover, as the following 2021 article points out, ‘After years of searching and loads of accumulated data from countless collisions, there is no sign of any supersymmetric particle. In fact, many supersymmetry models are now completely ruled out, and very few theoretical ideas remain valid.’ And the article even goes on to state that “Where will physics go from here, in a universe without supersymmetry? Only time (and a lot of math) will tell.”
Where are all the squarks and gluinos?
The future of supersymmetry is in serious doubt. - Jan 2021
Excerpt: The ATLAS collaboration, made up of hundreds of scientists from around the world, have released their latest findings in their search for supersymmetry in a paper appearing in the preprint journal arXiv.
And their results? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zero.
After years of searching and loads of accumulated data from countless collisions, there is no sign of any supersymmetric particle. In fact, many supersymmetry models are now completely ruled out, and very few theoretical ideas remain valid.
While supersymmetry has enjoyed widespread support from theorists for decades (who often portrayed it as the obvious next step in advancing our understanding of the universe), the theory has been on thin ice ever since the LHC turned on. But despite those initial doubtful results, theorists had hoped that some model of tuning of the theory would produce a positive result inside the collider experiment.
While not every possible model of supersymmetry has been ruled out, the future of the theory is in serious doubt. And since physicists have invested so much time and energy into supersymmetry for years, there aren't a lot of compelling alternatives.
Where will physics go from here, in a universe without supersymmetry? Only time (and a lot of math) will tell.
https://www.livescience.com/no-signs-supersymmetry-large-hadron-collider.html
Thus, String Theory, (via the falsification of supersymmetric particles that should have been readily accessible to the Large Hadron Collider if string theory were actually true), is found to be, basically, purely a mathematical fantasy with no detectable connection to the real world.
In short, String Theory, for all practical purposes, and as far as experimental science itself is concerned, is now considered to be dead as far as being a viable candidate for that hypothetical mathematical ‘Theory of Everything’.bornagain77
January 27, 2021
January
01
Jan
27
27
2021
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
KF, I did respond. Look back at 21 and 37. You just don't like my responses, which is different than not responding.
And if you don't want to talk about it anymore, why don't you quit talking about it???Viola Lee
January 27, 2021
January
01
Jan
27
27
2021
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
Lecture notes https://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/~israel/notes.pdf with another set http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/string/string.pdfkairosfocus
January 27, 2021
January
01
Jan
27
27
2021
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
VL, you were asked to respond for record. You had your opportunity. I wish it had been used differently on your part. Now, back to wonderland. KFkairosfocus
January 27, 2021
January
01
Jan
27
27
2021
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
F/N: It seems to me we need to take a bite on string theory, so, let's start with Wiki as a first summary:
In physics, string theory is a theoretical framework in which the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects called strings. [--> a point mass is of course an infinite density object, so going strings that on bird's eye scales are 1-d but from the view of an ant crawling on it has curled up higher dimensions in the topology of a cylinder gives a first look-in] String theory describes how these strings propagate through space and interact with each other. On distance scales larger than the string scale, a string looks just like an ordinary particle, with its mass, charge, and other properties determined by the vibrational state of the string. [--> the note being sounded] In string theory, one of the many vibrational states of the string corresponds to the graviton, a quantum mechanical particle that carries gravitational force. Thus string theory is a theory of quantum gravity. [--> strings have discrete natural vibrational modes so will be naturally quantised]
String theory is a broad and varied subject that attempts to address a number of deep questions of fundamental physics. String theory has contributed a number of advances to mathematical physics, which have been applied to a variety of problems in black hole physics, early universe cosmology, nuclear physics, and condensed matter physics, and it has stimulated a number of major developments in pure mathematics. Because string theory potentially provides a unified description of gravity and particle physics, it is a candidate for a theory of everything, a self-contained mathematical model that describes all fundamental forces and forms of matter. Despite much work on these problems, it is not known to what extent string theory describes the real world or how much freedom the theory allows in the choice of its details.
String theory was first studied in the late 1960s as a theory of the strong nuclear force, before being abandoned in favor of quantum chromodynamics. Subsequently, it was realized that the very properties that made string theory unsuitable as a theory of nuclear physics made it a promising candidate for a quantum theory of gravity. The earliest version of string theory, bosonic string theory, incorporated only the class of particles known as bosons. It later developed into superstring theory, which posits a connection called supersymmetry between bosons and the class of particles called fermions. Five consistent versions of superstring theory were developed before it was conjectured in the mid-1990s that they were all different limiting cases of a single theory in 11 dimensions known as M-theory. In late 1997, theorists discovered an important relationship called the AdS/CFT correspondence, which relates string theory to another type of physical theory called a quantum field theory.
One of the challenges of string theory is that the full theory does not have a satisfactory definition in all circumstances. Another issue is that the theory is thought to describe an enormous landscape of possible universes, which has complicated efforts to develop theories of particle physics based on string theory. These issues have led some in the community to criticize these approaches to physics, and to question the value of continued research on string theory unification.
Linked, are branes:
A point particle can be viewed as a brane of dimension zero, while a string can be viewed as a brane of dimension one.
In addition to point particles and strings, it is possible to consider higher-dimensional branes. A p-dimensional brane is generally called "p-brane".
The term "p-brane" was coined by M. J. Duff et al. in 1988;[1] "brane" comes from the word "membrane" which refers to a two-dimensional brane.[2]
A p-brane sweeps out a (p+1)-dimensional volume in spacetime called its worldvolume. Physicists often study fields analogous to the electromagnetic field, which live on the worldvolume of a brane.[3]
In string theory, a string may be open (forming a segment with two endpoints) or closed (forming a closed loop). D-branes are an important class of branes that arise when one considers open strings. As an open string propagates through spacetime, its endpoints are required to lie on a D-brane. The letter "D" in D-brane refers to the Dirichlet boundary condition, which the D-brane satisfies.[4]
One crucial point about D-branes is that the dynamics on the D-brane worldvolume is described by a gauge theory, a kind of highly symmetric physical theory which is also used to describe the behavior of elementary particles in the standard model of particle physics. This connection has led to important insights into gauge theory and quantum field theory. For example, it led to the discovery of the AdS/CFT correspondence, a theoretical tool that physicists use to translate difficult problems in gauge theory into more mathematically tractable problems in string theory.[5]
We have crossed over into a new wonderland and need to get some footing on basic concepts. This is only a bare start. Next read, here https://astrogeekzco.com/2018/08/06/string-theory-explained-in-simple-words/ and here https://www.space.com/17594-string-theory.html
KFkairosfocus
January 27, 2021
January
01
Jan
27
27
2021
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
Yes, I am sad, along with other emotions and opinions, but for different reasons than you are, KF.
But, I accept that I have been dismissed. However, I'll point out that once you dismiss someone it's contradictory to keep calling them back with further comments.Viola Lee
January 27, 2021
January
01
Jan
27
27
2021
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
VL, for substantial, sad cause. KFkairosfocus
January 27, 2021
January
01
Jan
27
27
2021
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
BA77,
As I noted in 14 above, simply a link to String Theory for Dummies is a substantial contribution, as have been many of your clips and links over the years. That is worth noting.
As regards the Shroud of Turin, my key cross check is that there is a matching sudarion of Oviedo, with a separate history from C8 on and a plausible back-trace to being evacuated from ME ahead of conquest. This tends to undermine dismissals on oh there was a C14 date, which was done on reworked parts of the cloth. Which suffered fires etc. The pollen types give it provenance and so it is a remarkable object in its own right.
While I am not sure on claims regarding image formation, I am fairly confident no one else is certain either. So, while a speculative construction is interesting, that remains a subject for future resolution.
When it comes to grand unification theories, we are still in a world of speculation. The math is beautiful but not definitive, on these theories. Empirical support lags, still. We await evidence.
That said, the power of Mathematics speaks, as does the significance of cosmological fine tuning and the discovery of alphanumeric and partly algorithmic code in the cell, heart of biological life.
That convergence does suggest personal unification at the root of worlds.
Which is of course anathema to those locked into a priori evolutionary materialistic schemes and their fellow travellers. Where we separately, strongly, know these schemes are self-referentially incoherent and necessarily false.
More can be said but these are key to seeing through the matter.
KFkairosfocus
January 27, 2021
January
01
Jan
27
27
2021
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
I stand dismissed.Viola Lee
January 27, 2021
January
01
Jan
27
27
2021
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
VL (& attn BA77), you have continued to set up and knock over strawmen, which explains easily what you did to BA77 and what would happen were I ill advised enough to try to give in effect a one liner answer to a substantial issue. I note for record that I stand by my response at 24 above and as onward linked, where I again note that an issue pivoting on implications of our morally governed human nature will be settled coeval with that nature. The direct relevance to this thread is we see a habitual pattern of rhetoric by way of strawman fallacy. It is sadly predictable that issues of significance from BA77's remarks, or from my own comments towards it will never get a responsible response on such rhetorical patterns. Therefore, I will now turn to the substantial matters which the OP points to or suggests. Those who resort to scroll by, distract, belittle and dismiss have thereby already conceded that they have nothing to contribute of substance. That is now settled, we may proceed substantially. KFkairosfocus
January 27, 2021
January
01
Jan
27
27
2021
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
SA2, Why do you assume Mary was impregnated against her will?suckerspawn
January 27, 2021
January
01
Jan
27
27
2021
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
Since KF has posting privileges, and since you want to completely ignore the video without even dignifying it with a serious response, and since what you guys are talking about has nothing to do with the video directly, then I suggest that you two take your off topic discussion to a new thread.bornagain77
January 27, 2021
January
01
Jan
27
27
2021
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
BA writes, "Sorry Viola Lee, but I still fail to see how ‘scrolling past’ my video and my responses is to be considered, in any way, a serious response on your part."
No, it was not a serious response. I just wasn't someone involved in calling it retarded.
BA writes, "I find it highly disingenuous on your part that you will devote so much time on a thread dedicated to my video discussing trivial issues that have nothing to do with my video."
KF brought it up and directly addressed me at 20, and I responded to him, and he responded back. Often threads do not stay on one track. And the question of whether there are objectively correct positions on moral issues is not trivial.Viola Lee
January 27, 2021
January
01
Jan
27
27
2021
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
Sorry Viola Lee, but I still fail to see how 'scrolling past' my video and my responses is to be considered, in any way, a serious response on your part. Steve and Mike called the video 'retarded' and/or 'borderline retarded', and you say there is 'nothing new to see here', yet you apparently fail to realize that simply stating that 'there is nothing new to see here' is not an actual reason as to why you find the argument(s) not worthy of your attention.
In other words,. Ignoring the arguments before, and ignoring the arguments now, is not a response to the arguments. It is sticking your head in the sand and hoping that the arguments go away.
As to the one issue that you did raise about John 1:1 and quantum mechanics, I did address that concern of yours, and yet you ignored it also.
https://uncommondescent.com/theory-of-everything/philip-cunningham-argues-jesus-christ-is-the-correct-theory-of-everything/#comment-723360
I also note that you have instead tried to take this thread off on trivial unrelated tangents about morality.
I find it highly disingenuous on your part that you will devote so much time on a thread dedicated to my video discussing trivial issues that have nothing to do with my video,,, but ignore the meatier issues that I have laid on the table with my video.
If you are going to do as such, I suggest you find a new thread to carry on your unrelated discussion.bornagain77
January 27, 2021
January
01
Jan
27
27
2021
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus “ SA2, the dismissive incoherence and village atheist level crudities speak for themselves.”
What incoherence? In 2021 it is considered completely inappropriate, if not illegal, for a person in a position of authority to take advantage of a young woman under his command. Is God exempt from this? Or is our current ideas of abuse of power wrong?Steve Alten2
January 27, 2021
January
01
Jan
27
27
2021
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
Oops: too late to edit. In 37 above, it should read "so telling me his opinion does not address the main [not "man"] question.Viola Lee
January 27, 2021
January
01
Jan
27
27
2021
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
At 36, BA writes, "Steve Alten2, Viola Lee and Mike1962 have condemned the video referenced in the OP as being ‘retarded’ and/or ‘borderline retarded’ without giving a specific reason as to why they find it to be as such."
No, I have not done that: I have not "condemned" the video nor been a part of the discussion calling it retarded. I just said that it was just a long version of the kind of things he posts here all the time, full of quotes, and that there was nothing new in it.Viola Lee
January 27, 2021
January
01
Jan
27
27
2021
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
At 25, I wrote,
Kf: Do you believe there is one objectively correct answer to this question: Is it immoral for two people to get divorced when they don’t feel like they want to be married to each other?
Can you just answer that question in a sentence?
In response, I got KF's reply at 32. I will have to translate:
KF, can you just answer that question in a sentence? Answer: "No, I can't"
KF, Do you believe there is one objectively correct answer to the question about the morality of divorce?
Answer: He doesn't clearly answer that question, although he seems to be saying that "Yes", he does believe there is an objectively correct answer.
It is clear that he thinks divorce is bad for society: "That is manifestly ruinous for family, for child nurture, for sound community and for civilisation; as is currently playing out under colour of law."
But stating that is not the same as answering the question about there being an objectively correct answer. It is his, and others, opinion, but there are others who believe that there are counterbalancing positive reasons for allowing divorce, so telling me his opinion does address the man question of how we decide when different people make different more judgments.
He also supplies a long list of references that show what??? That there are first duties to reason? I accept that.
That still doesn't address the questions I've asked.
Also, KF writes, "VL, it is obvious that in your mind you have redefined what marriage is into an essentially temporary cohabitation contract with a unilateral reserve short-notice walkaway clause."
Three things about that sentence:
1. I have not stated a position, as I've made it clear that the I'm interested in the meta-question of our we decide when different people have different moral judgments.
2. There are a large number of "definitions of marriage" throughout different cultures and different time periods. Assuming, as KF seems to be doing, that the definition of "til death do us part" is the definition of marriage is just another example of his thinking that the correct moral answer is the one provided by him and the cultural traditions that he inhabits.
3. I note without further comment how loaded he describes the position of consensual divorce.Viola Lee
January 27, 2021
January
01
Jan
27
27
2021
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT
Steve Alten2, Viola Lee and Mike1962 have condemned the video referenced in the OP as being 'retarded' and/or 'borderline retarded' without giving a specific reason as to why they find it to be as such.
Yet if they were given to reason, instead of to cheap rhetoric, then it might be possible to have a fruitful discussion with them on the matter.
But alas, they feel no need to state their reasoning for thinking the video is 'retarded' and/or 'borderline retarded'.
So I am left to guess as to what their supposedly reasonable objections to the video might be.
Perhaps, like David Hume, they feel that a man rising from the dead is impossible and therefore that is what is to be considered 'retarded' and/or 'borderline retarded' in the video.
“Nothing is counted as a miracle if it ever happens in the common course of nature. When a man who seems to be in good health suddenly dies, this isn’t a miracle; because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet often been observed to happen. But a dead man’s coming to life would be a miracle, because that has never been observed in any age or country.”
– David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding – 1748
The reason why David Hume held that a man rising from the dead would be impossible is because it would be a violation of the laws of nature.
“A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and because firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the case against a miracle is—just because it is a miracle—as complete as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined to be.”
– David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding – 1748
Yet Hume made that argument about a miracle being a violation of the laws of nature back in the 1700's when it was (wrongly) assumed that the universe has always existed. But we now know that that assumption of his is wrong. It is now known that the entire universe came into being approx. 14 billion years ago.
Evidence Supporting the Big Bang
http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/s7.htm
And the Big Bang represents the biggest violation of the laws of nature imaginable. Namely, all of the laws of nature themselves, along with all the energy and the mass of the universe, as far as we can tell, suddenly came into existence.
If fact, so distasteful is the idea of an absolute beginning to the universe for atheists that atheists are left in the rather awkward position of trying to deny that the Big Bang represented an absolute beginning of the entire universe:
Denyse O’Leary has an excellent condensed history of this 'Big Bang denialism' by atheistic scientists:
Big Bang Exterminator Wanted, Will Train - Denyse O'Leary - October 20, 2013
Excerpt: "Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory."?
- Cosmologist Christopher Isham?
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/big_bang_exterm077961.html
Moreover, David Hume simply had no right to assume that the laws of nature were completely 'natural' in the first place.
In 2007 Paul Davies stated, “,,, the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe,,,”
Taking Science on Faith – By PAUL DAVIES – NOV. 24, 2007
Excerpt: All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed.
,,, the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe,,,,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html
Atheists, with their ‘bottom up’ materialistic explanations, simply have no clue why there should even be universal laws that govern the universe in the first place:
“There cannot be, in principle, a naturalistic bottom-up explanation for immutable physical laws — which are themselves an ‘expression’ of top-down causation. A bottom-up explanation, from the level of e.g. bosons, should be expected to give rise to innumerable different ever-changing laws. By analogy, particles give rise to innumerable different conglomerations.
Moreover a bottom-up process from bosons to physical laws is in need of constraints (laws) in order to produce a limited set of universal laws.
Paul Davies: “Physical processes, however violent or complex, are thought to have absolutely no effect on the laws. There is thus a curious asymmetry: physical processes depend on laws but the laws do not depend on physical processes. Although this statement cannot be proved, it is widely accepted.”
Saying that laws do not depend on physical processes, is another way of saying that laws cannot be explained by physical processes.”
– Origenes – UD blogger
Eugene Wigner himself considered 'the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them' to be 'two miracles',
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960
Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,,
It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,,
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html
Thus for David Hume to self-servingly presuppose that the laws of nature were completely natural and that the laws of nature therefore preclude the possibility of any further miracles from even being possible, was, intellectually speaking, a severely disingenuous and dishonest thing for him to do.
Moreover, as if that was not bad enough for Hume's thesis that a miracle would be a violation of the laws of nature, in quantum mechanics, (and as I mentioned in my 'borderline retarded' video), humans, via their free will, are now brought into the laws of nature at their most fundamental level.
As Steven Weinberg, who is an atheist himself, states in the following article, ‘In the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,’
The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017
Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,,
In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11
Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,,
Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,
http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/466-17/QuantumMechanicsWeinberg.pdf
In fact Weinberg, again an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within. Yet, regardless of how he and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave.
Although there have been several major loopholes in quantum mechanics over the past several decades that atheists have tried to appeal to in order to try to avoid the ‘spooky’ Theistic implications of quantum mechanics, over the past several years each of those major loopholes have each been closed one by one. The last major loophole that was left to be closed was the “setting independence” and/or the ‘free-will’ loophole:
Closing the ‘free will’ loophole: Using distant quasars to test Bell’s theorem – February 20, 2014
Excerpt: Though two major loopholes have since been closed, a third remains; physicists refer to it as “setting independence,” or more provocatively, “free will.” This loophole proposes that a particle detector’s settings may “conspire” with events in the shared causal past of the detectors themselves to determine which properties of the particle to measure — a scenario that, however far-fetched, implies that a physicist running the experiment does not have complete free will in choosing each detector’s setting. Such a scenario would result in biased measurements, suggesting that two particles are correlated more than they actually are, and giving more weight to quantum mechanics than classical physics.
“It sounds creepy, but people realized that’s a logical possibility that hasn’t been closed yet,” says MIT’s David Kaiser, the Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science and senior lecturer in the Department of Physics. “Before we make the leap to say the equations of quantum theory tell us the world is inescapably crazy and bizarre, have we closed every conceivable logical loophole, even if they may not seem plausible in the world we know today?”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220112515.htm
And now Anton Zeilinger and company have recently, as of 2018, pushed the ‘free will loophole’ back to 7.8 billion years ago,
Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018
Excerpt: This experiment pushes back to at least approx. 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today.
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403
Moreover, with human observers, via their free will, now being brought into the laws of nature at their most fundamental level then it now becomes, at least, theoretically plausible for God, contrary to what Hume assumed, to miraculously bring a 'dead man' to life, i.e. to resurrect Jesus Christ's sinless body from the dead.
LUKE 22:42
saying, “Father, if Thou be willing, remove this cup from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Thine be done.”
And as I also touched upon in my video, indeed it was the main thesis of my video, is that God resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead also happens to provide us with a VERY plausible reconciliation between quantum mechanics and general relativity in that Christ's resurrection from the dead, and as evidenced by the Shroud of Turin, apparently bridges the infinite mathematical divide that separates the two theories,
Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, although he was not directly addressing the ‘infinite’ mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, offers this insight into what the ‘unification’ of infinite God with finite man might look like mathematically:, Specifically he states, “The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.”
The End Of Christianity – Finding a Good God in an Evil World – Pg.31
William Dembski PhDs. Mathematics and Theology
Excerpt: “In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.”
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf
And as I stated previously in this thread,, "It is such consistent findings like these, findings that pull together seemingly irreconcilable facts,,,, it is such consistent findings like these that continually pulls me back to postulating Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead as the correct solution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’.
Like the proverbial missing piece of a puzzle that is finally found, Christ’s resurrection from the dead fits a little too perfectly into the final hole in the puzzle to bring the puzzle to a satisfactory completion, whereas all other pieces that have been offered thus far as a correct solution have failed miserably to fill that final hole in the puzzle."
Matthew 21:42
Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:
“‘The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;
the Lord has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes’?
bornagain77
January 27, 2021
January
01
Jan
27
27
2021
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PDT
BR, prezactly. However, the elaboration -- as I already linked in 17 above (but was predictably ignored on) -- is necessary too. KFkairosfocus
January 27, 2021
January
01
Jan
27
27
2021
01:44 AM
1
01
44
AM
PDT
PPPPS: Plato's warning to the ages, as has been highlighted many times here at UD over the years, but which of course is studiously ignored by those only too eager to rush over the cliffs being sign-posted:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . .
[Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
I need not point onwards to the further warning in Ship of State.kairosfocus
January 27, 2021
January
01
Jan
27
27
2021
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT
SA2, the dismissive incoherence and village atheist level crudities speak for themselves. You have run away from the focal issues laid out by BA in his onward linked, not to mention my supplement in 14 above (regarding focal themes), through distractive joking on disrespectful scroll past. That is trollish disrespectfulness. I will append Plato on your manifest attitude. KF
PS: Plato in the opening remarks from The Laws, Bk 10, on matters foundational to civilisation . . . and BTW in that context he makes the first discussion on follies of evolutionary materialism and on the design inference on record:
Ath. Well, then; what shall we say or do? [in answer to hyperskepticism] -Shall we assume that some one is accusing us among unholy men, who are trying to escape from the effect of our legislation; and that they say of us-How dreadful that you should legislate on the supposition that there are Gods! Shall we make a defence of ourselves? or shall we leave them and return to our laws, lest the prelude should become longer than the law? For the discourse will certainly extend to great length, if we are to treat the impiously disposed as they desire, partly demonstrating to them at some length the things of which they demand an explanation, partly making them afraid or dissatisfied, and then proceed to the requisite enactments.
Cle. Yes, Stranger; but then how often have we repeated already that on the present occasion there is no reason why brevity should be preferred to length; who is "at our heels"?-as the saying goes, and it would be paltry and ridiculous to prefer the shorter to the better. It is a matter of no small consequence, in some way or other to prove that there are Gods, and that they are good, and regard justice more than men do. The demonstration of this would be the best and noblest prelude of all our laws. And therefore, without impatience, and without hurry, let us unreservedly consider the whole matter, summoning up all the power of persuasion which we possess.
Words worth pondering. Are we serious or are we fundamentally un-serious, imagining we already know and can impose a priori evolutionary materialism, dismissing those who have another opinion. Then, eventually stigmatising, scapegoating, slandering and censoring them . . . the ugly path now emerging as a McFaul Colour Revolution continues before our appalled faces.
PPS: On your slanderous caricature of the incarnation (implying indictment of God as Adulterer), suffice to note that this was not an "impregnation." Your crude, hostile caricature suffices to expose a fundamentally ill willed ignorance and disdainful trollish disrespect. I suggest, you take this as due warning that you are headed in the wrong direction.
PPPS: On elaborating a worldview on comparative difficulties, addressing a wide range of considerations at 101 level, kindly cf here on in context.kairosfocus
January 27, 2021
January
01
Jan
27
27
2021
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PDT
VL, it is obvious that in your mind you have redefined what marriage is into an essentially temporary cohabitation contract with a unilateral reserve short-notice walkaway clause. That is manifestly ruinous for family, for child nurture, for sound community and for civilisation; as is currently playing out under colour of law. The main issue, however was not debating such redefinitions, it was your attempt to claim that in effect first duties are so abstract that I would prove unable to articulate to specific matters. You ignored case after case of my showing how they are inescapably embedded in argument, even objections. You have also obviously sidelined the fact that there are entire connected bodies of knowledge complete with state papers pivotal to the rise of modern liberty and constitutional democratic self-government. Which, speaks for itself. I will content myself with noting how you run afoul of Locke in a pivotal passage that directly undergirds the relevant state papers of 1776 and 1787 - 9. Your problem, at root is not with me, it is with the line from Duplessis-Mornay, to William the Silent of Orange and the dutch declarants of 1581, with Rutherford and Lex Rex, with Locke (with Hooker and all the way back to Aristotle, with Justinian's Corpus Juris along the way), with Cicero and those behind him, with Alfred the Great and his Witans in The Book of Dooms (foundational to the Common Law System), with Archbishop Samuel Langton in Magna Carta, with Blackstone's 1765 articulation of the Common Law system, with Jefferson, the drafting committee and the rest of the 56 declarants of 1776; and many more, including now often unacknowledged founding figures of our civilisation, Paul of Tarsus, Jesus of Nazareth, Moses of the Nile. I could again point to Copi as my favourite intro to logic text and any number of other works on related subjects, etc etc etc. But that would only be detail, the core point was clear from the beginning. KF
PS: Locke and Hooker, with Aristotle, on duty to neighbour:
[2nd Treatise on Civil Gov't, Ch 2 sec. 5:] . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [This directly echoes St. Paul in Rom 2: "14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . " and 13: "9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law . . . " Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity ,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.] [Augmented citation, Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Ch 2 Sect. 5. ]
kairosfocus
January 27, 2021
January
01
Jan
27
27
2021
01:11 AM
1
01
11
AM
PDT
Steve Alten2
You use morals as if you believe they exist. You cannot believe in morality without freewill, which evolutionists deny even exists. Without freewill, there is no conscious choice to do right or wrong, which means there is no right or wrong. There is only what is determined by action and reaction with no mind involved, since the mind is an illusion.BobRyan