₦airaland Forum

DaddyCoool:
I no longer understand you o. I said EVERYDAY Nairaland logic. "Nairaland" there is just for emphasis, just because that's where we are. The operative word is 'everyday" - "everyday logic". I even gave you an example - if A means the cat is dead, and B means the cat is alive, both A and B cannot be true at same time - á la Schrödinger's cat in QM.

And you're still playing musical chairs with words. I have now told you for the umpteenth time that it isn't illogical. It is only counterintuitive to our evolved macroscopic point of view - which brings us back to the million dollar question you keep ducking: are you saying that these events are illogical according to EVERY SYSTEM OF LOGIC? Are you finally ready to answer this question?

DaddyCoool:
Jeez, I have to spoon-feed you everything!

Don't worry about "spoon-feeding" anybody on this topic because there's clearly no food in your bowl.

DaddyCoool:
Where is the uncertainty in E=MC²? or other classical Physics equations?

I literally just addressed this in the post you quoted: it's in the application of the equation in real life, and not in the equation itself.

DaddyCoool:
I knew you'd be obsessed with that statement (that in classical Physics they usually don't run around trying to invent equations to justify weird phenomena).

Not obsessed. More like annoyed and very much so because it was a baffling and odious statement.

And do you even know the meaning of "obsession"? I genuinely think you have a problem understanding the import or meanings of certain words.

DaddyCoool:
Mention instances where classical physicists were trying to JUSTIFY weird phenomena by inventing math.

Gravitational constant.

Hubbles constant.

Dark matter and dark energy.

Einstein's cosmological constant.

Displacement current in Ampere's circuit law.

Boltzmann's H-theorem.

DaddyCoool:
For example, the speed limit in the universe is the relatively low speed of light. They accept that as another illogical aspect of the universe. In QM they'd invent all sorts of probabilistic math to show why it is logical!

🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽

To knock that your bald and crooked ogo just dey hungry me I swear. 😡

DaddyCoool:
Did you read my post? Here it is again. Also tell us what other masterpieces they wrote or they only wrote one?

There has to be a motive to things. What would be the motive of a god-emperor to invent someone who not only says the emperor is nothing but also said all the gods that had sustained them and given them so many victories were fake?!

Emperor Constantine was never a Christian. He continued with his sol Invictus. If you are referring to him. He wanted a single religion and he got it. It was to control the people.
The motive was control. To control the masses. And it worked. No one was allowed to own a copy....only them.

sonmvayina:
Emperor Constantine was never a Christian. He continued with his sol Invictus. If you are referring to him. He wanted a single religion and he got it. It was to control the people.
The motive was control. To control the masses. And it worked. No one was allowed to own a copy....only them.

As usual you are a brazen liar! 🧐
Not suprised one bit🤦🏾‍♂️.

Constantine was a Christian!
Bring your facts that allude to Constantine not being a Christian!
Be wise and consider the implications of your sentiments 🙃

sonmvayina:
Emperor Constantine was never a Christian. He continued with his sol Invictus. If you are referring to him. He wanted a single religion and he got it. It was to control the people.
The motive was control. To control the masses. And it worked. No one was allowed to own a copy....only them.

But his mother, Helena, was and so was his wife, Fausta, and his top generals!
Sooo, Constantine invented Jesus! So why was he calling a meeting of bishops to decide his deity. And how did it help him control the masses?

FiveFootNinja:
And you're still playing musical chairs with words. I have now told you for the umpteenth time that it isn't illogical. It is only counterintuitive to our evolved macroscopic point of view - which brings us back to the million dollar question you keep ducking: are you saying that these events are illogical according to EVERY SYSTEM OF LOGIC? Are you finally ready to answer this question?

I keep hoping I'm not chatting with a retard of some sort. How many times have I said "everyday logic"?? Where did you see "EVERY SYSTEM OF LOGIC"? Na wa 4 you o.

Don't worry about "spoon-feeding" anybody on this topic because there's clearly no food in your bowl.

So why do you pretend not to understand simple words??

I literally just addressed this in the post you quoted: it's in the application of the equation in real life, and not in the equation itself.

And you were asked to mention in what application E=MC² and others are probabilistic

Not obsessed. More like annoyed and very much so because it was a baffling and odious statement.
And do you even know the meaning of "obsession"? I genuinely think you have a problem understanding the import or meanings of certain words.

Our man does not understand hyperbole. Okay "fixated" if you wish.
I almost didn't use this because I knew you'd misunderstand it. You totally miss the "weird phenomena" aspect

Gravitational constant.

Hubbles constant.

Dark matter and dark energy.

Einstein's cosmological constant.

Displacement current in Ampere's circuit law.

Boltzmann's H-theorem.

Are any of these probabilistic? The answer is a resounding no! Neither are they out to justify any weird phenomena!

To knock that your bald and crooked ogo just dey hungry me I swear.

Not my fault you can't present a coherent case.
Explain to us how speed of light as speed limit of the universe is logical

sonmvayina:
Which religion to choose between mithriaism and Chrestianity

I always knew you don't know much, but I didn't know it is to this extent. See below

DaddyCoool:
I always knew you don't know much, but I didn't know it is to this extent. See below

When I compared him to Max, you thought I was just kidding. But really, they’re practically twins separated at birth!🧐

Gabrielshow24:
When I compared him to Max, you thought I was just kidding. But really, they’re practically twins separated at birth!🧐

Remember Max has been blessed.
See followers comments:

Nnamdipapa:
Max, do not descend to the levels of these people, and never let them get to you. I have noticed your interactions on NL for years and I see emotional maturity and the way you carry yourself, I have yet to see in the average Pentecostal Christian.

Tayorshd87:
Awesome input 💯
That's true logically

Kingsempires:
I know you and I don't agree on the same christain doctrine but I grab point in some of your preaching
I learned something on this your comment

SeniorMan715:
The way you explain and answer questions, sometimes i wonder if truly you are a human or an angel. You know everything.

Questionnaires:
MAXINDHOUSE is The Only Reasonable Christian That I've Come Across On This Forum That Creates Discourse And Debates Without Trying To Hurt The Emotions of Others No Matter How They Don't Agree With His Philosophy.

Questionnaires:
You Are One of The Smartest Christians on Nairaland and in Nigeria At Large.

CJStarz:
Guy, I just dey reason your talks.
U dey make sense shaaa.
But ur oda brethren wey dey yarn opata here, I go soon reason im matter.
You're trying to prove me wrong in my assertion which I'm beginning to see but that guy is a complete wacko.
Wetin be im name here sef.
Let me check

CJStarz:
Na you wey just convert from Islam be d correct Witness.
Achorlady just dey yarn off point

Mayflowa:
Wow! See Bible scholars! So impressive!

naturefellow:
Amazing! Thanks for the input. Knowledge added reading it.

Treborblue:
Wow insightful thanks very much

Jacktheripper:
This sounds particularly interesting.

Sojourner2000:
For real... It's hard answering this when I know for sure that the God we are referring to is just an illusion that most humans chose to accept as a reality.
Anyways I wanted to commend you for the hard facts you have been dropping and how you have been tackling responses. I need people like this in real life. Everyone around me is just dumbed down

MaxInDHouse:
Remember Max has been blessed.
See followers comments:

Ah, yes, the classic 'people say' tactic! It's amazing how many voices can fit in a echo chamber. But remember, just because a crowd is cheering doesn't mean they're right—sometimes they're just really good at clapping!🤤

Gabrielshow24:
Ah, yes, the classic 'people say' tactic! It's amazing how many voices can fit in a echo chamber. But remember, just because a crowd is cheering doesn't mean they're right—sometimes they're just really good at clapping!🤤

Whatever you think at least that's proof of what Jesus promised! Matthew 5:14-16

Gabrielshow24:
When I compared him to Max, you thought I was just kidding. But really, they’re practically twins separated at birth!🧐

No, I think he's much worse. Max may be totally brainwashed and totally suspended reasoning, but he'll never say what they were debating in Nicea was wether to adopt Mithriaism or Chrestianity!

DaddyCoool:
No, I think he's much worse. Max may be totally brainwashed and totally suspended reasoning, but he'll never say what they were debating in Nicea was wether to adopt Mithriaism or Chrestianity!

True, but at least this stillborn👀 has the excuse of never having to face the world. Max, on the other hand, is like a twin who just can't find the off switch!🤦🏾‍♂️.

MaxInDHouse:
Whatever you think at least that's proof of what Jesus promised! Matthew 5:14-16

Ah, quoting scripture now? That's rich! But let's not forget, Jesus wasn't a hypocrite🤔—He actually walked the talk😊. Unlike some, who seem to think 'do as I say, not as I do'👀 is a valid life philosophy. Your track record of illogical gymnastics is impressive🦅, though! It’s like watching a magician pull rabbits out of a hat🤨—too bad they’re all just illusions!😊

DaddyCoool:
I keep hoping I'm not chatting with a retard of some sort. How many times have I said "everyday logic"?? Where did you see "EVERY SYSTEM OF LOGIC"? Na wa 4 you o.

Oh my days, you're actually thicker than I expected!! 😱

I was making a direct reference to the question I've been asking you in my last 3 responses or more. I've been asking you if QM is illogical according to every system of logic. I even drew up a list earlier for the sake of illustration. Here it is again:

1. Aristotelian logic

2. Classical logic
2a. Propositional logic
2b. First-order logic

3. Extended logic
3a. Modal logic
3b. Higher order logic

4. Deviant logic
4a. Intuitionistic logic
4b. Multi-valued logic
4c. paraconsistent logic

5. Informal logic

You have insisted that QM is illogical, and I asked you if it was illogical according to all the systems above. You're here making it sound like I misunderstood your post when you're the one who's too dense to understand the question. And you even opened your mouth to call me a rétard. 🤣

No problem. Let me break it down for you, since you're even more slower than honey dripping from a frozen spoon.

Whenever you make your vague and pointless allusions to "everyday logic", or the even more stupid "Nairaland logic" to discredit something as "illogical", you're indirectly making the assumption that there's only one type of logic! And that logic is the one you're very familiar with.

So the simple point I'm making is that your everyday logic is NOT the only system of logic that exists. There are many others. Hence the question: IS QM ILLOGICAL ACCORDING TO EVERY SYSTEM OF LOGIC THAT EXISTS?

Can you now answer the god-damned question? 😭

By the way, considering that you thought it was a good idea in your small brain to speak on a topic that you're so criminally ignorant about, I think it's safe to assume who truly merits that "rétard" epithet between the both of us. As far as this topic is concerned, your intellectual bankruptcy is so painfully obvious, and your arrogance in the face of it is so cringe-worthy and disgusting.

DaddyCoool:
So why do you pretend not to understand simple words??

Just go get yourself a mirror already. 🤣

DaddyCoool:
And you were asked to mention in what application E=MC² and others are probabilistic

In measurements.

Although physicists have since validated Einstein's equation in countless experiments and calculations, and many technologies including mobile phones and GPS navigation depend on it, University of Arizona physics professor Andrei Lebed has stirred the physics community by suggesting that E=mc2 may not hold up in certain circumstances.

The key to Lebed's argument lies in the very concept of mass itself. According to accepted paradigm, there is no difference between the mass of a moving object that can be defined in terms of its inertia, and the mass bestowed on that object by a gravitational field. In simple terms, the former, also called inertial mass, is what causes a car's fender to bend upon impact of another vehicle, while the latter, called gravitational mass, is commonly referred to as "weight."

This equivalence principle between the inertial and gravitational masses, introduced in classical physics by Galileo Galilei and in modern physics by Albert Einstein, has been confirmed with a very high level of accuracy. "But my calculations show that beyond a certain probability, there is a very small but real chance the equation breaks down for a gravitational mass," Lebed said.

If one measures the weight of quantum objects, such as a hydrogen atom, often enough, the result will be the same in the vast majority of cases, but a tiny portion of those measurements give a different reading, in apparent violation of E=mc2. This has physicists puzzled, but it could be explained if gravitational mass was not the same as inertial mass, which is a paradigm in physics.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130108162227.htm

Beyond all of that, there are literally no instruments that can determine the value of an object (weight, mass, etc) with absolute precision. If you did physics in secondary school, you'll remember those little class practicals you had to do (pendulum bobs, prisms, placing objects on scales) where you'd take measurements, and calculate and plot graphs?

Do you remember you always had to account for margins of error? Did you bother to ask why?

It's simply because there are too many factors that can mess up the measurement. For instance in your environment. The air currents can affect your measurements. Another one is the calibration of your measuring devices.

DaddyCoool:
Our man does not understand hyperbole. Okay "fixated" if you wish.
I almost didn't use this because I knew you'd misunderstand it. You totally miss the "weird phenomena" aspect

Hyperbole aside, I like how you replaced "obsessed" with "fixation", and patted yourself on the back as if you actually accomplished anything. Or did you forget they're both synonymous? Wait, who's misunderstanding words again? 🤔

DaddyCoool:
Are any of these probabilistic? The answer is a resounding no! Neither are they out to justify any weird phenomena!

Just in case you've forgotten, the particular claim I'm challenging here is your dumbass claim that scientists don't invent equations and come up with constants for those equations to explain strange or weird events, and I've shown you why you're tragically inaccurate there. So this is just you darting and leaping about like a blind frog.

You asked me where scientists came up with constants to tweak with their equations. Now that I've bursted your bubble on that front, you've now jumped on to whether they're probabilistic. Don't worry. Keep jumping until you reach new heights of dishonesty.

In physics, a solid majority of the equations are probabilistic in practice and I've told you why. You can stick your head in the sand for as long as you like. It won't change a thing.

DaddyCoool:
Not my fault you can't present a coherent case.

Case? Since when was I ever presenting a case? Who has the burden proof here? YOU. I'm only here to point out the faults in your dubious claims that QM is evidence that thoughts can create reality. None of your points are sticking and that's why we're still here.

DaddyCoool:
Explain to us how speed of light as speed limit of the universe is logical

https://study.com/learn/lesson/special-theory-of-relativity-overview.html

You do the heavy lifting yourself for once. You can't come up to a debate like this and be woefully unequipped with the relevant facts. Later you will try and finish all of us with the power of irony by opening your mouth to talk about "spoon-feeding", when you're the one revealing your ignorance with every paragraph you type. 😤

Gabrielshow24:
True, but at least this stillborn👀 has the excuse of never having to face the world. Max, on the other hand, is like a twin who just can't find the off switch!🤦🏾‍♂️.

Lol I see your point!😅

FiveFootNinja:
Oh my days, you're actually thicker than I expected!! 😱

I was making a direct reference to the question I've been asking you in my last 3 responses or more. I've been asking you if QM is illogical according to every system of logic. I even drew up a list earlier for the sake of illustration. Here it is again:

1. Aristotelian logic

2. Classical logic
2a. Propositional logic
2b. First-order logic

3. Extended logic
3a. Modal logic
3b. Higher order logic

4. Deviant logic
4a. Intuitionistic logic
4b. Multi-valued logic
4c. paraconsistent logic

5. Informal logic

You have insisted that QM is illogical, and I asked you if it was illogical according to all the systems above. You're here making it sound like I misunderstood your post when you're the one N who's too dense to understand the question. And you even opened your mouth to call me a rétard. 🤣

No problem. Let me break it down for you, since you're even more slower than honey dripping from a frozen spoon.

Whenever you make your vague and pointless allusions to "everyday logic", or the even more stupid "Nairaland logic" to discredit something as "illogical", you're indirectly making the assumption that there's only one type of logic! And that logic is the one you're very familiar with.

So the simple point I'm making is that your everyday logic is NOT the only system of logic that exists. There are many others. Hence the question: IS QM ILLOGICAL ACCORDING TO EVERY SYSTEM OF LOGIC THAT EXISTS?

Can you now answer the god-damned question? 😭

By the way, considering that you thought it was a good idea in your small brain to speak on a topic that you're so criminally ignorant about, I think it's safe to assume who truly merits that "rétard" epithet between the both of us. As far as this topic is concerned, your intellectual bankruptcy is so painfully obvious, and your arrogance in the face of it is so cringe-worthy and disgusting.



Just go get yourself a mirror already. 🤣



In measurements.

Although physicists have since validated Einstein's equation in countless experiments and calculations, and many technologies including mobile phones and GPS navigation depend on it, University of Arizona physics professor Andrei Lebed has stirred the physics community by suggesting that E=mc2 may not hold up in certain circumstances.

The key to Lebed's argument lies in the very concept of mass itself. According to accepted paradigm, there is no difference between the mass of a moving object that can be defined in terms of its inertia, and the mass bestowed on that object by a gravitational field. In simple terms, the former, also called inertial mass, is what causes a car's fender to bend upon impact of another vehicle, while the latter, called gravitational mass, is commonly referred to as "weight."

This equivalence principle between the inertial and gravitational masses, introduced in classical physics by Galileo Galilei and in modern physics by Albert Einstein, has been confirmed with a very high level of accuracy. "But my calculations show that beyond a certain probability, there is a very small but real chance the equation breaks down for a gravitational mass," Lebed said.

If one measures the weight of quantum objects, such as a hydrogen atom, often enough, the result will be the same in the vast majority of cases, but a tiny portion of those measurements give a different reading, in apparent violation of E=mc2. This has physicists puzzled, but it could be explained if gravitational mass was not the same as inertial mass, which is a paradigm in physics.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130108162227.htm

Beyond all of that, there are literally no instruments that can determine the value of an object (weight, mass, etc) with absolute precision. If you did physics in secondary school, you'll remember those little class practicals you had to do (pendulum bobs, prisms, placing objects on scales) where you'd take measurements, and calculate and plot graphs?

Do you remember you always had to account for margins of error? Did you bother to ask why?

It's simply because there are too many factors that can mess up the measurement. For instance in your environment. The air currents can affect your measurements. Another one is the calibration of your measuring devices.



Hyperbole aside, I like how you replaced "obsessed" with "fixation", and patted yourself on the back as if you actually accomplished anything. Or did you forget they're both synonymous? Wait, who's misunderstanding words again? 🤔



Just in case you've forgotten, the particular claim I'm challenging here is your dumbass claim that scientists don't invent equations and come up with constants for those equations to explain strange or weird events, and I've shown you why you're tragically inaccurate there. So this is just you darting and leaping about like a blind frog.

You asked me where scientists came up with constants to tweak with their equations. Now that I've bursted your bubble on that front, you've now jumped on to whether they're probabilistic. Don't worry. Keep jumping until you reach new heights of dishonesty.

In physics, a solid majority of the equations are probabilistic in practice and I've told you why. You can stick your head in the sand for as long as you like. It won't change a thing.



Case? Since when was I ever presenting a case? Who has the burden proof here? YOU. I'm only here to point out the faults in your dubious claims that QM is evidence that thoughts can create reality. None of your points are sticking and that's why we're still here.



https://study.com/learn/lesson/special-theory-of-relativity-overview.html

You do the heavy lifting yourself for once. You can't come up to a debate like this and be woefully unequipped with the relevant facts. Later you will try and finish all of us with the power of irony by opening your mouth to talk about "spoon-feeding", when you're the one revealing your ignorance with every paragraph you type. 😤

I actually didn't call you retarded at all. I said I was hoping I was not chatting with a retard. But now I've read this your diatribe maybe I should have gone on all the way and did just that - but I won't because I don't think you're a total ídiot.

1) How can anything be illogical according to EVERY system of logic?! If we observe an object falling upwards we can develop a system of logic whereby it is normal for some objects to fall upwards!

2) I always said QM is illogical from perspective of EVERYDAY logic. So asking if it was illogical according to all the systems is rather stupid. If it were I'd NOT have specified everyday logic!

3) i even demonstrated everyday logic with an example - a cat can't be dead and alive at same time. But in QM logic it can!

4) Nothing is illogical from all perspectives. So with respect, your question is stupid

5) I don't need to be an expert on QM, I only need to know that "spooky action at a distance" or something being both dead and alive are illogical from perspective of an everyday guy!

6) OF course E=MC² doesn't hold up in all situations - heck it doesn't hold up in QM. But where it does hold up it is deterministic NOT Probalistic

7) You don't have to know anything with absolute precision, but if you plug what you do know into the equation it'll give you a definite answer NOT a range of possibilities!

8} The margin of error has to do with measurements NOT the equation. If you plug in numbers it'll give you a definite answer. In QM you can't get a definite answer!

9) What weird phenomena has classical physics invented constants for? Was G invented to explain why some objects fall upwards??

10) I don't think you know what "probabilistic" means. It means that even if you know or assume all the parameters and assign them definite numbers, you still can't predict the outcome or get a definite answer!

11) You're lying as usual. I never said QM proved anything. I only said it demonstrated that the universe doesn't follow everyday logical patterns at core. - hence it is not far-fetched that our thoughts affect physical reality!

12) You have no answer as to why this illogicality exists - the illogicality of the universe having a speed limit - the speed of light. Or will you also say it is logical but only "counterintuitive"!

Gabrielshow24:
Jesus wasn't a hypocrite.

To millions of Jews in his time Jesus was a hypocrite and impostor.
All you need to do is think about why his people hate him so much to the point of plotting his death because he said his real disciples will be hated for the same reason!

DaddyCoool:
I actually didn't call you retarded at all. I said I was hoping I was not chatting with a retard. But now I've read this your diatribe maybe I should have gone on all the way and did just that - but I won't because I don't think you're a total ídiot.

All these passive-aggressive pussyfooting you're doing here is just making you appear like even more of an asshole. You were throwing rocks and now you want to hide your hands. Anytime you try to draw distinctions between certain ideas, your lack of nuance and perspective always shines through.

DaddyCoool:
1) How can anything be illogical according to EVERY system of logic?! If we observe an object falling upwards we can develop a system of logic whereby it is normal for some objects to fall upwards!

And it would still be logical, as long as that system of logic is consistent and applicable one way or the other, under our known universe. And that is why scientists are careful throwing about the word "illogical". They would often prefer to use terms like "weird", "odd", "strange", "unconventional", "COUNTERINTUITIVE". You have now come around and established the exact point I've been trying to make to you all this while! 😑

That was why I asked you that question because I knew it would expose how hollow your argument is in the grand scheme of things. So armed with this new knowledge, I hope you'll now reconsider your approach on this topic.

DaddyCoool:
2) I always said QM is illogical from perspective of EVERYDAY logic. So asking if it was illogical according to all the systems is rather stupid. If it were I'd NOT have specified everyday logic!

The fúcking point of the whole thing is that there is literally a system of logic guiding quantum mechanics, and that system has so far been consistent in the field of QM. I have even listed examples where quantum logic has be applied to things in real life. So this statement you made -

DaddyCoool:
It is demonstrating that at core the universe is NOT logical. Objects don't miraculously appear on the other side of a solid they can't pass through

- is inaccurate for the very fact that your classic "everyday" logic is not the only system of logic that exists within the universe.

I have a feeling your entire response is going to be you just catching up with concepts and ideas I've already explained to you ages ago. 🤣

DaddyCoool:
3) i even demonstrated everyday logic with an example - a cat can't be dead and alive at sane time. But in QM logic it can!

Schrodinger's cat is not even a good example of quantum logic, because you can make the argument that it doesn't actually violate classic physics.

When they say the cat can't be dead and alive, they're talking more of probabilities, not actual fact. The cat is in a state of superposition where no one can know what happened to the cat until they open the box and find out for themselves.

So when they say it's dead "and" alive, they're not saying that the two states are fully realized. They're talking more of probability. Just wanted to note that.

There are better examples of quantum logic than Schrodinger's cat.

DaddyCoool:
4) Nothing is illogical from all perspectives. So with respect, your question is stupid

It's the irony of you repeating statements like these that validate my standpoint, while acting like I didn't just expose your ignorance again. 🤣

DaddyCoool:
5) I don't need to be an expert on QM, I only need to know that "spooky action at a distance" or something being both and alive are illogical from perspective of an everyday guy!

You'll need to know more than that for you to make any blanket claims or assertions using QM as your springboard.

DaddyCoool:
6) OF course E=MC² doesn't hold up in all situations - heck it doesn't hold up in QM. But where it does hold up it is deterministic NOT Probalistic

This is starting to get hilarious. You take the points I've already made, tweak them a little to make it sound different and repeat them back to me as if you've not just validated my argument. Yes, E=mc2 is probabilistic in certain areas of application. Welcome to Science 101.

DaddyCoool:
7) You don't have to know anything with absolute precision, but if plug what you do know into the equation it'll give you a definite answer NOT a range of possibilities!

Duh... 🙄

Equations will always give you definitive answers. Applying them in reality is where probability comes in. I already stated this a few responses ago when I said classical physics is deterministic IN THEORY, with special emphasis on THEORY.

DaddyCoool:
8} The margin of error has to do with measurements NOT the equation. If you plug in numbers it'll give you a definite answer. In QM you can't get a definite answer!

You're just splitting hairs with this statement because I don't know what part of equations are deterministic until they're applied in reality (practical) you're failing to get.

DaddyCoool:
9) What weird phenomena has classical physics invented constants for? Was G invented to explain why some objects fall upwards??

1. The screenshot below was Newton's letter to Richard Bentley in 1693 acknowledging the strange or you could even say "spooky" nature of gravity. I put up the link to that site and that's probably why I got banned. But you can read it in the screenshot below.

2. The gravitional constant (G) was introduced for the sake of quantifying the consistent relationship between mass and gravitational attraction.

3. Einstein's General Relativity was able to rationalize gravity as the geometry of spacetime and not just an invisible force pulling bodies from a distance.

DaddyCoool:
10) I don't think you know what "probabilistic" means. It means that even if you know or assume all the parameters and assign them definite numbers, you still can't predict the outcome or get a definite answer!

More episodes of you telling me stuff I already know under the guise of disagreement.

DaddyCoool:
11) You're lying as usual. I never said QM proved anything. I only said it demonstrated that the universe doesn't follow everyday logical patterns at core. - hence it is not far-fetched that our thoughts affect physical reality!

Madam, read your own damn words:

DaddyCoool:
YES!! If you are able to honestly see yourself as totally already that. But it doesn't go by comparison (richest), but that may happen by default. It's a power we just don't use because our brain is wired to believe things have to make sense when in fact the universe is NOT logical at all!😆. Quantum mechanics has proven it!

You've been telling cheap sad lies since we started this discussion, all in your desperate attempt to deflect criticism. You know what you set out to do, when this debate started but as soon as I and LordReed started poking holes in your nonsense, you started chipping away at your own argument without any sense of self-awareness. It's yourself you're deceiving, not me.

DaddyCoool:
12) You have no answer as to why it is logical that the universe has a speed limit - the speed of light!

Since your eye dey pain you to open simple link and read, I'll summarize in a nutshell: If there was a chance that something could travel faster than light, then it would mean that an "effect" to precede its "cause," leading to paradoxes that call the fundamental principles of causality into question. So that's why it's logical for there to be a speed limit.

I await your inevitable twisting which I'm sure will be another episode of you using shallow thinking and ignorance to judge science.

INTPCorper:
All these passive-aggressive pussyfooting you're doing here is just making you appear like even more of an asshole. You were throwing rocks and now you want to hide your hands. Anytime you try to draw distinctions between certain ideas, your lack of nuance and perspective always shines through.

They claim believers in Christ but their attitude denies him. 2Timothy 3:5

The same way they throw insults at JWs for having a different opinion regarding beliefs is how they treat everyone.
How can you say your fellow man is a retard yet expecting a civil conversation?

Well you guys only need to know the difference between real disciples of Christ and imitations, real disciples of Christ don't intend hurting anyone whether you agree with us or disagree! Matthew 10:16

DaddyCoool:
I actually didn't call you retarded at all. I said I was hoping I was not chatting with a retard.

From a so called CHRISTIAN to someone demanding for the reason of her faith o! 1Peter 3:15
You people made it really difficult for us to reach the hearts of interested ones as your haughtiness makes them feel there is no reason to believe in God.
If you're insulting someone who disagree with you on the matter of faith how can you prove that you are not brainwashed into believing what you can't explain calmly?

INTPCorper:
All these passive-aggressive pussyfooting you're doing here is just making you appear like even more of an asshole. You were throwing rocks and now you want to hide your hands. Anytime you try to draw distinctions between certain ideas, your lack of nuance and perspective always shines through.



And it would still be logical, as long as that system of logic is consistent and applicable one way or the other, under our known universe. And that is why scientists are careful throwing about the word "illogical". They would often prefer to use terms like "weird", "odd", "strange", "unconventional", "COUNTERINTUITIVE". You have now come around and established the exact point I've been trying to make to you all this while! 😑

That was why I asked you that question because I knew it would expose how hollow your argument is in the grand scheme of things. So armed with this new knowledge, I hope you'll now reconsider your approach on this topic.



The fúcking point of the whole thing is that there is literally a system of logic guiding quantum mechanics, and that system has so far been consistent in the field of QM. I have even listed examples where quantum logic has be applied to things in real life. So this statement you made -

- is inaccurate for the very fact that your classic "everyday" logic is not the only system of logic that exists within the universe.

I have a feeling your entire response is going to be you just catching up with concepts and ideas I've already explained to you ages ago. 🤣



Schrodinger's cat is not even a good example of quantum logic, because you can make the argument that it doesn't actually violate classic physics.

When they say the cat can't be dead and alive, they're talking more of probabilities, not actual fact. The cat is in a state of superposition where no one can know what happened to the cat until they open the box and find out for themselves.

So when they say it's dead "and" alive, they're not saying that the two states are fully realized. They're talking more of probability. Just wanted to note that.

There are better examples of quantum logic than Schrodinger's cat.



It's the irony of you repeating statements like these that validate my standpoint, while acting like I didn't just expose your ignorance again. 🤣



You'll need to know more than that for you to make any blanket claims or assertions using QM as your springboard.



This is starting to get hilarious. You take the points I've already made, tweak them a little to make it sound different and repeat them back to me as if you've not just validated my argument. Yes, E=mc2 is probabilistic in certain areas of application. Welcome to Science 101.



Duh... 🙄

Equations will always give you definitive answers. Applying them in reality is where probability comes in. I already stated this a few responses ago when I said classical physics is deterministic IN THEORY, with special emphasis on THEORY.



You're just splitting hairs with this statement because I don't know what part of equations are deterministic until they're applied in reality (practical) you're failing to get.



1. The screenshot below was Newton's letter to Richard Bentley in 1693 acknowledging the strange or you could even say "spooky" nature of gravity. I put up the link to that site and that's probably why I got banned. But you can read it in the screenshot below.

2. The gravitional constant (G) was introduced for the sake of quantifying the consistent relationship between mass and gravitational attraction.

3. Einstein's General Relativity was able to rationalize gravity as the geometry of spacetime and not just an invisible force pulling bodies from a distance.



More episodes of you telling me stuff I already know under the guise of disagreement.



Madam, read your own damn words:

You've been telling cheap sad lies since we started this discussion, all in your desperate attempt to deflect criticism. You know what you set out to do, when this debate started but as soon as I and LordReed started poking holes in your nonsense, you started chipping away at your own argument without any sense of self-awareness. It's yourself you're deceiving, not me.



Since your eye dey pain you to open simple link and read, I'll summarize in a nutshell: If there was a chance that something could travel faster than light, then it would mean that an "effect" to precede its "cause," leading to paradoxes that call the fundamental principles of causality into question. So that's why it's logical for there to be a speed limit.

I await your inevitable twisting which I'm sure will be another episode of you using shallow thinking and ignorance to judge science.

All this long talk is not necessary my dear. You're arguing something you have already admitted and is written everywhere - regular physics is DETERMINISTIC while QM is PROBABILISTIC!! In regular physics you can predict FOR SURE whether the cat would be dead or alive. In QM your act of opening the box and observing the cat is what determines whether the cat is dead or alive. Your act of observing the cat is what "forces" the cat into being alive or dead. This can never be so in regular physics. I hope now you get it. I hate having to spoon-feed you everything.

This of course leads to Many-Worlds Interpretation, which suggests that every quantum measurement (observation, thought) results in a split of the universe into multiple realities. From this it is not far-fetched to extrapolate that our thoughts can affect things. If you believe strongly enough that the cat is alive, you'd land in the reality where the cat is alive when you observe it!

As for my statement you quoted from the beginning of the thread, I then went ahead to explain many times I meant "illustrate", that QM can't prove anything in the macro world. But you keep going back to the original statement. That's dishonesty sir.

About the speed of light, you only stated what happens. The question is WHY? Why that particular arbitrary speed??
And you don't think it is illogical from our everyday perspective that the speed of light is constant for all observers, regardless of their motion? That no matter how fast you're going you can't add any extra speed to the light shining from your vehicle?

In that Newton letter, the difference is that in QM what they're trying to rationalize contradicts normal, everyday macro reality AND also doesn't lead them to knowing for sure whether the cat would be dead or alive before it is observed - because observing is what causes it to be dead or alive!

All those words you mentioned can be interchangeably used with "illogical" FOR OUR PURPOSES HERE!!! You keep missing that phrase - "for our purposes here"!!

Back to speed of light, bottom line, you have no answer as to why that illogicality exists - the illogicality of the universe having an arbitrary speed limit - the speed of light. Or will you also say it is logical but only "counterintuitive"! How can it be logical that the speed of something does not increase no matter how fast you're traveling with it??!

MaxInDHouse:
From a so called CHRISTIAN to someone demanding for the reason of her faith o! 1Peter 3:15
You people made it really difficult for us to reach the hearts of interested ones as your haughtiness makes them feel there is no reason to believe in God.
If you're insulting someone who disagree with you on the matter of faith how can you prove that you are not brainwashed into believing what you can't explain calmly?

Genius, we're NOT discussing faith, we're discussing Quantum Mechanics, which I'm sure you know nothing about, having suspended your brain (that's what you yourself said sir, not an insult).
Also, I said I HOPED I wasn't chatting with a retard, I never called him one. Know the difference

DaddyCoool:
Genius, we're NOT discussing faith, we're discussing Quantum Mechanics, which I'm sure you know nothing about, having suspended your brain
Also, I said I HOPED I wasn't chatting with a retard, I never called him one. Know the difference

The topic of discussion is:

"Please Explain These Adam And Eve Non Sequiturs"

Any other issue arising should be treated as a diversion so that you as a believer can tailor your message back to the topic.

But since you people aren't trained to do that you will surely lose your grip on what you intended doing with the thread.

If you start mentioning Adam and Eve but ended asking if your audience is a retard what have you achieved?

Well i'm just here to remind you that the JWs are fully competent and completely equipped {2Timothy 3:16-17} that's why they make real disciples that know how to handle the message skillfully {2Timothy 2:15} not argumentators who easily deviate from their main message and end up insulting, abusing, cursing, fighting and even killing their supposed audience. Matthew 10:16

Gabrielshow24:
As usual you are a brazen liar! 🧐
Not suprised one bit🤦🏾‍♂️.

Constantine was a Christian!
Bring your facts that allude to Constantine not being a Christian!
Be wise and consider the implications of your sentiments 🙃

Somebody who was baptized on his death bed. He won't pass as a Christian. He was sol Invictus all his life...

MaxInDHouse:
The topic of discussion is:

"Please Explain These Adam And Eve Non Sequiturs"

Any other issue arising should be treated as a diversion so that you as a believer can tailor your message back to the topic.

But since you people aren't trained to do that you will surely lose your grip on what you intended doing with the thread.

If you start mentioning Adam and Eve but ended asking if your audience is a retard what have you achieved?

Well i'm just here to remind you that the JWs are fully competent and completely equipped {2Timothy 3:16-17} that's why they make real disciples that know how to handle the message skillfully {2Timothy 2:15} not argumentators who easily deviate from their main message and end up insulting, abusing, cursing, fighting and even killing their supposed audience. Matthew 10:16

Sir, your brain is suspended ( that's what you yourself said sir, not an insult). So avoid certain discussions that require engaged brain.
The discussion on Quantum Mechanics arose because they were trying to say that because there were non sequiturs, Adam and Eve must be made-up story that never happened. I was trying to show them that QM demonstrates that the universe is NOT so logical and lineal at core!

DaddyCoool:
I always knew you don't know much, but I didn't know it is to this extent. See below

You don't like doing research do you?

There where two major religions in the Roman empire that is Mithriaism which originated from the west and was moving east and Christianity (worship of serapis) originated from Alexandria and was moving east. Rome had a lot of the two religion. The first act of the council was to determine which of the two would be the religion of the empire. They voted to go with Christianity (probably because there where more Greeks than Romans). Then they spent the next days forming the doctrine and dogma of the faith.
In my opinion, there were no gospels at this time. Eusebius was commanded to use the different stories in the script provided to prepare a uniform document for the new religion.
Serapis became Jesus at the council of Ephesus.

https://www.nairaland.com/6766026/jesus-serapis-truth-finally-revealed

DaddyCoool:
But his mother, Helena, was and so was his wife, Fausta, and his top generals!
Sooo, Constantine invented Jesus! So why was he calling a meeting of bishops to decide his deity. And how did it help him control the masses?

There was no Jesus prior to Nicaea..

Constantine wanted a single religion for his empire.
He was a sol Invictus all his life. He was baptized by an Araian bishop in his death bed. That can count.

DaddyCoool:
Sir, your brain is suspended ( that's what you yourself said sir, not an insult). So avoid certain discussions that require engaged brain.

Thanks for the compliment!
You only missed something very vital in my comment about suspending the use of brain.
Jesus always SUSPEND the use of his brain anytime instructions comes from his father regarding how to judge matters:
"I cannot do a single thing of my own initiative. Just as I hear, I judge, and my judgment is righteous because I seek, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me" John 5:30
But when dealing with others who aren't his father he makes use of his God's given brain! Matthew 4:3-11
The Apostles always SUSPEND the use of their brains anytime instructions comes from Jesus whom they refer to as "Lord" that's what Jesus taught them to do:
“If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his torture stake day after day and keep following me" Luke 9:23
But when dealing with Pharisees who are not their teacher they use their God's given brain to discern what they should do! Act 4:13, 19
We who are learning from anointed men like the Apostles always SUSPEND the use of our brains whenever instructions is coming from them regarding pure worship:
"Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you." Hebrews 13:17
But when dealing with people like you we use our God's given brain to discern what you lack.

DaddyCoool:
The discussion on Quantum Mechanics arose because they were trying to say that because there were non sequiturs, Adam and Eve must be made-up story that never happened. I was trying to show them that QM demonstrates that the universe is NOT so logical and lineal at core!

Whatever you are discussing shouldn't lead to referring to an audience as a retard for questioning your faith! 1Peter 3:15
That's where you proved to be fake not original as far as Christianity is concerned! Matthew 10:16; Colossians 4:6

DaddyCoool:
All this long talk is not necessary my dear. You're arguing something you have already admitted and is written everywhere - regular physics is DETERMINISTIC while QM is PROBABILISTIC!! In regular physics you can predict FOR SURE whether the cat would be dead or alive. In QM your act of opening the box and observing the cat is what determines whether the cat is dead or alive. Your act of observing the cat is what "forces" the cat into being alive or dead. This can never be so in regular physics. I hope now you get it. I hate having to spoon-feed you everything.

This of course leads to Many-Worlds Interpretation, which suggests that every quantum measurement (observation, thought) results in a split of the universe into multiple realities. From this it is not far-fetched to extrapolate that our thoughts can affect things. If you believe strongly enough that the cat is alive, you'd land in the reality where the cat is alive when you observe it!

As for my statement you quoted from the beginning of the thread, I then went ahead to explain many times I meant "illustrate", that QM can't prove anything in the macro world. But you keep going back to the original statement. That's dishonesty sir.

About the speed of light, you only stated what happens. The question is WHY? Why that particular arbitrary speed??
And you don't think it is illogical from our everyday perspective that the speed of light is constant for all observers, regardless of their motion? That no matter how fast you're going you can't add any extra speed to the light shining from your vehicle?

In that Newton letter, the difference is that in QM what they're trying to rationalize contradicts normal, everyday macro reality AND also doesn't lead them to knowing for sure whether the cat would be dead or alive before it is observed - because observing is what causes it to be dead or alive!

All those words you mentioned can be interchangeably used with "illogical" FOR OUR PURPOSES HERE!!! You keep missing that phrase - "for our purposes here"!!

Back to speed of light, bottom line, you have no answer as to why that illogicality exists - the illogicality of the universe having an arbitrary speed limit - the speed of light. Or will you also say it is logical but only "counterintuitive"! How can it be logical that the speed of something does not increase no matter how fast you're traveling with it??!

The more I engage with you, the lesser respect I have for you. I thought you were better than Dtruth, Righteousness and all these other psychos that run around these parts of NL. I really thought you were different.

Classical physics looks deterministic when you're in the classroom and you're doing your cute little assignments and projects. But when you step out into the real world with all the messy variables and external net factors and all the uncertainties that prevail therein, your so-called deterministic regular physics will encounter certain phenomena once in a while that will make it start looking shaky. So it is not deterministic all through!

This is the singular distinction that you're finding so difficult to absorb into your brain!

As for the Schrodinger's cat, whether you observe it o, Whether you don't observe it o, the state of the cat within the box will remain as it is. So the reality of the cat in the box is independent of your observation. You didn't observe the cat's life or death into reality. It was already dead or alive, you're just finding it out for yourself. If you're not there, other observers will come to the knowledge and come and tell you.

Scientific method exists for this reason: to establish truths independent of human observation.

Your interpretation of the Many-Worlds Interpretation is another example of you being uninformed but arrogant enough to use your ignorance to make judgements about science. Yes, multiple realities are created BUT THE ONLY ONE YOU CAN EXPERIENCE IS THIS PRESENT ONE YOU'RE IN. You cannot navigate to, or between these other realities. And the implications of your observation in this particular reality is meaningless and irrelevant. Your consciousness or beliefs don't have any say in which reality you'll end up in. That's what the Many Worlds concept is about, so grow up and stop thinking you have superpowers. 😭

The reason I keep going back to your original claim is because up until now, you are still deploying QM as evidence that "at core, the universe doesn't follow logical patterns" before using it bootstrap your risible conclusions that you can alter reality with your thoughts.

There's no use lying and trying to distance yourself from that claim, because your entire argument so far has been you latching onto it as your evidence. You can call it "illustration" or any other nonsense you feel like to keep deceiving yourself. But at the end of the day we know exactly what you're doing. And what you're doing is called intellectual cowardice. You started with "QM proves the universe is illogical", to "it only demonstrates illogicality", to "it's only an illustration". The more I keep checking you on your statements, the more your position erodes from outright certainty to just mere suggestions. And then like the deceitful and mendacious liar that you are, you turn around and call me dishonest simply because I quoted your own very words.

The truth of the matter is that you're painfully ignorant on this topic, no matter how hard you try to show otherwise. Like I said before, my knowledge on this topic is not perfect either, but when it comes to the basics, I can confidently beat my chest and say that I know ten times more than you.

Moving on to your speed of light prevarications, the fact that the speed of light is the same (constant) in spite of reference frame, doesn't mean it's illogical. Again, we're back to the basic distinction here: Illogical vs. Counterintuitive. The speed of light constant is logically airtight. Why you ask? Because it's mathematically consistent and verified through experiments. The invariance of the speed of light is perfectly logical when you look at it within the framework of relativity.

Einstein didn't violate logic when he formulated special relativity, even though he defied the traditional intuitive expectations and assumptions of Newtonian mechanics.

When are you going to understand the fact that universe doesn't give a flying fúck about you? Do you seriously expect all phenomena operating at both cosmic and quantum levels to somehow match our human intuitions that we're specifically developed for hunting and running away from predators? Do you know entire position is just an elaborate "argument from incredulity" fallacy?

You asked where scientists invented math equations to resolve things they didn't understand. I gave you a very poignant citing Newton's letter, gravitional attraction, Einstein's special relativity and all that. Now you've taken style to drop that question. Instead you blundered and started talking about how Newton's postulates and equations didn't affect the superposition of the cat in Schrodinger's equation?! How in the fúck did your question transmogrify to that part of the discussion?

You keep darting and leaping about foolishly and aimlessly. Your argument has no direction, you've edited it over and over and over and over again. Whenever one of your nonsense points gets refuted you either repeat it anyway without actually addressing the criticism, or you avoid it all together and latch onto another part of the argument. You're just another prolific religious bullshítter that can't back up anything she says.

Look if you don't know what else to add to the conversation, then with all due respect kindly shut the ever loving fúck up and go educate yourself properly on the subject before coming here to spew more ignorance.

MaxInDHouse:
Thanks for the compliment!
You only missed something very vital in my comment about suspending the use of brain.
Jesus always SUSPEND the use of his brain anytime instructions comes from his father regarding how to judge matters:
"I cannot do a single thing of my own initiative. Just as I hear, I judge, and my judgment is righteous because I seek, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me" John 5:30
But when dealing with others who aren't his father he makes use of his God's given brain! Matthew 4:3-11
The Apostles always SUSPEND the use of their brains anytime instructions comes from Jesus whom they refer to as "Lord" that's what Jesus taught them to do:
“If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his torture stake day after day and keep following me" Luke 9:23
But when dealing with Pharisees who are not their teacher they use their God's given brain to discern what they should do! Act 4:13, 19
We who are learning from anointed men like the Apostles always SUSPEND the use of our brains whenever instructions is coming from them regarding pure worship:
"Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you." Hebrews 13:17
But when dealing with people like you we use our God's given brain to discern what you lack.


Whatever you are discussing shouldn't lead to referring to an audience as a retard for questioning your faith! 1Peter 3:15
That's where you proved to be fake not original as far as Christianity is concerned! Matthew 10:16; Colossians 4:6

So JW shot caller is your father in heaven? Ok o.
As for retard, I never called the gentleman retard. Even so, go and read Matthew 12:34 and 23:33, then come back and regale us

MaxInDHouse:
To millions of Jews in his time Jesus was a hypocrite and impostor.
All you need to do is think about why his people hate him so much to the point of plotting his death because he said his real disciples will be hated for the same reason!

They hated him so much not because of hypocrisy but because he claimed equality to the Father!

Stop with this mischievous lies!