Re: [Death To Religion] Re: free will, who's writing your email?
----- Original Message -----
From: "bestonnet_00" <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 1:54 PM
Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: free will, who's writing your email?
> When we're dealing with value judgements we can't just ignore science.
> How can one come up with a workable system of ethics without an
> understanding of how the world works and what humans are like?
Materialism has a rebust ethics with morality. Pat Churchland is
championing the new "neuroethics," concerning ethical predispositions in
brain studies. Actually moral principles always preceded religion. The
rules were attributed to the gods for santification for the acceptance of
the people and motive to follow them. Hammurbi's Codes has extensive
introduction and comments after his codes explaining how they are sanctified
by Marduk and the other gods, who will severely punish any successor ruler
who changes any of them, even a dot. The Hebrew moral laws are very similar
to those codes. Not only were moral rules formed by society, but that always
have been enforced by society, interpreting them according to circumstances
in particular concrete situations.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.13/946 - Release Date: 8/10/2007
> 3:50 PM
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "iamthewayandthetruth111"
>I'm doing a Masters in physics right now. I knew very little about QM
> --- In email@example.com, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@>
> > I'm mentioning it because humans tend to have large quantum
> > numbers.
> I read the basic idea of it. I always thought the same, I saw some
> of the mathematics behind it but I didn't understand that because
> I'm not at a high enough level of mathematics, I'm going into
> pre-cal (11th grade).
back when I was in Year 11 myself (and don't really know that much
more now, however many lectures later).
> I've actually always been curious about how much the macroscopicCompared to classical theory pretty much not at all.
> world becomes altered over time because of quantum mechanics.
> If there were two concealed rooms floating in space with a tennisIf the rooms are absolutely identical and the balls identical and the
> ball bouncing around inside it at say 100 kmph and the room
> was 10 m^3 and both rooms started out absolutely identical, ~how
> long would it take a human eye to detect a difference in the
> location/velocity of the tennis balls? I don't know, but I've been
trajectory of the balls identical then I would expect classical
mechanics to hold just fine at that scale so it'll be a lot longer
than your lifetime before you notice any difference.
Doing a full quantum mechanical treatment is going to be very hard
though, even if you make a lot of approximations it wouldn't be worth
it for any practical purpose (although classical mechanics holding
well in the solar system didn't stop people using GR to calculate the
trajectory of the Apollo spacecraft).
> > I'd be more inclined to say \Delta x \Delta p >= \hbar / 2 myself.I'm not sure one can know how it works without understanding the
> No disagreement then I take it. I do know how the uncertainty
> principle works (it makes a lot of sense also) but I haven't learned
> the mathematics yet (although I have seen them).
mathematics behind it (and how it is related to the commutator).
> > It seems to be more like rambling.The bits that I can make sense of I've probably replied to already so
> I can't really say much about that but if you are more specific
> maybe I could come to an understanding.
I'm not really sure I can be much more specific about the bits where I
can't figure out what you're saying.