Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Death To Religion] Re: free will, who's writing your email?

Expand Messages
  • richard
    ... From: bestonnet_00 To: Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 1:54 PM Subject: [Death To Religion]
    Message 1 of 59 , Aug 17, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "bestonnet_00" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
      To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.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 Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.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
    • bestonnet_00
      ... I m doing a Masters in physics right now. I knew very little about QM back when I was in Year 11 myself (and don t really know that much more now, however
      Message 59 of 59 , Aug 21, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "iamthewayandthetruth111"
        <iamthewayandthetruth111@...> wrote:
        > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > 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).

        I'm doing a Masters in physics right now. I knew very little about QM
        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 macroscopic
        > world becomes altered over time because of quantum mechanics.

        Compared to classical theory pretty much not at all.

        > If there were two concealed rooms floating in space with a tennis
        > 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
        > curious.

        If the rooms are absolutely identical and the balls identical and the
        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.
        > >
        > 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).

        I'm not sure one can know how it works without understanding the
        mathematics behind it (and how it is related to the commutator).

        > > It seems to be more like rambling.
        > >
        > I can't really say much about that but if you are more specific
        > maybe I could come to an understanding.

        The bits that I can make sense of I've probably replied to already so
        I'm not really sure I can be much more specific about the bits where I
        can't figure out what you're saying.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.