Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Refutation of existence of an all powerful being.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

...we might call it a photon.

that doesn't refute energy as a concept merely being a force of matter-motion;

Greebo was stating an energy outside the laws of nature -- a photon isn't.

And yes, Dante, a photon doesn't have a mass, because it is never at rest;

in order for something to have a mass it must be recorded so without velocity;

a photon, however, never rests:

1) E2 = m2c4 + p2c2

2) if M2 = 0

3) then E2 = p2c2

Thus, in the case of the photon, energy is also a concept of a force of motion.

EDIT:

I also saw that I accidentally put a comma in "if energy without mass exists outside the law of nature" in my previous post; which separates 'if energy without mass exists.' I didn't want that.

Edited by Egosum—
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that doesn't refute energy as a concept merely being a force of matter-motion;

Greebo was stating an energy outside the laws of nature -- a photon isn't.

I'm not sure if there's a maximum temperature at which photons can survive or not, but according to my layman's understanding of current Bang theory, in the earliest micromicromicroseconds, even photons may not have existed until the initial inflation of the universe had taken place. There was simply so much energy density in those earliest billionths of a second (if the models are correct) to allow anything to survive.

But regardless, this is only furthering my point - we go back and back and then we hit a point where all of our understanding stops - it breaks down and we enter uncertainty land where NOTHING can be definitively known - not even the rules of physical existence.

The difference between what I'm saying and what Jacob is saying is - I'm saying "this is theory - we cannot know - pretty much anything is possible beyond this point", while Jacob is saying "the rules still apply" while disregarding the simple fact that the rules themselves say they may not apply beyond a certain point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yes, Dante, a photon doesn't have a mass, because it is never at rest;

in order for something to have a mass it must be recorded so without velocity;

a photon, however, never rests:

Without velocity, relative to what? Did Newton have to bring the universe to a standstill to develop his understanding of mass?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yes, Dante, a photon doesn't have a mass, because it is never at rest;

in order for something to have a mass it must be recorded so without velocity;

a photon, however, never rests:

You should not try to claim that all mass is rest mass. The introduction to the Wikipedia article on mass distinguishes mass from matter.

And, pictographic refutation by means moving electrons in a magnetic field. The trajectory is determined by the (rest) mass/charge ratio of the electron for a given magnetic field strength. The rest mass is computed from the measurement of the radius from the beam origin point to the beam termination point.

curvebeam.jpg

This discussion is pretty pointless. The only two things philosophy has to say about physics is to affirm existence exists, and to insist on non-contradiction in identifying what exists. Beyond that, anything goes.

Edited by Grames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dante and Grames, lesson learned:

however, I was indeed referring to the rest mass in the equation of energy and should have mentioned that.

Also, Dante, I'm arguing for the idea that energy is just a measurement of mass-motion. I took Greebo's

statement as energy existing in itself. Which I thought was like saying height or weight exists in itself.

one more thing grames: does a photon have a relativistic mass?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dante and Grames, lesson learned:

however, I was indeed referring to the rest mass in the equation of energy and should have mentioned that.

Also, Dante, I'm arguing for the idea that energy is just a measurement of mass-motion. I took Greebo's

statement as energy existing in itself. Which I thought was like saying height or weight exists in itself.

one more thing grames: does a photon have a relativistic mass?

If a photon is massless energy, then energy can be said to exist in itself. Its as meaningful as anything else we say about pre-expansion space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Relativistic mass" of a photon:

E=mc2

E=hν

mc=hν

m=hν/c

m is mass of a photon, h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light, ν is the frequency of the light, E was energy.

Shouldn't that be

mc2=hv

m=hv/c2

?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a photon is massless energy, then energy can be said to exist in itself. Its as meaningful as anything else we say about pre-expansion space.

But the issue is that mass and particles are not the same thing. A photon does not have mass, but it is still a particle, and the question is whether or not energy can exist independently of physical objects which possess the energy (e.g. particles), or whether it is simply an aspect of objects. Although I disagree with Egosum's characterization of energy as always matter-motion (for example, mass energy is a potential energy that is not manifested in motion), I agree that energy is always an aspect of particles. Just look at the definition: "The property of matter and radiation that is manifest as a capacity to perform work." It is a property of physical systems.

EDIT: To add... we're finding out that even the fundamental forces of the universe are transmitted through 'carrier particles.' See Gauge bosons.

Edited by Dante
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a few semi-off topic comments on the recent semi-off topic string of posts, and then a serious on topic response that I think will help clear/clean up a lot of the confusion here.

Comments:

1) I find it funny that physicists determine that photons have NO mass because they are incapable of measuring the mass of photons. Isn't this rather subjective? "Because I currently have no way of knowing what the mass of a photon is, therefore photons do not have mass". It reminds me of the ridiculous Shrodinger's Cat: "Because we don't know whether the cat is alive or dead, therefore it is both alive and dead".

This is what happens when the Special Sciences are not governed by accurate Philosophy. Ridiculous and illogical conclusions are made based off of the incomplete empirical data collected. Wouldn't it be more astute to conclude that "we do not know whether the cat is alive or dead, but we do know that it is EITHER alive OR dead". Likewise, "we don't know what the mass of a photon is, but since it is a physical object, it likely does have some mass".

2) I think Dante is hitting on an important point that seems to be overlooked. I could be wrong, but from my understanding, energy is an attribute or aspect of an entity. The concept of energy presupposes an entity possessing the energy. It seems that physicists have only considered the idea of entity-less energy because they have discovered that some form of energy preceded physical entities; and in their hyper-inductive, concrete-bound minds, only physical entities exist and therefore there must be entity-less energy. I obviously challenge the middle premise: that ONLY physical entities exist. There is no empirical or logical justification for this premise. I'm sure most on here will contend that this premise is justified by the fact that we have no empirical evidence of non-physical entities, but this- once again- assumes empiricism as the exclusive epistemological law.

And now the Response to the Issue:

3) Greebo (and likely others) have misunderstood the form (and therefore, the force) of my argument. My argument concludes the necessity of a volitional action as the beginning of action/motion in the Universe. This is based on the principles of causation- however this is where the misunderstanding lies: Greebo thinks I am resting my argument on the laws of physics (inertia, action/reaction, etc...) and that these laws do not necessarily apply in a pre-material universe. I agree that these laws do not necessarily apply in a pre-material universe, but these are not the laws upon which my argument rests. Rather, my argument rests on the law of causation which is an extension of the law of identity. These laws most certainly do apply in a pre-material universe and in ANY "possible world" to use the old philosophical terminology.

I am not arguing based on empirical observation (i.e. "we've only seen objects acting like this and that and therefore my conclusion stands"). I am arguing based on logical necessity (i.e. "objects can ONLY act in this or that way, no matter what the details, and therefore my conclusion stands"). Do you see the difference?

Supposing this latest theory of the Physicists is correct: that there was entity-less energy which gave rise to matter, this does not suffice in refuting my argument. When the status of the energy changed (i.e. "acted") and matter was born, either this change/action of the energy was volitional or reactionary.

Once again, no matter how far back on the timeline you go (i.e. pre-big bang, pre-matter, etc..) or how far down the microscope you go (i.e. molecular, atomic, photons and other particles, etc..) the same alternative will stand because the law of identity will still stand; an entity cannot act against its nature and therefore an action will either arise from the volitional nature of the entity or from the reactionary nature of an entity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It reminds me of the ridiculous Shrodinger's Cat: "Because we don't know whether the cat is alive or dead, therefore it is both alive and dead".

This is what happens when the Special Sciences are not governed by accurate Philosophy. Ridiculous and illogical conclusions are made based off of the incomplete empirical data collected.

Schrodinger’s Cat is a thought experiment, it illustrates that in predicting quantum phenomena, the equations may show, for example, a single electron spinning in one direction and another at the same time. Or going through two slits at the same time. No one thinks the cat is both alive and dead, that’s the point of the metaphor. These equations have great accuracy and predictive power, you wouldn’t have a working computer otherwise.

Schrodinger_warning.png

3) Greebo (and likely others) have misunderstood the form (and therefore, the force) of my argument.

I feel that I can say with confidence that EVERYONE understands your argument, and the only one buying into it is you.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#dogged

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Schrodinger’s Cat is a thought experiment, it illustrates that in predicting quantum phenomena, the equations may show, for example, a single electron spinning in one direction and another at the same time. Or going through two slits at the same time. No one thinks the cat is both alive and dead, that’s the point of the metaphor. These equations have great accuracy and predictive power, you wouldn’t have a working computer otherwise.

So what you're saying is that the law of identity breaks down on the quantum level? That Rand was wrong that "contradictions do not exist"? That the physicists have effectively proved the basic laws of logic (and therefore all knowledge) to be null and void?

I'm of the persuasion that perhaps they might be mistaken on what they think they are seeing...

Take just a minute to THINK about the implications of what you're saying. If the laws of Identity, Non-Contradiction, & Excluded Middle do not hold on the Quantum Level, then they do not hold, PERIOD. If the laws of logic do not hold, then nothing can be known with any amount of certainty. If nothing can be known with any amount of certainty, then neither can THAT be known. It is self-refuting. One need only step back from all the blinking lights (data) for a moment and do some basic elementary analysis to realize this.

I feel that I can say with confidence that EVERYONE understands your argument, and the only one buying into it is you.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#dogged

And I think I can say with confidence, by now, that you have absolutely nothing to say in a PHILOSOPHICAL conversation/forum. You don't seem to even understand the basic, elementary rules of philosophy (the laws of logic); or the distinction between philosophy and science.

This is like debating Capitalism with a Socialist who refuses to analyze basic moral premises, but rather obsessively wants to compare every possible research point about "resource allocation", etc... never realizing that he is COMPLETELY missing the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I think I can say with confidence, by now, that you have absolutely nothing to say in a PHILOSOPHICAL conversation/forum. You don't seem to even understand the basic, elementary rules of philosophy (the laws of logic); or the distinction between philosophy and science.

When philosophy comes to a conclusion which contradicts reality, guess which one loses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take just a minute to THINK about the implications of what you're saying. If the laws of Identity, Non-Contradiction, & Excluded Middle do not hold on the God Level, then they do not hold, PERIOD. If the laws of logic do not hold, then nothing can be known with any amount of certainty. If nothing can be known with any amount of certainty, then neither can THAT be known. It is self-refuting. One need only step back from all the blinking lights (data) for a moment and do some basic elementary analysis to realize this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When philosophy comes to a conclusion which contradicts reality, guess which one loses?

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."

-Ayn Rand

EDIT: I want to make this more clear... What the physicists have claimed to find regarding quantum physics is a contradiction. Therefore an Objectivist has two options:

1) Accept Rand's maxim above and therefore determine that the physicists have made a mistake somewhere (one need not know WHERE the mistake has been made in order to know that there indeed is a mistake)

OR

2) Reject Rand's maxim above in favor of the physicist's conclusions, and accept that contradictions do indeed exist and therefore no knowledge is possible (including this little bit).

Edited by Jacob86
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take just a minute to THINK about the implications of what you're saying. If the laws of Identity, Non-Contradiction, & Excluded Middle do not hold on the God Level, then they do not hold, PERIOD. If the laws of logic do not hold, then nothing can be known with any amount of certainty. If nothing can be known with any amount of certainty, then neither can THAT be known. It is self-refuting. One need only step back from all the blinking lights (data) for a moment and do some basic elementary analysis to realize this.

WHO said they don't hold on "the God level"? I certainly did not, and I never would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHO said they don't hold on "the God level"? I certainly did not, and I never would.

Well, I did... There is no difference between what you said about QM (based on my level of knowledge about QM I'm inclined to agree) and what anyone else has been saying about god, at least earlier on in this thread or in other threads.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I did... There is no difference between what you said about QM (based on my level of knowledge about QM I'm inclined to agree) and what anyone else has been saying about god.

There's a bit of a difference. The people holding to the QM positions (mostly Ninth Doctor) claimed contradictions in their own position. I was simply showing the logical conclusion of this.

If I claimed contradictions in my own position, then your post would make sense.

You may accuse my position of containing contradictions, but being accused of contradictions and proudly claiming contradictions are two very different scenarios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may accuse my position of containing contradictions, but being accused of contradictions and proudly claiming contradictions are two very different scenarios.

Your position IS contradictory. You require the existence of a volition able to cause the very first action to occur, but do not require there to be a cause of that volition.

You set aside the laws of causality as soon as you fill in the blank of causal requirement with God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what you're saying is that the law of identity breaks down on the quantum level? That Rand was wrong that "contradictions do not exist"?

Again, no one thinks the cat is alive and dead at the same time, that’s the point of the metaphor. This is about the prediction of events at the quantum level.

Here’s a very crude analogy: imagine an equation to unfailingly predict what card will be randomly drawn from a 52 card deck, and the equation reads 1/52+1/52 etc. 52 times. Can’t miss, right? In this case not very useful, either. But is the genius mathematician who comes up with this equation saying that all 52 cards are really being drawn at the same time? Thus violating the laws of identity, excluded middle etc?

And I think I can say with confidence, by now, that you have absolutely nothing to say in a PHILOSOPHICAL conversation/forum.

Sez you. You brought up Schrodinger’s Cat, and persist in displaying your utter ignorance of its meaning and context. Carry on running your victory laps, though, I think they’re cute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...