Basic Metaphysics 101

[WanderingLands]

It is difficult to some this up in a few paragraphs but there is plenty of reliable information if you search for it. It has been worked out that the total energy of the universe is zero, so the universe is actually the ultimate free lunch. The conservation of laws are not violated in this type of universe. If you like I can find you some links.

I would like some links to read, yes.

Causation as we normally understand it as occurring in time and space does not apply at the quantum level. In fact particles pop in and out of existence, so quickly they don't violate the conservation of energy laws.

How does it not apply to the "quantum level", and how do particles "pop in and out of existence"? Maybe you should consider the "Wave Structure of Matter", where this theory simply solves the apparent complications and contradictions in the modern scientific establishment. I have the information and links on the prior post below that describes this.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=12644

You appear to be talking about two types of causation as though they are one and the same. The scientific causation you are talking about is somewhat different to the type of causation you are talking about when you talk metaphysics.

Give me some reasons why that it is so.

Gravity is not a simple concept, it is still one of the mysteries of science. This would require a lot of explanation.

Well, there are actually some stuff out there that I looked at, that of course don't try to add the mysterious "dark matter" and "dark energy", which would of course contradict the idea of gravity being dominant across the universe. Gravity can either be replaced with the magnetic field, or electromagnetism being dominant; or there is this theory by a Greek scientist and mathematician named Christos A. Tsolkas, who came up with his own theory called the "Electrogravitational Theory".

http://www.tsolkas.gr/html/gravital-1.html

Honestly though, I haven't gotten yet too much into the more concrete sciences; I've been more focused on metaphysics and the Mind. There are a ton of other theories, but I believe that we "commoners" need to start utilizing our critical thinking ourselves and maybe start getting into science ourselves if we want to determine the correct answers for things.

It all depends on what we mean by the term "nothing". In terms of the Big Bang and a universe from nothing the problem of first cause is meaningless.

Nothing simply means "no thing", as in absolutely no thing. Anything added or altered in "nothingness" is no longer "nothing", but indeed "many things" or "all things".

I am not sure what you mean by energy and waves traveling eternally.

I'm talking of the conservation laws, which state that it is conserved, which means that it always exists eternally.

[WanderingLands]

Alright, let's get this all straightened out and stop this thread from derailing.

It's alright to talk about the Big Bang on this thread as it has already been mentioned, but the last thing that I want is for people to drag on this issue when the subject of this thread is about Metaphysics. Any further derailment after this message will result in me reporting the post for not staying on topic (though the posts before this one can still stay).

Let's get down to business.

[Ginkgo]

How does it not apply to the "quantum level", and how do particles "pop in and out of existence"? Maybe you should consider the "Wave Structure of Matter", where this theory simply solves the apparent complications and contradictions in the modern scientific establishment. I have the information and links on the prior post below that describes this.

I guess the most obvious example would be the faster than light exchange of information.

I will read the link and give you my opinion if you like. Quantum mechanics is the most successful scientific theory to date. Complications and contradictions only apply to the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics.

Give me some reasons why that it is so.

I guess the short answer is that when science deals with causation it deals with it in terms of matters of fact. When it comes to metaphysics causation is treated as events. In other words, causation is seen as a apriori function of the mind.

Well, there are actually some stuff out there that I looked at, that of course don't try to add the mysterious "dark matter" and "dark energy", which would of course contradict the idea of gravity being dominant across the universe. Gravity can either be replaced with the magnetic field, or electromagnetism being dominant; or there is this theory by a Greek scientist and mathematician named Christos A. Tsolkas, who came up with his own theory called the "Electrogravitational Theory".

Gravity isn't dominant. In theory it should be as powerful as the other fundamental forces, but it isn't. The mystery is why gravity is so weak.

There are a ton of other theories, but I believe that we "commoners" need to start utilizing our critical thinking ourselves and maybe start getting into science ourselves if we want to determine the correct answers for things.

I think this would be a very bad idea.



I'll stop and get back with the rest later.

[Ginkgo]

Maybe you should consider the "Wave Structure of Matter", where this theory simply solves the apparent complications and contradictions in the modern scientific establishment. I have the information and links on the prior post below that describes this.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=12644

I did consider the articles and as far as I can see I don't have a problem with any of them. These theories are fine, but it simply boils down to the ability of these proposals to explain the current observations and make predictions. If these theories stand up to the test they probably quality as science.

Anyway, that's how I look at it.

[WanderingLands]

I guess the most obvious example would be the faster than light exchange of information.

But how would that prove that particles pop in and out of existence? If that were true, where would they go?

Quantum mechanics is the most successful scientific theory to date. Complications and contradictions only apply to the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics.

The complications and contradictions show why QM is a failure in science, and instead of it being examined and having some parts of it weeded out, the "scientists" who are nothing more than mathematicians who base their "discoveries" on vague mathematical equations, still make even more ridiculous theories that have no basis in thinking or in empirical observation. So this is not simply because of "philosophical implications"; if it doesn't make any sense, and if there can't be any reason to it, then it is false and confusion.

I guess the short answer is that when science deals with causation it deals with it in terms of matters of fact. When it comes to metaphysics causation is treated as events. In other words, causation is seen as a apriori function of the mind.

Alright, well a priori or a pastori, there may still be a union or link between Science and Metaphysics, so I believe that they are complementary to each other.

Gravity isn't dominant. In theory it should be as powerful as the other fundamental forces, but it isn't. The mystery is why gravity is so weak.

Alright then.

I think this would be a very bad idea.

Why would it be a bad idea? If this society was truly free and based upon the foundations of reason and thinking, then we should question the established scientific paradigm to see if it holds water or not. Doing so would enliven the discussion on scientific and metaphysical questions that many people may have had for a long time.

[WanderingLands]

To Ginko:

Anyways, sorry for the delayed reply. I could've done it earlier, but I didn't want to derail this thread at that time over the Big Bang Theory and other things in science.

[Ginkgo]

I guess the most obvious example would be the faster than light exchange of information.

But how would that prove that particles pop in and out of existence? If that were true, where would they go?

Quantum mechanics is the most successful scientific theory to date. Complications and contradictions only apply to the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics.

The complications and contradictions show why QM is a failure in science, and instead of it being examined and having some parts of it weeded out, the "scientists" who are nothing more than mathematicians who base their "discoveries" on vague mathematical equations, still make even more ridiculous theories that have no basis in thinking or in empirical observation. So this is not simply because of "philosophical implications"; if it doesn't make any sense, and if there can't be any reason to it, then it is false and confusion.

I guess the short answer is that when science deals with causation it deals with it in terms of matters of fact. When it comes to metaphysics causation is treated as events. In other words, causation is seen as a apriori function of the mind.

Alright, well a priori or a pastori, there may still be a union or link between Science and Metaphysics, so I believe that they are complementary to each other.

Gravity isn't dominant. In theory it should be as powerful as the other fundamental forces, but it isn't. The mystery is why gravity is so weak.

Alright then.

I think this would be a very bad idea.

Why would it be a bad idea? If this society was truly free and based upon the foundations of reason and thinking, then we should question the established scientific paradigm to see if it holds water or not. Doing so would enliven the discussion on scientific and metaphysical questions that many people may have had for a long time.

If we were quantum physicists then we would probably have some appreciation of the predictive power of quantum mechanics. As I said before, quantum mechanics is the most successful scientific theory to date, it isn't just based of "vague mathematical equations" It explains actual physical phenomena that classical theory cannot explain.

"Where do these virtual particles go?"

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

I agree that metaphysics and science are complementary. In fact if it wasn't for metaphysics we wouldn't have science.



The only bad idea is when we conflate metaphysics with science.

[WanderingLands]

If we were quantum physicists then we would probably have some appreciation of the predictive power of quantum mechanics. As I said before, quantum mechanics is the most successful scientific theory to date, it isn't just based of "vague mathematical equations" It explains actual physical phenomena that classical theory cannot explain.

Sorry, but that is still your opinion, as I show no appreciation for QM and am highly critical of it being that it has not simplified any phenomena, but has complicated itself with numerous theories of even smaller particles and so on.

"Where do these virtual particles go?"

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

How can we know that particles "annihilate each other", other than just mathematical equations, when we never have actually seen particles but instead drawings of them.

[Ginkgo]

If we were quantum physicists then we would probably have some appreciation of the predictive power of quantum mechanics. As I said before, quantum mechanics is the most successful scientific theory to date, it isn't just based of "vague mathematical equations" It explains actual physical phenomena that classical theory cannot explain.

Sorry, but that is still your opinion, as I show no appreciation for QM and am highly critical of it being that it has not simplified any phenomena, but has complicated itself with numerous theories of even smaller particles and so on.

"Where do these virtual particles go?"

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

How can we know that particles "annihilate each other", other than just mathematical equations, when we never have actually seen particles but instead drawings of them.

It's not actually my opinion. Summary taken from wikipedia

A great deal of modern technological inventions operate at a scale where quantum effects are significant. MIR machines, laser, micro, electron microscope chips.. all electrical systems and devices."

Quantum tunneling is vital for many devices-even in a simple light switch, as otherwise the electrons in the electrical current could not penetrate the potential barrier made up of a layer of oxide. Flash memory chips in USB devices use quantum tunneling to erase their memory cells.


The the article is saying that classical mechanics cannot provide a suitable explanation for this type of behavior. A good example of the breakdown of classical mechanics comes in the form of black body radiation. Classical mechanics leaves us with predictions of infinities. It was only when quantum mechanics solved the problem by postulating that radiation comes in the form of discrete packets, or quanta.

As far as I understand the best hope for 'observing' virtual particles lies in Hawking radiation. This is where machines such as the LHC can be helpful. The LHC wasn't built to just find the Higgs boson. It's main purpose is to simulate the earliest moments of the Big Bang.

[WanderingLands]

It's not actually my opinion. Summary taken from wikipedia

A great deal of modern technological inventions operate at a scale where quantum effects are significant. MIR machines, laser, micro, electron microscope chips.. all electrical systems and devices."

Quantum tunneling is vital for many devices-even in a simple light switch, as otherwise the electrons in the electrical current could not penetrate the potential barrier made up of a layer of oxide. Flash memory chips in USB devices use quantum tunneling to erase their memory cells.


The the article is saying that classical mechanics cannot provide a suitable explanation for this type of behavior. A good example of the breakdown of classical mechanics comes in the form of black body radiation. Classical mechanics leaves us with predictions of infinities. It was only when quantum mechanics solved the problem by postulating that radiation comes in the form of discrete packets, or quanta.

As far as I understand the best hope for 'observing' virtual particles lies in Hawking radiation. This is where machines such as the LHC can be helpful. The LHC wasn't built to just find the Higgs boson. It's main purpose is to simulate the earliest moments of the Big Bang.

I've looked into vacuum energy, and it may seem interesting for me as it relates to my searching up on Viktor Schauberger, Nikola Tesla, and their free energy concept (with zero-point energy). I'm still not sure though, as it is tied to the excessive theories in QM, such as Feynman's multiple history theory. I'll look further into that further sometime in the future, the Higgs Boson is nothing more than sensationalized bunk promoted by CERN, and even they at that organization admit that it doesn't exist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeVuQXrK4Ww

The video above shows an article, which you can also access via the description.

[Ginkgo]

I've looked into vacuum energy, and it may seem interesting for me as it relates to my searching up on Viktor Schauberger, Nikola Tesla, and their free energy concept (with zero-point energy). I'm still not sure though, as it is tied to the excessive theories in QM, such as Feynman's multiple history theory. I'll look further into that further sometime in the future, the Higgs Boson is nothing more than sensationalized bunk promoted by CERN, and even they at that organization admit that it doesn't exist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeVuQXrK4Ww

The video above shows an article, which you can also access via the description.

But the Nobel Prizes have already been handed out for the Higgs boson discovery. From memory Higgs got his halfway though last year.

I'll check.

[WanderingLands]

But the Nobel Prizes have already been handed out for the Higgs boson discovery. From memory Higgs got his halfway though last year.

I'll check.

It does not prove that Higgs Boson actually exists, just simply because there were Nobel Prizes for it. There have been many discoveries far more important than Higgs Boson that actually exists (ie. Cold Fusion, Implosion engines, etc.), that have never gotten Nobel Prizes let alone hardly any mainstream acknowledgement.

[Ginkgo]

But the Nobel Prizes have already been handed out for the Higgs boson discovery. From memory Higgs got his halfway though last year.

I'll check.

It does not prove that Higgs Boson actually exists, just simply because there were Nobel Prizes for it. There have been many discoveries far more important than Higgs Boson that actually exists (ie. Cold Fusion, Implosion engines, etc.), that have never gotten Nobel Prizes let alone hardly any mainstream acknowledgement.

So are you saying that the discovery is the result of elaborate fabrication?

[WanderingLands]

So are you saying that the discovery is the result of elaborate fabrication?

I have already stated that it is, and I have brought up a video (where CERN had admitted there is no such thing as a Higgs Boson) in my prior post as evidence. I have even encountered another article which proves my point:

http://www.wired.com/2013/10/higgs-nobel-physics/

Excerpt:

For all the excitement the award has already generated, finding the Higgs — arguably the most important discovery in more than a generation — has left physicists without a clear roadmap of where to go next. While popular articles often describe how the Higgs might help theorists investigating the weird worlds of string theory, multiple universes, or supersymmetry, the truth is that evidence for these ideas is scant to nonexistent.

No one is sure which of these models, if any, will eventually describe reality. The current picture of the universe, the Standard Model, is supposed to account for all known particles and their interactions. But scientists know that it’s incomplete. Its problems need fixing, and researchers could use some help figuring out how. Some of them look at the data and say that we need to throw out speculative ideas such as supersymmetry and the multiverse, models that look elegant mathematically but are unprovable from an experimental perspective. Others look at the exact same data and come to the opposite conclusion.

The fact that it has not even solved any scientific problem, or has never even proved any of the other mathematical concoctions as "super-symmetry" and "multiverse", proves beyond doubt that it was just another concoction.

[Ginkgo]

So are you saying that the discovery is the result of elaborate fabrication?

I have already stated that it is, and I have brought up a video (where CERN had admitted there is no such thing as a Higgs Boson) in my prior post as evidence. I have even encountered another article which proves my point:

http://www.wired.com/2013/10/higgs-nobel-physics/

Excerpt:

For all the excitement the award has already generated, finding the Higgs — arguably the most important discovery in more than a generation — has left physicists without a clear roadmap of where to go next. While popular articles often describe how the Higgs might help theorists investigating the weird worlds of string theory, multiple universes, or supersymmetry, the truth is that evidence for these ideas is scant to nonexistent.

No one is sure which of these models, if any, will eventually describe reality. The current picture of the universe, the Standard Model, is supposed to account for all known particles and their interactions. But scientists know that it’s incomplete. Its problems need fixing, and researchers could use some help figuring out how. Some of them look at the data and say that we need to throw out speculative ideas such as supersymmetry and the multiverse, models that look elegant mathematically but are unprovable from an experimental perspective. Others look at the exact same data and come to the opposite conclusion.

The fact that it has not even solved any scientific problem, or has never even proved any of the other mathematical concoctions as "super-symmetry" and "multiverse", proves beyond doubt that it was just another concoction.

Well, it has actually solved a few problems, but many still remain a mystery. All the quote is saying is the discovery of the Higgs boson is of little or no help in proving super symmetry and multiverse theories. Super symmetry and the multiverse remain just that at this stage- a theory.