Your reading comprehension is terrible. Reread what I wrote.

What you consider simple has more to do with your own scientific inadequacy than our ability to explain it. Also the information is out on the web, we should not have to sit here and school you on the totality of plate tectonics.

You are your worst enemy when it comes to understanding how things actually work.

The centripetal force of the earths spin is NOT greater than the gravitational force. (Hint . . . by a huge factor)

NEXT!

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970724a.html



JB, why don't you ask a physicist?





Actually it acknowledges your objectification and belittlement of him and me, and just about every other person who works in science today and well, for the most part all of the poeple who are responsible for your standard of living you ungrateful mouth breather.

Tit meet Tat.

NO. All of the energy that turned into matter did so eons ago. It takes FAR more energy to create matter than happen in nature to create you and me.

Sugar IS MATTER. Say it with me. Electrons are MATTER. Say it with me.

All the matter in the universe was created during the BB. We do not have matter being created in the earth JB. Its easier one of the stupidest things EVER.

To create matter artificially we have to dim the lights on massive grids to make a few particles that would make a helium atom look like the titanic next to a row boat. Far easier to release energy from matter, than to create matter from energy.

Man, the sci fi books I love eat up those kinds of ideas, but there is good practical reasons why its science fiction and not science.

All of this without ever acknowledging which definition of determinism you are using.

If you are not using the definition used by trained physicists then you are wasting my time.

Look up causal determinism. No conversation about free will vs determinism could be less absurd when switching between these definitions and not taking seriously concerns regarding the acausal overtones that are required by free will proponents which use QM to somehow explain consciousness but never make any progress in that endeavor.

In this case? Free will obviously, however emergent properties are everywhere. The color of an apple is an emergent property. Break down all of its atoms and its not red, or green or blue. Language is an emergent property of the structure and level of organization of large neural networks.

Looking at free will from QM is like looking at the elephant one pore at a time, never will you map the structure or have anything meaningful to say. The scale of inquiry is all off. At the scale of QM consciousness could never be seen. Like never changing the zoom of the fractal you are looking at and never learning the pattern.

JB are you really this stupid?

People just like plants get most of our matter from the atmosphere, and soil.

Solar winds interacting with the particles involved in radiometric decay would also interact with and strip away lighter elements from our atmosphere such as oxygen and hydrogen, oh yea and of course the molecules they form such as water . . .good thing metalwing is correct, not howsitz.

Coronal mass ejections would strip our atmosphere of life sustaining molecules without a magnetic field, and if the high energy particles are interacting with potassium-40, or Argon-40 inside of a rock in the earth to effect radiometric decay, they are definitely interacting with the atmosphere.

Any attempt to say this field was at one point absent or significantly weaker would have to explain how we have been able to keep our pristine life sustaining atmosphere where Venus could not, but balance that against the need for those particle to interact with our commonly used radiometric isotopes for your theory to have merit . . . Either our atmosphere is shielded, or its not, either the isotopes are being bombarded and decay rates increased, or not.

Nothing presented by howsit has helped his argument, it only ever complicates his theory and leaves more questions.

Creationist drivel is never intended to really explain anything, just keep those with weak or absent science educations interested.

MASSIVE FACE PALM.

Ahh stronger . . . as in better able to protect us from these high energy particles . . . btw also better shielding the argon-40 from increased decay rate due to energetic bombardment . . of which we know a lot because we do it in the lab . . .


yea, no . . . we physicists don't know a thing about it really. The creationists knows more about biology than biologists and more about physics than physicists! Pure GENIUS!

Guess where living things get the matter to grow from?

hint . . . not sunlight.

AWESOME! YEA YEA, THE EARTH HAS A QUANTUM MATTER GENERATOR IN THE CORE . . . THATS IT!

>>Bushido stats writing the screen play.

Expanding Earth my 4ss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epwg6Od49e8&feature=related

Well I know what never seems to annoy me . . . having fun. Maybe if you told us a bit about what you enjoy doing.

ex. I noticed you play piano, I enjoy playing my saxophone, I find other musicians rarely annoy me and generally make for good company.

Anyways, just saying hello from Jax.

Looks like you figured it out.

See this is where you could not be more wrong.

Religion is not objective. Science is, that places them in completely different realms.

Comparing them in the way you have is exactly what I am talking about.

Obtaining a consensus when half the party is making it up as they go is impossible.

Discussing science with the anti-scientifically minded among us: The pursuit of unobtanium!

Certainty is entirely epistemic. Why? Because it deals with knowledge. What we know deals with how certain we are or are not. The uncertainty principle deals with our knowledge of momentum or trajectory for measurements of particles interacting. Some people are certain an invisible sky daddy listens to there first world problems in the total absence of any ontological factors to support that conclusion.

So first you are making an epistemic claim about an ontological set of mental states. What we can know about the individual momentum or trajectory of particles has little to do with making choices. These two things live at very different scales, one involved a handful of particles at the quantum level of EPR, Tunneling, and spectra absorption. The other at the scale of billions of neurons involved in thousands of connections per cycle. This is called an error of scale. Basically you are applying a property of particle interactions to the universe as a whole, all the while admitting that at large scales determinism rules. Your contradiction that I tried to point out.

My point is that reducing mental states to individual particle interactions looses the very emergent properties one is trying to examine when one talks about free will making the exercise futile.

Then on top of that we have the misunderstandings of the limitations of epistemic vs ontologic. No concept could be more confused from the get go than free will with these two errors involved.

The link you cited makes the same exact mistakes as you are making, which when smart people make this mistake I cringe either because they are programed by society, or they just want to publish a paper which will get a popular science column article written on it because all of the laymen idiots out there cant follow along but will read anything about free will.

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/948/1/HiddenDeterminismus.pdf
If you are not a physicist this may be way over your head, but it deals with determinism and explains the errors made when reflecting upon free will from a particle interaction scale, it also explains that often fundamental parts of QM are deterministic(Schrodinger equation is an example), and we can also parse causal factors from indeterminate metrics, which shows us that under it all truly acausal influences are not possible really, or if they do occur there is no way they are responsible for cognition or choice (rarity).

Indeterminate =/= Acausal is one of the biggest things to take away.

It baffles me when smart people set themselves up for failure, or spend a lot of time working out the physics and maths of cause and effect only to realize . . . if free will exists then it must be acausal, or conversely if free will exists we must give up determinism.

Sigh . . . as if we didn't know this the second we define free will as being something other than determined by causal relationships within our spacetime.

All I can say is . . . well duh.

Choice is what we should investigate and science is descriptive, NOT proscriptive, so when we find out that it is entirely determined we can then either redefine free will if your in love with the term, or we can start talking about choices, and emergent properties, and chaos theory instead of these tired old QM vs determinism vs free will conversations which are essentially a tautology of idiocy.

Just my .50 cents.



Here I will translate for you.

It is entirely inappropriate to use the tools of QM to analyze freedom of choice.

Also when you see the phrase strict statistical laws, you should be reading . . . NOT acausal. An interaction causes the collapse of the wave function, making it a strict statistical equation regarding probability distribution. The probability is what we KNOW, or can KNOW, however a cause was determined, even when it is time-invariant.

I think one of the problems that perpetuates this discussion is that really two different definitions exist for determinism. One which is entirely ontological, its often called Causal Determinism, (causes have effects), the other mixes ontology and epistemology and is the source of all this drama (damn philosophers), and the source of the word itself, determined a very epistemic word. It saddens me when other physicists use the later, or worse equivocate between them as we see the authors of that article you posted. (A couple of mathematicians, well par for course [no offense to anyone out there], but physicists should know better)

Figured Id address this head on . . . Yes, to the first part, it does pose limits on our ability to know what is going on, No, to the second part. QM says NOTHING about the underlying ontology, that is why when it was first developed you had so many interpretations. Interpretations are not needed when a theory develops an ontological framework. Also what does an ontological framework mean if not a way to DETERMINE cause and effect? Ontology: what happens, framework: system of organizing information.

A system for organizing information about what happens. Yup, a way to determine cause and effect, nope it does not do that.

QM is a collection of tools which are useful in providing probabilities which when done exhaustively give good boundaries for interactions.

Not the same thing at all and EXACTLY why interpretations are so often talked about.

You should look up the definition of decision.


Pretty typical really. Don't know what your talking about, no worries, just change definitions till it fits.

They are not compatible.

Nature selecting random mutations based on the positive or negative effects it has on an organism ability to reproduce fertile offspring is not compatible with some entity making decisions.

This ends poorly for theists, they end up either deists or leave in a huff and ignore the contradiction. Lots of the latter in this thread, only difference is the tenacity of the creationist.

Where in the discovery of knowledge have we ever made progress by defining a term, then seeking out if it exists or not?

Cart before horse.

Free will defined by its lack of causal interaction is a non-starter. So why do it?

Starting with such a notion ends with the conclusion that choices are acausal, come from literally nowhere, and are unaffected by the very universe we are a part of and exist within. Pure nonsense.

I cannot fathom anyone really thinking that is a good place to start, or even possible to learn anything from such a baseline.

It would be like us making up a new term, lets call it craptonite. Then we set criteria for its existence that is absurd, lets say that Craptonite only exists where nothing can interact with it, NOTHING, not space, not time, not energy, NOTHING.

Then we say that craptonite is the source of all flatulence.

That is the level of discourse when free will is predicated on a lack of causal interaction.

I call craptonite.

Certainty, or uncertainty is an epistemic notion. NOT ONTOLOGICAL. It also deals with interactions at scales which are not relevant to neural networks.

Any time anyone says something like, "since the very existence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle guarantees that the universe is non-Newtonian and therefore that determinism is only valid at larger scales in the statistical sense, not fundamentally so"

I want to break this down what you said.

Uncertainty guaranteed for the universe.
Determinism Valid at Large Scales.

What scale does the universe exist at?

Right . . .

Throwing around words like fundamental does not fix generalizations of scale. Intermingling epistemic concerns with ontological causative origins does not a logical argument make.

Whole lot of words to essentially say you have no clue.

Anyone so clueless should hesitate to state there opinion.

First ladies are essentially political supporters with a platform. Obama should pay her as his employer.

Someone should ask him why he doesn't pay his wife for all her hard work, she works for him, not our country.

Women do get equal pay when all factors are considered.

Feminists movements tend to like to present data that excludes all of the relevant factors such as time of employment, work history, gaps in employment, degrees, certifications, and most importantly choice.

When you compare apples to apples.

The first reason is stated above the statistics which say women make .75-.77 cents on the dollar of men ignore the criteria which anyone man or women is judge against for pay.

The second reason is that women tend to choose jobs in social science, biology, or psychology fields vs men tend to choose jobs in engineering, technology or mathematics heavy fields . . . which pay better.

When comparing a women in a engineering field to a man with the same background, same degrees, same amount of work history, no gaps in employment and no children the pay is equal. In fact in some areas women are exceeding there male counter parts when benefits are rightly added to the pay.

Far more government money is also available for women than men.