Facebook Activity



Teen Ink on Twitter

Teen Ink Forums

Lively discussions with other teens
   
Destinee posted this thread...
Nov. 1, 2012 at 9:43 pm

Hey everyone! What's up? This is a continuation from Half.note's thread "Bible Study" that I was very rudely diverting.
 
Breece, you said:
 
Destinee: 
  
"Doesn't logic require a universe to work within?   
  
If the universe literally means "everything in existance" and God is not part of the universe, isn't that illogical and contradicting fundamental rules itself?   
  
Also, on a separate note, something you might find interesting: 
  
scientificamerican.c om/article.cfm?id=quantum-m crophone"
 
I'll try to reply one by one:
 
1. "Doesn't logic require a universe to operate within?" Hm. I'm not sure, to be honest. I assume we're talking about deductive logic (I'm taking that course right now and MAN OH MAN is it hard!!! Never take it. Honestly). Anyways. Our minds can only encompass logic within a universal framework, yes, since that's all we've been exposed to. BUT let's note the difference between something being conceivable versus something not being conceivable. Granted, what's conceivable is also based on our past experience, but bear with me (and basically every logician ever) in accepting a difference between the two.
 
Also, please note that we were talking about Jesus, who incidentally was within this universe. I think a more relevant (and answerable) question is: "Does logic apply to all things within this universe?" To which I would say, yes.
 
I agree that there is a limit to which our minds can work. Outside physical experience, i.e. this universe, who knows if things are 'logical' like they are here...after all, apparently, God is timeless :D But note that it is not illogical for something to be timeless. It is simply not possible within our current existence. That does not mean it's not true or possible...
 
Anyways, without logic, we're pretty much helpless at figuring anything out about the supernatural. If God operates with the laws of justice (which is why He sacrificed Himself), then I'm pretty sure that He can operate logically too :P This is just a guess though...
 
Okay nexttt...
 
3. "If the universe means...etc etc" Semantics. Universe is everything physical and observable. God is something deduced through logic and observation, and it is deduced that He is outside this universe. 
 
3. "Quantum stuff" Yaah I've heard of that. Have I ever mentioned that Physics really isn't my thing? Like seriously? :) Anyways, I don't know enough about quantum stuff to comment :) 
 
Cheers.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Breece6 replied...
Nov. 2, 2012 at 6:17 am

 
Destinee:
 
:D
 
So the gist of your argument is that since Jesus existed within the universe that means that he is restricted by logic.  
 
*shrugs* if we assume he's part of God like the Christian standpoint does I s'pose anything is possible.  I'm not sure, Jesus being the son of God doesn't quite make sense to me anymore (darn you and your Islam :P)
 
I think I mentioned in one of my threads that because God doesn't have to obey the laws of logic there is no way other than his Word to determine his attributes, which is one of the problems I have believing :P
 
Quantum stuff is fun!  I'm taking Chemistry right now and it's fascinating.  

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
DynamoThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Nov. 2, 2012 at 11:46 pm

Breece: Ok, old boy, ya puttin' in a lot of debate here. Is God restricted by logic? Frankly speaking, no. I have a concept of the universe based on relative motion (the special theory) that ya migh' find interestin', but I'll post it when I get time.
 
Quantum physics is fun, Dess. You oughta take it, it's all about how Zeno was disproved when he said "All motion is an illusion". To some extent it's true, but it's false, as Christopher Schiller says in his volume "Motion mountain". You oughta get it, its very informative. 
 
How can ya survive Chemistry, Breece? Are you taking Physical or inorganic or organic or analytical? I'm taking organic right now and I always mess up who's supposed to react with who. *shrugs* Just  not my sweat. Bio is a lot better than chem.
 
I think we two oughta meet somewhere and have a lengthy discussion on religion, quantum physics and philosophy. Just that I live o'er the sea. Will get someday and then for the torpedo:P

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
DynamoThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Nov. 2, 2012 at 11:47 pm

Sorry, it isn't all about Zeno being disproved but much more than that!. It has all the stuff about time dilation, length contraction and their relation to the beginning and end of the universe. Just kiddin':P 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
DynamoThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Nov. 2, 2012 at 11:50 pm

Your link isn't working, buddy. Check it out. Nice little shock for a feller like me:P

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
DynamoThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Nov. 3, 2012 at 12:14 am

The author in your link was a bit confused. I mean, at one place he says: 
" "[C]orrespondingly, the resonator was in a superposition of vibrating and not vibrating""
 
And then:
"[T]hus, in the superposition of states the resonator is never really in two totally distinct places."
 
I understand that it is aiming that the solution to Schrodinger's cat thought exp is just around the corner, but then, I just came up with one fallacy mentioned in the comments:
 
"The author's statement: "But still, the experiment showed that a large object (the resonator is made of about 10 trillion atoms) can display just as much quantum weirdness as single atoms do." is likely false, since piezoelectric atoms were likely responding individually, each producing the quantum effect."
 
Now we again have no proof that this was a manifestation of macro or micro quantum vibration effect. Read another comment:
 
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but the vibrations were on the atomic level, not the macro level, so there was no macro manifestation of vibration. The macro element was the resonator, but the quantum effect was the vibration, which was at the subatomic level. In other words, this is NOT an example of macro quantum effects, but rather subatomic quantum effects produced on a macro substrate."
 
Again, the sweat is about it: the effect was quantum but was it the effect individually produced by the piezoelectric substance's atoms or was it a macro quantum effect of the resonator's vibration.
 
Another guy wrote:
 
"The article states that the resonating device is one micron thick, consisting of piezoelectric material sandwiched between two layers of aluminum. It is just 40 microns long, making it just visible to the naked eye. The article does not state how thick the piezoelectric material is: it is this material that is resonating in response to the electric current.



If the piezoelectric material is not much more than one molecule thick, it would seem that its quantum scale resonance is not a macroscopic manifestation of quantum effects. The molecules would all be synchronously responding, at quantum scales, to the electric current. The fact that the piezoelectric material is a component in an aluminum macroscopic structure would be coincidental to the quantum piezoelectric effect."
 
I am just copying these comments coz they have something in substance. So while it is supposed to be macro-quantum-weirdness, Schrodinger's cat exp. cannot be resolved until further someone further construes it.
 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
DynamoThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Nov. 3, 2012 at 12:40 am

Also, in response to quantum fluctuations issue leading to violation with energy, the concept is closely linked with virtual particles, which, in all respeces, behave mathematically and direct evidence to their properties of travleing faster than light and back in time is not known in physics. So while we generally accept that conservation of energy holds, we must also take in view this point you rightly pointed out. An explanation based on Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics is available at WIKIPedia.
 
Another thing we must consider about this experiment on macro-quantum vibration effects. That is:
 
 
Steven Weinberg in "Einstein's Mistakes", Physics Today, November 2005, page 31, said:


All this familiar story is true, but it leaves out an irony. Bohr's version of quantum mechanics was deeply flawed, but not for the reason Einstein thought. The Copenhagen interpretation describes what happens when an observer makes a measurement, but the observer and the act of measurement are themselves treated classically. This is surely wrong: Physicists and their apparatus must be governed by the same quantum mechanical rules that govern everything else in the universe. But these rules are expressed in terms of a wave function (or, more precisely, a state vector) that evolves in a perfectly deterministic way. So where do the probabilistic rules of the Copenhagen interpretation come from? Considerable progress has been made in recent years toward the resolution of the problem, which I cannot go into here. It is enough to say that neither Bohr nor Einstein had focused on the real problem with quantum mechanics. The Copenhagen rules clearly work, so they have to be accepted. But this leaves the task of explaining them by applying the deterministic equation for the evolution of the wave function, the Schrödinger equation, to observers and their apparatus.
 
Just the last straw. This was just some blatantly treated response. For the consideration that logic restrains God is not true, I'll post later.
 
Cheers:P

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Destinee replied...
Nov. 3, 2012 at 2:54 am

Breece: 
 
Yeah. Good summary :)
 
God being outside of logic doesn't mean that He doesn't act logically. Logic isn't INHERENT within things. The sun doesn't decide to behave logically. Logic isn't a trait; it's based off of observations and generalizations on how things work. 
 
So really, IMO, saying God exists outside of logic doesn't really mean much. Nor does it mean much to say God operates within logic. God operates, and our perception of it is logical. 
 
I'm starting to confuse myself...
 
If there is no way other than His Word to determine His attributes, then you are using reason anyway. (Presumably God doesn't operate reasonably either?) You literally cannot say anything about God without resorting to reason or logic.
 
Also, if we assume Jesus is God, we encounter a contradiction, since God is eternal, Jesus was created, God is perfect, perfection implies never changing, being turned into a human (human nature/godly nature) is change, etc, are all contradictions. Encountering a contradiction proves the original assumption wrong. 
 
I liked quantum stuff in Chem! I just hate Physics...

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
DynamoThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Nov. 3, 2012 at 3:12 am

The ones about atomic particles and their quantum effects in chem?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Destinee replied...
Nov. 3, 2012 at 3:54 pm

Hmm, the stuff that talks about magnetic quantum number, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, etc. It's all very cool :)

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
DynamoThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Nov. 4, 2012 at 1:05 am

I've also read that! Seems cool to me. And when we had to study spectral series based on quantum magnetic effect and compton's effect, I loved that part! Iwish they'd destroy organic chem, though, its stifling me to a long, boring death:D

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Destinee replied...
Nov. 5, 2012 at 12:47 pm

Haha i love naming stuff in organic chem :) Chem is one of my favourite subjects, definitely.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Breece6 replied...
Nov. 5, 2012 at 2:45 pm

Sorry guys, I had more fun things to do over the weekend than debating.  :P
 
Dynamo:
 
I'd love to meet up with all you on this subforum, that'd be great :D  
 
I still think we should put together a book chronicling our philosophic journies and introspections through TI.  We could all go back and forth about our questioning, our opinions, how our personal lives affected our views and how TI changed them or made us question our preconceptions and such.  Then we could all end with our own separate closing words on what the experience has left us with.
 
I bet we could make it really angsty and ask for TI's permission to name it Teen Ink.  We would make a gorillion brazillion dollars.  
 
Yeah, Chemistry is tough but I enjoy it.  I'm only in 10th grade so all I'm taking is Chemistry 1 H :P  I wanna do IB in my junior and senior years, then maybe I'll take Organic before I go to college, get it out of the way early.  
 
In regards to the article:
 
I think when he said it was vibrating and not vibrating but not in two distinct places he was trying to say that despite vibrating and not vibrating, the effect was confined to relatively the same position, just translated slightly (as opposed to it being like a milimeter apart from each other or something along those lines.)
 
I do agree with what you said about it being only an example of micro weirdness though.
 
I think a better phrasing of what was going on is that quantum weirdness was occuring on a micro scale in a large enough amount of atoms that they could be seen by the naked eye.  
 
I suppose though that you can't ask for much more, I mean compare this to a chemical reaction. The reaction itself is taking place at a "micro" level, yet all the atoms participating in the reaction may be a "macro" object.  I know it's not exactly the same thing but it seems like it would work similarly.  
 
 
 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Breece6 replied...
Nov. 5, 2012 at 2:46 pm

 
Sorry guys, I had more fun things to do over the weekend than debating.  :P
 
Dynamo:
 
I'd love to meet up with all you on this subforum, that'd be great :D  
 
I still think we should put together a book chronicling our philosophic journies and introspections through TI.  We could all go back and forth about our questioning, our opinions, how our personal lives affected our views and how TI changed them or made us question our preconceptions and such.  Then we could all end with our own separate closing words on what the experience has left us with.
 
I bet we could make it really angsty and ask for TI's permission to name it Teen Ink.  We would make a gorillion brazillion dollars.  
 
Yeah, Chemistry is tough but I enjoy it.  I'm only in 10th grade so all I'm taking is Chemistry 1 H :P  I wanna do IB in my junior and senior years, then maybe I'll take Organic before I go to college, get it out of the way early.  
 
In regards to the article:
 
I think when he said it was vibrating and not vibrating but not in two distinct places he was trying to say that despite vibrating and not vibrating, the effect was confined to relatively the same position, just translated slightly (as opposed to it being like a milimeter apart from each other or something along those lines.)
 
I do agree with what you said about it being only an example of micro weirdness though.
 
I think a better phrasing of what was going on is that quantum weirdness was occuring on a micro scale in a large enough amount of atoms that they could be seen by the naked eye.  
 
I suppose though that you can't ask for much more, I mean compare this to a chemical reaction. The reaction itself is taking place at a "micro" level, yet all the atoms participating in the reaction may be a "macro" object.  I know it's not exactly the same thing but it seems like it would work similarly.  
 
 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Breece6 replied...
Nov. 5, 2012 at 2:57 pm

 
Destinee:
 
Despite confusing yourself, your response was actually pretty enlightening to me :D
 
I now realize that arguing that we have no way of knowing God's attributes despite His Word is given and I didn't really have to argue that point. :)
 
Regardless, at the same time as Jesus being God is illogical, at the same time many other acts of God are as well.
 
In fact one could argue that God "existing apart from the universe" is illogical in itself.  The universe is literally defined as everything, how could God be something and not be a part of everything?  
 
The creation of the universe is illogical as well, he created it out of nothing apparently.  
 
My point is, regardless of whether or not God is restricted by any inherent laws of logic or being, I don't think applying logical fallacies to God's actions or lack thereof is a valid argument.
 
Saying God couldn't be Jesus because it is "illogical" is implying that logic is applicable to His actions.  However the Qu'ran and Bible's descriptions of some of his other actions are not logical (i.e. existing "outside" of the universe, creating something from nothing, etc.)  
 
I loved Biology compared to Chemistry though!  It was really interesting, I did have an amazing teacher though, he had turtles and snakes in his room and he was really imaginitive and fun.  

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
DynamoThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Nov. 5, 2012 at 8:49 pm

Well, bio and physics are my subjects. Chem is causing me buckyballs:D Yeah, Breece, Syed Ahmed Khan also said that nature or science is work of God and the word of God is his book. Since they cannot exist separately, so the word without the work is useless:D Btw, I love the idea of a book. We must meet up and decide something.lm in for it:p

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread

Launch Teen Ink Chat
Site Feedback