There is no logic for existence

[IJesusChrist]

Isn't it possible that laws of reality are connected to the mind, and that all minds can only zoom in so far? When we invent cameras that can zoom in on things, we tend to think that the capacity to zoom has nothing to do with the outside word and everything to do with the technology of the camera. However, what if it's true that the outside world places limits on how far perception can zoom in?

As I mentioned to Pincho, there are undoubtedly limitations on how far our physical perspective can shrink. It's possible that we may never be able to observe what is underneath the quantum realm. But this has no bearing on the issue of whether there really are realms beneath the quantum realm or not.

Theoretically, it is entirely possible that there are, and science is inherently incapable of ruling it out.

-

We just need a weaker particle/wave than a photon or electron.

It will not happen for possibly another 200 hundred years before we find the right type of matter or energy to analyze this scale, as well as be able to use it.

Imagine if we had a "string" microscope, that shot 10^30 strings at an atom, giving it a perfect portrait.

[Pam Seeback]

The intellect is the thought continuum effect (crystallized into layered affect) of Infinite, Omnipresent Cause.

A crystallized finite effect (i.e., a quantum microscope) cannot enter into, peek into, its unnamed, non-crystallized, infinite, omnipresent Cause.

All that it reveals will be of the same nature as itself, that is, of being an effect that will eventually become crystallized into affect by the observer's dualism of thought interpretation.

The human mind of the vanity of "wisdom" cannot accept the metaphysics and mysticism of the truth that Life can never be Known, for Life is the infinite thought continuum of "I Am That." Some vain and ignorant "wise" men have gone insane trying to dissect, with their finite things, the Infinity of THAT.

When one can prove to all of mankind, without a shadow of doubt, that they are the Creator of every thought in every moment, and prove this truth by speaking every thought in every moment, then they have the right to say that they have uncovered the absolute truth/reality of the Invisibility of the Creator of Every and All Thoughts.

Until then, every word that claims to have discovered the sense reality of Infinite Life/God/Consciousness, is a lie.

[Carmel]

David:
It's possible that we may never be able to observe what is underneath the quantum realm. But this has no bearing on the issue of whether there really are realms beneath the quantum realm or not.

Carmel:
That's true.

David:
Theoretically, it is entirely possible that there are, and science is inherently incapable of ruling it out.

Carmel:
Scientists don't rule it out.

Pincho:
Well, I think I know exactly what is inside an atom

Carmel:
subatomic particles...some of which are known. There may be some that are yet to be discovered and some that may never be known.

Pincho:
and if I'm right it completely rules out scaling down any further.

Carmel:
If you're right, no one will ever know it, except you. You don't speak the language of science which is highly logical, methodical and includes mathematical calculations as proofs to theories, not to mention needs to be peer reviewed by other scientists.

Pincho:
Not only that, but it can be proved eventually.

Carmel:
Proof! now, that would be a refreshing change from you, not that you don't have an interesting imagination.;)

--

...and don't forget some photons(gamma rays and x-rays) can be infinitely divided according to the "inverse square law", the photons attenuate exponentially, but will never reach absolute zero. (though there are some specific types of photons that don't follow this pattern. i.e alpha and beta particles attenuate quite rapidly.)

[Gurrb]

and he walked into that room which does not exist.
and he lived in that room which does not exist.
and now he will die in that room which does not exist.

pondering all that exists and all that will exist, i come to the same conclusion. the mind is all that has and ever will exist.

[Pincho Paxton]

David:
It's possible that we may never be able to observe what is underneath the quantum realm. But this has no bearing on the issue of whether there really are realms beneath the quantum realm or not.

Carmel:
That's true.

David:
Theoretically, it is entirely possible that there are, and science is inherently incapable of ruling it out.

Carmel:
Scientists don't rule it out.

Pincho:
Well, I think I know exactly what is inside an atom

Carmel:
subatomic particles...some of which are known. There may be some that are yet to be discovered and some that may never be known.

Pincho:
and if I'm right it completely rules out scaling down any further.

Carmel:
If you're right, no one will ever know it, except you. You don't speak the language of science which is highly logical, methodical and includes mathematical calculations as proofs to theories, not to mention needs to be peer reviewed by other scientists.

Pincho:
Not only that, but it can be proved eventually.

Carmel:
Proof! now, that would be a refreshing change from you, not that you don't have an interesting imagination.;)

--

...and don't forget some photons(gamma rays and x-rays) can be infinitely divided according to the "inverse square law", the photons attenuate exponentially, but will never reach absolute zero. (though there are some specific types of photons that don't follow this pattern. i.e alpha and beta particles attenuate quite rapidly.)

Science is very logical, and based on mathematical equations, but nobody ever thought to ask if the maths was ever scientifically examined, and it has faults in itself. Therefore all science has been linked to a faulty origin. Zero doesn't exist, and infinity is mostly limited. Plus science has removed the Aether which is the most important part of science.

The inside of an Atom is most likely a Particle which balances on zero so closely, that any movement topples it into an electron, and causes heat. So it is a toppling Black Hole, that is so unstable that it cannot hold its form, which is basically a tiny pulsar. That's why the electron jumps all over the place, and is hard to read. It is dying, and being remade in pulsar fashion.

[IJesusChrist]

...and don't forget some photons(gamma rays and x-rays) can be infinitely divided according to the "inverse square law", the photons attenuate exponentially, but will never reach absolute zero. (though there are some specific types of photons that don't follow this pattern. i.e alpha and beta particles attenuate quite rapidly.)

alpha and beta particles aren't photons...

we can't have infinite energy in a photon - we will then be messing with E=mc^2, and the actual origin of the energy is almost impossible to go beyond (far beyond) gamma rays - however cosmic rays are still up for debate.

[Pam Seeback]

Science is very logical, and based on mathematical equations, but nobody ever thought to ask if the maths was ever scientifically examined, and it has faults in itself. Therefore all science has been linked to a faulty origin. Zero doesn't exist, and infinity is mostly limited. Plus science has removed the Aether which is the most important part of science.

You speak here as if Science is omnipresent reality/truth. Science is but a name for a way of thinking dualistically, no more, no less. Those who call themselves scientists are as much an extension of Life as those who call themselves religionists or magicians. They are as much a slave to the manipulation of matter as is the early man who interpreted the moon as being the God of the night and offered him sacrifices of fire and meat. The only difference between the man of fire and meat and the man of microscope and theories is thousands of years and a well-layered, well-oiled ego of accumulated "wisdom enlightenment."

Before "science" existed, Life was Life. After "science" passes away, Life will be Life. If man cares to invest his living in the seeking for a logical beginning and ending of that which, by its very definition, - LIFE - no beginning and no ending, that is his choice. Does Life care what the intellect of man is up to? Not a whit. Whether man offers that which made him aware, Life, fire and meat so that his intellect-heart can survive another day or a Pulitzer Prize so that his intellect-heart can survive another day, Life remain unaffected.

[David Quinn]

Theoretically, it is entirely possible that there are, and science is inherently incapable of ruling it out.

Carmel:
Scientists don't rule it out.

One would certainly hope they don't. But interestingly, the mainstream interpretation of QM - the "Copenhagen interpretation" - makes the assumption that there is nothing beyond the quantum realm, that it is a bedrock theory. This then leads to the strange assertion that quantum events are uncaused, there being nothing deeper to do the causing.

But then again, physicists tend to be an arrogant lot and love the idea that they are the kings of science, and hence they always like to believe that, unlike the lesser sciences, their work is of fundamental importance. They would rather thrust their minds into philosophic irrationality than give up the illusion.

-

[Carmel]

IJC:
we can't have infinite energy in a photon - we will then be messing with E=mc^2, and the actual origin of the energy is almost impossible to go beyond (far beyond) gamma rays - however cosmic rays are still up for debate.

Carmel:
"The exponential attenuation of photon radiation[gamma,x-ray] is due primarily to the fact that photons have no mass and and no charge and travel with a constant velocity of c(speed of light)"

"...The photons attenuate only by a fractional amount, and a fraction of any positive number is always greater than zero."

(quotes are from a physics book of mine)

The residual photons can reach close to zero, but not actual zero. ie. 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 more zeros...ad infinitum...with a 1 at the...end, except, there is no end...see? :)

[Carmel]

David:
One would certainly hope they don't. But interestingly, the mainstream interpretation of QM - the "Copenhagen interpretation" - makes the assumption that there is nothing beyond the quantum realm, that it is a bedrock theory.

Carmel:
"bedrock theory"...don't know about that, the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model is continually adding subatomic particles to the list(including photons), as they're discovered. Also, hypothetical particles exist, at least conceptually, but have yet to be proven(or disproven)...that's what the experiments with the Large Hadron Collider are attempting to do.

David:
This then leads to the strange assertion that quantum events are uncaused, there being nothing deeper to do the causing.

Carmel:
Where did you get that erroneous idea?Science relies on the premise of cause and effect. It couldn't function without it. It's true though that some causes may be unknown to the scientist(s), but they would never say that a phenomena was "uncaused".

David:
But then again, physicists tend to be an arrogant lot

Carmel:
lol! Some might be. They keep each other in check that way. Some religionists and philosopers do the same thing, presumably...not that I've ever witnessed it first hand. ;)

David:
and love the idea that they are the kings of science, and hence they always like to believe that, unlike the lesser sciences, their work is of fundamental importance. They would rather thrust their minds into philosophic irrationality than give up the illusion.

Carmel:
What are you talking about? Physics and physicists are not your enemy. From a logical standpoint, science actually supports your views of "Ultimate Reality" i.e infinity, cause and effect, etc., but they're simply not making a leap of faith with their knowledge. It's not in the job despcription. Though, I'd speculate that some scientists do this privately...

[David Quinn]

Physics and physicists are not your enemy. From a logical standpoint, science actually supports your views of "Ultimate Reality" i.e infinity, cause and effect, etc., but they're simply not making a leap of faith with their knowledge. It's not in the job despcription. Though, I'd speculate that some scientists do this privately...

Well said. I fully agree that science doesn't conflict with philosophic wisdom and that physicists aren't my enemy. But it doesn't stop me from poking fun at them once in a while, particularly when they let their research go to their heads and they start making grand pronouncements....

David:
But interestingly, the mainstream interpretation of QM - the "Copenhagen interpretation" - makes the assumption that there is nothing beyond the quantum realm, that it is a bedrock theory.

Carmel:
"bedrock theory"...don't know about that, the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model is continually adding subatomic particles to the list(including photons), as they're discovered. Also, hypothetical particles exist, at least conceptually, but have yet to be proven(or disproven)...that's what the experiments with the Large Hadron Collider are attempting to do.

They couch in terms of it being a "complete theory", but the meaning is essentially the same. The only way they can treat it as a complete theory is by assuming that particles arise without cause.

David:
This then leads to the strange assertion that quantum events are uncaused, there being nothing deeper to do the causing.

Carmel:
Where did you get that erroneous idea?Science relies on the premise of cause and effect. It couldn't function without it. It's true though that some causes may be unknown to the scientist(s), but they would never say that a phenomena was "uncaused".

I could give you a list as long as my arm of discussions I've had over the years with scientists and their followers concerning this issue. Most of them argued quite strenuously, on the basis of their acceptance of the Copenhagen interpretation, that quantum particles arise without cause.

I often brought up the excellent point you raise above - namely, that science cannot function without the premise of cause and effect - but was constantly dismissed as being "archaic". Apparently, I am guilty of being stuck in the 19th century and not in tune with the sexy new physics, lol.

-

[jupiviv]

Science can only ever be a branch of philosophy. But most scientists do not realise this, which makes them unreasonable, which makes them my enemy.

[Loki]

Isn't it possible that laws of reality are connected to the mind, and that all minds can only zoom in so far? When we invent cameras that can zoom in on things, we tend to think that the capacity to zoom has nothing to do with the outside word and everything to do with the technology of the camera. However, what if it's true that the outside world places limits on how far perception can zoom in?

As I mentioned to Pincho, there are undoubtedly limitations on how far our physical perspective can shrink. It's possible that we may never be able to observe what is underneath the quantum realm. But this has no bearing on the issue of whether there really are realms beneath the quantum realm or not.

Theoretically, it is entirely possible that there are, and science is inherently incapable of ruling it out.
-

Ok, but contra wise, it is entirely possible that there aren't hidden realms, and philosophy is inherently incapable of determining this. We just don't know. Right?

[Carmel]

David:
I could give you a list as long as my arm of discussions I've had over the years with scientists and their followers concerning this issue. Most of them argued quite strenuously, on the basis of their acceptance of the Copenhagen interpretation, that quantum particles arise without cause.

Carmel:
I'm still baffled by this. The only thing that the Copenhagen interpretation proves is that quantum phenomena are subject to a different set of scientific laws than are used in classical physics. It does not support the notion that particles arise without cause.

I can't help but to call into question the credentials or education level of the people who made this claim. It's also possible that they were engaging in a form of intellecual dishonesty in order to "win" a debate/satiate their ego...?

David:
I often brought up the excellent point you raise above - namely, that science cannot function without the premise of cause and effect - but was constantly dismissed as being "archaic". Apparently, I am guilty of being stuck in the 19th century and not in tune with the sexy new physics, lol.

Carmel:
lol, indeed! Whether 19th(classical physics), 20th(Copenhagen) or 21st century(supersymmetric model), all physics operates on the premise of cause and effect. Unknown causes, (seemingly)random causes or even "questionable causes" do exist within quantum models, but the notion of uncaused causes is completely anathemic to physics/science.

[IJesusChrist]

Carmel, there is the hawking radiation - caused by electron pairs 'popping' into existance and back out...

I don't believe in it, however the math states its possible. This is probably what David was talking about... (but really... it's bullshit)

[David Quinn]

Isn't it possible that laws of reality are connected to the mind, and that all minds can only zoom in so far? When we invent cameras that can zoom in on things, we tend to think that the capacity to zoom has nothing to do with the outside word and everything to do with the technology of the camera. However, what if it's true that the outside world places limits on how far perception can zoom in?

As I mentioned to Pincho, there are undoubtedly limitations on how far our physical perspective can shrink. It's possible that we may never be able to observe what is underneath the quantum realm. But this has no bearing on the issue of whether there really are realms beneath the quantum realm or not.

Theoretically, it is entirely possible that there are, and science is inherently incapable of ruling it out.

Ok, but contra wise, it is entirely possible that there aren't hidden realms, and philosophy is inherently incapable of determining this. We just don't know. Right?

It's essentially a scientific issue, and as such philosophy doesn't have anything to contribute in the way of scientific information or theories, at least not directly. But you're right, it will always remain of one life's unknowables.

On the other hand, philosophy does have this to say on the matter:

We are dealing with appearances here, which boil down to being momentary illusions of the moment. Even if we were to discover, through our senses and our instruments, some kind of "bottom" to the fabric of perceived reality, it would still be nothing more than an appearance of the moment - and like all appearances, it would be one that we could never be sure about. The same is true if we were to keep failing to discover a bottom. The issue will always remain in the realm of appearances, either way.

The real meaning of the Infinite doesn't stem from whatever happens to be revealed in a particular appearance. It doesn't have any dependency, for example, on the appearance of the universe stretching indefinitely in all directions. Its meaning, rather, is found in the totality of all appearances, of which the appearance of a universe either stretching or not stretching indefinitely in all directions is merely one such appearance. One appearance out of countless other appearances, all of them illusory at bottom.

-

[David Quinn]

David:
I could give you a list as long as my arm of discussions I've had over the years with scientists and their followers concerning this issue. Most of them argued quite strenuously, on the basis of their acceptance of the Copenhagen interpretation, that quantum particles arise without cause.

Carmel:
I'm still baffled by this. The only thing that the Copenhagen interpretation proves is that quantum phenomena are subject to a different set of scientific laws than are used in classical physics. It does not support the notion that particles arise without cause.

Agreed. But you know how it is. People are so easily sucked into whatever fashion trend is happening at the moment. There was a time when presenting the quantum realm (as part of the "new physics") as some kind of ultra-surreal realm, where even the chains of causality are broken, was enormously popular, which enabled physicists to get on TV, sell more books, attract more funding, etc.

I can't help but to call into question the credentials or education level of the people who made this claim. It's also possible that they were engaging in a form of intellecual dishonesty in order to "win" a debate/satiate their ego...?

I remember a radio interview that Kevin and I once did with Paul Davies, the well-known physicist and author of numerous popular physics books, during which he insisted that causality was an outmoded concept that had been disproved by quantum theory. And he was not, by any means, an exception to the rule. He was merely echoing the standard scientific view of the time (mid-90s).

I'm rather surprised that you haven't encountered this kind of thing before.

-

[IJesusChrist]

My bad, the creation of these electron/positron pairs are caused by something;

In a simplified version of the explanation, Hawking predicted that energy fluctuations from the vacuum causes the generation of particle-antiparticle pairs near the event horizon of the black hole.

NOW, that makes sense! Totally lost me when they said "Electron-positron pairs pop in and out of existance" but the change in energy of the vacuum makes some more sense to me, yay.

So - I guess there is no theory in quantum mechanics that has particles created without causality.

[Loki]

On the other hand, philosophy does have this to say on the matter:

We are dealing with appearances here, which boil down to being momentary illusions of the moment. Even if we were to discover, through our senses and our instruments, some kind of "bottom" to the fabric of perceived reality, it would still be nothing more than an appearance of the moment - and like all appearances, it would be one that we could never be sure about. The same is true if we were to keep failing to discover a bottom. The issue will always remain in the realm of appearances, either way.

Ok, I totally understand that.

The real meaning of the Infinite doesn't stem from whatever happens to be revealed in a particular appearance.

A particular appearance is finite, so it's hard to confirm the infinite through the finite. The closest I've come is when I think of mathematics, geometry and art. I see Art as infinite in the similar way to how I see Math as infinite.

It doesn't have any dependency, for example, on the appearance of the universe stretching indefinitely in all directions.

Yes, I'm glad to hear you say that, because my reason tells me that we can't know the infinite by thinking about it like that.

Its meaning, rather, is found in the totality of all appearances, of which the appearance of a universe either stretching or not stretching indefinitely in all directions is merely one such appearance. One appearance out of countless other appearances, all of them illusory at bottom.

I just don't see how you can know this with absolute certainty. You admitted that there might be an actual bottom to the microcosm. Science can never say for sure, neither can philosophy. The bottom could exist, and little indivisible specks could lie at the bottom, blinking into existence without cause. We just can't say for certain either way.

Also, if the totality of appearances is illusory, then isn't the infinite itself illusory?

Plus, I just don't understand how we can even talk about the totality of appearances when we can never see them all at once.

When you talk about the totality of appearances, are you just talking about the minds ability to be artistic, inventive or mathematical with appearances? Intuitively, I see infinite potential to arrange shapes and colors (think fractals and such). Is that what you mean?

[Carmel]

David:
Agreed. But you know how it is. People are so easily sucked into whatever fashion trend is happening at the moment. There was a time when presenting the quantum realm (as part of the "new physics") as some kind of ultra-surreal realm, where even the chains of causality are broken, was enormously popular, which enabled physicists to get on TV, sell more books, attract more funding, etc.

Carmel:
Fortunately, I missed all that.
I didn't develop an interest in science until about 7-8 years ago, but I have a strong educational foundation in the sciences, so it is was easy for me to reacquaint myself with it.

...but you're right, people are gullible. Today's version of "sexy physics" might be the Multi-verse theory and Parallel universe theory. I try to remain open minded, yet skeptical of any new theories that science is toying with.

I heard a Nobel winning physicist say recently in a radio interview that the multi-verse theory only has an approx 10-20% acceptance among fellow physicists, which is much lower than I had thought...not sure what the acceptance of parallel universe theory is.

David:
I remember a radio interview that Kevin and I once did with Paul Davies, the well-known physicist and author of numerous popular physics books, during which he insisted that causality was an outmoded concept that had been disproved by quantum theory. And he was not, by any means, an exception to the rule. He was merely echoing the standard scientific view of the time (mid-90s).

Carmel:
I looked at Davies' website. He does have scientific credentials, but he also calls himself a philosopher and the most glaringly obvious indicator of his bias is in two of his book titles: "The Mind of God" and "God and the New Physics", obviously he's trying to promote his personal agenda with his ridiculous notion of uncaused causes. This may sell books, but it won't win him, or those of his ilk, any accolades among their colleagues.

It should also be noted that if he does speak of uncaused causes, he's officially left the realm of science, and entered that of philosophy or, in this case, religion. If he doesn't preface his viewpoints as his own personal opinion that are loosely based upon science and tries to hock them as science, he's engaing in professionally unethical behaviour. Ok, I'll get off my soapbox now. :)

David:
I'm rather surprised that you haven't encountered this kind of thing before.

Carmel:
In the 90's I was in other phases...the usual ones; literature, psychology, philosophy, Buddhism, music, art, two boyfriends(not simultaneously!)and a future ex-husband.

[Robert]

Carmel, give this short article a read, from newscientist.com: Down with the Danish priesthood: Quantum Mechanics

As a theory, the interpretation of quantum mechanics that was developed in the 1920s and 1930s by Niels Bohr and his colleagues in Copenhagen satisfies many of the criteria of a good scientific theory. But, by insisting that we give up otherwise cherished notions of determinism and causality, the Copenhagen interpretation fails to offer us any hope that we may one day really understand the mechanics of the fundamental constituents of matter and radiation. The Copenhagen interpretation says that it's a crazy old world, but that's just the way it has to be so we had better get used to it.

[overlord223]

No, THERE IS... from the moment your mother and father put their *TOOT* together and creating a friction, there comes the climax, and after 9mths of your mothers womb that you were there you are created by countless chemicals and stuffz, and finally brought to this world and grew.

even things need some logic uses just to create them. can u create one w/out using your Logic brain ?

So why is there any no logic for that? it is already a logical-practical fact. you should count that as one and if not you are s2pd and mumble out your so-called unreachable reasoning.

or you can tell me that you just bought out and pop-out of existence that we can't trace your origin...

[jufa]

One of the principles considered most sacred by Einstein and indeed by most physicists up until the 1980s is the principle of local causality, or locality for short. This principle (which comes from Einstein's theory of special relativity) states that no physical effect can be transmitted with a velocity faster than light. Also implied, but not always stated, is the principle that all physical effects must decrease as the distance between the source of the effect and the object affected increases. In practice, this principle prohibits not only all instantaneous action-at-a-distance, but also any action-at-a-distance when the distances are so large that the longest-range known force that can transmit signals, the electromagnetic force, cannot feasibly produce the effect. If the particles of a system are assumed to be independent of each other except for physical effects that travel no faster than the velocity of light, the system is said to be local. This means, e.g., that if a measurement is made on one particle, the other particles cannot be affected before a local signal from the first particle can reach them.

In addition to locality, the other strongly held principle was the principle of objective reality. This principle states that there is a reality that exists whether or not it is observed. Prior to the discovery of quantum mechanics, this meant that this reality consisted of material particles or waves that always had definite physical properties, and which could become known either by making a measurement or by calculation using classical laws and a known initial state. For example, a particle always had a definite position and velocity prior to measurement, even though they may not have been known until a measurement or calculation was made. We call this strong objectivity. After the development of quantum mechanics, those who believe in an observer-created reality believe that only a wavefunction exists prior to an observation but this is still considered to be objectively real. However, its physical parameters, such as position and velocity, are indefinite until a measurement is made. This is called weak objectivity.

Weak objectivity was difficult enough to accept by some physicists, but quantum theory predicted something else that was even harder to accept--that reality is nonlocal. This means that a measurement on one particle in a nonlocal system is correlated with a measurement on any of the other particles in the system even if no local signal passes from the first measurement to the second. For example, a measurement of the position of one particle in a nonlocal system is correlated with a position measurement on any of the other particles, independent of any local signals. A nonlocal system of particles is described by a wavefunction formed by a superposition of individual particle wavefunctions in such a way that all of the individual waves are locked together into a coherent whole. In such a coherent superposition, it is no longer possible to identify the individual particle components. The system behaves as a whole rather than as a collection of independent particles. We shall describe an example of a nonlocal system when we discuss Bell's theorem below.

Einstein could never accept a reality which was nonlocal or which was indefinite. His paper written with Podolsky and Rosen in 1935 [the famous EPR paper, Can A Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?, A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47 (1935) 777-780] was an attempt to use a thought experiment to show that, because quantum mechanics could not describe a reality which was both local and definite, the theory was incomplete. [Biographical note: This was Einstein's last major paper on quantum theory. Until he died in 1955, he tried to devise a "unified field theory" which would unite general relativity with electromagnetism in one theory. He failed in this because he could not accept the quantum description of electromagnetism. Actually, his failure is no greater than that of present-day physicists, who have produced many candidates for a unified field theory but none that can be verified with current experimental techniques.]

Following the EPR paper, many physicists expended a great deal of effort in trying to devise theories that were complete, namely theories that assumed that parameters like position and velocity are at all times definite even if they are unknown, and which at the same time gave results that agree with quantum theory. (These are called hidden variable theories, which by definition assume strong objectivity.) None of these theories found general acceptance because they were inelegant, complicated, and awkward to use, and the best-known version also turned out to be extremely nonlocal (David Bohm

[jufa]

overlord223 states:

No, THERE IS... from the moment your mother and father put their *TOOT* together and creating a friction, there comes the climax, and after 9mths of your mothers womb that you were there you are created by countless chemicals and stuffz, and finally brought to this world and grew.

even things need some logic uses just to create them. can u create one w/out using your Logic brain ?

So why is there any no logic for that? it is already a logical-practical fact. you should count that as one and if not you are s2pd and mumble out your so-called unreachable reasoning.

or you can tell me that you just bought out and pop-out of existence that we can't trace your origin...

There is one important elementof logic missing from the above, and it is clearly seen when Overlord223 does not define logical reasoning for the logic of

the moment your mother and father put their *TOOT* together and creating a friction

So in Overlord223

asking So why is there any no logic for that? it is already a logical-practical fact

is the question when no one has been able to answer from the first moment I posted this thread, and which Overlord223 does not answer.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[overlord223]

it doesn't need to be define further. It's clearly understandable, i thought you are smart.