News is filtering through that there might be a Higgs boson.  This appears to imply that there is a Higgs field that provides mass to anything. And this Higgs field is labelled by some as the Higgs-ether and this apparently has the potential to clash with general relativity.

Interesting times, maybe Aristotle was right about there being an ether or a "fifth element" or a quintessence? Any physicists out there that want to comment on the implications of the Higgs field and how it mixes or does not mix with general relativity?

It is often claimed that quantum mechanics or quantum phenomena disprove the principle of causality or at least cast doubt on whether it is a logically defensible axiom. Examples of quantum phenomena include radioactive decay, the Stern-Gerlach experiment, the double-slit experiments etc. Examples of people using quantum phenomena in such a type of an argument can be found here, here, here, here, and here etc. Olegt thinks the Stern-Gerlach experiment is an example whereby "classical logic is simply not equipped to deal with phenomena of this sort". That may be true, I don't know what olegt exactly means when he talks about “classical logic”. I just disagree that the principle of causality needs to be abandoned when it comes to quantum physics.

Read the rest of this entry »

Ethan Siegel has a few thing to say about nothing over at his blog. He assures people that there is a difference between the scientific definition of nothingness and philosophical (and logical IMO) definition of nothingness.

Read the rest of this entry »

What do you think is the relationship between time and change (change as in stuff changing position or from one thing to another etc.)?

A) Time exist as a result of or is a function of change. Time is an intellectual abstraction and a mathematical expression to quantify change. Without change there is no time sort of like without mass there is no gravity.
Or…
B) Time exists as some distinct (absolute or relative) entity and/or quantity and/or dimension that is different or distinct from the process of change. Time exists as an entity and/or quantity and/or dimension irrespective of whether there are things that are changing or not.

Read the rest of this entry »

The entire series is now on Dr. Craig's channel on youtube. There was some discussion here about it so I figured I'd make it it's own thread.

Recently fellow TT commenter olegt and me got into a discussion (again!) about the three unsolved problems in science: the origin of the universe, the origin of life and the origin of consciousness.

Olegt agrees “that the questions of the origin of the universe, life, and consciousness are unsolved at the moment. But,” he argues.” similarly difficult, seemingly intractable problems [have] existed in the past [and] were eventually solved.” He goes on to claim “that the three origins problems may be eventually solved by science.”

He seemed to be baiting me, trying to get me to commit to some kind of metaphysical/ theological explanation.  Since in the past he has described philosophy (and no doubt its evil twin theology) as “navel gazing” I wasn’t interested in pursuing another discussion/debate like that with him.  Nor, was I interested in becoming involved in navel gazing with another guy.  Olegt’s really not my type.  A beautiful young blond of the feminine gender is what I have in mind for that sort of thing.

Read the rest of this entry »

I have a nostalgic streak going

In a mathematically perfect universe, we would be less than dead; we would never have existed. According to the basic precepts of Einsteinian relativity and quantum mechanics, equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been created in the Big Bang and then immediately annihilated each other in a blaze of lethal energy, leaving a big fat goose egg with which to make stars, galaxies and us. And yet we exist, and physicists (among others) would dearly like to know why.
here

Robin Collins, professor of philosophy at Messiah College, who also holds a PhD. in physics, has written much about the fine-tuning argument, as well as other topics pertinent to science, religion, and ID. Recently I emailed him, asking about Bradley Monton's argument that based on the WMAP evidence, we should view the universe as infinite. He has allowed me to reprint his reply:

Read the rest of this entry »

Could the Large Hadron Collider be sabotaging itself from the future? That's the suggestion of a couple of reasonably distinguished theoretical physicists, which has received a fresh airing in the New York Times today.

Actually, it's the Higgs boson that is doing the sabotage. Apparently, among the many singular properties of the Higgs that the LHC is meant to discover could be the ability to turn back time to stop its cover being blown.

here

The ultimate telic effect- sabotage.

HT: Claire

Roger Penrose has indicated that the conscious brain is explained only by a theory of physics we do not yet possess. That in turn would indicate that core elements of Intelligent Design i.e. purpose and volition, are undefinable by referencing any existing physics theory. Empirical disciplines like forensic science, archaeology and psychology utilize purpose and volition to derive conclusions based on physical evidence. Purpose and volition were revealed by human sources i.e. they were directly communicated or inferred through behavior. Whether derived through communication or observed behavior, effects of purpose and volition are manifestations of prior machinations of conscious minds. The workings of these minds are linked to brain cell activity. Although cellular functions are individually definable there is no theory citing a threshhold level of multi-cellular interactions at which consciousness kicks in and below which it does not exist.

Read the rest of this entry »

In my view the conscious brain does not act according to classical physics. It doesn’t even act according to conventional quantum mechanics. It acts according to a theory we don’t yet have. This is being a bit big-headed, but I think it’s a little bit like William Harvey’s discovery of the circulation of blood. He worked out that it had to circulate, but the veins and arteries just peter out, so how could the blood get through from one to the other? And he said, “Well, it must be tiny little tubes there, and we can’t see them, but they must be there.” Nobody believed it for some time. So I’m still hoping to find something like that—some structure that preserves coherence, because I believe it ought to be there.

here

And we finally have a physics category.