Things to think about that blow your mind.

[Benni88]

The size of the universe is too huge. I love the thought that there's so much out there that we might never know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U

 

[Redingold]

This end of this video is no longer in agreement with scientific study. Last year, a team of physicists doing a double slit experiment managed to observe the path of a particle, noted precisely which slit it went through, and still were able to produce an interference pattern. The point is that observation is not a passive process on the quantum level. In order to observer the location of, say, an electron, you need to actually do something to it - bounce a photon off it, for instance. Doing this changes the behaviour of a particle, but the reason is not so mysterious - a particle being struck by photons will obviously behave differently than one not being struck. If you're very clever with your measuring, then you can reduce the effects on the particle while still knowing where it is (to within the tolerances permitted by Heisenberg).

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/disentangling-the-wave-particle-duality-in-the-double-slit-experiment/

People tend not to get wave-particle duality. It isn't that things are sometimes particles, and sometimes waves. Quantum objects are particles, and they propagate in wave-like ways. A particle has a thing called a wavefunction associated with it. The wavefunction behaves like a wave, and the position of the particle is related to the strength of the wave - more precisely, the modulus squared of the wavefunction gives the probability density function of the position of the particle. Interactions with other particles are...a whole lot more complicated, and not something on which I have much technical knowledge. Still, there's nothing mysterious going on, except for entanglement, which is freaking crazy.

I don't really know what to take from it. Reading that article, it sounds like what they've found is that you can observe a photon's trajectory without collapsing the wavefunction of other photons entagled with it, which I feel doesn't necessarily have as much to do with wave-particle duality as it has with entanglement.

The way I see it is that particles are expression of a wave, i.e., waves that interact with the world as points/particles. That is to say, a photon being fired at a detector is going to hit the detector at a random point, any point (within the extent of the wavefunction of course). However, not all points are equally probable for the photon to end up at. The probability of the photon being at a certain point is represented by the wavefunction. The point that the photon ends up at is still random, but it's like a dice where 3 of the sides say "5": the outcome of the die-roll is random, but some outcomes are more likely than others.
The waveform interacts with the world around it like other waves, and as such interference patterns appear (in the wave which is a description of the probability that the photon will be detected at a given point) when the waveform passes through two slits, creating these hotspots where the probability of the particle appearing if it is observed is extra high.
Imagine placing a row of detectors which detect photons but do not stop them along the path of the photon being fired.
This would allow us to "see" the particle travel in a "trajectory" (That is to say we would end up with a set of points in space where we know the photon appeared, then we can draw a line through them and call it a trajectory[sub] However, I feel that drawing that line is completely meaningless and simply a flaw in the way we want to look at the particle[/sub]). The trajectory could be zigzagging and snaking about completely willy nilly, because the particle is appearing at a random point each time a detector collapses the wavefunction so that any trajectory is actually possible. That is to say the photon, which I consider to be a wave, has to "Be considered/become/appear as/spawn" a particle to interact with each detector and the spawning of this particle happens on a random - albeit affected by probability - point on each detector.
What the experiment you've linked me to seems to imply in my mind is as follows:
If you fire two entangled photons at two 100% identical detectors, the two resulting points of impact will be on the same point on each detector will. This holds true regardless of where along the path of the photons you place the detectors, so the photons are following the same imagined/hypothetical paths. In other words, the wave's random spawning of a particle for interacting with a detector is identical for two entangled photons. The waves spawn particles at the same points because they are entangled. However, collapsing the wavefunction of one photon will not collapse the wavefunction of the other. This means you can place detectors in the path of one photon and a double slit in the path of the other and then with the help of the one photon see which slit the photon passing through the double slits would be passing through had you placed a detector by the slit. But even though this imagined trajectory is tracing through one of the slits, I don't think it makes sense to say that the photon is passing through the slit in question: its waveform is not collapsed, and the wave is therefore passing through the slits as a wave would (or the particle is propagating through the slits like a wave, if you like). The other photon is merely marking one point on the hypothetical path the particle would have appeared on had you been observing the wave and collapsing it.
Say you placed a double slit in the path of each photon.
Photon 1's double slit has a detector in one slit, letting us know which slit it passed through. Photon 2's double slit has no detectors. There are of course detectors placed behind each set of slits.
(This is pretty much analogous to what the experiment you linked is doing, except here we are examining where Photon 1 ends up after being observed at the point where Photon 2 passes through the slits and we're giving both of them slits in order to make their situations identical save for the detectors.)
I dare say Photon 2 would produce an interference pattern, while Photon 1 would not.
I say this because Photon 1's wavefunction is being collapsed, while Photon 2's is not.

Since Photon 1's wavefunction was collapsed when it was observed by the slit, I'm thinking its movements from there on are described by a wave that originates in that slit, creating that two-band particles-through-slits effect. Perhaps after each observation the wave is set up anew meaning that Photon 2 is described by the same wave it started out as with all the twisting and turning space around it (most notably the slits) is imposing on it. Meanwhile, Photon 1 is observed passing through the slit, and since we know its position at that point its movements from then on are described by a new wave that passes through only one of the slits at a time so it does not experience interference.

Back to the original experiment:
The way I see it, Photon 1, being observed, shows us the point at which Photon 2 would have appeared if we'd observed it. However, with Photon 2 passing through double slits, the wavefunction - and with it the hypothetical trajectory - changes. It changes gradually though, so if you place Photon 2's detector close to the slits, Photon 2 will be observed as coming out of the slit Photon 1 indicates it would have passed through since it's still continuing from that hypothetical trajectory. However, Photon 2's wavefunction has not been collapsed, and as such its movements must still be described by the original wavefunction, and this wavefunction is being bent by the slits its passing through. If you place Photon 2's detector far enough away from the slits for the wave to interfere with itself, the photon will behave so as to create an interference pattern even though we observed which slit it would have passed through. Photon 2's hypothetical trajectory (or rather set of trajectories, since we're firing several photons in succession to produce the interference pattern) is now changed to one that will produce an interference pattern; something that Photon 1's trajectories will not since they're being restarted at the slit each time it passes through.

I've also been thinking that it's possible that placing the detector as close to the backside of the slits as they did to confirm that Photon 2 passes through the slit Photon 1 says it does, is actually equivalent to placing a detector in the slit. After all, the effect is the same: you get to know which slit the photon passed through.

So I think that saying that the photon is actually going through one of the slits when it isn't being observed in the double slit experiment is faulty, because that photon isn't acting as a particle at that point.
I'd say it makes more sense to say that it would pass through *this* slit if we observed it, rather than saying that it does pass through *this* slit.
I think the photon has the property of a hypothetical/imagined trajectory passing through one of the slits, but saying that it actually does pass through one of them would imply it expresses itself as a particle, collapsing the wavefunction and leaving us with no interference pattern.


I'm sorry if this makes no sense at all. It's the middle of the night and haven't had the time to read over it properly.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here, but what I noticed was that you seem to have the idea that you can collapse the wavefunction of one particle without collapsing the wavefunction of entangled particles. This is, to my knowledge, incorrect, because there are not separate wavefunctions for each particle. Entangled particles share a wavefunction, and observing one collapses the whole wavefunction for both particles, because it's effectively the same wavefunction for both particles.

Actually, this experiment is way more confusing than I first thought. I might need some help on this. I'm gonna email one of my professors, and get back to you when I understand this more.

 

[Wyes]

From what I understand, the wavefunction is describing how the particle acts, while the appearance of the particle itself is not affected by the fact that it can be described as a wave.

I think that's probably a reasonable interpretation, but I don't think there's any consensus on this (though I could be entirely wrong). My issue is that the particle's wavepacket will always occupy a non-zero volume, ignoring things like singularities in black holes. Interestingly I can't find much online about it.

 

[Yarhj]

It only took 66 years to go from the first powered aircraft to the first moon landing. There were people who were born into a world without airplanes, and lived to see men walking on the moon -- it's just incredible.

 

[mrblakemiller]

So if you think about it, there should be no reason to love, no reason to mourn, no reason to get mad that a man shoots another man with a gun. The bullet atoms were just flying away from the origin of the Big Bang (with respect to their adherence to the universal constants) and collided with the mass of atoms that made the other human. A living human contains the same number of particles as a dead human. Structurally speaking, there's no discernable difference. There's really no reason to be upset.

Of course, that's a naturalist view. If you're a supernaturalist, or a theist, like myself, then you get to ascribe more meaning and value to such things as human lives.

Nah, that's just some silly idea propagated by theists like yourself, that the supernatural is somehow required for love, caring and emotion.

There's plenty of reason to love, to mourn, to get mad, to get upset and to care.

Because the universe is a wondrous place, that's already more than magical enough without the supernatural, and we are all wondrous creatures all the more valuable exactly because we're here by sheer chance. It'd have been easily possible for us to not have been here at all, but somehow we are. Somehow all those atoms, over billions of years, coalesced into me and you. And somehow that gives us the ability to love, to mourn, to get mad, to get upset and to care.

I think that gives us every reason to care.

And structurally speaking there's every difference in a living and dead human. The heart no longer beats, metabolism has stopped, neurons no longer fire, muscles no longer move, blood no longer flows, decay starts kicking in etc.

We are wonders of nature, like a beautiful valley that exists only through the coincidence of a glacier passing by that way millions of years ago. I think that has value, an immense amount.

I mentioned the number of particles in a human body, then compared the "structure" of a living and dead body. I was talking on the atomic level. You retorted with appeals to heartbeat and muscle movement, arguing on the organ-system level. You're allowed to disagree with me, but it would be more helpful if you refuted the claims I did make and not the claims I did not make.

 

[DaWaffledude]

Will your answer to this question be no?

It will not.

 

[Jonluw]

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here, but what I noticed was that you seem to have the idea that you can collapse the wavefunction of one particle without collapsing the wavefunction of entangled particles. This is, to my knowledge, incorrect, because there are not separate wavefunctions for each particle. Entangled particles share a wavefunction, and observing one collapses the whole wavefunction for both particles, because it's effectively the same wavefunction for both particles.

But if the wavefunction is collapsed then who was interference?

 

[Jonluw]

From what I understand, the wavefunction is describing how the particle acts, while the appearance of the particle itself is not affected by the fact that it can be described as a wave.

I think that's probably a reasonable interpretation, but I don't think there's any consensus on this (though I could be entirely wrong). My issue is that the particle's wavepacket will always occupy a non-zero volume, ignoring things like singularities in black holes. Interestingly I can't find much online about it.

Ah yes, the wavepacket does of course cover an area, but as I understand it the wavepacket is representing the area where you will find the particle, the particle itself being of zero dimensions.

 

[Jonluw]

I don't really know what to take from it. Reading that article, it sounds like what they've found is that you can observe a photon's trajectory without collapsing the wavefunction of other photons entagled with it, which I feel doesn't necessarily have as much to do with wave-particle duality as it has with entanglement.

The way I see it is that particles are expression of a wave, i.e., waves that interact with the world as points/particles. That is to say, a photon being fired at a detector is going to hit the detector at a random point, any point (within the extent of the wavefunction of course). However, not all points are equally probable for the photon to end up at. The probability of the photon being at a certain point is represented by the wavefunction. The point that the photon ends up at is still random, but it's like a dice where 3 of the sides say "5": the outcome of the die-roll is random, but some outcomes are more likely than others.
The waveform interacts with the world around it like other waves, and as such interference patterns appear (in the wave which is a description of the probability that the photon will be detected at a given point) when the waveform passes through two slits, creating these hotspots where the probability of the particle appearing if it is observed is extra high.
Imagine placing a row of detectors which detect photons but do not stop them along the path of the photon being fired.
This would allow us to "see" the particle travel in a "trajectory" (That is to say we would end up with a set of points in space where we know the photon appeared, then we can draw a line through them and call it a trajectory[sub] However, I feel that drawing that line is completely meaningless and simply a flaw in the way we want to look at the particle[/sub]). The trajectory could be zigzagging and snaking about completely willy nilly, because the particle is appearing at a random point each time a detector collapses the wavefunction so that any trajectory is actually possible. That is to say the photon, which I consider to be a wave, has to "Be considered/become/appear as/spawn" a particle to interact with each detector and the spawning of this particle happens on a random - albeit affected by probability - point on each detector.
What the experiment you've linked me to seems to imply in my mind is as follows:
If you fire two entangled photons at two 100% identical detectors, the two resulting points of impact will be on the same point on each detector will. This holds true regardless of where along the path of the photons you place the detectors, so the photons are following the same imagined/hypothetical paths. In other words, the wave's random spawning of a particle for interacting with a detector is identical for two entangled photons. The waves spawn particles at the same points because they are entangled. However, collapsing the wavefunction of one photon will not collapse the wavefunction of the other. This means you can place detectors in the path of one photon and a double slit in the path of the other and then with the help of the one photon see which slit the photon passing through the double slits would be passing through had you placed a detector by the slit. But even though this imagined trajectory is tracing through one of the slits, I don't think it makes sense to say that the photon is passing through the slit in question: its waveform is not collapsed, and the wave is therefore passing through the slits as a wave would (or the particle is propagating through the slits like a wave, if you like). The other photon is merely marking one point on the hypothetical path the particle would have appeared on had you been observing the wave and collapsing it.
Say you placed a double slit in the path of each photon.
Photon 1's double slit has a detector in one slit, letting us know which slit it passed through. Photon 2's double slit has no detectors. There are of course detectors placed behind each set of slits.
(This is pretty much analogous to what the experiment you linked is doing, except here we are examining where Photon 1 ends up after being observed at the point where Photon 2 passes through the slits and we're giving both of them slits in order to make their situations identical save for the detectors.)
I dare say Photon 2 would produce an interference pattern, while Photon 1 would not.
I say this because Photon 1's wavefunction is being collapsed, while Photon 2's is not.

Since Photon 1's wavefunction was collapsed when it was observed by the slit, I'm thinking its movements from there on are described by a wave that originates in that slit, creating that two-band particles-through-slits effect. Perhaps after each observation the wave is set up anew meaning that Photon 2 is described by the same wave it started out as with all the twisting and turning space around it (most notably the slits) is imposing on it. Meanwhile, Photon 1 is observed passing through the slit, and since we know its position at that point its movements from then on are described by a new wave that passes through only one of the slits at a time so it does not experience interference.

Back to the original experiment:
The way I see it, Photon 1, being observed, shows us the point at which Photon 2 would have appeared if we'd observed it. However, with Photon 2 passing through double slits, the wavefunction - and with it the hypothetical trajectory - changes. It changes gradually though, so if you place Photon 2's detector close to the slits, Photon 2 will be observed as coming out of the slit Photon 1 indicates it would have passed through since it's still continuing from that hypothetical trajectory. However, Photon 2's wavefunction has not been collapsed, and as such its movements must still be described by the original wavefunction, and this wavefunction is being bent by the slits its passing through. If you place Photon 2's detector far enough away from the slits for the wave to interfere with itself, the photon will behave so as to create an interference pattern even though we observed which slit it would have passed through. Photon 2's hypothetical trajectory (or rather set of trajectories, since we're firing several photons in succession to produce the interference pattern) is now changed to one that will produce an interference pattern; something that Photon 1's trajectories will not since they're being restarted at the slit each time it passes through.

I've also been thinking that it's possible that placing the detector as close to the backside of the slits as they did to confirm that Photon 2 passes through the slit Photon 1 says it does, is actually equivalent to placing a detector in the slit. After all, the effect is the same: you get to know which slit the photon passed through.

So I think that saying that the photon is actually going through one of the slits when it isn't being observed in the double slit experiment is faulty, because that photon isn't acting as a particle at that point.
I'd say it makes more sense to say that it would pass through *this* slit if we observed it, rather than saying that it does pass through *this* slit.
I think the photon has the property of a hypothetical/imagined trajectory passing through one of the slits, but saying that it actually does pass through one of them would imply it expresses itself as a particle, collapsing the wavefunction and leaving us with no interference pattern.


I'm sorry if this makes no sense at all. It's the middle of the night and haven't had the time to read over it properly.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here

Yeah, I'm rambling a bit. I was trying to figure out what to make of the experiment and write down my thoughts in the process.
What I'm trying to say is that I think it doesn't make sense to say that the photon passes through one slit or the other, since it does not exhibit a particle nature when the wavefunction passes the slits.

Sorry for the triple-post.

 

[Hagi]

I mentioned the number of particles in a human body, then compared the "structure" of a living and dead body. I was talking on the atomic level. You retorted with appeals to heartbeat and muscle movement, arguing on the organ-system level. You're allowed to disagree with me, but it would be more helpful if you refuted the claims I did make and not the claims I did not make.

All those things also happen on the atomic level...

At the very least read up on what you're talking about. You can start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decomposition

Once the heart stops, chemical changes occur within the body and result in changes in pH, causing cells to lose their structural integrity. The loss of cell structure brings about the release of cellular enzymes capable of initiating the breakdown of surrounding cells and tissues. This process is known as autolysis.

That's not really organ level is it? And losing structural integrity? Doesn't that mean the "structure" of a dead body changes?

Oxygen present in the body is quickly depleted by the aerobic organisms found within. This creates an ideal environment for the proliferation of anaerobic organisms. Anaerobic organisms, originating in the gastrointestinal tract and respiratory system, begin to transform carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins, to yield organic acids (propionic acid, lactic acid) and gases (methane, hydrogen sulfide, ammonia). The process of microbial proliferation within a body is referred to as putrefaction and leads to the second stage of decomposition, known as bloat.

Yeah... Stopping to breathe obviously only has effect on an organ-system level. No effect whatsoever on the atomic level, it's not like all those gases and acids have atoms or anything.

Intestinal anaerobic bacteria transform haemoglobin into sulfhemoglobin and other colored pigments. The associated gases which accumulate within the body at this time aid in the transport of sulfhemoglobin throughout the body via the circulatory and lymphatic systems, giving the body an overall marbled appearance.

Clearly no changes happening here on any level but the organ-system one. Haemoglobin is an organ right? I'm sure it is, just like the Sulfhemoglobin, it's probably in your foot or something.

 

[Dr. Doomsduck]

So everyone is just doing the quantum mechanics thing now?

Damn, well, here I am with the weird Ed, Edd and Eddy theory...bit long, but it freaks me the fuck out every time!

Spoiler

On another note, I'm always absolutely fascinated by how the internet has changed the world. Like, how different the world really was just 20 years ago.

 

[mrblakemiller]

I mentioned the number of particles in a human body, then compared the "structure" of a living and dead body. I was talking on the atomic level. You retorted with appeals to heartbeat and muscle movement, arguing on the organ-system level. You're allowed to disagree with me, but it would be more helpful if you refuted the claims I did make and not the claims I did not make.

All those things also happen on the atomic level...

At the very least read up on what you're talking about. You can start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decomposition

Once the heart stops, chemical changes occur within the body and result in changes in pH, causing cells to lose their structural integrity. The loss of cell structure brings about the release of cellular enzymes capable of initiating the breakdown of surrounding cells and tissues. This process is known as autolysis.

That's not really organ level is it? And losing structural integrity? Doesn't that mean the "structure" of a dead body changes?

Oxygen present in the body is quickly depleted by the aerobic organisms found within. This creates an ideal environment for the proliferation of anaerobic organisms. Anaerobic organisms, originating in the gastrointestinal tract and respiratory system, begin to transform carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins, to yield organic acids (propionic acid, lactic acid) and gases (methane, hydrogen sulfide, ammonia). The process of microbial proliferation within a body is referred to as putrefaction and leads to the second stage of decomposition, known as bloat.

Yeah... Stopping to breathe obviously only has effect on an organ-system level. No effect whatsoever on the atomic level, it's not like all those gases and acids have atoms or anything.

Intestinal anaerobic bacteria transform haemoglobin into sulfhemoglobin and other colored pigments. The associated gases which accumulate within the body at this time aid in the transport of sulfhemoglobin throughout the body via the circulatory and lymphatic systems, giving the body an overall marbled appearance.

Clearly no changes happening here on any level but the organ-system one. Haemoglobin is an organ right? I'm sure it is, just like the Sulfhemoglobin, it's probably in your foot or something.

Okay, I'll try to explain myself to you a bit better.

Put a living human in a huge bowl. Put the bowl on a scale. Measure the weight. Stab the human in the carotid artery. Measure the weight. Is there a change?

Take a living human. Submerge him in water. Measure the level of the water against the container. Wait for the human to drown. Measure the level of the water against the container. Is there a change?

This was a throwaway comment that existed in my original post only in service to the point I was actually trying to make. I agree with almost everything you've written or quoted. But you still haven't engaged with my original claim. I was talking about structure with respect to particles. You can tell, because my "Strucurally speaking," comment came in the sentence after my "same number of particles" comment. Your latest response still deals with organs, tissues, and even cells that contain millions and billions of particles. When a human dies, his carbon atoms are still carbon atoms. His nitrogen atoms are still nitrogen atoms. THAT is what I'm talking about. I completely agree that things like decomposition and liquefaction take place. You could have also mentioned things like rigor mortis. But that's not what I was talking about. Besides all that, what would winning this piece of the argument even get you? Human bodies change structure. Okay. Does that refute my "Big Bang atoms" claim and thus move in the direction of ascribing intrinsic value to the "livingness" of a human body? No.

Besides all that, I could just say I was mentally comparing the human body one second before death by strok to one second after, and then your arguments with decomposition and bacteria are useless anyway.

I won't be continuing this conversation, as it's a rhetorical dead-end, as I've already mentioned.

As always, you, and everyone else, have my permission to disagree with me.

 

[DTWolfwood]

Spoiler: Aladdin took place in the future

Aladdin took place in the future
Aladdin: In one scene, Genie calls Al's clothes "so 3rd century." Genie has been trapped in the lamp for 10,000 years, so there's no way he could know of the fashion trends which have happened since he's been trapped. Which means the latest Genie could have been trapped in the lamp is the 3rd century. If he spent 10,000 years in there, it is now AT LEAST the year 10,300 AD when he gets out.

Conclusion: Aladdin takes place IN THE FUTURE. A post-apocalyptic world where only Arab culture (and some Greek) survived. It has been so long that the name "Arabia" has been corrupted to "Agrabah." The Muslim religion has atrophied to the point where there are no mosques, Imams, or prayer mats, but people still give praise to Allah in moments of happiness. Amazing technological marvels left behind by the previous civilization, like sentient flying carpets or genetically engineered parrots which comprehend human speech instead of just mimic it, are taken for granted by the locals or considered "magic."

The Genie proves this by making impressions of ancient, long-dead celebrities like Groucho Marx, Jack Nicholson, etc.

This blew my mind the first time i read it lol

 

[Winterbird]

What's the frame rate of reality?

 

[Hagi]

I mentioned the number of particles in a human body, then compared the "structure" of a living and dead body. I was talking on the atomic level. You retorted with appeals to heartbeat and muscle movement, arguing on the organ-system level. You're allowed to disagree with me, but it would be more helpful if you refuted the claims I did make and not the claims I did not make.

All those things also happen on the atomic level...

At the very least read up on what you're talking about. You can start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decomposition

Once the heart stops, chemical changes occur within the body and result in changes in pH, causing cells to lose their structural integrity. The loss of cell structure brings about the release of cellular enzymes capable of initiating the breakdown of surrounding cells and tissues. This process is known as autolysis.

That's not really organ level is it? And losing structural integrity? Doesn't that mean the "structure" of a dead body changes?

Oxygen present in the body is quickly depleted by the aerobic organisms found within. This creates an ideal environment for the proliferation of anaerobic organisms. Anaerobic organisms, originating in the gastrointestinal tract and respiratory system, begin to transform carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins, to yield organic acids (propionic acid, lactic acid) and gases (methane, hydrogen sulfide, ammonia). The process of microbial proliferation within a body is referred to as putrefaction and leads to the second stage of decomposition, known as bloat.

Yeah... Stopping to breathe obviously only has effect on an organ-system level. No effect whatsoever on the atomic level, it's not like all those gases and acids have atoms or anything.

Intestinal anaerobic bacteria transform haemoglobin into sulfhemoglobin and other colored pigments. The associated gases which accumulate within the body at this time aid in the transport of sulfhemoglobin throughout the body via the circulatory and lymphatic systems, giving the body an overall marbled appearance.

Clearly no changes happening here on any level but the organ-system one. Haemoglobin is an organ right? I'm sure it is, just like the Sulfhemoglobin, it's probably in your foot or something.

Okay, I'll try to explain myself to you a bit better.

Put a living human in a huge bowl. Put the bowl on a scale. Measure the weight. Stab the human in the carotid artery. Measure the weight. Is there a change?

Take a living human. Submerge him in water. Measure the level of the water against the container. Wait for the human to drown. Measure the level of the water against the container. Is there a change?

This was a throwaway comment that existed in my original post only in service to the point I was actually trying to make. I agree with almost everything you've written or quoted. But you still haven't engaged with my original claim. I was talking about structure with respect to particles. You can tell, because my "Strucurally speaking," comment came in the sentence after my "same number of particles" comment. Your latest response still deals with organs, tissues, and even cells that contain millions and billions of particles. When a human dies, his carbon atoms are still carbon atoms. His nitrogen atoms are still nitrogen atoms. THAT is what I'm talking about. I completely agree that things like decomposition and liquefaction take place. You could have also mentioned things like rigor mortis. But that's not what I was talking about. Besides all that, what would winning this piece of the argument even get you? Human bodies change structure. Okay. Does that refute my "Big Bang atoms" claim and thus move in the direction of ascribing intrinsic value to the "livingness" of a human body? No.

Besides all that, I could just say I was mentally comparing the human body one second before death by strok to one second after, and then your arguments with decomposition and bacteria are useless anyway.

I won't be continuing this conversation, as it's a rhetorical dead-end, as I've already mentioned.

As always, you, and everyone else, have my permission to disagree with me.

What I'm saying is that value of livingness, as you call it, does not require spirituality. The living human body is constantly changing, processes are constantly going on, your brain is constantly measurably extremely active. And all of that ends the moment a person dies. Real measurable differences on every level you can think of.

The moment a person dies, that very microsecond there'll be a single atom in that person's body doing something entirely different, undergoing a process it wouldn't have otherwise. And from there on out everything changes. Not something you'll be able to measure with your kitchen scale and huge bowl, but very real and true changes. Even if they only start very small.

There's value to people even without the supernatural of the spiritual. For every single person there's a hundred galaxies with each of them a billion stars, do you realize how incredibly rare and valuable that makes us? We're marvels of the universe even without adding religion.

So please, next time, don't insult everyone who doesn't hold to spirituality as having no reason to care. Perhaps you personally are incapable of finding any reason, but don't generalize that to the rest of us. We have every reason to care.

 

[mrblakemiller]

So please, next time, don't insult everyone who doesn't hold to spirituality as having no reason to care. Perhaps you personally are incapable of finding any reason, but don't generalize that to the rest of us. We have every reason to care.

Try not to be so easily insulted. All I said was, "There's no reason to be upset," not, "Nontheists are idiots for feeling things without reason," or something like that. I offered my personal assessment. Almost every assessment anyone makes could be appended with the phrase, "As far as I see it." You don't have to be insulted that I don't think the same way you do like the South Park version of Richard Dawkins. You have every right in the world to read my words and think, "Hmm, he thinks there's no naturalist logic in emotional investment. I think he's wrong," and then go about your day.

 

[Hagi]

So please, next time, don't insult everyone who doesn't hold to spirituality as having no reason to care. Perhaps you personally are incapable of finding any reason, but don't generalize that to the rest of us. We have every reason to care.

Try not to be so easily insulted. All I said was, "There's no reason to be upset," not, "Nontheists are idiots for feeling things without reason," or something like that. I offered my personal assessment. Almost every assessment anyone makes could be appended with the phrase, "As far as I see it." You don't have to be insulted that I don't think the same way you do like the South Park version of Richard Dawkins. You have every right in the world to read my words and think, "Hmm, he thinks there's no naturalist logic in emotional investment. I think he's wrong," and then go about your day.

Luckily I also have every right in the world to reply and tell you that I think you're wrong and that you're being rude.

You certainly don't have to listen, but I can hope that in the future you'll put a bit more thought into your words. Probably not though... But hey, worth a try.

 

[Lord Garnaat]

So if you think about it, there should be no reason to love, no reason to mourn, no reason to get mad that a man shoots another man with a gun. The bullet atoms were just flying away from the origin of the Big Bang (with respect to their adherence to the universal constants) and collided with the mass of atoms that made the other human. A living human contains the same number of particles as a dead human. Structurally speaking, there's no discernable difference. There's really no reason to be upset.

Of course, that's a naturalist view. If you're a supernaturalist, or a theist, like myself, then you get to ascribe more meaning and value to such things as human lives.

Nah, that's just some silly idea propagated by theists like yourself, that the supernatural is somehow required for love, caring and emotion.

There's plenty of reason to love, to mourn, to get mad, to get upset and to care.

Because the universe is a wondrous place, that's already more than magical enough without the supernatural, and we are all wondrous creatures all the more valuable exactly because we're here by sheer chance. It'd have been easily possible for us to not have been here at all, but somehow we are. Somehow all those atoms, over billions of years, coalesced into me and you. And somehow that gives us the ability to love, to mourn, to get mad, to get upset and to care.

I think that gives us every reason to care.

And structurally speaking there's every difference in a living and dead human. The heart no longer beats, metabolism has stopped, neurons no longer fire, muscles no longer move, blood no longer flows, decay starts kicking in etc.

We are wonders of nature, like a beautiful valley that exists only through the coincidence of a glacier passing by that way millions of years ago. I think that has value, an immense amount.

That's an interesting point. Human life, and life in general, is indeed wonderful simply because of just how incredibly unlikely - even miraculous - it is that it even exists. The thought of just how staggeringly implausible it seems to be that all of those particular atoms and particles came to together here, of all places, in the precise, perfect place to support such complex and magnificent life is just astounding. It's certainly something that people don't appreciate enough. To think that each on of us carries the same parts that made up stars and galaxies and the very first products of the beginning of time itself is almost beyond comprehension.

I still can't help but feel however, and please don't take this the wrong way, that seeing that kind of creation as only a sequence of natural events does take away from the ideas of morality and meaning somewhat. Mrblakemiller does raise a good point - if life is purely naturalistic, without any sort of guidance or implicit meaning to it, then killing another person would be no more immoral or worthy of punishment then waking up in the morning. It could be argued that the fact that it hurts another person is what makes it wrong, but that just raises the same question again - why would hurting someone else be wrong?

I don't know, it just seems as though regarding the natural world as the final point leaves too many things open. Sorry if anything I said seemed rude, I only wanted to state my own position on the debate you guys are having.

 

[Wyes]

That's an interesting point. Human life, and life in general, is indeed wonderful simply because of just how incredibly unlikely - even miraculous - it is that it even exists. The thought of just how staggeringly implausible it seems to be that all of those particular atoms and particles came to together here, of all places, in the precise, perfect place to support such complex and magnificent life is just astounding. It's certainly something that people don't appreciate enough. To think that each on of us carries the same parts that made up stars and galaxies and the very first products of the beginning of time itself is almost beyond comprehension.

I still can't help but feel however, and please don't take this the wrong way, that seeing that kind of creation as only a sequence of natural events does take away from the ideas of morality and meaning somewhat. Mrblakemiller does raise a good point - if life is purely naturalistic, without any sort of guidance or implicit meaning to it, then killing another person would be no more immoral or worthy of punishment then waking up in the morning. It could be argued that the fact that it hurts another person is what makes it wrong, but that just raises the same question again - why would hurting someone else be wrong?

I don't know, it just seems as though regarding the natural world as the final point leaves too many things open. Sorry if anything I said seemed rude, I only wanted to state my own position on the debate you guys are having.

This is the point that I believe is trying to be made - morals and the sanctity of life don't necessarily have to follow from theism. This is basically the entire point of Humanism, and you'll find many/most atheists will identify with some kind of Humanism for this reason.

There's a much more complicated argument to be made here about moral relativism etc. but really, who's got the time?