Church of Satan

angelica

"Complementarity or wave-particle duality is considered to be one of the distinguishing characteristics of quantum mechanics, whose theoretical and experimental development has been honoured by more than a few Nobel Prizes for Physics. It has been discussed by prominent physicists for the last 100 years, from the time of Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, onwards. On the basis of Bohr's principle of complementarity, it is indeed universally accepted that the observation of two complementary properties, such as position and momentum, requires mutually exclusive experimental measurements.

The emergence of complementarity in a system occurs when one considers the circumstances under which one attempts to measure its properties; as Bohr noted, the principle of complementarity "implies the impossibility of any sharp separation between the behaviour of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena appear." It is important to distinguish, as did Bohr in his original statements, the principle of complementarity from a statement of the uncertainty principle."


To reiterate, this principle that is so widely accepted as a basis for quantum mechanics, implies the impossibility of a sharp separation between atomic object and the measuring instruments that define the conditions under which the phenomena appear!

That means we cannot separate that which does the perceiving, from that which is perceived. This is a widely accepted basis of quantum mechanics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_(physics)

RolandTD20Kdrummer

I believe you can always cut a piece of something in half forever (infinity) and still have something to cut in half again. At no point can you ever end up with nothing.

The fact that we are he proves that something was always (and will continue to be) here, and not created out of from thin air at some point.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

"Complementarity or wave-particle duality is considered to be one of the distinguishing characteristics of quantum mechanics, whose theoretical and experimental development has been honoured by more than a few Nobel Prizes for Physics. It has been discussed by prominent physicists for the last 100 years, from the time of Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, onwards. On the basis of Bohr's principle of complementarity, it is indeed universally accepted that the observation of two complementary properties, such as position and momentum, requires mutually exclusive experimental measurements.

The emergence of complementarity in a system occurs when one considers the circumstances under which one attempts to measure its properties; as Bohr noted, the principle of complementarity "implies the impossibility of any sharp separation between the behaviour of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena appear." It is important to distinguish, as did Bohr in his original statements, the principle of complementarity from a statement of the uncertainty principle."


To reiterate, this principle that is so widely accepted as a basis for quantum mechanics, implies the impossibility of a sharp separation between atomic object and the measuring instruments that define the conditions under which the phenomena appear!

That means we cannot separate that which does the perceiving, from that which is perceived. This is a widely accepted basis of quantum mechanics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_(physics)

So, you gotta read this sentence like 80 times to make sense out of it. Niels Bohr man, what a character.

"implies the impossibility" ok "suggests it's impossible"

"of a sharp separation" ok "of a seperation"

"between atomic object" or "electron"

"and the measuring instruments" ok "ruler"

"that define the conditions under which the phenomena appear" ok so the ruler "defines the conditions that are required for the phenomena to appear"

That's what I said.

"suggests it's impossible to seperate electron and the ruler that defines the conditions that are required for the phenomena to appear"

Right exactly! It's impossible to measure it because the phenonema no longer exists when you remove the measuring device. Right. Yea exactly, yup mmmhmmm, nothing new here.

Trau

What do I think of Laveyan Satanism? It is childish, and for people who do not wish to grow up.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

There is nothing known about QM that suggests it's different than Newtonian phsyics.

There is much known about quantum mechanics that goes beyond the 'laws' and theories of Newtonian or classical physics:

"The failure of the theories of classical physics in accounting for atomic phenomena was further accentuated by the progress of our knowledge of the structure of atoms."

Above all, Rutherford's discovery of the atomic nucleus (1911) revealed at once the inadequacy of classical mechanical and electromagnetic concepts to explain the inherent stability of the atom.

"Einstein's great original contribution to quantum theory (1905) was just the recognition of how physical phenomena like the photo-effect may depend directly on individual quantum effects. In these very same years when, in developing his theory of relativity, Einstein laid a new foundation for physical science, he explored with a most daring spirit the novel features of atomicity which pointed beyond the whole framework of classical physics. "

"These ideas, which were soon confirmed by the experiments of Franck and Hertz (1914) on the excitation of spectra by impact of electrons on atoms, involved a further renunciation of the causal mode of description, since evidently the interpretation of the spectral laws implies that an atom in an excited state in general will have the possibility of transitions with photon emission to one or another of its lower energy states."

"The peculiar individuality of the quantum effects presents us, as regards the comprehension of well-defined evidence, with a novel situation unforeseen in classical physics and irreconcilable with conventional ideas suited for our orientation and adjustment to ordinary experience."
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/dk/bohr.htm

69charger

angelica wrote:

The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth

by Anton Szandor LaVey ©1967

11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

All hail number eleven!
All hail number eleven!
All hail number eleven!

What a great rule! I'd go to regular Jesus church if they had a rule like this one.

69charger

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I believe you can always cut a piece of something in half forever (infinity) and still have something to cut in half again. At no point can you ever end up with nothing.

The fact that we are he proves that something was always (and will continue to be) here, and not created out of from thin air at some point.

Yeah but what Heisenburg figured out is that at some point, even with a theoretically perfect blade, you couldn't continue cutting that something in half because you would not be able to accurately predict both the position and momentum at any given moment in time.

You don't end up with nothing. You end up with 100% something and 100% nothing all at the same time.

Or so they say

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Right exactly! It's impossible to measure it because the phenonema no longer exists when you remove the measuring device. Right. Yea exactly, yup mmmhmmm, nothing new here.

Ahnimus wrote:

The observer still isn't a part of it. It's just junk science. Trust me.

Niels Bohr, one of the fathers of quantum physics, is saying it's impossible to separate what is being measured from that which is doing the measuring. There is no separation between the seer and what is being seen. The observer, and by extension, the measuring instruments, define the conditions under which the phenomena are assessed. Therefore the observer has a specific role in the outcome of the experiment. For example, in wave/particle duality, the observer, and the terms he decides for the experiment, will dictate whether the observable outcome is a particle or a wave phenomenon. The observer cannot be objective or removed from the experiment. The observer is relative and related to what is being observed. This is not junk science.

"The only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality--the quantatative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical--as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously." --Wolfgang Pauli

An esteemed, well-known theoretical physicist such as Pauli says the ONLY acceptable point of view seems to acknowledge BOTH the physical view AND the psychical aspect of viewing reality simultaneously.

"Contemporary basic physical theory differs profoundly from seventeenth to nineteenth century forebearers on the important matter of how the consciousness of human agents enters into the structure of empirical phenomena. The new principles contradict the older idea that local mechanical processes alone can account for the structure of all observed empirical data." http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/PTB6.pdf

angelica

Ahnimus, I had no idea that all this time, you've been going on the assumption that my understanding of quantum physics was purely derived from "What the Bleep".

edit: for me this is all the more comical, considering the science in "What the Bleep" did not impress upon me. I don't remember what it was about, so when you dispute it assuming it to be my view, I completely ignore you. It's science that is not on my radar screen.

angelica

When you were trying to explain your point to soulsinging, you said this, Ahnimus:

Ahnimus wrote:

There is a practical difference between indeterminism and determinism. A lot of practical differences.

and then you said this:

Ahnimus wrote:

Their perception of reality is what is practically different.

you gave this as an example:

Ahnimus wrote:

Here soulsinging, is an example.

Guy has a sexual attraction to children, if determinism is true, then some factor beyond his control is causing it and we can develop therapy, or treat the illness in a more humane way. If free-will is true, which is the reigning percpet, then we just lock 'em up and toss away the key. That is the practical difference between the two realities, one is self-servant the other is logically understanding.

Less than a full two pages later, you were claiming this to me:

Ahnimus wrote:

So my point is that perception does not change reality.

You were adamant to soulsinging, about how our perception actually changes the practical outcome of the situation. ie: if we perceive we have free will, we lock the guy up and throw away the key. and conversely, if we believe in determinism, we create an entirely different outcome to the same situation. But shortly after, when I was making the exact same point, backed up by quantum physics, you denied the validity of what I was saying. I believe the reason for this is because you do have not been understanding what I have been saying re: quantum physics. I also believe much of it is because you have believed my quantum physics awareness to be limited to a movie, therefore not acknowledging my actual background of physics awareness. You and I are talking about the exact same thing even though under different circumstances where we are not relating to one another. It is our perception of what each other is saying that is confused.

I realize our perception does not change reality, but it changes the only reality we know, which is our perception of it. That can change our entire idea of what is possible and how much power we actually have. This is why I always use the analogy of the drop of water and the ocean. I realize we are always the drop of water within the ocean. We do not change the ocean, but we change our perception of our world within that ocean. Back to this quote: "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature." --Niels Bohr.....science does not describe reality, it describes our understanding of reality.

gue_barium

angelica wrote:

So when I wield normal universal forces or energy, it appears miraculous to the average person.

"magic: the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature."

Ist you nekkid whenst ye praferm this?

angelica

gue_barium wrote:

Ist you nekkid whenst ye praferm this?

That's between myself and the universal forces.

cornnifer

angelica wrote:

The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth

by Anton Szandor LaVey ©1967







4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.

5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.

6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.



11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

Funny stuff. The ones quoted are my favorite.

"Lair", THAT is some funny shit. Can't wait to start using that. "Well, better be gettin' back to the lair". Funny.

*In Darth Vader Voice* "Stop, or i'll be forced to destroy you!" Funny Funny shit.
"Exit my lair or i'll destroy you"! LMAO

angelica

cornnifer wrote:

Funny stuff. The ones quoted are my favorite.

"Lair", THAT is some funny shit. Can't wait to start using that. "Well, better be gettin' back to the lair". Funny.

*In Darth Vader Voice* "Stop, or i'll be forced to destroy you!" Funny Funny shit.
"Exit my lair or i'll destroy you"! LMAO

Well it looks like something positive comes of Satanism, then, because this laughter is infectious!

hippiemom

angelica wrote:

Well it looks like something positive comes of Satanism, then, because this laughter is infectious!

Between cornnifer's post and the narcissistic college student thread, I've got quite a case of the giggles

angelica

hippiemom wrote:

Between cornnifer's post and the narcissistic college student thread, I've got quite a case of the giggles

Looks like I'll have to read the narcissistic college student thread! (...and I'm still laughing about cornnifer's post!)

gue_barium

cornnifer wrote:

Funny stuff. The ones quoted are my favorite.

"Lair", THAT is some funny shit. Can't wait to start using that. "Well, better be gettin' back to the lair". Funny.

*In Darth Vader Voice* "Stop, or i'll be forced to destroy you!" Funny Funny shit.
"Exit my lair or i'll destroy you"! LMAO

Funny to you. I think my Father was the true author.











BWAaWAHHAAhaaha

Jeremy1012

genie wrote:

if paganism is considered a lunatic cult, then why shouldn't we consider christianity and all other religions to be lunatic cults?

i'm just giving ideas for bored minds

I have asked my mother (a christian) that question many times. I think all religions are cults.

cornnifer

gue_barium wrote:

Funny to you. I think my Father was the true author.

Must have been an interesting lair.

fanch75

Other than being an inspiration for some kick ass heavy metal songs, I don't think that this "Church" is taken too seriously.