Before responding, please read Messages 2 through 14.

Thanks.

Shubee

Edited by Shubee, 09-21-2008 09:13 PM: added instructions for a proper response.

Edited by Shubee, 09-24-2008 01:36 PM: I amended the instructions for a proper response.

I think a thread with an OP explaining what "quantum improbability" is and limited to that topic would be good. I wouldn't have closed the earlier thread if Shubee had had a good handle on quantum theory, or if his thread hadn't included the two other topics he insisted upon, devolution and the global flood, but that wasn't the case, and I felt that explaining quantum theory, evolution and geology to an unreceptive audience in the same thread was too much.

It seems that George Gamow's well-known popularization of modern physics is regarded as an acceptable view of physics. Please note the references from scholarly works: Mr Tompkins in Paperback - Google Book Review.

A review by SCRIPTA MATHEMATICA said, "Science students will find it worth while for it is definitely a good supplement to a modern physics textbook."

A review by SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN said, "Will vastly fascinate the whimsical, and is also entirely scientific."

You now understand my opening question. Presumably quantum physics is a scientific theory. If we adjoin to quantum physics all of the untestable, far-reaching mathematical implications of quantum physics, would we still have a scientific theory?

Shubee

Edited by Shubee, 09-25-2008 03:13 PM: Added Mr Tompkins in Paperback - Google Book Review.

This message seems like a rehash of the remaking Creationism thread. Exactly what are the 'untestable, far-reaching mathematical implications of quantum physics'? It seems to me you are simply talking about thermodynamics rather than 'quantum improbability'. If that is the case then the question is: 'Is thermodynamics science?' in which case the answer is surely yes with no need of debate.

If you modify your thread proposal to instead be about whether there exists a scientific concept known as quantum improbability, or if you can introduce new information or explanation into your current proposal so as to make recognizable what you mean by quantum improbability, then I might consider releasing the thread. Post a note here when you're done.

Aren't the underpinnings of statistical thermodynamics based on the collective motion of microscopic particles, which is governed by quantum mechanics?

I believe I was correct in identifying quantum physics as the fundamental physical law upon which all the laws of physical interactions and chemistry may be derived:

I do not want to limit myself to classical thermodynamics because, "From a thermodynamics perspective, all natural processes are irreversible." --Irreversibility.

You asked for clarification. That's fair enough. I believe that I can make my question clearer and even make it understandable to a general audience. Consider the following easy-to-understand conversation from the 1984 movie Ghostbusters, which I interpret as a spoof on science and pseudo-science:

Originally I wanted to know if the fantastic improbabilities explained to me by my high school physics teacher and the excerpt that I quoted from George Gamow's book, Mr. Tompkins in Paperback, is physics.

Now, I would also like a direct, straightforward and easy to understand yes or no answer to my next question. Physicists believe that all life as we know it can cease instantaneously by a nuclear break-up of all the biochemical bonds on Earth and "the fundamental laws of physics are all time-reversible." If all the fundamental laws of physics are time-reversible, it would follow that a fantastically rapid assembly of atoms into a great variety of living things in a single day is mathematically possible (according to the fundamental laws of physics). Isn't that right?

Edited by Shubee, 09-21-2008 09:41 PM: typo

And you go on to quote from the wiki page that states: it can be argued that the irreversibility of thermodynamics must be statistical in nature, that is, that it must be merely highly unlikely, but not impossible, that a system will lower in entropy

(My emphasis) So again, what exactly are you trying to debate? I'm not debating with you here, just trying to get you to understand that your OP doesn't really give us much of a clue. It seems ultimately the topic is a quick question, 'is it a scientific position that technically it is possible for all the molecules of air in a room to congregate in one corner, suffocating all the inhabitants?'. The answer is yes. One could even try calculating a probability to it. I'm willing to bet that it is more likely that I'll win jackpot in the next 50 consecutive lotteries with the numbers 3,14,15,9,26,5

A debate is a controvesial issue with two or more different 'sides' trying to present their case as best as they can. What are the sides to the debate you wish to present? Which side are you on? Could you give us the best case you can present in support of this?

If you are having difficulty with simply explaining the debate you intend to start, actually debating it is going to go nowhere.

Can I assume that both sides will agree that quantum physics is science? For the question, "If we adjoin to quantum physics all of the untestable, far-reaching mathematical implications of quantum physics, would we still have a scientific theory?" my answer is yes.

There are instances where untestable, far-reaching, mathematical implications of a scientific theory are regarded as science. The spacetime curvature conjecture is an excellent example. It is believed and promoted as if it was an irrefutable fact, already established, measured and confirmed. Theoretically, a nuclear war could end all life on Earth. If all the fundamental laws of physics are time-reversible, I believe it follows that it is mathematically possible for random atoms to rapidly assemble themselves into a great variety of living things in a single day.

There are physicists that believe that the fantastically improbable is impossible. There are mathematicians that believe that even events of zero probability can happen. I take the side of the mathematicians.

This seems to be a more contentious point of view, since you have gone from discussing whether highly improbable events are within the realms of science to possibly arguing that an idea that postulates such an improbable event based on the fact that technically it is possible should be regarded as a scientific theory.

However,

That seems to be a completely different topic, though also potentially interesting. Pick one, and edit the OP to focus in on it before messaging me back to let me know.

Are you asking a question on the definition of science? If so, neither AdminModulous nor I can tell.

I didn't realize AdminModulous was going to continue attending to this proposal, so I'm going to withdraw but leave him with my opinion that all you're doing is offering inarticulate propositions, and that this is unlikely to change.

It's impossible to separate the two. Presumably, my opening question wasn't clear. So I stated a thesis. The exact meaning of probability is pertinent to my thesis. Am I not permitted a defense? The theory of probability is a mathematical theory. I expect that natural philosophers will claim that their physical intuition about probability theory trumps the insight and clear thinking of mathematicians. Also, David Hilbert's Philosophy of Physics is the highest and purest form of science ever conceptualized by the human mind. I know that natural philosophers will strongly disagree. It all boils down to a debate between natural philosophers and mathematicians like David Hilbert.

As I've said before, there are physicists that believe that the fantastically improbable is impossible. There are mathematicians that believe that even events of zero probability can happen. I take the side of the mathematicians.

Before the rage and ridicule of my detractors escalates to higher levels, I wish to make it clear that I'm not under any delusion as to the opinions of the general physics community in regard to my theory. As foretold in prophecy, it's an absolute certainty that many respectable physicists will strongly protest my use of quantum physics in a fun application for which they do not approve:

Let the games begin.

If you'd like to write a thread proposal along the lines of what I said in Message 3 then I'll be glad to give it careful consideration, but otherwise I'll close this proposal tomorrow morning.