# Scientist state parts of quantum physics are provably unsolvable



## Thanatos (Dec 9, 2015)

http://factor-tech.com/connected-wo...m-physics-problem-has-been-proved-unsolvable/

Interesting...


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 10, 2015)

> “Alan Turing is famous for his role in cracking the Enigma, but amongst mathematicians and computer scientists, he is even more famous for proving that certain mathematical questions are `undecidable’ – they are neither true nor false, but are beyond the reach of mathematics code,”



This introduces a bit of trouble for those that believe everything is mathematically describable.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 10, 2015)

Those guys can quit if they want.  I think that people will keep looking because that's what they do.

The development of AI might change that game.  It may point out flaws in the original equations.  Mathematical laws get refined and built upon.   Until there's a Theory of Everything (ToE), mathematicians operate under the assumption that what they are working with isn't "quite right".  

But they keep looking (God bless 'em).

Would a better response to difficult questions be "Leave it at the foot of the cross"?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 10, 2015)

This might shed a bit more light. Taken from Physics Today.



> Gödel's incompleteness theorems argue that the truth of some mathematical systems are unknowable. Alan Turing extended that idea to computers, showing that there are some algorithms for which it is impossible to know whether a computer can complete the calculations for in a finite amount of time. Now, a team of physicists believe they have extended the concept even further to the physical realm. In a finite 2D crystal lattice of atoms it is known that it is possible to calculate in a finite time the "spectral gap"â€”the amount of energy between the lowest energy level of the electrons in a material and the next one up. In the new work, Toby Cubitt of University College London and his colleagues appear to have shown that in an infinite 2D lattice the calculation of the spectral gap it is impossible to know if the calculation ends. If true, that means that even if the spectral gap is known for a finite-size lattice, the value could change abruptly with just the addition of a single atom and it is impossible to know when it will do so.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 10, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Those guys can quit if they want.  I think that people will keep looking because that's what they do.
> 
> The development of AI might change that game.  It may point out flaws in the original equations.  Mathematical laws get refined and built upon.   Until there's a Theory of Everything (ToE), mathematicians operate under the assumption that what they are working with isn't "quite right".
> 
> ...



Not that scientific questions are difficult, but, yes.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 10, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> This might shed a bit more light. Taken from Physics Today.



They might be close to the real answer.  Maybe they should keep trying.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 10, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Not that scientific questions are difficult, but, yes.



Why don't you think that walking on water begs a scientific question?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 11, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Why don't you think that walking on water begs a scientific question?



Because a scientific explanation adds nothing.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 11, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Because a scientific explanation adds nothing.



To some it adds nothing.
Some folks are satisfied with the wonderment of the magician sawing the lady in half.
Some want to know how he did it because as far as we know it shouldn't be possible that she bowed to the audience after that.


----------



## welderguy (Dec 11, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Why don't you think that walking on water begs a scientific question?



If one rejects how God spoke the universe into existence,then how can one possibly understand or accept that Jesus (and Peter) walked on water.Belief must precede understanding,not the other way around.
And belief is something that is given.(Phil.1:29)


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 11, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Because a scientific explanation adds nothing.



What if you saw a monkey walking on water, would trying to find out how it did it "add nothing"?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 11, 2015)

welderguy said:


> If one rejects how God spoke the universe into existence,then how can one possibly understand or accept that Jesus (and Peter) walked on water.Belief must precede understanding,not the other way around.
> And belief is something that is given.(Phil.1:29)



Mercy.....


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 11, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> What if you saw a monkey walking on water, would trying to find out how it did it "add nothing"?



Jesus is not a monkey.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 11, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Jesus is not a monkey.



What's the difference.  The laws of physics were broken.  Why would you want to know how in one case and not the other.

If Superman were real and he allowed it, don't you think scientists would want run experiments on him to know how he flew?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 11, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> To some it adds nothing.
> Some folks are satisfied with the wonderment of the magician sawing the lady in half.
> Some want to know how he did it because as far as we know it shouldn't be possible that she bowed to the audience after that.



Jesus didn't perform magic tricks.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 11, 2015)

welderguy said:


> If one rejects how God spoke the universe into existence,then how can one possibly understand or accept that Jesus (and Peter) walked on water.Belief must precede understanding,not the other way around.
> And belief is something that is given.(Phil.1:29)


If belief is something that is given describe the personality type that punishes people for not having something that only can be given to them by the one doing the punishing.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 11, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> What's the difference.  The laws of physics were broken.  Why would you want to know how in one case and not the other?



Because one case is of spiritual significance, the other is not.



> If Superman were real and he allowed it, don't you think scientists would want run experiments on him to know how he flew?



Jesus is not Superman and what scientists would or wouldn't 'want' to do if allowed has little to do with the matter.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 11, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Jesus didn't perform magic tricks.



Jesus wasn't mentioned in my post.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 11, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Jesus wasn't mentioned in my post.



You don't see Him?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 11, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Because one case is of spiritual significance, the other is not.
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus is not Superman and what scientists would or wouldn't 'want' to do if allowed has little to do with the matter.



There was an act.  A physical interaction of matter, Jesus and the water.  It might could be described by physics.  You're only assuming that it can't and are in fact shutting out the POSSIBILITY of it being describable.  Why?  Is it bad Ju Ju try to figure out how it happened?  Will you get in trouble?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 11, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> There was an act.  A physical interaction of matter, Jesus and the water.  It might could be described by physics.  You're only assuming that it can't and are in fact shutting out the POSSIBILITY of it being describable.  Why?  Is it bad Ju Ju try to figure out how it happened?  Will you get in trouble?



Not familiar with Navier Stokes, are you? 

I never said it wasn't describable, I also never said that folks couldn't search for the answer if so inclined; I only said that knowing how he did it would add nothing to the significance of the moment.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 11, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Not familiar with Navier Stokes, are you?
> 
> I never said it wasn't describable, I also never said that folks couldn't search for the answer if so inclined; I only said that knowing how he did it would add nothing to the significance of the moment.



I'm not a scientist.  

Why are they not inclined?  One of the most interesting and amazing things occurred and no scientist wants to figure out how it happened.....

It's like going your whole life and not wanting to know how the tooth under the pillow got replaced by a quarter.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 11, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I'm not a scientist.
> 
> Why are they not inclined?  One of the most interesting and amazing things occurred and no scientist wants to figure out how it happened.....
> 
> It's like going your whole life and not wanting to know how the tooth under the pillow got replaced by a quarter.



I'm not a scientist either.

As I've said elsewhere, the answer to this question has everything to do with the individual and little, if anything to do with whether God hates intellectualism (I don't see where he does). Some (myself, at one time) find the discoveries you describe so overwhelmingly important, that all idle time, and even time that wasn't idle, was spent trying to discover what the answer was or could be. I myself became tired, after-all, spending nearly all waking hours reading physics books and trying to decipher page after page of equations tends to be tiring. I then came across this little gem in Sunday school, of all places, _"And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."_ I realized my searching was unnecessary, though not unfruitful; as, in another place it's written, "In all work there is profit". I "Gave it to God", as someone might say.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 11, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I'm not a scientist either.
> 
> As I've said elsewhere, the answer to this question has everything to do with the individual and little, if anything to do with whether God hates intellectualism. Some (myself, at one time) find the discoveries you describe so overwhelmingly important, that all idle time, and even time that wasn't idle, was spent trying to discover what the answer was or could be. I myself became tired, after-all, spending nearly all waking hours reading physics books and trying to decipher page after page of equations tends to be tiring. I then came across this little gem in Sunday school, of all places, _"And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."_ I realized my searching was unnecessary, though not unfruitful; as, in another place it's written, "In all work there is profit". I "Gave it to God", as someone might say.




That may be the saddest thing I've read in here in a while.

I'm actually, truly saddened.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 11, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> That may be the saddest thing I've read in here in a while.
> 
> I'm actually, truly saddened.



You shouldn't be. I once had strings, but now I'm free.


----------



## welderguy (Dec 12, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> If belief is something that is given describe the personality type that punishes people for not having something that only can be given to them by the one doing the punishing.



This punishment you speak of, would have and justly should have,been dealt to every human in history.God created the human race without sin.We messed that up.
The fact that God will have mercy on a remnant of the human race does not display Him as mean,but rather,all the more loving.

You may ask "why doesn't He save them all?"
But I ask "why does He save any?"


----------



## bullethead (Dec 12, 2015)

welderguy said:


> This punishment you speak of, would have and justly should have,been dealt to every human in history.God created the human race without sin.We messed that up.
> The fact that God will have mercy on a remnant of the human race does not display Him as mean,but rather,all the more loving.
> 
> You may ask "why doesn't He save them all?"
> But I ask "why does He save any?"


Adam supposedly messed things up then Jesus supposedly fixed them yet nothing actually changed except the excuses.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 12, 2015)

welderguy said:


> This punishment you speak of, would have and justly should have,been dealt to every human in history.God created the human race without sin.We messed that up.
> The fact that God will have mercy on a remnant of the human race does not display Him as mean,but rather,all the more loving.
> 
> You may ask "why doesn't He save them all?"
> But I ask "why does He save any?"


Now that you've gotten that out of the way, care to take a stab at the actual question that was asked?
I purposely made it simple, consice and direct. I didn't ask about saving, creation or sin. I asked you to describe the personalty type that punishes someone for not having something that only they can give.
Of course you are under no obligation to answer which would be better than a song and a dance that speaks volumes.


----------



## welderguy (Dec 12, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Now that you've gotten that out of the way, care to take a stab at the actual question that was asked?
> I purposely made it simple, consice and direct. I didn't ask about saving, creation or sin. I asked you to describe the personalty type that punishes someone for not having something that only they can give.
> Of course you are under no obligation to answer which would be better than a song and a dance that speaks volumes.



I gave you the answer: "loving"
All the other supportive embellishment was added as bonus with no extra charge.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 13, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I gave you the answer: "loving"
> All the other supportive embellishment was added as bonus with no extra charge.



It's pretty obvious you will never see the polar opposites of your beliefs. 
Although to be honest I think you do see them but are not willing to acknowledge them because of the problem that would create for you.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 13, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Now that you've gotten that out of the way, care to take a stab at the actual question that was asked?
> I purposely made it simple, consice and direct. I didn't ask about saving, creation or sin. I asked you to describe the personalty type that punishes someone for not having something that only they can give.
> Of course you are under no obligation to answer which would be better than a song and a dance that speaks volumes.




Quote(I asked you to describe the personalty type that punishes someone for not having something that only they can give.) end quote.

From the point of view of a believer your question is problematic. I presumes that free will is absent from the someone in your query. 

Does a parent punish someone with free will for not having something only they can give? Or is it essentially a  lesson on "self" for that someone and that their free will has limits and responsibilities, effects them and others, etc...?


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 13, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Quote(I asked you to describe the personalty type that punishes someone for not having something that only they can give.) end quote.
> 
> From the point of view of a believer your question is problematic. I presumes that free will is absent from the someone in your query.
> 
> Does a parent punish someone with free will for not having something only they can give? Or is it essentially a  lesson on "self" for that someone and that their free will has limits and responsibilities, effects them and others, etc...?



Welder's personal belief is that belief and faith can ONLY be given to you by God.  That is the key here.
And that God is justified in punishing those who do not have belief or faith in him. Again, that only he can give them.
That eliminates any lessons to be learned, freewill plays no part in it and if we were talking about John Doe the answer would not be "loving".
If you do not worship or acknowledge all of God's attributes according to your beliefs are you worshiping God or are you worshipping your own customized version of God that you find acceptable?


----------



## welderguy (Dec 13, 2015)

I don't think he was asking the question,but making a point.
A point I do not agree with.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 13, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I don't think he was asking the question,but making a point.
> A point I do not agree with.


In this forum i think disagreement is pretty much a foregone conclusion or we would be talking about fishing


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 13, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Welder's personal belief is that belief and faith can ONLY be given to you by God.  That is the key here.
> And that God is justified in punishing those who do not have belief or faith in him. Again, that only he can give them.
> That eliminates any lessons to be learned, freewill plays no part in it and if we were talking about John Doe the answer would not be "loving".
> If you do not worship or acknowledge all of God's attributes according to your beliefs are you worshiping God or are you worshipping your own customized version of God that you find acceptable?



Ah! I understand better now. Thanks.  Since all of God's attributes is a hard mountain to stride and that not all are at the same place at any one time-- by default most if not all versions are customized.

In my customized case people reap what they cultivate in themselves as individuals and as social beings. I don't give my God the attribute as the cause of all that would make life miserable for people.


----------



## welderguy (Dec 13, 2015)

To cut right to the chase,if you are saying God does something unjust and assigning it as one of His attributes,then you are very incorrect.

He is just and sovereign in ALL His doings and ways and attributes.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 13, 2015)

welderguy said:


> To cut right to the chase,if you are saying God does something unjust and assigning it as one of His attributes,then you are very incorrect.
> 
> He is just and sovereign in ALL His doings and ways and attributes.


I didn't say God did anything. Remember I don't even think he exists at this point.
YOU said he chooses who will believe or not and YOU said those who don't believe deserve punishment for not believing. I'm merely pointing out that that doesn't equate to loving by any definition of the word. It's not tough love, it's not punishment for a just reason, it's simply creating and punishing innocent victims.
You refuse to connect the dots of your beliefs.
Which is fine and totally your own business.
But remember we are on a AAA forum where by participating we are agreeing to be challenged on what we do or don't believe


----------



## welderguy (Dec 13, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I didn't say God did anything. Remember I don't even think he exists at this point.
> YOU said he chooses who will believe or not and YOU said those who don't believe deserve punishment for not believing. I'm merely pointing out that that doesn't equate to loving by any definition of the word. It's not tough love, it's not punishment for a just reason, it's simply creating and punishing innocent victims.
> You refuse to connect the dots of your beliefs.
> Which is fine and totally your own business.
> But remember we are on a AAA forum where by participating we are agreeing to be challenged on what we do or don't believe



You are clearly implying that God is unjust in punishing unbelievers.
That implication is what I am arguing against.

How do you come to conclusion that those being punished are innocent?


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 13, 2015)

welderguy said:


> You are clearly implying that God is unjust in punishing unbelievers.
> That implication is what I am arguing against.
> 
> How do you come to conclusion that those being punished are innocent?


If they have no choice in whether they believed or not then it's the only conclusion there is.
If last night your boss changed your schedule but never gave you the new schedule should you be fired for not showing up at the new time?
Why not?


----------



## welderguy (Dec 13, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> If they have no choice in whether they believed or not then it's the only conclusion there is.
> If last night your boss changed your schedule but never gave you the new schedule should you be fired for not showing up at the new time?
> Why not?



God has not hidden Himself from anyone.He's given more than ample evidence of Himself.The boss on the other hand expects you to do his will without you knowing what his will is.
God never imputes sin where there is no law.But there is no escape clause,because He has made His law clear.All have broken His law.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 13, 2015)

welderguy said:


> God has not hidden Himself from anyone.He's given more than ample evidence of Himself.The boss on the other hand expects you to do his will without you knowing what his will is.
> God never imputes sin where there is no law.But there is no escape clause,because He has made His law clear.All have broken His law.




What about to people like me who He has not chosen to reveal Himself to?

You are one confused pup.


----------



## gemcgrew (Dec 13, 2015)

welderguy said:


> God has not hidden Himself from anyone.


Scripture says otherwise.


----------



## welderguy (Dec 13, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> What about to people like me who He has not chosen to reveal Himself to?
> 
> You are one confused pup.



Especially you.You have proven yourself to be intelligent and literate and observant.You have been raised by parents that taught you about God.You have read the bible.You have a good pair of eyes that see His creation daily.You have no excuse for denying Him and not following His commandments.


----------



## welderguy (Dec 13, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Scripture says otherwise.



Not talking about spiritual revelation here,but rather a general revelation.


----------



## gemcgrew (Dec 13, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Not talking about spiritual revelation here,but rather a general revelation.


I'm not sure how that helps your position.


----------



## welderguy (Dec 13, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> I'm not sure how that helps your position.



Maybe you could help us understand.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 13, 2015)

welderguy said:


> God has not hidden Himself from anyone.He's given more than ample evidence of Himself.The boss on the other hand expects you to do his will without you knowing what his will is.
> God never imputes sin where there is no law.But there is no escape clause,because He has made His law clear.All have broken His law.


Seems to me you are going to have to choose what it is you actually believe.
Either I can decide for myself to believe if I find sufficient evidence OR
Belief can only be given by God.
Can't be both.


----------



## welderguy (Dec 13, 2015)

Check with Gem on it.Apparently Ive missed something in Romans 1.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 13, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Check with Gem on it.Apparently Ive missed something in Romans 1.


What would checking with Gem accomplish?
That's like saying ask the Catholics or ask the Baptists or ask the Primitive Baptist or ask the Protestants or ask the.......
You guys have more flavors than Ben and Jerry's and no one can prove the other right or wrong so one view is as valid or invalid as the case may be, as the other.


----------



## Thanatos (Dec 13, 2015)

What y'all are talking about is the difference between God's preceptive will versus God's decretive will. We should talk about this in the believers forum no this one..some of these members in the AAA forum are already confused enough as it is


----------



## gemcgrew (Dec 13, 2015)

Thanatos said:


> What y'all are talking about is the difference between God's preceptive will versus God's decretive will. We should talk about this in the believers forum no this one..some of these members in the AAA forum are already confused enough as it is


It is just as likely to be understood in here... as it is in there.


----------



## gemcgrew (Dec 13, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Check with Gem on it.Apparently Ive missed something in Romans 1.


Not necessarily. I am just trying to get a feel for where you are going.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 13, 2015)

Thanatos said:


> What y'all are talking about is the difference between God's preceptive will versus God's decretive will. We should talk about this in the believers forum no this one..some of these members in the AAA forum are already confused enough as it is



Ha ha.  Watch how fast that thread gets locked down up there.  There might even be some banding.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 14, 2015)

Thanatos said:


> What y'all are talking about is the difference between God's preceptive will versus God's decretive will. We should talk about this in the believers forum no this one..some of these members in the AAA forum are already confused enough as it is




Will you be here all week?


----------

