Heisenberg is referring to the mathematical relationships between the measurable quantities of a particle. It has been described as ‘unintelligible’ to most people, so I really question the use of Wiki as an authoritive reference. To claim this was ‘settled long ago’ is just wishful thinking.
You said above that taking a 9-year-old as a sexual plaything wasn’t abuse, so I’m not sure why you’re quibbling with CurtC regarding 3-year-olds.
He wasn’t referring to ‘sexual playthings’. There are cultures where marriage/sexual activity at a young age is permissable. I find the notion of this in the case of a 9 year old abhorrent, but that is a distraction from my point, which was about ‘child’ abuse. I’ll wait for an answer on the 3 year old.
Two questions for those of you who suggest quantum events are uncaused.
1> From where do virtual particles derive the energy required for their existence?
2> What is the state of the quantum vacuum?
Of course I do, that’s why I posted it. The idea that, say, murder is something that should be forbidden isn’t something intrinsic to humans; we had to figure out that was a good idea, and then figure out that it should apply to everyone and how to enforce it. A process that took thousands of years. In really primitive societies murder is often the top cause of death for just that reason.
Not really. Murder is only considered wrong in prominent societies because those are the ones that grow the most and become the most powerful; and even then some kinds of murder are acceptable to many or most people. Aggressive wars, for example. Or killing sufficiently unpopular people; the law typically forbids that, but that doesn’t mean that large numbers of people wouldn’t murder if the law got out of the way.
As for child abuse, the abuse of children is more common than not depending on how you define it. And even here in modern civilized America plenty of people say that the proper way to treat children is to beat them.
Defining “consent” with a child is tricky. And “abuse” isn’t the objective thing you want to claim either; it’s defined by human psychology and biology, not some absolute rule.
1> They briefly borrow it from the universe, then return it when they vanish
2> tumultuous? New Jersey ? What meaning of “state” you are getting at here? State of matter? A vacuum is not a state of matter as by definition it has no matter.
You might want to read about quantum foam:
I would suggest you read it yourself
This is totally incorrect. Homo sapiens is evolved as a social species and is biologically engineered to survive in populations, not as indivduals. Destabalizing the ingroup is dangerous to the individuals within it. Evolution therefore has selected for emapthic response and impulses to protect the ingroup.
Butt-fucking 9-year-old boys isn’t child abuse?
That’s not the only culture in which pederastic behaviours are considered normal, by the way.
A 3-year-old is incapable of consent. You might as well pose a hypothetical about a talking duck.
Yes he was.
How do you know it took thousands of years? You can only speculate this, and it’s unlikely. If during this time murder was considered ‘ok’, then based on evolutionary theory it would be prevalent (competing resources etc), and therefore the population would be suppressed.
Your playing with words to avoid the obvious and logical implications of your view.
A 3 year old cannot give informed consent to being abused.
And if you need any further description to clarify abuse let’s deal with rape.
Must we deal only with Wiki? Sigh. Still, here goes.
-
Virtual particles arise from fluctuations in the quantum vacuum. These fluctuations prove that the vaccum is not ‘nothing’.
-
Your quote from Wiki doesn’t speak to the issue of cause.
You didn’t read what I posted. On a number of levels our knowledge of anthropology and history contradicts simple evolutionary theory.
Evolutionary theory suggests that murder would be not only acceptable but desirable AT A TRIBAL LEVEL. This is simply because of competition for resources. If man is ordered based on tribal lines, population growth would suffer from this ethos. We know, however, that this is not the case.
I also briefly mentioned. Eugenics is a natural evolutionary response, yet sane people are overwhelmingly are repulsed by it.
There are far too many human charateristics and repsonses (global and tribal) that contradict evolution as the sole means of progress.
Virtual particles are still uncaused, and guess what, there is no reason why a random fluxuation in the quantum field can’t cause a big bang.
Perhaps the best repsonse iis to ask you how you recognise it as such.
There is no evidence they are uncaused. They arise from within a quantum field, so how do you know they are uncaused?
That is irrelevant. If a quantum field existed prior to the Big Bang, then the Big Bang was not the first physical event that needs to be explained.
Yes I did. What you posted was erroneous.
This is, once again, completely erroneous.
You already said this, and I already told you NO IT DOESN’T. Evolution would require just the opposite. That populations need to maintain stability and cooperative unity. Tribes compete with tribes, but without tribal identity and cooperation, the species would have died. Homo sapiens is not a species that can sustain itself outside of cooperative populations. Humans are not the only animal this can be said about, by the way. Evolution is filled with species who live in packs, herds, etc. including other primates.
No it isn’t.
What do you mean by “progress?” and what part of this “progress” do you think contradicts evolution? What you’ve said so far shows a deep ignorance of evolution, so you should probably take that into consideration before you hurt your credibility any more than you already have.
Recognize what as what?