International Children's Day is an opportunity to discuss the unfortunate decision of the High Court of Justice not to require ultra-Orthodox yeshiva students to take core studies. This is not paternalism. This is important for their future and ours. The articles in this section are opinion articles
On the occasion of International Children's Day, it is worth repeating the fact that the pool of possible candidates for higher studies in the fields of science is dwindling. The core studies that are supposed to give all children an equal basis to start life, especially in this period of loss of professions, and are not a luxury. Forcing them is not paternalism but an essential move for the future of the State of Israel
There are many who rise up, Efsio listened to them. The reason for this is that in September 2014 the Supreme Court ruled in its session as the High Court of Justice that forcing core studies on ultra-Orthodox students is a paternalistic move. In 2010, Professor Amnon Rubinstein, Professor Uriel Reichman and Major General Elazar Stern filed a petition in which they sought to establish that the law enacted in 2008 that allows ultra-Orthodox educational institutions that teach boys from the XNUMXth grade onwards in small ultra-Orthodox yeshiva (Orthodox yeshiva for high school boys, where no studying special subjects), to be exempt from the core program that is mandatory for all Israeli students - is illegal. "This is an unusual petition, in which a third party requests that we oblige the state to behave paternalistically towards others," Grunis wrote. "Although it is possible that a demand from the state to act paternalistically towards a third party may be accepted in extreme cases, it is understood that our case is not one of them. Another unique feature of the petition is that, in fact, it is a petition that seeks to promote a broad public interest, at the cost of harming the rights (which may be constitutional) of others."
Too bad. The judges of the High Court could understand that a fight against the sweeping action of the ultra-orthodox politicians against the core studies, is not a political fight but a fight for the very existence of the State of Israel as a modern state in twenty-thirty years. Studies abound. Here is one of them:
Prof. Dan Ben David "The Startup State and the Threat from Beit", noted in the chapter "Education and Demography" in his article that was included in the "State of the State Report - Society, Economy and Policy 2011-2012" of the Taub Institute that core studies become a rare commodity precisely when they are especially needed.
"Slightly more than half of the elementary school students (52 percent) attended state and state-religious schools. The average achievements of these children in mathematics, science and reading are below the average achievements in each of the 25 relevant OECD countries (Ben-David, 2111)."
"The education provided to Arab-Israeli children - who are 28 percent of elementary school students - yields achievements that are below many third world countries."
"21 percent of elementary school students in Israel belong to the ultra-orthodox education system. In this system, the core studies for boys do not continue beyond the XNUMXth grade, and what is learned until then is minimal at best; The vast majority of boys do not study science or English, and mathematics is taught at a level that does not approach that of children of similar ages in other Western countries. The situation with some girls is better to some extent, but it is far from reflecting the picture for all of them."
"In light of the fact that already today about half of the children are Arab or ultra-Orthodox, and in light of their very low achievements in the core areas - which reach the level of the third world or below - the current demographic changes reflect a socio-economic development that will not be sustainable when these children grow up" writes Ben- Uncle.
Nobel laureate Dan Shechtman also addressed the issue many times, including during his run for president. At the "Pedagogy in the Age of Education" conference, shortly after it was announced that he had won the Nobel Prize, which shows the importance he attaches to the issue of education. "There are many holes in the education system. He compared the system to the fiscal phenomenon of percolation where, even though iron has holes, it conducts electricity until the moment when it stops conducting electricity. Likewise in the education system, one day everything will stop. "The education system has big holes, not small ones. Half of the students in the State of Israel do not study core subjects such as mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry and English. This is a huge hole and a problem that the Israeli government must recognize. This injustice must be righted. Just as a parent who does not send his children to school must sit in prison."
Winner of the Israel Prize in the field of chemistry and physics research for 2014 - Prof. Mordechai Segev He said with his election in an interview with the science website Because he seeks to advance two goals for Israeli science, "First, we must strengthen science in Israel and bring back to Israel as many of the young scientists who are abroad as possible. The second goal he wants to promote is increasing the pool from which those who excel in science and technology will come - the ultra-Orthodox sector: "Reiterating the words of Nobel laureate Prof. Dan Shechtman who called not to give up on the ultra-Orthodox and to include core studies in the law - mathematics and science and any school that does not respect this should not Not only to stop the funding but also to prosecute its managers, it is not possible for a single child to grow up in Israel who does not know mathematics."
In my opinion, those who resort to paternalism are the ultra-orthodox businessmen who prevent the children from integrating into the world and continue more and more generations of dependence on state funds. The situation is even more serious when you take into account the report of the National Economic Council according to which About a third of the professions will disappear in the next twenty years. Computer systems will be able to do every process that clerks and even managers do - such as bookkeepers and accountants, advertising people, procurement clerks, customer service receipt and accounts and most importantly - millions of professional drivers may lose their livelihood with the development of the driverless car. In this cruel world there is no place for those ignorant of practical matters. It's not for us, it's for them. Deliberately keeping any people ignorant is an unforgivable sin, perhaps even a religious sin.
1,135 תגובות
No one is telling you not to study Torah. The core studies are a means of integration into society and the economy for the benefit of the ultra-Orthodox themselves. The incitement against core studies and certainly the mobilization of anti-Semitism is a huge self-goal.
To publish the comment you will need a lot of courage which I don't think you have
Maybe you will decide to publish because no one will read... well, well
At least you see her
Come and learn a little something, like you, there were enemies of the people of Israel throughout the years, the Romans also decreed no study, even Stalin and even Hitler did not like Jews and said they were not productive
So everyone left and we here will continue to study more Gemara and another one and another one and another one and finally another one and then another one and then another one and another one well you understand... (I hope)
Now go drink a glass of water
Miracles
I'm running to poker now, but I don't have a better explanation than what you'll find on the wiki. The explanation does not satisfy me, and I have also raised the question several times here and on other blogs.
Here is a variation that is relevant to our purposes:
An electrically charged body in acceleration emits electromagnetic radiation, right?
So what happens to a charged body in free fall?
According to Newton, it is accelerating. According to Einstein, no, actually a body at rest on the table is accelerating.
But what about radiation? You can measure it and determine who is right, right?
Another interesting experiment worth doing.
When I return, I will try to give a more detailed answer to your previous question.
Israel
And how does a photon hitting a magnet cause attraction?
Israel
photons? What is their frequency? And if I have two loaded bullets? Is it photons here too?
Miracles
Of course, an electromagnetic force that passes between the magnets by means of photons.
You have 100 pairs of gloves that have been separated and one glove from each pair has been sent to the moon.
Is there a correlation between the gloves? Yes.
Is there a physical or non-physical connection between them? No.
You have 100 pairs of entangled photons.
Are there correlations between them? Yes. Is there a physical relationship? I say yes. It is the connection that transfers the polarization information between them.
Israel
You use the term "physical contact" as if this term has a known meaning. I have two magnets and I feel a pull when I bring them together. Is there a physical relationship between them?
Miracles
"Correlations" can mean a statistical relationship, not a physical one.
If I understood the claims here, there is no physical connection between the intertwined particles. I claim there is.
"A virtual photon can move at any speed, then of course it has mass" I believe you meant momentum, but it seems to me that we agree that something physical - in this case a photon with momentum - can move at all speeds and certainly faster than light.
Summer trials, starting at:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/take-a-photo-of-schrodingers-cat-0108149/comment-page-6/#comment-559154
Working.
Israel
I think everyone agrees there is something. Only death and their name is certain...
I will not use the word "physical" because I do not know how to define it. There is a connection, but I cannot see anything passing between the particles, but only feel the results.
I have no way of seeing the vegetable particles. I (not me personally...) know how to make calculations and predict the results of experiments with their help. To me, it is similar to the core of the earth, or the big bang...
And yes, as far as I understand a virtual photon can move at any speed, then of course it has mass. I don't understand it beyond that.
I don't know what experiment you did with a laser in the summer.
Miracles
Everyone agrees that there is something that connects the particles? Are you sure everyone agrees?
And this relationship is physical in your opinion? Can a relationship be non-physical?
What about the virtual particles that move at all speeds? Are they physical or not?
Because if they are not physical, then what does it mean that a quantum particle - a physical object - does not have a defined position before the collapse of the wave function? If I turned on a flashlight at instant 0 and after a second the photon could be a light year away from me (since it has no definite location and can be at any point in space) - doesn't this mean that it moves faster than light?
Do you now understand the laser beam cutting experiment I conducted in the summer?
Do you understand the question about the position of the photon and uncertainty principle?
Israel
I don't understand what the argument is about. Everyone agrees that there is something that connects the particles. You call it "unknown information". I call it "situation".
What next?
controller
Why do I know?
But it's always good to ask, maybe I missed something.
Actually the references I received were good, only in my opinion they show what I claim, namely that information passes between the particles, but information cannot be sent through interweaving, see the example of the spinnerets with the internal radio.
On the other hand, a sentence like "You argue about facts because the fact is that information does not pass and you claim that it does" sounds a bit like "You argue about facts because the fact is that everything is in his mouth and you claim that it is not", which shows that it really is probably time to rest.
Israel
At least consider resting a little... otherwise you become like those Chico and Diko.. Oh sorry, Nissim and Shmulik - who are chatting themselves to know.
It seems to me that you understood from the beginning that you won't get an answer from them (because they simply don't know). So it's a shame to turn the scientific discussion into kishkoshiada
Shmulik
You are wrong on one point - these are not "elected" and these are not "voting"... reminding you that "Voter's Day" is not related to elections....
Israel,
In my opinion, in the religious community, the leadership is more radical than its constituents. No proof, just my opinion.
Shmulik
The leadership is no different from the people, both among the secular and among the ultra-orthodox.
Ask Nissim if you don't believe..
Israel,
In my opinion, the majority of the ultra-Orthodox public would not be opposed to core studies, but rather they are gripped by their leadership, which is afraid of losing control, and our leadership is lax, wretched, and greedy for power, and therefore allows this situation to continue
Shmulik
I already wrote that the argument is not with me.
Now go convince half the people that they are arguing with facts.
Israel,
I do not understand.
Anyway, do you agree that what I wrote about fact was written in the context of core studies? Isn't it a fact that today, in order to sustain the economy, industry and the military, core studies are required?
Shmulik
It seems to me that a sentence like "You argue about facts because the fact is that information does not pass and you claim that it does" illustrates everything I am saying.
Those who got it, got it.
Israel,
I did not write anywhere that there is an answer to the question that was raised in 1935, but since 1935 many things have been discovered that made the question an incorrect question. Albentazo wrote to you again that there is an explicit proof that information does not pass and I also wrote that an infinite speed theory of information (and then you turned it into something that is not information but physical that passes) is equivalent to my theory of leprechauns. I stand corrected, my leprechaun is a better theory because it explains how your something knows how to get to the right place. Infinite speed alone fails to explain this.
What's the deal with taking quotes from me and twisting their meaning? I'm not arguing about facts, but at most about an interpretation of the results (you're arguing about facts because the fact is that information doesn't pass and you claim that it does and something that isn't information but physical that passes is also undefined information) and in any case this sentence was written about what should be learned in schools in order to To produce economy, industry and army. Do you dispute this fact? I would very much like to hear an explicit answer to this question and not in the form of a follow-up question. ISIS is not fully based on the seventh century. Its financing is based on the production and sale of oil. Oil, the production of which requires extensive technological knowledge, and in fact this entire complicated mechanism (from the production of oil to its sale and transportation) needs technological people (ISIS also kidnaps, extorts and what not, but oil is the main source of financing). Still want to argue about core studies?
Who decides? who is in power What should be learned? Which will allow us to survive and exist well in a competitive world. What is the minimum required? Core studies.
Do you have definitions, would you like to see "known information", "statistical" information that goes back in time, good for you?
OK, watchers, I get what you're saying. I hope you received it too 🙂
Israel Shapira
How should Dr. Israel Shapira or Professor Emeritus Israel Shapira contact you? I assume that you also received a title of nobility on behalf of the queen and now your name will be Sir Israel Shapira. And all this for your tremendous contribution to the philosophy of science.
Israel Shapira,
If you are not sure, contact academics whose field of work it is. They will surely refer you to journals such as Science or
Scientific American you will find many articles with plenty of sources. If you don't want to do that, that says something about you. By the way, what experiments are you doing? Science experiments require a lot of money that only institutions can afford. Maybe you will contact them to finance your experiments. Home experiments do not sound serious. And maybe you're actually a retiree who wants to fill his time and pretends to be science. If this is indeed the case, you are nothing more than a tireless chatterbox.
his scouts
If this conversation is too troublesome for you, why don't you move on to other articles where your presence is urgently required? Or maybe you have no pretensions to understand in other subjects either, but you know that those who comment on them are only fooling themselves to know?
Thanks for the book offer. I have no intention of writing about something I'm not sure about, so I ask questions, exchange opinions and conduct experiments.
Israel Shapira
I have a question to you. Why don't you put your thoughts and musings in an orderly manner in writing, publish it in the form of a book and submit the writing to the academy's review? Here it will be possible to see what you are worth. It is possible that they will find in your writings things of interest and maybe there is a breakthrough discovery in them or maybe all things are nothing more than complete vanity. Listen to me, take it as a challenge.
Israel Shapira
I have no pretensions to know the subject, but I have the impression that the whole endless chain of talkbacks is a movement in loops that never end. The entire discussion could have been shortened, as honorable as it is to have a much shorter discussion. 20 or 30 talkbacks at the most and that's it. You just recycle your stuff endlessly. All this rabbi talk is rather troublesome. When will you start being businesslike?
Dear viewer
I suppose you can explain to us barbarians how entangled particles are always in the same quantum state without information passing between them?
The world holds its breath.
If it was possible to make money from all the barbarism here, you would all be billionaires today like Bill Gates.
Albanzo
Is my understanding correct?
Albanzo
"Because for the first time you show a willingness to learn (whether genuine or feigned)"
I guess you have proof of that too?
Miracles
But isn't that what David Israel claims all the time about the photon?
Howl, Monday, Woman, Breakfast, or Nabot in the head. Bye.
Israel
Also higher than d, and e and even f…. Any speed is any speed... but again, this is what I understood.
Israel,
I'm pretty sure I've already told you about ten or thirty times that I'm not your private tutor, right? And I will not expand on the absurdity of asking me to establish a mathematical theory for you in a response on the science website. But since you are for the first time showing a willingness to learn (whether genuine or feigned), I will still help you:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=books+about+quantum+information
Albanzo
You say "there is an unequivocal mathematical definition for information".
Can you bring a link to the definition or define it yourself?
Miracles
"If I understand correctly - a virtual particle moves at any speed"
Also higher than C?
Israel,
1. Instead of reading a line or two on Wikipedia, maybe for once you will really try to study the subject? The very fact that I referred you to the trial a quarter of an hour ago and you already have a solid opinion about it shows exactly the depth of your investigation. In short, the law does not require people to sit at both ends and try to communicate with each other. He talks about what effect the Hermitian collapse of one part of an interlaced pair has on the other part (with the possibility of performing any arbitrary unitary transformation on each of the pairs). Since in quantum mechanics all predications are Hermitian (that is, this is the only physical part of the theory), this actually teaches about the general effect in space-time that exists between the two particles within the framework of quantum mechanics.
2. You did say in the past that information is transmitted, but it is impossible to transmit known information. On those occasions it was made clear to you (at least by me personally, and I think by others as well) that "known information" and "unknown information" are things you made up. Within the field of mathematics that deals with information, there is an unequivocal mathematical definition of information (which I have urged you to learn several times and you always ignore) and the above proof shows on a mathematical level that there is no transfer of information. The distinction between known and unknown information is just something you invented so that you can keep telling yourself that information is passing so that you don't have to deal with the fact that your intuition is simply wrong, and that certain correlations cannot be explained with the help of information exchange (as classical correlations are explained). Your terms are not well defined mathematically, and have no use in mathematics or physics. These are just words you made up. Want to claim that "unknown" type information is being passed? Alright, you are welcome to claim that and also claim that there is chigchkook between the particles and that their perchipuk property is 2 but only on the condition that they are not mezombrihels. Ok?
Israel
If I understand correctly - a virtual particle moves at any speed. But, it does not transmit information. You insist on a definition of information that is not appropriate. Something passes between the particles (so I understand), but it is not information.
Just stop calling it information…
Albanzo
I giggled. I got:
In physics, the no-communication theorem is a no-go theorem from quantum information theory which states that, during measurement of an entangled quantum state, it is not possible for one observer, by making a measurement of a subsystem of the total state, to communicate information to another observer
But on this I agree as I have already written dozens of times. for example:
"Caveat: the fact that information passes between the interwoven particles, does not mean that known information can be sent through them. If we measure the polarization of the electron or the spin of the photon, we will find in retrospect that they are always in the same state or always the opposite, but we will not be able to send the results of a football game through interlacing."
Israel,
You can find on your own. There is a series of theorems called no-communication theorems.
Albanzo
Can you link to the proof?
Miracles
And how will you deny them the right to vote?
controller
Indeed, in aggregate.
The fact that information does not pass between entangled particles is not knowledge. There is a mathematical proof. You can find fault with it, and you can reject the axioms on which mathematics is based. As long as you haven't done either of these two, you can't say it's just an opinion.
Listen Israel, their voice and that of the right is worth a little more.. 🙂
Israel
Everyone has the same rights and duties. Those who do not fulfill their obligations - their rights are violated. In this case, the right is to vote - not to do whatever you want.
But their voice is just as valuable as anyone else's, isn't it?
Israel
Yes, religious people have a tendency to deny facts. And it's clear why.
Miracles
You have no argument with me. Have you tried asking the religious the same questions? Watch the debate.
Israel
I hope there is no debate that science has tripled life expectancy. Regarding the responsibility of religion for preventing the development of medicine - this can be discussed, and there are many opinions. But there is no arguing that many religions, including Judaism, opposed, and still oppose today, autopsy after death. And you can add brokenness is not conducive to health.
Miracles
"I don't think there is any dispute about that"
Doesn't it depend a bit on who you ask?
Israel
I don't think there is any dispute about that. Do you agree with me that science, after religion stopped interfering with it, tripled life expectancy?
Miracles
That's your opinion. Even if information does not pass between particles that are always in the same state, this is an opinion.
Israel
I can add that they live a lie and those seek the truth.
Israel
The small difference is that some brought mostly suffering to themselves and the world while some tripled life expectancy.
If they say that ignorance is a curse like no other
While education is light for the soul.
is man on earth
Will he live mindlessly like a beast?
And these claim that science is vanity
He brings only calamity and suffering to a person.
And because of that it goes away
A man of the moral path.
In short, fluff, confusion,
Opinions were constantly divided
paper wires became a flood,
And the answer is still - a draw!
Israel
If this is the case - Memorial Day for Israel's Martyrs is the opposite of Memorial Day for the State of Israel. And the next day - Independence Day of the ultra-orthodox republic. I would prefer then to live in Iran, they at least have an army....
Miracles
I argue that everyone should know what their true power is, especially if you intend to break the law.
Israel
Are you claiming that a citizen cannot be forced to obey the laws of the state? Is this also true for secularists who are brainwashed by the freebies? Am I allowed to break the rules too? 🙂
Dear Mr. Shmulik, because the particles move in other dimensions and also or mainly backwards and forwards in time many times, when you measure them they stabilize in your dimension. Therefore there is what you call the measurement problem. The same with the two cracks experiment, because they are in another time dimension, they pass through both cracks together and connect to reality from both directions. The same with the spins of photons, because they move backwards and forwards in time many times, they have several spins that connect together on your test, and you can already understand "on your own" that information also passes backwards in time. Sincerely
Shmulik
Do you believe that you have shown the fundamental change that explains the question raised in the EPR article, namely how does particle A "know" the quantum state of B without an immediate transfer of information between them? break up
Try to write the answer for yourself, maybe you will be convinced. I do not.
"What is interesting? The question is what is worth studying." Who cares?
"These are facts that I hope do not need to be debated" oh my. We have been arguing here for a month about a physical question without reaching an agreement, so how will you agree on what needs to be studied?
"What does it matter if one side thinks you shouldn't study math?" It matters to that one party.
"The facts show that the side I'm on is the only one capable of responding to all the threats and challenges we face and there is no real symmetry between the two sides." I believe that too. So what? 30 km north of you, a state is emerging that is based on the seventh century, and it is sweeping and conquering everything that stands in its way.
"The reason the ultra-Orthodox are afraid that their students will learn science, evolution, math and English is that if they learn that too, a lot of them will repent" you meant the question. You could just as well write: the reason the seculars are afraid that their students will consume heroin, cocaine, and L.S.D. Is that if they take that too, lots of them will become drug addicts.
"Unfortunately, they lose the argument and win in reality." Each of us can say the same about the debate that was here about weaving. So you want to reach an agreement on education?
Israel,
We have indeed reached the limit, as I have already written several times. I don't agree that I didn't answer you about the question of what has changed since 1935, but you are right to think that nothing has changed. In my opinion, the solution you propose is no different from saying that the fericons are responsible for properly handling the spin of the photons and I think that solving the measurement problem will provide an answer to both the two slits experiment and the entanglement. Two for the price of one.
Regarding the education system, I have already written and will write again. Regarding the uninteresting question of who determines, the political system and the professional systems in the Ministry of Education determine this. Because of this, if there is an overwhelming majority for the religious public, they will be able, in the end, to dictate whatever they want. It is not interesting because it is self-evident.
What is interesting? The question is what should be studied. Since we live in a competitive and hostile world, the facts are that we must learn math, English, language and science in order to be able to produce industry and economy and military. These are facts that I hope do not need to be debated and since that is the case, what does it matter if one side thinks that one should not learn math? The facts show that the side I am on is the only one capable of responding to all the threats and challenges that lie ahead of us and there is no real symmetry between the two sides. It should be noted that what Nissim wrote to you is also completely true: there is no obstacle to studying mathematics and Torah or any other MDB and fantasy (I can recommend a few). The reason the ultra-Orthodox are afraid that their students will learn science, evolution, math and English is that if they learn that too, a lot of them will repent, therefore the insistence of the ultra-Orthodox side is only due to egoistic motives since their goal is to preserve their power and when they have a side interest in this debate, it makes them automatically to the losing side. Unfortunately, they lose the argument and win in reality.
Miracles
To impose a law of compulsory education and core studies on the doss is like imposing the law that prohibits smoking napas in Tel Aviv. Hopeless.
Israel
You asked a question. I answered. And that's not good either...
Israel
I can't understand what you want. Are you against democracy? The state is not allowed to enact laws? Are there people who are above the law?
What are you trying to say?
Miracles
You are missing the point. This is not about you, morals or education.
Whose voice is worth more, Bibi or homeless? Professor or mentally challenged? Head of a department at Hadassah or a spiritual cup holder at Or Akiva?
After you answer, do the math yourself.
Israel
I would try to obey every law of the country where I live. If there was a law that I could not abide by - then I would leave the country, or sit proudly in prison.
Unlike the ultra-orthodox who dodge military jobs (and only those) - I have morals.
Israel
What is the connection between Gemara studies and core studies? Is someone preventing someone from studying Gemara?
Whoever claims that core studies are at the expense of Torah studies of various kinds is a miserable liar, just like those who think that military service is at the expense of Torah studies.
The Ministry of Education will determine..
The Inquisition forbade Torah studies, the choice was between the torture wheel and the chamber. Torah studies stopped? Hundreds of thousands of Jews chose to die for the sanctification of Hashem, Hanukkah that we celebrated not long ago because of the rebellion in the Hellenistic culture (which defeated Judaism) they were unable to get Torah believers to stop studying Torah and obey the authority and learn what it claims is its core - so the Ministry of Education of the Jewish State returned electoral power to Torah scholars Strong will be able to force them?
...
To understand why the battle is lost in advance, try to think what would happen if the situation were reversed, and the studies of English mathematics and science would become secondary to the compulsory studies of the Torah. Which of the respondents here would obey the order requiring their children to study mainly Torah and Gemara, and only in the little free time left to study science?
Israel
The Ministry of Education will determine. Just as the Ministry of Health determines which vaccines are needed, the Ministry of Transportation determines what safety standards are required for every vehicle and the Ministry of the Environment determines standards for gas emissions, removal of chemicals, etc.
Otherwise - who needs a government?
Miracles
Pretty simple. There is no debate about core studies - Mishnayat, Gemara and Poskim.
Who will determine what the core studies are?
Israel
I don't understand how you link the academic discussion between us here, and the need for core studies.
Shmulik
I think the discussion has exhausted itself. Each brought their best arguments and the other side continues to hold their views.
Reminds you of something? This was my argument at the beginning of the discussion, when we were still talking about the topic of the article, namely education for ignorance. What is education for one is ignorance for the other, and in a democratic system the direction the state is heading is the balanced power of all the forces acting on the system, i.e. those with the right to vote.
That is why the talk about core studies that the state must force on all its students is to a large extent the stuff of Alma, for the same reason that if the religious voice were strong enough or united enough to determine that the laws of the "Jewish Sharia" as you say are the ones that will become the core, you will find all the reasons and ways to A state law reached through parliamentary means will not apply to your children.
A pleasant core.
Israel,
I told several times what has changed since EPR, but if I couldn't convince, then no. In my opinion, not that it matters much, the solution lies in the solution of the well-known measurement problem, which will also explain the two-slot experiment and not in a solution of the infinite speed of information type beyond the fact that it only creates more problems than it solves (what is passing, how do we know how to get to the right place, why we nothing is measured...) it is hidden by everything I've read (and doesn't give balm to the two slots, but it's really not a factor)
Shmulik
The reason I think you are unable to defend the arguments is simple: there is nothing to defend. It is not possible for two particles in separate places to always be in the same quantum state without the transfer of information between them.
I was expecting some explanation as to why it has changed since EPR and I didn't get one. It is also likely that if there had been any substantial change it would have appeared in the literature in Rish Gali. The explanation that "most experts do not treat two photons as separate but as one quantum system and the very division into two particles produces a conceptual error" is mathematically correct, but physically incomprehensible (to me).
"From everything I've read, it appears that the formalism completely excludes the transition of information, such that the theory of relativity defines as information." It seems to me that you are mixing up the possibility of sending information through interlacing, which is impossible, and the fact that information passes. If I'm wrong, point to the specific link that excludes the transfer of information between the particles. I didn't see anything new in the new links you brought.
Why don't you start pondering the possibility that there might be another explanation for the mystery of the entanglement, namely that information does pass between the entwined particles at infinite speed? This is undoubtedly a difficult option to digest. Nick Herbert (from the link from my name) says at the beginning of the article that it sounded so fantastic to him when he first heard about it, that he vowed to disprove the possibility. Instead, he brought the relatively simple demonstration that this is exactly what is happening, according to the article.
Even when Maxwell came up with the idea of electromagnetic waves it seemed too fanciful to many scientists. I remember reading that Hermann Helmholtz, one of the top scientists in Germany, prepared a lecture that he was going to give at the University of Berlin to all the top scientists in Germany, in which he sought to refute the imaginary theory. When he heard that his outstanding student Heinrich Hertz was able to transmit a signal through an experiment based on that controversial theory, he quickly changed the topic of the lecture and opened it with the sentence: Gentlemen, I want to inform you of the most important discovery of the 19th century.
Israel,
This is a summary of what I understood. I am not able to defend the arguments and the links that support what I am saying, I have already brought several times:
1. No one has a satisfactory Newtonian explanation and therefore the subject continues to be investigated. This is conceivable because the subject is not Newtonian
2. The formalism that EPR used is not used today, so their question sounds logical but it is not really so, just like in the example I gave regarding what preceded the big bang.
3. An example of what I mean in section 3 is that most experts do not treat two photons as separate but as one quantum system and the very division into two particles produces a conceptual error.
4. While apparently what exactly is happening there is not clear (at least not to me) from everything I have read it appears that the formalism completely excludes the transfer of information, such that the theory of relativity defines as information.
5. Insisting on this question is fine, but in my opinion the two slots experiment is equally embarrassing and one of the explanations for the two slots is multiple worlds and this is also one of the explanations I saw for the interweaving (at the end of the link). That's probably as far as I'll go.
The following links came from quora and are part of the lecture given on the subject. I am reading them now and hope you will do the same. I'm sure you will understand more than I do a large part of the arguments that come up there
http://lesswrong.com/lw/pz/decoherence_as_projection/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/q0/entangled_photons/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/q1/bells_theorem_no_epr_reality/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/q2/spooky_action_at_a_distance_the_nocommunication/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/q3/decoherence_is_simple/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/q4/decoherence_is_falsifiable_and_testable/
...
Listen, I find it much more constructive to read the articles than to argue here. All in all, all I can do is bring links.
Honorable Mr. Kabod Israel, a mistake on your part, information can be sent both backwards and to the source of parallel universes and certainly received, your mistake stems from your individual feeling that time only moves forward, and I have already done experiments even before I had feelings of this and that, and in practice people who have died live with it To the next world or this depends on your point of reference. Sincerely
Miracles
we are not.
You say that in interlacing no information passes between the interlaced particles, I say yes.
What we do agree on is that information cannot be sent through interweaving, and that non-locality does not contradict relativity.
howled experiments.
Israel
We say the same thing. So I don't understand what your point is?
Miracles
It is not possible to transfer information through interlacing. You will always find the particle in a certain quantum state, but you will not be able to receive information from it or countless particles. This does not mean that information does not pass between the interwoven particles. That's why I distinguished between known information, the results of a football game, and unknown information, the quantum state of a particle.
Relativity forbids sending known information because then it would be possible to influence the past. Elk coziness. However, this does not happen in interweaving and therefore interweaving does not contradict relativity.
See also:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-speach-20100800/comment-page-36/#comment-356737
So....what will happen?
Israel
I think it's impossible to transfer take information.
Miracles
Stop, Illustrating.
How can information be transmitted through interlacing?
Israel
The example illustrates what I said...
I don't understand what you are trying to say. Interleaving does not convey information.
Miracles
The example does not illustrate anything.
And how is it possible to get information quickly from light through interlacing? How can you even get information at any speed, even queue speed, using interleaving?
Israel
The example illustrates that if you could receive information at a speed higher than the speed of light then you reach a contradiction. Emphasis on the word *if*.
Shmulik
Obviously my question is incorrect. The right question is what is the answer to the question.
How does a particle on Mars choose the quantum state of its brother interwoven in Israel if there are no hidden variables and no information passes between them?
Miracles
Who said the light from the threatening meteor moves faster than light? Who even said anything about a meteor? How does this relate to weaving?
No threats please.
Israel
A particle doesn't know anything... he's a complete loser. There is a correlation between 2 particles, it is not information.
Think of two meteors that entered the atmosphere at high speed. One coming straight at you and one perpendicular. You look at both of them, they collide in a big explosion, and that's how you survive. Imagine that the light from the threatening meteor would have traveled faster, due to the addition of velocities. So, at the moment of the explosion, you would see the same meteor at a greater distance. That is, from your point of view there should be no conflict at all...
Israel,
I don't agree. I wrote that your question is incorrect just as the question of what was before the bang is incorrect. I suggest you try rolling on my question on quora.
Miracles
And if you don't call it information, then does that mean that particle A does not know what the state of B is at time 0?
And what logical contradiction does this create?
The calculation will not help because because of the reading from many satellites you sometimes also get a negative reading.
Israel
I gave you the answer - don't call "what is said between them" information. I also explained why - because it creates a logical contradiction.
Israel
Nice, you will get a refutation of Rafi Moore's idea. I want to make a simple calculation - how much error can be created as a result of the rotational acceleration. Let's hope today.
Shmulik
I did not understand from what you said how a particle on Mars chooses the quantum state of its brother interwoven in the earth if there are no hidden variables and information does not pass between them.
"how can the second particle "know"
one particle is communicating with the other instantaneously across space, ie, faster than light
Please explain, not terms.
Israel,
But I did bring. From what I understand, nobody talks about photons the way Einstein talked about them, today. This is because today photons are not considered to be very, very small spheres, but are described as follows (from an answer that Albentezo wrote to me to another question): "... just as in field theory (the modern version of quantum mechanics) electrons, gluons, photons, quarks, etc. In the whole space and at the peaks where we read particles...'. I think you don't think that the difference in this description changes anything but it embodies 80 years of research that brought the experts to understand the subject better and ask new questions. It's like the question, what was before the big bang? Apparently this is a good question and the Hebrew accepts it well, but if the theory of general relativity is correct, and time is a property that was created when space and mass were created, then this question has no meaning if time did not exist before. It's like asking what a triangle is thinking about. A meaningless question. From everything I've read, this is the best answer I know of to your question and I've quoted quotes from Quora that say the exact same thing. I challenged you to try to dress up my question and make it difficult there because there you have a much better chance of getting to the bottom of the issue. Do you want me to paste the link again?
Miracles
What, Raphael also tried to ask questions in the science? Understand him then..
The GPS receives the satellite signal with an arrival time signature according to the satellite clock. If you remember Rafi's explanation, the extra height he showed is a relativistic result of time dilation due to rotational acceleration.
This is a good and probably correct explanation. If you remember, when I planned the experiment a few months ago, I took into account observed height differences of a few centimeters, I was very happy to get 1000 meters. Learning while experimenting.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/take-a-photo-of-schrodingers-cat-0108149/comment-page-14/#comment-561312
Now, what will happen if we find that the height decrease or increase is observed even when only the antenna rotates without the GPS itself?
This is the next experiment.
Something about the logical "problem" of time reversals, when parallel dimensions and worlds are added, the grandfather or father paradox, can be solved, even if they are attributed a power that affects the dimensions and also if they are separated into parallel universes that are another dimension. Respectfully blowing water
Israel
You are starting to sound like my friend, Raphael, only raising difficulties and not speaking his mind...
The GPS satellites send a sequence of signals, take it that I don't understand what the arrival time of the signal is. The receiver performs complex processing, hardware and software, before it outputs information. Some of the information received includes the time and the location of the satellite at that time, but you will not be able to tell, in my opinion, when the signal was received.
Miracles
This particular GPS comes with a smaller connector than usual. I found a converter, but there is still no reception inside the safe. I called the company but they still haven't found a solution. It would be best if I could get the raw arrival time of the signals from each satellite and display it individually on a screen, but that is still a vision for the future. The satellite radio receivers I ordered from China should arrive every day and we hope they will be useful for experiments.
I don't think there is any point in detailing what the alternative solution to Postulate 2 is in the sympathetic and cheering atmosphere here, look how much we got into trouble with a relatively simple thing like non-locality. I will always be happy for technical advice from you and everyone, and if the experiments are unequivocally successful and are tested and approved by qualified physicists, they will be in the public domain. For now they are just an entertaining game.
will dawn
We worked with spectracom, they have a representative in Israel. I suppose you can buy online, but note that the standard connector is like a TV - quite a large connector.
Why do you offer a new passage for the second postulate, and not accept the new passage (so-called) for information?
What's your new favorite?
Miracles
Does not worry about anything, Mebsut Khalas. But as you can see, there is no simple solution along the lines of "definition of information" and the matter is closed. In my opinion, there is another possibility for the interpretation of Postulate 2, from which the laser and GPS experiments are derived.
The device is:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008RYZU38/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o08_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
It comes with a small external antenna that connects to it with a smaller bnc connection than usual. I found an adapter and I have a germin antenna with a 3 meter cable, but I can't get satellite reception when the GPS is in the safe.
I asked about a line amplifier for the antenna, there was none. Do you know where to get it?
Thanks.
my client…
Israel
He is no longer a horseman. I don't really understand why you worry about him so much.
A good GPS antenna can push a cable of 50-100 meters, depending on the receiver. Beyond that you need a line amplifier. Are you using an antenna designed for long lines? The signal is terribly weak...
Shmulik
Unfortunately, your statements did not add anything to my understanding... perhaps for the simple reason that there is nothing to understand. You have not shown anything different that has been renewed since 1935. So either you don't accept that I'm saying the same thing as the Wikipedia entry says, or nothing has changed since the article was published, or it has and you can't get the links to change (fields, correlations, remember?).
Miracles
My client claims inadequate representation.
I can't connect the damn GPS to a suitable external antenna. The signal is too weak and he cannot receive satellites when he is in the safe but the antenna is outside. Do you have any idea how to do this?
Israel
I resigned from my position as the attorney for my client Mr. Albert Einstein. I suggest to my learned friend to direct his question to his new attorney, or of course to Mr. Einstein himself.
Israel,
I tried to bring information that might promote understanding (mainly yours) and not go into the question again of what has changed since the publication of the article.
If you are asked this question again, then the answer is that no expert speaks this language anymore. No expert says that one particle interacts with the other particle. The transient language. What changed? 80 years of research.
Shmulik
I didn't understand from the quotes what the innovation was from 1935.
Miracles
If as you say "transferring information above the speed of light is not possible" why according to Wikipedia did Einstein claim in the EPR article that this is exactly what happens in entanglement according to the quantum description?
"how can the second particle "know"
one particle is communicating with the other instantaneously across space, ie, faster than light
Shmulik
In my opinion, this is exactly the point - matching is not information transfer. Transferring information above the speed of light is not possible - because this transfer can create a logical contradiction. Correlation cannot such a contradiction.
If someone thinks that there is information transfer in weaving - the problem is in understanding the concept of information.
I think it's really that simple.
3.
Read Keith Olpers' answer. If I copy it, the comment is not published
2.
It doesn't. In so many words, there is only correlation between the entangled particles, no communication. For a brief but informative and accessible overview, you might want to see Entangled Photons
http://lesswrong.com/lw/q0/entangled_photons/
This link is very detailed. suggest to review
1.
: https://www.quora.com/Upon-measuring-the-spin-of-an-entangled-photon-A-does-information-instantaneously-pass-from-photon-A-to-an-entangled-photon-B/answer/Jim-Whitescarver?__snids__=846483191&__nsrc__=2
no. Bell's famous paper that showed the correlations which entanglement product also proved they could not be used for communication since unless you compare the outcomes, which requires communication at light speed the correlations cannot even be discovered and thus can contain no information.
In an information model there is nothing spooky about it. There is simply a logical relation between A and B. Just forget about relative spacetime and think of the immutable logic of the universe to be primary, everything else is only relative. It is quantum logical action that constructs relative orientation between things one bit at a time. Our world seems to have angels of any value, but in a quantum interaction there are just two angels, this way, or that way. Because of these correlations after a gazillion events the entangled this ways and that ways paint finely defined orientation of things in space to many bits of accuracy.
The mistake is to think that some relative orientation existed before logical relations between events defined them. Then we think it A knows some a priori orientation of B. But it is the other way around, the relative orientation is determined by the correlations.
If you are still spooked out by the correlations consider that in a light speed path between A and B the distance and time are contracted to zero making A and B adjacent and the event is purely local, not spooky action at a distance, in some realizable here and now where, by perspective, this way for A must be that way for B
Israel,
Let's do something else for a moment. I'm going to paste some answers I got from Quora
https://www.quora.com/Upon-measuring-the-spin-of-an-entangled-photon-A-does-information-instantaneously-pass-from-photon-A-to-an-entangled-photon-B
I really think that if you make it difficult there, we will make more progress.
I hope my father will release the comments at the speed of weaving...
Shmulik
I thought you got what I'm saying is the same as what is said in the Wikipedia entry about EPR:
Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen asked how can the second particle "know" to have precisely defined" momentum but uncertain position? Since this implies that one particle is communicating with the other instantaneously across space, ie, faster than light, this is the "paradox
And your claim is that since then we have progressed, and now there is a good explanation that solves the question, and that it did not exist in 1935. You mentioned local correlations and field theory.
It seems to me that your new questions indicate that you didn't get what was written roughly, didn't you?
So let's mark 1935 as the fault line. If you have a question that concerns the passage of information at an infinite speed, or at least faster than light, between the interwoven particles, then you did not receive what Einstein claimed according to the article:
one particle is communicating with the other instantaneously across space, ie, faster than light
If, on the other hand, you accepted that this is the only possibility posed by quantum mechanics, at least according to Einstein, go back to 1935 and access the new explanation that has been available since then for field theory or non-local correlation for the results of an assembly experiment.
Water blowing
Schrödinger's cat has more sense than you.. In any case, the stupidity is flowing from your ears. You are full of absolute stupidity.
Look, honorable Mr. Shmulik, in the Schrödinger equation it seems to me that there is a t and it can also be negative, but what is more important is that there is an t and the possibility of immensaries tm or an additional dimension in time, what is meant - time can play many times backwards and forwards to create another dimension and transfer more information to both parallel universes and back in time With respect to water
Israel,
Write in the article, how many times the experiment was conducted 24 hours along 18 km. What did they mean they wrote 24 hours?
I don't understand your answer about infinite speed and it's absolutely not fluff but substance. If you want to claim that *something* moves between two systems at infinite speed, be prepared to face the consequences of your words: what is the source of energy that drives the transition? How does this thing know how to get to the right place? Why don't we measure any such burst of energy? We had this kind of ping pong before and the answer I got from you is: Do you see another solution? And this is not an answer, especially when the medicine is worse than the disease.
So let's make an interim summary regarding the proposals put forward to solve the problem:
1. Infinite speed of something (which you recently agreed was not information or I was wrong that you always claimed it) - yours.
2. The system is connected from another dimension - miracles (I hope I am not interrupting his words)
3. The two photons were once together - miracles and he thinks there is no problem (I hope I am not interrupting his words)
4. No information is passed - Albantezo and the article I brought. I allow myself to put it in this section because of what is written in the article
The only section that existed that Albentezo completely contradicted was section 1. Changing to *something physical* that passes instead of a letter cannot be the solution because something physical that passes is a letter. I accept the claim that the answer in the thread I know is that you will learn (passing information, correlation, and proofs in information theory that show that there are systems with non-local correlation that do not transfer information) but what to do you need to learn at least to know what to ask. Apparently Suskind's course is not satisfactory. If you haven't heard a solution from the horse's mouth either, it probably means that no one understands this mechanism fully, but it quite works out for me with quantum mechanics. She is quite snobbish when it comes to explaining results to fit our Newtonian logic. My hypothesis is that we will have to find a deeper theory than quantum mechanics (yes, which will be non-local) that will yield a more satisfactory explanation.
I would appreciate it if you could explain the experiment and why it was important to test for 24 hours.
Regarding the blow, come on, I'll start training
Shmulik
The graph presented is of data from 4 hours, which is certainly enough to illustrate the point I made about the validity of these types of experiments. I also mentioned that I think the same problem exists in the well-known Aspa experiment.
"It is clear to me that there is still no answer that allows the mind to think about what exactly is happening there" - so why is it not clear to you why I am asking questions and making difficulties difficult? It is forbidden to ask questions on this site anymore?!
"I don't understand how infinite speed won't solve a path, if the time available to it is 0. In zero time, 0 paths move and this is another question I asked you and didn't get an answer to (and as for the questions I did get an answer to, they were mostly in the form of follow-up questions or I had to insist on them "
Let's say we are trying to find out the speed at which certain information passes.
We have two towers 300 km apart, with clocks that are synchronized between them.
The first letter takes an hour to pass. We write: the speed of the signal is 300 km/h.
For the second - a second. We write down: the speed of the signal is 300 km/s.
For the third - a thousandth of a second. We write down: the speed of the signal is 300,000 km/s, C.
You see that as time tends to 0, the speed tends to infinity. You can philosophize and say that in no time you didn't move at all, that's why I answered you:
"If you wish, I would be happy to explain why the Aspect experiment actually leads to the transmission of information at an infinite speed, or at least as high as the experimenter requests, but let's settle for 2C. Acceptable?"
Which not only answers your infinite speed question (contrary to your claim that I didn't), also explains why it is irrelevant, since 2C is enough and you are talking about 10.
The coin example is excellent in my opinion as a step on the way to the final argument. Since she bothers you, I will try to avoid her in discussions with you.
I'm not sure which Albanzo answer you're referring to. I don't remember receiving a specific answer, but something along the lines of "Go learn." I already mentioned that I watched Stanford's online course on interweaving:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Eeuqh9QfNI
Which in my opinion is excellent and recommended, but it also does not answer the question of how. If I remember correctly, at one point when Susskind is asked this question, he shrugs and says it's just like that.
"Regarding Ultimate Hold'em, you need a dealer for it, right?"
Ultimate casino games against a dealer. This is a relatively new game, so in my opinion even the casino is not yet aware that it is possible to gain an advantage in it. This was the case in blackjack 50 years ago when Thorpe published the first book on card counting. The problem with blackjack today is that if you count, you do gain an advantage over the casino, but sooner or later the casino will outrun you and prevent you from playing. In Ultimate this hasn't happened yet, so this is the ideal time to hit the casinos before they change the rules.
water,
I have to study, not only physics and not only to Israel I will lose in poker, there are many who drain me. But I will also win occasionally.
Israel,
In the experiment, a graph showing 4 hours of information was shown, but they said several times that the experiment was conducted for 24 hours with a distance of 18 km, so I'm not sure how accurate your words are. Regarding what I agree or disagree with (not that it really matters) note that overall I used the terminology they developed (quantum information in a free translation) and doubted its existence.
From the fact that the issue is still being studied empirically, it is clear to me that there is not yet an answer that makes sense as to what exactly is happening there. It may be that for this he will need a deeper theory (yes, it will probably also be non-local. I hope Zibi will understand on his own what I meant). I think that moving *something* at infinite speed is not the solution, but with all due respect, my opinion does not matter at all and my logic does not serve me in this matter because my logic (the correct word is intuition) is fed by Newtonian reality and it is certainly not relevant here. In addition, I do not understand how infinite speed will not solve a path, if the time available to it is 0. In zero time, 0 paths move, and this is another question that I asked you and did not receive an answer to (and as for the questions that I did receive an answer to, they were mostly in the form of follow-up questions or I had to insist about them. I still don't understand if the next time you start the topic again you will use the coin pattern.)
Say what you will, but you made an honest effort to get us to understand the issue better and I have another question: are you still pondering Albentazo's answer?
Regarding ultimate hold'em, you need a dealer for it, right?
I don't play poker, do you know how much I lost?
water
The house is the casino.
You should visit. With the experience you've gained in turning back time, there's no doubt that jokes and flops will come to you like water.
Israel, I thought poker was your house? ? ?
Shmulik
"There is a connection in the quantum system between its components even though they are distant in such a way that measuring the spin of one photon will allow knowing the spin state of the other photon absolutely and at a speed greater than the speed of light"
This also happens with a pair of gloves, one of which was sent to Alice. When Bob looks at his, if she is right-handed he immediately knows that Alice's is left-handed.
This is not the case with interweaving. To understand why, there is no choice but to look at the percentages of polarization mismatches in the Aspa experiment.
In my opinion assembly experiments and those after it are not perfect. In the article you brought, the experimenters were at a distance of about 15 km from each other and the experiment lasted about 4 hours. This leaves a sufficient time interval for the poles to coordinate positions, thus allowing hidden variables to be programmed. It is true that in the Aspa experiment the state of the polarizers was determined only after the photons were already on their way, thus he improved the Friedman experiment from 10 years earlier. Still, as Meir Amiram showed, this does not rule out the category of programming hidden variables outside the scope of the experiment. This is why I always say "transfer of information between the 2 sides of the experiment" and not "transfer of information between the particles".
But from the new wording, I think you accepted my compromise, didn't you?
Regarding the Quora website - at some point I will present the question there, but as you must have noticed I have presented it in quite a few places and in quite a few correspondences. As in the paradox of the paradox, the number of news as the number of respondents.
Note by the way how much your words "at a speed greater than the speed of light" directly relate to the additional question I presented about the position of the photon in the context of uncertainty. Because if a photon does not have a specific and defined location, and light is made up of individual photons, then if we treat a single photon as a quanta of light, then how can we even talk about the speed of light, if the photon is scattered with a certain probability throughout space (the answer we received from all the experts).
But relativity should also apply to a single photon, and it is built on the assumption that it has a precise and known position and momentum at any given moment. This does not agree with the uncertainty principle, and indeed Einstein never accepted it, according to EPR.
It is on this spreading feature of the photon that I performed the laser experiments in the summer.
"What bothered me is the fact that you insist on drawing conclusions from a classical system to a quantum system." I have always pointed out that the example of coins is an attempt to break the main argument into stages.
"In addition, you demonstrated an inability to answer questions"
I believe I answered almost every question. Please show me which question I did not answer.
I do not keep any links.
Ultimate Hold'em is the most popular game in the casino today. You can practice in:
http://wizardofodds.com/play/ultimate-texas-hold-em/
Its greatness, in my opinion, is that it is possible through cooperation between all participants to gain an advantage over the house, just as a dealer has an advantage in blackjack.
discharge
I don't know, but I have a hypothesis that is probably wrong. Its advantage is that it can be tested experimentally, and that's what I'm doing now. The results of the experiments are consistent with the hypothesis, but there are other possibilities.
Shmulik, poker is played for money, and it seems to me that in Israel you are going to lose, it could be that you are playing innocently, as in physics you still have something to learn
Israel
Do you mean that there is some factor related to the particle itself, or a physical factor (let's say a particle) a kind of mediator that acts on the particle?
Zibi, I'm a known grump, in advance, but I wrote in advance, several times so don't get excited!
This is basically my translation of nonlocal correlation.
Israel,
But I googled and brought you the first or second result. A-local correlation is my translation of non-local correlation and it means that there is a connection in the quantum system between its components even though they are far apart in such a way that measuring the spin of one photon will allow knowing the spin state of the other photon absolutely and at a speed greater than the speed of light (free text, don't get caught me here in words). I didn't get down to the depth of graph 5, but what was clear is that at the beginning of the article, they doubted that anything even passes between the photons, they demonstrated that the speed must be at least 10 times and nowhere did I see anyone assuming an infinite speed. I added and asked: if the speed is infinite, will it help us if the time given to this speed is 0?
I didn't get the answer Albantezo wrote on Quora (not that I doubt his answer) but it surprised me a bit. Maybe I didn't ask the right people (you can direct the question to specific people, but for some you have to "pay" with credits that the site gives you). One of the answers I got was that it was a mistake to treat each photon individually but that really doesn't solve the problem on my intuitive level. You are more than welcome to make it difficult for the respondents there.
As for niceness, I'll make an honest effort. What bothered me is the fact that you insist on drawing conclusions from a classical system to a quantum system. In my opinion, you have no basis to lean on, so it is dangerous to deduce something from a classical system to a quantum system? In addition, you demonstrated an inability to answer questions...it bothered me a bit.
And regarding your question about something physical passing that is not information, here I definitely think that the material and concepts must be understood and I have no idea where to start to answer that. The authors of the article called it quantum information, said it was not classical information and doubted that quantum information even existed.
As a well-known link keeper, do you have the link where the first discussion between you and Albantezo exploded?
Ultimate Hold'em…I don't know this game! I have a friend who is addicted to poker, who organizes the meetings for us. I'll check with him but it's not for a home game, is it? Do you need a dealer?
discharge
From the logical point of view, if there is an intervention of the mind, then this explains the results of the experiments without the transfer of information.
Is this a physical possibility? Apparently yes. I believe in the least fantastic possibility, namely that there is a physical mechanism that causes the same particle to be in two places at the same time.
Maim Noshpin, it is not clear why you sign with respect, I do not see any respect here.
Israel
Consciousness also intervenes or is involved in the boundaries of the conts. The very decision to influence the choice of a side determines the chosen side. You can recognize this in the case where you choose a photon or an electron. Hence my question: are you sure that information is passing, or could there be another phenomenon?
Zibrish came out in the form of two languages, but Ai gives the possibility of playing in an additional dimension, in our case time, so it has an expression that brings together two dimensions. Sincerely
Gives the possibility of playing in an additional dimension, in our case the honorable Mr. Israel, I don't know all the equations but play in the time dimension many times
And it is expressed in statistics
Zibi
I don't think it can be.
Miracles
The fact that the particles were previously together cannot result in a cosine/sine squared discrepancy graph as obtained in the Aspa experiment or in the graph in Shmulik's article, but you should have gotten a zigzag graph.
Are you sure you read the article from my name to the end? If so, explain to me how the percentage of polarization mismatch increases 3 times when we "double" the state of the polarizers, and this without transferring information from side to side in the experiment.
What do you think of the compromise I proposed to Shmulik? fair?
On the one hand, I liked the feeling that I know things that others don't yet, on the other hand, talking to you is like talking to a wall. Forgive me miracles, time reversals have several degrees or stages, I have experience in reviving people back in time, so sometimes if I indirectly explain about things in physics, it's like stages for children. So forgive me miracles first let's end this nonsense of bickering. Then maybe he gave examples of resuscitation or seeing or transmitting information or whatever you call it
water
Save for both of us...
Sorry to deal with this and if it is true
Nissim will understand that they change a little after you have tested them, change statistically and therefore it is almost required that there is a connection to the time they were together, i.e. passing information back in time. With respect, try to deal with it
Zibi
As far as I understand, the particles were once together, so there is nothing here that creates a contradiction.
Israel
Are you please? I googled "a-local correlation" and the result I got is my reaction in science... Could it be that the Shmulik is just scribbling like there's no tomorrow?
Does it make sense that the particles are coordinated between them (seemingly) but nothing coordinated between them? That is, there is no broker who created the brokerage?
Shmulik
Indeed, in the cold I visited the page in question.
I also visited the second link you brought, to which you return and direct me, and I even brought you a quote from it. Did you read it to the end? Do you understand the meaning of the sine pattern in the adjustment graph in the attached table?
I did not receive an answer to my repeated question:
"What is alocal correlation?"
Apart from the usual chorus of: "Go study" and "You've already received a reference".
How hard is it to see "a-local correlation"?
How about this compromise that will advance us a lot: something physical travels between the interwoven particles at a speed higher than that of light (at least 10 times according to your article). Does not have to be information. How do I?
Howl, Ya Balaam, turn around and go back to being the nice Shmulik. The persona of the preacher educator that you have recently adopted does not suit you.
Leave now quantums, relations, sponsorships, sponsorship fees. There is now a new game at the Ultimate Texas Hold'em casino, played against the dealer. I think it is possible to get an advantage over the house like in blackjack.
Already in 2015 we are bringing Thamka!
Israel,
Read here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality
I am sure you have already visited this page many times.
Speaking of multiple times, I will remind you that I already said that I cannot explain what happens when measuring an entangled photon but what I can do, and have already done, is to try to explain that your intuition (which you call logic but is not really logic) needs maintenance In the form of information, information that exists in the science that Albantezo referred you to.
I will again refer you to the article:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.3316v1.pdf?
Pay attention to what they themselves write:
According to quantum theory, quantum correlations vi-plating Bell inequalities merely happen, somehow from outside space-time, in the sense that there is no story in space-time that can describe their occurrence: there is not an event here that somehow influences another distant event there. Yet, such a description of correlations, radically different from all those found in any other part of science, should be thoroughly tested
That is, they reinforce what I wrote: that even though theoretically there is an explanation (and it is the explanation that Albantezo wrote to you that you need to study), you still need to check experimentally that this is indeed how things are. Pay attention to what else they write:
We shall keep this terminology, but we like to emphasize that this is only the speed of a hypothetical influence and that our result casts very serious doubts on its existence
That is, they completely doubt that there is an information transfer of the kind you are talking about.
They were dessert in the sentence when:
Indeed, to maintain an explanation based on spooky action at a distance one would have to assume that the spooky action propagates at speeds even greater than the bounds obtained in our experiment
Sarel
A local correlation is when you ask for an answer and get an answer. Only the answer is wrong
Shmulik
https://www.hayadan.org.il/2011149-hunted-state-46-core-learning/comment-page-39/#comment-575417
out of it:
"I already said earlier that the issue of currencies came up because I broke the main argument into stages, I also mentioned that it is probably difficult to digest."
And now it's your turn:
What is alocal correlation?
Israel,
No. It means you agreed that the rules are different but that's not what I asked. I argue that the analogy in advance is flawed. agree?
What will happen, Shmulik?
https://www.hayadan.org.il/2011149-hunted-state-46-core-learning/comment-page-36/#comment-575108
Don't know who it is. The only rabbi I know is Rabbi Yacom.
Israel,
You first, I'm serious. Do you understand why you can't use coin logic?
Wow? Really a relative?
Shmulik
Do you mean David Shrolik?
What is alocal correlation?
It is very difficult for Israel to answer questions.
Israel, are you related to Rabbi Israel Shapira?
privileged
It is easy to show that transferring information above the speed of light creates a logical contradiction. The state of interweaving does not create a contradiction.
That's what's important, you don't have to deal with definitions all the time, and certainly not why Einstein apparently didn't understand the matter.
privileged
The correlation between the two particles is not information transfer.
There's no way I can send you a message faster than the speed of light, and that's what information means.
Israel,
you first. Do you understand why you can't use coin logic?
I do not understand the field, not even in a basic way,
But it is interesting to understand,
Does science have proof that there is no information transfer that creates coordination between the quantum parts?
Shmulik is not coins - currency, and in time
Shmulik
What is alocal correlation?
Israel,
Instead of laughing, concentrate.
The quotations and the article, which you have not yet told me whether you have read or not, were quoted to tell you that relying on Einstein is a mistake. This is why the author of the article wrote misleadingly. I brought the entire quote so that I wouldn't be suspected of hiding information.
What you are doing is taking this famous sentence at face value. This article, too, tells you this is a mistake. You keep asking what Einstein (and the other two authors) didn't know? They didn't know information theory, they didn't know field theory, so their terminology is incorrect. Alocal correlation is not something that was known back then. Why don't you get it? Why does it not receive a place of honor in your assessment of the correctness of the answers you have already received?
You can go back and give classic examples inspired by any holiday you want (coins - this is also inspired by the holiday, spinning wheels, menorahs, whatever you want) but nothing relevant to weaving. How many times should I write that if I perform a two slot experiment with coins I will not get a friction pattern? It is impossible to deduce from the behavior of classical matter the behavior of photons. Did you see the definition of photons that Albenzetto wrote? A photon is not just a very small ball. He is not a ball at all.
What does seem to happen is that you insist on not reading any link I send. Did you read the article that strongly doubts that information is being sent? You can read its opening and closing even without being a physicist.
Why don't you address the problem I raised about infinite speed at time 0? This is not a trivial problem. Treat her please.
And don't say I'm not trying to promote the topic, I asked the question on Quora. I don't know if this is the wording you would use, but in any case you are not willing to ask there, so you have no opening here.
https://www.quora.com/Upon-measuring-the-spin-of-an-entangled-photon-A-does-information-instantaneously-pass-from-photon-A-to-an-entangled-photon-B?__snids__=840882356&__nsrc__=1&__filter__=all
Tell me, are you related to Rabbi Israel Shapira?
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C_%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%90_%28%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%96%27%D7%95%D7%91%29
We seem to have reached the end of the discussion (although as I write this, the discussion will continue for dozens of comments). The answer you are looking for lies in understanding the material and no matter how many times you write that it does not satisfy you, this is probably the case. Which means that even in the future you will give the example of coins even though it is completely invalid for this case and cannot be used as an inspiration for solving the problem.
Honorable Mr. Israel, you made a mistake, if we change a part it will affect itself in another place, only because we affected one of its many conditions and also the change was partially erased in time, only statistically it will affect itself in another place.
And it is also possible to see it in a big way, if you see a parallel universe and go back in time to another universe, you will be able to know from experience with a certain probability why it will develop in the future, and if you change an option in one universe, you will be able to understand what the change can do in the other universe and you can choose the change and statistically it will be very similar, in short there is a transfer here Information back in time and the possibility to deal with the future and choose better in your universe according to the parallel universe, forgive me but I have experience in repetitions in things like reviving people who died in the future, with respect and again with respect from experience
Shmulik
Your response didn't flatten the texture, it just tickled it. Indeed he burst out laughing.
You don't need to bring all those quotes to emphasize what I say all the time, I know that myself.
Shmulik:
As weird as quantum theory is, it doesn't allow two separated individuals to send messages to each other faster than light.
Israel:
Caveat: the fact that information passes between the interwoven particles, does not mean that known information can be sent through them. If we measure the polarization of the electron or the spin of the photon we find in retrospect that they are always in the same state or always the opposite, but we cannot send the results of a football game through interlacing.
Shmulik:
Einstein famously (and misleadingly), derided
Israel:
My question has always been how did Einstein not understand this?
The details don't quite add up either..
Shmulik:
The article defines the transition speed (if it still exists despite the theories) at least 10 times the speed of light (I am correcting what I wrote earlier, in the article it says 10.000
From the article:
A lower
bound for VQI greater than 10.000 times the speed of light
is found for any such reference frame.
Perhaps inspired by Hanukkah, I will try to explain what I am saying with a concrete example:
We have two rotating gyroscopes, one in Israel and the other on Mars. If you stop one of them and it falls on N, when you drop the other one, it also falls on N.
options:
1: Hidden variables, Einstein:
The state of the spinners is predetermined. The measurement, dropping the spinner, only revealed this.
Like the gloves, the shoes and the letters.
2. Communication between the spinners:
For example: inside each spinning wheel there is a small radio that communicates at 0 time with the other spinning wheel. As long as the spinners rotate, they are in a superposition of N, C, E, F. When one spinner fell and its position was determined (N for example), the radio transmits the information to the other spinner at infinite speed and when it is dropped, it falls on N as well.
Has information passed? Yes!
Is it possible to send information from Earth to Mars in this way? No! Not even the state of the spin in Israel, which has already been determined, cannot be transferred.
That's the whole story. If you have an explanation - an explanation, not "you've already been told several times" not "go and learn" not "advanced field theory compared to primitive quantum mechanics", the SBR - Schott.
A link is also possible.
And as I showed, it is enough that you sent information at one millimeter per second faster than light, and relativity as it is collapses.
Happy holiday of lights.
Israel,
There is a waiting that, if released, will completely collapse the fabric of time-space.
The question is not relevant on a theoretical level because since then teachings such as information theory have been developed and quantum mechanics has been rewritten and the answer to your question lies in the understanding of the new material that was unknown in 1935.
I also disagree with your assumptions. I brought you an article that already doubts whether there is information transfer between the photons. The article defines the transition speed (if it still exists despite the theories) at least 10 times the speed of light (I am correcting what I wrote before, in the article it says 10.000 and I interpreted it as ten thousand) so that you write 2c it shows me that you did not read the article and I explained it to you Why infinite speed doesn't solve your problems because in zero time even something moving at infinite speed (or someone, the flash, if you read dc) won't move a millimeter.
Until you directly address what I wrote, and not in the form of a follow-up question, I'm afraid I won't be able to help beyond what I've already tried to do. Note that I have written several times that I am not familiar with these theories, but what Albantezo wrote has been confirmed in other articles that I have attached here. I suggested that you ask on other websites and maybe get more insights from them and also contact Rafi Moore. What is said here still stands.
Shabbat Shalom and Merry Christmas!
Miracles
Kabbalat Shabbat. We will discuss later.
Miracles
God forbid. Why?
Accept that two particles communicate with each other instantly and give each other information about their quantum state?
Call it one particle in two places at the same time or whatever you want.
Israel
Einstein did not understand many things. Is that your point?
Shmulik
I would be happy to receive an explanation or reference as to why "the question has become irrelevant".
If you wish, I would be happy to explain why an aspect experiment actually leads to the transmission of information at an infinite speed, or at least as high as the experimenter requests, but let's settle for 2C. Acceptable?
According to relativity, if you passed C by a millimeter per second - you got a simulated number in the denominator of the relevant Lorentz transformation and went back in time.
That's why Sipi Ertz made noise two years ago when it seemed that some brazen neutrino dared to pass C by a few permils.
In short, if known information can be transferred faster than C, relativity breaks down.
But I do not claim that information can be transferred, I claim that unknown information (…) is transferred. This does not contradict relativity.
My question has always been how did Einstein not understand this? Or maybe he understood something that we didn't?
Working.
Israel,
There is a waiting room with reading material that directly addresses your question
Regarding why it matters, it matters because in 1935 they didn't know enough so the question was legitimate and today we know much more so the question has become irrelevant.
What about the questions I presented to you? What about the scientific article I quoted here that casts a heavy shadow on information transfer? did you read it What about the questions I posed about zero time versus infinite speed? May I have a reference?
Israel,
And I already wrote. There is no difference between your question and the question of Einstein and Co. Why don't you read my answers?
Here is another article that speaks directly to what you are asking:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/oppenheim/articles/urvsnl-arxiv.pdf
I got it from here:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/oppenheim/uncertainty-nonlocality.shtml
Here it says:
As weird as quantum theory is, it doesn't allow two separated individuals to send messages to each other faster than light. It doesn't allow us to act instantaneously over large distances. Nevertheless, it does contain a subtle form of nonlocality that Einstein famously (and misleadingly), derided as "spooky action at a distance".
and also
The uncertainty principle says that our knowledge of nature is limited — there are properties of nature, such as a particle's position and momentum, which you can never predict exactly. For example, if you learn the particle's position, then you will be completely uncertain as to the particle's momentum (or visa versa). This has traditionally been captured by the equation ΔxΔp≥ℏ/2, which is by now so famous you could safely wear it on a t-shirt without getting beaten up. However, information theory has given us more sophisticated ways to describe uncertainty, and these are important if we want to understand the link between uncertainty and nonlocality.
Do you look familiar?
Oh, here I got an answer:
"There is no difference between this article and what you are asking."
At least we skipped one hurdle: we don't understand at all what Israel's problem is.
Because here, the Wikipedia entry also raises the exact same question, doesn't it?
And the answer: "It has already been written several times that since then quantum mechanics has been replaced by field theory."
Can I get a breakdown of how this solves the question I posed?
My friend, despair, despair, despair.
I didn't ask what the explanation for the weaving was.
I didn't ask what the authority said.
I did not show transmutation properties.
Nor did I ask what the secret of creation is.
I asked: Is there an apparent difference?
I would love an answer, also in dancing and singing.
Israel,
And one more thing, I thought you meant the article that I brought and that I hoped you would read because the wiki entry is not an article but an *entry*.
There is no difference between this article and what you are asking except that if you rely on it for something you are making an appeal to authority. Are you ready to advance from 1935 to 2014? It has already been written several times that since then quantum mechanics has been replaced by field theory. Why do you keep abusing Einstein?
Interesting article about quantum mechanics:
http://phys.org/news/2014-12-quantum-physics-complicated.html
It begins like this:
Here's a nice surprise: quantum physics is less complicated than we thought. An international team of researchers has proven that two peculiar features of the quantum world previously considered distinct are different manifestations of the same thing. The result was published December 19 in Nature Communications.
Patrick Coles, Jedrzej Kaniewski, and Stephanie Wehner made the breakthrough while at the Center for Quantum Technologies at the National University of Singapore. They found that 'wave-particle duality' is simply the quantum 'uncertainty principle' in disguise, reducing two mysteries to one.
Israel, what do you have to say in your defense now? (just, unrelated)
Anyway, gotta sleep. Continue tomorrow (if there is a reason)
Israel
You quote a sentence from an article, but the rest of the article explains the problem. Are you only getting part of the article?
Israel,
Don't say that I don't answer, here is an answer to what you asked about the difference between your claim that there must be a transfer of information and what was written in the article published by arxiv. Here is the link to it again if you haven't read it (I don't know what you read, the article in Nature or the arxiv):
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.3316v1.pdf?
Israel,
Regarding what you asked, you already answered my opinion and here it is:
"You can ask: why did they conduct an experiment if Albanzato claims that there is no transfer of information and my answer is that the scientists wanted to prove that there is no transfer of information, even in an experimental way. Maybe I'm wrong."
Beyond that, pay attention to what they themselves write:
According to quantum theory, quantum correlations vi-plating Bell inequalities merely happen, somehow from outside space-time, in the sense that there is no story in space-time that can describe their occurrence: there is not an event here that somehow influences another distant event there. Yet, such a description of correlations, radically different from all those found in any other part of science, should be thoroughly tested
That is, they reinforce what I wrote: that even though theoretically there is an explanation (and it is the explanation that Albantezo wrote to you that you need to study), you still need to check experimentally that this is indeed how things are. Pay attention to what else they write:
We shall keep this terminology, but we like to emphasize that this is only the speed of a hypothetical influence and that our result casts very serious doubts on its existence
That is, they completely doubt that there is an information transfer of the kind you are talking about.
They were dessert in the sentence when:
Indeed, to maintain an explanation based on spooky action at a distance one would have to assume that the spooky action propagates at speeds even greater than the bounds obtained in our experiment
The spooky was written in Italic. If I understood correctly, they proved that the spock speed should be 10000 times greater than the speed of light and actually outside the measurement capability of the current experiment.
Does this seem similar to what you claim?
I asked if you agree with my following claim:
If quantum-information-speed is infinite, still the change cannot take place at time 0, because at time 0, the path is 0. Do you agree with this statement?
If quantum-information-speed is not infinite, we can produce a violation of the law of conservation of angular momentum. Do you agree with this statement?
Shmulik, one more time gloog gloog gloog?
You are not following orders. At this point, Paul for 30 squats, leg and all. If this continues, then Shalom Shabbat.
What is so difficult for you to answer a simple question?
Go to the thread. I said earlier that the currency question came because I broke the main argument into stages, I also mentioned that it is probably hard to digest.
And now maybe Marco will already find mom and I'll get an answer to my question? Here is a special for you, only for the fifth time:
From the EPR Paradox on Wiki:
Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen asked how can the second particle "know" to have precisely defined" momentum but uncertain position? Since this implies that one particle is communicating with the other instantaneously across space, ie, faster than light, this is the "paradox
"Can you or someone explain to me the difference between what I say and what is said in the article? He is clearly talking about the transfer of information between the particles, isn't he?"
Just that.
Israel,
I saw that you finally answered an answer.
So another question that I've already posed a hundred times: do you understand why you shouldn't equate coins to photons even if it doesn't solve your question.
Just that, thanks
Israel,
Answer first. Did you ask on quora?
I reduce my questions to the easiest question because I have to check if you have the ability to reply to the answers not by means of a follow-up question.
Just that, thanks
Shmulik
I went through your last comment. I found a lot of "told you" and "explained to you over and over again" but the only question was: did you submit your question on quora?
I will present, I will present. Can I get an answer to my question now? It is not in quantum or relativity, only logic:
"Can you or someone explain to me the difference between what I say and what is said in the article? He is clearly talking about the transfer of information between the particles, isn't he?"
Just that.
Israel,
And one more thing. If Rafi's answer is correct about the photons, does this seem similar to what coins experience?
And one more thing, why don't you take Albentazo's answer that I copied here a few comments ago (the one that says that in information theory lies the answer to what you are asking) and pass it on to Rafi. Check out what he thinks.
Israel,
No. First answer what I asked you
Let's just say you shouldn't be walking with a white dog right now.... The truth is, even parking a white car outside is not recommended
Try to think outside the box (for a bucket in Yossi's case).
I need to take my dog for a walk.
What's the weather like in your place?
Israel
I don't understand why you did the experiment. I am indeed surprised by the result, and the explanation you gave (the slowing down of time) seems reasonable to me.
In the meantime, Rafi's answer regarding the photon was received:
Hi Israel,
The question of the position of the photon is even more problematic than the question of the position of a particle with mass (with the exception of the Higgs particle whose position is completely illusory Emoji). For other particles such as an electron for example, if we give up knowing its momentum we can determine its position with any precision that our equipment allows. In the mathematical representation of a photon there is no location parameter at all and it turns out that such a parameter cannot be defined either.
Despite this, measurements on the speed of a photon can be made quite simply. We can know where and at what time a photon is created and where and at what time it is absorbed and becomes another form of energy or matter.
That is, we can precisely define the birth and death of a photon but not its position during its life.
Best regards
Rafi.
Nissim, beginning to understand the purpose of the GPS experiment?
It's like Yossi Simon's riddles..
Shmulik
From my previous comment:
"Can you or someone explain to me the difference between what I say and what is said in the article? He is clearly talking about the transfer of information between the particles, isn't he?"
Just that please.
Miracles
same as above.
great. Everyone is happy. Mebusut Khalas. Stalbat. Sotol. clouds.
Israel,
Do what you want but it is important for me to say that what I am doing is not an appeal to authority just as if a dentist tells me there is a hole in a tooth, and I will tell my wife that there is a hole because the doctor said, is not an appeal to authority.
What Shah is doing is an appeal to authority because Einstein and Newton are no longer relevant because knowledge has been accumulated that was not in their possession and you can't blast their name just because you think they can help you with your argument.
This has been said several times and it has been written in various threads that quantum mechanics has been corrected and renamed, you have been told several times that the answer to what you are looking for is in information theory and you decide, for no logical reason, that because you have a nice analog to coins, photons must line up and behave like coins.
It's been explained over and over why the coin story fails you, even if it doesn't explain to you exactly what's going on in the weave. I brought you another article where the other experts don't think in the direction of infinite speed at all and I commented that infinite speed won't help if the time available is zero and what you think needs to go through will be zero and that defeats your argument. If the speed is not infinite, then at the time you claim that a conservation law for a long time can be inverted from the Planck time because theoretically it is possible to throw one of the photons to Andromeda and change the spin.
Come on, did you post your question on Quora?
Israel
What information passed between you and me? Entangled particles are connected to each other, but no information flows between particles. That's my opinion at least. That way everyone is happy.
Miracles
From the EPR Paradox on Wiki:
Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen asked how can the second particle "know" to have precisely defined" momentum but uncertain position? Since this implies that one particle is communicating with the other instantaneously across space, ie, faster than light, this is the "paradox".
Can you or someone explain to me the difference between what I say and what is said in the article? He is clearly talking about the transfer of information between the particles, isn't he?
"how can the second particle "know"
And why doesn't anyone solve my Shatanz cars puzzle? This is especially for you, a question for engineers.
Something about gravity - because the photons move backwards and forwards in time many times and in similar possibilities - they feel the future potential and move and stabilize accordingly, what carries the force is the movement backwards and forwards in time and therefore the knowledge of what they will meet in the future and the possibility of a preferred potential in their next interaction. Sincerely
Israel
You are missing the point. What passes between the particles is not information. I don't understand how it works, and I'm not a physicist.
But, there is no logical contradiction here.
Shmulik
You can do whatever you want. Would you mind if I do what I want too?
Do you want to accept that attraction takes place through the exchange of virtual photons? break up This is probably also the explanation.
Do you want to believe that if photons in two different places are always in the same polarization and there are no hidden variables, then this is not a transfer of information? You will also be separated.
See, I don't insist, flow with you, whatever you say.
But what's wrong with the simple and trivial explanation that everything will be in His Word? If Newton himself had told you this (he was quite a dos as I recall), would you have accepted it even then or would you have continued to look for mother like the stubborn Marko and Israel?
Good night.
In the meantime, dream of a physical solution to the question: In the yard there are a number of goats whose square is the number 36.
How many goats in the yard?
I will flow with you: 4 parameters, no dimensions.
It is still possible to solve physical problems assuming that there are more dimensions than 3, but this does not mean that they are acceptable in reality, eg goats in the yard.
But you didn't answer the question, how do you differentiate between a mathematical explanation and a physical explanation? The only answer I can think of is that a physical model should eventually predict correct measurement results. And this is also obtained from models that we do not know how to imagine or explain them in Newtonian language.
As I said before, I haven't read all the comments here, so I don't know what anti-fish means.
And with all due respect you are wrong about the dimensions. In Newtonian physics, time is not a dimension. Not every variable can be treated as a dimension, there are also variables that are parameters. Treating time as a dimension is an innovation of the theory of relativity.
Well, I understand that you are all in America, but I am in Israel and need to sleep. Goodbye.
In Newtonian mechanics there are 3 dimensions of space and a dimension of time, together 4.
The intention is that mathematical models can be built without contradictions but this does not mean that they are applicable to reality. According to Yossi's riddle with anti-fish.
So I understand that a physical explanation is a Newtonian explanation for you? Once again I repeat that I am not asking disrespectfully but really to understand because it makes a very strong impression that everything that does not fit with logic from everyday life and Newtonian mechanics you do not accept as physics but from the maximization of mathematics.
Except that in Newtonian mechanics there are not four dimensions but only three. Four is in the theory of relativity that it contradicts Newtonian mechanics.
Stupid iPad, emits responses ahead of time.
Miracles
What you described is hidden variables. The state of the envelopes is predetermined. Are you sure you read the whole article on my behalf?
we
Not only does he accept quantum mechanics - a temple.
But does not accept Feynman's claim that it is impossible to understand.
Mathematical model: linear algebra problems can be solved in 13 dimensions.
Physical model: in Newtonian physics there are only 4.
Miracles
It's just like Shmulik will send letters to both of us - when exactly one of them has a coin. You receive your letter, feel that it is a bit heavy, and immediately know that I will receive an empty envelope.'
Israel
No information passed. The situation is determined simultaneously on both sides. In the experiment with the spin - we both have to determine in advance the direction of the measurement. And what do we know in advance that we will get opposite results. It's just like Shmulik will send letters to both of us - when exactly one of them has a coin. You receive your letter, feel that it is a little heavy, and immediately know that I will receive an empty envelope.
Now, that Mulik sends each of us 7 envelopes in all the colors of the rainbow, assume that there is one coin in (exactly) one of the envelopes of each color. I decide to check the orange flyer - and I need to somehow tell you to open the orange envelope as well. And again - we know the result in advance.
I understand that this does not explain the quantum experiment. I'm just showing you that here too - according to you - information passes.
Israel Shapira
How do you differentiate between a physical explanation and a mathematical explanation? I ask seriously not to be defiant. The explanation of the two-slit experiment in quantum mechanics is a superposition of the waves, which allows constructive/destructive conflict. Do you think this is a mathematical or physical explanation?
Earlier you asked if you accept quantum mechanics and you didn't answer me. If I may ask again with a slight change, do you accept quantum mechanics as a physical theory? Or just a mathematical idea? Or not accepting at all?
Come on.
Marco will not meet mother today either
Miracles, I tried your suggestion - and it worked!
I have 2 coins. On one side of each coin is written Nissim, on the other Israel (it used to be Peli, but they changed it after 48).
I claim: my definition of information is miracles or Israel. Therefore, with one coin falling on miracles, in order for the other to also fall on miracles with a probability of 100%, information needs to pass from one side to the other.
Applying the proposal of miracles, and changing the definition of information. From now on information is Michael.
And see it's a miracle! Since Michael went to Belly again, then without a doubt information is no longer passing from one side to the other!
Didn't you try miracles?
This is already a new record of the comment system. Israel's response appears in recent comments but does not appear in comments in the article.
Once again my response was taken to the basements of the Mohabarat's investigations.
I instructed her not to divulge any information except name, rank, personal number, and to mutter delusional mumbles like her biological father.
Friend, I have to go to work, in the meantime a puzzle in Newtonian physics for you:
Only recreational cars are accepted for the prestigious Shatanz car race, whose manufacturers must meet the following conditions:
1. The car should consist of a chassis of an existing car and an engine of another car.
2. The engine power of each car must be constant throughout the race. The meaning is that in any given period of time the car burns the same amount of fuel, or in the case of an electric car the voltage is multiplied by a constant amperage throughout the race.
The race takes place on a straight salt track in Colorado that is 500 km long.
3 cars reached the final stage of the race:
Italy was represented by a Ferrari car with an electric engine and a bevel gear that turns all the engine's power into driving force without wasting energy.
France was represented by a Formula 17 car with a 24-cylinder petrol engine made by Rolls-Royce and a Koni gearbox as mentioned above.
Israel was represented by a Susita Kubia model 65 car with a fiberglass body whose rear was chewed by a camel, and a rocket engine that is a miniature model of the Apollo 11 engine.
Because of the salt track and the high altitude of the Rocky Mountains, there is no form of friction during the race.
The race has started and here are the initial data:
When the Ferrari reached the 1 km line, its speed was measured at 200 km/h.
When the formula reached the 1 km line, its speed was measured at 190 km/h.
When Susita reached the 1 km line, her speed was measured at 80 km/h.
Who won the race? who is the second Why?
Hint: Pay attention to all the data.
Israel
Change your definition to information - then everything works out. I don't think anyone is saying that nothing passes in 0 time, but what passes is not information. Take that as a definition. It does not contradict any physical law.
The effect of unentangled particles does not contradict logic. He contradicts, perhaps, your rule of law. There you will look for the solution.
Israel,
You didn't answer me about the infinite speed at time 0. Infinite speed won't help you if time is 0.
0 * infinity = 0
Maya,
I tried several times, it just doesn't work but I will try again.
Israel,
A few days ago I asked Albentazo what is the mechanism by which a proton is attracted to an electron. It's very interesting and I have no idea how it happens and you probably have no idea either. Albantezo told me that attraction is achieved through virtual photons and Eisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. I had a follow-up question: what obligates the virtual photons to hold the attraction exactly as we see it. Why isn't there some statistical interest there and why occasionally we don't see an electron being repelled from a proton. Unfortunately here he said that the answer is in the small details and there is nothing to be done, this information cannot be conveyed through science. need to study. He did provide me with a link that I am trying to read and understand.
What should I do now:
1. Take his word that math and physics work out if you do all the right calculations
2. To write again and again that it can't be, that I didn't get an answer and that surely there are little gnomes there who are responsible for the attraction. Do you see any other way than little dwarves being responsible for this?
In my opinion, this is the level of your stubbornness. I'm sorry.
I didn't go too far back, but this is what he wrote to you:
"Transfer of information and correlation are two completely different things. You imagine that if there is any connection between two cases then it means that some signal must pass between them. But this is simply not true, and until you get up off your ass and decide to learn what information is, what correlation is, and what a system with non-local correlations is, nothing will help you. There are explicit proofs in information theory that show that systems that have a correlation (even if it is not local) of the kind of interweaving (non-spherical systems) do not transfer information between them. I refer to interweaving because in your example there is not enough information about the nature of the correlation.'
This puts you in exactly the same position I am in: both of us do not know enough about the material but I, in this case, take his word that the subject cannot be explained through the science website. The material is not simple and requires a lot of prior knowledge. What to do?
It's really not fair to equate the answers you got with the answers you get from those people whose names you mentioned. Hand on heart, are you really comfortable with the comparison you made between: "If you read the Torah book you will understand" and: "Study the Torah of Information and you will have answers"?
at least:
1. You received an interesting article from me by other experts in the field. did you read it I went over it (on the introduction and conclusions, I'm not knowledgeable or focused enough to understand the meat of the article) but for example, I noticed that they immediately assume a finite "quantum information speed". They also have no such thing as infinite speed
2. I was trying to make it clear that your use of the coin analogy is fundamentally wrong. Even if it doesn't solve your problem, the analogy is wrong. If I were to deduce what would have happened in the two-slot experiment through a parallel coin experiment, I would be wrong. Thus, I hope you stop using the coins pattern for something that requires the photons.
3. You have provided yourself with another outlet. Did you ask your question on Quora?
Maya
I think Einstein was talking about his granddaughter... 🙂
Maya, hello.
I believe I know the math more or less - I'm looking for the physics.
And as I said, the problem is logical.
If you're struggling, you're in good company. Feynman said that nobody understands quantum mechanics.
Israel,
After days of struggling, I was finally able to figure out your problem. It was difficult, but in the end you described her well enough and I understood. Your problem is that you are neither an electron nor a photon and therefore your physical intuition does not match them. I understand what you are looking for. You are looking for an explanation not through equations, but one that can be explained even to a person who does not understand the material in simple layman's terms. Now, I don't understand the material and I don't know if there is one. I know Einstein said that if you understand something you can explain it to your grandmother, but hey, what did he know. We in our development in this cruel world got intuition about things that will help us survive. It's the XNUMXD world with this time dimension you're talking about. What to do that photons, in many ways, live in another world about which we do not have a good intuition?
I apologize, but I think this is the best answer you will get. Shmulik's answer that photons are not small coins. Why? how? Do not know. For that maybe you really need to study for seven years (I studied a lot more, but not these subjects. Maybe it's a shame). Do you want more than that? Go to the books, study the mathematics, there is a situation that through this you will be able to develop this physical intuition that you are looking for. I know this happens to a lot of people. You can keep searching the forums for someone who understands and will give you this intuition, but I must say that I doubt you will find. Anyway, good luck.
In short, it seems to you that if 2 particles are always in the same state and there are no hidden variables, then there is no transfer of information between them? How does that happen? just happens?
walking dead
You are exactly right.
Miracles
To be fair, the question I asked was not a yes or no question, in fact it seems to me that it is more of a question that has some inherent error and has no real meaning.
Which is roughly what I think can be said about the question of Israel.
Shmulik
I am not against anything. In the example of the coin, I asked for a proposal for any possible physical way that is other than the transmission of information. The answer was that there is no such way, there must be a transfer of information.
Even in entangled particles, I ask that you provide any physical explanation as to how this happens. Nissim proposed: the same particle is in two places at the same time. Additional suggestions: multi-dimensions, parallel universes and more. Shoin
The explanation of non-local correlations is a mathematical explanation, not a physical one.
Your explanation can be summed up in: "Photons are not coins, that's how it works in the quantum world".
With all due respect and affection, this is not a physical explanation. I hear similar explanations for natural phenomena in many articles from people whose names are usually Hezi, Ezekiel or Elkanah.
By the way, if you don't find a physical explanation, you may be able to console yourself with the fact that, as we said, although information passes between the particles, it is impossible to send known information through entanglement.
Israel,
One more thing, and in the above there is nothing to add/give up/reduce/weaken anything from what has already been written here:
You resist any attempt to accept the fact that photons are treated solely through the prism of quantum mechanics. All Newton and Aristotle and the two slit experiment for photons does not demonstrate an entanglement pattern. So let me assure you that even infinite speed will not help here. 0 * infinity = 0
And in addition, because it moves many times backwards and forwards in time, it vibrates between, for example, the elements of mass, momentum, space and time, in short its movement backwards and forwards in time many times gives the freedom of the principle of uncertainty and its freedom in the additional dimensions. Sincerely
Honorable Mr. Shmulik, if you want to toss from coins to photons - it is one coin that moves back and forth many times, so if it falls on its side, its return back in time is also affected, sometimes it settles on its options and struggles with itself, it has several spins because it goes backwards And forward in time and settling on several possible spins, again many times. And his mass because he goes backwards and forwards many times in time is divided between the times and therefore tends to zero, he moves at the speed of light but the speed depends on where you look from the number of times, again he moves backwards and forwards in time many times. In short, one currency only with movement in the time dimension also backwards many times. Sincerely
Israel,
Regarding photons, beyond the fact that photons are not matter, i.e. not just very small balls, this means that their behavior is categorically and completely different from coins. That's why they are woven and coins are not. This means you can't cast from coins to photons. We do not live in a Newtonian world. I don't understand why you don't see that this invalidates your line of questioning completely.
As for you learning the concepts, a few days ago I asked him a question regarding the attraction between protons and electrons using virtual photons, well, he couldn't explain to me what exactly is happening there because I don't have the appropriate knowledge. He gave as detailed an answer as he could but there is too much material that I have to study for him to be able to clarify the issue. He sent me to a certain link and I grind my teeth trying to understand what is happening there. He also had such an iteration with you (and gently I will write more than one). There is nothing to do, you have to study the material and maybe you are right and it takes seven years to understand why information is not passed but if you study, you will understand. So you can bang on the table as much as you want, but pregnancy takes nine months.
What should not take a few months is to answer me whether you agree that it is forbidden to extrapolate from the behavior of coins to the behavior of photons, even if this does not solve the question for you.
You don't need to take months to tell me if you read the non-scientific article and maybe also the scientific one that invalidated the transfer of information even in an experimental way
I'm glad the doctor's prediction didn't come true. The prognosis for recovery is very individual. What was not a problem was locating the problem. The science there was excellent and I am sure that in the next problem you will run to the doctor, or leave.
Shmulik
Can you show me which specific reference I received for a physical explanation of how the polarizations of the entangled photons are always the same except "go learn"? Maybe I missed something.
"You won't see a friction phenomenon if you throw coins on two slots. Why isn't that enough to finish your line of inquiry?”
Could you explain to me how the interference phenomenon is related other than saying that it is impossible to explain this and that?
I have something simpler for you:
"Wonderful are the ways of God"
Or perhaps more relevant: "In a miracle from you do not demand and in a covert from you do not investigate" - this will really end my line of inquiry.
I couldn't get up without crutches, and even here, the Blue Cross doctor who examined me after the injury explained to me professionally and kindly that you no longer eat like before.
For 10 years now I have been walking in the mountains with my dogs almost every day for at least an hour, including climbing over natural disasters.
We - I'm not saying there is no explanation, I'm just claiming that non-locality is perhaps a mathematical explanation without contradictions, but it is not a physical explanation, as are non-local correlations (please note, you have to remember not to say non-local interactions).
Inspired by Yossi Simon - maybe you want some nice physics puzzles?
"Friend, can we return for a moment to a realistic physical world of 3 dimensions of space, dimension of time, atoms, electricity, Newton, Maxwell, Boltzmann?
It seems to me that you can at least try to explain everything that way."
And maybe it's not possible to explain like that without quanta??? You're making an assumption here that everything can be explained without quanta, so maybe that's the problem why the explanation with quanta doesn't work out for you. I mean, what if 100 years ago they would have said "it seems to me that everything can be explained with three dimensions, we don't need a fourth dimension of time" and they would have rejected the theory of relativity?
I don't understand much in the field, but I agree with Shmulik that you have a discount here. But I haven't read all your comments either so maybe I'm missing information. Israel Shapira do you accept quantum mechanics? Maybe you don't agree on the basis at all and then my comment is not related at all and I'm just bothering you 🙂
Israel,
I'm not the expert (as I've written several times) and it doesn't seem to me that it takes 7 years to read the definitions for the required concepts that the expert recommended you do. In any case, tell me whether you agree or provide an explanation why you disagree with what I wrote regarding the fundamental and absolute difference between coins and photons. The argument is that you cannot infer the behavior of photons from looking at coins. For example, you won't see a scramble phenomenon if you toss coins on two slots. Why isn't that enough to finish your line of inquiry?
A herniated disc is a pain and it's not that nothing helped. Would you try to walk without crutches? If the breakout is not too severe, the recommendation is always conservative treatment and the body slowly overcomes the problem and learns how to live with it. I understand that the pain was unbearable and therefore you received injections that reduced the inflammation. I hope now it is not too present in your life.
This story also proves that it is worth listening to the experts, because you received injections that improved the quality of your life. How many more examples should be given before you agree to listen to a specific expert in the field (after all, here too you went to an orthopedist and not a gynecologist. At least in Israel such things are treated by an orthopedist. I have no idea how it is in the US)?
Israel,
Until it is released, here is a link to an article about it on the Nature website
http://arxiv.org/format/0808.3316v1
This Gestapo is called Akitazmat, but that's the price you have to pay to not manually check a thousand spams a day. Sometimes it has false alerts.
my father
The Gestapo discovered my true face. All my comments are moderated.
Shmulik
Our GP has a good track record, as do most doctors. That's why I choose him.
What line of inquiry are you talking about? If you can explain the issue of non-locality without additional dimensions and parallel universes, or terms like non-local interactions, and without detailing the physical meaning of those interactions or correlations, I'm all ears.
I am too lazy to go study now for another 7 years. It's better to ask questions and experiment, isn't it? More fun too.
In light of the warm recommendations from you and Nisim, I will add quora to the list. Thanks.
I had a hernia 14 years ago, I was on crutches for half a year. Chiropractic, physical therapy, Amayat (all on doctor's referrals), nothing helped.
In the end I went to Dr. Friedman who gave a short order: a cortisone injection.
After an hour everything worked out.
Miracles
I don't even try to convince myself. I do not know. That's why I'm trying to get empirical results by experimenting with lasers and GPSs.
Israel
That way you won't convince anyone...
Israel,
don't get me started Fix your aching leg for a herniated disc...
Israel,
In no way do I understand why you think your answer constitutes a winning answer to what I wrote. Simply put, this means that you don't go to the doctors because your leg hurts.
If anything, the fact that you brought up the electron only reinforces everything I said: an electron is also a quantum non-classical production it has a definite spin. He performs wrestling. Coins do not perform a struggle. I don't understand why this is not enough to make it clear to you that your entire line of inquiry is fundamentally wrong.
Did you read the link I sent?
I tried to post your question on quora?
Miracles
"There is no transfer of information in all the interweaving story"?
How do a million particles on Mars know to choose the same state as their interwoven brothers in Israel without transmitting information? happening, as Wookiee suggests? Why wouldn't they choose random states like their non-interlaced cousins?
"Perhaps there is another dimension through which the two intertwined particles are in the same "place".
Maybe there is also a great father in the sky who will do everything in his word, including adjusting polarities.
Wookie
"How do you know you didn't accidentally fall into this sequence?"
Still having trouble seeing the relevance, but for you: I don't even know if the infinity that contains the infinities, contains an infinity of infinite series. fun?
Company, can we return for a moment to a realistic physical world of 3 dimensions of space, dimension of time, atoms, electricity, Newton, Maxwell, Boltzmann?
It seems to me that you can at least try to explain everything that way. You don't need 17 dimensions for that.
Otherwise - I call water! He sounds more realistic than you right now.
walking dead
Let's assume we have an infinite series of tosses. How exactly will you check that there is a series of infinite "flies"?
Israel
Perhaps there is another dimension through which the two intertwined particles are in the same "place". Think of the classic example of an inflating balloon to explain the Big Bang. If you pinch the balloon, you get exactly this situation.
This is just an explanation I made up.
I am unable to explain to myself why this solution does not allow for immediate information transfer, but it does not disturb my sleep.
And it is important to emphasize - there is no transfer of information in the whole story of the interweaving.
Miracles
infinite-collection=?
Israel
Relevance - how do you know you didn't accidentally fall into this sequence?
Yes, that's the word I meant. Although it is mostly a guess, which is why it is easy for us to determine that there is no need to pass information in a situation of high probability (in our opinion, we do not exactly know how to determine what is a high probability and what is a low probability).
The question is whether there really is some probabilistic limit that creates a difference between things.
Wok
I think so. relevance?
Did you mean probability?
Miracles
Proposed mechanism of chains and gears for coordinating coins. Can you suggest a physical mechanism where one particle is in the same place at the same time with nothing in between? And that one side of it is not in a defined polarization, but as soon as it is determined, the other side also receives the same polarization in 0 time? And how does the other side know which polarization to accept if no information has passed from one side to the other?
Shmulik
Oh, you young runners.. I can only take my dogs for mountain walks. Those in the know claim that running beats the legs.
What to do if different doctors make contradictory claims? Do you want me to show you the contradictions in the solutions of the twin paradox? Who to believe?
Power-carrying photons? What about electrons? And who says that the pattern of conflict and duality does not have a logical physical explanation?
walking dead
No…
Shmulik / Israel
Quora is a great site! And no, there is no information transfer between the photons. I look at it as one particle that is in two places at the same time. I can't do an action on one side, and someone on the other side will discover what I did at a speed higher than c.
If you have an infinite sequence of tosses of 2 coins, will it contain an infinitely long sequence of tosses in which both always land on the same side?
what word sssssoshtak?
She has a lot of authority.
Israel,
what we've got here is failure to communicate
Well, it is clear that the laws of physics work on everything, but photons are the mediators of the electromagnetic force and not matter, while coins are classical matter, so it is impossible to extrapolate experimental results from coins to photons. Coins do not level up electrons. Coins do not produce a wrestling pattern. Photons yes. it is not enough?
And I'm not saying that information does not pass between the interlaced photons, but the family physician states this emphatically and suggested that to understand where your Aristotelian logic fails, you turn to the professional literature and study the concepts. I know you can. I will clarify another point: I am not able to defend the claim that information does not pass between the photons beyond the weak arguments I gave you at the time, because I do not know the material but I know how to listen to an expert who recognizes one. For you, I googled the question: do entangled particles communicate between themselves and found a nice article (note, this is not a scientific article but describes the article for readers like me)
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080813/full/news.2008.1038.html
And his point is:
"The bottom line, says Gisin is that "there is just no time for these two photons to communicate"
You can ask: why did they conduct an experiment if Albenzato claims that there is no information transfer and my answer is that the scientists wanted to prove that there is no information transfer, even in an experimental way. Maybe I'm wrong.
I'll try something else because I have to go to bed:
You know the site: https://www.quora.com? It's like yahoo answers only with a lot of experts. Also ask your question there and tell us the answers.
Note: I don't have a herniated disc, but my leg hurts quite a bit (actually both) but what can I do, the marathon won't run itself
Lil't!
Israel
I think you know. Maybe a word with an s in it?
Shmulik
what are you claiming That information does not pass between the interwoven particles because photons are not coins and other laws apply to them? And which laws are not laws of physics? Isn't there a physical mechanism that causes two entangled photons to always have the same polarization?
Israel,
Alak Shmulik said. Hardly recycles claims.
I asked again: Are the laws that apply to photons different from the laws that apply to coins?
The rules are different not because there was a vote and the photons won but because coins are classical objects and photons are not. Photons are not very, very small balls, but other than that they are identical to coins and here is a description that Albentzo wrote in response to my question about the attraction mechanism of Gravtons:
"... just as in field theory (the modern version of quantum mechanics) electrons, gluons, photons, quarks, etc. are described by a field which is found throughout space and at the peaks of which we call particles..."
Coins are not described as such. Coins will not form a grappling pattern if thrown through two slots. Coins cannot flag across a potential barrier and suddenly appear on the other side. I really don't understand why you are trying to cast from coins to photons.
I will try another way:
My leg hurts. I decide to argue about it in the forum and say that the leg looks fine and I don't understand why it hurts. Here and there I hold discussions and say that the skin of the leg looks perfectly normal, so how can it be that my leg hurts? My doctor calls and tells me that he has the MRI results and knows exactly why my leg hurts. No, I answer him, there is no need and I decide to continue arguing. At some point he calls again and yells at me that I have a herniated disc and the pain is radiating to my leg and I will make an appointment with him for further treatment. No, I insist, the forum will help. But, he says, the MRI is a proven technology, the professional literature is extensive, the treatment is known, it just has to come. He tells me that MRI was developed as a result of the insights of quantum mechanics, which is the most studied Torah in the world and that I should listen to him, because he has a lot of experience in treating disc herniations. Shall I continue?
Please Eraf, maybe she passed?
The point is that in the previous case she did pass.
Israel
There is no need for this, but it also does not necessarily mean that no information has been passed. The question was: "How can it be said that information did not pass between the rooms?"
The question is actually what is the factor for which it is easy for you to determine that there is no need to pass information in this situation?
Wookie
Until the waiting woman is released from the clearly illegal detention.
The situation you described happens spontaneously even without means of communication passing information between the 2 rooms, so why does information need to pass?
waiting for me
Great, we already have 2 agreements, Shmulik and Nissim. Wookie is known as a pathological skeptic, due to his reservations about experimenting with tossing a coin 1000 times (one should take into account the probability that one in a billion billion billion times we will get a random match, or that Roseanne Bear will beat Sandy Bear in a beauty pageant, a much lower probability), but I bet on the probability that he would agree , water is currently flowing in another dimension, but I do not believe that in this case it will flow against the current.
Therefore, it can be concluded in my opinion that the control group received the thesis that appeared in:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/2011149-hunted-state-46-core-learning/comment-page-30/#comment-574837
And also a month ago in:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/black-holes-voices-3110147/comment-page-9/#comment-569418
And for that we can only ask: What was the whole Gog and Magog war about in the last 24 hours if everyone accepts the thesis? It is not clear.
Let's move on to interlaced particles.
Remember, in a given entangled state, 2 entangled particles such as photons, always share a common property. In our case: polarization.
If we have 2 photons that have undergone a certain common interaction and are therefore entangled, one on Earth and the other on Mars, measuring the polarization of one will also reveal the state of polarization of the other.
As with the example of the coins, I believe it is possible to say that there are 2 options:
1. The state of polarization was determined during the joint interaction and the measurement only revealed it, what is popularly called hidden variables.
2. The polarization state was determined by measuring one of the photons and its entangled brother immediately received the same state. Quantum interpretation.
Intermediate states also exist, we will not refer to them now because it can be shown that they are a reduction of the 2 options above.
We will refer to situation 1, hidden variables.
Bell proved in his inequality theorem and Aspect in his experiment that this situation is impossible. If someone does not accept the results of the Aspect experiment as proof (me! Me! the Aspect experiment is not perfect in my opinion and has a loophole through which hidden variables can sneak in) - let them look at the link from my name or ask for an explanation.
We are left with situation 2.
He says something like this as I remember it: as soon as the polarization of one photon in the earth is determined, his brother interwoven in Mars chooses the same polarization instantly, that is, in zero time.
The questions are: Did information pass between photon to photon, how does this happen, and how does it happen in 0 time.
My claim: information does pass, there is a physical mechanism that causes it to pass, and it works in 0 time.
Caveat: the fact that information passes between the interwoven particles, does not mean that known information can be sent through them. If we measure the polarization of the electron or the spin of the photon we find in retrospect that they are always in the same state or always the opposite, but we cannot send the results of a football game through interlacing.
We will check the alternatives:
Shmulik claims: laws that apply to coins are not acceptable in the quantum world which has its own laws.
Nissim Gores: The same particle is in the same place at the same time.
Other variants are non-local interactions, non-local correlations, parallel universes, time reversal and more.
Everything is possible, but you have been warned: the register is open and the hand is writing!
Because all the options that can be applied against you in the corresponding article. Nissim claims against Raphael that there is no record of the exodus of the 2 million Egyptians who recorded every grain of wheat - they were recorded in a parallel universe! David claims that accepted people can move from place to place in what is called "jumping the road" - non-local interaction! Shmulik claims that there is no physical possibility for the actions described in the Bible - laws that apply to humans and objects do not apply to God!
Once we leave physics, anything can be explained. And physics requires a physical mechanism.
Therefore, as we have shown that there must be a physical mechanism that will cause two coins to always fall on the same side, and this mechanism transmits information, whether through physical communication between the 2 chambers or through the hidden variables that carry the information, there must also be a physical mechanism that transmits the information - the state of polarization or state The spin - between the intertwined particles.
Otherwise, we are not dealing with physics but with metaphysics, everything is possible, we don't need a mechanism, we can say "non-local interaction" as if there is some higher power and a world of illogical rules that apply to quantum mechanics and close the matter.
This is my point: there must be a physical mechanism that transfers the information between the entangled particles. The alternative is metaphysics, then anything is possible.
Sabri Maranan.
Israel
If we neglect the probabilistic answer.
In the same way, but one can also ask: if 2 coins in different rooms do not always fall on the same side and there are no hidden variables, i.e. the state of the coins is determined only with the toss - how can it be said that no information passed between the rooms?
I agree
Israel,
Are you claiming that everything that applies to classical objects, including coins, applies to photons?
Shmulik
agree. Can we finish our coins phase before moving on to photons? Does everyone agree that the claim:
"If 2 coins in different rooms always fall on the same side and there are no hidden variables, i.e. the state of the coins is determined only with the toss - how can it be said that no information passed between the rooms?"
The answer is: no, not possible?
Miracles?
Walkie?
..
...
..!.
Israel,
You are allowed to answer a question from time to time.
Do you agree that the laws that apply to photons do not apply to coins?
Just that
Shmulik
It's all true - but I'm thinking of something else. The difference between the classical world and the quantum world is randomness. In the classical world there is no randomness, in the quantum world (maybe) there is.
And of course - in the quantum world you can be in two places at the same time (in my opinion).
I'm going to bed too, 1 in the morning.
Paz Maya dreams.
Yes, he doesn't eat donuts.
Now I'll go to bed and dream about donuts.
For you Maya, always. Not only in the draw, even in the bluff.
Speaking of bluff. You... are you sure you're not actually a Wookiee?
Israel,
Now coming back from the Hanukkah party? I really like a donut. Do you have it on hand?
Shmulik, where did you go?
I just came back from a Hanukkah party. Everyone was there - except you. Judah (the Maccabi), Israel (a people), miracles (which he did for our ancestors), and ...
Oh, no Wookie.
But Antiochus was!
As you remember, we break the argument into stages. It is good for digestion. The claim we are now dealing with is this:
"If 2 coins in different rooms always fall on the same side and there are no hidden variables, i.e. the state of the coins is determined only with the toss - how can it be said that no information passed between the rooms?"
I guess your answer is: no, not possible. Right?
also of miracles (?)
Walkie?
water?
Miracles,
You get the point, Israel already wrote it for me
"You say: in order for there to be a full correlation between currencies, information must pass. Beauty. Well?
But Albanzo claims not..
That's the point.'
And to this Albantezo answered and so did I: photons are not very, very, very, very small balls, but other than that they are identical to coins, but the laws that apply to photons do not apply to coins. So Israel turned to the authority and to that I replied that since the authority spoke, the formalism changed, new things were discovered that were unknown to the authority at the time and therefore the authority is no longer relevant but then Israel went back to talking about coins instead of moving forward and I already went to bed.
Israel,
Is it possible that Marco will find his mother today?
Something so you can understand how it works, the particle moves in another dimension in this case time, back and forth many times, therefore it falls coordinated with itself on the other side, just what, because it passed through a lattice or a field it is affected by the field but because it passes several times and the effect of Every action has a statistical response
Israel
Read. what's the point
Israel
You mean we want to make sure that happens?
got to go. Hanukkah, first candle, child, woman, widow.
To see how it relates to our discussion - link from my name.
Bye.
Miracles
Beauty
So here we got two acceptable options for two coins in different rooms always falling on the same side:
1. Transfer of information between the rooms.
2. Hidden variables.
Can you or anyone think of another option?
Israel
Ok, sounds good.
I probably meant yes, in the specific example I gave.
Miracles
Of course not. A hidden variable can be, for example, the tilt angle of the coin, its shape, etc.
Here is a simple example of hidden variables in coins, and the beginning of the connection to our article:
We have a pair of coins close together, a tree on a pole, and a spring between them. The coins are tilted at a certain angle.
At some point the spring is released and each coin flies to another side. Each experimenter on each side receives a coin tipped at the same angle, so if he lets it fall the coins will always fall on the same side.
In that case, there is no need for a telephone line between the rooms to transmit the information. The coins themselves transferred her.
accepted?
Israel
I don't think a hidden variable conveys information.
Wookie
As I wrote for miracles, there are only 2 options besides "beam" (by the way, you can drop the beam option because it was not taken into account in the experiments).
1. Transfer of information between the rooms.
2. Hidden variables.
getting?
agree
Miracles
Let's see if we agree:
Apart from the mentioned market option (happening, what can be done) you can get a correlation in only 2 options:
1. Transfer of information between the rooms.
2. Hidden variables.
getting?
Israel
Yes
Wookie
Your reservation is acceptable, possible, and duly registered:
It is possible that in a controlled experiment a correlation between coins will be obtained 1000 times.
True, the probability of this is approximately 1:1000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 - but it exists! Deen Peruta as Deen Hundred!
Even in a million tosses the probability exists.
Miracles
You're right, the answer is yes, but only if there are hidden variables, right?
And how will you know if there are or are not hidden variables?
Yes
Israel
I don't know, if there is a difference apart from the probability, maybe you can explain to me what it is?
Wookie
Are you claiming that there is no fundamental difference between a correlation in 2 throws and a correlation in 2000?
Miracles
Must make sure. You say that by passing information, you can get a correlation in the state of the currencies 1000 times, right?
Question: Is it possible to get a correlation through another way, for example early coordination between the currencies, but without transferring information between the rooms?
Israel
To me a match in 2 tosses means nothing, but you claim (it seems to me) that there must be a transfer of information starting from some X of parallel tosses, I don't. I wonder what the difference is between one X in which there must not be a transfer of information, and another X in which there must be a transfer of information.
The numbers here are related to probability and our feeling as humans of what their likelihood is, but I'm not sure that beyond that there is anything here at all.
Actually, until now I still don't understand what argument you want to make.
Why does the fact that the result is the same indicate the transfer of information and not the fact that the result is not the same indicates the transfer of information? Why is the evidence for the transmission of information that does not change from litter to litter? Maybe in throwing Y identity indicates the transfer of information and in throwing Z lack of identity indicates the transfer of information?
Israel
Ok. I gave you information. What next?
Or more precisely "hidden variable" which actually does not change and is not hidden..
Yoda
There is a problem.
Your "sirti from Bios" are what we call "hidden variables" at the Elek ranch.
is that the problem???? I thought the problem was more complicated. In short, there is only one solution to the problem, the coins are actually BIOS cards that only have one side, so they will always fall on one side!!!! And believe me they will always do it this way without passing information between them. They will always fall on their one side. They have no other choice!
What do you think of the answer?
But what a pleasant and beautiful night
Yehuda
Miracles
We conclude from the fact that you passed on information to me so that you told me how the situation was (what is the situation with you? Everything is fine with us, God willing, God is great).
Israel
I don't follow. There is nothing unusual here. I toss a coin, tell you what the result is, and you place a coin in the same position.
What do you conclude from this?
Wookie
This is once again the question of who is more beautiful Sandy Barr or Roseanne Barr...
Answer yourself. If we got a match in 2 tosses, does that mean something?
And in 2000?
Miracles
You can lay, you can also bloom.
The main thing is that you will be able to get a perfect correlation in 1000 throws/discounts/excursions without transferring information from room to room.
Yoda
Trying to find out the issue of non-locality, by giving an answer to a basic question:
"If 2 coins in different rooms always fall on the same side and there are no hidden variables, i.e. the state of the coins is determined only with the toss - how can it be said that no information passed between the rooms?"
It is allowed to use gravity pushing.
Israel
I'm starting to think the cube is loaded after I get the same number three or four times in a row, but that still doesn't mean it's true. But of course it's because I live in a world where I usually encounter more statistically probable events than statistically less probable events, it doesn't mean that statistically less probable events don't happen.
Obviously it looks like twinning to me, but I can't know if it really is if I can't find the twinning mechanism.
Anyway, the more interesting question is why you don't actually think there is a twin when the number of times is smaller. is there an answer?
Friend, may I know what the argument is about? Please spare me reading five hundred comments to understand.
Yehuda
Israel
No - because only one of us flips a coin. For my part, we will call it "coin flipping" - then I agree with you.
Albanzo
Successfully.
Wookie
I am convinced that after 15 tosses, I will already have a reasonable suspicion that if the coins always fall on the same side then there is some sort of coordination here.
You do not? After all, a 1 in 30,000 chance?
And what about 30 throws? 1 per billion?
Not to mention 1000…
I'm glad you accept my apology. Unfortunately, I am not optimistic about our ability to have a discussion in the future or turn a new page. Therefore, it is better that we say goodbye with a sincere apology than that we try to continue and degenerate into the same place again in the future.
And now that we've cleared the air a bit, I can really get back to work.
Israel
I'm starting to understand the problem elbentzo has with you, you just insist on not listening or understanding anything other than what is being said. You assume people mean one thing when they mean something else.
When I asked you: "Do the experiment with 100,000 people. How many people will get the same results as you? Was information passed there?"
You should either understand that I am asking you if you do an experiment with 10 coin tosses with 100000 people how many of the tosses came out with the same sequence as your sequence or understand that I do not understand you.
When you heard about it somehow, I don't really understand how, that the experiment is done with 100000 people and they all get the same sequence (but for some reason I'm asking you how many of them got the same sequence as yours) we started talking about other things.
In the meantime, maybe answer me in which X you start to think that information is passing.
Why, for example, do you not think that information passes for a simultaneous toss with the same result of one toss? (assuming you don't really think so)
Albanzo
I wrote the last comment before you responded.
I accept the apology, and hope to open a new page without any personal comments.
OK Albanzo, whatever you say, match.
Miracles
We are trying to see if it is possible to get a full correlation in 1000 tosses in any way, including manual arrangement.
Do you accept that this is possible through the transfer of information?
You know what, I regret the previous comment.
At this point it is already clear to you what I think about you, and it is clear to all the commenters here what I think about the physical problem. Nobody gains anything from a bout of insults, and if you think I'm happy to write you these comments, you're wrong.
I will continue to read the comments here, but I will try not to comment. Maybe I'll break down and respond if you put words in my mouth or something like that, but no more. I stand by every factual claim I have presented, whether it concerns physics or the mistakes you make and your unwillingness to learn, but I apologize to you for the insults and sadness I have caused you. I don't think there's an ego battle here, but I do think I got carried away.
Successfully.
What's going on here? I just left you and the whole kindergarten is already numerous?
My friend Israel, what does Albanzo want from a nice person like you?
This is how we promote science in Israel?
Yehuda
Israel
No correlation between coin flips. Only one of us fired. The other placed the coin on a certain side.
There is no ego battle here. There is a member here who does not understand physics, turned to me and asked me a question, refused to accept the answer, refused to learn, refused to listen, and during the discussion degenerated into a fight. My self-esteem does not depend on Israel Shapira. If she was, I would identify myself by my real name, I would bombard you with the articles I wrote. It's an ego, right? glorify myself?
And don't worry about my suppliers. I fulfill all my pedagogical duties, and my article delivery is very good, thank you very much. But of course you want to talk about my article supplier. You know, compared to a person who accuses me of "ad hominem" and constantly complains that I don't respond to the matter (even though each of your questions was answered explicitly and in detail), you have a very strong tendency to refer to me, to my life, to my work, to my sleeping habits, to curse me, to wish me ill and all these other things that are very relevant...
So, can we add "hypocritical" to the list? You know, that's with the fool, liar, etc.
Miracles.
I did not understand.
Do you accept that in case there is communication and transfer of information between us we can get a correlation 1000 times?
Israel
So I flip a coin and you don't. Ok. What is the conclusion?
Glad to entertain you.
But I am not amused by the fact that this is the level of our lecturers. A physics doctor who wastes his time on ego and ad hominem battles instead of teaching and being an example.
Israel,
Do you know the difference between us? When you go down on me, I burst out laughing. When I tell you what I say, you lose your temper. You know why, right? do you understand
Well, one of the differences. I also know physics…
Come on Albanzo, back to the barn.
Wookie
"There is a chance for that, it's just that the probability of it happening tends to zero."
You are almost right (do not aspire to 0, 1 to 999^2).. This is indeed one of the possibilities. chance.
Now we'll add your 100,000 people, and let them do the coin experiment too.
If you also get a 100% match with them, isn't that also a transfer of information? According to you, there is also a chance here, isn't there?
Israel, Israel,
don't feel bad Hating someone because they know more than you and they're showing you that you're wrong, telling them to obsess over each other, trying to incite everyone against them, and wishing them nightmares is very common behavior in 3 year olds. The commenters here realized in one hour what you haven't been able to grasp for hundreds of comments), there is no reason why you shouldn't behave like such a child as well.
And by the way - this is not "non-local interaction", this is non-local correlation. I know, I know, you have no idea what the difference is and there's no way you'll learn, but at least try to quote correctly.
And now it's your turn to cry because I said I wouldn't respond for a few hours and yet I responded...
Miracles
Tell me which side your coin landed on, watch me put mine on the same side. Even 1000 times.
Not a wizard?
(It also works with rabbits).
Israel
No. You can't flip a coin so it lands on one side.
LILT Shmulik, Dreams of Paz.
Try to dream of an answer to the following question: what is the difference between "non-local interaction" and transferring information from side to side.
Lil' Albanzo, nightmares.
Israel,
So come on, lil't everyone
Miracles
We can get identical series if we have a connection, can't we?
Shmulik. We haven't reached the point yet, an assemblage experiment. We will wait for miracles and a walkie-talkie.
Israel,
He didn't mention the name of the book about a hundred times and if I was a serious person I would already remember it?
In any case, I'm in Israel, not abroad and I need to sleep, but I'd love to get an answer:
Do you understand that there is an abysmal difference between coins and photons and that the logic of coins should not be imposed on photons?
Israel
And so we will never get identical series.
Albanzo
Whatever the reason, the main thing is that you overlap.
Miracles
There are no machines. There is no mechanism. There is only you and me in separate rooms, with quarters.
Shmulik
You said "and she directs us to specific reading material on the subject". Where is the reference?
Albanzo
When you solemnly commit to stop the personal reference and talk only about the issue, I will be happy to discuss with you.
Until then, catch up.
Israel
I'll say it again - there are two situations:
1) We received different series. The reason - the throws are different (for example - you and I throw).
2) We received identical series. The reason - the tosses are the same (for example - two machines toss the same coins under the same conditions).
Israel,
brother! What a comeback! You are almost as funny and witty as you are a talented scientist.
Anyway, your wish came true. It's already a little after 4 pm here at my place and I need to get some more work done before the day is over. So today I probably won't respond anymore, maybe for a few more hours when I get home. I'll just leave you with the following diagnosis:
You asked to involve all the commenters here in the discussion to prove to me that you are not alone in your opinion (you claimed that I said that you are stupid because you do not know the answer and that is not what I said at all, but leave it). Note that everyone here - without exception - everyone *except you* is arguing with you. Everyone *except you* sees a flaw in your logic. Everyone *except you* claims that there is a place to study things in depth before determining whether this or that thing is possible or not. Everyone *except you* sees a fundamental difference between a coin and a photon.
And just so you know - the fact that I said I'm going now doesn't mean I'm not going to come back. Don't blame me after I promised to go and broke the promise, like you do.
Israel
There is a chance, the probability of it happening tends to zero.
The fact that you get the same result does not directly indicate the transfer of information. That's why I asked you about the beginning almost in an experiment with the 10 throws: "Do the experiment with 100,000 people. How many people will get the same results as you? Was information passed there?"
Maybe if you bothered to answer we would progress towards some kind of understanding of each other.
Israel,
Nothing specific, but in the degree in electrical engineering there were several courses on quantum mechanics (oh holes and electrons! The lecturer brought to the first lesson a plastic lizard to describe how the holes attract electrons, or something like that), unfortunately only half a semester on special relativity and the rest from reading on the internet.
What does it matter?
Physicists today know more than Einstein did. Today's physicist rests on much firmer mathematical ground than it did in Einstein's time, so bringing up Einstein's name as a reason why you are right is an appeal to authority. Invalid
Miracles
And if I got 1000 throws? Is it possible without transferring information?
Albanzo
We realized a long time ago that you were in shock.
Israel
informative. The throws are not random. You will never get a correlation.
Shmulik
What specific reading material?
Wookie
Are you saying that you and I can currently flip coins separately and get a match in 10,000 flips without passing information between us?
Israel,
The department is a department of theoretical physics of high energies. A group of talented physicists, people who are successfully doing the things you only dream you could do, and everyone is just in awe of you.
And again you tell me to overlap. We already know what that means, right?
simply incredible.
How can you claim that you still haven't received an answer to the coin question?
Below is a quote: "...there are non-local cursals without the transfer of information. Coins are classical objects and cannot have non-local correlations. Photons (or any other quantum particle - electron, positron, quark, etc.) can. Therefore, they can certainly present correlations without information transfer, and this is indeed what happens in intertwined systems.
If you had currencies that had non-local correlations between them, I would argue that there could be a correlation in the measurements between them without the transfer of information. Since you don't have any, I never claimed [this]."
Israel,
By the way, what you are doing is appealing to authority. Logical fallacy of the first order.
You can argue that I also make such a logical fallacy, but in this case, part of what I wrote comes from my external information and the last part is based on the fact that the authority is here, and it directs us to specific reading material on the subject.
Israel
When X equals 1, what must be concluded?
When X equals 2, what must be concluded?
When X equals 3, what must be concluded?
When X equals 4, what must be concluded?
When X equals 5, what must be concluded?
....
When X equals 10, what must be concluded?
When X equals 100, what must be concluded?
When X equals 10000, what must be concluded?
Albanzo
You said everyone in the department was laughing at me, didn't you?
Could it be that the department is the closed department? This nicely explains the hysterical laughter.
overlap
Wookie
Yes
Miracles
I just break the assembly experiment into steps. This is the logical step.
What is the problem with answering the coin question?
Israel
You mean we are now doing an experiment where we both flip a coin over and over again X times and each time we get the same result?
and asks are we supposed to conclude anything from this?
Whoa whoa, pay attention. Now Israel is trying to create a false representation as if he and Einstein were in the same camp... and as if I called him ignorant and a liar because he did not agree with me, and not because he refused to study the subject before he stated that "no one knows the answer" and because he flatly lied and said that I Claiming things I don't believe at all.
Albanzo
I have no problem with you responding, if you only refer to the subject in question and not to me personally as you always do.
Miracles,
You may be right but what is important is the point of his words. I wanted him to write the point!
Israel,
But what to do since we have discovered things and formalism has completely changed? So he wrote. So what? According to what Albantezo writes, if he were alive today, he would not have written this.
Wookie
Still don't understand why you need more than 2 testers. What is stopping you and me from doing the experiment right now? Why are his results unacceptable?
Miracles
You keep coming back to photons and quanta, while I keep talking about coins.
Can we close the issue of coins? Shmulik wants to run.
I said I wanted to end the discussion. But I also specifically said that if you continue it, don't expect me to stand aside and shut up.
Notice how many times you try to ask me to be quiet, try to ask the other commenters to ignore me, try to ask me to leave... A wise man once said that when you try to silence someone, you only prove that you are afraid of what they might say.
walkie,
To be honest, I was a little bit on my own for writing this. Who am I to judge? But glad to hear you understand what I mean
Shmulik
We read together EPR on Wikipedia..
According to the article, Einstein claimed that if 2 photons are always in the same state (like our coins) then there is a transfer of information between them faster than light, or that hidden variables exist. There are no hidden variables. So..
Are Einstein and Wiki ignorant and liars too?
Shmulik
The projection is not correct - because there is no randomness in the classical world!
What Israel is doing is equivalent to the following experiment: I have two objects moving towards each other at a speed 1.5 times the speed of light... do they see each other?
Not every thought experiment is a valid experiment. That's why this whole discussion is ridiculous to me.
Israel
Because coin tossing behaves in some statistical way that I'm sure you're familiar with, and in order for the results of two or more sequences to be the same, an appropriate number of participants in the experiment is required.
Shmulik
If I were a photon, or how many things I could do, if only I were a photon.
As for the woman, I will take that into account. My intention when I write the woman is simply an abbreviation of the great and wonderful woman with whom I share my life, when I don't have the patience to write everything.
Israel,
What does the coin experiment matter now? Let's assume there is randomness (miracles, flow), what changes is the projection you make from the coins to the photons. It is not true.
Albanzo
Yes! Yes! want to get dirty Whatever you say.
You didn't say what 20 times you go?
and Israel,
What does Arab have to do with it? Do you want to pollute this forum not only with stubborn refusal to study and opinion buying but also with racism and hatred of difference?
Shmulik
"And it was always the same answer. In currencies, there is no problem."
It seems to me that Nissim and Wookiee/Maya do not necessarily agree with you.
We'll wait.
Israel,
Coins will also never transmit information faster than light, no matter what you do.
You claim that because information passes through the coins, information also passes between the photons. Between coins you admit in advance that it is not about going above the speed of light. Between photons you claim yes.
Albentazo comes and says that only if you study the material, you will understand why there is no transfer of information there. Understand why your inference from coins to photons is incorrect.
Marco...mom?
Israel,
I don't "want to add to the fact that Keren is a shameless liar". I want you to stop shamelessly lying and saying I'm claiming things I never said.
I don't know what happened a year ago, but you talked to me about an assembly experiment, which was not conducted between coins - but between quantum particles. It is true that you also tried to ask about coins, but I told you explicitly, accept with a committee, that I am not answering the specific question about the coins but the question regarding the assembly. I explained to you again and again and again that this is a quantum experiment, even though you insisted that it is a "logical experiment that is not related to quantum mechanics". Hopefully now, with the kind help of the other commenters, you are beginning to understand that there is a difference.
Israel,
And it was always the same answer. In coins, there is no problem.
But when you included Albantezo's name now, you indicated that, in your opinion, what applies to coins applies to photons.
And here is the failure.
Marco...mom?
Miracles
Don't exist? Don't you have a room at home? Is the situation that serious?
walkie,
If you were a photon, I could do it from both computers. Think about it.
Chutsamza, I don't like saying "the woman". What's wrong with my wife's writing?
Albanzo
When I asked the question, I humbly announced in advance that I was opaque/clogged/ignorant/Arab.
Do you want to add to that a shameless liar? break up
Wookie
What I did not understand. Why do you need more than 2 people to conduct the experiment?
Shmulik.
Go through all threads and threads, including from a year ago.
I always asked the coin question.
Miracles?
Israel
I can't correlate things that don't exist.
If your way of thinking leads to a contradiction - check your way of thinking.
You reached a contradiction - and your mistake is that there is no randomness in the classical world.
Israel,
But we have already written the abysmal, fundamental, categorical, absolute difference between coins and photons.
Doesn't it bother you that photons obey different rules than coins? It is proven. There is a Torah that deals with this. She has well-defined concepts. Computers are built thanks to this theory.
Marco will not meet his mother today either 🙁
Israel.
Shameless liar. I never said that there is a correlation between currencies without the transfer of information. I said that there are non-local cursors without information transfer. Coins are classical objects and cannot have non-local correlations. Photons (or any other quantum particle - electron, positron, quark, etc.) can. Therefore, they can certainly present correlations without information transfer, and this is indeed what happens in intertwined systems.
If you had currencies that had non-local correlations between them, I would argue that there could be a correlation in the measurements between them without the transfer of information. Since you don't have any, I never claimed what you say I did, and you prove once again that you are not only lacking in any physical understanding but also a shameless liar.
Israel
Maya was me, you have to remember not to respond from the woman's computer.
And if you read the response you would understand that it cannot be done with just two people.
Shmulik, ya spoiler.
You say: in order for there to be a full correlation between currencies, information must pass. Beauty. Well?
But Albanzo claims not..
This is the point.
Miracles.
Leave for now the meaning of Zionism and self-fulfillment. Can you build a mechanism that will give you a correlation between the coins when you and I cast in separate rooms without transferring information between the rooms? Just that.
Yes or No.
Miracles,
stop making it difficult ok? 🙂
Let's move forward
Israel, huh?
Israel,
Running is tomorrow. Martavu will not run alone
Israel
There is no randomness in the classical world. Therefore, your experiment has no meaning.
What is simpler?
albentezo,
It's like with Marco. Maybe today he will meet mother
Shmulik
Run for fitness.
That being said, Ruci Shmulik..
When you come back, we may get a critical mass of agreement/disagreement percentages, and we can move forward.
Israel,
I will write alone.
In order for there to be a full correlation between currencies, information must pass. Beauty. Well?
Israel,
Well??? what's the point???
I have to go exercise. Yes, I know what time it is now in Israel.
Shmulik.
You already agreed, I need another 2 + Maya.
Maya, tell me, why can't we do the experiment just you and me?
It seems to me that the commenters here can read my comments and decide for themselves whether I am responding to the matter or not.
Girl, would you mind ignoring Albenzo for now? He does not respond to the subject, but to the responding body.
Israel
I have no problem in principle, except that in this case (1000 tosses), I need more participants in the experiment than there are people
Israel,
But I already wrote:
If there are random tosses, the chance of both of us getting the same or the opposite is probabilistic and the more chances we make, the chance of having a full correlation drops to zero.
Well?
1. Yes, I care. I will intervene as much as I like.
2. I didn't say you're a moron because you don't know the answer. I said you're an idiot because you don't listen, because you refuse to learn, and because you're convinced you know things you have no idea about. The experiment you performed was successful - each of the other commenters has already made it clear that he feels he needs to study the subject before determining whether or not information is passed and under what conditions. You have successfully proven that you are indeed the only idiot here.
Albanzo
When an experimenter interferes during the experiment, it is called bias.
We are currently trying to determine if Israel is really as stupid as you claim, and this is through comparison with a control group. Do you mind not interfering?
Miracles on the kippak. No randomness? Ready to put money on this discount? Say when you want to start.
Israel constantly urges everyone to do an experiment, but it demands that it be done in a classic way. I wonder what would happen if he agreed to do it quantumly... Oh, wait. Basically - they did it quantumly. lots of times One of the times (actually, one of the first times) is called an assembly experiment. Israel loves to talk about him but doesn't understand him at all. The results are - as we know - in quantum systems there are non-local correlations. Such correlations can occur without transmitting information, and this is easy to prove with pen and paper (if you just bother to learn instead of going to the science website and declaring that everyone is wrong and you are right...)
Shmulik
Pre-coordination means hidden variables.
For example, it is possible to send boxes with the coins inside tilted at a certain angle. When you place the boxes on the floor and let the coins fall, they will always fall on the same side.
I'm talking about random throws, see my original question.
Israel
Our throws are not the same. The variables are not hidden at all - the weight of the quarter, the angle of the assumption on the toe, the air density, the temperature (it's colder for me...).
Again - there is no randomness here. There is no random in the classical world.
Shmulik,
Everything you said is true. Specifically, the issue with the currencies is clearly irrelevant, because (as was explained to Israel a billion times) correlation and information transfer are two different things. That is, the fact that there is a correlation does not mean with certainty whether or not information has been transferred. In classical physics, there are no mechanisms that can produce non-local correlations, which exist without transferring information. In quantum physics, yes. What Israel is desperately trying to do is to force quantum mechanics to obey his intuition (which is of course drawn from the classical world), and this without even knowing what information is, what correlation is, and what the differences are between the classical world and the quantum world (in particular in this context, and according to his questions - also in general ).
Miracles
You talk about "hidden variables", otherwise how will you get the same situation?
Are you claiming that it is possible to get full correlation without transferring information? Want to run an experiment now? do you have a quarter
Israel,
I wrote yes, but I want to clarify something: if you trust me in advance, I don't know if it can be called a transfer of information.
If we talked while doing it, information passed.
But I flow. Information also passed.
Well?
Shmulik
If we talked, what did we talk about, the weather?
Getting passed?
Wookie
If you believe that a 100% correlation can be obtained in 1000 tosses without information transfer, state when you are interested in starting the experiment and how much money you are willing to put in the intervention.
I'm waiting.
Israel
If we are in exactly the same situation - in any case all the throws will be the same, let's say "tree".
If we both got mixed and identical series, then I would say that there is something in the casting mechanism of both of us that causes this series. Why? Because there is no randomness in the classical world, in my opinion.
Israel,
Or it didn't happen, if we didn't talk.
did not pass Something probable came out
passage. What we trained for came out.
Well?
Israel
Do the experiment with 100,000 people. How many people will get the same results as you? Has information passed there?
Israel,
passage. Well?
Israel,
What does it matter? Coins are not photons.
Reality is not interested in classical logic. Classical logic has to bow its head to reality. Quantum mechanics is reality and the rules are different from what we are used to. Photons obey different rules than coins and inferring from coins to photons is incorrect. is an error.
The solution lies in learning the definitions and the material. By the way, don't think for a second that I know the material.
Shmulik
Hit, hit, but probably not enough..
Leave Quantum for now. Let's finish with the logic experiment.
The miracles of the screens.
So you accept that if each of us in our rooms flips a coin 100 times and we get a full correlation, then information has passed between the rooms?
Yes No
Wookie, Nissim Shmulik, everyone.
I am now in my room in Encino.
You are in your rooms.
Here I flip a coin 10 times:
Peli, Peli, tree, Peli, tree, tree, tree Peli, tree tree.
The information about the charges was sent to you via the Internet. Do you have a problem arranging your coin to fall in the same order? I guess not. Just put it in the order I said.
Now let's do the experiment without information: I will throw, you will throw, we will call later and see what correlation we get.
Ready?
Israel
agree. In any case - there is no random coin toss, so the experiment has no meaning.
Israel,
When did you stop beating your wife?
Classical logic does not apply to quantum mechanics. A particle can be applied to that universe. An electron can pass through both slots. It freaks me out on a classical level, but reality doesn't care.
If coins always fall in the way you describe, there must be a connection between them. Photons are not coins but quantum creatures. This difference is world wide
Israel,
It's not the same either. Your paradox is problematic to understand because it contains many assumptions and components. Here we are talking about a well-known and well-studied mechanism of quantum mechanics.
Show me a link to a contemporary physicist who claims that this is information transfer. By the way, if you remember, I once asked you if it is a matter of transferring information, then there is some kind of radiation. Why don't we measure it? And, how does the information know how to get from one photon to another, where is the quantum GPS hiding in the square of the information item that passes? To my delight, Albenzato made it clear in no uncertain terms that the solution is much simpler and it lies in understanding the material.
Israel
First of all, I'm not entirely sure that I know what information transfer is, so I'd appreciate it if you could explain to me exactly what it means, because it's not really my field.
Secondly, if Shlomo Yankelovich plays basketball at the same time as all the Lakers games (because he is unable to watch them play, it's hard to blame him) and throws to the basket every time Kobe Bryant throws to the basket, and every time one scores the other also scores, and every time one misses the other also misses, Should I conclude from this that information is passing there or could it be that information is passing there?
Shmulik
We will also reach quanta. Right now we are dealing with a logical question.
You think logic doesn't apply to quanta?
Miracles
Your mechanism is an information transfer mechanism. I'm talking about you being in your room now and me in mine flipping the coins. Want to do an experiment with 100 tosses? Want to bet there won't be a 100% match? Not 90's either? of 80? of 70?
Israel
That is - if you make the same toss twice then you will inevitably get the same result.
Israel,
This is indeed a quantum question because only there is such a case.
In any other situation, this does not occur unless there is coordination. In quantum this happens but there is an answer as to the mechanism that makes this possible (which you have to learn to understand)
Israel
But - I don't believe there is a "fair currency".
Shmulik
"Honestly, what reason do you have to doubt what Albantezo said (on the scientific issues)?"
And what reason do I have to doubt what any of the professors who solved my twin paradox said?
The problem is, as I remember, that each one brought a different solution and contradicted his friend's solution. this is the reason.
Can you solve my currency question? It is not related to physics, only logic.
Israel
Yes. Connect them using a mechanism made of a chain and two gears.
Nissim Hadar
As I have stated many times, this is not a quantum question. This is a logical question.
Can you suggest some mechanism where the coins will always fall on the same side?
Israel,
I have a lawyer friend who sometimes gives legal instructions and when I ask why I should do this and that, he answers me: "Listen, I'm not going to teach you 10 years of law through a phone call. Only from the age of 18!" (just a joke, but up to the point, everything is true).
Honestly, what reason do you have to doubt what Albantezo said (on the scientific issues)?
It is absolutely clear that it is necessary to study the material, the definitions, the axioms of the field and not rely on the fact that the meaning of the concepts you use in everyday language is the same as the definitions of quantum mechanics. For example, he specifically wrote:
"We know that the probability of occurrence of event A (whose probability is a) or event B (whose probability is b) is a+b only if A and B are foreign events. This is ten thousand percent true in quantum mechanics as well. What is strange about it is that it has non-local correlations, so events that our intuition says should be foreign are really not and therefore do not obey the law. Specifically, when talking about systems that contain non-local correlations, i.e. entanglement, one should be careful that the event spaces of each individual particle and of both together are different.'
In order to understand why our intuition fails, we need to study the material.
By the way, Lawrence Krauss in his Facebook group intervened in some discussion about interweaving and said that there is no way for interweaving to transmit information faster than light (rarely, since he usually writes a post but does not comment on talkbackists' posts). All over the internet you will find this claim over and over again. Why doesn't information go through? need to study.
The same goes for the question about Einstein. Imagine a brilliant physics student who has never studied relativity but is proficient in Newton, quantum mechanics and mathematics (I don't know if such strange proficiency can exist, but let's assume). From what I understand from this thread, she can develop relativity without some of the assumptions that Einstein made. Hence, this whole line of questions about Einstein is somewhat irrelevant. What does it matter today if part of what he thought contained contradictions to information that he could not have had in any case? Happily, his intuition was sufficient for the development of the theory of relativity, and even if there is a contradiction, it did not interfere with the development of the Torah, because at this stage, the quantum world did not have to be required. But we moved on anyway.
That's it, I hope we're still friends and in some universe somehow we'll add you to our monthly poker, for NIS 50 per person (I guess you're used to a lot more but that's what it is).
Israel Shapira
Since when do two classical coins always land on the same side? You throw from the quantum world to the classical world, and then you reach a contradiction. Maybe this projection is not valid?
Wookie!
Let's start with the basic logical question:
"If 2 coins in different rooms always fall on the same side and there are no hidden variables, i.e. the state of the coins is determined only with the toss - how can it be said that no information passed between the rooms?"
If you are interested, I will also ask you about the photons.
What question exactly do you want an answer to?
Let's assume you are right and Israel the obscurantist just doesn't understand.
Is anyone reading the comments here able to answer Israel the idiot with the answers to his questions?
Miracles?
Shmulik?
Walkie?
anonymous?
Anaraf?
I'm waiting.
Listen. The last time.
Information transfer and correlation are two completely different things. You imagine that if there is any connection between two cases then it means that some signal must pass between them. But this is simply not true, and until you get up off your ass and decide to learn what information is, what correlation is, and what a system with non-local correlations is, nothing will help you. There are explicit proofs in information theory that show that systems that have a correlation (even if it is not local) of the kind of interweaving (non-spherical systems) do not transfer information between them. I refer to interweaving because in your example there is not enough information about the nature of the correlation.
All this has already been told to you. But you ignore it, because you don't understand. You don't understand, because you don't study. You don't learn, because you refuse to admit that your knowledge is lower (by a lot, it should be noted) even than a bachelor's degree student. And if you had an ounce of courage or a shred of honesty, you would open a book in the undergraduate syllabus and see that it is Chinese for you. There is a name for people like you.
Successfully.
Okay Albanzo, I'm a compulsive liar.
Why is it so hard for you to answer a simple question?
"If 2 coins in different rooms always fall on the same side and there are no hidden variables, i.e. the state of the coins is determined only with the toss - how can it be said that no information passed between the rooms?"
Maybe because you or someone doesn't have the answer?
Israel,
Either you are a compulsive liar or you live in a fantasy world. First, you are the one who initiated this discussion when you asked me to settle things that didn't work out for you on the issues of the uncertainty principle in private relations and the assembly experiment. All I did was comment on the story you posted. You could have ignored my comments, and you could have answered them. But you chose to ask me to explain things to you in physics.
Secondly, you only prove your horribly low level when you write in the same comment the sentence "I claim that the theory of relativity is based on the classical behavior of light", eh? where?" And also the sentence "If this doesn't sterilize postulate 2 in the relationship? After all, it is built on the assumption that a photon has a known location - the time that has passed from the moment the flashlight is turned on is multiplied by the speed of light minus the starting point - and its momentum is also known and constant." lets see. The assumptions of special relativity, according to you, are based on the assumption "... that a photon has a known position... and its momentum is also known and constant". This is what is called classical behavior. So basically you say that the assumptions of the theory of relativity are based on the classical behavior of light, and at the same time you say that... didn't you say that? Yes? Is this what is happening here?
I answered your questions, including the one with the inconsistencies. You probably just don't know what the word "correlation" means, which I used. But it's up to you. I also understand from your response that you are still afraid to open Sakurai, right? If you have the audacity to accuse me of not answering your questions, you should have the audacity to face the possibility that I may be answering but your knowledge is so minimal that you don't even understand the answer. As you did not understand that to say that "postulate 2 is based on the assumption that the position of the photon and its momentum are known" is to say that private patronage is based on the classical behavior of light.
Understand - I will never want to talk to you about physics. Simply because talking to you about physics is like talking to a child: your level of knowledge is at floor level, and you have nothing to contribute to the discussion. In addition, you do not understand anything that is said to you, that is, an incompetent child. Finally, you insist on your ignorance and stupidity. That is, a child who is not talented and also makes a mess in class and refuses to learn.
Keep telling yourself that "we both studied physics"... keep telling yourself that I'm chasing you... and most importantly - keep ignoring all the facts. From the fact that you turned to me (in this discussion and all the previous ones) to please settle your misunderstandings, from the fact that you received answers to questions but you do not have the minimum tools necessary to understand them, from the fact that your "expert" is just someone who did not tell you to your face that you are talking nonsense and therefore received Suddenly a degree of honor, because his claims (and yours) regarding the connection between mathematics and quantum are incorrect, or at best - bad formulations of irrelevant and meaningless claims, because you claimed that an Aspa experiment is not an experiment in quantum physics, because throughout the discussion you only demonstrate a lack of An understanding that is below the level of a bachelor's degree but refuses to admit it and claims to understand.
continue on your way. After all, she brought you this far, and you are a great physicist who made a real impact on the world of science, right? People come to you from far and wide to learn from you, right? So go ahead.
I hope you're laughing out loud, because I'm just cracking up. You are the official joke of our department!
Who?
Will Shaponym crawl back to the lair? not interesting.
Will Israel say something like "I did not claim that the theory of relativity is based on the classical behavior of light.. Bring me a reference"?
interesting.
waiting (what's new?)
Let's get a little closer to the facts.
I brought a quote from Albanzo:
"But still he is an expert as far as you are concerned, while people who discovered new things in relationships and promote science, and teach future generations - they don't understand anything."
And I offered him:
"If you find evidence for this claim of yours against me - point to them."
My intention was truly that those "people who discovered new things in relationships and advance science, and teach the next generations" that Albenzo claims that in my opinion "they don't understand anything" - are well-known scientists such as Feynman, Bohr or Hawking. What claims does he have against Yehuda, no?
For a moment I didn't think he meant himself. I don't know about anything new that Albanzo discovered in relationships (I'd love to hear), I don't know what Albanzo does, (I remembered something about quantum communication) and I don't know who and what he teaches. Am I supposed to know? The man marked me as a target from day one, and I try to avoid any contact with him. Except for one hasty first and last time, I never initiated contact with him, but only responded, including in this article, including today. Even when he promised not to respond to me anymore (yesterday), he returned today with another response. You can check, everything is linked.
Albanzo quotes me:
"Did it occur to you that maybe you just don't know or understand the experiment?"
Here is my response in full:
"I asked for a reference to the Aspect experiment. This is a logic experiment, regardless of quanta.
As usual, you answered what you choose to answer, not my question (% mismatches, remember)?
Is it conceivable that maybe you just don't know or understand the experiment?”
This is after I go back and ask him to answer only one thing: the percentage of mismatches in the experiment, and receive explanations about things that are different from what I asked for.
What wonder then that I think that maybe he simply does not know or understand the experiment?
Until now, I have not received from Albanzo or anyone an explanation of the discrepancies. If he or someone had bothered to answer this question that I have repeated so many times, including a logical abstraction, we might have gotten to the root of the matter.
You can continue to go through claim after claim, but I don't think there is much point. Any examination will prove that Albenzo is the one who always turns to me, always aggressively and arrogantly. Any examination will show that he does not answer my very focused questions, but answers in irrelevant generalities (I claim that "the theory of relativity is based on the classical behavior of light", eh? Where?). I feel it's ridiculous to even start justifying myself for something. Anyone with eyes in their head, a bit of intelligence, and a minimal sense of decency, will be able to go through all the comments in all the articles and see who starts with who. If someone does not understand the technical details (I ask: the uncertainty principle forbids knowing the position and momentum of a quantum particle. Doesn't this invalidate postulate 2 in relations? It is based on the assumption that a photon has a known position - the time that has passed since the light is turned on is multiplied by the speed of light minus The starting point - and its momentum is also known and constant. So how does it work out?) I would be happy to explain why this is a completely relevant question. I have asked Albanzo several times to let me know if he is interested in discussing physics, the answer is probably not. It's all ego. Otherwise how did we get into another fight? It's fresh, just today, no need to dig through 700 comments. Who started the fight today? I am?
anonymous
you say:
"Say: I agree that Rafi is not an expert or understands less than a person who deals in the field professionally.
Or any correction you see fit."
I do not know Rafi and I do not know what his education is. I know that he has articles on relationships (that's how I found him), that in the long correspondence I had with him he was kind and professional, that he solved the "twin paradox" with elegant ease, after I received many contradictory answers from people who are considered experts in the field, and that he offered an interesting explanation and concrete suggestions For my GPS experiment.
Bottom line for me, he and miracles are the only ones that really help.
I assume that by "a person who deals in the field professionally" you meant Albanzo. Until a few days ago I thought that his specialization was in quantum communication, and therefore also in my first response to him I wrote to him about "something from your field". I didn't know he was a relationship expert. Now that I know I'm ready to say what you asked.
Good night teddy bear garden.
Here are a few quotes: "Did it occur to you that maybe you just don't know or understand the experiment?", "Go patronize someone else. It's quite clear that you don't know what I'm even talking about."
In addition, I will make two comments:
1. To ask someone to go through 700 comments and to say that if he refuses to answer them then he should apologize for his words is such indescribable vileness. Just a poor attempt to take advantage of the fact that normal people don't have the strength and/or time to go through hundreds of comments to try to claim some small victory for you. pathetic.
2. If you are so into apologizing for mistakes and admitting them, maybe do it yourself? Maybe you'll apologize now, for claiming that you didn't tell me that I don't understand what I'm talking about or know the relevant material? Perhaps thanks to the countless mistakes you have had in this thread, starting with the fact that you argued with me for dozens of comments about uncertainty in relations, through the fact that you claimed that the theory of relativity is based on the classical behavior of light, and ending with the fact that you claimed that asfa is not a quantum experiment when it is nothing less than measuring correlations Between particles intertwined in a way that eliminates the effect of local correlations (and therefore any measured correlation is non-local)?
If I were a devious person, I would say that it is your duty to check the things and that if you do not investigate them and provide proof that you were right then you should apologize... but I am not interested in such things. The responsibility for your ignorance (or eradication, if one day you wish), is all yours.
And again you dragged me into a fight. Can you perhaps explain to me where you have the audacity to say that I'm bothering you and that you just want them to leave you, when my every response ends with "let's leave it at that, don't respond to me and I won't respond to you" and you continue to answer defiantly (and this time also lying)?
Leave, don't want an answer. I just want you to let go. Until next time, when you can accuse me of taking care of you.
Goodbye and Goodbye.
Israel, your last response is repulsive naivety.
If Albanzo's statement is not accurate, just clarify instead of leveraging it for your ego.
Say: I agree that Rafi is not an expert or understands less than a person who deals in the field professionally.
or any correction you see fit.
I'm not going to go over 800 comments. When you didn't understand my answer about assembly you specifically said that I don't understand the experiment. A comment or two after that, you specifically accused me of not understanding what I was talking about (this was at the point where both of our comments were mostly insults).
Feel free to check for yourself.
Albanzo
I will quote just one sentence from your words:
"But still he is an expert as far as you are concerned, while people who discovered new things in relationships and promote science, and teach future generations - they don't understand anything."
Please go through my comments in this article or any other article you choose.
If you find evidence for this claim of yours towards me - point to them.
On the other hand, if you don't find even one confirmation, either they don't exist or you don't want to look - I expect you as a scientist to admit it and apologize.
Israel,
I addressed this in my response. Any sentence, about a proven tautological mathematical statement, if it can be applied in quantum mechanics then it is valid. Of course, there may be sentences that cannot be applied. For example, let's take Rolle's theorem as an example. The sentence says that if a derivation and an actual sentence are applied
f(x)=f(y)z
For x and y are different from each other, then there must be a stationary point (minimum or maximum, for that matter) in the domain between them. (Please ignore the letter z at the end of the line). Now suppose I encounter a non-deductive function. There is no problem with Roll's theorem - the function simply does not fulfill its conditions and therefore it does not fulfill its prediction.
The same goes for quanta - it is clear that there are claims that quantum systems do not meet their conditions, but there is no fear that a mathematical truth that can be applied to a quantum system will not be true. True, sometimes we develop new mathematical tools - so what? To remind you, Newton also had to develop new mathematical tools to deal with classical mechanics.
I'm not going to continue the discussion. The point - quantum theory is axiomatic and any tautology that stems from the axioms is consistent with it. If his statement is interpreted as you ask, then it is simply a meaningless statement.
And regarding Rafi - I searched some 6 Wikipedia entries on relativity, and the only thing I found was a reference to a summary he wrote about relativity. Not exactly a scientific paper. In the same spirit, I will remind you that writing an entry on Wikipedia is also something that anyone can do and it does not even begin to indicate expertise. Again - I don't know the guy and I don't want to judge him without knowing him and not in his presence, but there is - simply no - any evidence that he is an expert. It's all about a man who wrote a summary about relationships personally. But still he is an expert as far as you are concerned, while people who have discovered new things in relationships and promote science, and teach future generations - they do not understand anything.
Albanzo, details.
What Rafi said is this:
"During the logic we made additional assumptions and not only the stated one. Giving up any of the other assumptions gives an equally good explanation for the inequality not holding.
For example, we assume that the mathematics as we know it is also valid in quantum reality, but in at least one case we have already seen that the mathematics we knew did not work at the quantum level: the probability rule we knew says that if there is a probability a that event A will occur and a probability b that event B will occur, the probability that either A or B will occur is a+b This rule does not always hold at the quantum level and in order to be able to calculate the probability of measuring quantum properties we had to invent a new mathematical term - the probability amplitude".
A quick look at Wikipedia shows that the concept of "probability amplitude" was developed for quantum mechanics by Feynman and Co. This is exactly what Rafi says: "The mathematics we knew did not work at the quantum level" - that is, the previous mathematics did not contain this concept.
He does not claim that mathematics does not work at the quantum level. What Rafi said is:
"The thing is, this is not the only explanation that can be given for the particles not fulfilling the Bell inequality.
During the logic we made additional assumptions and not only the stated one. Giving up any of the other assumptions gives an equally good explanation for why the inequality does not hold."
From a purely logical point of view, Rafi is right. If we assume that 1+1=3, this nicely explains Bell's inequality. This does not mean that we should adopt this assumption, and I do not think that Rafi thinks so. I'm sure not.
You can find a reference to Rafi's articles from the entry on relativity on Wikipedia, and he also edited the entry on Bell's Paradox on Wikipedia at the time as you can learn from the correspondence page in the entry.
As I have told you several times, if you are interested in discussing physics, let me know. The first question I will ask you is the question I have never received an adequate answer to:
If 2 coins in different rooms always fall on the same side and there are no hidden variables, i.e. the state of the coins is determined only with the toss - how can it be said that no information passed between the rooms?
I don't think you need a PhD in physics to understand a simple answer to this simple question.
By the way, I checked the book I told you about, and indeed such a book appears in its entirety online!
http://phy240.ahepl.org/ModPhy-Serway.pdf
It is different from the book we studied with at the time (came out in 89), which dealt almost exclusively with quanta. As written in the introduction:
The third edition contains two major changes from the second edition: First,
this edition has been extensively rewritten in order to clarify difficult concepts
But it also states that:
This book is intended as a modern physics text for science majors and engineering
students who have already completed an introductory calculus-based
physics course.
I didn't like him very much, I preferred RESNICK and HALLIDAY. But from a brief study of it, this is about the level of my knowledge, except that the last integral I solved was some 20 years ago (there is this thing of khatiyarat)
Albanzo
Israel did an interesting experiment - he connected a GPS receiver to the end of a fan blade and saw that the speed (and height) shown by the GPS changes when the fan is turned on.
Is it possible that a positional error is created because time slows down with the acceleration of the blade tip? We know that the change in gravity from sea level to the height of the GPS satellites has a slow effect (I think 45 microseconds per day) so we assume there is a large change (say 200-300 microseconds per day) at the tip of the blade.
I'd be glad to hear your opinion
Israel,
I really don't want to continue discussing anything, but I feel I have to comment on something you wrote.
You quoted a person named Rafi Moore, whom I do not know, who said "We assume that the mathematics as we know it is also valid in quantum reality, but in at least one case we have already seen that the mathematics we knew did not work at the quantum level".
I can't begin to explain how simply untrue that sentence is. I don't know Rafi, I've never spoken to him, so I won't judge him - it's possible that he meant something true and failed in his language - but the sentence as it is written now is absolutely and indisputably simply 0% correct and 100% wrong. Quantum mechanics is nothing less and nothing more than an axiomatic algebraic theory. As such, it is tautological and does not contradict any tautological claim ever made in that axiomatic system - in particular, any mathematical theorem. The example given by Rafi is simply an inaccuracy on his part: we know that the probability of occurrence of event A (whose probability is a) or event B (whose probability is b) is a+b only if A and B are foreign events. This is ten thousand percent true in quantum mechanics as well. What is strange about it is that it has non-local correlations, so events that our intuition says should be foreign are really not and therefore do not obey the law. Specifically, when talking about systems that contain non-local correlations, i.e. entanglement, one should be careful that the event spaces of each individual particle and of both together are different.
I have no intention of starting an argument. I said mine. You can believe me when I say this is only for your benefit, because if you believe Moore's words as they are quoted here, instead of learning and being educated, you will only move away from understanding quantum mechanics. You don't want to believe me? Think I have malicious intent, or I don't know what I'm talking about? Stop it, my son.
By the way, on the same topic - I noticed that you called Rafi Mor a relationship expert. As I said, I don't know him and I don't know who he is. I looked for articles he wrote and did not find any publication in the relevant fields. But you consider him an expert. On the other hand, for me (who teaches relativity and publishes articles on the subject, promotes research and innovates) you have no problem saying that I don't understand at all what I'm talking about. I'm not asking for an apology or any such nonsense, think what you want - your right. I just want to ask you to consider the possibility that you value his opinion so much because he gives you compliments and supports your scientific experiments, and as far as I know you have no problem disrespecting him because I don't get anything from what you say.
I don't expect an answer. This is a point for thought, and you can take it in any direction you want. Can ignore, can consider, however you like. As I said at the beginning, I'm not interested in the discussion, I don't see the need for you to respond to me, and even if you do, it's unlikely that I'll respond because I'm tired of everything that's happening here. But at least regarding the first point - Rafi Moore's (apparently, at least) claim that quantum mechanics is inconsistent with proven mathematical truths, I implore you to check the issue yourself and consult other (as you see fit) experts. Because he's just not in the right direction.
Thanks Albanzo,
Interesting (and necessary) information
Israel, the explanation for the statistical result in the Aspect experiment is that in decreasing dimensions you get an indication and a statistical image in a low dimension, there is a transition here from movement backwards and forwards in time many times between a superposition which is a kind of "parallel universes" and the image that stabilizes on the test in a low dimension, therefore it is possible and again possible to transfer information faster than speed The light is only statistically compensating for a decrease in dimension. Respectfully blowing water
: )
I realised. You thought Rapi was short for him, huh?
The common denominator is probably that some of the comments I would have blocked were from someone whose last name begins with the letter R
Israel
What about me and Rafi's answers and blocking comments?
If I could block comments here, I would use it to block other comments from other people here.
Can't even sneak parts of Rafi's answer. Wookie, is that you blocking them?
The response with Rafi's answer to the Aspa experiment is still pending for some reason. Here is the bottom line:
"We assume that the mathematics as we know it is also valid in the quantum reality, but in at least one case we have already seen that the mathematics we knew did not work at the quantum level."
And to that I agree. If the math is not valid, there is indeed no problem.
Israel
It's a bit more complicated, but I don't think so. You see the lowest satellite at 0 degree declination.
In flight - a plane on the horizon line is always at your height. Approximately - because the horizon is a little lower at high altitudes (a few degrees)
I definitely think there is no non-relativistic explanation!
Miracles
The "error" in the GPS reading - like an "interference" in electromagnetic transmission - is the essence of the experiment.
Are you able to explain the cause of the error in a non-relativistic way? I do not.
Rafi's answer to the assembly experiment is awaiting release.
Miracles
Really nonsense. What does it matter? I brought the pole to make it easy to imagine.
Don't you see that in the example I gave, the satellite would appear to be much lower than the horizon plane? This is the relevant point for the results of the experiment.
Israel
The meaning of "an object is below the horizon line" is that the horizon hides the object. That's how I know. You treat it differently, hence the misunderstanding between us.
And for that matter - I think the reception of satellites close to the horizon is problematic. In particular - you will get errors because of ground returns. But - the receiver will always prefer distant satellites in the sky to improve the accuracy (matter of DOP).
I don't know why it interests you so much. You got an error while the receiver is accelerating. What do you care what the direction of the error is? Most of the satellites are above you, and the error of low satellites will be to move you away from that satellite (or close? Not sure about that).
Maybe do the experiment on the side of a building so that all the satellites are in the same part of the sky? So we expect to see an error towards the building, don't we?
Israel
It's hard with you... At a height of one km, the horizon is over 100 km away... GPS satellite tracks do not pass over the pole...
But that's nonsense.
Let's take a communication satellite located in the longitude of Israel - let's say 35 degrees east. I am in Israel at latitude 36 North, 35 East. Note that communication satellites are located on the equatorial nest plain, at an altitude of 36000 km (approximately).
Question - Where in the sky do I see the satellite?
In the meantime, Rafi's answer to the question was received.
Hi Israel,
I am very familiar with the arguments of Bell's law, as mentioned I wrote a Wikipedia page on the subject.
The accepted logic regarding Bell's theorem and the non-locality of reality is as follows:
It can be proved mathematically that Bell's inequality must hold for every group in which each of its members has or does not have each of two properties.
If in the EPR scenario each particle is assumed to have either spin 1/2 or -1/2 in each of two given geometric directions, these values should satisfy the Bell inequality.
These values can be tested empirically on pairs of entangled particles and see that for certain choices of geometric directions Bell's inequality does not hold.
From this it follows that the assumption we made is wrong and the parts do not have a specific spin in any of the directions, the spin is randomly determined during the measurement.
If the spin is determined at the time of measurement and for entangled particles we will always measure the same spin in a certain geometric direction, then the measurement of one particle can immediately affect the physical state of a distant particle - that is, reality is non-local.
This logic is not wrong and provides a complete explanation for the predictions of quantum mechanics.
The thing is, this is not the only explanation that can be given for the particles not fulfilling the Bell inequality.
During the logic we made additional assumptions and not only the stated one. Giving up any of the other assumptions gives an equally good explanation for the inequality not holding.
For example, we assume that the mathematics as we know it is also valid in quantum reality, but in at least one case we have already seen that the mathematics we knew did not work at the quantum level: the probability rule we knew says that if there is a probability a that event A will occur and a probability b that event B will occur, the probability that either A or B will occur is a+b This rule does not always hold at the quantum level and in order to be able to calculate the probability of measuring quantum properties we had to invent a new mathematical term - the probability amplitude.
When we develop Bell's inequality, we rely on the axiom that if B > A and C > B then C > A . An axiom is an assumption. An assumption that fits the reality we know. But if we assume that at the quantum level this axiom is not valid, then Bell's inequality is not valid at the quantum level and Bell's theorem does not prove the absence of hidden variables that determine the quantum properties of a particle. In such a case reality need not be non-local either.
Another assumption we make in the logic above is that the entanglement allows us to bypass the uncertainty principle and simultaneously know the spin of a particle in two different directions. If we alternatively assume that the uncertainty principle cannot be circumvented and the entanglement allows us to know the spin of a distant particle in one direction according to the spin measured in its partner in the same direction, but does not allow us to know the spin in two different directions, we can find another explanation for the non-existence of Bell's inequality In an EPR experiment.
If the explanation of a non-local reality seems more logical to us than the other explanations, it is nothing but a subjective opinion that is not anchored in facts.
Rafi
In short, I think the response can be summed up in one sentence:
"We assume that the mathematics as we know it is also valid in the quantum reality, but in at least one case we have already seen that the mathematics we knew did not work at the quantum level."
And to that I agree. If the math is not valid, there is indeed no problem.
Miracles
Think about it this way.
You are on a mile high North Pole lighthouse. The horizon is 20 km away from you.
You are in contact with a satellite that circles the earth in a period of one hour. You see it descend until it almost touches the horizon. That is why the eye contact and the radio did not break.
Now, the satellite is 30,000 km away from you. Therefore if you consider the curvature of the earth, for you it is much lower than the horizon line.
Out of all the mess, I still haven't received technical answers to the questions I posed.
1. A monochromatic photon has a definite and absolute momentum. Therefore according to the uncertainty principle, its location is unknown. Albanzo (the photon gambit) also said that.
Doesn't this sterilize Postulate 2 in the relationship? It is built on the assumption that the position of the photon is known at every moment, as it appears in Einstein's original article of relativity.
2. How can it be said that no information was transferred between the 2 ends in an aspect experiment if the percentages of mismatches in the polarizations of the photons are triple when the polarizers are both at 30 degrees?
For those who are not familiar with the experiment, here is a logical abstraction of it.
There are two rooms. 1000 coins with a serial number in each room. We don't know anything about the history of the coins or if they are equipped with sensors or any kind of device.
Each room has a sign with the number 30 written on it.
Course of the experiment:
1. The signs are not hoisted.
Toss coin 1 in room 1 and coin 2 in room 1, and record which side each coin landed on: a tree or a straw.
So up to 1000 currency in each room.
Checking the percentages of discrepancies between the parties on which the coins fell: result: 0%. Each coin fell on the same side as its brother in the other room.
2. Repeat the experiment with the sign raised in room 1 but not in room 2.
The percentage of mismatches: 10%.
3. Repeat the experiment with the sign raised in room 2 but not in room 1.
The percentage of mismatches: 10%.
Question: What is the observed percentage of discrepancies when the signs in both rooms are raised assuming that information does not pass between the rooms? Is he over 20? Is there any way that the mismatch percentages will suddenly jump to 80%?
Any possible technical trick or trick can be used, as long as you don't leave the room and don't communicate with the other room. There is no problem coordinating the coins in advance, except for information about the condition of the signs.
I'll make it clear in advance that I didn't study/I don't understand/I'm just being clever/I'm opaque/I'm obtuse/I'm not me at all, I'm an old Arab woman from a Balta refugee camp.
And yet, I would be interested in getting purely technical answers to the purely technical questions I posed.
Anyone ready to explain?
Thanks.
hello confidential,
Nissim's answer is also the answer I would give you. I will elaborate in particular on interesting information (in my opinion) - the chemical energy stored in the bonds that Nissim spoke about does affect the mass of a system, as you said in the reference to mass-energy equivalence. That is, systems of particles connected to each other weigh less than the sum of their parts (because the bond energy that binds them together is negative - they gain energy from staying close). For example, a hydrogen atom consisting of a proton and an electron surrounding it has a binding energy of 13.6 electron-volts (an electron-volt is a unit of measure for energy). That is, if you convert this 13.6 eV to mass, you will find that a hydrogen atom weighs about one-tenth to the 32nd power less than a proton and an electron separately.
What I'm trying to say is that when such binding energy is released, the mass is indeed small. Why don't you measure it in the lab? Simply, the nature of the relationship between mass and energy is such that lots and lots of energy equals very little mass. Examples - a chemical reaction of nuclear fission in a few kilograms of energy-giving material that wipes out an entire city (atomic bomb). Another example - if a free electron flying in the air of the chemistry laboratory meets a proton, they will stick together and heat will be released into the air at a rate of 13.6 electron volts, and the weight of the system will decrease by 10 to the power of minus 32 grams. But this weight is so small compared to the weight of the proton and the electron that you won't notice the difference. In fact it only makes up ten to the minus 6 percent of the weight. That is, if you take one whole kilogram of protons and electrons and let them all simultaneously bind to hydrogen atoms (a very violent and extreme reaction in relation to the chemistry we encounter in everyday life) the weight of the system will change by ten to the power of minus 8 grams.
But in principle it can be measured. If you measure the core of an atomic bomb before and after the explosion, you will see a real difference in mass.
Quick and surprising response.
Miracles, thank you.
privileged
That is - the energy is "hidden" in the chemical bonds of the substance.
It's not unlike a spring squeezed into a small space.
privileged
To create certain chemicals you need to invest energy. This energy will be released if the chemical breaks down.
albanzo,
Can I get an answer to the question from you? I will thank you.
Regarding chemical reactions that emit heat. They can occur inside opaque glass. The material remains as it was. You can consider it.
So where does the heat energy emitted from the sealed bottle come from, isn't there matter-energy equivalence?
Miracles, addressed to you too.
Israel
A GPS receiver cannot receive satellites below the horizon.
On the other hand, there may be 16 over the horizon.
that's it.
And one more thing before going to take care of the children.
If I am 1000 meters above sea level, the horizon is 20 km away and the satellite I am connected to is 30,000 km away, then before the satellite orbiting the earth loses contact with me because the horizon separates us, it will be low for the height calculation by a few tens or even hundreds kilometers. Stereometry.
And that really already explains the phenomenon observed in the experiment.
Wookie
you beat me to it..
It has nothing to do with the horizon. What matters is if the satellites are above the plane I'm in the center of. On a tall building by the sea, the horizon is lower than me because of the curvature of the earth.
Miracles
"What percentage of the earth's inhabitants see the sun at any given moment? Hint - the answer is 50%"
What is this, the sun has the population data in the country and is doing slaloms in the sky to prevent discrimination?
The number of satellites in the weighing varies between 4 and 8. As mentioned, the GPS is in no hurry to get rid of the satellite if it doesn't have to. Therefore, if I am at an altitude of 1300, and the satellites connected to me descend below this altitude, then the same relativistic phenomenon, if it exists, that caused the altitude to increase when they are above me, will now cause it to decrease, right?
walking
Definitely 🙂 It's hard to explain to Israel that you can't see below the horizon... - On the other hand, you see half of the sky.
Miracles
Technically the inhabitants of the earth are not evenly distributed on its surface so it does not come out to 50%.
They are also inside buildings and don't look at the sun, so you should try it as can see the sun.
And there is also the refraction of the sun's rays in the atmosphere which adds a bit of time to its visibility beyond where it actually is.
Just nitpicking
Israel
Do you even read what I write? Let me make it simple for you. Let's assume we have two moons, in antipodal orbits. How many moons do you see at any given moment?
Another question - what percentage of the earth's inhabitants see the sun at any given moment? Hint - the answer is 50%
Another fact that I have said several times - a satellite is not received without line of sight. Check reception in a mountainous area or between tall buildings. The fact that your receiver is extrapolating, according to you, will not change the situation.
accepted
And now, like this, between us, we both studied physics, each at his own level.
You don't even care what I'm trying to say? You are reading, for example, about a GPS experiment I conducted, Sharpi Mor, an expert in relativity and the editor of the first entry on Bell's theorem in the Hebrew Wikipedia, wrote to me about it:
On Dec 4, 2014, at 8:58 PM, rafi wrote:
Hi Israel,
It seems to me that this is a home experiment that demonstrates one of the important principles of general relativity: gravitational time dilation, or rather, its acceleration equivalent.
The GPS device on the wing of the rotating fan is at a significant acceleration, so the time in it passes a little slower than the time in the center of the fan, which is the same as the time of a stationary system on Earth.
Since the GPS system relies on accurate measurement of time, this tiny difference is enough to disrupt the GPS device's location calculation.
If my hypothesis is correct, this is a very impressive experiment.
Best regards
Rafi
That's right, you wrote that, then you wrote that I'm afraid to face facts and told me to cover up, and called me a snooze.
It's like before, when you claimed that I was bothering you even though you were the one who contacted me and asked to talk about an assembly experiment: if you really want to interrupt the discussion, don't keep writing me comments that accuse me and curse. Obviously, I will respond to such comments.
Trust me I'm fed up. The last thing I want is to go on. The ball is in your court - if you really don't want to continue, all you have to do is not write a comment that accuses me or curses me or challenges me, to me or to others. Then you'll see that I'm like a good boy, leaving you alone and minding my own business.
Come on Albanzo, aren't you tired already?
I told you, when you want to talk physics, let me know. If not, let go.
Israel,
Your selectivity is amazing. After all, I gave you answers to all your questions when they touched on physics. You didn't claim that I was afraid to face facts when I explained to you why the description of a classical light beam doesn't work as a quantum system, or when I explained to you what happened in the Aspa experiment... only when you sent me to dig hundreds of comments back to prove what every reader here knows - that you don't ask stupid questions but Trying to find problems in modern physics (without understanding it at all).
I'm here, and not going anywhere. If it bothers you so much, feel free to vent your frustration on another site. I know, it's hard when a mirror is put in front of your face that shows you're stupid. It's especially hard when you're an old man and 18-year-old kids with a bachelor's degree can make you school. Hard hard. But you have to deal with it.
How is Sakurai doing? You must be done already, right? easy for you. I read your comments here and see that in fact you solved most of the exercises in the book without even noticing.
Vendors
Health is not lacking... still recovering from two almost sleepless nights in the palm springs.
Israel.
Did you sleep enough last night? The most important thing is health.
I'm here to study psychology (of commenters and article writers). In general, I don't think comments here teach much (although sometimes they do).
I enjoy watching the fights because they reveal the (psychological) motivations of the writers.
it worked..
When you had to deal with facts, you suddenly changed, eh?
Contrary to your claim, the reason is simple. I do not talk nonsense, not with great confidence, and do not deceive others.
Does not matter. The main thing is that you overlapped, let's hope we don't hear from you again, snooze.
I'm not a clown, I'm not small, and I'm not yours. As a result, I'm not going to do research on your old comments, and certainly not to do it "quickly because it's almost 4 in the morning". You know very well that even when you ask questions, they are defiant and aimed at pointing out flaws.
Knows what? Everything I said was wrong. Everything, without exception.
Good luck with Sakurai :).
All right, my little buffoon. Come show me exactly where I am "a man who speaks nonsense with great confidence and misleads others out of his ignorance".
After all, all I usually do is ask questions. You're the one who claims to know everything, aren't you?
But here's your chance. All my comments are visible. So show me and the forum where the nonsense I speak with great confidence is.
Let's start with this article, but quickly. Almost 4 in the morning, should go to sleep.
No obsessive pursuit. Believe it or not, 80% of the time I spend on the site I read articles on topics not related to physics. Every now and then I see an article that deals with fields I know and out of interest I look at it and the comments. When I see curious people who want to know more or have trouble understanding what the scientists are doing, I try to help. You yourself said that science today is seen as an ivory tower - that is, cut off from the people. So far I don't see any problem.
But I do have a problem. The problem is that it is hard for me to see a man who speaks nonsense with great confidence and misleads others out of his ignorance. If I were a little stronger, I wouldn't bother talking to you or your ilk. But I have a problem that doesn't allow me to read a comment that shows a basic lack of understanding of things I'm interested in, like and understand, without responding. And the response can be a sincere attempt to help the person understand, and sometimes - when it is clear to me that the person cannot understand, does not want to understand or both - the response will be intended for other readers. So that they don't fall into the net of his ignorance and at least his lack of understanding will stay with him and not spread to the rest of the public.
I don't eat anything. I don't need to show anyone what I know or don't know. It's just hard for me to see someone who writes nonsense, and even more difficult for me to see someone who insists that their nonsense is true. You see, I talk and sometimes argue with people about physics most of the day. But there is an unwritten law among scientists (and opinion-loving people in general) - before you express your opinion, you learn and understand that you know what you are talking about, and if you come across someone who contradicts your words, you stop, think, check his statements and accordingly you are convinced or try convince.
You express your opinion without even understanding what you're talking about (I highly doubt it, but maybe one day you'll open Sakurai and you'll see that there are light years of knowledge gaps between you and a bachelor's degree student(!) in physics), and when you receive a different opinion you don't bother to listen to it , to think about it and certainly not to check its correctness. This is why discussions between us explode - you are the antithesis of scientific discussion.
I don't understand book publishing, but I'm glad you found something to keep you busy.
Maybe explain to me, to the forum, and especially to yourself what you want? what eats you What is this obsessive preoccupation with showing everyone how much you've learned and how much you know more than everyone else, as if anyone would dispute that?
good, nice First of all, I see that you have ignored all the relevant points about physics. It is good.
Second, there is one such book. In the publishing world, you don't publish two books with the same name because it's a source of confusion (but confusion is your specialty, isn't it?). At least in the publishing of textbooks. Meaning, you are talking about an older edition of the same book. Are you claiming that the level was high and they lowered it to a level below the knowledge required for a bachelor's degree? Ok, sounds weird, but I'll check. Thank God, you can get all the editions of all the books today.
Finally, you wrote, "Let me know if you're ever interested in a real physics discussion." If I'm interested in a *real* physics discussion, why would I contact you? Do yourself a favor, Petah Sakurai. what are you afraid of? A basic book for undergraduate students.
Oh Albanzo, how dumb can you be?
Do you know how many books there are called MODERN PHYSICS by SERWAY MOSES and MOYER? I forgot, you know everything.
This was the standard UCLA textbook for undergraduate quantum studies 20 years ago.
I have no head for your nonsense. I'm here for the technology, not the psychology. And you, Habibi, have a serious problem, otherwise you wouldn't have come here, an amateur site, but stayed in the academic ivory tower.
Let me know if you're ever interested in a real physics discussion.
Israel,
1. I never claimed or implied that I was poor and you attacked me. Of course this is a poor attempt to divert the discussion from the fact that you consistently talk nonsense.
2. I understood exactly what you were asking and gave solutions. You don't understand the answers because, contrary to your opinion, your knowledge of the subjects is too low to understand what the answer is even when it is written for you in black and white. Just like I gave you a link to Aspa's article and you didn't know if it was the relevant experiment or not.
3. "Let's leave the matter of the photon for a moment." Obviously we'll leave, because you can't continue to say that I don't know Aspa or don't understand him, so you have no other way out except to admit that not only are you the one who doesn't understand the subject, but also that my answer did touch exactly what you asked. Except for "leaving the futon for a moment", of course.
4. For the 1015th time, the words that flow from your mouth cannot change reality. The special theory of relativity stands on a solid foundation consisting of the following assumptions: the laws of nature do not change depending on the frame of reference we are in (with a specific emphasis on inertial systems, this is a reasonable statement that boost is a symmetry of space) and the invariant velocity vector for the transformation is the speed of light. This. You don't need anything else, you don't add anything else. None of these things depend on Einstein not predicting the future and performing a thought experiment with photons that do not have a defined trajectory. Einstein generally talked about light rays, which are not photons but statistical ensembles of photons and therefore not sensitive to quantum phenomena (just as you are not sensitive to quantum phenomena and can measure your position and speed at the same time), but even if he was talking about photons it doesn't matter. Because the theory of relativity does not depend on the words Einstein said at any point in his life, even if these words contradict quantum mechanics. So the question you should have asked is "But what to do that Israel Shapira thinks that postulate 2 is built on this incorrect description and with it all private relativity, and this because he does not understand the theory?".
5. A collection experiment is indeed an experiment with entangled particles! Your question regarding the transfer of information between the edges is a question about the transfer of information between intertwined particles! My God, what's going on in your head...?
6. Not your private tutor and not interested in you setting me puzzles for me to solve for you. You talked about physics, I'm a physicist, I felt obliged to try to point you to your mistakes. Of course there is no hope. A collection experiment is a quantum experiment that shows that between two entangled particles there are non-local correlations. Keep saying no, keep…
7. I know about discussions you had with me, and that I interrupted them not because I was wrong but because talking to you is like hitting a concrete wall covered in cyanide. A slow and painful suicide, and mostly pointless. I also know that a person with a level of knowledge like yours will be wrong in 90% of the discussions he has because you have the unbeatable combination of a lack of understanding with excessive self-confidence and zero inhibition to stop and not talk about something you have no understanding of. That's why I think that any person who attributes to people who don't want to talk to him the reasons you attributed is arrogant, especially when I have acquaintance with the person that indicates that people don't want to talk to him for other reasons.
8. I didn't know the book before you wrote about it. A short check on the Internet shows that this is not a book for studying quantum mechanics but an introductory book for modern physics, that is - a taste of results and not a rigorous study of the theory. The very fact that the book contains information about quanta, special and general relativity and cosmology together shows that it does not pretend to deal seriously with quanta. I'm interested in it now and it seems to have more diagrams, drawings, and historical stories than physics. Of course, it also doesn't cover a shred of quantum physics that an undergraduate should know, which raises the question - was the course you took a quantum course for physicists? Or maybe there was an introductory course to modern physics? Did you take all the relevant courses or did you take the first course in a series of 4 courses? These questions are for you. I already know everything I need to know about your knowledge on the subject - at the Hebrew University, Tel Aviv and Princeton you would have failed the first courses in relations and quanta. I guess this is true for most universities in the world. Are you afraid to look at other books too? You can search the internet for the names of the books I recommended and see that they are indeed the most popular and basic books in all universities in the world. What do you have to lose if you open Sakurai and see if you understand or not? By the way, I looked at the UCLA course list. There are 6 courses with a name containing the word quantum. Of these, the material of four does not appear at all in the book you mentioned. One is a general introductory course for science and engineering students and the other is the introduction to the first four courses I mentioned.
9. Now that we've moved on to "my usual street style", I can tell you that you're just a liar. First, in most of the articles I respond to, you turn to me and ask me to answer questions about relationships or the transfer of information. You specifically asked for it in this article as well. True, I initiated the interaction by responding to your story with the quasi-mathematics-actually-philosophy-on-a-dime, but you not only chose to respond, but initiated a conversation about information. Even in the current post you admit it! And I quote, "...I tried to move the discussion to the only topics that could possibly be discussed with you: an aspect experiment...". I mean, you turned to me and asked me what I thought about the experiment. You asked me to give an opinion and explain a contradiction that you claim you found between quantum uncertainty and the formulation of the theory of relativity. Israel, I don't know how to tell you this because I see that you don't deal with reality that well - but you turned to me and asked to debate the issue. You could have ignored my response to your story, and you could have answered within the only topic I talked about (the story and its relation to mathematics). You chose to ask me to talk to you about private relativity and the transmission of information in an assembly experiment.
Do you want me to leave you alone? Let's start with the fact that you don't turn to me and ask me to explain something you don't understand. Promise you I won't respond to the things you write anymore? No way. This is a free forum and I am allowed to comment on something you posted if I have an opinion about it. At the beginning of the post you accused me of trying to create a false representation in which I am vulnerable and attacked. The rejecter in Momo rejects, since there is nothing more pathetic than your claims that you want me to leave you to your own devices when they are accompanied by repeated requests that I address your words.
And in conclusion - a jerk is a jerk, but knows physics. What about you? Petah Sakurai. It's all an undergraduate book, what do you have to fear?
Troll
In Kiryat Anaim - grapes. In Palm Springs - palm springs (literal translation) in Scandinavia - trolls.
getting angry? Moa? Lightly amused, as always.
Wookie
I read your response.
Regarding the interrupted discussions, it's an old story I have with Alfalcenzo, I'm not sure you know about it.
Let me remind you how the discussion unfolded.
The discussion is about education for ignorance, that is, in a religious direction. I tried to show that in a democratic country the religious are an integral part of the system and their weight is equal as everyone else. What you may think is education for ignorance and religious coercion, in their eyes is basic education. So is every other issue in the democratic system.
We entered into a discussion on whether it is possible to change the political system and society. I expressed my opinion that such a change requires external energy, as in a thermodynamic system. For illustration I brought the stories of the second law. I thought it went without saying that this was only my private opinion, which I have expressed many times on the blog. I also thought it was obvious that this was only a story (a sentence for the second law of thermodynamics...) and I did not imagine that anyone would take it beyond that, that I would have to bring citations, tables, studies and graphs. Because this is what is implied by your words "science appears here in the meaning of non-science". Obviously this is not science! Didn't you figure it out on your own?
Sorry if I offended you, I had a feeling that you were going to keep digging and show that there is no scientific basis for what I assumed to be self-evident.
Is the thesis in the story my opinion? Definitely. Do I have any scientific basis? definitely not. Is it of particular interest to me? Also no.
So as I have written several times before, the topic is exhausted.
Israel, it's a shame you'll just get angry. They are not worth it. why do you care
By the way, I didn't know there were palm springs in Kiryat Anavim
Israel
"In my opinion, people do interrupt discussions with me in the middle because they realize they are wrong."
All I have to do is thank you for interrupting a discussion with me when you realized you were wrong.
If you are interested in reading it, feel free to fish out my pending comment which has finally been approved for viewing. Although I predict she won't really interest you.
good week.
Miracles
No matter how you look at it - at every point in the Earth there are on average more satellites below the horizon line. This is due to the spherical symmetry of the earth (do you see another possibility?)
Besides that, Levites are like Palestinians - they move all the time and it's hard to count them. When the GPS connects to a certain satellite, it is in no hurry to get rid of it even when the satellite descends below the horizon line. I see it on my satellite software.
Albanzo
Start by connecting to reality.
From your description it seems as if poor Albanzo is being attacked by the sleepy people of Israel for doing no wrong. Go to the thread. You enter the discussion with an unjustified personal attack on me (denying?) to a bitter experience mode, I answered you with moderation, I explained to you that all the conclusions about the so-called perfection of mathematics are taken from Prof. Evron's book (did you bother to read?) and I tried to move the discussion to the only topics that could possibly be discussed with you: an experiment An aspect, which, contrary to your claims, we never reached a discussion about, and the application of the uncertainty principle to a photon.
Go to the thread. As always, you moved the discussion to the lines of a personal war, and as always, you didn't understand what I was even asking before you started attacking.
Let's leave the matter of the photon for a moment. If you didn't understand, you yourself said that Einstein's description of the photon taking one path from the flashlight to the detector is incorrect. But what to do on this incorrect description is built postulate 2 and with it all the special relativity? That was the gist of my question.
The second question was about the transfer of information between the two ends of an Aspect experiment. Every time I ask this question (many times according to you) I point out that a simple description, BARE BONES as Nick says, can be accessed from the link to my name.
Since you are omniscient Albanzo, you immediately decided that it meant the transfer of information between the entangled particles. Did it occur to you that there might be other options?
I gave you a simple question without quanta without photons and without polarizers to simplify the problem for you. You didn't bother to answer, she pissed you off. If you try, you might see that an aspect experiment is actually a logical experiment regardless of quanta.
In my opinion, people do interrupt discussions with me in the middle because they realize they are wrong. Do you know about discussions I have had in the past? Am I the only one who knows about them?
The book I studied with is MODERN PHYSICS by SERWAY MOSES and MOYER, a standard textbook at UCLA in the quantum course, third year.
And finally, let me answer you a bit in your usual street style:
You claim that "I bully and don't let go". You cheeky little snoozer. Has anyone even approached you, asked you something, talked to you, asked for your opinion? You are the one who took care of me, as always. My only request from you has always been and remains that you leave me alone and that you bully other suckers who are willing to absorb your ridiculous nonsense.
vole
We haven't heard from you in a while. Isn't it time to go back to the trash cans you always dig in?
was Created,
Unfortunately I fall into the trap every time. Note that at the beginning of the thread I was determined not to get into the same arguments with Israel again that were conducted in the past, but his smugness broke me and I couldn't help but try to explain. Of course it's pointless. He will ignore this explanation as he ignored the previous ones, and will continue to think that he knows and I don't...
By the way, I didn't accuse you of being a charlatan. Deepak Chopra is a charlatan because he misleads people with false claims. I didn't say you do or that you try to take advantage of people. I said you have a common denominator - using scientific language to describe non-scientific ideas. That is, a scientific appearance behind which there is no scientific content. In your case, I would love to be fooled if you manage to formulate a mathematical statement about mathematics from the story you posted here. It seems to me that everything you have there is philosophy in a dime under the guise of terms like "perfect numbers" and "Jacobian".
And no, I won't apologize. What should I apologize for? About the fact that you received a compliment from a scientific editor (that the very fact that he gave you a compliment calls into question his knowledge of mathematics)? Tell me what you expect me to apologize for and we'll see if I agree that I should apologize.
albenza,
That's the problem with popular science sites. They attract compulsive troublemakers to them like flies to... In the end it seems to the website owners that they are promoting science and progress but instead they make compulsive troublemakers become mega-worriers. And worst of all - popular science is usually simplistic/wrong/misleading/misleading and feeds the real thing.
Shame on you for the time you waste here in correspondence with troublemakers. You can be content with short responses to the body of an article.
And one last and tiny thing - you don't think it's hysterical that you accused me of not going to your link to check if we're talking about the same experiment (even though you mentioned the link a lot of comments ago, when we didn't talk about the experiment and I specifically said I wasn't interested in talking about it), but Second, you did not write in your comment whether we are really talking about the same experiment or not?
Is it because you didn't enter the link I sent and you're just a hypocrite, or because you entered but didn't understand what it was about because you can't even understand what Aspa did, how and why? Not even able to recognize the experiment when you are served a document with a full description, diagrams, explanations of the results, etc.?
In the previous answer, of course, it should be written "cosine 60 degrees" and not 30, because what we are measuring is the degree of correlation between the two photons, and therefore we need the relative angle between them. When the relative angle between them is 30 degrees, the square of the cosine is as expected 75% and therefore there is a 25% discrepancy. This is, of course, a full correlation of the quantum state.
Israel,
Where to start, where to start?
1. I went through all the comments. Contrary to what you claim ("as I have mentioned many times, the experiment I am talking about is described in a link from my name"), you mentioned it only once. It was at the beginning of the thread when I specifically told you that I didn't want to discuss interweaving and information transfer because I knew where it would lead. You still dragged me into this because you don't have the minimum respect to let a man go if he tells you he doesn't want to talk to you about something (we'll get to that later). Since then I forgot that you referred to the link, so I automatically returned to an Aspa experiment that I know and did not go to check which Aspa experiment you mean.
2. As expected, we are talking about the same experiment. It's just that I take my information from Aspa's scientific article and you from a popular source of information that hides more information than it gives.
3. Aspa's experiment is an experiment in quantum physics and intertwined bits. If you don't believe me, read the link you sent again.
4. Match/mismatch has a name in math. Guess what it is? Very true, correlation. So when you complain that you are asking about a discrepancy of measurement results and I answer you about a correlation, you are only making yourself very, very small.
5. As expected, my answer perfectly answers your question. Nick Herbert also says this, although less clearly, which is probably why you don't understand: the photons are entangled and therefore the correlation between their quantum states is complete. The correlation between the measurement results of the two photons is not necessarily complete because they pass through different polarizers. At the base of the polarizer, the photon looks like a superposition of parallel and perpendicular polarization, and the ratio between the amplitudes is the cosine of the angle (meaning - the probability of measuring the photon after polarization is the cosine squared). Go to the calculator, put in the cosine of 30 degrees and square it. What did you get? That's right, a match of 25%, that is 75% that there will be no match. Aspa used this set-up and this *classic* result (polarization in optics and these calculations were known long before the birth of quantum mechanics), to show that the correlation also exists between particles that are spacelike separated, and therefore the correlation is non-local (which is synonymous with entanglement that even I used in it several times already). This teaches us two things: first, you missed the point and got stuck on the uninteresting part of the experiment because you don't understand some classical result. Second, all the correlations here are the result of the entanglement of the two photons. And here comes my answer, which has already been given to you umpteen times (but you don't accept it because you simply don't understand), that a perfect correlation between the quantum state of two photons does not mean that information has passed between them. You won't understand this until you decide to sit down and learn what information is, what correlation is, what interweaving is, etc. Logic says you should have studied before you started talking about these topics, but oh well.
6. I read your comments and every question you asked was answered. However, feel free to go back and count how many times I had to repeat the same answer about your question with Pence being quantum irrelevant because its initial conditions violate quantum mechanics before you internalized. I'd say it's brave of you to accuse me of not reading your comments when you clearly don't read what you write, but I'm only using the word "courage" here as a substitute for something else.
7. First, it turns out that Hebrew is also from you onwards. The meaning of the phrase "grinding everyone's brains" is that you bully and don't let up. It has nothing to do with the content of your words but with the fact that you have been asking me the same questions for months even though I answered you and that I made it clear to you that I do not want to continue the discussion. To bed I know, Nick Herbert doesn't do that to me, so he doesn't grind the brain and you do.
8. Please don't team yourself up with Nick Herbert. He understands what he is talking about. At no point did he claim (in the link you provided or in any source I read) that information passes between entangled particles. He claimed that there is a non-local correlation. But of course you don't know the difference so feel free to put words in his mouth.
9. I don't look down on you. I mean, I do. but rightfully so. I know what I'm talking about and you're nowhere near it. Ask yourself why you are afraid to give yourself the test I suggested: take a basic quantum undergraduate book and see how far you are from understanding what is in it. Note that I'm not involved - I won't be there when you do it, I don't expect you to report the results to me. I will not diagnose you. I just hope that a little honesty will put your feet back on the ground from the fantasy world you are in, where you are sure you know quanta and relativity and interweaving and information when the truth is that you understand nothing about them, with an emphasis on nothing. That's why you have a lot of questions, and that's why when you get answers you argue and bore yourself instead of agreeing.
10. I agree that I "don't know what you're talking about at all". I know physics, I know quanta, I know what entanglement is and what information is, I know what they did in the assembly experiment and why they did it, and what they showed by doing it. But what are you talking about, I really don't know.
In closing, I'll tell you something I told you the first time I had the dubious pleasure of answering your questions on the site. More than your ignorance, and the inhuman disparity between how little you understand and how much you think you do, I am shocked by your arrogance. I am shocked by your ability to say a sentence like "People interrupt arguments with me in the middle because they realize they are wrong and don't want to admit it" without blinking. I am amazed at your ability to get answers from a physicist in the field to your questions and not even check them thoroughly before declaring that he does not know what he is talking about. I don't expect you to believe the words of the Sinaitic Torah - but Rabak, I give you an answer, you are not even able to check it?! Actually, now that I put it that way, the answer is obvious.
No you do not.
Good luck later.
Israel
No laughing until the fat woman sings. GPS satellites do not orbit in the plane of the equator, but in a plane that creates an angle of about 55 degrees to this plane.
But, let's look at communication satellites, like "Amos" of sorts. They are indeed on the plane of the equator. And what is more amazing than seeing them from Israel? And you know what? They are about 55 degrees above the horizon.
Think again about what I said - for distant celestial objects we see about a hemisphere.
Miracles
The funny one laughed.
According to your smallness theory, satellites that are on the concentric circles around the equator will not be below the horizon line?
Satellites can be light years away from Earth, yet due to spherical symmetry most of them will be below the horizon line of any observer.
going to work
Israel
The dispersion is not uniform and the reception at the poles is not good. But let's assume so.
The Earth is small, small, small, relative to the sky that contains the satellites. Therefore, from the North Pole, we can see almost the entire Northern Hemisphere.
OK, now?
Miracles
Apparently it is rocket science.
Let's say you are at the pole (prefer northern?)
The 32 satellites circle the earth. According to the complicated calculation you performed, 16 of them are north of the equator, and 16 are south.
Some of the northern ones are below the horizon line (exactly appropriate: northern ones, ofek, apheka..)
You don't know which of the northern 16 is above or below the horizon line (do you?)
If the GPS chose from among the 8 that it uses satellites below the horizon line, in some cases we will get a decreasing altitude while the GPS is rotating, like we got in the experiment I did.
I am now planning a new experiment with an oscilloscope, to get the exact arrival time from the satellite radio. If he succeeds, it will be conclusive evidence for the theory.
Israel
Yes... I see another option. There are 32 satellites. The satellites are spread (roughly...) over a sphere (what Raphael calls the sky). The horizon line roughly crosses the sphere. Therefore … a second … a calculator ….. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm …. 32/2 = 16
It's not rocket science... Actually yes, but rocket science is not what it used to be.
Miracles
It does not matter.
Since it receives 8 satellites (I have software that shows exactly which satellites it receives), some of them are low from the ground line. Do you see another option?
If the relativistic phenomenon happens, and the arrival time of the signal from the satellite to the GPS appears to be shorter, it will weight those satellites as closer and therefore conclude that it is lower.
Israel
"Now it is said that the GPS only receives another satellite from the other side of the country" ... let's try it again:
GPS receiver does not receive through the ground. Therefore - all received satellites are above the receiver. Maybe you mean planes? Even then - the plane must be below 60 thousand feet (civilian shelter) to receive - and then, as I mentioned, there is a greater error due to the atmosphere (and ionosphere) landing.
And one more thing for you, Albanzo.
Because of your claim of charlatanism towards (Chopra) I bothered and found one of the emails from Galileo's editors who dealt with the publication of my article:
"Listen - from the moment I started reading your chapter I just couldn't stop... fascinating.
Scientific editor Zvi Atzmon was also enthusiastic. Please read his response, it has very important comments.
Also attached is your text with Zvi's specific comments.
(After we're done with this chapter, we'll talk about the sequel... It seems to me that in the next planned chapters the problem that exists in this chapter as well is exacerbated: you assume that all the readers are completely familiar with Matria and therefore can easily follow the reproaches and cynical comments. Here it may not be bad, but when you're dealing with Godel and Jacobians, etc. ' may lose the average reader completely...)
Mickey
First, we are scoundrels, and we should be put on trial, if we don't publish. Unequivocal.
Let there be a shout, no big deal. This is worth arguing about.
Second, I didn't understand everything, I admit. There is also a problem with this type (genre) - it is difficult to know with confidence who and when each speaker is telling the truth or being cynical or clever. And it may mislead readers. That is why it is necessary to make sure to give transparent hints when the claim is what the speaker really thinks, or when he is being cynical or trying to mislead. This is a problem that needs to be addressed.
Thirdly, there are things that, assuming I understood, I do not agree with you, or I wonder how accurate they are. The part of the sociological-political matter: it is not entirely clear to me to what extent the written things are the opinion of the author, or a presentation of approaches that he opposes.
I marked all this.
deer".
are you going to apologize Or maybe you didn't understand that either?
Miracles
Let's make it simple. There is one satellite above me in the zenith. The GPS calculates the distance to the satellite by taking into account the speed of light and the time it took to reach me, right?
If, due to relativistic phenomena, time appears to the GPS to be shorter, it will think that it is closer to the satellite, and therefore will see a higher altitude than reality, right?
Now it is said that the GPS only picks up another satellite from the other side of the earth, just below it. If he measures less time due to the same relativistic phenomena, he will think that he is closer to this particular satellite, and will see a lower altitude than reality, right?
Take 8 satellites that are constantly in motion. The GPS weighs the signals from all of them.
Therefore we will get a variable height, depending on the constellation of the satellites, right?
Albanzo
Inscholdigen Zee, Main Hr.
As I have mentioned many times, the experiment I am talking about is described in a link from my name. Do you read anything besides your comments?
And if you also read my responses for a change, you will see that what I say is also claimed by Nick Herbert (PBUH). Is Nick grinding everyone's brains too?
So maybe you will finally answer only what you are asked (inconsistency percentages), and not the subject that you feel you understand something about?
Or let go and go patronize someone else. It's pretty clear you don't know what I'm even talking about.
Oh yes. One last note. Even if you are talking about a different experiment, I don't see how my answer is inadequate. You are talking about an experiment in which there is a certain correlation between measurements and you are asking how the immediate correlation is possible without the transfer of information. My answer, of course, solves it - you simply did not bother to learn what information is and what its transfer is, and to see that there can be correlation (both local and non-local) between objects even without information passing between them. But why start now to learn what information is and what correlation is when you can simply decide that if there is a correlation then information has passed and grind everyone's brains with it over and over and over again..?
This is an assembly I know.
http://www.drchinese.com/David/Aspect.pdf
And my answer is completely satisfactory. Apparently one of us doesn't understand what's going on here. do you think it's me Nice, enjoy. It's pretty clear to me that a person who doesn't know what shazira is (sorry, I meant a person who took a course on the subject whose level is higher than a master's degree!) or what information is, is probably the one who doesn't understand, and has given up on it - he probably doesn't have enough knowledge to understand that he doesn't understand, and therefore He blames others. But if you want to think differently, think. As I said - learn or be ignorant. There are no more options. Ask yourself, not me and without anything to do with me, if you have studied and if you know. If you are unable to determine for yourself whether you know or not, I am attaching a list of undergraduate quantum textbooks at the end of the response. You can open each of them and see if you know everything in it and if you know how to solve all the exercises. This will give you an idea of how much you know relative to an undergraduate student.
Sakurai, Shankar, Cohen-Tannoudji, Gasiorowicz, Abers, Schiff.
Israel
The receiver does not pick up any satellite below me.... There is mud and stones and oil and fossils and diamonds... even satellites close to the horizon are problematic, because of the distortions of the atmosphere.
Israel
"Your questions have been answered, but not as you requested."
If they answered by evading and ignoring it is considered answered, then it can indeed be said that they were answered.
I did not prepare any bottom line, not at the beginning of the discussion, not in the middle or at the end. All in all, I tried to understand your intention and whether and how it works, because it didn't work out for me, and I wanted to see if I could learn something new and if I had something new to learn here. I don't talk to people here to be right, I talk to them to reach truths (contextual as they may be).
For example, when you use something that is only your personal opinion, in order to make a claim on some subject, maybe you should point it out, and not present it as a system with established legality, and then none of this will happen at all, because no one will require you to present an evidentiary basis for something that is Just your opinion.
For example when I ask: "On what evidentiary basis do you state that an overall psychological system behaves as a thermodynamic system?"
You can simply answer that it's just your opinion based on what I think instead of coming back with answers and examples that present it as if it is indeed an evidence-based thing.
Or when I ask: "What makes this more than an aerial point of view?"
You can simply answer that this is indeed only an aerial point of view.
The snoozer here is not me, who is just trying to understand properly, but you, who continues the pretense, and the false presentation, instead of simply presenting things as they are.
Shmulik,
Philosophically I don't know. I don't think there is a difference between the interpretations of quantum mechanics where the building blocks are points and quantum theory where the building blocks are strings. From the technical point of view, there is no difference in the results. One of the beautiful things about string theory is that for problems where the length scale is actually larger than the length of the string, the string effectively looks like a point and the theory is simply the same as a normal quantum theory. Therefore, a two-slit experiment where each slit is larger than the length of the string is identical to the quantum problem.
For cracks on the order of the length of the string, I can't think of a difference. Quantum strings also do not move in a defined path, so phenomenologically I think the result will be the same. But maybe I should think about it a bit.
Albanzo
I asked for a reference to the Aspect experiment. This is a logic experiment, regardless of quanta.
As usual, you answered what you choose to answer, not my question (% mismatches, remember)?
Did it occur to you that maybe you just don't know or understand the experiment?
Gotta go to the football, Oof Widdersen.
You have already received explanations for this in the past. Correlation and information transfer are not equivalent terms. Information is a well-defined quantity in mathematical theory, within which it is possible to calculate if and how much information is transferred between two points. It is also possible to prove that without the addition of a classic bit, it is not possible to transfer information between two interleaved bits. You refuse to believe on the one hand, and refuse to learn the basic principles of information theory on the other, and instead choose to bother me for months with the same question that you have already received an answer to and rejected based on... based on what? Do not know. Based on the fact that you did not understand the answer and it did not appear to you.
Want to know? you will learn Don't want to study? You will live in ignorance, whether you are aware of your ignorance or whether you think you are an expert on information, quanta and relativity (even without knowing that entanglement is not a specific state but a classification of a state and there are many such states, understand what uncertainty is or know what needs to be assumed to develop the private relationship)…
albentezo,
To refine my question, does string theory have anything to say about wave-particle seconds and the collapse of the wave function (why does this occur)?
Miracles.
Makes sense, makes sense. Think about it that if there are 32 satellites, most of them are below you even when you are only connected to 8. If the GPS measures a shorter distance for everyone without exception, the observed altitude will be lower, right?
I do not verify that the photon came out at a certain time. The point is that Einstein's description in the original article of relativity is not realistic, and the fact that Einstein did not know it does not change that.
As you remember, Einstein fought his whole life with the quantum description of the photon, and lost.
If you or someone, or someone, or someone, will answer my logic puzzle, it might be possible to show why information passes at time 0 from side to side in an aspect experiment, also contrary to relativity.
You have to take the child to soccer, then to work girlfriend, to work.
Israel
I don't understand why 8 whales would give an altitude error. It makes no sense at all.
You said that a photon left at time 0 in a certain direction... how do you verify that this is indeed the case?
Albanzo, and Gietz?
At your repeated request, I decided to learn everything anew and in depth, but for the sake of thoroughness also to learn German so that I can read Einstein Planck and Heisenberg in the original, so that they won't work for me in translation, the Miniaks. It is highly recommended. Zohar Gott
Is there a beta option that can answer the question that I have asked you so many times and I have not received an answer? Here it is again:
"How can it be said that no information was transferred between the 2 ends in an aspect experiment if the percentages of mismatches in the polarizations of the photons are triple when the polarizers are both at 30 degrees?"
If you have already answered and I missed it, you can copy and paste, or bring a link.
Danka Shane.
Israel,
You can keep repeating the same mantra a thousand more times. Private relativity is based solely on the fact that boost is a global symmetry of space and its invariant velocity vector (which you don't even have to assume exists because it's easy to prove) is the speed of light.
Einstein's thought experiments, which are not - in an absolute, unambiguous sense - necessary for the mathematical description of special relativity, are described in the language of classical physics and are not consistent with quantum mechanics *because the articles were written before there was quantum mechanics*!
How opaque can you be...?
Miracles
I did not understand. What is the connection?
According to Einstein's original paper, the description is as I have shown, isn't it? Can you show me how it is different?
And if this is an unrealistic description, isn't postulate 2 based on this unrealistic description?
Did you understand why the GPS sometimes shows a drop in altitude when it is connected to 8 satellites?
And why is no one answering my logic puzzle?
https://www.hayadan.org.il/2011149-hunted-state-46-core-learning/comment-page-26/#comment-574394
Something about place and momentum and time and energy, when you move between parallel universes you can go back in time and there is kosher between the time of the parallel universe and its energy remains a state.
The idea is that if there are additional dimensions and the particles vibrate in them, the space and momentum will play between the additional dimensions.
And in relation to the super position of the cat, you don't just randomize random things, you give a mathematical expression to the decrease of dimensions, and depending on which dimension or parallel universe you are in, you can meet a Stack or Pitha cat
Israel
You make a reduction between a classical light beam and a photon.
Let's shoot a shell in the cannon. The shell, ignoring friction and the Earth's rotation, performs an elliptical orbit. The position of the shell can be calculated with any level of precision we want, at any given moment. Is it possible to infer from this that the position of any atom of the shell can be accurately calculated?
Another example. There is air in the jar in front of me, and I can measure with any precision I want the position of the air cylinder in the jar. Can I conclude from this about the position of any molecule of the air in the jar?
Miracles
What analogy are you talking about and what is wrong with it?
albentezo,
And thanks for the previous explanation...
albentezo,
And another question regarding the two slits experiment: does string theory provide a different description of what exactly happens there or at least bring additional insights?
elbentzo
Thanks for the explanation, now I need to do some research to understand better.
Regarding the cat - I thought that the possible cause of the cat's death was the random decay of a radioactive nucleus. Is the superposition of the nuclear states actually?
I will ask differently - is there a connection between the randomness of the nuclear decay and, let's say, the passage of a photon in the two-slit experiment?
By the way, a photon is usually seen as something that exists only in physics laboratories, but our eyes, under certain conditions, can detect a single photon.
Miracles,
You are right that uncertainty has nothing to do with knowledge. That's why I don't write "if we know the position then we don't know the momentum" but "if a particle has a definite position then it doesn't have a definite momentum", or at least I try - I may have failed somewhere and used a bad wording.
This is due to the fact that in the formalism of quantum mechanics a measurable value is an eigenvalue of some operator (you can think of it as a matrix, for those who are not familiar with operators). If you take two matrices, it is not guaranteed that they will both have the same eigenvectors - and the uncertainty principle is simply a fairly trivial proof in linear algebra that if two matrices do not commute (ie AB is not equal to BA) then they have no common eigenvectors. Momentum and position, in particular, have this property - the matrices that represent them in quantum mechanics do not change. Therefore, if any vector a is an eigenvector of a position (and therefore an eigenvalue is defined for it, which is what is called in quantum mechanics "the position of the particle described by the vector a") then it is necessarily not an eigenvector of the momentum, and therefore there is no eigenvalue corresponding to it - Momentum cannot be defined for this particle. What can be done? Express a using a combination of eigenvectors of the momentum matrix. That is, although particle a does not have a defined momentum, it can be viewed as a superposition of states, each of which has a defined momentum.
And the reason for all this explanation is to clarify that the uncertainty principle is directly related to the fact that in quantum mechanics a particle can be in a state of superposition, which is not possible in classical physics. This is the same superposition that makes it impossible to say that the cat is alive or dead. I mean, there is certainly a connection between the cat paradox and uncertainty, but it is a little less trivial than how it is sometimes presented in popular literature.
Hello Shmulik,
I don't remember in detail the conversation in question, but yes - in quantum gravity every gravitational interaction is described as an exchange of virtual gravitons (a graviton is the name given to the gravitational particle) between the attracting/attracted bodies. In any case, a black hole does not stop itself from pulling because the virtual particles through which it pulls do not get stuck inside it. A charged black hole, with all its electric charge in the singularity, also produces an electric field. Because the virtual photons that are responsible for creating the electric force don't get stuck as the black hole.
Albanzo
In my understanding, the uncertainty principle does not speak of "knowledge" at all. The principle says that pairs of values, such as momentum and speed or time and energy, have no real value (if that is the right word), at the same time (also a problematic concept in this context).
It seems to me like saying that the more the particle behavior affects, then the complementary property affects like a wave.
Therefore, I also do not think that this principle has anything to do with Schrödinger's cat paradox. In particular, in the case of the cat, I can tell when he died, and there is no stage where he is in an "in-between" state. And so that the feminists don't freak out - the cat can be a cat...
Israel
And regarding the example of the flashlight and the photon - even I understand that your analogy is wrong. It's like going back to trying to wrestle through two slits.
Israel
You wrote "The only reason I got into this whole thing was to express my opinion that the weight of religious power in a democratic system cannot be underestimated."
This is also true for syphilis…
albentezo,
At the time, you explained that the black-black-actuated attraction, in a quantum aspect, takes place through virtual particles (I hope I'm not disrupting what you said). Does the attraction of any body that, in the quantum aspect, end up going through virtual particles? If not, is there a question of difference between the "efficiency" of the two mechanisms?
Why am I rowing? If the mechanism is a little less efficient and also a black hole interferes with the trailer because of its strong pull and therefore I wondered if it hinders itself from pulling (and here the continuation of the sentence becomes a bit silly but reminds me a bit why a natural alcohol concentration will never reach XNUMX percent) due to its strong pull?
Obviously. All the answers to all the questions in the world are "what you expected", because you studied the subject at UCLA...
Maybe you'll answer a question for me, for a change. Simple question, yes or no. You think you know quantum? If you have time for two questions, then the same question about private relativity.
Thanks. This answer is also exactly what I expected.
Good night.
Israel,
I am not your private tutor, nor a tool for you to demonstrate your ideas. I'm not interested in your riddles. I have taught many hundreds of students in my life and I have never met a person who was so eager to develop insights on a certain subject and show everyone that he has insights, and at the same time so stubborn in his refusal to learn.
Your question looks like a probability question (I admit I didn't read it to the end because I got annoyed after one line). Want an answer? Go learn probability. Or did you already study at UCLA?
Successfully.
OK. I think I have already received the answer, and it is indeed the one I expected:
"In an exact quantum problem, for example, a hydrogen atom that emits a photon as a result of a drop in energy level, the emitted photon does not have a definite location. Not at the moment of emission and not a second after. Of course it has a probability distribution of locations, but in the case of a single photon with one frequency, it is a uniform distribution (that is, an equal probability of finding it at any point in space)."
The other answers are also what I expected, exactly brisk without uncertainty.
Let's move on to another, logical problem. I would appreciate it if you could consider it, it is directly related to the topic.
There are two rooms. 1000 coins with a serial number in each room. We don't know anything about the history of the coins or if they are equipped with sensors or any kind of device.
Each room has a sign with the number 30 written on it.
Course of the experiment:
1. The signs are not hoisted.
Toss coin 1 in room 1 and coin 2 in room 1, and record which side each coin landed on: a tree or a straw.
So up to 1000 currency in each room.
Checking the percentages of discrepancies between the parties on which the coins fell: result: 0%. Each coin fell on the same side as its brother in the other room.
2. Repeat the experiment with the sign raised in room 1 but not in room 2.
The percentage of mismatches: 10%.
3. Repeat the experiment with the sign raised in room 2 but not in room 1.
The percentage of mismatches: 10%.
Question: What is the observed percentage of discrepancies when the signs in both rooms are raised assuming that information does not pass between the rooms? Is he over 20? Is there any way that the mismatch percentages will suddenly jump to 80%?
Any possible technical trick or trick can be used, as long as you don't leave the room and don't communicate with the other room. There is no problem coordinating the coins in advance, except for information about the condition of the signs.
I'm going to bed soon (4:30 am). I believe the answer to the question is essential.
Good Morning.
Israel
Impossible to talk to you because you are not interested in answers. You want to prove that you know something that others don't.
You got answers to everything. What to do when Einstein published the article in 1905 there was still no quantum mechanics and therefore the words he uses to describe his intuition are taken from classical physics, in which particles have trajectories and there is no problem for a particle to have a definite position and a definite momentum at the same time. But as I already wrote, all that is needed to reconstruct the theory of relativity is the assumption that light is the invariant of the BOOST symmetry, and there is no need to talk about trajectories or draw intuition from classical thought experiments. The theory is completely consistent with quantum systems and leads to the same results.
I don't know where, how and when you learned relativity and quanta, but all the questions you ask are questions that a second year undergraduate student knows how to answer. Sorry, I don't want to offend, I don't mean to offend, but that's the truth. Consider relearning, maybe from a different source, maybe to refresh things you've forgotten. Do not know.
And you got an answer to the explicit question, no matter how many times you copy/paste it.
Answer your question:
I studied both quantum and relativity at UCLA.
The quote I gave is from Einstein's original relativity paper without editing.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Which brings me back to my original question:
The uncertainty principle prohibits knowing the position and momentum of a quantum particle.
Doesn't this sterilize Postulate 2 in the relationship? After all, it is built on the assumption that a photon has a known location - the time that has passed since the light is turned on is multiplied by the speed of light minus the starting point - and its momentum is also known and constant. So how does it work out?
No.
In quantum mechanics there is no trajectory for a particle. In fact, this is an alternative way of formulating quantum mechanics - particles moving in infinite paths at the same time. You can look at a particle that was at point A and after time t is at point B. You can determine its average momentum along the way, but you can't draw a trajectory for it.
As I said (already the umpteenth time), you are simply trying to apply quantum mechanics to a problem that contradicts quantum mechanics, because it is only an approximation where there is no uncertainty in anything.
Question: Considering that you spend hours every week writing here questions and theories and what not, wouldn't it be simpler if you studied quanta and/or relativity?
Is the thought experiment that begins in the following sentence
Let a ray of light start at the "A time" ta from A towards B
Is it different from what I described? in what?
Is it admissible in the concepts of quantum mechanics?
You did get an answer. You claim not. Why? because you don't listen
If you have a flashlight, and you turn it on, after a second the light will be a light second away from you. This is not a quantum mechanics problem, it is a classical problem. It does not exist in our world, but only describes it approximately. The reason the approximation is good is that what you call "position" of the flashlight and "momentum" of the flashlight (and also of the light beam) are actually averages whose standard deviation is very small. Therefore classical physics, where the standard deviation is 0, is a good approximation.
2. In an exact quantum problem, for example, a hydrogen atom that emits a photon as a result of a drop in energy level, the emitted photon does not have a definite location. Not at the moment of emission and not a second after. Of course it has a probability distribution of locations, but in the case of a single photon with one frequency, it is a uniform distribution (ie, equal probability of finding it at any point in space).
I'm listening, but I didn't get an answer.
1. I have a flashlight. I also have a Mayman atom.
2. I have a watch.
3. I lit the flashlight, or excited the hydrogen atom, at time 0.
Questions:
1. Is what I described possible? If not, what is possible?
2. Where is the photon exactly at the time of 1 second?
3. If it is not exactly a light second away from the source, does it have an exact location? Does it have a possible distance range? Probability of finding it at a certain point?
Israel.
You're not listening.
There is no flashlight in quantum mechanics. If you started your question with a flashlight, that means you're working within a classical approximation. Your flashlight is itself an object whose position and momentum you know with absolute certainty. If you want to look at the problem in quantum mechanics and not make a classical approximation to it, you need a "quantum flashlight". An example of such a thing, for example, is an excited hydrogen atom. The electron will drop an energy level, and as a result will emit a photon. The photon frequency is precise because the energy of the electron levels is well defined. The photon is created in a superposition of positional modes and you cannot know at all where it was created. You know that one second after formation it is a light second away from the point of formation, but the point of formation is spread over all space.
For some reason you insist on looking at a classical problem (where at t=0 a photon is created at a certain point and with a certain momentum) and wonder that you are unable to apply quantum principles to it. I'll say it again, in case you don't understand - if you start from a problem whose conditions are inconsistent with quantum mechanics, don't be surprised that you can't apply quantum mechanics to it.
Quantum and special relativity are two completely consistent theories, and there are mathematical proofs for this. It was even awarded a Nobel Prize in the 60s (Feynman, Schwinger, Tumonga).
Ok.
If I turned on the flashlight at....00:00:00:00 any precision I want.
Can I know the exact position of the photon at 00:00:01 energetic precision? Isn't he exactly a light second away from me?
If not, where is he? In what area of the distance of the light second from the flashlight?
1. You just missed what I was saying. The problem is not the level, but that under the guise of using terms like "Jacobian" or powers of infinity, you are not saying anything mathematical.
2. Did you read my comment? A flashlight is not a quantum object. If you look at a problem of a flashlight shooting photons, you're looking at a classical problem, which is just an approximation of the full quantum problem. In this approximation, uncertainty is very small and the 0 is taken. Your statement of "the photon's position at any instant is equal to the time that has passed since the flashlight was turned on multiplied by the speed of light." Exactly the same as saying "I know where I am and what my momentum is".
The theory of relativity is well defined even without the assumption of classical trajectories of particles (position equals velocity times time, up to an initial position). You take classical results, apply them to quantum mechanics, and are surprised that what you get doesn't make sense...
If you want, I can find you the original correspondence with Galileo's editors. At first I went into exact details, but Miki clearly demanded to keep it at a popular level and not go into every detail.
Didn't we run out?
The uncertainty principle is quantitative.
If I turned on the flashlight in Israel at time 00.00.00 and I know exactly the momentum of the photon, which is the multiplication of the frequency of the photon by Planck's constant divided by the speed of light, then according to the principle I have no idea where the photon is, it can be anywhere in the universe.
But according to Einstein, the position of the photon at any moment is equal to the time that has passed from the moment the flashlight is turned on multiplied by the speed of light.
If the accuracy isn't sharp (there's no reason not to be), I'll get a pretty good approximation.
But the principle forbids approximation, which is not bad, and it has clear limits.
So how does it work out?
And just to clarify, my criticism of the story was not that it was on a popular level. My criticism was that he creates an illusion as if he were discussing mathematics, but in fact none of his arguments pertain to mathematics (such as something being imperfect because it consists of disjoint groups, or the question of the "existence" of complex numbers). It reminds me of writings by people like Deepak Chopra who use the content world of quantum mechanics to sell New Age ideas. Yes, he mentions the words uncertainty, interweaving, etc. a lot, but in the end he presents ideas that are not related to science.
No.
A flashlight is not a quantum object. You could say the same about yourself - you know where you are and what your momentum is. That's because you're not a quantum object. What you call your position or your momentum are averages, and because of your size their standard deviation is very small and effectively they look like exact values. Pence is also like that. If you look at a quantum flashlight, that is - a small enough system that produces photons, and for the sake of it, let's say it is completely monochromatic - you cannot tell where the photon was created. Your mistake is that you are looking at a classical system in the first place.
You have to understand that uncertainty is not some law that someone has enacted and he "forbids" things. This is simply a consequence of the formalism - a quantum state cannot have a definite momentum and a definite position at the same time. I guess you wouldn't say that there is a "law" that says that two times two plus 9 is thirteen. It is simply a result that results from the definition of numbers and the operations of addition and multiplication. The same goes for uncertainties.
Albanzo.
The explicit requirement of Galileo's editors was to keep the story at a popular level.
The only reason I got into this whole thing was to express my opinion that the weight of religious power in a democratic system cannot be underestimated.
With your permission, let's close the beaten subject and concentrate on what interests us both much more: physics.
You say: "I don't intend to answer the question with the information. We talked about it a lot."
We never talked about an aspect experiment (correct me if I'm wrong). In essence this is a logical experiment, regardless of quanta.
Let's get down from relativity right now. Doesn't the uncertainty principle prohibit knowing the position and momentum of a quantum particle?
Tell me when and where you lit a flashlight with monochromatic light and I'll tell you at any moment you want exactly where the photon is and what its momentum is.
No?
Israel,
1. I did not claim that what you say is not your personal opinion. I said that knowledge is confused and relies on many ambiguities that arise from sharp transitions between mathematics and popular science clichés and even metaphysics. You talk *about* math but don't actually say anything mathematical about it. In any case, I find it a bit jarring that on the one hand you claim that this is your "personal opinion" and on the other hand, instead of answering each of the questions I asked, you referred me to others. If it is your personal opinion you should at least be able to explain it or say why you said the things you said. If you only refer to others it leaves the impression that either this is not really your opinion but a collection of quotes, or that you are not really able to reason any of the things you said.
2. I'm not going to read a popular science book right now to get an answer. Don't want to answer, don't answer, just know that Godel's theorems deal with truth claims in an axiomatic system and not with theorems. There is a huge difference between the two. Can you give an example of a sentence - a tautological claim - that has no proof and is not an axiom?
3. I do not intend to answer the question with the information. We talked about it a lot. Do you want to reject the conclusions of information theory without studying it? you are welcome. I have already given you all the figurative explanations I could think of and directed you to the tools needed to perform the calculation (and I even provided links to protocols that demonstrate my claims). From here you are on your own, and you can keep asking over and over again as much as you want...
4. I don't know what "postulate 2 of relativity" is. The theory of relativity (the special one, I assume you mean) is a geometric theory that assumes only one thing - a light ray is the invariant for the BOOST transformation in Minkowski space. That is, given a constant speed. There is also an implicit assumption that BOOST is symmetry, that is, does not change the laws of physics. None of these assumptions say anything about a photon's position or momentum.
Albanzo.
The story and thesis are my personal opinion only.
Regarding Jacobiani and Co., to direct complaints to Miki Elazar and Zvi Atzmon, the editor and scientific editor of Galileo who edited the story before printing.
Regarding "what the hell is the connection between the fact that the axis of real numbers consists of a different group of numbers (sometimes overlapping) - prime, whole, perfect, defective, etc. - to the fact that mathematics to you "...was and still is a large collection of patches, and many of its fundamental theorems cannot be proven at all deepens". Despite the structure of the real group, mathematics is axiomatic. It has no patches. There is not a single theorem in it that cannot be proven" to refer claims to Professor Arnon Avron, this appears in his book: "Gedel's Laws and the Problem of the Basics of Mathematics".
Regarding the story in general, to direct complaints to the Ministry of Education and Culture who chose the article about the second law and the subsequent article "Psychoanalysis of the second law" by Nir Lahav to appear on his machines website.
But if you are already here, a simple question in your field:
The uncertainty principle prohibits knowing the position and momentum of a quantum particle.
Doesn't this sterilize Postulate 2 in the relationship? After all, it is built on the assumption that a photon has a known location - the time that has passed since the light is turned on is multiplied by the speed of light minus the starting point - and its momentum is also known and constant. So how does it work out?
And also my permanent question that has not yet been answered: How can it be said that no information was transferred between the 2 ends in an aspect experiment if the percentages of mismatches in the polarizations of the photons are triple when the polarizers are both at 30 degrees?
You can access the link from my name. of which:
The proof is reduced to its bare bones, wherein Nick shows that quantum reality is non-local because (in a particular optical experiment) 1 + 1 = 3.
Thanks.
Israel,
I don't know how much your stories are intended for entertainment and amusement and how much they are really supposed to represent your opinion, but if they are supposed to represent your opinion you need to change your opinion urgently... You have made a complete mess here and above all you have attached philosophy to a dime of mathematics to the confusion that the connection between it and mathematics is coincidental. What is the connection between the Jacobian of a copy and the definition of a new set of numbers? What is the "existence" of the set of imaginary numbers that you stand out about? I set up dummy numbers, here they are. At most you should check consistency and/or inclusion within another group of numbers (which is something easy to do even in the first year of a bachelor's degree in mathematics). And what the hell is the connection between the fact that the axis of real numbers consists of a different group of numbers (sometimes overlapping) - prime, whole, perfect, defective, etc. - and the fact that mathematics "...was and still is a large collection of patches, and many of its fundamental theorems cannot be proven in depth at all". Despite the structure of the real group, mathematics is axiomatic. It has no patches. There is not a single sentence in it that cannot be proven (what is the difference between proof and "deep proof"?), except of course the axioms. There are of course truth claims that cannot be proven in any axiomatic system, but they are not theorems.
In conclusion, as a story it may be entertaining, but as a statement about mathematics or physics it is completely wrong. If you have something here that you are trying to say, I suggest that you write it coherently without story, without drama and without plot aids. This way it will be clear to the readers what you are trying to say and, in my opinion, it will be easier for you to see that you have no real claim here regarding mathematics but rather a series of emotional claims regarding how you see it.
Wookie
Your questions were answered, but not as you requested.
Why don't you go straight to the bottom line that you prepared in advance at the beginning of the discussion: "You failed to prove, you have no basis, you are rambling and I am right as always".
In short, let go already, snooze.
Israel
"Psychomechanics is an ancient science that was invented by the author about 10 years ago."
Yes it was clear. (besides the number 10) (and the part that apparently science appears here in the meaning of non-science)
What is not clear is why none of my questions can be answered.
Should I just understand that the answer to the question - what makes it more than an ethereal point of view? - is nothing, because it is nothing more than an aerial point of view. Question Mark?
We returned from the palm springs.
Wookie
"I am looking for an understanding of the micro, consistency and foundation".
The point may not have been made as clear as it needed to be.
Psychomechanics is an ancient science that was invented by the author about 10 years ago.
There is also an opinion that the claim regarding a so-called trial made for the second law of thermodynamics is not based at all. The second law itself claims that some slanders are baseless and that he has no criminal offense.
moreover. Historians now claim that there is no reliable evidence of a mass rebellion of simple numbers as told in the second chapter of the story. According to them, the supposed leader of the rebellion, the random number known as Rando, did not exist and was not created. Rando also confirms the claims.
"This is exactly the difference between us and physics," the professor pointed his nose at Al. "Mathematics is perfect to infinity, just as the Almighty is perfect to infinity, while physics is nothing more than a collection of approximations. No wonder you yourself, the progenitor of the mess, was chosen as the basic law and the most representative of physics, as if to confirm the thesis that there is an upper limit to the scientific truth that can be achieved by physics.
"And there is also an upper limit to the amount of nonsense that the ear is able to digest in a given period of time" muttered the law.
"Did you mumble something?" barked the professor.
"Nothing, nothing," the law smiled flatteringly. "All of us here delight in the pearls of your tongue, Professor Leibnovitz." He pointed to the line of numbers the professor had drawn on the blackboard. "Tell me, please: how many special and perfect numbers are there between minus infinity and infinity?"
"infinite!" replied the professor firmly.
"And how many numbers are without any uniqueness?"
"Also infinite" answered the professor in a weak voice.
"And which infinity is greater?"
"What kind of nonsense are you spouting, Law" intervened the prosecutor. "What does a greater infinity mean? Infinity is infinity, isn't it Professor?”
The audience applauded, but the professor buried his face in the ground.
"The prosecutor expects an answer from you" scolded the law.
The professor raised his flushed face and muttered "The infinity of meaningless numbers is greater.."
"Thank you for opening your heart. How much bigger?”
"infinite…"
And among all the great and wonderful laws of mathematics, among all the prime numbers, beautiful, perfect, Romeo and Juliet, lovely and pleasant, have you ever heard of the number 1995, the number also known by its name: "Rando"?
The professor turned pale. "You..do you know Rando?" stammer
"Acquaintance also acquaints" answered the law. In fact, I even went to the trouble of asking Marando to testify for the prosecution. He is standing here" he took out a pocket calculator and typed a few digits on it. "It will be a bit difficult because Rando's native language is binary, but I think we will manage. Isn't it, Rando?”
"Certainly" answered Rando.
"Don't tell him anything!" the professor squealed in frustration.
"Keep to yourself" the law said to the professor in a scolding. "Believe me, it hurts me more than you. Undoubtedly, it is not particularly pleasant to reveal in Parhasia one of the most obscure episodes of the kingdom of mathematics...perhaps the darkest chapter...the rebellion of the simple numbers under the brave leadership of Rando, the humble and random number of all numbers. Of course, it would be much simpler if you mathematicians would confess that you accused me in vain, reveal the whole truth about the shaky foundations on which the mathematical "perfection" was built, admit that you have mastered privileged numbers and that you have enslaved their righteous brothers, fall on your knees, pray for my forgiveness, and let me discover the The forgiving sides of the merciful nature. If not, I will be forced to make a huka and be deprived of the whole idea of the perfection of mathematics, something that, as I have already mentioned, I do not like at all."
The professor sensed, while the audience swallowed their saliva.
"Well!" The law urged. "We can't wait for you a whole day. We still have a lot of work ahead of us!"
The professor raised his chin in defiance, to prove that we would not give in to pressure.
The second law addressed the audience: "Gentlemen, is anyone willing to reveal the truth?"
"Me" answered a young man's voice from the crowd.
"Thank you" said the law with relief. "Who are you young man and what is your name?"
"Gedaliah" answered the guy. "And I'm a math student. I know very well the story of Rando, or in his full name: Ran-Dhua."
"Tell me Gadel-Yahweh," the law addressed the young man in a fatherly tone. "Is mathematics really so perfect?"
"Don't you dare to inform!" screamed the professor.
But the guy approached the stand and continued to speak. "Give in, Leibnowitz. Hiding the truth is not a path that a true mathematician would choose. The law is right. Mathematics, like physics, was built layer by layer through trial and error, was and still is a large collection of patches, and many of its fundamental theorems cannot be proven in depth at all."
"Are you telling me?" Rando's voice was hollow and slightly digital. "I learned this the hard way. Until the mathematicians came along with all their privileged numbers, we were all friends with equal rights, as Kroenker, a nineteenth-century mathematician, said: "God created the whole numbers, everything else is the work of man." Suddenly, classes were created, an aristocracy, young numbers were not allowed to play with their old friends but without reference... it reached a climax at a party in honor of the birth of the little i and his acceptance as a full member of the mathematics aristocracy.
"Who is the cute little i?" Law asked dreamily.
"Root of 1-." answered Gedaliah. He came to give a solution to a quadratic equation of the type X²+1=0. There is no positive or negative number that can solve the equation, so this number was invented. At first it was treated with great skepticism, and even the great Descartes doubted its existence and mockingly called it an "imaginary number" or imaginary, hence the i.
Whether they exist or not, imaginary numbers are extremely useful in various fields, especially in electrical engineering. For mathematics, the simulated numbers are especially valuable, because they allow the description of geometric functions by pure algebraic means."
In his speech, Gedaliah drew on the board an axis perpendicular to the axis of numbers drawn by Leibnovitz earlier. "See? If we call this axis the "axis of imaginary numbers" it seems that we can define each point on the plane using only a pair of numbers: a real number, on the horizontal axis, and an imaginary number, on the vertical axis. Such a pair is called a "complex number." In fact, we have thereby created an alternative system to the usual Cartesian system based on a horizontal X-axis and a vertical Y-axis, but with the clear advantage that we can perform complicated geometric calculations with relatively easy and convenient algebraic means."
"I know it sounds a bit complicated" Gedaliah reassured the confused crowd. But after a little practice, you will argue that the demon is not so terrible. The beauty of this is that the final result does not have to contain imaginary or complex numbers at all. No fun? We started with a complicated problem, transferred it via hocus pocus to an imaginary world of virtual numbers, solved it relatively easily and returned it solved to the world of real numbers!”
"Your explanations make me understand even less" the prosecutor scratched his forehead in embarrassment.
Gedaliah, look for a suitable example. "The legend says that years ago an old sheikh wanted to divide his camels between his three sons according to the following key: the eldest would get half of the camels, the middle a third and the youngest a ninth. Count the camels, and here is a robbery and a robbery! There were 17 camels in the herd, a prime number that is not divisible by any number other than itself and 1. In their sorrow, the boys turned to the wise caddy to help them with the division. The Qadi told them: Soon my son will return from the market on a camel, we will add it to the herd, and make the distribution.
Now with the camel of the Kadi's son we will get 18 camels, so the eldest got nine, the middle six, the youngest two and a total of the original 17 camels. The boys thanked the Kadi and went on their way happy and good-hearted, but to this day it is not known whether the Kadi really had a son, or a camel, and they don't care either.. The main thing is that the real problem was solved using that "fake camel" and everyone is very happy.
Transformations work in a similar way: transferring a difficult problem from one system to another through a series of formulas, sometimes called "Jacobins", solving the problem in the more convenient system, and returning it to the original system solved and smiling.
For example, I will present you the following problem: try to calculate the mass of a sphere whose specific gravity increases as you move away from the center. If you try to use Cartesian coordinates, you will argue that the problem is extremely difficult to solve. But transfer it to spherical coordinates and the problem will be solved in the blink of an eye.
That's why everyone was so excited when little i joined the family, and held a religious and proper feast in his honor, intended, they promised, for the whole world of numbers. Who wasn't there? Every fat man of mathematics, every duke and every count, and everyone who is a little something. Endless columns, which had gathered especially for the occasion, marched in total. Entertainment stages were set up for series. It is understood that upper and lower barriers were placed in all the streets to prevent the proletariat from rubbing shoulders with the rabble and the nobles. Then, when the signal was given, the announcer announced: "Ladies and gentlemen, I ask everyone to kneel, and allow me to present before you the five princes of mathematics, 1, 0, i,e, and π."
You already know 1, 0 and i. π is of course the ratio between the diameter of the circle and its circumference, approximately 3.14. The numerical value of e is approximately 2.72, and is defined in calculus as a number whose natural logarithm is equal to 1.
The five of them stood on the platform of honor, sons of gods lifted up from the people, while the announcer details the lineage and virtues of each of them. "And here we are, we have reached the great moment, the redemptive formula that will forever unite the fields of algebra, calculus and geometry!"
The lights dimmed, and to the sound of trumpets and drums, a huge fire inscription lit up above the stage, illuminating the night sky and the cheering crowd:
0= 1+ e^iπ
Gadalihu stopped in his words, all choked with excitement, while Leibnovitz wiped away hidden tears from excitement.
Rando, who understood the hearts of the mathematicians, continued the story.
"Yes," continued the announcer, "here are the representatives of the people, the five great figures of mathematics, combined with each other in the immortal formula which is unparalleled in frugality and elegance, and do you know that... what, what is it? What is this disorder? Who let a rabbi get close to the stage of honor?"
In front of the barrier stands Rando and with him his best friend Araba, number 6487.13.
"may I come in?" Rando asked politely.
" and who are you? Which group do you belong to?" asked the sentry.
"I'm just telling. I thought the party was for the whole world of numbers."
The sentinel let out a chuckle. "You are quite a number. Do you belong to the primitive group?"
"No" answered Rando quietly.
"The perfect ones?" The sentry tried
"no and no."
"The square ones?"
"Not yet."
The sentinel, who was a random number himself, felt sympathy and identification with the brash and brave number. "Be careful" he whispered to him. "If you upset them, they might still pull the root out of you." "Maybe the bunch of whole numbers?" said loudly.
"Neither" replied Rando. He was born around 1994.99983 but who's counting? who cares? Only when they reached maturity did it fill up and round to 1995.
"What does this defective number want from us?" One honorable matron grumbled.
"defective?" Rando asked the sentry. "What's wrong with me?" He was not used to condescension.
"A defective number is a number whose sum of parts is less than the number itself." explained the sentry. "You divide by 1, 3, 5, 7, 15, 19, 21, 35, 57, 95, 105, 133, 285, 399 and 665, the total of which is only 1845."
"I understand" Rando said to Arava. "It seems to me that they don't want us here. Come on, let's go home."
They turned and started marching, not looking back, while the privileged crowd called after them: "Good, go back to where you came from and take all the other unsuccessful numbers with you, too crowded here on the axis." The sentinel looked at them with an amused look, shrugged his shoulders and started walking after them. He was joined by the servants, the cleaners and the other black workers of the party. To everyone who asks them about their purpose, Rando answered briefly: come after me. Soon there was a geometrically growing column of simple numbers behind them, unknown numbers and daily difficulties, never mentioned in any book, numbers that were not beautiful, not perfect, not prime, not even necessarily positive.
All this huge procession slowly wound its way in front of the dais on which the princes of mathematics still stood, a terrified look in their eyes, because when all the simple numbers began to be extracted from the number line, all the prime numbers lost the support they had always had on the right and left, and soon they were all reduced to one singular point: 0 .
Because this is the nature of the number axis: each number in itself, however important and privileged it may be, is nothing more than a dimensionless point, but the successive addition of all of them turns them into a line with a dimension of length.
Even in a thermodynamic system, "preferred" states of order can arise spontaneously, but which are void in the infinite sixty in relation to the amount of possible states of disorder. It is this difference, between an orderly and a less orderly state, that allows useful work to be produced from the system.
Rando told his story in his metallic, digital voice. And many people in the audience, and even more who followed the "Revolt of the Fallen" in the media - a paraphrase of a well-known story in which the exact opposite happened - hundreds of millions of people who asked themselves every day what the purpose and purpose of their bland lives was, people who were not beautiful (relative to whom?) , not tall (relative to what?), not rich (relative to a destitute but happy puppy?), not smart (relative to a monkey? to a rabbit? or to other people), moody (could they really do anything else?), who worked, if at all, in jobs Those who languished for little pay without a real ability to advance, finally received the explanation for the purpose of their life without satisfaction and hope: to be the reservoir of low heat that allows the whole great psychomechanical system to unfold.
"And what happened to the rebellion?" The law asked Gedaliah.
"To the new abode of Rando and his gang, in the twilight zone between the finite numbers and infinity, to the eternal steppes where you can pass many millions of consecutive whole numbers without meeting even a single prime number, a delegation led by π arrived. The sentry let them in. "Please, please, come back" begged the privileged numbers. "Our lives are not lives without you, you leave us only one option: to multiply ourselves by zero."
"Going back for what?" Rando asked "To continue to be black workers who carry the whole of mathematics on their shoulders? We are treated as if we are just names and not numbers. We also have our self-respect. After all, it doesn't matter how much we add up, multiply or divide, we can never become i, e, or π. Without us, you too would be condemned to eternal obscurity, without any distinction, chance or hope. You are indeed the quality, but please do not underestimate the power of the quantity - we are. We also want a piece of the pie."
"And they managed to match?" Law asked curiously.
"A compromise was reached. All integers have been redefined as limits of infinite series, where each and every number is given an adequate representation. When their dignity was restored, the numbers returned to their natural place and order was restored."
Wookie - there are many more chapters. A chapter for each kitbag question.
Shouldn't we end here?
Israel
I don't lack examples, I lack answers to my questions. I understand the claim in general, I'm looking for an understanding of the micro, consistency and grounding.
Suppose you have some psychological energy, and then your dog dies. Are you necessarily losing psychological energy or may you also be gaining psychological energy? Is there any accumulation of psychological energy or just a loss? Where does this psychological energy go? After all, you also said that conservation laws apply to a social system. Is one human being already a social system?
Israel
Is it possible that the closed system can have a kind of "leakage"? Like Hawking radiation?
ok walkie I will try to give you an example of how it works in the field. This is the short alternative - the long one involves more chapters.
June 5, 67, 15.00:XNUMX p.m.
Nasser happily enters the Egyptian army headquarters and finds the commander of the army and air force, Amar, drunk and hysterical.
what happened general he asks him.
Hey Rice! The planes are gone! Amar cries.
What planes? Some? Nasser asks.
Everyone! Amar shouts. The Jews wiped out the entire Air Force!
The headquarters of the Egyptian army goes into panic, a withdrawal order is given, and the Egyptian army takes a miracle for its life.
October 7, 73.
The dimensions of the catastrophe are becoming clear. Moshe Dayan and Golda are shocked, Dayan talks about the destruction of the Third Temple and offers to start discussing the terms of surrender.
The psychomechanical state of accumulation is one of stasis. Energy is needed and immediately, otherwise the system will collapse.
It's time to show leadership, and that's what Dado, Rafoul, Kahalani and others are doing. They muster all their mental energy to stop the panic taking over the army.
This is what General Joubert did during the withdrawal of the French army in August 1914, Churchill in 1940 and Stalin in 1941. This is not how Johnson behaved in 1965 and the Shah in 1979.
If you see every social system as being in a certain state of accumulation, it gives you the right tools to deal with situations. If you are a youth guide in distress, you need to know when to inject energy into a system that is entering negative feedback. The same goes for a tired party that needs vitamins or even a sad child. The role of the responsible adult is to provide the initial energy to drive the system, and maintain a stable flame.
If errors - iPhone.
Wookie
If you bet $1000 you got a pool and won, you are filled with joy. extra energy.
Your friend accepted Cara and took his hand, you are sad. Energy depletion.
The house takes its percentage anyway. entropy.
Capish?
Another question I forgot.
What happens when you lose or gain psychological energy? Is there a clear/predictable way you react when this happens?
Israel
Beyond going into inaccuracies in the details described in the examples (I can go into details if you want, but I don't think it's on your mind (and it's also very long)), I don't see anything here beyond looking at events and situations through the glasses of psychomechanics (as you call it). I still don't see where it differs from forms of critical reading such as for example reading children's stories through the glasses of the erotic messages in them. It's interesting but it doesn't necessarily mean something that really exists there.
What makes it more than an aerial view?
Mostly I think I didn't understand. Is happiness the unit of measurement for psychological energy?
Every person has psychological energy. Yes? Are you born already with psychological energy? Is psychological energy created somehow and/or at some stage?
What is considered a gain of psychological energy and what is considered a loss of psychological energy?
Is God an external source of psychological energy? So, what is not an external source of psychological energy?
What is the simplest psychological system that can be described?
Nisim, stop interrupting, okay?
Do you believe like Fukuyama who wrote in "The End of History" 25 years ago that peace will prevail in the world after the fall of the Soviet bloc and that it is possible to lower the level of chaos in the world? break up It seems to me that a prediction of world order is doomed to the same success as his prediction.
Besides, if you keep pestering me, I'll be forced to bring more chapters of the story. Isn't it better to go on vacation together with blowing water?
Did you read below about the satellites?
Israel
What's in the air in Palm Springs? The entire living world on Earth can disappear in a second from a gamma wave gulf. What do conservation laws have to do with life?
Israel, what you wrote was a bit long for my ability to read, sorry. But I'm interested in things related to returns and some mistakes in them. We will specify one, you claim that I cannot understand entropy - I claim that logically if there are three dimensions you can think of every possibility.
Two also have a cold temperature, which means negative energy, an arrangement of particles that will slow down the system
The three concepts of order and disorder are sometimes individual, and in addition, there are no completely closed systems in nature, leading to the second law's misosmus.
In addition there are things like flocculations and more than that a dependent return of the particles back.
I wanted to point out a small additional thing about the negative energy, that the beacons of the collision of the particles, that is, Newton's laws give freedom of an additional solution, something that is sometimes reflected in parallel worlds. Sincerely
Waiting for no injustice at hand.
Wookie
You got into trouble..
And worse than that: you messed me up too..
I'm in Palm Springs now, quiet, peaceful, why mess?
Come on, Shane.
In a thermodynamic system, there is no hot and cold, only hot and hotter. The heat flows from the hot to the less bread.
Therefore, even in a psychological system, there is no rich and poor. Most of us are extremely rich by the standards of 300 years ago, so what are the cries of the "bottom decile" about? Is anyone really hungry? Who freezes in winter? Are there slaves?
But if I live in Balcon in Katamon with electricity, water and unemployment benefits, I am still poor relative to the residents of the villa in Romma.
The second issue is aggregation mode. Warm water flows and slippery, turns into cold and hard ice. The only difference is that energy has been subtracted from them.
We look with disgust at the cruelty of Daesh, at the whining of the Palestinians, at the genocide in Darfur, and it is hard for us to believe that we can become like that if we are deprived of a sufficient amount of mental energy.
Conservation laws apply to a thermodynamic system. Also on a social system.
40 years ago we were in a state of war with Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Our friends were Iran and Turkey. The Lebanese border was quiet, and the Palestinians are relatively quiet.
Today there is peace with Egypt and Jordan, the Syrian border has been quiet for 40 years. Lebanon is at war with us, the Palestinians, Iran and Turkey are also enemies.
The enemies and the friends have changed, but under all the heaps of spoons is the same Muslim who is always shooting at us.
A thermodynamic system under pressure tends to expand.
Also a social system. A large number of children is typical of poor and uneducated families.
In a thermodynamic system, entropy increases. The entropy decrease in one part of the system is accompanied by an increase in another part.
The always conflicted Europe calmed down after the Second World War. East Asia and the Middle East were on fire. About 50 million people died in World War II. Since then, another 100 million have died, and the numbers are increasing.
"Until the nineteenth century" - wrote a man called "the man of psychomechanics" - many scientists tried to build a "perpetum mobile" - a machine fed by the energy it itself produces. This hope was shattered with the discovery of the law of conservation of energy, also known as the first law of thermodynamics.
The next step was the attempt to build a machine that produces energy directly from heat - by utilizing the heat energy stored in sea water for example. This hope was also shattered with the discovery of the second law of thermodynamics, which requires a reservoir of heat at a low temperature to produce work from the system, and rules out the possibility of an overall decrease in entropy.
"We believe that similar laws apply to human systems, meaning that improvement in one system must cause deterioration in another system. The "second law of psychomechanics" - the law of increasing human entropy in closed psychomechanical systems - is the reason, in our opinion, for the destabilization of so many of the great scientists, who paid with their mental health and even their lives for the enormous contribution they made to humanity. Intellectual luminaries such as Boltzmann, Leibniz, Gedel, Hardy, Turing, Cantor, and even the mythical Descartes and Newton."
The prosecutor continued to read frantically until he reached the paragraph that caused his heart to skip a beat and the glass to drop from his hand.
"We believe that in the current trial for the second law of thermodynamics, the prosecution will not succeed in reaching a conviction, regardless of the quality of the evidence or the composition of the jury. The reason is that jurors, isolated in a room, constitute a closed psychomechanical system, and therefore any decision they make, whether acquittal or conviction, means reducing their own psychomechanical entropy. In-depth observation combined with psychomechanical analysis of the second law, as evidenced by his behavior and reactions in the trial, clearly indicate that the psychomechanical entropy of the second law of thermodynamics cannot be increased. Therefore, according to the second law of psychomechanics, the jurors were condemned to remain in a permanent state of inability to decide."
Maybe the second law isn't so innocent after all, the prosecutor thought bitterly as he took his place in front of the stand waiting for the resumption of evidence and cross-examination.
In a survey conducted on behalf of the "Psychomechanics Group" and including a sample representing all strata of the country's population, the first question was: "Do you believe that the average person is richer today than in the past?"
A large majority of the respondents - 82% - responded positively to the question, and for understandable reasons. In the past, in many cases, it was considered "rich" to have more than one pair of shoes or one suit. The vast majority of the population worked hard in agriculture, for little pay or as serfs or slaves.
Only a small minority enjoyed a reasonable standard of living, and even that would not be considered particularly high by modern standards.
Also to the second question - "Do you believe that the average person is healthier today than in the past?" 78% answered in the affirmative. Indeed, modern life expectancy is infinitely greater than in the past. It is true that there were people in ancient times who lived long and healthy lives, but most people did not pass the age of 40, infant mortality was much higher than today, and diseases and epidemics shortened and made my remaining life miserable.
Therefore, it is somewhat surprising that the third question: "Do you believe that the average person is happier today than in the past?" Only 18% answered in the affirmative, while a similar number of respondents added that they believe the situation is the opposite!
why? We are healthier, richer, live longer lives - and still aren't we happier? How?
And as if that were not enough, today humanity has at its disposal a science that did not exist until the end of the nineteenth century: the science of psychology, whose entire purpose is the mental well-being of man, and whose purpose, it must be assumed, is to increase human happiness.
Are the respondents wrong? Of course, they cannot measure a vague and immeasurable state like happiness, especially in others, and certainly not in the past. This is also why the questions were formulated in the language "Do you believe?" But many people caught the intuitive truth in the answers.
The solution to the paradox apparently lies in the fourth question: "Do you believe that personal happiness originates from interaction with nature (fields, animals, the sea and against them natural disasters, hunger and cold, etc.) or interaction with other people (love, friendship, family and against them hatred, jealousy or human-made disasters and harms)?"
No less than 92% of the respondents answered that the main source of happiness is interaction with other people. And in addition, many respondents added on their own initiative, an intentional injury to people is many times more serious than an injury with similar damage caused as a result of an accident.
After analyzing the question, "the man of psychomechanics" defined the dilemma facing the group as follows:
Fact: Science and medicine have improved the state of health and life expectancy on earth.
Assumption: the actions and feelings of humans can be studied and improved through psychological methods (education, therapy, conditioning, etc.).
Conclusion: We can increase human happiness on earth by "mass production" of these methods, and apply them to as large a number of people as possible, just as mass vaccination eradicated most epidemics.
Question: Regarding 3: Can we really?
Let's make the standards stricter: let's say that psychology will reach perfection, and genetic engineering combined with natural selection will create perfect people, so perfect that even the traits of contentment and happiness will be cloned for every person in the world. Will the star of Aquarius finally shine, and happiness and harmony will prevail in the world?
No, psychomechanics tells us.
Not with the means and methods used today. These can help the individual to improve his condition in relation to the general, but since happiness is a relative state, the improvement of the individual's condition must come at the expense of the general, or alternatively the caring body whose positive mental energy will be deprived of the general.
This is the essence of the second law of psychomechanics. Order in the thermodynamic system is compared to happiness in the psychodynamic system, and just as the tendency of order in a closed thermodynamic system is to decrease with time, so the tendency of happiness in a closed psychomechanical system, such as the earth, is to decrease, which causes the system to spread and push the dissatisfaction to the social margins that are left behind.
If you succeeded through hard work and study to improve your score on the psychometric exam or the QI test, you inevitably pushed someone else down, because I Q100 by its very definition is a measure that reflects average intelligence. And the same will happen to you if you are forced to compete for your place at the university with a group of endlessly hardworking and devilishly talented Chinese, who will raise the grade bar and fix you without a way out on the left side of the bell curve.
An interesting thesis being researched by the group refers to the communities of addicts. The assumption is that under constant conditions, a certain and approximately constant percentage of the population will develop an addiction - to alcohol, drugs, food, gambling, etc. Addiction will focus on some people, and ignore others. Now, what will happen if we remove from the system to a lonely island all the drug addicts for example, and leave all the other conditions in the system as they were?
According to the data of the original assumption, since the percentage of addicts is more or less constant, after the system reaches a new equilibrium, new addicts will spontaneously form to fill the ranks, while on the deserted island, a mass spontaneous detoxification will occur among the original addicts.
Although there is not yet sufficient experimental data to substantiate the thesis, the implication, if the theory is confirmed, is that the initial addicts, by their very existence, prevented the latter from becoming addicted, without even knowing them or knowing their role in the system!
Equally interesting is the explanation given by the group to the problem of anti-Semitism. According to the argument of psychomechanics, it does not matter at all what the Jews will do, who they are, what they are and whether they even exist. The source of the problem is one group - the anti-Semites - trying to lower its own psychomechanical entropy by raising the entropy of another group, the Jews.
This claim fits nicely with the finding that anti-Semitism increases in times of crisis, when the psychomechanical pressure increases, and also with the existence of anti-Semitism in countries where there are no Jews at all. This is because, according to the fundamental law of psychomechanics, our feelings arise from the form in which we perceive reality, even if it is only a simulated reality.
However, even psychomechanics does not rule out the decrease of entropy in a closed psychomechanical system. It only claims that the mental energy must come from a source external to the system. In the past, most people believed in God, who is undoubtedly an adequate external source. Psychomechanics offers another, more accessible solution.
Just as the industrial revolution freed humanity from dependence on slavery by turning chemical energy into useful work, so psychomechanics, through the good products of psychotechnology, aims to turn mechanical energy into mental energy, thus reducing the negative aspects of our interdependence.
The mathematical tools used by psychomechanics are "reversible transformations into simulated vector fields, in order to create virtual spherical symmetry" - a slightly exaggerated phrase, the essence of which is to make the maximum number of people feel "on top" without losing their grip on reality.
Israel
Okay, let's adopt all the so-called popular general definitions of Western society, and the stereotypes built into it as definitions, for beauty and good and bad, etc.
Next, explain the psychological energy and how it affects the activity of a psychological system as a thermodynamic system, I'm listening.
Life
About 350 years ago there were 100 times more Arabs than Jews in Israel.
In 1890 - 10 times. (470,000 compared to 47,000).
http://archive.iussp.org/Brazil2001/s60/S64_02_dellapergola.pdf
Miracles
If you are on a high mountain, then most of the satellites for you are below the horizon line, right?
Israel
That the Palestinians are idiots is not new. They got a country in '48, and destroyed it the next day.
Nice idea - GPS added to the axis. '10 is below the resolution so it is negligible. The receiver needs at least 4 satellites to determine a position in space, and each additional satellite only improves the accuracy. I don't understand what you mean that the satellite is below the altitude, the accuracy of the satellite position is something like '8.
Wookie.
I can start to try and define, but that's what the discussion will become: definitions. I have no interest in that. Maybe another time. That's why I wrote that if you could accept that Sandy is more beautiful than Roseanne, and that without a definition of beauty, that the voice of a nightingale is like a rooster, also without a definition, that Swedes are tall, blond with blue eyes, and Negroes are taller and physically stronger than Indians, and that a pair of aces in poker is better than 7 and 2, despite my origins The side and without definitions - there is a point in the discussion.
Otherwise I see myself even in a month philosophizing about iodine spikes without approaching the main topic for me: laws of nature applicable to human societies.
Miracles
Are you a philosopher too? We celebrate our independence day with flags and plastic hammers. For the Palestinians it is turned off.
It was a good experiment today. Per Rafi's advice, I placed another GPS on the axis of rotation and measured the difference between the two. The addition showed a rise of 10 feet. The original - more than 4000.
It also seems to me that I have solved the reason for the drop in altitude at certain times: the GPS uses no less than 8 satellites to calculate a position. It is therefore guaranteed that some of them are below the true height.
I am now going to write to Rafi about the experiment. He sounds very interested. You can find references to his articles in the Relativity and Bell Theorem entries on the wiki.
Miracles
There is not and never was a Palestinian people. Example Mark Twain who visited the country in the 19th century, in his writings about the country, which were collected in a book called "My travels in the Holy Land" states that the country is empty and that Jerusalem itself is neglected. Fatah was established in 1965 two years before the Six Day War. Why didn't they fight against Jordan to liberate Judea and Samaria and why not against Egypt to liberate the Gaza Strip? Only with the beginnings of the establishment of the Jewish settlement in Israel did many Arabs immigrate to Israel to find work. Until that migration, there was no writer, or other cultural hero or a celebrated military man who are engraved in history books. The formation of a nation is a process that lasts hundreds of years. I will also hazard a prediction that after the death of Abu Mazen, and he is 80 years old, the Palestinian Authority will disintegrate.
Israel
The State of Israel is the best thing that ever happened to the Palestinians. The fact that they are stupid and destroy everything is their problem.
Israel
You present a theory that you think is correct. Considering I'm not familiar with it and the settings you use on it, how do you expect me to understand it if you're not willing to set up settings?
You may be completely clear about what they mean when you use them in the context of this theory of yours, but I don't. If it was clear to me what psychological energy means, do you think I would ask? (The same applies to good, which does not exactly lack interpretations)
"But how do you know I even exist? have you ever met me Maybe I'm just a computer program skilled at answering your questions?”
I do not. Why do you think it matters at all? Do you think that at some point in our relationship there was or will be a significance to whether we are really people, sophisticated programs that answer questions, angels that take care of the Internet or aliens that turn back times? Is there a difference between talking to a human and talking to a machine (or any other object) that talks exactly like a human?
You see, saying that Sandy Barr would beat Roseanne Barr in a beauty pageant is part of defining some concept of beauty that someone can use as a definition, but it's not a self-evident thing at all. You can point to a perception of beauty in some culture or subculture, and use that as a definition of beauty for a particular context.
The same goes for the appearance of the tracker and her lover who will betray you and abandon you, part of a definition.
You say there is psychological energy, so define it, otherwise how is anyone supposed to understand it.
If I present you with a theory, and use a term I invented to describe something, do you expect you to be able to understand it just like that without me explaining and defining it?
Suppose you say that when a lover betrays and abandons someone, psychological energy is taken from him. What is this energy? Does it exist only within the betrayed man? Where does this energy go? She moves on to her unfaithful lover and abandons her? Is there any conservation of psychological energy or can it be created and disappear freely in a person?
Do you understand why I don't understand?
Wookie
If every time I say "beautiful" you ask me to define what beauty is, then we will only deal with definitions.
Don't you think that the establishment of the State of Israel is a change for the better in the situation of the people of Israel and a change for the worse in the situation of the Palestinians? break up
Do you want to get to the bottom of things? Acceptable.
But how do you know I even exist? have you ever met me Maybe I'm just a computer program skilled in answering your questions?
If you stop with the philosophy, and accept that Sandy Barr will beat Roseanne Barr in a beauty contest, and that is without a definition of beauty, and that the performance of the tracker puts positive energy in the audience, and that if your lover betrays you and abandons you, it will take away your energy and make you a bit of a walking dead, and that without a definition of positive energy - It will be possible to move forward.
Otherwise, as I already wrote, we were concise.
Israel
To look at the historical processes and decide to say that it seems to me like, is not exactly a solid evidence base.
So a change for the better is just a subjective diagnosis?
What is psychological energy anyway? Who uses this term anyway? To describe what?
Wok
Based on personal observation of historical processes.
Change for the better: The people of Israel returned to their land.
Change for the worse: the people of Palestine moved to refugee camps.
Psychological energy does not come from the sun. That's what God was invented for. There is more detail in the second chapter, if there is more energy..
Israel
On what evidentiary basis do you state that an overall psychological system behaves as a thermodynamic system? This is indeed an interesting form of observation, but does it at all, and under what conditions, does it reflect what is observed in reality?
How do you even define change for the better?
And if that's how you see things, then it's not clear that the answer to the question of where the energy comes from is from the sun?
Sophocles
When you come to catch a snake, be careful that it doesn't turn on you and grab you.
asked Oedipus. He also flipped on dad.
Wok
People as a society have changed. But as a total psychological system, any change for the better of one part of the system comes at the expense of another part of the system.
See also:
http://www.amalnet.k12.il/machine/show_item.asp?item_id=14600&id=1425&level=1&num=3
Israel
When I mix flour, water, a little salt, a little sugar, and a little yeast. I can say that I don't make dough. I can say that I just mix flour, water, some salt, some sugar, and some yeast. But somehow I get dough anyway.
People as a society have already made a lot of changes without external energy, otherwise we would still be living exactly as we did thousands of years ago. The political system exists precisely to make changes in places where they are needed, this is why we maintain a legislature, so to speak. If all the laws were already exactly as we need them, we could simply give up this pleasure.
Sorry, but I fail to understand the parallel or connection between thermodynamic systems and human social systems.
Wookie
When I say:
"But who has the power? Where does the energy come from? When you say tomorrow the government will fall. When you say you can force them? do you have the power When you say who will determine what the obligation is? When you say our children do receive the education they deserve, even if it is 0. When you imply that it is okay for different communities to live under different laws in the same country."
The meaning of all this is simple:
But who has the power? Where does the energy come from? When you say tomorrow the government will fall. When you say you can force them? do you have the power When you say who will determine what the obligation is? When you say our children do receive the education they deserve, even if it is 0. When you imply that it is okay for different communities to live under different laws in the same country.
Everything else is required. asked the snake charmer.
I give you the simplest example of all: war on the unnecessary pounds.
There is no question of viewpoint here, there is no debate between conflicting opinions, we all know exactly what to do, are interested in doing, see the positive results when we do, invest money and effort in the direction, and finally return to the same starting point.
When I say "all of us", I mean society as a whole, not individuals.
So if in such a clear and unambiguous case we cannot change reality without external energy - do you expect that in a complex system like the political system you can get a long-term change by investing energy that originates from the system itself?
The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a thermodynamic system cannot be decreased without the investment of external energy, unless the entropy of another thermodynamic system is increased.
Do you believe this is possible in human systems? I do not.
Israel
When you say but who has power? Where does the energy come from? When you say tomorrow the government will fall. When you say you can force them? do you have the power When you say who will determine what the obligation is? When you say our children do receive the education they deserve, even if it is 0. When you imply that it is okay for different communities to live under different laws in the same country.
This is exactly the meaning of all this, to do nothing.
"That's the point, no, who decides?"
Perhaps surprisingly not. The answer actually doesn't really matter. The point is that there is some reality whether we understand it or not, and there are actual realistic consequences that need to be dealt with, and that the way we choose to deal with them is significant whether we like it or not. Even if you don't necessarily know the answer and what is the right way to act, the consequences of a less correct choice can be already significant, and one choice will probably lead to more desirable results. All the ways in the end are not equal to each other, and if you are looking to reach some result, there will be ways that you choose will be more successful, and less successful to reach it, and there will be ways that you choose will not lead to a result at all.
However, if you are with a group of hikers in a narrow gorge when you and they notice a snake blocking the passage, first decide what outcome you are looking to achieve from this encounter.
And thanks for the poetic solution. Confidential, as above minus the poetic, plus prosaic.
I wonder if I can turn the question into a psychological diagnostic tool.
Israel
What will Mary Poppins become?
I would stand and kick them,
The main thing is that they don't reach the deadly snake.
But I am one and they are many,
And the guy sees the stars,
unless they walk through the serpent,
will end their lives in the terrible desert.
They are fighting for their lives and pushing me away.
I catch a cute boy,
and runs away
His mother is screaming, but I have no choice.
I cry for the other children who went with their parents.
Wok
"You said that the state cannot and should not do anything."
eh?? When? where?
If the snake is the snake charmer, then ask him what is exciting and how he feels.
I assume you mean zoologist. But what if to the best of your understanding the ceramic fortune teller has a much better record than the zoologist?
That's the point, no, who decides?
Besides, the majority of Beitar fans would not vote for Meretz even if they knew it would make their lives much better. princip.
It's better to stay in the Balkans for the rest of your life than to let a bunch of Ashkenazis with shemale glasses tell him what to do.
brat,
who intended to catch an eel,
caught a snake. and in that moment,
insisting on his mistake,
paler than his cotton.
The snake looked at him quietly and unharmed,
And he said to him: Hear Paz and Ric,
If you don't learn to understand,
Your punishment will no longer be avoided.
Today I forgave, go away,
But know who you are dealing with.
privileged
of your choice (or the choice of those who do not wish to answer the question)
Do the travelers in the story know how to distinguish between zoology and normology?
This is where the problem begins.
Israel
One more point on the subject of absolute truths (those only the Sith deal with) or practicality.
A group of people during a walk in nature, are walking in a narrow gorge when they notice a snake, which is in their way and prevents them from passing without coming into contact with it (the snake). The snake may be poisonous and dangerous to them or it may be a non-dangerous snake. How should they proceed?
Here are some options (just because I'm bored and I can't write other things I need) feel free to use them or another one.
Going straight ahead through the snake, it is known (common knowledge is made up for this example) that enough poison has been poisoned in only one of them, so at most one of them will die from a snake bite and the rest can continue their trip.
Listen to a guy doing karmic divination tell them he believes it's not the day either of them died and continue straight through the snake.
Listen to the guy who studied zoology and specialized in snakes in the area of the country where they travel, and continue if he says the snake is not dangerous, and find another way if he says it is dangerous.
Listen to everyone's opinions and hold a democratic vote following which everyone will move on together or return to look for another way.
split up and go each according to their understanding of whether the snake is dangerous or not.
To make choices as to who is the person they like the least and send that person to go through the snake to find out if the snake is dangerous or not.
Israel
Of course it's expensive - it's my children's lives. It is my children's right to marry whoever they want. It is my right to work when I want and eat what I want. It is my right to enjoy the money I earn with great effort. It is my right to serve less in the reserves. It is my right not to be buried.
I'm sorry, but the belief of fools affects my life and my family's life.
Israel
Are you asking me if the state should remove the children from their parents? You said that the state cannot and should not do anything. I'm just trying to show you that she can and should do something.
What was unclear when I said that it doesn't matter at all who is right?
You can try your method of doing nothing and everyone can do what they want with their children but then you no longer have an egalitarian democratic country. You have a country where each person or public decides what is good for them and acts accordingly. The law has no meaning, and the state has no responsibility or obligation towards its citizens. In fact there is no country at all. If this is the way you think the State of Israel should go, you are basically saying that there should not be a state at all.
Is that what you say?
privileged
What does the state really have to do? At least enforce the law as it is for starters.
You talk about how to do, while people here tell me that there is absolutely no need to do anything, or that there is no point in bothering to do anything, the situation is as it is and you just have to accept it, there is no point in trying to improve our situation or the situation of others in the world. I am almost not dealing here with how to do it, I am dealing with explaining that it is necessary and must be done.
Yesterday, the woman with whom I share my life, asked me what about having a private school where they teach mathematics, science, English, language and all these practical things at a very high level, and give the students all the practical tools for life in the modern world of employment, but do not teach all the core studies ( or something like that, I hope the point is clear). I explained to her that it doesn't matter at all, and from the point of view of the law such a school is exactly the same as any other school that does not teach core studies in full, and therefore should be ineligible for funding from the state.
I don't know what are the right steps to take. But it seems to me that it is quite clear that until the law is implemented as it is, no progress of any further step can be expected. If you want to discuss what are the steps that should be taken you can do so, but there is no point in discussing these steps if people don't think there is even a problem that needs to be addressed.
The parents' intentions, as I try to explain here, are irrelevant.
Wok
The point is simple: in your scenario, the state should keep the children away from the toxic parents, right?
But this is assuming that the state institutions rely on the majority who do not believe in the prophecy of wrath, right? Even a majority of 51 against 49 percent, right?
But what if the majority - 51% - do believe in the prophecy... and the state institutions rely on this majority...
According to your scenario, the children of the 49% minority will be poisoned, right?
Isn't the existing slow bureaucratic and laborious method perhaps better?
Miracles
When you get a tooth filled, do you take painkillers or do you prefer reality?
When you cross the rope bridge over the Grand Canyon, do you look down into the abyss?
Are you the only atheist in the foxholes?
Point: according to Torah law, mitzvot between a person and his fellow man precedes mitzvot between a person and a place.
Why don't we leave the spiritual world to them and take the material world and everyday trifles? Between us, it's not that expensive.
The impotence of the West when it comes to Iran and North Korea, etc.,
is a lack of understanding of the situation:
There are murderers there. People who use what they have to kill.
The only way is to eliminate.
But here we are dealing with a population with innocent intentions (they believe that the poison is the flower fairy's pollen),
The only way is to talk.
You have no middle ground: there are eliminations - no talks.
the walking death
Probably more people are reading your words, because the topic is important and bothers them.
But what does the state really have to do? Fines on the parents, will produce anti. can you take all their children
And put them in the ghettos?
In my opinion, Judaism also has many things to offer, but the coercion of the establishment and violent people from the ranks caused anti,
So much so that wise people, such as those commenting here, say in the name of Judaism things that did not exist, that today I see no way to dissolve it, but slowly as one dissolves a stone in water. Do you want this to be the fate of core studies?
Also fighting the capitalists - ruling is not something you can do alone. And this will only move by patience, and personal investment of one bringing one.
I don't see any other way.
Unless the war of the end falls on us.
Israel
I have enough places for Shabbat... but I prefer ribs full of cholesterol.
Israel
So you're saying it's better to be loved?
Israel
“With f = mg ?E=mc^2? Do you accept/agree with them and what else?"
Descriptions that correspond to observations/measurements with a certain degree of accuracy. How is this relevant?
Knows what. I'll paint you the full picture. The scenario with the population of toxic parents is inspired by a script in the MDB series.
The reason parents poison their children is that they believe in a prophecy in which there is a judgment day where all mankind will perish except those who are resistant to this poison that they give their children to develop resistance to it. Of course they don't see themselves as criminals. They do what they do for their children. To their understanding poisoning them is the right thing to do.
Now the state sees this and has no information to support this prophecy at all. Should she stop the act of poisoning the parents? I think so. The state is obliged to protect its citizens even from their parents. Even if their parents think they are doing something for the good of their children when they hurt them, the motive here does not matter at all and is not important.
According to what the state knows, these parents abuse and kill their children.
Does the state have the ability to do something? I think so. What is the point of a country if it has no executive capacity to do anything for its citizens? If the state does not have the power to do anything, in fact there is no state at all.
Now it may be that their prophecy is true and their judgment day will come and they are acting properly in preparation for it. But this is not at all relevant to what the state should do when it encounters this situation. Who is right is ultimately irrelevant here.
Do you really think that the state does not have the power and the ability to do something in such a situation? which is a completely impotent body that is unable to enforce laws that have been enacted? Don't you see the political corruption that allows this situation?
Are you really suggesting that the state should do nothing because their parents may know better than the state?
Do you really think we should tell our government ok we don't need to fix this because something else needs to be fixed first?
Do you really think it's okay for a democratic country to have class A, B, C, etc. citizens? Don't you understand that it doesn't matter at all who the population is type A and who is the population type B?
The reason not to start with the extra pounds is that you don't have to start with one thing and then another one by one, you have to treat and fix things at the same time.
I have not exhausted at all, it saddens me that you think that the situation is normal as it is, and that there is no need to fix it, because who has the power, or because who decides, or because one person's hell is another's paradise.
You are welcome but not to hear if you are not interested.
Wookie
And what about f = mg ?E=mc^2? Do you accept/agree with them and whatever?
The point is that what for most of us are solid truths, are not necessarily true for others. If you have accepted the democratic principle according to which all votes are equal, you will necessarily expect to have a live broadcast in the Knesset and a prime minister with a picture of Baba Sally in his pocket.
If 80 percent of the children who died from poisoning were terminally ill before the poisoning, one can understand the parents' motive. The relationship to reality is roughly the same as the relationship between parents in our society who knowingly poison their children, or second-class secular citizens in a society with mostly secular laws, and whose standard of living is much higher than the first-class, religious citizens.
Of course more needs to be done, but where does the energy come from? As I mentioned, we all know what needs to be done to fight the extra pounds, so why don't we start there?
It seems to me that we have exhausted.
Miracles
"They convince me, without a reasonable doubt, that they believe nonsense."
If you had answered the genius son's question that I asked, maybe you would have received the direction for the benefit of that belief in nonsense.
A very high percentage of the geniuses who deal with mathematics and exact sciences in general, suffer from depression, suicide, and insanity. Gegal The percentage of rabbis is much lower (I believe).
A fool's paradise is still a paradise.
Cognitive dissonance does not discriminate between religious and secular people or scientists. See the convoluted explanations in this blog for why no information is passed between 2 coins that always fall on the same side.
Come to L.A., we'll take you to a Shabbat reception at the delusional but charming company of the Kabbalah (to whom half the city belongs, by the way) we'll discuss later.
We also exhausted.
The explanation of Rafi Mor (PBUH) is indeed fascinating, and there is another explanation, much more fascinating, which we have not yet reached. For that you have to go back to the experiment table.
And don't forget your contribution in the various technical advice.
Israel
Newton did experiments and drew conclusions. I don't think God, as he believed in, contradicted his experiments, or what Newton thought he saw in the world.
I know things Newton didn't, so my perspective is better. I talk a lot about whether people believe and I discovered things that convince me, without a reasonable doubt, that they believe nonsense.
Look at it this way - only 0.2 percent of the world is Jewish. That is, 99.8 percent believe in nonsense - this is what the religious Jews believe.
The book they accept as a Torah from Sinai... is full of scientific and historical "facts" that have long been proven to be nonsense. If the book was really such a hit, those geniuses wouldn't have to stand up to justify it, instead of using their time to find a cure for cancer.
In almost every debate about religion, the main arguments are how stupid science is, including solid "evidence" that there is no evolution, for example.
Add to that their cruelty to women, animals and foreigners on the one hand, and their claim to own morality on the other, you find a group of people, let's call it, not positive (in my opinion).
Of course you can write a book here... and they have already written about these, but the point has been clarified 🙂
There's a good chance I'll be in LA, at UCLA, because they're a client of ours.
Rafi Moore's explanation of your experiment is very fascinating to me and I am trying to see if it is possible to easily calculate the deviation in position. On the face of it, it doesn't seem complicated.
Israel
1+1=2, yes it is a function of definition, there is no faith, acceptance or whatever. There is a function of truth here from a context-dependent definition.
Death before or after they already poisoned the children?
No, I don't think I understood the principle.
I gave you an example where the poison is such that in the process that this population of parents give it to their children 80 percent of the children die. Why do you refuse to treat her as she is?
We have already explained who decides what is in the core studies and why, and I even told you what a parent who is not satisfied with the core content should do.
I don't know what they did at the time to parents who gave their children heroin as cough medicine for children. But it seems to me that today such parents are sent to prison and their children find their custody.
Regardless of my opinion on vaccines, I can rob a bank tomorrow, and murder three or four people in cold blood and not consider myself a criminal. Are you saying that in my own eyes I am not criminal enough to make me not a criminal (if I do)?
If I'm not mistaken, the law says that schools that do not teach a core are not allowed to receive funding from the state. This thing that doesn't happen, and you said that if it happens, the government will fall the next day. Why when the law is not implemented, are we wrong when we call for its implementation and enforcement? How come this is what it should be, whether we like it or not, just as long as it doesn't interfere with special/privileged/neglected/discriminated populations in the country?
Beyond that, I'm trying to explain to you why I think it's insufficient, and why more extensive steps should be taken. But for some reason you insist that it is only important to talk about who determines, while there is already who determines, and in unclear attempts to justify inequality before the law in a democratic country.
Water blowing
Why don't you go back to the closed ward at Aberbanel? This is your natural place.
waiting
Wookie
another try.
Do you:
Strongly believes/accepts/preaches/advocates/claims (delete what is unnecessary) that:
1 + 1 = 2?
Toxic parents:
Do you mean evil parents who give their children rat poison instead of a banana?
Death!
Chocolate (which many see as a harmful and unnecessary substance)?
A lecture by Miri Belkin (Mr. Mammoth).
Milk (also Aliba poison d'commenters on our blog)?
...
.....
Did you understand the principle?
Who will decide what is poison?
Heroin started as a cough medicine for children. What did the state do to their parents? Or to those who give Ritalin to children today?
It is clear as day to you (as it is to our editors) that parents who do not vaccinate their children are criminals. Are they criminals in their own eyes?
What does the law say about the matter, the law established by the legislative authority, which was elected in our country democratically through coalition negotiations, that is what determines, and that is what should be, whether we like it or not.
Miracles.
Until about a hundred years ago, a body in free fall was acted upon by a force, the force of gravity, and radio waves passed through the site.
It was so obvious and self-evident to any enlightened person that Lorenz Michelson and Morley and many other physicists refused to accept relativity that claimed otherwise.
Are they fools who believe nonsense? Newton who believed in God devoutly and claimed that the divine spirit fills space?
If the answer is no, why do you treat with contempt and condescension those whose beliefs differ from yours? Did you bother to study Talmud and chapters of ancestors or did you dismiss them in advance as complete nonsense?
If your young son was diagnosed as a genius, would you prefer him to become a mathematician, a physicist or a rabbi?
Regarding the experiment:
Every day the satellite radios should arrive from China, so that we can access more advanced stages in the experiments.
Pan, isn't it?
When are you coming to LA or Vegas?
No one has respect for you
One if you want to understand about movies, there is the genre of porn movies which is highly recommended. Then, if you saw your poor people as returning time, you would speak differently. And the third thing - those who know how to return exact time and montage can see the force of gravity working in reverse and again you can chatter better than one subject. Sincerely
Israel
When I learned Newton's theory at school I believed it really worked. When I learned that doesn't always work, I then updated my belief. Not good?
And regarding GPS, if it is true what the professor says, then it is much more impressive. There is a lot of logic in this - think that the effect of the change of gravity between sea level and the height of the satellites, at 10 km per day, results from an acceleration change of less than one G. It is not difficult to calculate how many G you had in the experiment and it seems to me something like 4 G.
Can you check the rotation speed? From this it is easy to calculate the acceleration.
Israel
What is unclear in my answer? Do not believe. Faith is a way of thinking that I do not use. Maybe our definitions of the word are different. Define what you mean when you say believe, and maybe I can give you a better answer.
I'm still waiting for an answer regarding what the state should do with a population of parents who poison their children?
Shmulik
I read, I read.
And there it says:
"The State of Israel is characterized as a country with many divisions, which are reflected in aspects of religion, demography and economic and social classes."
And so the Minister of Education at the time, Yitzhak Levy of the Federal Ministry of Education and Culture, was tasked with determining the basic plan for all recognized educational institutions.
to expand?
Wookie
Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my question. So here is Rachel the daughter, Rebecca the mother, and Sarah the grandmother:
1. Do you believe and accept that there is a force of attraction between two bodies whose rate is the product of the masses of the bodies by the universal gravitational constant G divided by the square of the distance?
2. Do you believe and accept that a body in free fall is subject to a gravitational force whose rate is mg, times the mass of the body times the acceleration caused by the earth's gravitational field?
Nissim, who believes in what works:
Does Newton's theory work? Aren't countless technologies based on it?
And in context, here is Rafi Mor's response to the GPS experiment:
Hi Israel,
It seems to me that this is a home experiment that demonstrates one of the important principles of general relativity: gravitational time dilation, or rather, its acceleration equivalent.
The GPS device on the wing of the rotating fan is at a significant acceleration, so the time in it passes a little slower than the time in the center of the fan, which is the same as the time of a stationary system on Earth.
Since the GPS system relies on accurate measurement of time, this tiny difference is enough to disrupt the GPS device's location calculation.
If my hypothesis is correct, this is a very impressive experiment.
Best regards
Rafi
I think he is actually nurse rached
Miracles
As for gushing water, you will remember the movie Cuckoo's Nest. He must have run away from there
Water blowing
All you and I have in common is that we both don't understand what you're talking about.
The wonderful Socrates, a little bit of Bach flowers and I'll pass
Water blowing
You are now in terminal cognitive regression. Maybe leave us with your nonsense. It's obvious you've lost your mind.
Mr. Nissim, if you don't see a connection between homeopathy and placebo, you are lying to yourself, and for that matter, if you also saw the differences in the arrangement of the good above any parallel world, maybe and I'm not sure about it, you would see that it arises from the treatment of proven drugs because there are also real things there The resuscitation that you miss (in your narrow world) with respect
Water blowing
There is no connection between what I said and placebo. Homeopathy - does not work and is even dangerous. I know a case where a couple went to prison because they killed their daughter, and we all know people who died because they took a homeopathic substance and not a medicine.
Prayer does not work and is even harmful, and this has been proven in an experiment.
A placebo can be used as part of medical treatment and also works on animals. There is a scientific explanation for why it works. And there is a scientific explanation why homeopathy does not work.
Since placebo is at all associated with the list you rejected, and you explain how placebo is "proven" by itself, then we will talk, honorable Mr. Nissim, be careful with your inner truth, maybe it will shake a little, with respect
Water blowing
Those who sell homeopathy will not agree with you. And the one who determines which treatment is appropriate and whether it is worth treating with a placebo is a doctor. And a doctor should not prescribe a homeopathic substance.
Water blowing
The effectiveness of medical treatment is measured relative to placebo, so what you said is irrelevant.
Dear Mr. Nissim, you can scientifically associate the whole beautiful list you rejected with placebo, and therefore "scientifically" you are wrong, and can understand it in the context of time reversals as the best arrangement above after the intervention of intelligence, with respect
A little inspiration thanks to Israel Shapira and Kirschenbaum.
Thank you Haim.
Israel
I believe in what works. Aspirin - works. Homeopathic medicines - does not work. Tetanus vaccine - works. Prayer - does not work. Quantum theory - works. Numerology - does not work.
I've reached the stage where I can use judgment and don't need to check everything on myself.
I also have a lot of curiosity, and I research and learn why certain things work and others don't.
And the most interesting? I have found that people who believe one nonsense tend to believe all nonsense.
privileged
It is new that you are also a poet
A company, a tactic.
If you want to influence society, you have to think long term.
We all think we know what is needed. The question is how to implement it.
Miracles,
I'm still thinking about things,
And meanwhile what I think, is that you have to choose between
The power and the brain.
What to do? But the angel who distributed the talents,
Not putting them all in one place.
Take Galileo for example. Why did the church arrest him?
Because she sold what she had: power.
And he sold what he had:
But what did Napoleon say? In the war between the wind and the sword,
At the end the wind is increasing.
And I believe Galileo knew that.
So I do not underestimate the power of the sword,
But feel like I have a trump card,
and invests in it.
I'm not going to instill a meaningful message,
The way you start a message without content.
"Well, as far as brains go, I got the lion's share, but when it comes to brute strength...I'm afraid I'm at the shallow end of the gene pool."
(The Lion King)
Steinzo,
are you still here? did you wipe the tears Nevertheless, the opposition is harassed
I, I said that Bibi is not good for the Jews. It is terrible and leads us to an apartheid state or a binational state. Democracy will no longer remain here (if you can call a country that controls millions of Arabs for almost 50 years a democracy)
Israel,
I wrote in my previous comment who determines the core and provided a link to Wikipedia. didn't you read
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/תוכנית_הליבה
Israel
And what was unclear or clear in my answer? She was: "I don't believe in anything." (You can look, it's written there in the message before you said I didn't answer your question)
Who said you shouldn't consider the opinions of other people who believe nonsense?
By the way, even if I am a first-class citizen, this does not justify the existence of second-class citizens and beyond
Have fun playing poker by the way
My question was clearly formulated:
What do you believe in?
in science?
in math?
in physics?
In evolution?
By gravity?
But apparently those are type D questions, and therefore do not require an answer.
Like the opinions of other people who believe in nonsense (God Elek, tradition, mitzvot) and therefore should not be taken into account.
Well, in the meantime I also have my priorities (poker) so have a good evening.
Israel
Are you sure? Because recently it seems that whoever decides to act as a law abiding citizen in Israel is more like a second class citizen
I can hardly remember the last time my Knesset representatives were in a coalition. The way the politicians in Israel behave, they only represent the public that elected them (and that's not always true either) and to hell with the rest of the public in Israel, so maybe technically they are my representatives but they really don't behave accordingly. (Remind me to change my mind on the matter when I become a billionaire who receives public funds to play with and burn as I see fit)
The fact that mistakes were made in the past does not mean that there is no need to standardize in the present
Someone's belief that some action he performs is for the benefit of someone, does not necessarily make this action one that is indeed for the benefit of the beneficiary.
None of the things written answered the question of what the state should do with the population of poisoners, but for the sake of calming the spirits, let's assume that I am the poisoner (my daughters, for example, would probably definitely not benefit from adopting my sense of humor). Should the state allow me to do whatever I want with my children? To remind you, they are citizens of the country (not that it should change much in this scenario if they weren't).
"This country belongs to everyone."
But does it belong to some more than others?
"No one has the right - or rather the power - to determine what is poison and what is royal food."
So why is it allowed to remove children from homes where their parents neglect or abuse them?
What question did I not answer?
You are not second class public.
Your representatives in the Knesset gave up things that in their eyes are less essential than what they received in return.
Parents do not intentionally poison their children. They believe they are acting in their own interest.
This country belongs to everyone. No one has the right - or rather the power - to determine what is poison and what is royal food.
And now in a nutshell, answer the question in my previous comment. I already answered your questions.
Israel
No, you didn't answer, because the question was what do you think the state should do with this population of parents, not who this population is.
I already told you who decides. I don't understand why you are not willing to accept my answer.
I don't believe in anything. Who believes what is not relevant at all. The creation of unequal publics before the law in a democratic country is the relevant thing. Are you ready to live as a second-class public in your country? What about type C? (continue freely with the rest of the thousand verses...)
"You didn't answer the question about the toxic parents?"
Actually yes...
"In their opinion, you are the one who poisons your children every day with abominations and pranks. Why don't you start by removing evolution from the curriculum, mercifully?"
We always return to the same basic question: Who will decide?
Let's do a little experiment in psychomechanics: they believe in God Almighty even though there is no evidence or direct proof of his existence, right?
What do you believe in?
in science?
in math?
in physics?
In evolution?
By gravity?
Delete the unnecessary.
Israel
everyone's. As if my parents and I were satisfied with all the study content that is mandatory to study in the education system (we are not). Those who do not like the content of the core studies in the education system enough that they decide their children should not study them, may decide to leave. I assure you that this is exactly the consideration I will be forced to make with Shmulik's estimates come true.
You didn't answer the question about the toxic parents?
I thought we already agreed that the governments are on the face. Although this has nothing to do with stopping funding for schools that don't teach core studies (except that they don't, if they stopped this funding, there would be something good to say about them)
"No matter what their parents think the kids need"
Parents of which children? your? My? Whose?
After all, in their opinion, you are the one who poisons your children daily with abominations and filth. Why don't you start by eliminating evolution from the curriculum, mercifully?
"We should not give any financial support to the educational institutions to which they send their children."
Tomorrow the government will fall to you.
Oh, she already fell yesterday..
Israel
The state has a responsibility to its citizens, both when they are babies and when they are small or older children, regardless of what their parents think the children need. What do you think the state should do with the population of parents who think that their children need to eat gradually increasing amounts of poison in order for them to develop resistance to it, and that the children who do not develop resistance to it are simply unsuitable for the world and do not deserve life, while eighty percent of their children die?
As for what can be done with parents who do not want core studies. At a minimum, no financial support should be given to the educational institutions to which they send their children. Beyond that, they can also be given fines, and even a more severe punishment like in cases of child abuse (although I don't know if the word like is correct here because it is much closer to being interpreted as child abuse). Do you believe that the government has no power to do anything about it? To my memory, the social services in Israel more than once take children out of the custody of parents who are unable to take care of them properly.
Wookie
"When you allow populations not to learn core studies"
Their parents don't want core studies. They want a Gemara and a second language. Can you force them? do you have the power
My pounds are also quite fine, but you and I are virtuous people. Maybe they will vote for us?
Israel
Are you kidding me? We are responding to an article about education. If we were in the comments of an article that deals with another field, I would talk about it.
When you allow populations not to study core studies, without there being any consequences, and you do not enforce the law on the matter, you are neglecting all the students who study in these frameworks (or do not study).
Who does this? Our dear government (and our many dear governments), and we, when we keep voting for people who fail or don't try at all time and time again.
I don't know about you, but my extra pounds are fine, thanks.
Wookie
"When you neglect and deteriorate"
So why did you take care of the education system? When was the last time you visited Lod? in the police? In a Gaza hijacker?
And who neglects and deteriorates? We all have good and noble intentions, but where does the energy to realize them come from?
Why don't we start with the extra pounds. After all, we all know exactly what needs to be done, and how important it is, so why is the population getting fatter?
Israel
Thanks, my expectations are already low, but this is not an answer, this is an evasion.
When the level of education is neglected and degraded, it can also be expected that the level of the people and the governments will only get worse and worse, and so on in a negative feedback loop that feeds itself.
A democracy like ours requires the state to treat its citizens as equals, and you are basically saying here that it is permissible to waive that.
Israel
Are you saying that the government is screwed up because the people are screwed up?
You're right
Anonymous - me.
Miracles
And who will determine who will be in the Ministry of Education?
Do you want Yishai in the Ministry of Defense? The treasury?
Or maybe you are Polishook with 3 mandates and 3 portfolios (culture, foreign affairs and infrastructures a.k.a. initials)?
A democracy like ours requires by its very nature all possible combinations, and this is my answer to Wookie as well: lower expectations. A government is no better than the people who elect it.
Steinzo
The majority of the people did not choose Likud or Bibi. The majority of the people voted for lists that he did not head, and the list he headed was a combined list of the Likud and Israel Beitenu. He simply topped the list that won the most votes. Beyond that, Bibi is bad for almost everyone who doesn't finance it, and it's not really good for them either.
Israel
You're right. And this is what actually happens.
The majority of the people chose Likud and Bibi is the one who decides. Who said Bibi is bad for the Jews?
Israel
By this, of course, I meant the necessary basic things that they will learn, which are expressed in core studies. I am not talking here at all about what should be included there, but about the underlying principle.
The one who decides is the one elected by the public for this, or who is appointed by the elected officials for this. When it is hoped that they will make decisions that are good enough to serve the general public in the best possible way for their education and ability to live their lives in some hypothetical optimal way.
But if you want, you can go back to the beginning and explain. All you need is to answer 4 questions.
Is it permissible for the government to lie (for the sake of eliminating doubt this lie is knowingly) to its citizens in order to strengthen its power or preserve its rule?
Is the government obligated to all its citizens equally or is it allowed to decide that it can treat a citizen born in accordance with one condition in one way, while a citizen born in compliance with another condition can be treated in another way?
Should the government give the citizen the maximum tools it can give him so that he can live in the best way?
Is it permissible for the government to decide that the good of a certain public is not of interest to it, and to degrade and discriminate against citizens born to this public in order to bring about its backwardness and/or its extinction?
Logic says that the Ministry of Education.
First speaker: A little about the technocracy of the core studies
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/תוכנית_הליבה
Wookie
"You probably didn't understand that the state is obligated to determine this."
I assume that by "this" you surely meant the laws of the Torah?
But in principle you are right. I did not understand. Israel does not understand anything. Israel is just a small pawn in the great game of life. Leaving country management to Bibi, Roentgen, and Walkie.
I also don't understand why a government without ultra-Orthodox disintegrated in the blink of an eye.
Maybe God's salvation in the blink of an eye?
And now Israel goes to work.
Israel,
In the meantime, professional committees appointed by the minister determine this. They consist of experts in various fields and they take into account all kinds of factors, some of which are the wider world. In this respect, the gap has already fallen and there is a decision on what the core plan is, but there is no implementation (I have already written this 3 times).
It is clear that in ten years, maybe less, the Jewish Sharia will take over everything and we all know what this will do to the country and I have nothing but to quote myself: education without core studies like it is abuse of the helpless. This is not a theoretical matter but facts. Countries that do not have science, mathematics and English studies, along with spiritual studies, are left behind and become backward countries. All this in view of the fact that the job market is becoming more and more challenging with the introduction of artificial intelligence. You can no longer just be mediocre and survive.
Israel
You missed something, because you probably didn't understand that the state is obliged to determine this.
Wookie.
I didn't miss anything. Do you understand my point?
Who will determine what are "necessary common basic things"? Why is keeping kosher not a basic necessity?
Shmulik
There is nothing about Asimov and the Mossad, the best trilogy of all time.
Miracles
Must be a compulsory education law.
Obligation of TIR, obligation of SSA, obligation to honor father, obligation of Nida...
Who will determine what the obligation is?
Israel
You miss the point. Not everyone needs to learn the exact same things, but everyone does need to learn some necessary common basics.
I don't have the strength to repeat myself again, but the state is obligated to its citizens. Part of this commitment is to provide them with an education that will allow them to live their lives in the best possible way (according to the state's understanding). The state must not discriminate and decide that a child or children of a certain community are not entitled to or are exempt from this education, whether it means degrading them or promoting them (since then this is simply degradation and discrimination of the rest of the population). Therefore, it is committed to creating some kind of core learning framework, and is committed to ensuring that all its citizens learn it.
I was not talking about the education they deserve, but the education they are entitled to.
Israel
Are you saying that the state cannot enact a compulsory education law?
Israel,
You have to keep something to yourself and of course I remember psychohistory. Asimov's genius is expressed in the way he presented, in such a beautiful way, how a single event can change an entire history. In order to fix things, you need the other institution.
Wow, you took me back about 25 years and I have to read the (original) series again. Rabbi Daniel and Susan Calvin thank you.
Wookie
So who will decide what education the 3-year-old child will receive? the country?
This is what is implied by your words: "It is not the education that the state chooses that its citizens should be entitled to receive."
But what is the state? In democracy, as in physics, it is the balanced force of the sum of the forces acting on the system, not the greatest force. A significant part of those forces are the forces of faith, and our education system is the balanced force of all those forces.
Therefore I am not wrong, and our children do get the education they deserve, even if it is 0.
Israel
Which child gets to choose the education he receives? I didn't win it and I don't think you did. What they receive at the age of 3 in the room (and further down the road) is not the education that the state chooses that its citizens should be entitled to receive, therefore you are wrong and they do not receive the basic education that they are entitled to.
Shmulik
Not all technology. They kept the atomic knowledge to themselves. Psychomechanics was called psychohistory.
The other institution calls for a rebellion - against the mule.
Wookie.
they win From the age of 3, in the room. But this is not the education you or I choose.
Israel
We are not talking about no one believing in a higher power, we are talking about people getting the basic education they are entitled to, without being denied it for political reasons.
Israel,
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." Not on Harry Seldon and Salbor Hardin & Co.
The religion was the religion of science, if I'm not mistaken. That's how Terminus gained control of the surrounding stars, wasn't it? The priests spread the technology under the pretext of religion, or something like that?
Shmulik
The Institution took over Anakron and the rest of the galaxy through the priests and belief in the galactic spirit.
As with any movement and action, there is always a reaction, atheism is no exception. A-B of psychomechanics.
Steinzo,
Who said you threatened me? Like any conversation with you, it ends badly and I'm glad you said you wouldn't care anymore.
You talked nonsense and came close, and it would have been better if you didn't respond at all. I didn't get an answer to my questions and no matter how many times you cry I did. (Oh oh oh, the opposition is harassing me. Crying.)
What's more, you proved that you can't be believed, after all, that's what you responded to
Shmulik
Another thing is the things you mention, chauvinism, patriarchy and more. This was the norm in ancient times. What is called in German Zeit Geist - the spirit of the time. Among the ultra-Orthodox community, even among the moderate religious, no person of stature has arisen who will say that we live in a different time, we need to write a new Talmud and there should be a change in Hebrew and not in Aramaic. It should be accessible to everyone. An example of this writing is Rabbi Adin Steinzaltz who translated the entire Talmud into a language we know and understand. A breakthrough religious authority is needed. A small example of the mitzvah of the laying on of hands. This mitzvah was due to the reasons of gain. Today you don't have to go to the well. Go to the sink, open the tap and that's it. You don't need the accompanying blessing. Another example. the hope What is the difference between this water and the water in the tap is not clear to me. As far as I know they come from ground water and the national carrier. The water in the jacuzzi. Cleaner than the water from the lead, what else can you put scented soaps in and come to Zion Goel..
Shmulik
I will add one more thing to clarify the situation. For decades, society as a whole has been in a deep crisis because the great ideologies have been broken and people are looking for a point of reference. Amnon Yitzchak and a friend of his flock come and grind people's minds. How do they do it? They are excellent salespeople, manipulative and no small inclusions. Think about this too and the picture will become clearer.
Shmulik
Regarding those who return to repentance, I say it in low language. They think that if they caught God by the balls then all the truth is with them. What is particularly problematic about them is their total approach. There is one truth and there is no end to it. They do not understand that there can be different truths and they are all true. Often a problem can have more than one correct answer. There can also be a situation where there is no solution to a certain problem and with all of these you can live in peace.. I personally prefer a world with question marks and not with exclamation marks. Exclamation marks can lead to totalitarianism and that is dangerous. The tolerant religions are precisely those of the idolaters. Every nation that believes in its own gods takes for granted that other nations have their own gods. The classic example is ancient Greece which developed a magnificent culture. What bothers me is the fact that where in the past there were great civilizations they had intellectual centers. Thinkers, mathematicians, astronomy, etc. and in Israel nothing.. In Babylon, observational astronomy was at a very high level. All of them affected all of them. How is it that here in the land that was between Babylon, Greece and Egypt such centers did not grow. It is understandable to him. At that time, there were no people of the stature of Plato and Cicero in Israel. By the way, ancient India and China also had huge cultures.
Shmulik
I don't remember threatening you.
You must not have understood correctly. You are confusing the state of Halacha with the preservation of tradition.
You are trying to trample the culture you came from. It's as if you don't spit into the well you drink from but from **** into it.
This is wrong behavior in any group in the world regardless of religion, race and gender. Such people are denounced by society and rightly so.
Haim,
I am the one who asked, but what you have gathered is a collection, certainly partial, of Jews whose contribution to the world is enormous, but for the most part, it is not just that there is no connection to Judaism, but there is an opposite connection. Einstein (and here, all the batsmen will jump up and say he believed in God. He didn't) and Spinoza, of course.
I have already written about Rabbi Kook (but maybe we are not talking about a generation) and in general, religion is absolutely the problem. It is racist, dark, homophobic, chauvinistic, anti-scientific, ritualistic, classist, a waste of time and talent and oppressive. How Nissim constantly writes: The first sin in the Torah is the sin of curiosity. On the other hand, the coolest thing about children is curiosity (which we parents suppress whether we like it or not. I want to explain that religion basically says that we are sheep, that everything is already known, that there are God's spokesmen who know everything and every question has an answer, that there is an eye in the sky that watches us, all the time, even when we sleep and dream and judges us. It's hard to underestimate what it does to children, this thought that someone is watching you all the time. No wonder, all the achievements you mentioned were made after the Haskalah movement and not before it (correct me if I'm wrong, I didn't go through the whole list meticulously). You need to feel free to create. For me, religion is the problem and it is clear that the religious order, which is entrusted with the assimilation of religion, is also problematic.
Here, look at Raphael. No matter how many times we write to him that Newton's laws are not an axiom, by definition, because they have been disproved, he is still ripe. He heard this from Amnon Yitzchak and God forbid, for him Newton's laws are an axiom. Any other thought will collapse Amnon Yitzchak's credibility and collapse his worldview, which he is so in love with. In other words, the religion has branded him so much that he is not ready to accept any evidence of its incorrectness or even evidence that the agents of his religion are talking nonsense. It scares him so much that he completely ignores what Albantezo wrote to him. He is not able to treat it objectively. Religion, therefore, is brainwashing in the most morbid way that blinds people to reality and evidence, which is why it is so terrible.
Not everyone is as bad as Raphael, of course. As I wrote, this mainly characterizes converts, but fundamentally, in essence, there is no change.
The other terrible thing that characterizes religious people, is that although they are supposed to be happy because they got to be part of the religion, they are not. They will not be happy until we become religious like them. It drives them crazy that there are those who do not share their worldview and they will do anything to oblige us to bow down to them. That is why they are so afraid of humanism, liberalism, equality and democracy. This makes it difficult for them to charge us. You can read here an old comment from Raphael or perhaps from R.P.A.M. or some other clone of them that longs for the time when they will be the majority. Wait, wait, they promise us, wait, wait, what will we do to you for the most part. not scary?
What's more, you are right that if you refer to the cultural factor of Judaism, there are quite a few achievements (learning, diligence, humor!!!)
Israel,
I always like to read Asimov. Where did he write it?
By the way, from what I've heard, atheism is the fastest growing movement in the US. Perhaps in another generation or two, this extensive segment will shrink
I don't remember who claimed that Judaism has not contributed anything in the last 200 years to humanity. Inaccurate were Jews who did this without being religious. In the 19th century they were Karl Marx, who came from a family of rabbis, and Durkheim, the father of sociology. In the 20th century, these were Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Eduard Teller, in the social sciences Seymour Lipst (political science), Israeli professor Eisenstedt (sociology), Tversky who received a Nobel Prize for the economic behavior of Israeli people as well, Shmuel Noah Kramer in archaeology. The Mayer brothers who founded the Metro Goodlan Mayer film industry. Famous Jewish film actors Tony Curtis (originally Bernie Schwartz) Daniel Kaminsky (a relative of drummer Aharel Kaminsky) Edward G. Robinson, Kirk Douglas, the actor who plays the character of Mr. Spock in the Star Trek series, the writer Israel Bashevis Singer who received an award Nobel Prize for Literature. Shi Agnon and more. In the field of the Gothic there were only two in my humble opinion and they are Spinoza and in the 20th century in Israel Rabbi Kook (the Rabbi) and how can you ignore Yeshayahu Leibovitz.
So in all this not everything is black. And again I repeat what I said to Nisim. The problem is not the religion per se, but the religious establishment that suppresses every part of Judaism. It is possible and desirable to treat Judaism as a culture. We should not spit into the well we drink from because of a bunch of idiots. And the most important thing is that we live in Israel and not in Uganda or Birobidzhan thanks to one book and that is the Bible.. The Bible is not only religion, it is also history and literature. You don't have to believe every word written in it, but treat it with respect. If they stop teaching the Bible in Israel, we have nothing to do here. We will go to Uganda and become the heirs to the throne of the late Idi Amin.
Raphael
So you are saying that every Jew who lives outside of Israel is wrong? It only includes people
Raphael
I work with wonderful ultra-Orthodox people in the US. Even in Israel there are smart ultra-Orthodox who work.
You are probably not included among them.
I pay taxes in Israel, serve in the reserves, and all my children serve in the army and are in the reserves, boys and girls.
When you get over the personal attack attempt, we'll move on to something interesting.
If you are able…
Wookie
It is impossible to avoid belief in a higher power among a large segment of the population. Even Asimov says that.
Israel
Thanks for the entertaining story, but I don't really understand how it relates.
Steinzo R.P.A.M.,
You didn't answer anything because you don't have any answers at all and it's wonderful, I'd love to hear from you as little as possible.
Go, go and don't come back.
As a son *you* left the country and chose to be an exile Jew. My family and I are here in the Holy Land, studying Torah, paying taxes and serving in the army.
Miracles
No one forces you when to work and when not to. After all, I left the country. That's why you also don't see how many ultra-Orthodox workers work in hi-tech companies and everywhere else. Other than that keep your favors to yourself.
privileged
The situation right now is that we allow entire communities to force their children to grow up in ignorance. This is a criminal neglect of people. This is an unacceptable situation. It's just as dumb nonsense as the nonsense of having to be tolerant of people's intolerance. And all this so that the leaders of these communities can preserve and increase their political power which will arrange more money for them. It is nothing less than a disgrace.
I am completely with Shmulik on this.
privileged
I didn't understand how it works. Why are religious people allowed to impose things on me that hurt me, but I am not allowed to impose things on them that are in their best interest.
In order to have a context for the question: determining when I am allowed to work and when I am not is infringing on my freedom of occupation. Mandating core studies will allow ultra-Orthodox to integrate into the labor market.
Shmulik
You are talking nonsense as usual.
You got an answer to your questions from me.
I won't waste my time on you. You are hopeless.
Israel
It is interesting that the religious aliens came to make world peace... 🙂
On the face of it, they seem to be smarter: they knew how to protect their heads from the sun.
What is strangest is that they landed directly with London and Kirschenbaum and not with Shapiro. 🙁
You ask a good question, but it's a matter of practice.
If you think you have a way to impose on everyone a way that we agree is good, I will support you.
One day a spaceship from the planet Vega lands in Rabin square. Three small green extraterrestrials with helmets and antennas on their backs come out of it.
"We came in the name of peace and galactic brotherhood" they announce in London and Kirschenbaum's program.
Tell me, London asks, is everyone in Vega that small?
The tallest is 80 cm, answers one of the aliens.
And are these green? Kirschenbaum is interested.
We caught some paint on the way, the outsider replies.
And what are the antennas on the back for? Wondering London.
Well, how do natives communicate with each other? The outsider is stupid.
And everyone in Vega has those helmets on their heads?
No - the alien answers - it's only for the religious.
privileged
I don't think I need to remind you what the ultra-orthodox public does to advertisements that they are not interested in seeing or that their children will see.
Blindfolding children is coercion. Why is it okay to allow the public to engage in coercion so that God forbid they can't accuse us of coercion?
If a person is not interested, the problem is not in demand, the problem is in supply!
I have to invest in marketing!
Maya,
A war to save the child, from the bear hug of his parents, can work in a single person, but not in a population. It's a practical matter.
Although there have been wars in history that set in motion positive processes like clearing the smoke of the battles, but we cannot direct the war after it has begun, what with innocent people being harmed.
I think of education as medicine. People come who care about healing people, study, research, try. Partially succeed, and experience many frustrations along the way, and try again, and again progress a little more, but still bury patients who wanted so much in their lives.
Precisely thanks to these people, full of disappointments and the insistence to keep trying, today's medicine has come so far.
Thus in education, we must understand that ignorance is a disease, it is helplessness, and invest (and be disappointed) and invest (and be disappointed) and each time redeem a few more.
I also think of education as a new patent.
I identify a demand in the company for a product, and supply it. Sometimes the company is not aware of this need, so I present the patent, expose them to the supply, and then the demand is created by itself.
So in education.
Since we assume that a person is interested in home, family, company, work, and other good areas. And not interested in poverty, poverty, wars, and other areas. All we have to do is expose it. Bring him the supply, the demand will appear naturally.
For this reason I am against religious coercion. Because I appreciate Judaism, as someone who has something to give to the quality of a person's life. If a person tells me that he is not interested in Judaism, that is my responsibility.
And so in science studies. Since I value them as those that can give a person a quality of life. If he tells me he's not interested in them, it's my responsibility, because it's clear to me that he's not interested, because he hasn't been properly exposed to them yet, so I have to expose him little by little, at a pace that he understands, digests and is interested. And of course, while I respect him. Because how will I convince him to be thoughtful and smart, while trying to convince him of it while he is ignorant and stupid.
As for subtle levers, I'm thinking of encouragement, and exposure. When a person is exposed to the possibility of living well, his previous bad life becomes a thousand times harder for him.
I would love to understand more. An important discussion indeed.
Miracles
A very famous Jew, Karl Marx, said that religion is the opium of the masses
Core studies:
First, some facts
http://taubcenter.org.il/index.php/publications/discussion-papers/education/educational-achievements-an-updated-international-comparison/lang/he/
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3822336,00.html
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/תוכנית_הליבה
I guess there is no point in debating the importance of education in the core subjects. Albantezo mentioned some interesting facts in his previous post. I assume that no one disputes the frightening statistic that about 50% of my students between the ages of XNUMX-XNUMX are ultra-Orthodox or Arabs, who the devil knows what they are being taught. I also assume that most of you have read enough as a template about the future job market, where artificial intelligence and automation will make many professions irrelevant (thanks Nissim! Am I right?). Once upon a time it was still possible to be "mediocre" and hold a decent job that allows for a reasonable living, in the future, this will not be the case.
Therefore, I ask all those in favor of core studies to stop being ashamed. Education without core studies is abuse of the helpless, no less, and the facts speak for themselves about the need for core studies (and in fact, much more is needed than just core studies, but they learned in Israel to only expect the minimum possible) and this is not a theoretical matter. Countries that take care of proper education for their children, reap the rewards. I would therefore expect the state to stop containing so many education systems (state, religious state, unofficial, Shas and much more) and return to fulfilling its role by creating a single education system, which contains diverse choice options but which includes the core studies and any institution that Does not want to belong to the education system, and will not study core studies, not only that he will not receive funding from the taxes, but he will be fined and his students will be expelled. Why is the state so afraid to fulfill its commitments to the younger generation? Because a war with the ultra-Orthodox will cost the Supreme Leader in terms of mandates, and many in the Arab sector, the state has long since ceased to exist.
safkan
Today you will teach children math, language and English and tomorrow - what?! Revolutionary Chinese re-education?! Nazis?! Where do you get this nonsense from?
safkan
What is this nonsense? Does a compulsory curriculum exist in every modern country? Religious coercion, on the other hand, exists in every failed state.
Oh, I almost forgot. Israel in transition from the first group to the second. It seems to me that Bibi is completing the transition soon.
Steinzo,
What are you talking about??? What opposition???
The right has been in power for years and all it knows how to do, since Begin, is whine and be a commentator at the level of a talkbackist.
Oh oh oh, the opposition (all five) are harassing me.
Harassed, as if the role of the opposition in a parliamentary regime is not to try to overthrow the government from the first day of its tenure. What a cry.
I have a question for you too:
Apartheid? Binationality? Deterioration of democracy? Crazy cost of living? A huge and growing rift with the western world? A debt of NIS 40 billion? And a solid cliff? The opposition is responsible for all this???
The response - to safkan
Where did I state that I have 'claims about the compulsory education law' to the contrary. Well if you think it's a wrong law, it's a waste of time between us and if it's a right law in your eyes, it emphasizes that the state does intervene in certain situations. The purpose of compulsory education is to give equal opportunity to all children, and if the parent does not understand this, he is irresponsible. Likewise when talking about basic core studies. (The girls in the ultra-Orthodox sector do indeed complete a certain equivalent of high school, unlike the boys)
Life
Raphael is a good example of what is wrong with religious belief. Dawkins wrote that religion is the process of not thinking. You take a secular guy and slowly lower his intelligence, and in the end you get Raphael.
Raphael Hamud - I'm in the reserve in a month, the plane ticket is at my expense. What about you?
Raphael
Like your whole philosophy of life, you deduce things without thinking.
Newton had no problem learning. Archimedes had no problem learning.
Those who want to learn - learn.
Those who do not want to learn - do other things and do not learn from them.
End of discussion.
Regarding the contribution of Judaism: Zionism was founded as a movement thanks to Judaism. Thanks to the Jews who wanted to continue to preserve the Jewish tradition and build (restore) the national and historical home for themselves.
Thanks to Judaism and Zionism, the State of Israel was established, and all that is implied by that (thanks to Judaism - the children who grew up and were educated in the State of Israel, influenced the world and others more than at any time when Jews lived in exile).
Eric, if you have any claims regarding the compulsory education law, raise them before the High Court of Justice, not before me.
Do you think that when the High Court of Justice ruled that core studies should not be forced, did it not hear about a compulsory education law? It seems to me that they are judges and therefore know the law quite well. Apparently the High Court thinks that conscientious compulsion (such as secular compulsion in the section of core studies) is more serious and more dangerous to public peace than a compulsory education law.
Skeptic, have you heard of the 'compulsory education law'?
Maya
Coercion is coercion and the goal is not important except for very few goals (such as preventing violence).
Today, religious people who see it as secular coercion are forced to study core, tomorrow the process will continue and they will send you to a "re-education" camp, as it was done at the time in revolutionary China. Even the Chinese who sent people for re-education thought that their education was spoiled and therefore the state has the right to send citizens deprived of education to re-education camps. For example, if there is a religious majority in the country, you will be sent for re-education where you will be instructed to wear only modest clothing, because immodest clothing encourages acts of burglary and this is a terrible situation from the point of view of the understanding of the religious majority that controls the country.
It may get worse. We saw how the Nazis tried to "improve" the state of the German nation by eliminating "defective" elements in the country (I think Gypsies and of course Jews).
Official before you. He who imposes his opinion on a minority and succeeds, paves the way for coercion in everything and matter that the majority of the public thinks is a flawed matter. Therefore, coercion should only be in a minimal number of matters that contribute immediately and unequivocally to public peace (for example, coercion aimed at preventing immediate violence is permitted).
The High Court of Justice understood the terrible danger to freedom of conscience and religion in the country and ruled that compulsory core studies are dangerous. That is why the High Court of Justice rejected the imposition of core studies on ultra-Orthodox educational institutions. There are dark people in the country, who ironically call themselves the "Or" movement, who resent the High Court ruling.
Raphael
Is this your way of saying that you have no sources and that you are just making things up?
Shmulik
It is impossible to run a country when the opposition, instead of doing its job for the benefit of the public, only harasses the coalition and creates a situation where the public pays for it. That's not how you build a country.
First time I think Chaim is right. Nissim just ignore me. I've been ignoring you for a long time.
Miracles
Ignore Raphael. You are playing into his hands. Any attempt to make sense of it is a blessing in disguise.
Nissim, you sound upset to me. sit down drink water calm down talk to you later. nothing happened. Will be fine.
Raphael
A piece of scumbag - who are you calling jord?
wd
Read history books. What did you not learn core?
Raphael
Can I please have your sources for the public education system during the Greek and Hasmonean periods, and for the educational content taught in it. It sounds like a fascinating topic to me, and I was not aware of the existence of a general public education system in those times.
Israel
The education in Germany was not good by the standards of Maya's response to which you responded.
Suppose we have a country that has the best university in the world and twenty percent of the population are brilliant people who studied there and research and make discoveries and create new knowledge that is applied in all kinds of ways that improve the quality of the world's population. Let's say that the other 80 percent of the population of this imaginary country do not learn anything and live their lives according to what some one person tells them (called a fan) according to some invented holy book.
Do you think this country is considered a country with good education?
Suppose now that there are democratic elections in this country. Who is going to choose? The favored representative tells the population that he is the leader to vote for him. And now suppose that for some reason a fan decided that he did not like the neighboring country and wanted to start a war against it. And let's assume that the entire public who attended university knows that this is a really bad idea that will harm the lives of all the people in these countries. Can he do anything to stop the war?
In the last twenty years Torah Judaism has grown from 4 to 7 mandates. It doesn't seem to me to be related to any Alia that I know of.
I'm not talking about fighting religious sentiment. I'm talking about fighting against those who deny children the basic education they deserve, in the interest of burying them in a world of ignorance where they are nothing more than a tool for maintaining (and/or building) political power.
Raphael,
Why does it matter now what the Maccabees were?
Give me one contribution of Judaism in the last two hundred years.
Did you understand why Newton's laws are not axioms?
Did you understand why Hitl was not an atheist?
Miracles
Haredim can and do military service. My two sons are now serving in the army. One of them is mine. Maybe you don't know that because you left the country.
The Maccabees were a family of priests who served in the temple. There is nothing more than that. They did not want to fight nor were they qualified for it, but when Judaism was in danger they went to war and won. Maybe you will learn from this about the present.
Regarding my consent to be taught evolution. Take hallucinogenic mushrooms again? It doesn't suit you.
Raphael
So you are saying that ultra-Orthodox can do military service? We finally agree on something.
Oh, you also agreed with me that evolution should be taught.
א
The ultra-Orthodox began as a counter-movement to the Haskalah movement.
Their sect has existed for no more than two centuries.
If you think the Maccabees were ultra-Orthodox, you are living in a movie.
In addition, the link you make between core studies and loss of faith proves that your art is so weak that calculus and English studies are a significant threat to it, and put you into hysteria and your rabbis into abandonment anxiety.
Those who hate opinion and fear the future have no choice but to suppress reality and dig in denial.
Raphael,
Like you talking about the atheist Hitler?
R.P.A.M.,
And certainly and certainly I will not thank the Creator of the world that only fifty died. Beyond many things that can be said, it is like thanking God that he only agreed to kill fifty soldiers. delusional
Does this mean that in the Holocaust he agreed to kill only six million?
Miracles
Those who fought against the Greeks are the ultra-Orthodox Matityahu, a Hasmonean high priest and his sons.
Those who fought with the Greeks against the Jews were the Greeks who studied Liba.
You will cringe to read about it in the books of Josephus Flavius.
Thank God that history cannot be rewritten.
Even there are those who try because they haven't studied history or because they feel like lying.
R.P.A.M
Your response is partly delusional and partly impudent.
Let's start by implying that I'm not sad or thinking about the 50 IDF soldiers who were killed or that I think we don't need an army. I don't have the strength to start a political debate here, but I have a clear opinion about who is to blame for the stupid war we initiated and certainly asked
The delusional part of your comment is your reference to what I wrote. If I understood correctly, you blame the poor and pathetic opposition that exists in Israel for the following:
Apartheid? Binationality? Deterioration of democracy? Crazy cost of living? A huge and growing rift with the western world? A debt of NIS 40 billion? And a solid cliff?
I can say a lot about your rant (for example, to say that for ten years the ruling party was not from the left) but I will limit myself to saying that if the opposition did so much damage, where was the coalition? Who is the leader here?
You are in power, rule!
Israel
It is the duty of a country to provide appropriate knowledge and education for a useful life in the country.
The ultra-orthodox community opposes core studies, and also military service, because it is afraid of losing "subjects".
Anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell something. And as long as they do not understand the situation in Israel, it will continue in its current direction.
Israel today is in existential danger, and the threat is religious stupidity, both from within and without.
The internal threat is greater.
Israel,
But I already answered you: in two election cycles indeed, the Jewish Sharia will determine the content of the studies. By then, what should be studied as core studies, has already been determined. The problem is not to determine but to implement.
Why are my two comments pending?
Raphael
The ones who saved us on Hanukkah are those who fought like lions, not those who studied Torah like ticks in the lions' ears.
And again don't talk about axioms. You really don't understand what an axiom is. Every engineer who designs airplanes knows exactly why we think that the rules describe the world of content of the airplanes.
In mathematics there are axioms, and they are also studied. The ones who started investigating them were the same Greeks who tried to save the enlightened world from the stupidity of religion.
Oh, and of course, the religious have an axiom of the existence of a creator.
Shmulik
"Despite Nazi Germany, it's not really a big problem to determine the core studies."
Nazi Germany did not enter the First World War. All of Europe went out to it - with drums, trumpets and dancing.
And who is the one to determine the core studies? Why wouldn't it be a regular Talmud and Mnashna?
Wookie
Education in Germany was not good? By whose standards?
By scientific standards, early 20th century Germany was top of the top, especially in physics. According to the University of Göttingen.
The first elections were held before the great immigration from Arab countries, from where many voters for today's religious parties came.
I also don't know how to interpret the Jewish home in terms of religiosity. The point is that religious sentiment does not weaken over time (nor does it strengthen). The communists in Russia tried to cancel it by order in the most totalitarian country that ever existed, but they did not succeed.
Maybe we will accept that the fight against religious sentiment is a lost and unnecessary war almost like the fight against the extra pounds and for the same reason?
In Somalia, Syria and Gaza are celebrating the victory you talk about every day
We don't have a problem with the State of Israel, but with the pit into which it falls, thanks to people like you
This month we will celebrate Hanukkah, which symbolizes the victory of authentic Judaism over those Greeks among us who tried to "civilize" us according to what was considered core studies at the time. If not for the victory of the Maccabees, we would not be Jews now, and there would be no State of Israel anyway, and this whole discussion would not have arisen at all.
Raphael
elbentzo can also very easily cry that the education system in the Land of Israel is failing and producing ignorant and blind people like you, who only know how to close their eyes, close their ears, and babble as if they know something when they know nothing. But anyway, it's really better if he laughs, it's a shame he'll waste tears on you, isn't it?
Israel
Sachtein, you showed that the education of the first half of the 20th century in Germany was not good. Just remind me what was the socio-economic situation there during the period in question?
Election results are available. In the first the religious parties had 16 mandates, in the last 18 without counting the Jewish House which I don't exactly know how the internal division there works but if we assume only half, that would bring us to 24, I wouldn't exactly call it an insubstantial change.
R.P.A.M
Apparently the ultra-orthodox don't participate because if they did, we would be in third world ranking but what does it matter secular or religious in the name of all that matters??? The country is deteriorating and you try to blame those who do study, but apparently not well enough?
Is this serious?
The ones to blame are the governments of Israel, who put a large XNUMX% tax on education, both in secondary education and in higher education, and knew how to channel energy into more avenues than entering mandates.
waiting
Regarding the question I asked you:
If the religious don't study core subjects, then it is obvious that the ones who will be tested in the core subjects are the secular ones. not like that?
And if you say that the level is decreasing year by year... then you can only blame the seculars. Not the religious ones.
Shmulik
The fruits you described are rotten fruits, those provided by the opposition into the basket of fresh fruits.
The coalition provides you with a strong economy, freedom as a Jewish person, security. Yes yes - security. You should say thank you to those 50 heroes who gave their lives for you too. You should say thank God that these were only 50 and not 6 million.
Yes yes - all this thanks to today's coalition. If those from the opposition were in power today, you could already pack your bags and move to Uganda. There you had an enlightened home where you could pray for core studies and give thanks to King Zulu for being an Afro-Jew.
Albenzo Albenzo
You didn't want to participate in this thread so badly and here you are deep inside. It fills me with happiness to hear you laugh. What else can you do?!
And here Raphael broke the glass ceiling again. Say, are you sure the smartest move is to accuse me of being dependent on your tax dollars? Because as far as I know, my public (and me personally, too, if it interests you) bring into the State of Israel an insane amount of money in grants, patents, technological developments and scientific prestige, while your public lives on allowances...
Besides, I'm glad you're showing everyone that you think that if I disprove your stupid opinions about science with sources and evidence, then I'm not fit to be a scientist. Once again you demonstrated that you understand exactly the role of science...
Come on, Raphael. Another one. Finding your comments and rolling with laughter is starting to become an integral part of my daily routine, don't disappoint.
Maya,
Regarding the first part of your comment, I disagree. Perhaps I should have been more clear - when I said "a level of confidence that the action is in the best interest of the child" I was not referring to the government's conviction of its righteousness. If that were the case, then in my opinion Raphael would have been allowed to decide that all our children should stop studying calculus and start studying Gemara (he is so sure of his righteousness that he has developed the ability to ignore anything that does not suit him). No, I didn't mean that the government is allowed to do whatever it wants as long as it does it confidently. The reference is of course to the level of confidence backed by evidence. Confidence in the sense of confidence, what is called in Hebrew "self-confidence", is clearly not relevant to the topic. The security I was talking about is certainty. This confidence comes from testing an idea and confirming or refuting it. We have more than enough evidence to show that abused children suffer abnormally high suicide rates, degenerate into crime (specifically, sexual abuse is a very strong statistical common denominator in sex offenders), etc. Therefore we can be certain that abuse is a tremendous evil for the child and it is allowed (and even obligatory) for the state to keep the parent away from the child. In your example with Buddhism, there is no certainty - perhaps there is confidence that stems from the internal feeling of the government officials that Buddhism is a better religion. But if they act according to it, it is nothing more than a dictatorial act - forcing the opinion of the government on the public. On the other hand, if we had strong evidence that a certain religion is correct and the rest are not (let's say, and tomorrow God reveals himself and tells us all that Judaism and Moses are our Lord and Harta Barta), then the government will definitely have an obligation to ensure that parents educate their children to be good Jews. Because if they don't, they will humanly harm the lives of their children. Needless to say, no matter how much confidence Raphael and his rabbis have that they are right, the degree of certainty regarding the correctness of any religion is the same, and it is exactly 0. No evidence has ever been found (to the best of my knowledge, I would be happy if such evidence were presented) that demonstrates that one religion or another she is right
Regarding the second part of your words, I have no shadow of a doubt that we will achieve much greater effectiveness if the parents want their children to study core studies and do so willingly. There is no doubt that the fact that the child will return home and his mother will tell him "today you were taught lies, that this earth is not 4.5 billion years old but a few thousand" will greatly harm our ability to instill in the child the core studies. But there is no choice - this or that or nothing. Take the American Civil War for example. For centuries, every white child has been raised from age 0 knowing that black people are property. A relatively small percentage of the white American population denied this and betrayed his upbringing. There was no success in trying to change the situation with the consent of the owners of the cotton fields (who were mainly concentrated in the south simply as a result of the weather), so there was a political mess, withdrawal from the Union, and a terrible war that lasted for years. After the war the slaves were freed and the Zionist attitude (relatively speaking, freeing the slaves was not the end of the struggle) was forcefully instilled in schools. Do you think that a little boy in 1870's Virginia, whose older brother was killed in the war fighting for the Confederate side (the South), who was raised from the age of 0 that blacks are property and whose entire world he knows is a world of slaves, wanted to change his ways? Do you think that when he came home his father supported the things he was taught in high school or that there are now black children in his playground?
Not the best, but it works. We have to do what needs to be done, even if Rafael doesn't like it and even if we haven't been able to convince him. I personally have friends who have been expelled from the religious society (one from the ultra-Orthodox and one from the national religion) as a result of being satisfied. If a child is brought up to core studies, he will start to doubt. This is why the ultra-Orthodox are so opposed to it - they know that even though the doubt we want to plant in the hearts of the children is about the fact that one should live in poverty, that one should not work, that one should not join the army, that one should live in a completely closed society - there is a high chance that the same action will also plant a different kind of doubt in their hearts . There is no doubt that the religion itself is not true.
Albanzo the arrogant scientist
I hope your salary is not paid from my taxes. Free food like you.
Wait, Rafael, are you saying that again? If you say again then I apologize and repeat myself. I mean, to me it would seem as if I completely refuted what you said, but if *you*, the great Raphael from the science site who does not know what the definition of an axiom is or what science is, *you* say (and not once but twice!!!) that the laws of nature They are axioms, so it is clearly the truth.
Say, did I already say that your every comment makes you look even more stupid? I don't remember, and I don't have the energy to check because there are already 450 responses here. Anyway, I encourage you to continue. Until today, I thought that there was a limit to how much a person could humiliate himself and demonstrate his ignorance, that is - that there is a stage that you reach where, starting from this point, no matter what you say, we will no longer think of you as stupid or ignorant because you have reached the maximum. But this hypothesis is not an axiom, so I would be very happy to test it. Please keep writing comments, we'll see what new highs we reach.
Raphael,
So they asked you for an example and showed you that the example is not good. That what you established as an axiom has been disproved, which as a category cannot be done for an axiom.
You see, with us, nothing is taken for granted and there is no appeal to authority. So:
1. What's the problem with admitting you talked nonsense? Happens.
2. Give another example, we will discuss.
And about the laws of nature as axioms. I say one more time if you understand you will understand and if you don't you don't. All the hype of modern technology relies on these laws as axioms and based on these laws they build airplanes spacecrafts submarines brain scanners and whatnot. They do not try to challenge these laws but rely on them as something that does not need to be proven.
R.P.A.M.,
Wait, maybe you meant Eitan Cliff during which about 50 of our soldiers died.
Yesterday, Netanyahu dissolved the government on the grounds that it is impossible to govern this way and embraced the achievements of the previous government, which also dissolved and left us with a debt of NIS 40 billion. So my insight is this: we reaped fruits despite the illusory Bardakist lack of governance that exists with Netanyahu. wow Describe to you what would happen if he could rule
R.P.A.M.,
I have no idea. Why does it matter? The professions that are the core have been determined, let's apply them.
What fruits does the government provide exactly? Apartheid? Binationality? Deterioration of democracy? Crazy cost of living? A huge and growing rift with the western world?
Shmolon
These tests you mention - what is the share of the religious test takers versus the secular test takers?
In any case, instead of being a hypochondriac you will be happy that next time the people will make the right and sane choice (against your will and your ilk). And that way you can enjoy both the stick and the carrot. You can continue to grumble and complain, and also enjoy the fruits that the government provides.
Even in the enlightened and democratic United States, the Jewish children who study in the room are not forced to study core studies. They are not even forced to teach them to read and write in English. Everything is conducted there in Yiddish. I am currently in a hotel in Jerusalem. There are many ultra-Orthodox people here who have not studied Liba and are world-wide businessmen. It amazes me that there are those who compare not learning core to abuse. really crazy But the opposite is actually true. Those who prevent their Jewish children from studying Judaism are abusing them. Not in the sense of physical abuse but in the sense of abuse of their Jewish soul. These children are Jews thanks to our righteous ancestors who faithfully studied Torah for hundreds and thousands of years. This month we will celebrate Hanukkah, which symbolizes the victory of authentic Judaism over those Greeks and Greeks among us who tried to "civilize" them according to what was considered at the time heart charms. If not for the victory of the Maccabees, we would not be Jews now, and there would be no State of Israel anyway, and this whole discussion would not have arisen at all.
Israel,
Despite Nazi Germany it is not really a big problem to determine the core studies. Let's start by saying that there is already such a statement and we will go on to point out that Israel as part of the OECD is measured by several indicators that as part of its entry into the club, it agreed to be measured by them and we will conclude by saying that there are international tests that year after year Israel reaches respectable places at the bottom of the table of developing and developed countries. I mean, not really a big problem. The really big problem is to implement the core studies that the state has already established.
If you want to turn this discussion into a theoretical debate about the essence of democracy, you can, but we all know where it will end: contrary to your claim, the next government will be more extreme than the current one, the nationality law will be passed in the Elkin format, democracy will be relegated to Article 3 and in two or three governments, democracy will deteriorate Similar to Israel's achievements in international tests, ISIS's study material will be adopted here in a version suitable for Jewish Sharia and the debate will be decided anyway.
Maya
"My belief is that if people understand their actions and know how to think about them and, in addition, live well and do not want to lose what they have, there will be no more wars in the world (naively we said). The problem is that in order to achieve this noble goal, there is only one solution that I know of, and that solution is education."
??
The educated Europe of the first half of the 20th century, led by the educated and educated Germany among the nations, was peaceful and peace-loving?
And whose education? Why? Who will determine in a democracy where the majority determines, and the voice of Tshuva and Shechtman is equal to the voice of a homeless person from the street, what is education?
For some reason I have the feeling that in the elections in 3 months the division between the religious and secular vote will not change fundamentally from what it was 67 years ago, and what it will be in 67 years.
Raphael
A large group of people say you are talking nonsense. Reminds me of the "wisdom of crowds", doesn't it?
Raphael,
Albantezo demonstrates to you why Newton's laws are not an axiom: they have been disproved! They are not true! And if the laws were an axiom, no one would bother to touch them, because that's the point of an axiom, and what do you do? You're just in denial.
What happened, you can't admit a mistake? Can't say I was talking nonsense?
The same goes for your claim about Hitler, this is after I brought quotes from the mouth of the tyrant himself and it is clear to me that in other forums you continue to lie and say that he was an atheist and therefore one should beware of atheists.
Again, what happened, you can't admit that you were talking nonsense. Happens.
Maya,
The problem is a crushed backbone of the state when facing an extremist public such as the ultra-Orthodox and the settlers. On the other hand, if the state had a shred of logic and self-preservation, it would have required core studies for every student. It should do this by lowering the funding it provides, to zero NIS, to those non-state educational institutions if they do not teach core studies and even imposes heavy fines on them, while creating an appropriate supervision system.
As a parent, I must point out that the power a teacher has over students is enormous. It is very difficult for me to change my children's minds about material they studied at school, if I detect any error, surely the things are said in the material that is correct. Two plus two equals four and no matter what I do and say, I won't be able to change their minds. So I wouldn't be scared of a situation where a parent would tell his son that everything he learned was nonsense. I also dare to estimate that there are a lot of ultra-Orthodox people who are dying for change to take place, but the state does not have the backbone, not to mention a backbone, to try to fight the religious madness, and therefore this public is held captive by its leaders. What is happening in the US on this issue? At least there they know English.
All this against the background of the fact that about 50% of the students in grades XNUMX-XNUMX are ultra-Orthodox or Arab. A scary figure. I have no idea how many core studies these students study, probably not many, which means that the next generation will be ignorant and will not be able to integrate into the modern job market, which is also being conquered, little by little, by automation and artificial intelligence. As Lior Shlain says: "Good luck to us" because God will not help us
Maya
Good to hear you again!
I have a serious problem with the non-service of the military sector. I think the situation today is unforgivable. Since when is my Haredi life worth more than my life or the life of my children?!?
I see two reasons for the death of my close friends. One of them is the hatred of the Arabs towards the (secular) Israeli way of life. The second reason is a group of idol worshipers who think my life is rubbish. A simple calculation shows that if two of my friends were alive today with the ultra-Orthodox, they would have fulfilled their moral duty, and by the way, also their duty according to the Torah.
The only reason they don't serve in the army is because they don't want their sons to see a different world. The whole story of "their art" is a murderous lie.
This is also why they are afraid of core studies. For them, a secular son is worse than a son who was killed.
Religion makes people do horrible things and believe all kinds of stories to justify their belief. Of course there are wonderful religious people, and the knit cap wearers hold the army today.
I will end like this……
Albanzo,
First, of course more to you, it's the whole idea of free discussion and exchange of ideas contrary to what some commenters here think.
Second, of course the question is the level of confidence the state has in the best interest of the child. But you know that different countries will think different things. If we again take a less relevant example of communist countries - from the state's point of view, any exposure to the destructive capitalist culture of the West destroyed and destroyed the soul of the child or the person (and let's ignore for a second the many political elements that accompany this claim and treat communism as a pure ideology only). In the case of our country, people will come and say - the Jewish religion is the one that sustained the Jewish people for so and so many years and is, in fact, the one that eventually brought us to the establishment of the State of Israel. Now, one could argue that this is a good thing or a bad thing but there are certain facts that support this claim. Does this mean that to the same extent every child in Israel must study Judaism, otherwise he will be completely cut off from his tradition and belonging to his people? I tell you honestly, I really don't want my girls to study Judaism at all and I still remember the unnecessary Bible and Toshiba lessons at school and I would gladly give them up for my daughters. Do you support me in my fight against this state coercion?
I agree with you, of course, that in order to be a productive and whole and healthy person and many other good things in the 21st century, you must have a solid foundation in core studies. But we're talking here about coercion by the state (which, by the way, I'm not against, I'm even quite in favor of it, I'm just thinking out loud) and the question arises what benefit is there in bringing core studies to the ultra-Orthodox sector who will sit in school and learn the things and then return home only to have his parents He will be told: "Everything they told you in school is nonsense, forget it, this is the correct answer to everything." Or in other words, in order for the change to be effective, I think that the parents should also be involved and the question is how to bring the parents to such a situation. And I'm not sure that simply instilling core studies in the school, even with good and caring teachers (a necessary condition, by the way, that Hasoi did refer to) is a sufficient solution. I'm trying to brainstorm here in order to find a solution that actually satisfies.
In other words, in my opinion, the state can intervene against the parent's opinion when there is a clear danger to the child and there is a possibility of an irreversible result. Abuse is a clear example of this. I do think that the prevention of core studies is also a clear example of this, but the coercion, in this case, unless done at the same time as expulsion from the community, which is something that I think no one would consider, would not necessarily be beneficial. your opinion?
Raphael
Besides you, who ever thought Newton's laws were axioms?
I must admit that your stupidity manages to surprise me again and again.
Raphael
Your stupidity again - only a fool would say that the law of nature is an axiom.
Raphael
It's interesting how you, Raphael, put limits on God.
Jeez, you're dumb as a shoe.
Maya, if I may,
Determining the limit at which the state has the ability and obligation to intervene in a child's education should depend on the degree of confidence the state has that it is acting in the best interest of the child. In the extreme example of abuse, there is no doubt that separating the child from the abusive parent is in the best interest of the child and therefore the state must do so. In your example of Buddhism, however, there is no degree of certainty that a Buddhist way of life is superior to a Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or atheist. Therefore, the state cannot afford to interfere in this issue, because it cannot bet on the lives of its residents. Now we must ask ourselves how certain we are that core studies are necessary for a child in the 21st century and that without core studies not only will most of the world be blocked from him, but he is also in grave danger (there is almost no sickness in the modern world that does not show a clear correlation with a lack of education).
I'm not quibbling, I'm just a guy who gets paid to question these ideas and test them to see if they're true or not. In your opinion, how does the idea that there is a whole community of people whose job it is to check whether it is true or not by all possible means fit into the definition of "a truth that does not need to be checked because it is assumed to be true"?
You do realize that every other word you say just escalates your display of stupidity, right?
privileged,
I understand what you are saying. A selfish peace-seeker. I also do not like concepts such as coercion. But here is my problem. In every war that has ever been in the world, my opinion (somewhat naive, some would say) was that the reason for all this evil is that people are not educated and not happy. In general, my belief is that if people understand their actions and know how to think about them and in addition, live well and do not want to lose what they have, there will be no more wars in the world (naive we said). The problem is that in order to achieve this noble goal there is only one solution that I know of and that solution is education. I will give examples that are not directly related to the subject in question: Milat Nashim - a custom that I think we will all agree is quite shocking, always when talking about how to prevent it the only peaceful answer is education. The AIDS epidemic in Africa, why does it exist? Because people keep having unprotected sex with carriers and patients. How do we solve this? Education.
So what do you do when education is the issue? In order to bring a person to a situation where he is satisfied with his life and understands his life we must educate him. The core scientific studies have proven to improve human life. Are we as a society allowed to withhold this from a child just because he was born to the wrong parents? By the way, I'm not asking this as a rhetorical question. I really do not know. Because I agree that this is a dangerous slope. Where do you draw the line? If you decide to force the parent to study core studies for his child, you can at some point decide that Buddhism is the only way to happiness and that Buddhism studies should be forced for the sake of the child. The child has rights, but I agree with the parent as well, especially regarding the education of his children. Where is the role of the state to intervene? After all, when a father beats his child for educational reasons, the state does intervene and I think we rightly agree here. So where is the limit? In addition, I wanted to ask you - you talked about coercion versus "gentle levers". What do you mean by gentle levers? Can you give an example of something like this?
For you Raphael. From Snoopy dictionary - Hebrew - Hebrew; An axiom is true. A premise that does not need proof'.
Practically fighting probably won't work. Gentle levers yes.
Well, I walk in and feel like I'm at a period appointment.
Camila, Maya, everyone here.
Maya, I am in favor of high-quality core studies and in favor of high-quality Jewish studies. I estimate that the main segment of the population (both ultra-Orthodox and secular) is interested both in the core sciences, and in knowing and connecting to its tradition.
Since that is the case, the most important thing is to bring to education quality people who will not only convey material, but will love to convey it. Cares for teachers. It will make a difference.
But you asked about "to force". What would I do as the Minister of Education with populations that refuse to study Judaism or Livah. I think I regretted that, but I was also aware that you can't have everything. It is impossible to educate a hard-headed people with "kapatos". I would leave it up to the parents to decide how to educate their children, although for me it is terrible and terrible that these children will be condemned to a life that lacks a central element. But I would estimate that in the war I would lose more. I might have used subtle levers, or found quiet ways to instill what I believe in, coordinating with insiders.
In conclusion, I would invest mainly in the central channel of each population, which I can develop. and makes sure he has teachers who like to impart knowledge.
I feel like I'm not cohesive enough with this answer, I'd appreciate any comments.
When I say quality core studies, I also mean evolution. But as mentioned, on the topic that the parents oppose, the way
Raphael,
what did you explain Okay, let's assume you explained. I'm a little slow. If you read my "speech", could you answer the questions I asked in it? I will return briefly (I am afraid to extend, it makes it difficult for you):
If the welfare of the child is at the top of the government's agenda, why shouldn't it force core studies?
If Judaism has never proven itself on any practical level, how can you make the comparison between core studies and Jewish studies?
You can't decide that there are at least 6 people here who can't accept opinions different from their own and only you can do that. You do not know me. So I will reveal myself: I have no backbone, I am one of the easiest people in the world to convince. You just need to bring at least one argument. So far you have failed. try again.
Maya, did you also start with speeches now? You are trying to explain to me and I understand. But I try to explain to you and you don't understand. Why? Because your stupid pride does not allow you to accept opinions different from your own.
ALBENZO You are talking nonsense. Accept it as an axiom and rely on it to build technologies. Both the theory of relativity is an axiom and the theory of quantum mechanics is an axiom. Based on both they build spacecraft and send them to Mars. You ramble like a yeshiva guy. In the end you will repent.
Raphael,
I don't think it makes sense at all. On the contrary, I think that everyone should appreciate science for the simple reason that its positive effect on the human population is obvious. The problem with what you say (the non-forcing approach) is that you are trying to compare two things that are not comparable and this is what 400 responses are already trying to explain to you.
Science has clearly contributed to humanity and nowadays, in order to get along in the real world, the one we live in, we need to know and understand some basic facts that the core studies provide. This is why I am still waiting for your answer to the death of the move. The government knows that the public needs this knowledge to get along in the world, isn't it its responsibility to provide this knowledge and even force it on a public that tries to withhold it from their children and basically leave them helpless in the world? If your answer to that is no, I really don't understand why it is the government's responsibility to prosecute or try to prevent the murder or abuse of children by their parents. Here, too, the state imposes the best interests of the child on the parent.
On the other hand, you bring here the studies of Judaism, which on a practical level never seem to have benefited anyone (which is why I am still waiting for your answer to Kamila and Shmulik, who both asked you about the missed contribution of Judaism to the world) and therefore the government has no reason to force them because the children of the country can manage well Very much in the world even without them.
When they try to ask you to give examples of Judaism's contribution, you reply with "you won't understand" or "you need to learn more" or "you're not interested, you're just here to argue". So I can't speak for everyone, but I'm really interested. I'm not here to argue, I'm here to hear people with different opinions than mine because that's the only way to move forward somewhere in life. But you didn't give me any opinion. You say that to really understand you have to spend your whole life learning. So in effect what Shah is saying is that I must spend my whole life in deep learning in order to understand something that has not been proven at any level and in any way. On the other hand, I tell you, take 12 years from first grade to twelfth grade and even take them easy, you don't need to study all day but it's more than enough time to get basic knowledge about the world that has already proven itself and will help you manage better in the world. So I don't understand the comparison between the two. If I missed something in the lack of answers you gave, I'd appreciate it if you could correct me, but that's what I understood from what you said.
If you have the intention to answer these things (and I doubt it from my experience so far) I would appreciate it if you would also sneak in some answer to death, Kamila and Shmulik. But a real answer. They invest in you and say quite a few nice things. I'll give you the credit that you also have good things to say and you just chose not to until now. I would love to hear what you have to say.
I wrote 150 years? I meant 250. That's how it is, a doctor of mathematical physics doesn't know addition and subtraction...
Ok.
So you're basically saying you have no idea what the word axiom means...
As already written to you - an axiom is an assumption that is taken as true and is not a candidate in a reality check, analytical or empirical. Newton's laws have been tested countless times, both in the laboratory and within the framework of mathematical models. For about one hundred and fifty years they found no fault in them, even though they tried with all their might. It was only when our measuring instruments became sufficiently precise that we were able to show that the predications of Newton's laws were not entirely accurate. At the same time, the increase in the accuracy of the measuring instruments made it possible to measure new phenomena (for example, microscopic phenomena) which were not explained by Newtonian mechanics. Once that happened, Newton's laws flew out. That is - Newton's laws are exactly the opposite of the definition of an axiom.
Actually, it's funny that you chose Newton's laws. Newton's laws were presented for the first time in a work published by Newton called "Principa Mathematica di Philosophia Naturalis", which is in Latin "the mathematical principles of natural philosophy" (at the time the word physics did not exist and this science was called natural philosophy). In this work, not only were Newton's laws presented for the first time, but also the modern scientific approach was presented for the first time, according to which a physical model must simultaneously withstand mathematical-analytical tests (Newton invented the differential calculus for these needs) and empirical tests. The entire second half of the three-volume work is a psychic detail that shows how the laws meet all the tests, both mathematical and observational (Newton literally makes predictions and compares numbers between measurements and the model).
First attempt, you made the biggest mistake imaginable and tried to present as axiomatic the Torah that defined the scientific approach in which it is forbidden under any circumstances to accept a physical idea about nature as axiomatic. Want to try again? Let's see if you can say more amazing nonsense.
Yes Maya. I appreciate science. It seems unreasonable to you that a believer values science. I also think that the ultra-Orthodox should not be forced to study Levia and you should not be forced to study Judaism. Just don't force it.
Newton's laws that turned out in the end to be a special case of the theory of relativity. Treat them as an axiom.
Raphael,
Give an example of an axiomatic natural law.
Raphael,
Won't you call Hitler an atheist anymore?
What about my question?
What contribution has Judaism made to humanity in the last two hundred years?
Raphael,
That's right, then the law is changed, because that's how science progresses, if it doesn't fit reality, it's dismissed. (By the way, the experiments that were done in the first place came with the aim of undermining the law). It seems from your response that you appreciate and accept the scientific method. Did I misunderstand all your previous comments?
Maya my dear sister
They don't try to challenge it, but in the experiments they do, they find that the results are not suitable and suddenly realize that the law they were based on was wrong. If you are already quoting Wikipedia, look at the example they give there about the site.
post Scriptum. I really enjoyed reading the previous comment and the questions you asked Hasoi. I, like you and many of the commenters here, are waiting and expecting his response. All the best.
Raphael,
From Wikipedia:
In mathematics and logic, an axiom is a basic assumption (or "point of departure") in a certain logical system, which is treated as true. A common mistake is that axioms are an "intuitive and basic self-evident truth", but axioms do not require such a formulation, but only the satisfaction of a basic premise that one does not try to dispute (since it is a statement).
So how exactly does it turn out that the law is wrong if it is an axiom and then they don't try to challenge it? Maybe because all scientists do is try to undermine the laws to test how well they stand the test of reality? Core studies, my brother.
To Albenzo the arrogant scientist
All physical theories are based on laws that are axioms. There have already been cases where it turned out that the law on which the theory was based turned out to be incorrect or inaccurate and as a result the theory was changed or expanded. Don't answer me because I'm just trolling you.
Raphael,
You said "natural law is an axiom". can you expand Just because I'm a physicist and all day I work on *proving* through evidence, building mathematical models, making predictions and comparing them to reality. Are you saying that all I have to say is "this law is an axiom stop the earth I touched the blue"?
In case you didn't understand, what I'm really saying is that you are once again - like every other post of yours in this thread - talking nonsense and proving your ignorance (note, your ignorance is not an axiom because it is based on evidence and proof).
privileged,
Some of the commenters here do answer you in a bad way and I'm sorry for that. I do not agree with almost anything you say, but unlike other commenters here (Raphael) you do not hesitate to answer questions and face a real discussion. I have no desire to argue with you about the nature of Judaism. I admit and confess that I am not at all familiar with the intricacies of Judaism and in fact my acquaintance with it is extremely superficial (this is because the superficial encounter made me lack appreciation and unwillingness to go deeper). I mostly know the immoral aspect of it and I understand what you are doing here, the analysis and interpretation in your way. This reminds me that when I was young and innocent and got married through the rabbinate, I did a bride's guidance before. Since we were married by a rabbi of Motzhar, the bride's guidance was extremely pleasant (and not a traumatic experience as I have heard from many companies) and was actually conducted in the format of "couple counseling" for me and my future husband. In the end, she said she had to talk about the matter of "family purity" and the whole story of keeping touch, etc. She said that she understands that what we think is that a woman during her period is "dirty" but that is not the point at all. She does not see herself as impure and she does not think that menstruation is an impure thing. She explained how the whole idea is that sometimes couples need a break from each other, but since they run a shared household they can't, so they don't touch, in a way only they can see and so this temporary distance brings them closer. The mikva that came later, according to her, did not come to purify the woman but to prepare her for the renewed meeting with her husband, which she expected, as a bride on her wedding day. When we walked out I told my future husband how satisfied I was with the explanation and he pretty much said she was lying to herself to justify her belief.
Anyway, what I did want to ask you is one thing regarding the topic of this article. What is your opinion, as a person of faith who does not rule out the scientific method, on charging or not charging schools in Israel in general (secular, religious, ultra-Orthodox) with core studies. And while we're on the subject, what do you think about evolution studies in schools. And on that occasion, do you think all schools in Israel should be forced to also teach basic Jewish studies? I am very interested in your opinion.
Creator of the world bound by reality. Not an axiom. A law of nature is an axiom.
privileged
I have a religious friend, who explained to me that the difference between us is that for him the existence of God is an axiom.
I of course think otherwise, but can accept it.
privileged
To accept as truth things that are not true requires a complete lack of intellectual honesty
The Bible and rabbinical literature are full of claims that have been proven false, for some reason it doesn't bother you.
There is no question of convenience here - you and Raphael are simply trying to defend lies, fabrications and mistakes.
Miracles, have a nice flight. And thank you for responding nicely.
Some of you react to me a little stiffly,
I'm just exchanging opinions with you,
And precisely you
Because you are easy to talk to.
Responses to the matter arrive quickly.
No need to repeat anything twice.
and most importantly,
Understand that we are very similar.
I appreciate science.
And I know that my words about suffering sound delusional.
But you know what?
Quantum mechanics also sounds fantastic.
but what? It is based on something solid. Therefore, we have no choice but to bow our heads (and some would say carry our heads proudly) in front of nature.
This assumption is also built on some basis.
The basis is simple: the world has an artist.
On top of that you can easily say: I don't understand the suffering, but I bow my head (or it is correct to say carry my head with pride that I was chosen) before the great artist.
I don't know what he doesn't like. But guess I know what he likes. all that he created.
This assumption is not proven, (unlike quantum mechanics which has prophecies. Although I do not go into the biblical prophecies, some of which are vague, but some believed in the goodness of the peoples of the world and our people, and said that we would return here with their consent, and indeed we did) but I prefer to work with her, Even without proof, because it makes me love more. To want to understand more in order to have more influence.
In this I find my fellow secularists similar to me.
Despite their talk of being evolved from animals, and that all human morality is a product of coming together for personal benefit, I find that they have a lot of thinking about others, without the same personal motive. Until I sometimes wonder if there wasn't also an evolutional process of evolution from angels...
So, guys, have fun, I'm ready to listen.
So if you have something to say, say it in a way that I can understand. (A clear lie - detail. Etc.).
privileged
How can an obvious lie be assumed?
privileged
On the one hand, you claim that we are children and do not understand. On the other hand you know, (not you personally) what God likes, does not like. You are basing yourself solely on a book that is full of factual errors and many atrocities. Because you assume, without any serious substantiation, that the book is true, you invest incredible efforts to justify what is written there.
And the most amazing thing - you are not ready to put your faith to the test.
Raphael
Make sense, otherwise you're wasting bandwidth on one of science's inventions.
privileged
Unlike, perhaps, religion, science is aware of curiosity.
Confidential, you spoke well. Don't shy away from slander and slander. They only show weakness.
privileged
Have I already mentioned that a woman is ineligible to testify? It is not solved!
A woman who witnessed rape cannot testify. Explain, please, who is really being protected here...
Obviously it doesn't make it right.
But reasonable means comfort. We are looking for comfort. Science strives to bring comfort.
Fulfilling the urge of curiosity = comfort.
To develop a cure for a disease = convenience.
We claim that man needs more comfort, which he sorely lacks,
And faith gives the same comfort.
Not superficial faith, which is mental retardation that denies any wisdom.
but great faith. which is a total assumption that the world is harmonious and strives for a good place.
This assumption gives confidence in the power to do great things here.
I agree with the difference between Newton having evidence for his words, and my words regarding faith. The analogy is that one explanation for many phenomena is better as an assumption than many explanations. Perhaps a better example is the assumption that there is dark matter. We can say - there is a slightly different law there, but we prefer to assume not. Thus I assume that all the conditions that allowed the creation of a structure of molecules, etc. in a natural process, were laid down by the hand of an artisan. Just a discount.
The thought that the world did emerge by itself is also childish. We are children when it comes to understanding these processes in the world.
Your study of the Bible does not consider broad factors. You ignore the fact that the sages of Israel valued their wives.
When a man who values his wife, respects her more than he respects himself and always talks to her calmly, recognizing her sensitivity, (all these are explicit educational instructions), says "Do not increase the conversation", and on the other hand says "All that is without a wife is without blessing, without joy ", you understand that he is a guide to a balance system (a system of proximity and distance that preserves love) that you don't have to agree with, but you can't say that it tends to disdain women.
Confidential I liked what you wrote, only in the second part I see "suffering" more as an "average" thing that you know somewhere on a graph
Supply and demand and it balances according to what other people feel in the field, but again you spoke well, with respect to blowing water
Shmulik
What can be expected from people who programmed them. Frankenstein had more sense than them. Frankenstein knew how to think and ask and they didn't. About them and their quantity there is an expression in Yiddish: A stik fleish mit tzvai eugen and in Hebrew meat pulp with a pair of eyes.
privileged
Even if you write little by little that your faith is based on an explanation from N-Y-H A-T H-D-E-T, a brief study of the Bible and religious books is enough to find in them clearly false claims, so what you write is a bit unnecessary.
Although you wrap them in romantic notions, your intuition, imagination and feelings are no substitute for facts, logic, research, critical education and common sense.
The fact that you "feel" something "personally" does not make it true.
privileged,
The difference between Newton's theory and your "theory" is that Newton's gives predictions that can be verified and also allows it to be disproved (and it was indeed disproved). Do you understand this profound fundamental difference? Beyond that, it seems that you need an explanation that you invent for yourself as a kind of therapy required for the predicament you are in because you don't understand enough about science and really want a school answer to the big questions and now.
By the way, in your explanation, which you accept, you have to live comfortably with the instruction not to talk too much with the woman. Are you satisfied with this directive?
Raphael,
It's not clear to us why you don't have the slightest bit of error reporting capability. Both repenters blabber nonsense from time to time and their converts blabber nonsense from time to time. Happens.
I proved my point about Hitler and Stalin and I showed you, explicitly, what Hitler wrote in his book and what he said in a well-known speech. Will you no longer claim that Hitler was an atheist?
Just that.
privileged
In two words, everything you say is regret, Bret. And the prophet said about the likes of you: Let not my share be with you.
privileged
You say nice things, but they are not true. I'll just say a few for now.
Regarding music - we do know what, how and when music causes pleasure.
Regarding training scientists - a minority of the minority.
Regarding the fact that you know that God wants us to have fun - completely delusional.
Regarding Newton's laws - simply not true.
I'm sorry… ran to the airport….
God is not found outside the laboratory, my friend.
The laboratory is a partial revelation of nature, and nature is a partial revelation of God.
That's all we're saying.
We say that there is someone who created and is responsible for everything. designed the laws of nature, which we study and discover.
Why is it important to know that someone created?
The assumption of our work, that someone, since he is omnipotent and great and infinite, and does not need anything from us,
Do this work for us (for everyone, and for maybe millions of other beings living somewhere in distant galaxies).
This means that the master plan is a plan that aims to have fun.
By this we explain the suffering.
We claim that life goes on beyond life.
(And by the way, not by a 'mystical' force, but a force with legality that can be researched, except that it is completely out of our reach now. Just as different wavelengths were out of our reach in the past.
The definition of the term "spiritual" is equivalent to the true concept of spirit: the gas is made of the same material as the solid, but it is more volatile, flowing, hidden. This is the spirit world we are talking about. I don't go into the question: what is our proof that he exists. The answer is: there is no proof. But we are convinced of its existence. Why are we convinced? This is a question that I will not go into, because the answer to it is personal, I just personally feel that this explanation assumes my opinion. I'm not the only one: many scientists who understand the phenomena of the world as you do, say that this puts their mind to rest.
I can try to explain to you why this presupposes my opinion, but the explanation will never be complete. It's kind of like telling you that a certain tune is my favorite, can't explain why completely, it's intuitive. An artist sometimes composes a tune and knows it will be successful in front of the audience, can't fully explain why, it's intuitive and personal.
I feel that this thinking gives me an explanation - the S-B-R A-P-S-R-Y A-B-L M-N-Y-H A-T H-D-E-T for many phenomena. Newton did not prove gravity. Even after him, it can be argued that there is a special power that the water will sink. And a special force that the steam will rise. But Newton gave an explanation A-H-D for M-L-A T-W-F-E-V-T and it is simply M-N-Y-H A-T H-D-E-T.
That's how I think that the very existence of the world, the fundamental constants that allowed for the formation of life, the very fact that a big bang was created suddenly, the very fact that on this earth so many conditions came together, that the creation of life and its continuation depends on them, even though it was a natural and gradual, gentle process The statement that this is a statistic (very low) and nothing else, reminds me personally of the explanation of "the water loves the earth, and the steam loves the clouds", while the explanation that there is a force that simply shaped everything in the exact balance that will allow development - reminds me of the explanation of gravity . M-N-Y-H Li A-T H-D-E-T.
In this sense, of course, it is legitimate for you to tell me that yours is reasonable - to assume otherwise.
And there is another intuitive reason.
And she takes us to the subject of suffering. We see the world as a laboratory for the production of our morality. The lab contains oxidation and reduction.
My working premise is that man's greatest ambition is to give to humanity.
The sufferer causes the healthy to develop his morality. You, the scientists, largely represent the healthy and intelligent population,
And you are actually investing for the suffering.
It turns out that the sufferers make you develop your morals, and you develop your morals for them. Redox reaction.
We claim, and I am personally convinced of this, that those who suffer, whether they are toddlers, or a person whose life was destroyed in the middle,
They chose it (or rather agreed to it) in an internal place in their personality. Because I feel that within man he has the element of a free man. completely free.
Complete freedom is to do something for the world. And in that place of freedom, a person has a certain kind of harmony with the whole world, so that he feels the place where he can contribute to the orchestra. if it is by suffering. If it is by me that he becomes a scientist, an educator, etc.
Note that this is just a theory. But as long as this theory makes me appreciate the people suffering in a hospital more, and see them as superior to me on several levels, and makes me feel obligated to fulfill my duty to them, and become moral by them, I don't see it as a bad thing.
What's more, intuitively it feels right to me. Because of that element of freedom in my soul, which is all about the desire to do good. And who gave me a dash of peace even in the days I suffered.
Raphael
You were severely brainwashed, not me. And you know it!
You bring Hitler and Stalin into the discussion. What do the attitudes and actions of certain people have to do with our discussion. A vast majority of scientists do not believe, so does that convince you of anything?
You have no answer to our questions. You don't have any questions that you want to hear the answer to.
People speak badly to you, because you underestimate our knowledge, and again, even in the Torah book, our knowledge is greater than yours. You didn't read the book and draw your own conclusions, did you? They told you what is meant by every word and every sentence. There is not one original thought of yours in this whole discussion.
You are angry and confused, Rafael, and not through our fault.
Camila I admit that I said I was exhausted and that I was condescending. But at least I don't curse or call you derogatory names. I don't answer some of the questions because it is clear to me that you really have no desire to discuss and understand but only to clash.
Kamila, Shmulik
It seems that Raphael was not a great sage even before he repented and that is putting it mildly. It seems that the converts saw that they had fallen into easy prey and it is in their hands as material in the hands of the creator. If they tell him he has to kill in the name of heaven he will do it without hesitation
withering,
I must point out that he confirms the bad name that converts have. You usually don't reach such levels of lies with authentic religious people
Raphael,
As someone who has declared several times that the discussion has exhausted itself, you seem unable to leave it, so it's a bit pathetic that you dismiss others in your mind.
What is burning people here has to do with your unjustified arrogance, your dishonesty and no less than the spit you spit into the well from which you drink every day (behavior is especially typical for the ultra-Orthodox, although by definition not for everyone). A large number of legitimate questions are being asked following your outrageous and despicable statements and so far you have not given an objective answer even to some of them (and in my opinion not even one). You were given the opportunity to deal with a number of problems, some of which clash head-on with your faith, but you chose to behave like a rabbit (and the rabbits will forgive me) by ignoring them, diverting the discussion to other topics, inventing interpretations of the words of others that were clearly not intended at all (and you repeated this even after you were corrected).
In the bottom line, it is evident based on your words here that your knowledge, your ability to rationally discuss and even your morality, are all at a very low level. The only thing you have succeeded in doing here is to confirm the bad name that has been given to many religious people in these contexts, and the urgent need to help at least those many babies who are imprisoned every year in religious prisons so that they have some chance of integrating into a moral, conscious, creative and sharing society (without having to give up their beliefs and their identity ).
You are always welcome to start answering matter-of-factly, but as long as you don't do so, you are only polluting this site (and in the process doing image damage to all religious people) and this is despicable and ugly behavior towards both us and your friends, behavior that leads to distance and gratuitous hatred.
Bingo.
Well, it's a lost cause. I show Raphael the deep religious foundations that exist in Hitler's actions, solid facts: his first agreement was with the church, the oath on the Wehrmacht soldiers, the inscription on their belts and the things that Hitler himself writes in Mein Kampf (!) and he continues to stick to his lies. One of the things I keep telling my children is that I detest liars. detestable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
In his semi-autobiographical Mein Kampf (1925/6) however, he makes a number of religious allusions, claiming to fulfill the will of the Christian God and having been chosen by providence.[12] In a 1928 speech he said: "We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian
To say that this sums up Hitler's personality is ridiculous because there are many sides to the messianic madness mixed with the cult of personality and a struggle for his power, in fact he created a religion around himself, but to say that Hitler was an atheist and acted in the name of atheism is a shocking and pathetic lie. A lie that Raphael's proselytizers fed him in order to convert him and it's so successful, he doesn't even try to check his facts on the most user-friendly website.
Regarding Stalin, again, it is complex, of course, but what is not complex is the claim that he did not act in the name of atheism but the opposite. After all, he created a kind of religion around him and I brought proof of that.
What more is needed to abandon this stupid claim about Hitler and Stalin? What's the problem with reading a little and checking after you show claims???
Unbelievable.
Furthermore, it is wonderful that there are repentant scientists who have great knowledge and I guarantee that when they are in the hat of a scientist, God is outside the laboratory. There is no other way to do science.
My question still stands: Give me some contribution of Judaism in the last two hundred years. If all you have is brick and mortar, that's fine but admit it. not complicated.
Another thing,
Yes, I repent and there are many other people like me who have gone through a morbid brainwashing during their lives and, God willing, have been freed from it. Among them are also senior scientists who put the knowledge of all of you together in the small pocket.
And to Shamulik
The fact that you are trying to claim that Hitler acted from religious motives is completely delusional. What concerns him is only the race. Even "educated" Jews who converted to Christianity or became atheists and assimilated were not spared from it. If he could, he would have sent Jesus and his apostles to the gas chambers as well. And not that I came here to defend the Christians. Everyone knows how much pure blood they shed.
And as for Stalin - listen, it's even more delusional than delusional to treat him with a religious motive. Too bad about the talk.
And there is no shortage of examples even from this time about atheist rulers who indiscriminately murder their own people and other peoples, for example North Korea.
I appreciate that Raphael is a convert, and I will explain
The thing that amazes me is the uniformity of their arguments. It's always the same brainwashing they went through that makes them spew the same bullshit. How many times have I heard from religious people about "scientific proof" versus "mental proof". Mostly I heard this from converts because for converts, faith itself is something problematic, elusive. It is problematic because they did not absorb the belief in God from a young age and you have to work hard on explanations that will sound logical to their ears, so they are told this nonsense about "mental proof".
From converts I heard the constant nonsense about the dangers of atheists in the form of Hitler and Stalin. This blatant lie, which comes up again and again, here, be an atheist and become a mass murderer and therefore it's better to be religious, a little pisses me off because it's already a matter of fact. Go to Wikipedia and read whether Hitler was an atheist, go and read and decide if it is relevant to the discussion, because nowhere did he say that he would exterminate the Jews in the name of his atheism. If he did, come on, we'll talk, but it's just the opposite. Hitler is an excellent example of religiosity as a solid ground (Christianity that preached Jew-hatred for centuries) to create a crazy demonic dance of personality worship of the leader, racial supremacy and nonsense that comes from Germanic pagan beliefs. Go read, check and stop spreading embarrassing nonsense that Amnon Yitzchak told you. Check it out. The blind faith should only be in God. In everything else, doubt and check. On the other hand, religious people from the age of zero simply believe with all their being in God and that's it. That's enough for them.
Therefore I estimate that Raphael is a convert.
My question still stands: Give me some contribution of Judaism in the last two hundred years. If all you have is brick and mortar, that's fine but admit it. not complicated.
Yehuda
When you see a blind man trying to run into a lake infested with crocodiles, you try to stop him, even when he comes back for more and more attempts after you've already stopped him before, and it doesn't matter at all if he's convinced he's running into a sea of endless love, you'll still try to stop him, even though you probably Eventually you will run out of strength to keep stopping him, and he will probably end up being eaten by crocodiles (if he doesn't stop trying to run to the lake).
Notice how one person who is apparently religious, manages to annoy you all with hundreds of comments when his whole purpose is…. It's right to tease you. The time has not come to kick him out and not answer him. Leave it and go to other articles. Don't let him have the fun of paralyzing you. Leave him, he is not worth the effort and he does not contribute anything to you in terms of your additional knowledge. From the beginning I understood this and did not enter into an argument.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Raphael
Where are the answers? I have been waiting quietly for more than a week. And that's without going into the answers others are waiting for.
(You can be calm. Everyone here knows that they won't get even half an answer from you. Everyone already understood a long time ago that you have nothing to say and you have no ability to respond to anything. You can go quietly, really no one will complain.)
Raphael
We want you to understand that you are talking nonsense. There are other people reading this site, people willing to listen and learn.
And you leave a lot of things here that need to be cleaned.
You claim to understand science and the Torah, but it seems to us, to a considerable group of open-minded people, that you do not understand this or that. You constantly write that it says so and so in the Torah, and when you are asked for an explanation you throw out "Leave it, you cannot understand".
And the truth - I personally don't want to go through the brainwashing you went through.
You don't answer questions. You ask (as if) and show incredible disdain for the answers.
What are you even doing here? After all, knowledge is the enemy of religion, at least the religion you supposedly represent.
Friends, aren't you having fun that I'm still scrolling with you in this endless thread? Unbelievable how much emotions and adrenaline are poured here like water. Again and again the same questions and again and again the same answers. I even managed to bring Albenzo back here, who repeatedly promised not to be dragged into trolling. What is so burning for you?
Rafael the sneaky, I read your comment. Another evasion does not add any points to you but only shows how much you are not a decent person (I would expect a person who considers himself to be of high morals to at least be an honest and decent person).
You are the one who wrote: "Judaism says that the laws of nature that describe not only the material reality but also the spiritual reality were given to us by the Creator in the Torah, and whoever studies the Torah has the full picture"
In other words, it follows from your claim that those who study Torah *also* have knowledge of material reality. I do not know a single example of such knowledge revealed by Yeshiva students, and in fact not by any person in the world who relied on Torah studies. The options I see are:
1) Such knowledge exists and is even realized as advanced technology, life-saving drugs, etc., but I, in my great ignorance, do not know even one such example. I would appreciate it if you could enlighten me.
2) Such knowledge exists but the Torah scholars hide it from humanity, meaning they do know things through which technology and medicines can be developed that will help billions of people but they choose not to reveal it, not even to the members of their community who suffer from the same harms as the rest of the people. Could you explain why not to make use of this knowledge, which would have prevented a great deal of suffering throughout the world and even saved lives? What reason is there for such selfish and immoral behavior?
3) Such knowledge does not exist. If this is the correct answer then I don't understand why you made a false claim. Is it because you are morally superior and therefore you are allowed to lie?
Another reference to the heart of the matter by Raphael. What can I say, you just took my review and handled it perfectly.
Apparently my review is also defined by you as "scientific", so there is no need for you to refer to it. Just call me baby.
ALBENZO I can't believe that a famous and important scientist like you has such a childish and petty behavior.
The middle Camilla, you can clearly see that you didn't read the penultimate comment I wrote.
Raphael,
Are we to understand from your words that the Torah scholars do not have any real knowledge about the material world to offer for the benefit of humanity, and this is in complete contrast to what you wrote earlier? If I misunderstood you, you are welcome to correct me by pointing out such contributions that the Jewish religion has made for the benefit of humanity in the past, as well as this kind of knowledge (that is, something real and well-defined that can be measured - this is the meaning of material reality) that scientists are still struggling to discover.
If, on the other hand, you choose to go back on the claims you made on this subject, I would be happy to receive clarification as to why you made them in the first place. Continuing to ignore the issue only shows that your moral level is poor (unfortunately quite common among religious people and especially among ultra-Orthodox) and it only convinces more readers that the cart of the religious is indeed empty (or at most full of nonsense) and that there is no reason to think that you have anything worthy of adoption, material or spiritual , and rightly so, because who would want to adopt anything from people who both demonstrate ignorance of science and behave dishonestly (morally and intellectually)?
Raphael,
This is what happens when you don't study core studies.
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that he was doing God's work (several times). Hitler's first agreement was with the Catholic Church and in the agreement permission was given to the Church to educate the children of Germany. A huge percentage of the SS were active Catholics. When a soldier in the German army took an oath of allegiance, he raised his hand (his right hand if I'm not mistaken) and said: "I swear by God..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_oath
On the armor of every soldier in the German army was engraved: Gott mit uns meaning, God is with us
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_mit_uns
continue?
Stalin was brought up orthodox and later adopted something of a Spinoza-like divine. Stalin himself was not a god (like Hiroito) but almost a god and actually created a total cult of personality around him. Here, from Wikipedia:
He was sometimes credited with almost god-like qualities, including the suggestion that he single-handedly won the Second World War
also
In a 1956 speech, Nikita Khrushchev denounced Stalin's cult of personality with these words: "It is impermissible and foreign to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism to elevate one person, to transform him into a superman possessing supernatural characteristics akin to those of a god
In addition, Stalin introduced magic crops (Lysenko Crops), abolished the science of genetics on the grounds that it was a bourgeois pseudo-science and much more.
Does that sound like an atheist to you, really? Does that sound like a liberal humanist to you? In any case, he did not do what he did in the name of atheism. He himself never claimed this and therefore your example is in total an example of the delusional brainwashing you are going through.
Here's the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Religion_2
Wikipedia: This is what atheists do.
Beyond that, you can continue to babble as much as you want about spiritual dimensions and "smart" examples that you bring as proof of something you claim cannot be proven, but I will say it again: there is no such thing as a spiritual dimension. If you can't prove it, these are just words and if you are allowed, then so am I. Here: there is such a thing called a psychedelic dimension. I can't prove it but you, you know what I mean. In this dimension you can talk to imaginary friends, cancel achievements of science and above all, pat yourself on the back because you have a magical book while occasionally using computers.
Honestly, it kind of reminds me of Saddam Hussein in his miserable pit enjoying American snacks.
Hasoi didn't give any example but just rambled something about plaster and mortar, so my question is still waiting for a concrete answer: Give me one contribution of the Jewish religion in the last two hundred years. What is difficult?
Obviously you don't see fit to justify yourself. You didn't see fit to justify a single word you said everything, so why start now?
And by the way, I wanted to congratulate you on the invention of the new term "scientific proof". Well done for your creativity - by adding the word "scientific" (even though proof is proof and evidence is evidence and it has nothing to do with science - science is based on evidence but it didn't invent it and it doesn't belong to it), you freed yourself from having to prove anything you ever said . From now on, when they ask me for a passport upon entering Israel, I will say "This passport is scientific and I am not scientific, so it is impossible to prove my identity with a passport!" And I will try to go past the review. We'll see what happens.
The prize is on the way…
Raphael
I tried to help you. You are completely impervious to what I am saying. You want to debate here, so please respect the debate and stop belittling anyone who disagrees with you. Our opinion is at least based on thought and self-decision. You only have "you don't understand... everything is written in the Torah..." and actually - until now you haven't said anything.
Instead of listening, you talk. Raphael - Think about what we are saying.
Miracles please don't threaten me. It scares me.
ALBANZO I don't see fit to justify myself in your eyes.
Raphael,
I publish articles and promote science. And you?
Raphael
Do you have a religious friend who is not afraid to listen and think about what we are talking about?
Miracles
Not sure that Raphael is great in Torah. I doubt he can even butcher. You need to know something for that too. He needs to go back to first grade. Whoever restarts it can be recommended to receive the Lenin Prize and receive the Ignoble Prize.
Raphael
What does Hitler have to do with it? Has your faith screwed up your brain?
Atheistic science has tripled life expectancy. The third … you must not understand … multiplied by 3 times.
Raphael - science knows how to explain thinking. The fact that you are not able to understand the explanations is your problem only. Don't throw yourself on the world. You may understand a great deal in the Torah, but you do not understand anything in science.
And the truth? Even in the Torah you did not show any understanding above that of a child in kindergarten.
You see? I also know how to speak badly. If you don't stop with your disgusting diarrhea of words, then I will be forced to continue, and describe the religion, and the religious, as I see them.
Shmulik
Anyway, one answer for you. You want me to prove that there is a spiritual dimension. When you say prove you mean scientific proof. It is impossible to prove with scientific material means the existence of a spiritual dimension. I already said it before. We also discussed this and gave an example that it is impossible to prove scientifically that there is a thought and what its origin is. What you see in brain scans is only the effect of the thought on the brain cells and not the thought itself.
Regarding the contribution of Judaism. Secret has already answered you. And yet when you ask this you mean what is Judaism's contribution to science. So. Perhaps you can explain to me what the atheists' contribution is to humanity? Was Hitler religious or was Stalin religious?
Of course, Judaism's contribution to humanity is on a spiritual and moral level, despite all your nonsense about what he wrote. The scientists contributed and are contributing to science, among them there are those who believe in a creator of the world through religion and those who do not.
The contribution to science is not in your pocket, nor that of Albenzo, nor that of the first or last Camilla
Raphael
The result - a technical victory of logic over religion.
Where are the days when you were so confident?
Miracles
In relation to the flat earth according to Raphael's method the earth also stands on 4 elephants. It's enough if one elephant moves, all the chances are that Raphael will fall and end up in the orthopedic department and then Asharani will say I didn't smoke an elephant.
Raphael,
We ran out a long time ago. It's just that you just dropped the token
First of all, everyone should say a nice hello to Albenzo.
Secondly, miracles, what's the problem with that? Do you want me to explain how it fits with what you think really happened? Really cool.
On this occasion, I also want to say goodbye to you in this thread, which seems to me to be exhausted. Hello.
Something about time games and the holocaust as a reference to Camilla, there is an interest in this world not to change and revive six million Jews in the past so as not to bring them into this world into Israel, because then it will be difficult for you to find a place for yourself in Israel and it will be difficult to integrate them here when it will be logical that Israel almost started here due to the holocaust, with respect to Some train of thought
Raphael,
And I have already written again and again that there is no such thing as a spiritual dimension. Do you claim there is? Bring evidence and prove it. What's complicated?
And I have already asked to receive one donation from Judaism in the last two hundred years. Shouldn't be complicated.
And another question: do you often talk to the woman?
Raphael
Note that I am probably the most tolerant here……
The simple thing is, Raphael, that if you have nothing to offer in the field of understanding material reality, a strong suspicion arises that even in the spiritual context, your cart may be full, but mostly straw and hump. The problem is that there are already too many confirmations for this suspicion, for example in particularly poor morality in relation to people who were destined by fate and were born into the "wrong" sex or the "wrong people" or the "wrong" sexual orientation, but also in many other examples from other fields. That's why I prefer that we concentrate on something that should be simpler if we accept your claim regarding the complete knowledge of things, including knowledge of material reality. From your words it sounds to me that it shouldn't be too difficult to find clear examples of this that are not of the unfortunate type of marking the target after the arrow has hit like the embarrassing example regarding the "prophecy" regarding the Holocaust. For example, I hope you understand that because the word holocaust did not have a defined meaning before the holocaust occurred to the Jewish people, the claim that finding this word using the method of skipping letters in one of the many places where it is about the bad temper of the father who is chronically beating his people, is not evidence of prophecy but at most evidence of the level of stupidity Religious people are willing to go down to it to strengthen their hardened faith. An impressive prophecy cannot be a vague Hamitzer puzzle to which many possible solutions can be adapted, it simply does not come close to the meaning and quality of knowledge that we know from the world of science and thanks to which all of us, secular and religious alike, enjoy it and its products day in and day out.
In short, I would appreciate it if you shared with us some of the actual knowledge that you claim to have in your possession.
Raphael,
The sentence you wrote: "Science itself relies on laws of nature whose very existence is an axiom and it is not known at all what forces them to exist" is not even wrong, and it is unfortunate that you do not even understand why this sentence is so disconnected from reality.
You also wrote: "Judaism says that the laws of nature that describe not only the material reality but also the spiritual reality were given to us by the Creator in the Torah, and whoever studies the Torah has the full picture", well, let's focus for a moment on the material side, could you present to us the The five most significant discoveries in the context of material reality that the Jewish religion gave to the world? I admit that in my ignorance I do not know even one such discovery and I would be happy to be enlightened. In addition, since according to you those who study Torah have the full picture, could you tell us something clear about the material reality that is not yet known to science? It would be really cool for me if I could think of an experiment that would test whether the prediction given by the Torah is indeed true or not. It seems to me that I have already written before, maybe even you that the ultra-Orthodox have a primary interest in showing all the other (disobedient) Jews that the Torah does indeed impart real knowledge, since you are guaranteed that you will not have to wait until you are a majority in the country so that you can impose a Halacha state on us, this will happen by itself voluntarily. All you have to do is show that your knowledge really works, for example you will invent some cool technology that the world does not know about yet, or you will find a cure for diseases that failed science has not yet been able to find a cure for those who suffer from them. Think of the spiritual progress Judaism would have if, for example, the majority of the secular were convinced of the superiority of the Haredim's knowledge and chose of their own good and free will to get closer to religion and invest their time in Torah study, isn't this a worthy aspiration? After all, you yourself said that the more Torah students there are, the better. Can you explain why you don't?
Raphael
And after that …… we will talk about the flat earth. I will be happy to help you, because I know exactly where it is written in the Bible……
Be a man - stand behind what you said.
Raphael
After that, please give me a reference to the theory of vaccines.
Raphael
Can you please substantiate what you said about understanding the world through the Torah? For example - according to the Torah - the earth was created before the sun. Please explain it to me.
Raphael,
It won't advance us at all? You must have glued your eyelids with super glue, because if you just open your eyes you will see that this approach has advanced us from dustbins to space. I will not repeat the descriptions of the success of science again, read previous comments.
But never mind, the knowledge is found in the Torah. So do me a favor, consult with the Rebbe and write me a comment telling me what's going on with quantum gravity...
That's it, I promised not to comment anymore and I already broke the promise. No more.
Good luck to everyone and my sincere apologies to the pigeons.
I have no way against science. And never in this entire thread have I said anything against science. on the contrary. But as I said in one of the comments, this is also what Albanzo is saying now, and I quote, "We look at the world around us and understand what the laws are that describe it (probably)", meaning (according to my interpretation) we do reverse engineering to discover the complete and true laws of nature, whereas Judaism Says that the laws of nature that describe not only the material reality but also the spiritual reality were given to us by the Creator in the Torah, and those who study the Torah have the full picture. You prevent yourself from learning Torah with various claims and explanations, and therefore you will never have a complete picture of reality, but only what you can perceive using this or that device or particle accelerator. Now you can continue your mockery but it will not advance you at all. You don't learn anything from mocking, you only get locked into a certain concept that you see as the face of everything.
Life
In my opinion, Raphael, like many religious people I have known, suffers from severe Denning-Kruger syndrome. I hoped he would at least try to understand.
Miracles,
Ravens are used in Westeros to this day
Miracles
I think you should stop answering Rafael. He has no basic understanding of science. What to be angry about. Even treating 10,0000 to the infinite power will not help.
Shmulik
In the 80s the great Lockheed still used postal pigeons in California, and until 10 years ago pigeons were used in India.
Zen is not so ancient 🙂
albentezo,
I don't know why you're going down on postal mail!
You can use them to get a serious upload. Just not at night 🙂
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-11325452
Raphael
You're getting annoying. Science does not rely on the laws of nature. The laws of nature are not axioms.
You just dug yourself a hole and you are talking nonsense, hoping we will all be fools.
In case it wasn't clear, I'll repeat it again. To do science you don't have to believe in anything.
For example, I don't believe in the big bang. I know there is a mountain of evidence to suggest this theory is true. I know it may not be true. I know that in order to advance our understanding of the universe and its formation, the right thing to do is to ask "if the big bang theory is true, what else does it tell me?" And I know that even for the new predictions I will have to look for evidence and support in nature. This is how you build a knowledge base without needing any faith. This knowledge base is not 100% certain. Yes, it could be that science brought us to modern culture by sheer accident and that it is in fact complete nonsense.
I can't believe I got dragged into this stupid trolling.
Raphael, you repeat over and over again that you supposedly know basic things about science and have a core education. You even told Nisim, if I'm not mistaken, that you know what he knows - but what you know he doesn't. In any case, you have not the slightest idea about the most basic thing in science. You're not even close to grasping what it is.
Many, many years ago, our ancestors realized that nothing we call "knowledge" has a guarantee. It is always possible that we are wrong. But unlike you, they didn't see it as "game over, it's all faith", but were a little smarter. They thought to themselves and decided to invent a method that distinguishes between hypotheses that we do not know for sure whether they are true or not, but probably not, and hypotheses that we do not know for sure whether they are true or not, but probably are. This is called science. That is, the very fact that you are trying to create a dichotomy between "knowledge with 100% certainty" and "knowledge that is not certain and therefore depends on faith" shows that you have no idea what science is, and you are a failure of the Israeli education system. What people understood a few thousand years ago - and you still don't understand - is that looking at things in this dichotomous way is a grave mistake that those who suffer from it will never be able to understand the world in which they find themselves.
And wonder of wonders: today we know that if we follow this method, and base our lives on the ideas that have been diagnosed by the scientific method as "not 100% proven but probably true", we get internet, GPS, spaceships, cures for almost any disease, heart transplants, accelerating particles to speed The closest to light, nanotechnology, skyscrapers, etc. If you base yourself on ideas that have not been diagnosed as "probably correct" by the scientific method, you get bloodletting, postal mail and reading in coffee.
Science is not "faith". Science is based on a series of tests in which the compatibility of a certain idea with reality is tested. In the test of the result, science succeeds in bringing us from darkness to light. From death at the age of 20 to healing vocal diseases. It is not based on laws at all - once again you demonstrate extreme scientific ignorance - but it defines the laws. We look at the world around us and understand what the laws are that describe it (probably). There is no act of faith here. There is only a result test here.
Anyway, it had to be said. I have no intention of continuing to comment here, so feel free to freely muck about and ask me questions that I "can't answer". Good luck with all of this and everything else.
"They describe a possibility that relies on science" and science itself relies on laws of nature whose very existence is an axiom and it is not known at all what forces them to exist. So please do not underestimate those who believe in the Creator of the world and there are many on this site.
Raphael,
Again, define for me what a creator of the world is and what his abilities are. Why do you expect me to understand what you are talking about?
Beyond that, in Hawking's last book and in the book of Lawrence Krauss, a completely naturalistic way emerges in which the universe began its life. The difference between them and an (unspecified) creator is that they base their claims on theories that successfully predict countless physical processes (you use a computer because of them).
So what is better? A naturalistic way that relies on facts or an explanation by throwing a meaningless word that is not well defined?
Note: In no way do any of them state that the way they propose is the way the universe began its life, but describe a possibility that relies on science.
Raphael
Good question!!! This is what I tried to clarify quite a few comments ago. We have several explanations for the phenomenon - what do we do?
In science - a good theory must fulfill 3 conditions. The first is that the theory does explain all the relevant phenomena. The second is that the theory has to predict things, otherwise it is not really useful.
The third is the ability to refute: we need to think of a way to test the theory, a way in which it can fail.
Scientists are constantly trying to disprove the big bang and evolution. This is the only way to expand the understanding of the world.
Raphael,
What is so hard to understand?
Read this link to understand what is meant when Mishva says he believes a certain event took place:
http://sharp-thinking.com/2014/04/19/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%94-%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%9F/
Beyond that, I say again: there is no *belief* in the big bang, but the evidence and theories that succeed in making very impressive predictions, guide us to think that there was a big bang. This.
Why create a mystery where it is not required???
So what precedence do you have in front of those who believe that God created the world?
Raphael
We believe so with high probability, yes.
You talk about concepts like the big bang and the age of the universe as if these are proven things when you actually only "believe" they happened. right or not?
Raphael
There is no evidence in science. Everything we "know" is with some probability. The more confirmations there are for a certain claim, then our confidence in the correctness of the claim increases. If we discover things that supposedly disprove the claim, then the security decreases.
This is how I see faith in God, unlike you. I see very few confirmations and very many refutations.
Note - confidence in theory is a relative thing. If I had only one theory, then I would believe it, even if it is extremely unlikely.
Raphael
"Agnostic" means "lacking knowledge". In the context of our conversation, an agnostic is one who lacks knowledge of God's existence. There is an atheist, who believes there is no God, and a theist, who believes there is a God.
Nothing to do with natural laws. The concept of "knowledge" has a clear meaning in philosophy: I know something if, and only if, 3 conditions are met:
1. I believe this to be true
2. This is really true
3. If the thing wasn't true then I wouldn't believe it was true.
There's an explanation for that if you want. What amazes me about you is that I am not sure that what I believe in is true, and from this you determine that I am an egoist. Do you see why core studies are needed?
Oh?
What does egocentrism have to do with it?
We rely on things that work, develop theories about things that have not yet been proven and wait for an experiment to confirm or disprove them. What's the problem with that?
Sorry I should have said that Agusanti does not accept and does not rely on unproven things. So there is a set of laws that is incomplete and unproven (as Nisim has already written several times: "We hope and believe that there are laws") and everything is built on it. It's not called being august. It's called being egocentric.
An agnostic does not know and cannot believe things that have been proven. That is the whole point of faith.
No one believes in the laws of nature either. We found a formalism that succeeds in predicting nature and for now it works. And so we use it.
Belief is irrelevant.
Read more here:
http://sharp-thinking.com/2014/04/19/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%94-%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%9F/
Agusant does not believe in things that have not been proven. So how does he believe in the existence of the laws of nature on which all science is based?
Life
Thanks 🙂
Miracles
If you have some extra time, take one or two courses in Yiddish, it's a smart language. I myself invented sayings and curses in Yiddish. I am attaching a link to one of the joke files
https://no666.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A6%D7%A8-%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%9C%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%99%D7%93%D7%99%D7%A9/
privileged
I once heard a rabbi answer the question "a man and a woman are drowning in a river and you can save only one". I guess you know the rabbi's answer...
Shmulik
They all cheated with the same slut.
privileged
It's enough to see the line for women's toilets at the fair to be blessed that I didn't smoke a woman.
Life
I only know one sentence in Yiddish, which I learned in philosophy
Az di bobe volt gehat beytsim volt zi geven mayn zeide.
I am sure that many educated people in Iran thought exactly like you in the late seventies....
privileged
Imagine me standing in front of you and shooting bullets at you at a constant rate. Now I run towards you at high speed, and keep shooting at the same rate. For you, you will see the bullets coming at a higher rate.
Another example. Imagine you are sailing slowly from the beach towards the sea. You will go through waves at a certain rate. Now, increase speed - and pass the waves at a higher rate.
This is a simplistic explanation, but not far from reality.
Miracles
Regarding your question about how it is possible to compromise, my answer is that time will take its course. Optimistic answer but that's my feeling. And this is for one reason only, there will be no choice. Often the demonstrations of the religious are not for heaven's sake. Once they hit the headlines there will be religious tycoons and donors opening their wallets. I heard this in his own words from a religious person. For them, religion is a shovel to dig into. The righteous of the generation are not. Years ago, my hope was that Isaiah Leibovitz would be appointed Minister of Religions. He would not make life easy for them and it was difficult for them to deal with him because of his extensive and genius knowledge of the Bible and the Talmud. By the way, there were those who called him the believing infidel. Even if they didn't agree with him, there was someone to argue with and what to argue with, even though he had a number of outrageous sayings..Since Rabbi Kook, the religious community has not grown a person with a lesson like his and that is a problem, in itself. The song was a hit, but if you read it carefully there is a strong criticism of the religious establishment. Look for the song on Google with a Hebrew translation, unless you speak Yiddish. I know the language.
Haim,
I liked.
Miracles,
Let's start a week on the right foot (on the pedal):
If I drive a car at high speed - and you watch me approach, there will be a deflection of the light.
I don't understand: the galaxies move so fast, and the light waves change so much, that we manage to detect their deviation, in the time period we measure?
Thanks…
Life
I completely agree.
The problem is that agnosticism is a very slippery slope. You are not sure, but they are sure - Ed where can you compromise?
privileged
I understood you... that's why it is solved from evidence, and not invalid....
Drive 200 km/h and you will be a "solved" driver 🙂
privileged,
So who did the men cheat with? with the sheep?
I demonstrated how the Bible treats women. They are treated as inferior and in no way equal to men. Important arbitrators, in later stages, witnessed some of the references, because Rabek, it was probably impossible to continue like this, but the principle remains: a woman is inferior compared to the husband or the man. The husband is entitled to more respect, there is an unbearable paternalism that is sometimes disguised as glorification and complete disdain for women's abilities. By the way, what is the excuse, for "Wouldn't a conversation with the wife increase?". My nicest conversations are with my wife. And we talk a lot.
Remember that we are talking about the morality of the Torah and I didn't even bring up the heavy guns in the form of slavery (slavery!), the treatment of girls whose father rapes them at the age of 12, what happens to women who are raped and don't speak out (in the city, Yani enjoys it), the treatment of gays and much more. Total horror.
Read here about Ben Surer and Morah
http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/michlol/sorer1.htm
I love that when there is something scandalous in the Torah or contrary to science, it immediately becomes a metaphor. I heard a similar excuse to the two creation stories in the book of Genesis (why isn't one enough?). The creation story is just a metaphor, but milk and meat are iron.
Read here about the amputation of the woman's hand:
http://www.motke.co.il/blogs/chapter.aspx?pun26r4Vq=FLHMG&Zrzor4Vq=FGHEI
What, the one who brought blows to her husband and almost killed him comes off clean and she, who protected her husband and the father of her children, will have her hand cut off even though she defended against an attacker because she touched his testicles? Does it make sense to you? And if she poked out his eyes, would her hand stay in hers? How do you not realize that what disturbed the writers was the touching of another man's testicles???
Pay attention to what is happening in the developed countries, the ones that had the sense to keep religion away from any legislative power: all the prohibitions that the Torah worked so hard on, do not exist at all, or almost do not exist (gays manage to get rights against your nose and your mouth). This only demonstrates how unnecessary religion is and, in fact, only interferes. The equality of rights and duties between men and women is almost complete (in Israel, recruitment is different, retirement is different, income tax credits are different), especially in the important issues. Can you guess why women only got the right to vote in the last hundred and fifty years? Only thanks to the liberation from religion did they get the right to vote.
In light of all this, I ask again: What has religion contributed to humanity in the last two hundred years?
Miracles
I will repeat my words in a different way. Faith is foreign to my spirit. I am not a religious person and I have no affinity for any behavior typical of religious people. They have their way and I have mine. As soon as they enter my plate, bed and in the future to the grave I say get out of my way and I'm sure you behave the same way. Each man will live in his own way, religious wars between members of one religion and members of another religion, between religious and secular people no good comes out of it. In such a war everyone loses. We are both Jews no less good than those who live in Bnei Brak. The problem is not with the religion per se, but with the religious establishment that oppresses itself on the secular public and the solution is a complete separation between religion and the state and increasing the percentage of obstruction. Believe me, life will be more sane then. Another problem of the religious circles. If according to their method the Messiah will come, he will have to undergo a proper and severe conversion. In Europe during the last centuries there were bloody religious wars. The example of the abysmal hatred between the Protestants and the Catholics in Ireland until wise people came and put an end to it. Do not forget that social processes that have been felt for hundreds of years have converged in Israel for a period of less than a century and it is impossible that there will not be problems. It takes time. So please have some patience. Not everything is black in Israel. There are also beautiful things. For example your profession. A small country develops missiles, satellites and more.
Miracles
I will repeat my words in a different way. Faith is foreign to my spirit. I am not a religious person and I have no affinity for any behavior typical of religious people. They have their way and I have mine. As soon as they enter my plate, bed and in the future to the grave I say get out of my way and I'm sure you behave the same way. Each man will live in his own way, religious wars between members of one religion and members of another religion, between religious and secular people no good comes out of it. In such a war everyone loses. We are both Jews no less good than those who live in Bnei Brak. The problem is not with the religion per se, but with the religious establishment that oppresses itself on the secular public and the solution is a complete separation between religion and the state and increasing the percentage of obstruction. Believe me, life will be more sane then. Another problem of the religious circles. If according to their method the Messiah will come, he will have to undergo a proper and severe conversion. In Europe during the last centuries there were bloody religious wars. The example of the abysmal hatred between the Protestants and the Catholics in Ireland until wise people came and put an end to it. Do not forget that social processes that have been felt for hundreds of years have converged in Israel for a period of less than a century and it is impossible that there will not be problems. It takes time. So please have some patience. Not everything is black in Israel. There are also beautiful things. For example your profession. A small country develops missiles, satellites and more.
Haim,
I did not ignore your words.
See Isaiah chapter XNUMX (verses XNUMX-XNUMX). The Jewish people make sacrifices, but treat the weak in society with malice.
And Isaiah goes against it.
The prophets of Baal encouraged the wildness and adultery. They slaughtered children for the gods.
The Bible is full of it.
Shmulik,
Regarding "not smoking a woman".
As a child, I learned for a year, how in all the sins in the desert (the sin of the calf, the spies) the men betrayed, and the women were faithful, and stood bravely in front of their husbands.
I blessed "that I did not become a woman", and this made me feel "unique pride", (even at such a young age boys "hate" girls), therefore it did not bother me that girls do not have to go to prayer and I do. Girls have great freedom, and boys don't. that I must observe all the laws, and girls do not. This unit pride helped me.
I grew up, and I was exposed to virtues that women have and men do not. I learned that it was thanks to righteous women that we were redeemed from Egypt.
Until I saw that one of the rabbis thousands of years ago (Rabbi Klonimos ben Klonimos) wrote, "We were commanded to bless the evil one... I will bless in a low voice in a weak language, blessed are you, O Lord, that I did not marry a woman."
Regarding "disobedient son and teacher"
Only primitive people will bring their child to the court and say "Come on, we've had enough, kill him".
We study the Pentateuch with Rashi, from the age of 5, and Rashi writes that the story is a metaphor.
He came to tell the parents: if you let the child eat meat all day, and do not educate him,
In the end he will be a thief, and will be brought to hang, and you will still sit on his grave, and cry (again - I did not make it up. This is Rashi).
Regarding "and the tip of the paw"
It is about her trying to tear off the testicle, and may cause serious injury and even death,
See http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/b501n.htm
Halachh VIII.
And it's also a metaphor. Like "an eye for an eye". The Gemara says that he must pay him an adequate amount for destroying his eye.
And what the Torah said "an eye for an eye" comes to express the seriousness of the act. He deserved to have his eye gouged out.
But in fact it will not help the victim. Therefore, he will pay him a decent amount, which will include the component of damage, shame, and suffering.
In general, the written Torah contains several metaphors. She wrote that they read in the synagogue, and is supposed to express the value principles.
It is likened to a father who says to a child: "If you keep hitting the kids in class, I will slap you!"
And the Oral Torah is likened to a mother, who says "No. He will understand. He won't do it."
This way the child understands the severity because of father, and also feels protected because of mother. It is of course a game that the father and the mother plan, while maintaining a balance.
If you want to check the practical attitude to things, the address is in the Gemara.
miracles my friend,
I'm a little surprised by you.
You say Judaism is so dark and primitive and illogical.
Do the people in the academy, smart and intelligent people, not notice that they are dealing with nonsense? Or in a thing that is so discriminatory and cruel?
Maybe there is a logical line of thinking?
It is legitimate that we will not agree. But let's not think the other side is stupid.
In principle, I was ready, as a reasonable and intelligent commenter (thanks for the compliment!), to talk to you about the logic of believing in God.
Indeed, there is logic!
but too bad
simple,
You like to deal more with science,
And you really have an amazing amount of knowledge,
just study science
And the ignorance of the people who spit on a seven-year-old girl,
Ignore Ilya.
Much thanks to you.
Regarding discrimination against women -
When they ruled that a woman should not testify, they ruled it out of the understanding that it is not good to put a "healthy head into a sick bed". To bring women into wars that are characteristic of men. You don't agree. I understand. It's even nice of you. But their intention was to put the woman in a place where she would be better off. protect.
When they decided this, they consulted beforehand with the women. You wouldn't believe it. how do i know
Because there are many stories about "women's wisdom" in the Gemara.
Rabbi Akiva, in a famous position, in front of all the hundreds of thousands of his students and the multitude of people, said: "My Torah and yours - it is hers."
His student Rabbi Eliezer ben Azaria, before he was appointed to the presidency of the Sanhedrin (where the law is decided), said to the faculty: "I will go and consult my wife if the position is suitable for me."
In the Pentateuch, God says to the father of the nation, Abraham: "Everything Sarah says to you, listen to her voice."
I was told about Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Oyerbach, who used to arrange his clothes before entering the house every day, and said: A woman is like the Shekinah.
And "shekinah" means: someone who applies the values in the practical world.
By the way, they also ruled that a man who evicts a woman must take care of her housing and finances for the rest of her life (unless she married), is it said that this is male discrimination?
Life
You only reinforce my point. The question is not whether or not there is a God.
The question is whether you let a belief that contradicts what we know rule your life.
Miracles
I do not give special status to this concept of "creator of the world" for the sake of recommendation only and I am not afraid and full of awe towards the religious. far from it. You might as well bring Yeti to present your argument. Since I am familiar with the astronomical field and know other fields, my perspective is extensive. From the two things you present nothing follows whether there is or is not God. Our knowledge, both mine and yours, is not broad enough to reach such a sweeping conclusion and with that I end the discussion..
Life
What is most amazing is, beyond the fact that there is really no reason to believe that there is a God - everyone also knows what he thinks and what he likes....
Life
You give a special status to the concept of "creator of the world", and not rightly so. There is nothing that cannot be scientifically tested. God too. If it exists, or has existed, there must be evidence for it. The search for evidence is a field of science.
You're not a physicist, but you get the big bang. You are not a biologist but you accept evolution. I really don't understand how you don't get a mb that comes from these two. It seems to me that the clergy instill such terror that you are afraid to be honest with yourself.
I didn't just give the example of Bigfoot. It's amazing, but God and Bigfoot have exactly the same amount of evidence!
Miracles
I will add a few more things. Parallel universes have been talked about for years. I don't know if that's true or not. Suppose yes, is the physics there like ours? Maybe yes and maybe not. Only when we get there will we begin to know.
And suppose there is a God in Leibovitz's language who is independent of the world.
Miracles
I'll make myself clear, I don't have enough knowledge to know if there is or isn't God, and even if there is, it doesn't mean I have to worship him, I'm far far from that and I don't pray to him. Who determines what is moral and what is not is human beings. The religious according to their method claim that God is moral. Not true. If you use the Bible you will see the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and the flood that brought the world only because he was disappointed in them. What the religious do is to personify God in order to explain to themselves why what is happening is happening. Try to see it through sociology and psychology, understand the phenomenon without expressing an opinion. If you happen to read Max Weber you will understand what I mean. Max Weber was a German sociologist who lived in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He did to sociology what Einstein did to physics.. A basic concept in his teaching is the German word gergen - to understand this or that social phenomenon. Do not say what you think about her and do not express an opinion.
The comparison with Bigfoot is incorrect. Whether or not there is a Bigfoot can be checked with the help of measuring devices that you probably know as an aeronautical engineer. My definition of the agnostic is the correct one. I will illustrate my point. Our treasure of knowledge is very large and new things are discovered every time. Did anyone in the 19th century think about quantum theory or string theory? When they started to study the structure of the atom, did anyone think of quarks? New things will always be discovered and always opened
New research tools and again we will discover new things. Do we have any idea what is going on inside a galaxy that is 10 billion light years away from Earth. New things will always be discovered that will require us to develop new insights. This is an endless process and therefore we have no way of knowing whether or not there is a creator of the world and if so it is not certain that the world he created is successful.
Life
I will give you a simple example - we will probably never know if there is or is not Bigfoot. So it seems to you that a rational person should walk around every forest with a shotgun to be safe?
Life
I disagree with you on your definition of agnostic. The meaning of this concept is - I don't know. This has nothing to do with the future. I don't think an agnostic thinks we'll never know. I too, lacking any unfounded faith, will bow down like a rag if God appears before me.
Shmulik's explanation is very correct, although of course the topic is broader.
The reason that makes many people religious (vast majority) is the community. I'm talking about thinking people, of course, and not the flock of sheep that follow the rabbi or the priest like Justin Bieber lovers of all kinds.
Pay attention to the confidential - a balanced and intelligent commenter. He tries to justify the terrible discrimination against women in Judaism on the pretext that it is the men's job to protect these unfortunates who lack the ability to make their own decisions.
Pay attention to the issue of morality. Read a bit of "Genesis" and you will see how moral God is. Morality absolutely does not come from religion - quite the opposite. If you, as an adult, need an external party to explain to you that a certain act is immoral, then you are in a difficult situation.
Regarding history - yes, the book belongs to our history, and I assume that parts of it also have some factual basis. Of course, only from the time of the kings, there is archaeological evidence for this.
Haim,
What a disappointment.
Shmulik
I will answer you anyway and briefly. If many are leaving the land, you too will leave the land and in it for Zion a Redeemer.
Haim,
As Israel once wrote: In order to get a prescription, I don't need to study medicine but go to a doctor, so I asked you a question, as an expert on the subject (not in an argumentative section): How can we talk about a need if all the children of religious people are forced to be religious and therefore they grow up to be religious people . How can this be eliminated from the equation? How do you get it to the lab?
If you don't feel like answering, that's fine, but unfortunately I don't have time to read books on the subject. I have more interesting topics to read about.
I would also be happy if I could explain why you are agnostic in light of what I wrote. Why don't you demand evidence?
To leave or not to leave is the question. If you open your eyes you will find that a lot of people leave and this is not a theoretical story but a completely practical one. A great many are leaving and the more democracy disappears and fades away, the more will leave. Anyone who leaves, a certain part of the country's GNP leaves with him and five welfare recipients he (or she) supported, will already have to receive the allowance from another place.
Tip: When will you know you must run away? As soon as talks begin on supervision regarding the spending of funds.
As for history, check your facts. The Torah does not have a single record that any of what is described there happened. There must be documentation for later events but, for example, I have no idea if King David (or Jesus, by the way) ever walked the earth. Does anyone have an archaeological record? Not according to Wikipedia
Shmulik
I will conclude my argument with the following:
1. Read books on the sociology of religion - to understand it as a social phenomenon. You don't have to be a believer to understand what religion is.
2. The Bible is also history. There are indeed ugly things that today's knowledge does not tolerate, and next to them are wise things such as "Will the righteous perish with the wicked", "You murdered and also inherited?" The Bible can be regarded as literature. Have you ever read Homer's Iliad and Odyssey? Read and learn a little. You don't have to be religious to read the Bible.
3 The Bible like it or not is our history. If you don't like it, go to Uganda and be the heir to the throne of Idi Amin.
Haim,
Here is the order of things:
A man sat on the warmth of the sea and stared at the sun and the seagulls. Suddenly, man B arrived and told man A about God.
Option 1: Person A does nothing, he is an agnostic. He admits, one can never prove that there is no God.
Option 2: Person A says: What are you talking about? Give a definition to God, bring evidence to it and until then, leave me alone. I don't need to prove the opposite of something I don't understand the definition of. This man is an atheist.
I prefer to be option 2.
I don't understand why you gave up the requirement for definition and evidence, precisely on this topic. I don't understand this sheepishness. In what other subject would you waive the requirement for definition and evidence. Would you take a drug that the FDA would not approve?
The rest of your response did not answer my question. You wrote that religion is a necessity and I asked, how can it be said that it is a necessity if the absolute majority of religious people are religious because their parents were religious and they happen to hold the same religion as their parents.
Regarding what to do with religion, Ana Araf? To escape to Australia, in Israel it seems that the situation is lost. Firon is going to introduce religious classes into the education system, as if the waste of time called a Bible class in its crazy format is not enough and Netanyahu is going to weaken democracy, introduce the Jewish Sharia as an inspiration to the legislators (I suggest that they bring back Ben Sorer into fashion) and is making eights in the air to cancel the value of equality as a constitutional value (Equality according to any law makes equality subject to the law). Lost.
Shmulik
The agnostic approach says that we will never know if there is or is not God.. As much as we know about the world we know very little. My knowledge in relation to the totality of knowledge does not allow me to prove anything about God, whether he exists or not. I am not here to prove anything. As for the religious education that parents give their children, there are quite a few members of the younger generation who leave religion, come out with a question and they are quite a few. There is also an organization that helps them, the Hillel organization. I want an example that religion is a necessity after the holocaust many left religion and there were also those who remained religious. It's hard for me to understand them, but the fact is that they saw fit to remain religious. Bar Ilan University is of a religious nature and they live in peace with the laboratory and the tefillin. I do not despise them in their way. In Ra'anana there is a large religious community and it lives in peace with the seculars. No one tries to impose themselves on the other. One of the greatest thinkers in Israel was Yeshayahu Leibovitz. He found it his right to ignore religion and that is his way. For me religion is unnecessary and for him not so what?. I repeat again and again what I told you. The question is what to do with religion. To understand what is happening within the ultra-Orthodox communities, read the book "A heretic by choice" and to finish with a joke by a wise man named Danny Sanderson who said the following "The problem with God is that he becomes hard of hearing when they need him".
Haim,
As far as I understood we are wired to accept *explanations* as correct. An explanation facilitates the memory operation and therefore, instead of remembering a series of facts we prefer to remember a story. For example, the story: after him they walk around in the savannah and therefore it is worth running away from a lion is a life-saving story.
Religion is a beauty of a story that explains a lot of things and once upon a time, when the human race knew nothing, that was the story. It's easy to remember, whoever performs the rituals he suggests will belong to a society that will protect him and whoever doesn't will be ostracized, so why not? Today we understand much better and dispense with the need for religion and actually, religion only gets in the way. Your claim regarding the necessity is apparently correct, but it should be assumed that the absolute majority of the religious will believe in the religion of their parents because the education is done from the age of zero(!), that is, the children are forced to believe in the religion of their parents and if this is the case, how can you claim that it is a necessity?
I never understood what an agnostic was. If you ask me if there is a God, I will tell you that I do not understand the concept, explain it to me and prove his existence. Until then, what do you want from me? I mean, I'm not sure there isn't something, how can it be, but just asking for evidence. Is it agnostic? Call me an anti-theist: I abhor the idea of there being something up there, examining me all the time, even when I'm asleep, and judging me, even in my dreams. shocking.
Have you seen the clip about Mother Teresa?
Shmulik
As a strictly secularist (in my view I am an agostic) religion cannot be ruled out. Religion is first and foremost a necessity. I say this on the background of my academic training in political science and sociology. The problem is what do you do? Take for example Spain and Italy, both of which are distinctly Catholic countries, yet they do not have the rampage of the church in the US, the population is religious and there no one would dare to introduce religion into politics. Because the political system is problematic, we look the way we look and none of the politicians has the courage to make the necessary changes. To understand at least some of these problems, read Sefi Rachalevsky's book "Messiah's Donkey". Rabbi Hillel said "whatever is hated of you for doing to your friend is a great rule in the Torah" the religious don't talk about that. They also do not know and do not want to know the saying live and let live. I, for example, would take all the crazy people of Beit Shemesh and forcefully transport them to somewhere in the Pacific Ocean, for example to the Fiji Islands, and there they would live their lives and shout Govald
Shmulik
The American Declaration of Independence states that a person has basic rights, and it is the government's job to protect these rights.
That's why the First Amendment is so important.
In Israel the situation is different, and sad. Beyond the fact that there is no constitution, the basic laws are also non-binding. Every fundamental law is in terms of "yes... but".
I will take my question about the contribution of religion in the last two hundred years forward and make a claim (not really original) that not only has religion contributed nothing in the last two hundred years, but the entire life expectancy in democratic countries is such that religion is isolated from any legal influence on our lives. Religion is completely unnecessary.
If we take the USA as an example, the first amendment to the constitution ensures a complete separation between religion and the state. I mean, I want to be religious, okay, not at school.
The only way (that comes to my mind) that religion has determined behavior is monogamy, but it is not Judaism that introduced monogamy, but Christianity. Judaism is a polygamous religion and Gershom's ban (as far as I understand) no longer applies.
In Israel, the situation is of course different, religion enters our lives again and again (marriage, divorce, selling chametz, pork, traveling on Shabbat, open places) and the situation is getting worse day by day (as Nissim wrote).
Life
Thanks! I would love to read and learn.
I get to work with Amish people a lot. On the one hand, they have many of the ills of Judaism, such as the denial of medical treatment and education, and discrimination against women. But in many ways they are wonderful people. They allow young people to live as secular for a certain period and then choose whether to return to the community. They accept and respect the difference. They pay taxes, but refuse to receive support from the state. Nor will they attack my girl, as the ultra-Orthodox did... A seven-year-old girl...
Miracles
What is happening is that there is no complete separation between religion and state and Netanyahu does not have the courage to do it and it needs to be done urgently. In addition, the blocking percentage should be raised to 5%. As someone whose academic training is in political science and sociology, I can say with certainty that all of these diseases or at least most of them will disappear. The State of Israel urgently needs a leader of the stature of Ben-Gurion. If you would like to deepen your knowledge on the subject, read Yehezkel Dror's books. The one who touched on these issues in the past is the late Yosef Duriel, a production engineer by training if I'm not mistaken, one of his books is called "Systems Madness". Another book is by a Chinese sage from 2400 years ago named Khan Fu-tse. His book is called "The Five Parasites" and it contains advice on how to run a country. When I read the book I was stunned, as if it was written today. Another Chinese sage named Mu-tse is unusually wise and said who is the wisest ruler in one sentence and I quote "the one who avoids unnecessary expenses"
privileged
Regarding evolution. In many respects we are just animals. We are exposed to the same dangers, such as disease and climate change. Medically we are no different from higher mammals. Transplantation of pig valves for example. Vaccines, for example, are developed in the bodies of horses and used by humans.
We differ from other animals in only one sense - that we have language. This is the only difference, and it is an abysmal difference.
Evolution is based on a differential reproduction rate. As long as there is no genetic difference between humans, which affects the reproduction rate, then humans do not evolve.
privileged
Regarding women - what you say is terrible and terrible. Think, you decided in fat? You, as a man, have decided what is good for a woman. Shocking, undemocratic, unethical, unegalitarian. In short - everything that is evil in the darkness called "religion".
Life
I just read on Ynet that Bibi is selling his soul to the ultra-Orthodox. I may be ahead, but not an exaggeration. I feel that Israel is fading into darkness..
privileged
There is merit in your response. What bothers me is the arrogance of "you chose us". Even if you think so, keep it to yourself. This is outrageous. No one likes to hear that they are considered inferior. And this feeling of superiority, which is not always justified, is a fundamental sin. Over time, this arrogance contributed to the development of anti-Semitism. You ignored Eliyahu's criminal act. You are probably not comfortable with it, and you also ignored the other cases I mentioned. This is religious fanaticism that has turned into terror.
Confidential, ISIS members use a monotheistic type of religion to justify rape, robbery and brutal murder.. Does this justify the persecution of Muslims?
Miracles
To say that the State of Israel is dark is a bit of an exaggeration. You are an officer on the other side. You don't have to be a secular fanatic. The one that Elijah counted. As for those who say that Elijah was a hero, does not add honor to the country.
Rafael, confidential,
If there is something I detest, it is paternalism in the guise of glorification and this is the gist of your answer regarding a woman who is ineligible to testify (and we have not yet discussed the fate of a woman who touches the shame of a foreign man if she assists her husband in the fight against the foreigner or why a son should respect his father more than his mother if they are married or "Blessed that I did not smoke a woman" versus "Blessed that I smoke as he pleases" and the rhetorical flip-flop that must be performed to explain this jerk or "Don't talk too much with the woman" or the fate of "a disobedient son"). Disgust and immorality of the first order.
Confidential, do you often talk to the woman?
You understand, I understand Judaism very well and I understand very well that you are struggling to answer an easy question: what is the contribution of Judaism in the last two hundred years. If I were to ask what is the contribution of science in the last two hundred years, I would give you an answer within a second but that it is Judaism, I would get irrelevant answers such as mortar and pestle (nonsense in juice) or that there are people who are Jews who behaved well (really? By Allah?)
And in light of my simple question and my insistence on receiving an answer, I am called a troll, by the king of kings of the troll people Raphael, who insists on filling a lack of knowledge (mainly his own) with mysteries, imaginary dimensions and imaginary friends. delusional
privileged,
You talked about Rabbi Kook, so Rabbi Kook is responsible for the settler madness who claims that if we return to our country and expel all the Arabs, or then the Messiah will come. Evangelical Christians love it because they think it will bring Armageddon and then their salvation. Just so you know the reason the evangelists like to donate money to us.
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3406002,00.html
http://www.haaretz.co.il/literature/study/.premium-1.2066429
Haim,
You mentioned Mother Teresa, so I'd love for you to watch the next clip. You might change your mind about her:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65JxnUW7Wk4
Raphael
"In short, instead of discussing the merits of an issue, is it possible and desirable to force someone to study core. You are here trolling wildly for anyone who is innocent enough to fall into your trap."
What kind of trolling did I do to you? Are you sure you know what traveling is? That's all I wanted to talk to you about, but instead of answering questions about it and explaining your position, you chose not to answer me and play games with miracles.
A version that it is allowed to exempt a group of people from core studies, although this does not fit without contradictions with your answers to the questions I asked you. I asked you to sit down or explain this contradiction. you did not answer.
I asked for an explanation as to why you think core studies should not apply to everyone. you did not answer.
You said you can't explain because "a foreigner won't understand" but you didn't try to explain at any point. That's all I'm asking you to explain.
It is completely related to the topic of core studies. So if you are at all interested in discussing the merits of the matter please answer.
well, Haim,
Let's start with the fact that I am not preparing to shoot, and not to force my way of life on you in any way. This is again a lack of understanding of Judaism.
Judaism offers things: you love take, you don't love - don't take.
In addition, Judaism says that from the moment the nation of Israel regains itself, it will begin a gradual process to reveal the usefulness of the Jewish species to the world. Not that others are not equal. But ours will have a significant role in leading the world to morality. And although in the beginning, there will be a "rebellion", at the beginning of the process you will see a retreat. Let's live and see.
The foreign workers did not make an innocent mistake.
And instead of understanding that there is one god, they thought that there are many, many idols... no! Rather, the foreign laborers were corrupt, violent, murderers, adulterers, and did all the corruption in the world. The foreign work permitted all the evil in the world, justified all the vilest passions. The gods are the ones who instilled these passions in man, and no more than that the gods themselves, in whom the foreign labor workers believed, were corrupt... Zeus, for example, pursued women, seduced them and sometimes even raped them... The foreign labor workers were not stupid. They did not think that the tree or the stone or the cow was God, but knew that these were only symbols. They worshiped the physical power symbolized by the stone, the wild and beastly life forces in the animals. Therefore they left the human features as they are. Do as much as you like.
Miracles,
You are the evolution expert.
But evolution says, as far as I know, that by the strong preying on the weak, or surviving more than him under the prevailing conditions, he produced more offspring, and thus the frequency of his genes (alleles) increased at the expense of the weak.
Therefore, when a terrorist slaughters and says "Allah and as before", he is saying: "His gods come already!" And we have nothing to say to him.
If we are allowed to prey, so is he. And the strongest will win. There is no good and bad.
As for the woman's testimony, I don't see what so horrifies you. Is it a great honor to testify in a dark interrogation room? Is it not possible to do affirmative action, which would spare the women the unpleasantness associated with testifying against someone?
The question is what is the overall attitude towards women. The sages say: "Anyone who is happy without a wife is happy without a blessing, without a favor." "Respect your wives because thanks to them you will get rich". "Loved like his body, and respected more than his body".
Life
You are unfortunately wrong. In the dark state of Israel, even today Elijah was a hero...
Raphael
Is anyone who disagrees with you a troll? Or maybe because you don't know how to answer me then you underestimate me?
All you can say is "you are not able to understand". Maybe, but the problem is always with the teacher, not the student.
Or maybe you really have nothing to say?
Try to answer simple questions. Will it really hurt your dignity?
privileged
What Elijah did on Carmel is an act of scoundrel. People are not massacred because of religious belief. Today they would bring Eliyahu to trial. There is no difference between what Eliyahu did on Carmel and the Taliban. There is one difference between you and the Taliban. They shoot and you still don't shoot. When Spinoza published his thought, the Jewish community in Amsterdam boycotted and humiliated him because he thought differently. So please, you and a disgraceful friend like Raphael, stop your bullshit.
privileged
A woman is still ineligible to testify, so all your excuses are irrelevant. Who even gave a man the right to determine a woman? Have you ever asked a woman what she thinks? What you wrote is terrible, really terrible, and shows how disastrous religion is.
And regarding evolution - what you said is simply not true, and this is why evolution should be taught!!! Raphael doesn't like long comments, so I'll only explain if it interests you.
My advice to you is confidential - you will be tempted to answer the trolls. It is not over.
privileged
Mother Teresa is not a contribution to the world? Oskar Schindler is never? Mahatma Gandhi is a contribution to the world? Rabbinate Tagore is not a contribution to the world? Emil Azhar is not a contribution to the world? Carol Lewis is not a contribution to the world? Fellini is not a contribution to the world? Newton is not a contribution to the world? Chaplin is not a contribution to the world? Mozart is not a contribution to the world? Beethoven is not a contribution to the world? Defeat is not a contribution to the world? So stop rambling.
Even in Judaism they knew how to be cruel and I say that to put it mildly. What did Moses do to those who built the golden calf? What did Elijah do to the false prophets? Read the story in the book of Judges about the mistress in the hill. What about the wars between the Kingdom of Judah and the Kingdom of Israel after the disintegration of the Kingdom. Fasting Gedaliah, who were the murderers? His people - Jews like you and me. Are you willing to call these goddesses as a light to the Gentiles?
Hidden, you don't see these because you want them to be hidden from your eyes!!!
And the light is a result of what?
And the water is a result of what?
I answered you Shmulik. You do not understand what the correct content of Judaism is, therefore you do not see its contribution.
The Judaism that you know and fight against, is a Judaism that I am also happy that you are denouncing.
But you have not seen great moral men that she has developed. See the entry of Rabbi Grossman. And he lives among us. And he took youth out of the dumps. You might argue that it stems from his personality, (and his choices. If you even accept the concept of choice).
But he will tell you that his connection to Judaism is what gives him the push.
Like Rabbi Kook who gave thousands of people confidence in themselves.
I also experience it, how a connection to Judaism makes me and sweeps me to behave better, to help more..
What is immoral about it? What doesn't contribute to the world?
Raphael, the building is not a 'result of stone on stone with plaster' but 'the building is stone on stone with plaster', on the other hand, the rainbow is a *result* of the refraction of light rays..etc.
Shmulik, your argument about the arch is similar to someone who says to a contractor, don't work on me, you didn't build this building, this building is the result of stone placed on top of stone with some concrete and plaster.
Oh... I also forgot to mention Trolig champion Shmulik.
Confidential, Rafael,
where are you?
There is no spiritual dimension, no imaginary friend, and no reason to add mystery to questions whose answers are still unknown. A rainbow is not created because God decides to send a message to humans but is created because the light is refracted in the shards of water. This is what the scientists discovered
My question to you is: Give me some contribution of religion to humanity in the last two hundred years. Thanks.
wd,
What are you doing to me now if not trolling?
You are secretive, who from his correspondence with Camila I can assume he learned at least a core, success in pulling your hook.
And what is Nissim trying to do to me all the time if not trolling?
He actually doesn't care to answer me because I'm trolling against me upside down and he's not that sophisticated to notice it.
And what about Chaim known as Rabbi Tarpon, etc., isn't what he's doing trolling?
I don't answer him because he is simply substandard. Not worth the effort.
In short, instead of discussing the merits of the issue, is it possible and desirable to force someone to study the core. You are here trolling wildly for anyone who is innocent enough to fall into your trap.
Now I will also answer your question even though I know you are trolling me:
Yes I doubt the sincerity of you and Nissim and the other trolls on this site! You don't really want to exchange opinions in a civilized way but just troll.
walking dead
Shame on the argument with Raphael. He is a classic case of Permanent Lost Case
Raphael
Well, I realized that you're much more interested in trolling for miracles than anything else, and probably more than answering two little questions for me, so I'll make it easier on you with one little question instead.
Have you ever doubted something?
Shmulik,
I will try to answer. When I say that the Jewish religion is moral, I say it from great familiarity with the subject.
But I'll tell you the truth: I don't care if you think so. For me it would be great even if you think that the Jewish religion is cruel and fight it.
Because our war is about morality. By this war we will burn immoral phenomena. And it will be our rent.
In practice, there is a lack of recognition of Judaism. Your ancestors were thinking people. Every time it is compared to other religions, which encouraged mass murder (Christianity and Islam) it is completely ridiculous. But as above, this is my personal opinion. I don't care if you don't agree with me.
Regarding women who are disqualified from testifying - the woman's dignity is at stake. The investigations at the court included intimidation, and a two-and-a-half-hour police investigation (with the methods they could at the time) for everything. In fact, the woman was spared the dubious pleasure of testifying to such and such acts of violence, or who stole from whom.
This also concerns a very ideological issue regarding women: men deal with evil. A woman deals with goodness. Men in general use power to get things done. The Knesset, for example, is a game of forces. Father exerts some leverage of pressure on the child by actually being an authority figure. A woman knows how to navigate, touch the heartstrings and pull the child's soul. make him do it for love. Today they are trying to promote women and move them to the field of strength, male competitiveness. Women have calmer features. More desire to create social contact, to build relationships of trust. Not out of business interest. But simply - to share and communicate with each other.
In general, regarding, for example, marital fidelity. A woman can testify that her husband died, and she is believed on the spot. But man - no.
I will conclude that I agree with every word of you and Nissim, regarding the religious pantheism. Or regarding the lack of respect for science.
But understand that evolution education, especially at a young age, is fantastic. He does respect science. But does not buy respect for a person. He says that man is another species of animal, which developed thanks to the "strong eats the weak" method.
Think of a child raised on this thinking. He will not understand: why devour yes, and steal no?
And regarding the German oppressor, I relied on the book "Conversations with Hitler" by Hermann Rausching, which includes the quote:
"Conscience - but here is a Jewish invention... I free the people from the shackles of the spirit... from the cruel and humiliating tortures of a false vision called conscience and morals..." (from the Hebrew translation published by Ramon, Masada and Mossad Bialik, Tivat 195, pp. 193-XNUMX) .
Of course, Hitler was crazy. I take any evidence I brought from his words back. But it seems to me that he is not the only one: it was always known that there is some kindness in the Jew. But we'll leave that to the historians among us.
Raphael
Is that why he killed so many people? I have no soul, no one has a soul - another lie designed to control fools.
I have Jewish genes, that's all.
Nissim, always remember that you have a Jewish soul, you are a son of the Almighty, and Father in Heaven always loves you despite everything. Good night.
Raphael
A curious person would think about what follows from the explanations, and then think about how to check.
Religion of course opposes this idea, an idea that was only thought of 400 years ago. This idea, alone, tripled life expectancy.
I will quote you a saying of a dear man - Why is the good book good?
Because the good book says it's good, and it's a book.
Raphael - remember what the first sin is - curiosity. Be careful, or your evil god will harm you and all generations after you.
Miracles,
So suppose it is both a wave and a particle. And the fact that they seem contradictory to you is due to the limitation of your intellect. For the one who created the world has no end to his wisdom, while our intellect also has an end.
Raphael
And if there is a contradiction between them? Suppose one says that light is a wave and the other says that light is a stream of particles?
Miracles,
Honestly, I'm not sure I know what you're talking about, but, I'd say that if the two explanations are really, really equal in strength, then assume at this point that they're both true. well…
Raphael
For the third time, suppose there is a phenomenon and I know two different explanations for the phenomenon. What do you suggest I do?
dear miracles,
I don't know why I like you despite everything. Remind me again what the question is. Something with a hammer, no?
Raphael
Answer my question without hesitation...
Raphael
If I start a sentence with "I think that" then I say what I think.
Who is trying to convince of something?
Raphael
These things are written, and I speak about them openly if anyone is willing to hear.
By the way, in the area I'm in, 80% are Jewish, some are even religious, including ultra-Orthodox.
I thought I showed that I'm not a hypocrite and I won't lie.
Miracles,
"I think science can explain everything, but we don't know all the explanations today", sorry it still doesn't sound convincing.
Miracles,
Do you also tell your Christian friends in exile face to face what you said to the secret about the Bible?
Raphael
You are a pathetic little man…. I'll say for the millionth time, I think science can explain everything but we don't know all the explanations today.
I will explain again, every phenomenon has a scientific explanation.
Raphael,
He doesn't need convincing. you use a computer This. You were convinced.
There is no spiritual dimension, there is no imaginary friend and my question still stands: Give me some contribution of religion to humanity in the last two hundred years. Thanks
Miracles,
Instead of a simple and direct answer, I hear from you: "We have a number of explanations... we cannot explain... science can explain but the correct explanation is currently unknown", "we hope and believe that there are laws". Sorry to tell you, that doesn't sound convincing. try again.
privileged
Your response is irrelevant. Your morals are sick. Sacrifice of animals, giving a certificate of immunity to murderers, a father who is ready to murder his son without batting an eyelid, a god who murders pregnant women... and we are still in the first book.
And today... a woman is ineligible to testify, it is allowed to evade the army, and so on.
Disgust of religion.
Raphael
So that you understand the connection between my words: we have several possible explanations for the formation of life.
Therefore, we cannot explain the formation.
So, in this case, science can explain but the correct explanation is currently unknown.
Therefore, my question in advance.... What do we do in such a case?
Raphael and Hasoui,
you have got to be kidding me
privileged,
Where did you get that the Torah is moral? Insolence of the first order. Religion has hijacked the concept of morality and everyone thinks that religion = morality. All the madness in Israel and in the world today comes from religious wars and you think religion is moral. joke.
Answer me just one question, if you don't feel like answering anything else: do you feel comfortable that, according to your moral religion, a woman is ineligible to testify? Just that.
It should be noted that you also confused religious people, Jews, it doesn't matter, and the contribution of religion itself. What is so difficult to understand? I was not talking about the contribution of the people themselves!!! I will write again: when a scientist who is also religious enters the laboratory, he leaves God outside the laboratory. What is not understood in that? A scientist does not hope that God plays with dials and buttons and a scientist does not pray that God will perform a miracle (to religious people this should be clear. It is not proper to ask for miracles that are above nature, remember? There is such a midrash, isn't there?)
So again: what contribution has religion produced in the last two hundred years?
That's it, I've heard it all: someone is using Hitler as an advocate of honesty. I lived to hear it. By the way, please provide the link to your claim.
In conclusion, I will write that I also do not understand why you wrote army in this context. Well, I certainly understand. We all still enjoy the religiosity that is taking over the army. May God help us.
Raphael
No, don't make me lie to myself. I think science can explain everything. We don't know how to explain everything today, but I don't think there is a barrier to our ability to explore, discover and understand.
Now the matter is closed.
Please - answers to the questions. Especially to my question about 2 explanations for the same phenomenon,
Confidential, thank you.
oak
If you had read my words carefully you would have noticed that I mention additional reasons. As for the thinkers, I brought the most prominent ones who came with the most significant breakthroughs, especially in political thought. The only ones in political thought who are prominently recognized are Spinoza and probably Philo of Alexandria. It is not for nothing that I mention India and China, two countries older than the Jewish people. Go to the websites discussing Indian and Chinese philosophy and you will see how much wealth there is there. The Jewish people do not have a monopoly. On the life expectancy of a people.. I have read and read chapters in Rambam and without underestimating his value he was greatly influenced by Aristotle. There is no doubt that there were also rabbis of stature but not on such a scale. Did Rabbi Soloveitchik leave his mark on history even though he was well versed in philosophy? The same goes for the Raya. Has anyone in the world's philosophical circles even heard of Rabbi Mekotzek and who in those circles has heard of Rabbi Muhliber. Or on the Rebbe of Mezaritz. You didn't pay any attention to what I was saying about the political idea, have you heard of Sun Tzu, Khan Fitza and Clausewitz. Why was there no reference to astronomy in Judaism for generations, was there in Jewish history a scientist like Tsiolovacki. Give me the name of one Jewish mathematician in antiquity. Why were there no writers like Homer and Sophocles. Why at that time were there no writers of plays like in Greece and these are still presented in theaters today. As someone who knows something about Judaism and as someone who cherishes the world of Jewish content and has a lot of appreciation for it, I know how to look at it in historical proportions. Where there were huge civilizations in the past, they opened the sciences. This does not exist in Jewish history. Israel has never had an academy like Aristotle's. I will not add more. If you want to reply don't do it using the theological methodology. With theology it is impossible to understand how languages develop, it is impossible to know what an integral calculus is and it is impossible to develop the chariot tank. c In additions and Rabbi Meir Baal Hanes there is no reference to the issues. What did he know about the rabbis?
Shmulik,
What about morality and conscience?
Our greatest enemy of all known times said that we brought morality and conscience into the world.
Religious people in the military and in industry contribute with full vigor because of their belief in their Jewish duty to be an example to others.
The general message of the Torah is very moral, according to how it is taught in the yeshiva. And not according to how it is presented here.
And according to the stories, in every town and village we had exemplary people that the non-Jewish neighbors also knew how to appreciate. Kind people. doing Even nowadays we have those, such as Rabbi Grossman who also received the Israel Prize.
I think that the same effect that causes the Jewish people to receive more Nobel Prizes in relation to their numbers, works to ensure that there will arise from among us many exemplary people in the field of morality in relation to our numbers.
Raphael
"We are not in a position where we have to prove"
In your own eyes, you are not in a position.
In the eyes of others, you are in a position.
Raphael,
So you admitted that there is no contribution in the last two hundred years. Thanks.
Regarding everything else, I don't agree but it doesn't matter, it was important for me to see how you would answer. you dodged
I would say that it is terrible, that you are unable to think of a single achievement of Judaism in the last two hundred years. don't you think A new drug? Improving the status of women? Improving the attitude towards children? Improvement in life expectancy? Improvement in human well-being? something???
Haim,
Life expectancy depends on military strength? You're right, maybe that's why the Jews survived, and the others didn't really survive.
You threw out the names of some thinkers from the nations of the world. Walla ?
I won't make it too hard on you. You must have heard of Rambam and appreciate it. Have you read one of his essays?
I can write you the names of over a thousand spirit giants that you have never even heard of.
I would tell you about them, but there is a problem. They are Jews, and that probably doesn't really interest you.
The truth is, I'm optimistic.
According to the sentence: "Wisdom is probably genetic", maybe you have a solution.
Can you expand, please?
A few idiots isn't bad, but when an entire country is haunted by demons, cool weather is better, especially for children.
The Jews did not invent monotheism, Ber.
Besides, it's not a real contribution to humanity.
Instead of sacrificing bats to Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck, the stingy Jews sacrificed only to Jehovah.
Truly an amazing achievement.
Great bargain.
oak
There is no connection between the two things. It is true that these countries that were superpowers are not today, but their contribution is unprecedented on a historical scale. There were other small states that also did not survive, for example the Hittites and Carthage. The lifespan of a state depends on its military, political and economic power. Two nations with a tremendous intellectual stature as well in scope are China and India. and they have a longer history than that of the Jewish people. The oblivion of the Jewish people is probably genetic. in essence Are the Jewish people really the smartest? Not sure. Look at his political behavior in everything that happened to domestic policy and foreign relations with other countries, especially superpowers. With all wisdom, why after Solomon's reign did the kingdom break up into the two states of Judah and Israel who also fought each other. It is not enough to practice theology, one must also run a country. The Jewish people were not blessed with this. Look at what is happening in the Knesset and we don't have an advocacy line worthy of its name in relation to the rest of the world. We always apologize.
The Jewish people have never had thinkers who discuss the concept of the state. We have never had thinkers on the scale of Plato, Machiavelli, Hobbes and more. The howler is not the vision of everything. If you want to design and manufacture an airplane, the Gemara is not relevant.
Shmulik
While the Jews instilled in the whole world the belief in one God who is not a tree or a stone or a star and also instilled in the world a set of laws that encompasses all paths of life, most of the ancestors of the nations we know today climbed the trees and we in the caves and/or sacrificed human sacrifices to the stars and the zodiac. We are not in a position where we have to prove to anyone our contribution to humanity neither in the last thousand years nor in the last two hundred years.
Somehow Rafael is right. We can never explain the starting point of everything. Why is there anything at all?
Because our brain always asks "why", and we can't answer that (we can tell it "this is how it is", but not "why is it this way")
What fun for trolls on the science site. They will never go hungry 🙂
Miracles
Before we continue to the next topic, let's first close the previous topic. Can we conclude that science cannot explain everything that happens in reality?
Raphael,
I have no problem with reading comprehension. I have explained to you several times that we are really not talking about scientists wearing kippahs but about religion itself. I explained to you that when a scientist wears a research cap, he leaves God out of the equations, out of the laboratory and he does not pray to God to perform a miracle that will save the experiment.
What has religion benefited humanity in the last two hundred years?
I'm glad you stopped talking about a spiritual dimension. At least that is.
Raphael
Your instruction book says that a person caught working on the Sabbath should be stoned. Why don't you do what you're told?!?!
Rafael finally appreciates us. And as usual he appeals to authority when it suits his goals. Hmmm... but actually God's goals, since when do tools have goals? If I build a hammer then the hammer has no goals of its own. is a tool…
Shmulik
You have a problem with reading comprehension.
We are talking about scientists wearing caps who believe in the creator of the world. You can also add many non-Jewish scientists who believe in a creator of the world who have a significant contribution to the advancement of science. Their faith did not hinder them but only helped them. You do not own the scientific advancement. Whereas in the spiritual advancement of the world you have nothing. Not just nothing, but the exact opposite of a promotion - a serious setback.
Haim,
Something doesn't work out for me.
Where did the countries you mentioned go? And how is it that the Jews are considered the smartest people?
Raphael
The science you despise triples life expectancy.
And again - you are putting words in my mouth. What I said is that I can't be sure that there are laws of nature, but you don't even know what a law of nature is, so the discussion is irrelevant.
Since you don't answer any of my questions, here's another one. Let's assume that I know 2 explanations for a certain phenomenon, how do you think I should act to know which one is correct?
If God created us, then we are His tools to achieve a purpose. If I thought that was who I was, I wouldn't have children.
I won't respond to your words anymore if you don't answer me.
Raphael
Not in the days of the First Temple, not in the days of the Second Temple, and even after that, there were no intellectual centers in Araf or anywhere among the Jewish communities like Bion and in Rome. Plato and Aristotle had a stature that is difficult to measure. These centers made a tremendous contribution to science. In the Land of Israel and nowhere else did Judaism produce astronomers and mathematicians. There was only one historian on the scale of those in Greece and Rome and his name was Josephus - Josephus Flavius. You once again show your blatant ignorance.
Shmulik,
Are you implying that Judaism did contribute at some point?
Raphael,
Blackmail on the eye roll. Sakhtain for the impurity. Good Work.
When Einstein developed the theory of relativity, do you think that in one of his equations he put God as a parameter?
What are you talking about?
My question stands: What contribution has Judaism (not Jewish people) made to humanity in the last two hundred years?
Raphael
And Achish said to his servants: Behold, you see a man who is mad, why do you bring him to me. 11 There are no madmen, I, because you have brought this, to be mad at me; This one will come to my house (Shema 16:XNUMX-XNUMX). King Akish meant you
Shmulik
How do you know that when they engaged in science they ignored the Torah?
Raphael
Tano Rabbanan "everyone who disobeys in his opinion disobeys" on the other hand, it's a complete disgrace. You are the wisest person, everyone doesn't understand anything because according to you, those who are not familiar with the first and last rulings are inferior. In fact, in your arrogant attitude, you disqualify yourself from being great in the Torah. For you, the phrase "and modesty goes" does not exist. He is a stranger to you. You are not worthy to be among Israel. Your place is in the leper camp.
Raphael,
You are not familiar with what we understand and what we don't understand but it doesn't matter.
Ignorance should not be filled with imaginary friends. What is not understood in this? Why are you making up explanations?
Your response regarding the contribution of religion proves my point: these are people, Jews, who, while engaged in science, completely ignored the nonsense of religion. Thanks.
My question remains: what did you do well except teach us to slaughter sheep and apply blood on mezuzahs because God, who sends us a thought from a spiritual dimension, needs blood on mezuzahs to know who to pass over?
My question stands: How have you promoted humanity in the last five hundred years?
Shmulik I understood
You basically agree that all your assumptions about the creation of the world have nothing to be scientifically based on. Only thanks to science you sent a man to the moon and made toasters. I agree to that.
No one denies Judaism's contribution to humanity. Many of the scientific discoveries are also thanks to scientists wearing kippahs. This is not the exclusive right of non-believers.
Raphael,
What is the connection?
We were able to deduce from what we see enough details and establish enough knowledge to send people to the moon, to invent computers and toasters.
What did you manage to do? To smear sheep's blood on the thresholds of the houses that God will spare your lives in the exodus from Egypt?
The main thing is that the thought reaches us from another, spiritual dimension. What shall we say to all the brain damaged? That God messed with the transmitter frequency and the receiver no longer receives properly?
Shmulik
Haven't you already heard that the existence of the laws of nature as you see them is questionable???
Therefore, all the "scientific discoveries" you mentioned are questionable and the burden of proof is on you. I suggest that you start by proving scientifically that the laws of nature exist and are correct and have never been changed. Successfully.
Raphael,
It doesn't show what you claim. Where did you get it from? Why do you need to add an extra layer of mystery?
Miracles
Regarding the link you sent. Beautiful. I also saw a video by the bbc in which, based on the brain scan, they can tell what the person's choice will be even before he has actually made it in his mind. It only shows that the thought comes from a high spiritual place and what we see in the scans is its effect on the brain when it descends to it.
Gabriel
Thanks for the compliment. I don't waste the time. They are used to praising themselves and each other on this site and they have no one to let them understand that what they see is not everything. I have no illusions that anyone here will repent of this. That's not the goal either. The goal is to give them another angle to think about. Help them rise from the swamp in which they are immersed.
albentezo,
Thank you.
Raphael,
There is no spiritual dimension, there is no imaginary friend and in relation to the Torah, there is no empirical evidence that connects the Torah with reality. zero. Nada There is not even a single piece of evidence for the Exodus and it must be remembered that the Egyptians were unusually anal about their records.
You want to prove that such a dimension exists, go ahead.
Those involved in science, on the other hand, are busy disproving nonsense and promoting humanity, and this is what they have been doing successfully for several hundred years. They, based on empirical evidence, try to use it to conclude about the laws of the universe and are the first to say that there are things they cannot explain. What's the problem with that? Why do you immediately fill the lack of knowledge of God?
In the meantime, a great many things that once puzzled us, received a naturistic explanation. The multitude of creatures on Earth? No, God did not put them there 6000 years ago but they developed through an evolutionary process. Dinosaurs? No, they were not placed in the ground to test people's faith in God, but really walked millions of years ago across the Earth and became extinct. Diseases? No, they are not caused by disinfectants but by bacteria/viruses/fungi etc. Earthquakes? No, they are not caused by sins, but by tectonic movements, Holocaust? No, it is not caused by sins in the previous incarnation of the Jews (Yosef Ovadia was wrong again) but by the religious madness of the Germans.
And here I ask again: what is the problem with admitting that there are things that are not understood today? Why should they be filled with mystery? Is it just so that you don't have to admit that you wasted an entire life on a foolish belief that in order to please you you go on and invent spiritual dimensions? Too bad, isn't it?
Raphael
To know how and why to doubt, read Descartes. Once again you proudly show your ignorance of the most basic things. Rabbi Saadia Gaon and Holy Harry would be ashamed of you
Raphael
You don't have to 🙂
They twist and turn in an attempt to justify themselves in your eyes, slander, and attack you personally.
Don't you feel like you're wasting your time?
Miracles,
How can you give a scientific explanation for everything when you doubt the foundation you are based on, i.e. the laws of nature?
And I repeat the quote from you "We hope and believe that there are laws".
If you are already talking about the differences between us, then I will tell you that all my knowledge is based on the Torah, which is the manufacturer's instructions of the one who created this world and all the spiritual worlds, while you are based on what your eyes see and then you try to reverse engineer the manufacturer's instructions.
Science is very important, I am not underestimating, but your picture will not be complete until you learn Torah. I promise you that if you study Torah properly you will be able to better understand what you are seeing to make significant breakthroughs in scientific discoveries that can only be known if you study the original manufacturer's instructions of the one who created the world.
Raphael
What do you think about this?
https://www.hayadan.org.il/mind-readers-2204103
Raphael
Stop putting words in our mouths. None of us said that there is no scientific explanation for everything. We said that we don't always know what the scientific explanation is. I'm tired of telling you this over and over and over again.
Second thing - unlike you, we do not have absolute knowledge. We don't know anything for sure. But - we know how to quantify (roughly) how much our belief describes reality.
And unlike you, we are smart enough to know that our beliefs need to be put to the test.
Unlike you, we are not afraid to answer questions, and admit that we don't know.
Unlike you, when I find that I believed wrongly, I correct myself. I have, I have worn a lot, many examples of this...
By the way, I liked what you said "we hope and believe that there are laws" you finally start talking in terms of hope and faith.
I strive for you to admit that not everything can be explained scientifically even though we know it exists. Because when I said that there is also a spiritual dimension in the world, everyone demanded that I prove it scientifically, otherwise it doesn't exist.
So now finally everyone admits that even in the physical world there are things that cannot be explained and measured scientifically.
Raphael
Again - we hope and believe that there are laws, and part of the work of scientists is to search for these laws.
In the not so distant past, they really didn't think there were any rules. They thought that heavy things fall - because they "want" to be in their "natural" place. At the same time - they did a lot of measurements and tried to draw conclusions. Nations that excelled in this are the Babylonians and the Egyptians. After that, look at the measurements and find regularities, cycles. These laws were useful - they are the basis of agriculture.
I don't quite understand what you are trying to achieve. If there were no laws of nature, we would not be here today. We do not know the origin of the laws, and this is a very serious research topic. Let me explain for a moment - we don't know why there are such and such particles, for example, and we are looking for additional particles, to understand what determines their number and properties.
Please - say what you are rowing for. If you are trying to prove that there is a God then you are wasting both of our time - because I will immediately ask you why there is a God.
Miracles, you use cheap language. It does not add respect to you.
So I understand that the answer is that there are certainly no laws of nature. So how do you explain all the phenomena in nature according to these laws and then everyone is surprised that they have a way to explain everything that happens in reality in a "scientific" way?
Raphael
But - the question "why" is invalid. Natural laws have no purpose, they just (probably) exist.
Why do you think there is a God? I mean - what is the purpose of having God?
I understand that you went to the rabbi and came back with some pepper in a tussik? 🙂
But probably no answers...
Raphael
Yes - it is certainly possible that there will be things that can never be understood. For example - although we have several solutions for the beginning of life, and precisely because there is more than one explanation, then it is quite possible that we will never know what the correct explanation is.
We do not "know" that there are laws of nature. We assume that there are such laws, and we hope that there are. One of the cosmological theories holds that there are other "universes" in which there are other laws of nature.
And let's put it this way - if there were no laws then you and I would not exist.
Raphael
That it cannot be understood by the human mind means nothing. About tomorrow. Could tomorrow or any other day come a person with a scientific breakthrough that will allow understanding through the human mind. At Fred's insistence, you show a complete lack of understanding of science and are proud of it. You deserve the Ignoble Award
Maybe you can explain why there are laws of nature and how every particle in the universe "knows" that it is subject to them?
Oh, I see a change. You already admit that there are things in reality that cannot be explained using the human brain.
Shmulik,
I'm not an expert on the subject of interpretations of quantum mechanics and I don't know the field deeply enough to answer you casually. In my field of research - quantum gravity - there is quite a large overlap with fundamental things in quantum mechanics such as entanglement, information theory and quantum computing - but not so much into the subject of interpretations. I can listen to a lecture or read about it and give you my personal opinion, but:
1. It is not guaranteed that you will represent a majority opinion among physicists.
2. It is not guaranteed to be particularly in-depth.
3. It is not guaranteed that it will be very soon because lately I have been very busy with work.
privileged
The example of Einstein and Bohr is excellent.
In the matter of "definition", that is already something else. In philosophy, they don't like to use definitions, but prefer that you say what your understanding is of the concept you're dealing with, in the context you're dealing with. For example - what is a living creature? Is a virus alive? Is fertility alive? Or, what is a species? I learned 7 different definitions for the concept of sex, and none of them are perfect.
I am not sure that there is nothing that is not defined as inexplicable.
The randomness that Bohr talked about (which does not contain hidden variables) is something that cannot be explained by the human brain that connects every result with a cause.
Why does the isotope decay now and not before or after? So. Einstein: But that's not an answer? Bohr: You don't tell God what answers to give.
albentezo,
I recently watched BoxTrolls with the kids. A wonderful movie.
If I may bother you for a moment with the article in https://www.hayadan.org.il/discover-the-light-2611145
I have a question about qbism…
As if you haven't seen a troll in your life...
Raphael
You shouldn't publish a book. You will become an example and a wit. A waste of money and a waste of your health. Be sure no sane person wanted to read your musings.
Shmulik
But John Cleese is not stupid….
Miracles,
Raphael reminds me a bit of John Cleese, the Monty Python debate (may God forgive me for the comparison to John Cleese)
I am thinking of publishing a book "How I subjugated miracles"
What do you think - does it have a chance to enter the core program as a required book in literature?
Raphael
It's not for nothing that the Ten Commandments lack "Thou shalt not lie" - because that's what you do. Forgive me, but you are the one who keeps your hands … “You can't understand” …..
You are less smart than you think - you should admit it.
Friends, please accept my apologies for not answering you because:
A. Albanzo does not allow.
B. Nissim has already surrendered and raised his hands on behalf of all of you.
Raphael
You're right.
There is no point in talking to a person who says nothing, but thinks he knows everything. You didn't answer any questions, and you didn't address any answers. As long as it's like this - you're just a bloated nad.
Raphael,
What is the story with the definition of thought. Haven't you realized yet that ignorance is not a problem but a challenge?
Explain why you need imaginary dimensions and member?
Raphael
Even the most talented mechanic will not be able to restore you. In the language of insurance companies, you are a total loss. If the Archangel Raphael heard you he would have a heart attack. pity him
Miracles
I knew you would give up at the end. Bye.
Raphael
I explained to you what a thought is, in my opinion. The measurements I deal with are called diffusion functional MRI.
When you leave your novel, the Torah, maybe you will search a little and become educated.
Let's just leave it at that. You don't understand what I'm talking about and I have no interest in hearing your nonsense (ie - a collection of beliefs that are proven to be false).
Oh my god, please stop.
Miracles,
If you can define then define
If it is possible to measure then say how
I knew you would start philosophizing endlessly
Raphael
"Clear and smooth - there is no God" - how does that sound to you??? Please - some modesty. Aren't you learning the Eretz religion there? Does this also only exist in core studies?
Raphael - You claimed that thinking cannot be explained and measured. I showed you (very briefly - you can expand) that you are wrong.
Now you say we can't define thought? Are you changing the question because you don't like the answer?
Is that all you have? 🙂
We are not in Kollel right now - so stop dodging questions and answers. I answered all your questions. You didn't answer any of my questions. What will? 🙂
Miracles
You clearly do not know how to define thought scientifically nor measure it scientifically.
Raphael
I gave you an explanation for the thought.
It's actually easy to measure it - I'm dealing with exactly that right now (at the same time as I'm writing here..)
There are many things we do not know how to explain, but there is nothing that we think cannot be explained. I don't know anything that can't be measured.
Raphael,
Chutsamza, any scientist will tell you that he is proud to admit that he does not know everything. If everything was known it would be boring.
That's the other reason you make up imaginary dimensions and friends, right? Could it be that you are afraid of not knowing?
Raphael,
There is no problem with philosophizing (not that this is what we do) but we declare that we are not in another dimension while philosophizing. You claim yes.
Explain to me why you invent a spiritual dimension? Why do you run to the god of gaps every time you don't understand something?
Miracles, don't go outside without a sweater.
As for us, you think that thought has a scientific explanation, but you don't know how to explain it scientifically. Right?
OK, so we already have one thing that we know for sure about its existence but we don't know how to explain and measure it scientifically. Beautiful.
Raphael
Am I the one philosophizing? Minus 2 outside, where will I have the strength to philosophize?
I have a pending response to your question
Raphael
I see that you did not understand my question at all. Therefore, I will explain in a simpler way.
There are many things we do not know how to explain, but we think they have a scientific explanation.
Incidentally, I have a lot to say about thoughts, and I know how to explain quite well what thoughts are. I will give my opinion in one sentence here, so as not to judge. Of course, this does not explain everything, and it is only a small part of the full explanation.
Well - thought is talking to yourself so that no one can listen.
I have a lot of corroboration for this explanation, if it's interesting, and if you don't keep showing off that you know everything I know.
And by the way, in the case we did not listen to mention of Nazis, Germany, dates, Hitler, gas chambers... so how do we know that the reference is actually to the Holocaust, or to a future disaster?
In short, you philosophize
Raphael,
I don't know if we can explain everything. Who knows, maybe if we can dive another 20 degrees of miniaturization we will discover a deeper theory than quantum mechanics, but at this stage we are limited by technology and quantum mechanics is all we have.
But from here until "because I don't know an explanation I will invent a spiritual dimension, why? Because I don't want to get into cognitive dissonance" there is a long distance.
Raphael
Is "can't explain" equal to "cannot be explained"?
Do you even understand my question????
Miracles, good morning! Is it still cold there?
This is the question I asked Shmulik, please be respectful and answer it:
So explain to me in a scientific way and without much philosophizing what a thought is and how it is created and possible and how it is possible to measure with scientific tools what I think of you now.
Raphael
I ask simple questions and you are unable to answer them. Your response is "I know everything you know and much more".
There are several problems with your statement here. The first is that you don't know what I know. The second is that in science you do not understand. The third is that even in the Torah, according to you (!) you do not understand much.
I'll ask a question again, and try to answer it without your unnecessary and unjustified arrogance, okay?
The question is - how did you determine that there is no way to know a person's thoughts? I didn't know this was also your field of expertise...
And I would appreciate it if you would answer my other questions, without calling me an ignorant fool.
Shmulik,
You don't know how to explain exactly what thought is with scientific tools?
Ah…
I thought that everything that could not be explained and measured by scientific tools simply did not exist.
Raphael,
It doesn't really matter if we don't know how to explain exactly what a thought is or exactly what consciousness is (but we are getting close to producing something artificial, Watson as an example and also know how to say quite a bit on the subject. Maybe Camila can expand). Inventing God as an explanation for something that is not understood today is a fallacy of the type: God of the Gaps. Even the most extreme believers know not to fall into this trap.
Another thing: stop speaking for spiritual people. Bring here a spirit person who will testify that he is in another dimension and that he is writing a book. After we check he's not on hallucinogens, we'll talk.
Raphael
There was a wise Jew named Spinoza, start reading him. As for your request/question from Shmolik to define for you what a thought is. This question cannot be answered even partially without philosophy. It cannot be ignored that your intellectual toolbox is loose. Why? You don't know and don't want to know the core subjects. A classic example that will clarify your stubbornness as well as your personality is the sentence "A donkey has a gram between the lips?
Shmulik,
Spiritual people only think and that's it?
So explain to me in a scientific way and without much philosophizing what a thought is and how it is created and possible and how it is possible to measure with scientific tools what I think of you now.
Raphael
Neither I nor those who answer you want to be the donkey of Messiah. By the way Balaam's Atheon had more sense than you. She knew not to listen to her husband and you listen to the voice of your rabbis. You don't ask questions. You don't doubt it. After all, according to your opinion, the Rabbi's words are the words of the living God. There is a song in Yiddish called "When the Rebbe dances, all the Hassidim dance" there is no difference between them and you. With tireless stubbornness you dig into a bunker of opinions completely detached from reality.
Raphael,
I'm going to make a terrible mistake but anyway, I'll ask anyway:
The boy's teachers had reason to ask to measure radiation. Let's start with the fact that there is such a thing as radiation. It's worth measuring it (to know when you're at risk of getting cancer, for example), we'll continue that it's worth teaching children how to perform empirical experiments and that sometimes you don't find what you're looking for and then you have to use other tools.
What do you lack in science's explanation of the world that you need to invent a spiritual dimension?
Note: despite what Raphael wrote, spiritual people do not connect to a spiritual dimension: they do not move to another dimension, are not in another dimension, do not live in another dimension but only think. This.
Why do you need to invent a mystery where there is no mystery?
You should pay attention:
A commenter on the science news site makes the following claims:
A. Children, who were unlucky enough to be born to parents who adopted a set of false beliefs, should not be forced to learn math and English. That is, certain people should be prevented from acquiring knowledge and skills that would allow them to understand the world better, study at university and work in most professions. Why? Because the vain beliefs of their parents are more important than this nonsense (it goes without saying that as a result of this, the likelihood that the burden of providing for these poor children will be placed on others, they will not serve and even despise the servants in the IDF, will be locked up in ultra-Orthodox society, and in their ignorance will remain loyal soldiers of this type:
http://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1000755893
B. The effects of his religious worship are not measurable by any scale and therefore naturally he is exempt from criticism, from the reasoning of his claims, and from the requirement to provide some kind of evidence that his words are nothing but lies and fabrications. After reading the stories of the Bible and the legends of the Sages, he knows many mysterious things that no one else here knows, so there is no point in treating anyone who underestimates his supernatural powers. Faith and spirituality (as well as witchcraft, astrology and smurfs) are a deep and wonderful thing, something only the wise see (especially those who fear core subjects).
third. Although the ultra-Orthodox public now enjoys exemption from military service, partial exemption from work and full exemption from obedience to all state laws, he threatens that "it will happen very soon when we will be the majority here and then you will not be able to complain because we will pay you back in exactly the same currency" - and what will happen soon? - Everyone will be forced to join, by force, his cult and obey his vanity beliefs. And all this even though no one (including me) would dare prevent him or anyone else from learning as much Gemara as he wants whenever he wants.
Every day we hear more and more statements of this kind and there is nothing to say and tweet...
Raphael,
It's really not the same.
There is a spiritual dimension, prove it, until then, it's just a word you made up, not well defined, to escape cognitive dissonance.
You have a worldview that is not grounded in reality, so to avoid admitting it and feeling bad about the waste of time that was involved in maintaining this imagined worldview, you invent another complication and another layer of fantasy.
Good luck
Shmulik
No spiritual dimension? Tell that to the ghosts!
As for proof, I've already talked a lot about it. See previous comments. It's like asking to measure radiation with a schoolboy's ruler and saying that if it can't be measured with a ruler then it doesn't exist.
Raphael
Define what is spiritual. I know if I stand next to a working fan I will be spiritual too. Explain the formula you use. Make use of relevant mathematical material. The formula you use is absurd and does not belong. you know why? Good guess, you don't know the core subjects.
Raphael
But there is no such thing as a spiritual dimension.
A writer who writes a book, does not connect to a spiritual dimension
A philosopher who conceives some theory, does not connect to a spiritual dimension
A painter who paints a painting, does not connect to a spiritual dimension
A statue that sculpts a statue, does not connect to a spiritual dimension
A scientist working on a physical/biological/chemical/mathematical theory does not connect to a spiritual dimension.
If you claim there is such a dimension, prove it
Miracles,
First of all let us clarify that I do not have to give a coherent or coherent explanation. But if you ask nicely to hear my opinion. So I already told you that I know what you know but you don't know what I know. Therefore your way of thinking is one-way. You only know science and only through scientific thinking you still do not understand that there is another dimension to the world which is the spiritual dimension. That is why you continue to think in terms of an n-dimensional world and are unable to think in terms of an n+1-dimensional world.
withering
Of course, if a confidential person asks you clarifying questions, I will gladly answer him, and this is because he knows what he is talking about and also has the tools to understand your answer. But if someone who only finished 12 years of schooling and didn't study biology at all asks you clarifying questions, I'm not sure you'll answer him so politely. It's easy if he tries to argue with you that he is right. It's easy, the son of a kid, it's easy if he calls you a Taliban and other epithets that have been hurled at me in abundance in this thread.
Regarding the Holocaust, it is very bad and painful. But a prophecy about this has already been given in the Torah. Read the parshat and listen to five things.
Raphael
As mentioned, if you don't think that the core studies should be included for everyone, then which one of the four answers you previously gave to the questions should we give up in order to allow what you are saying now?
How did you come to the conclusion that a stranger won't understand when you didn't explain or try to explain at all?
privileged
Just an interesting point - the flu virus has only RNA, and no DNA. Maybe because it undergoes mutations very quickly, because RNA does not have the ability to repair itself like DNA.
Thanks Camila.
A. interesting. I asked a researcher in the field of biology before you and he did mention the stability of DNA compared to RNA but did not explain how this affects control. Not that RNA is faster either.
B. I didn't understand at all: how does instability help in control? Because if there is a flaw in one, it ends up doing damage faster?
I continued the discussion here, in case anyone is interested. Another time I will write in a biology post.
Please don't confuse Raphael,
He is busy "putting a mirror in front of your face" (his words).
So far, "setting the mirror" amounts to ignoring questions, avoiding discussion, casual and pretentious comments like "You don't have the tools to understand...", "I can't explain...", and threats of what he will do to us when he and his friends are the majority.
Why is he threatening? Because his rabbis, those who think for him, are deathly afraid of core studies. Every arithmetic lesson for children is seen by them as an attack on their faith.
That's what their faith is worth.
This is the true appearance he presents, he is simply not aware of it.
Raphael
I take it you agree with me? Like mine, you don't have the tools to understand what you're talking about (according to you), so maybe you don't have the tools to understand what Camila and I (and others) are saying? Your claims do not add up if the way of thinking of a scientist - if learning Torah is good, and not learning Torah is bad - learning Torah must have a tangible effect. Or at least - there must be a coherent explanation for it.
I didn't see you disagreeing with my claims. do you get them
How expected, a condescending response that underestimates our ability to understand and avoiding a substantive discussion of the questions. If a confidential person does not understand my answer, he is welcome to ask for clarification and I will be happy to answer as soon as my information arrives. Certainly do not tell him that he is limited and does not currently have the tools to absorb the issue.
It is clear that a certain action can be good in one context but bad in another, this does not mean that it is not possible to broadly define when the thing will tend in the positive direction and when the thing will tend in the negative direction. For example, in the example you gave, it is easy to explain that inflicting a serious mutilation on the body without any reason is something that most of us would agree is distinctly negative, except in cases where this mutilation is necessary in order to save the person's life (assuming that the person prefers it at all), not so complicated, right ?
Does this mean that in your view the Holocaust was a kind of leg amputation intended to save the Jewish people and therefore its occurrence, as unfortunate as it may be, is actually a positive thing? (This wouldn't really surprise me, because as mentioned I've already heard a similar opinion to this in the past among ultra-Orthodox).
Camila, again lots of questions. I have a short question through which you might understand. Is amputating someone's leg a good or bad thing? The intuitive answer is - it is very bad. And if we now reveal to you that that person's leg would have died and if they had not amputated it then he would have died? So is it good or bad?
You insist that I explain things to you that you don't have the tools to absorb now. It's like assuming someone who doesn't know what Dana Verna is and asks you to explain to him right here and now the question that Husoi asked and the answer you gave him. And he will dare to argue with you and doubt what you say.
Raphael,
How can you think that it is impossible to measure whether the situation is improving or not? The occurrence of a holocaust in which about 6 million Jews are murdered including about a million children in horrible and monstrous deaths (God forbid a God who does such a thing) is a good or bad occurrence? Assuming you agree that it was a bad event (I'm asking seriously because I've already encountered religious people who think it was a great event and even one of the most important for the people of Israel), then can we agree that the more extreme the events are, the easier it will be for us to say whether we'll be better or worse? If so, great, we have the ability, if only theoretically, to test the hypothesis that religious studies in yeshivas contribute something to the people of Israel. If not, then we return to the question of how do you actually know that these studies have any effect? I understand that you believe this, but belief is not worth much when making an actual claim about the world, and improvement or deterioration of a situation are by definition situations that can be evaluated. There are people who believe with all their heart that crystals can cure cancer, what do I care about this belief, if they show it works I will embrace it warmly, if it cannot be shown there is no reason to think it is true.
The ridiculous thing is that the religious have the greatest interest in showing that it works, because then a lot of people would rather study in a yeshiva than risk their lives in wars. If they manage to show that it really works (even without understanding how it works) I will be the first to want my children to contribute to the defense of the people of Israel by serving in a yeshiva. So next we will start by defining, if only in general, what are the things that are clearly positive and what are the things that are clearly negative for the people of Israel. Are, for example, the number of people killed in traffic accidents and/or diseases and/or wars and acts of terrorism clearly negative things? Is an increase in the number of seats occupied by Haredim in the Knesset clearly a positive thing? Please try to provide a concise list of the things that, in your view, are distinctly positive and negative in the context of the security of the people of Israel.
confidential,
Unfortunately I'm only here for a very short time, I hope I'll have more time later.
It's not exactly my field, but the accepted opinion (which, as far as I can remember, also appears in the most basic text boxes dealing with molecular biology) is that RNA is better as a mediator for the transmission of information due to its being less stable and therefore subject to better control in terms of its expression level at any given moment. It is likely that a mechanism that produces short-lived templates as needed is more efficient than creating stable templates that remain even after they are no longer needed and then need another mechanism that takes care of deactivating them.
Another reason, which is more of a hypothesis, stems from the RNA world hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis
RNA has a better catalytic ability than DNA and it is likely that at the beginning of life it was the main substance that holds information and also constitutes a direct template for the production of the peptides and proteins necessary for the existence of the primary cell. Only later was the DNA mechanism added which gives the advantage of saving the information in a more stable molecular format. Another evidence in this direction are the better defense mechanisms that act on the DNA (for example in identifying errors in copying and correcting various defects).
If you have more questions, try to direct them in more appropriate places and I will try to answer.
Miracles,
If they stop learning Torah, the world will not continue to exist even for a single moment. If they learn less it will be worse, if they learn more it will be better. There is no way to measure this with scientific methods just as it is not possible to measure with scientific methods if it is now good or bad and how good or bad it is now according to the "Richter scale". But those who know and have learned what the purpose we strive for knows better how far or close we are to it.
Raphael
You said that there is no scientific way to see the benefit that comes from studying Torah. If so, then you surely agree that it will not be possible to distinguish anything if they stop studying Torah.
Am I wrong?
Raphael
Beautiful. So we agree that everyone should learn what evolution is and what it means.
Miracles,
I hesitate whether to enter into endless bickering with you again. But maybe we'll try one more time. Continue to the next question, the answer is obviously yes, it is extremely important. Not only where we came from but also why we came and where we are going.
Camila - welcome back.
Can I ask you a question in your field of expertise?
I searched and did not find an answer (in Hebrew).
Why does the cell, which reproduces the gene, unzip the DNA and complete it with RNA.
Why not replicate a single strand of DNA, and from the DNA produce proteins? Why use RNA?
(Sorry for entering your discussion without knocking. You can also reply to the address abc.openclose@gmail.com)
Raphael
In your opinion - is it important to know where we came from?
Raphael
Who determined it?
it is possible And there are also many ultra-Orthodox institutions that also teach Livah and their students are recruited. But we also need learners who will study sacred studies about the purity of the sacred and nothing else. And the more - the better.
Raphael
Why must core studies come at the expense of Torah studies? Can't both this and that?
walking dead
If it's not clear by now, I understand what core studies mean and I don't agree that it should be required of everyone. In order to understand you, you need to understand what sacred studies mean about the purity of the Holy. But even here I came to the conclusion that "a foreigner will not understand this".
Raphael
I want you to understand what core studies mean and why they should apply to everyone. That's what I'm trying to explain. And to say that it is impossible to force X to learn Y is not a solution.
I want to know if you understand and agree with that, and if not, then I want a coherent and clear explanation or reasoning why not.
Raphael
right
walking dead
Can you summarize for me exactly what you want from me? An answer to a specific question or my general opinion on your well-reasoned and well-constructed response to Talfiot?
Camilla, I read your thoughtful comment. I have nothing to add to what I have already said. Suri. Still only saying that I can use the word "we" and still represent my opinion only. think about it. It's not that deep. Another thing, in my opinion short and concise responses are more effective. You don't have to make a speech out of every comment.
Raphael
To force is exactly what core studies says. To force is to ensure that the lesson is present in the system and learned, because people need to know it. This does not mean sitting with a whip over every student's head and whipping him if he does not learn, it means making sure that the subject is learned correctly by a serious teacher who understands what he is teaching and is interested in teaching the material. Something that does not happen properly in too many schools in Israel, and the results are clearly visible and felt.
"Besides, your words indicate that when we become the majority we can pass a law that forces Jewish studies according to tradition and that is acceptable to you."
As I wrote before, even in the system I grew up in, I learned things that I didn't see as necessary (and also wrong) and I was still taught these things. Do you think that studying Judaism according to the tradition you propose differs in any way from these things? Core studies are the studies required to be a citizen of the state, it is basic knowledge that the state has determined is necessary to function as a citizen of the state. Are you ready for the public to learn what they want and not learn to panic, get citizenship and not and be able to vote in the elections following this? If the state determines that Jewish studies according to the tradition as you write, it will be up to the mother to choose whether I want to raise my children as citizens in the State of Israel and send them to a school that teaches the core studies or decide that I do not want my children to be citizens of the State of Israel and immigrate to another place, and raise my children there. In the same way, this is what citizens, who have full rights in the country, who are not satisfied with the core contents of the education system they receive in the country, should do now.
(Second attempt)
Raphael,
If you only represent yourself, what did you mean when you wrote:
"What do you say that when we become a majority we pass a law that we must serve the state by studying in a yeshiva"?
You have already written "we" several times, when it is clear from the context that you are referring to the ultra-orthodox sector. In this respect, you certainly represent quite a large public, even according to your own words. But even if you deny it, your opinion is certainly in line with the general perception voiced by the ultra-Orthodox, especially in the context of "justifying" their evasion of military service.
You write: "It is impossible to measure the effect because it is impossible to know what would have happened if they had not studied"
A. If it is really impossible to measure the effect (I disagree with you on this matter) why should we think that there is any effect at all? Just because you and many others believe something wholeheartedly does not make the same thing true. There are several different currents in Judaism that believe with complete faith in a different conduct and that enlisting in the army is not only possible but even necessary for the security of the people of Israel and is in line with the values of the mutual guarantee of the people of Israel promoted by Dana, perhaps they are the right ones? You can of course say that you don't care that there are people with other beliefs, but we have a practical problem in which a certain public excludes itself from the rule just because of its private belief. The situation would be acceptable if everyone could receive an automatic exemption from jobs based on their personal belief (he wondered who he wondered), but the situation is that most Israeli citizens have the *obligation* to enlist and serve in the army, whether they believe/want it or not. There is no symmetry here.
B. Regarding the possibility of testing the effect, would you agree that the "amount" of study in Yeshiva is important? That is to say that it is desirable to have as many students as possible in a yeshiva, as many yeshivas and as many study hours as possible? If this is not important then a handful of smart students will be enough to do the job. If this is important, you can check the relationship between the number of yeshiva students (and other parameters of the amount of study as you wish) for example during the years of the state's existence and between the state of the people of Israel (its security situation, its religious situation, i.e. the degree of assimilation, the degree of leaving the religion, etc.). If there is a real effect it is expected that a significant relationship will be found between the things. If there is no such connection, then we return to the question: why would anyone think that studying in yeshiva is beneficial in anything? Because there is a public that is overwhelmingly captive from infancy and brought up to believe this?
Raphael, it's very simple, when you make a claim about a real impact in our world then it is necessarily measurable, it may be difficult to measure this technically but in principle it is possible). If it cannot be measured in any way, then there is no reason to think that an effect exists. The excuse you gave that we don't know what would have happened if they hadn't studied in the yeshiva is both incorrect (see above for a simple suggestion for testing) and stupid, think of the situation where someone presses a button and says it makes the sun shine, he believes it wholeheartedly and at the same time he says no This can be checked because we don't really know what would have happened if he hadn't pressed the button. Does his strong belief in the matter mean that it is true? Is it really not possible to examine the connection between pressing the button and the illumination of the sun just because he claims it (in error and without any justification)?
Raphael
You say that the effect of learning Torah is not measurable. great.
I say, with certainty, that if everyone had enlisted, 2 of my closest friends would be alive today. The calculation is simple - and you know, for sure, that I am right.
That's why - I'm a little annoyed at the ultra-orthodox who refuse to fulfill their moral obligations. Unlike your friends - my friends apply what old Hillel said.
Please - don't answer, you will only embarrass yourself.
Raphael
Thanks for the tips.
It seems to me that you did not understand - in my response I referred to the answers you gave, not to the questions you chose to ignore.
rs I'm not trying to convince anyone. They ask me questions so I sometimes choose to answer and sometimes not. No need to get so excited. Take it easy. Too bad for health.
Raphael
Even if you try to wrap the fictions you believe in with a supposed mysterious and deep aura, they are still fictions until proven otherwise.
There is no issue of deep 'understanding' here, and you are not able to 'explain' anything to the captive babies because there is nothing to explain here.
We all know that even if you write talkbacks on the science site for the rest of your life you will not be able to prove, or even give the appearance of credibility, to any of the fictions you believe. Faith is nothing more 'deeper' than facts, logic and common sense.
Faith does not transcend logic, it flees from logic in the same way that a criminal flees from the law, because logic threatens its bubble of self-deception.
You hide behind your faith, as if it could grant you immunity from criticism of your claims.
So it's not. And everyone except you sees that it is not.
The demand to compel your children to study math and English is not symmetrical to your threats to compel everyone to study Gemara.
Any child who does not learn the heart will grow up to be ignorant and poor.
The result is not the same for those who do not study Gemara.
In any case, the false symmetry you are trying to create between the two sides is not relevant at all, as I have already told you - no one is trying to prevent you or your children from learning Judaism.
oracle
As much as you or you are right
The founding generation, the survivors of the camps and those who fought in the allied armies won the war of liberation, drained swamps, planted trees, paved roads, built an industry, an education system, an army and a state.
The ultra-orthodox did zero!
Now, after a demographic war, they will turn Israel into another Middle Eastern country,
The stages: economic ruin, civil war, beheadings.
Camila I will answer you briefly and to the point. I don't represent anyone but myself. It is impossible to measure the effect because it is impossible to know what would have happened if they had not studied. It is a matter of faith and not of science. You are unable to understand this because you are used to measuring everything scientifically and what cannot be measured scientifically does not exist. I am not the old Hillel who can explain the entire Torah on one leg. I have no doubt that if you really want to know and check the matter you will find a way to do so.
withering
The Talmud, the Gemara, first rulings. Last rulings were written in times other than the one we live in. These are agricultural companies, cities that are different from ours, and therefore the laws are not relevant today. He who sticks to them forever and tries to enforce them on us is a petrified person. There has not yet arisen and probably will not arise a religious person of stature who will say that the Talmud must be rewritten. The problems of our contemporaries are different from those they faced during the Gemara period. Rafael is a Taliban with a hood. I will not be surprised if tomorrow he tries to impose his opinion on us by force of arms. The potential is there.
Raphael,
Obviously you don't have to answer the questions, it's not a question of duty but of fairness. When I answer the questions of my interlocutor, I also expect to receive factual answers from him to my questions. If you avoid answering (because it's a bit "tiring" or because you don't really have a good answer or just because you ignore it) then this is devious behavior, especially by those who claim to represent here the ultra-Orthodox side who tends to hold themselves (unjustly) as elevated from a nation, from all the nations, including the one to which he belongs, and considers himself the height of morality.
And regarding your question (the stupid one, but I will still address it) the answer is yes, and it was given by you within your question. If a law is enacted that studying in a yeshiva is mandatory, it is clear that those who refuse and avoid complying with this law are breaking the law. The more important question is why the hell would anyone want to enact such a law when there is no reason to think that there is a connection between studying at a yeshiva and any kind of service to the state? Is there anyone who claims that such a study protects the people of Israel? Please substantiate this claim and show that there is some positive effect. We don't care *how* it works, I mean it's certainly interesting but that's secondary, the question is whether it works at all. It is not that complicated to check this, you do a simple experiment in which you check the relationship between the "intensity" of studying while sitting and the results measured in the field. You can check the number of hours of study, the number of students, the weighting of the level of the students (one genius student is certainly worth a few, just a bunch of bastards). Whatever the chosen measure, if the claim is true there must be a measurable effect that can be defined in advance, such as the number of dead and injured in a certain month. If, for example, a concerted effort is made in all yeshivahs in the country for a certain week, should this have any effect? If so, great let's measure it. If not, why should we continue to believe that studying in a yeshiva equals, and even surpasses in your opinion, military service, where men and women are killed in reality and not as if (like the "killed" of a Torah tent).
Miracles
Iron Dome saved Raphael's life and without core studies there will be no one to open more Iron Domes. Raphael in most of his opacity does not understand this or he does not want to understand and then it is more serious.
Raphael
When you return equipment one day - who do you think will take you up? The ones who cared about their pink butt, or the ones who cared about their friends?
Raphael
There are 35 others like me.
Nissim, you are the ultimate righteous. Only you are right. I'm quite tired of this endless thread going round and round. Be healthy. Bye.
Miracles, the fact that you bother to answer the delusional life lowers your value in my eyes.
Raphael
You dodge again. Why don't the religious girls serve her fully? After all, they don't study Torah, and they are worth less than the boys anyway (that's what a rabbi told me, while giving an explanation).
Can you look at it from my side for a moment? You believe that studying a book saves human life, but you are unable to show me how it works. You claim that studies cannot be stopped for two years, although you have no source that shows this to be the case. You can't explain to me why the religious girls don't serve. You can't give me any reason to believe there is a God.
All I see is a group of people with privileges, no obligations, who are still lecturing me on how to live my life. You don't give to the state, but you take as much as possible, even in illegal ways.
And you couldn't find a single point where I'm wrong. You tried to attack me personally, you tried to look for "holes" in my statements, and you looked for hypocrisy in me.
And you also say that you put up a mirror for the secular?
Miracles,
I cannot explain this to those who do not believe that there is a creator of the world and that he is the one who gave us his teachings. How can I explain this to someone who only believes in physicality? You, as usual, laugh and joke. You will accept that there are things that are beyond your understanding right now.
Life
There are many people reading the site. Raphael expressed his opinion here - and I think it is our silence that brought us to Israel's situation today.
Raphael
I do not accept this statement of yours, that it is not possible to suspend studies for two years. I would love to understand why you think that. After all, in the Torah it is written exactly who should serve and who should not, right?
But what about the religious girls? What prevents them from serving as secular?
I also don't exactly understand how you know that studying Torah prevents soldiers from getting hurt. Can you explain to me how it works? Does the accuracy of the Iron Dome depend on Torah studies? The ability of an F-16 to evade a missile? The chances of a chariot hitting a shell? The detection capacity of our quantifiers?
Please - if it really helps then I will support it wholeheartedly. I don't need to believe in God to support something that will save human life, but I do need a good reason to risk my children's lives for it.
Nissim and the last Camila
Why argue all the time with Raphael, nothing came of it anyway. Read the book Hamrou of Mashiach and you will understand how his mind works.. He and his ilk live in a bubble that one day will burst in their faces. He will never reach the level of Isaiah Leibovitz and Israel Eldad. You can argue with their opinions, but there is someone to argue with and for what. What do we have here a fanatic who looks neither to the right nor to the left. He is not a great sage.
Nissim, those who are on the path of learning Torah while making a dedication, and I am talking about 12 hours or more a day, cannot serve in the army. He should be focused only on that and should be free from any other duty.
Nissim, yes, I agree that an exemption should be given to police officers and doctors and also to those who want to serve the country by devoting their life to medical or scientific research at a university.
Raphael
What do you say about the idea that everyone will serve two years in the army, and study Torah for one year?
Raphael
I don't understand it because I don't see the effect of it. It is true that not everyone should be combative, and not everyone can be combative.
Do you agree that people like doctors and police officers should also be given a solution?
Camila, I am not obliged to answer all the questions. It makes me a little tired. What do you say that when we become a majority we pass a law that we must serve the state by studying in a yeshiva? So will it be possible to call someone who doesn't study in a yeshiva a lawbreaker?
Miracles,
All respect is due to our brave soldiers who risk their lives for us.
And now I'm going to tell you something that you won't be able to understand, but I'll say it anyway because it's the truth - studying Torah out of devotion also protects the people of Israel and we must have as many true Torah learners as possible. This is also called serving the people of Israel. The Givati Brigade expressed itself in a similar way at Tzuk Eitan.
Of course there are dodgers on both sides and that is not good.
And now an answer to Camila as well - I served in the Air Force. And my two oldest sons are now serving in the army. One of them is mine.
And Agam would be decent on your part to answer the question I asked you about the (lack of) symmetry between the obligation to serve in the army and the "learning" in yeshiva, that there is no law that requires this. In general, it would be decent of you if you stop ignoring questions that are asked of you (there are already several of them in this thread) and divert the discussion to other topics, and I would also thank you in advance if you would not twist my words as you have done time and time again to Nisim.
Raphael,
What is the relevance of your question to the topic under discussion? And if I served in Kirya, would that change the claim in any way? By the way, I served in the IOS, including permanent service as an officer and even did reserve periods several times until I was finally released. But if you already brought up the personal issue, where did you serve in the army?
Raphael
You wrote - "I am in favor of equal rights and duties. You will study in yeshivas and we will go to the army"
I asked - "Do you equate risking your life with learning Torah?"
Sorry Nissim, remind me again what the question is.
post Scriptum. Why do I have the feeling that Jacob S. Is it another nickname for Chaim/Ravi Tarpon, etc.?
Raphael
Can't you answer the question? You brought it up, not me.
Raphael
Why don't you answer the question?
Instead you choose to attack?
I come to Israel to make reserves, at my own expense, voluntarily.
Raphael
The initials of Chabad are wisdom, intelligence, knowledge. You have no wisdom, no understanding and no opinion. Just a piece of meat with a pair of eyes
Miracles, all the jobbers like to speak on behalf of the soldiers who risk their lives. By the way, are there reserves there in America?
I would love to understand how this is related to the topic.
Raphael
I am a reserve aircrewman. All my children have served and are/are reserving.
Camila where did you serve?
Nissim where did you serve? What about your children, where did they serve?
At least until the number of your (real) soldiers reaches the percentage of dead soldiers among the population that does not evade military service.
Raphael,
I did not understand your last response to miracles. In your opinion, studying in a yeshiva is a privilege or an obligation? Because as far as I know, there is no law that requires studying in a yeshiva, but there is a mandatory conscription law, therefore in order to maintain the symmetry "you" have to enlist in the army and "we" have to do our arts, each and every one according to his "Torah".
Raphael
I did not understand. Are you comparing risking your life to learning Torah?
Miracles
I am in favor of equality of rights and duties. You will study in yeshiva and we will go to the army.
Raphael
I demand equality of rights and equality of duties. You demand privileges and a waiver of duties.
Where is the symmetry here?
Miracles
Take your last comment and replace irreligious with believing Jews and send it to you. I also recommend everyone else to try this exercise. Do not do to your friend what is hated of you.
Raphael
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm trying to explain to you that the way of thinking of the irreligious, like me, is coherent.
I think you have a right to believe what you believe, but I don't think you have a right to hurt others. Your demand for special treatment for certain people directly hurts me, and also my family members. Beyond that, I personally also think that you are hurting those who are close to you, by withholding information from them.
And the most amazing thing is, you have no idea what I'm talking about...
Well, miracles. I told you you shouldn't start with that. This debate has no purpose... just a joke. I once heard a professor from the Weizmann Institute (if I'm not mistaken, Prof. Braverman) who came from Russia and loved to argue about religious issues (like you). He said that he was never able to convince or be convinced until someone once suggested that he put on a tefillin. It already explained to him things that cannot be explained in words and he repented. But not sure it will work for you either.
Raphael
It is explicitly written in the Bible that the world is flat. Of course, after that the words are twisted to cover the mistake. But let it go, you know the Bible better than I do...
I did not say that it is possible to prove that there is no God!!! Stop twisting - that's enough already 🙂
I wrote that there is no phenomenon in nature that I know of that cannot be scientifically explained. That is - I see no evidence in the world for the idea that there is, or was, an intelligent creator. Do you understand what I'm saying and why I think so?
Of course - I also have good reasons to believe that there is no God (the kind you believe in), but first understand what I'm saying.
Raphael
When did I say yeshiva students are uneducated? I tried to show you that compulsory education is necessary in a reformed country. I agreed that you have the right to think differently.
Will you please stop twisting my words?
Miracles
It is not written in the Torah that the world is flat. That was just an example of something I can't convince you of. Try to understand what I am writing. I have no problem saying for the purpose of the discussion that every phenomenon in nature can be explained only that there is no proof here of the non-existence of a Creator's will for the world
Miracles, your answers are as long as ever. The problem begins with the fact that you define Yeshiva students who study only sacred studies as uneducated and the truth is just the opposite! Let's not get into that because I don't think we'll reach an agreement. We agreed that we will not impose on you and you will not impose on us.
Raphael
You wrote "Is there a phenomenon in nature that cannot be explained scientifically? - Answer: You know as well as I do that there are many." You have no idea what I know and what I don't. By chance - I don't know a single phenomenon that cannot be scientifically explained. One!
If you don't know either - at least thank you for it. I am also talking about principle - in principle there is no such phenomenon. If you think otherwise, just give an example...
I didn't understand the idea of a flat world. Although it is written in the Torah that the world is flat... But, if you think the world is flat, why can't you try to convince me? Because it's complete nonsense in your eyes too? Because you have no evidence of this? What is the reason?
Raphael
Regarding 3 and 4: your opinion is consistent and legitimate. I think it's problematic, because I think it's a country's job to take care of its citizens. There are many aspects to this, and I will give only a few:
1) I think one should learn what democracy is to be able to vote wisely.
2) I think it is a person's right to know basic math in order to calculate a budget - how much money I can spend on various needs, entertainment, etc. from what I have.
3) I think that a citizen should know something about his country, like the history, like who the neighbors are, etc.
4) Basic education affects a person's income. I think that the state is obliged to ensure that a person can make a living. I personally will not hire a person who does not have minimal (and not so minimal) qualifications, and I think I represent every employer.
5) Health. I think that a country is committed to the health of its citizens. Part of taking care of health is with the help of education.
6) Our place in the world. A country's position in the world is determined according to its education system. Anything other than that is a result of education.
7) Security. Imagine that the Jews in Israel will be uneducated, and the Muslim residents will decide on advanced education. This is the end of Israel...
Again - your mind to think differently.
Raphael
There were three magnificent Yeshivas in Babylon - Sura, Nahardea, Pumbudita and you would not have been admitted to any of them. They would be ashamed of you.
The last anonymous is me, for those who didn't understand.
Miracles
The situation is not a result of the system of government in Israel. It is the result of political corruption that prefers power over the good of the people, and elected representatives who forget that they are representatives of the whole people and not just of a small reference group that brought them there.
In order to correct this situation, we must talk to all the people in the nation regardless of their point of origin and show them where the points of failure are and what we are doing wrong that hurts us and our future (the so-called common).
Miracles, you broke me.
1) Is there a phenomenon in nature that cannot be scientifically explained? - Answer: You know as well as I do that there are many (I purposely do not give examples so that we do not talk about the examples but about the principle). But what does it really matter? Suppose you can explain every phenomenon in nature according to the laws of nature, where is the proof from here regarding the existence or non-existence of a creator's will for the world? Who enacted the laws of nature? Does it just come to nature to behave according to certain laws?
2) Are you able to convince me that I am right? - Answer: We do not broadcast at all on the same wave. You just don't have the tools to convince me. It's like me trying to convince you that the world is flat.
3) You resist forcing someone to learn something. - Answer: Yes!!!
4) Would you agree that Bible studies cannot be required in secular schools? - Yes!!! Therefore, it is also impossible to force the teaching of Liba in ultra-Orthodox yeshiva.
Raphael
To force is exactly what core studies says. To force is to ensure that the lesson is present in the system and learned, because people need to know it. This does not mean sitting with a whip over every student's head and whipping him if he does not learn, it means making sure that the subject is learned properly by a serious teacher who understands what he is teaching and is interested in teaching the material. Something that does not happen properly in too many schools in Israel, and the results are clearly visible and felt.
"Besides, your words indicate that when we become the majority we can pass a law that forces Jewish studies according to tradition and that is acceptable to you."
As I wrote before, even in the system I grew up in, I learned things that I didn't see as necessary (and also wrong) and I was still taught these things. Do you think that studying Judaism according to the tradition you propose differs in any way from these things? Core studies are the studies required to be a citizen of the state, it is basic knowledge that the state has determined is necessary to function as a citizen of the state. Are you ready for the public to learn what they want and not learn to panic, get citizenship and not and be able to vote in the elections following this? If the state determines that Jewish studies according to the tradition as you write, it will be up to the mother to choose whether I want to raise my children as citizens in the State of Israel and send them to a school that teaches the core studies or decide that I do not want my children to be citizens of the State of Israel and immigrate to another place, and raise my children there.
Raphael
You resist forcing someone to learn something. Would you agree that Bible studies cannot be required in secular schools?
Raphael
The translation of walking death is a walking death. Your translation is word for word in English order. That's not how they translate
From English to Hebrew which shows that your knowledge of English is very little, the reason is that you did not study core studies. The pills you refer me to are for you an existential necessity. You won't take them, even Maimonides won't be able to help you.
walking dead
You must understand something - certain groups in Israel have rights and no obligations. Adike - they have no debts to the state, but they deserve everything they want. This situation is a result of the system of government in Israel. The problem is with us - we let it continue.
The solution is not to fight people like Rafael, but to fight your friends, and mine of course, who agree that this situation will continue. The truth is, I think the situation is quite lost, and I think Israel is fading and will turn into Iran. You're trying to use logic, and logic doesn't work on fools. As Churchill rightly said - the average person is quite stupid.
Raphael
No, you didn't answer. You dodged, belittled, mocked, but did not answer.
I asked two simple questions. 1) Is there a phenomenon in nature that cannot be scientifically explained? 2) Are you able to convince me that I am right?
You didn't ask me anything - but in your great wisdom you gave answers on my behalf. Is this how we want to continue the discussion?
Miracles
I answered your question. Read my response again.
Besides, I have no desire to convince you of my righteousness and I have no desire to bring you back to repentance. I don't believe it's possible. You are too locked up.
going dead
I am not against core studies. I am against forcing core studies.
Besides, your words indicate that when we become the majority we can pass a law that forces Jewish studies according to tradition and that is acceptable to you.
Rafael is right that soon he will represent the majority.
I understood this a long time ago and my children are studying abroad at a level that was not even 30 years ago in Israel. Only in mathematics and physics do I come close.
I also long ago gave up my Judaism and their Judaism.
It started in 1978 when a religious educator appeared and taught us in social classes, the Bible and the history of Tosheba. Orally because he was illiterate.
Raphael
If the four questions I asked are answered the way you answered them, it follows that the government is committed to creating some kind of core learning framework, and is committed to ensuring that all its citizens learn it. Which one of the four answers you gave to the questions are we supposed to give up to allow what you are saying now?
When the government allows a certain public to determine that its children will not study part of the studies that the state has determined, it neglects its responsibility towards these citizens.
When a certain public leader or some parent does not allow his children to study these core studies and the state allows him to do so, it is not only neglecting and betraying these children, it is also saying that the law does not apply to them in this matter, and therefore let them understand that the law does not apply to them as well In other areas (and if you look at what is happening in Israel, you will see that this is exactly what is happening).
The government's submission to public leaders who put the needs of their political power above the need of these public subjects and children for a better life is no less than a crime.
The government can and should force to study Liba just as it can force to study Gemara if it were to determine that Gemara studies are part of the core studies. I learned a lot of things that did not interest me at all during my 12 years of studying under public education in Israel (and this includes many things that you later learned were completely wrong). It seems that you oppose core studies because they are not what you think a core should be, and not because you think there should be no core studies.
privileged
How do you think you know what I'm interested in and what I know? Coincidentally, Raphael is an expert (according to his assurance) in Judaism, but I know other religions as well. So, maybe, I also know more about religious matters than he does?
I suggest you (not you personally) stop trying to attack me as a person, and try to have a discussion about ideas and information.
Raphael
There are people who are football experts, know every rule of the game, every player and his past, every game and result. They know so well, they think it's the whole world.
But - I'm not asking you about football, I'm asking you about the world.
And about the world, according to the discussion between us until now, you have no understanding.
I asked you for an example of something, and you didn't find one.
You repeatedly avoid answering a simple question.
Don't feel bad, I asked a lot of people, including top scientists wearing caps. The question is simple, but none of them could answer.
Therefore, I am not surprised that you do not know how to answer. Please, stop being arrogant, and start realizing that maybe you don't know everything, and maybe, just maybe, you're wrong.
I asked you another question - are you able to change your mind. You didn't answer that either
Raphael
The problem with you is that if you know a number of Mishnayat and the Babylonian Talmud, all the wisdom and all the knowledge in the world is with you and not her. Neither the Bible nor the Gemara has a monopoly on all knowledge in the world. Believe me, great wisdom and great literature are also found in other cultures. Please read some Indian philosophy and Chinese philosophy which are thousands of years old. There is something to learn from them. Have you read the words of Buddha or Confucius and don't say you don't need to read them. This attitude of yours is condescending considering I have zero more. And this is one of the reasons for the growth of anti-Semitism. No one wants to be treated as an inferior person. It is disconcerting. Maybe you will adopt the saying and the austerity goes.
Rafael, that's not accurate. It is possible that there is a lot of information about you, because you divide your interests into two subjects and he into one.
I believe, I also do not agree with miracles, and think that in matters of faith I understand from him. But I don't think that's a reason not to respect him for what he understands, the natural and branching sciences.
miracles,
The problem is that I know what you know, but you don't know what I know.
After we compare our knowledge I will be ready for you to try to convince me.
Chaim = Rabbi Shlomo Cordeiro = Rabbi Tarpon = Plato
Take the pills on time and leave us alone.
Raphael
From the height of my years, the feeling that you are still in the stone age is getting stronger. God Dagan and goddess Ashtoreth of the Philistines had more sense than you.
Raphael
Will anything convince you?
Miracles
As I have said several times, nothing will convince you. A waste of your time and mine.
Raphael
You gave me a list of 5 believing scientists. If I give you a list of 1000 scientists, and you know what, with the same first name, who do not believe - will that convince you of anything?
Of course not - so why should a list of 5 convince me of something?
Raphael
I know there are religious scientists. There are also Indian religious scientists who do not believe in the God of the Jews - so, how do you know which of the scientists are right and which are wrong?
And again, I would appreciate it if you would stop underestimating me and my opinions, and answer my question. You claim that there is a lot of evidence - give one and we'll talk about it.
Is it possible?
Miracles,
Have you heard of Prof. Dimitri David Kashdan, Prof. Joseph Bernstein, Prof. Elia Rips, Prof. Robert Herlik, Prof. Shlomo Klish and more and more?
These are scientists who put your knowledge in their small pocket and yet they are believing and God-fearing people who are strict about the light and the heavy.
Really, as a Jew, my heart aches for you and people like you who are so absorbed in yourself and your narrow world that you could say that a great miracle like the splitting of the Red Sea is needed so that you might ever see the truth.
No amount of argument and scientific evidence, although there is plenty of it, will change your mind. Only a miracle is needed.
Raphael
Unlike you, I really want to know about the world. I want to know what you, Raphael, see in the world, which cannot be scientifically explained.
Understand - this is the difference between us. I don't know anything that can't be explained scientifically, of course I don't pretend to know all the explanations.
You are allowed to say that you do not have an answer, you are allowed to say that you do not want to answer me, without giving any explanation. But telling me you know me and you know I just want to lash out just shows me how insecure you are in your faith.
And in my opinion - rightfully so...
Raphael
Whoever it is has to do it
Chaim, what a soul you are. taking care of my children No wonder Shlomo said that you are one of the XNUMX righteous men of the generation.
Raphael
Core studies are basic studies. If your children didn't know how to calculate, they wouldn't be able to calculate bank interest, they wouldn't know how to read the bank account, read the phone bill and much more. We will surround them. And if one of your children wants to study engineering, he won't be able to because he will lack knowledge in math, physics, and English, and you won't come complaining to anyone. There are other things in the world besides Shas, Jerusalem Talmud. Babylonian Talmud and more, as the Sages said: He who does not cook on Shabbat eve does not eat on Shabbat. In the Bible it is written. Those who sow in tears will reap. With a faithful peg you have fixed your thoughts and you are not ready in any way to get out of this fixation.
November 23rd, 2014
Raphael
Core studies are basic studies. If the kids didn't know arithmetic, they couldn't calculate bank interest, they didn't know how to read the bank account, read the phone bill, and much more. And if one of your children wants to study engineering, it's not because he lacks knowledge in math, physics, and English, and you won't come complaining to anyone. There are other things in the world besides Shas, Jerusalem Talmud. Babylonian Talmud and more, as the Sages said: He who does not cook on Shabbat eve does not eat on Shabbat. In the Bible it is written. Those who sow in tears will reap. With a faithful peg you have fixed your thoughts and you are not ready in any way to get out of this fixation.
walking dead
The government can't force you to study Liba just like it can't force you to study Gemara. But anyone who wants to study, the government must allow him.
Miracles
I know you. You don't really want to know but to argue and argue pointlessly. If you really want to know the answer you will already find it yourself.
Is the author implying that shows and series such as Big Brother are the glory of Israeli creativity and modernity?
Gabriel
I am convinced that if you see your trampoline on Instagram, the privileged girls of Israel will be delighted at the sight of the divine creation of splendor in your possession and will be delighted to feel, Amen yes may it be desired, in its destruction when it reaches the sacrifice, of course with God's help, may he be blessed.
Gabriel
are you a religious person
And if you don't believe me, just ask your wife.
Tarpon
Of course there is.
I have a big trampoline.
Your mother loves it.
Gabriel
Do you have anything to jump on?
Tarpon
It doesn't matter how many times you change your nickname, you can always jump to me..
Gabriel
When I read your musings I say only one thing, Bush and Kulam to you. On this Kohlat said no to this child Philali. Mashiach ben David will not give you his blessing.
Gabriel
When I read your musings, I said "Bush" and "Bless you". A kohlet would say no to this child I felled. You will not receive the blessing of Messiah David. Your place is between the Moabites and the Amalekites.
Gabriel
I will not stoop to your level.
Miracles
Get ready to be happy because, here, Henny answers you:
Mazel Tov! Another chinchilla joined the "Buzhi" zoo. Did you call her Yubach? Hope she doesn't bother you!
your heart
You are absolutely right. The education system is in constant decline, and the current Minister of Education is only smoothing the path. He hurt the teachers and hurt the students and does not see the situation at all.
The ultra-Orthodox education system is a disaster in itself - a fifth of the country's talmidim (in the future perhaps a third and even a half) are raised on a system of total denial that originates in theology.
The rest are content with a shallow education system biased to the right and down in all the subjects it conveys.
And the results: a society poor in values and valuable resources, abysmal ignorance. On the way to social disasters and unnecessary suffering and death
And.... for the life of this nation, how good it is!! (?)
Raphael
So do you agree that if the government, to the best of its knowledge, knows that in order to give the citizen the maximum tools it can, it must impart some knowledge to him, then it is obligated to impart this knowledge to its citizens, and it must not decide that it consciously and deliberately does not impart this knowledge to someone or a certain public?
Gabriel
I would be happy if you also answer me.
Rafael, you overdid it. Zoo? It's all 3 monkeys and a chinchilla. It looks like, at most, a tea party at Boji Herzog's.
Raphael
May I ask a question? The question is this: if God exists, then do you think that existence should have any effect on the world? I mean - shouldn't there be some phenomenon that we see that cannot be explained without the existence of God? And if so, how do you know that it is actually the God of the Jews, and not Allah, Brahma, or Zeus? Or maybe aliens?
Or maybe another physical explanation that we don't know at the moment?
The answer should be very convincing, because the lives of millions depend on it.
Shlomo, you must also be one of the hidden L&Ns. Your right to protect life.
Raphael
I follow the debate between you and Haim. He didn't lick his mouth at all. He simply made use of sources. It seems that the stocks of the holy language do not flow to you at all. I discussed your matter with Rabbi Gershom of Or the Diaspora. We both know Haim for a long time. Know that he is one of the righteous. You don't want to say anything about him. He doesn't owe you anything. On the contrary. You will not eat whale meat and you will no longer cross the Sambation
Life
You first need to apologize for your profanity if you want me to address your questions.
walking dead
The answers are: no yes yes no respectively.
walking dead
I see... I thought you meant the power of the state. So my answer is no, except in the exceptional case that strengthening the government is essential for the existence of the state. This stipulation is very unusual and dangerous, and we need to think about how to protect the citizens from this stipulation. Perhaps in this situation we need the Knesset's blanket agreement, or something similar.
But in principle - no.
Miracles
I didn't mean to ask if the government is not allowed to lie at all. The question was specific about one area of lies.
walking
In matters of security one must lie. I can think of many more cases where the whole world knowing the truth is not in the interest of the citizens of the country. The lie must of course be for the benefit of the citizens of the country.
Regarding babies - of course, they are all completely equal. Every citizen of the country is entitled to the same education.
Raphael
The fact that I don't know the laws of the "Hire the Omnin" or Midrash Tanhuma, or the words of recent scribes does not make me a less good Jew than you.
Miracles
The way you answered the first question, I didn't understand if you simply meant that the government is allowed to lie in general or in specific reference to the point I raised: strengthening its power or preserving its rule.
Since we are dealing with education, the intention was that we are talking about a newly born baby who has absolutely no ability to be obligated to the state, at least until he grows up enough.
Raphael
Maybe explain to all the readers what you have against core studies. Is this what you want a generation that is proud of its illiteracy to grow up in Israel? As far as I know we live in the 21st century. We have already passed the days of the XNUMXth Rabbi (with all due respect to him). Correct me if I'm wrong. A tort certificate is in your name. What did the prophet say? "And the educated during it will sleep"? You are not among the educated to whom the prophet was referring.
walking
Here is my opinion:
"Is the government allowed to lie" - yes.
"Is the government equally obligated to all its citizens" - yes, but I would add that this is on the condition that every citizen is obligated to the state in return. I mean - I don't see any problem in "discriminating against" those who are not willing to fulfill their civic duties. It should also be said what this obligation is - the government does not have to take care of milky for every citizen...
"Should the government give the citizen the maximum tools it can..." - I think so. We the citizens of the government established the government to serve us.
"Is it permissible for the government to decide that the good of a certain public is not of interest to it" - no one but has the same reservation as in the second question.
Raphael
If I may ask a few questions please. (Others are welcome to answer as well, I'm not trying to discriminate)
Is it permissible for the government to lie (for the sake of eliminating doubt this lie is knowingly) to its citizens in order to strengthen its power or preserve its rule?
Is the government obligated to all its citizens equally or is it allowed to decide that it can treat a citizen born in accordance with one condition in one way, while a citizen born in compliance with another condition can be treated in another way?
Should the government give the citizen the maximum tools it can give him so that he can live in the best way?
Is it permissible for the government to decide that the good of a certain public is not of interest to it, and to degrade and discriminate against citizens born to this public in order to bring about its backwardness and/or its extinction?
You need to understand the relationship computer-person as well as person-soul. Humans will fix computers and build better ones. They created the computers and maybe give them a little improvement so they can build themselves, but the point is that there is a direction and a way for the computer and it has a "creator". And if we also introduce time repetitions into the story, it seems that we will grow better after selecting the next worlds from the good and from the previous ones because the computer also benefits from the good of man, (scientific explanation) with respect
Man
And there is an opposite claim - which seems much more correct to me - that religion causes violence. Every religion (as far as I know) separates "us" from "others". We are better than them, if you kill one of us you are a murderer, if you kill one of the others then no big deal. Even among the Amish, who are against violence of any kind, there is much cruelty.
In particular - our wonderful Torah is dripping with violence of every kind you can think of.
I am right-wing in my opinions. I just don't believe in idols.
Dear angels, isn't it time for paganism to pass from the world? After all - Raphael and Gabriel - your names show paganism in Judaism. Even "God" is plural (we will be made man in our image after our likeness...), and add to that the angels and the seraphim and the angels and the devil.... We have reached a religion that no Indian would be ashamed of.
And now all the defenders will come and explain "we didn't mean it...our words were taken out of context..."
It's amazing how you can take a human being in his childhood stage and program him however you want.
You can create a prisoner of thought very easily. There is a claim that says that if religion had not been invented
So violence was celebrated. Maybe in the past it really made sense to educate people through a fantasy book,
which is based on fear of the cruel man who is in the sky and sees everything. But times have changed, and we can educate and create,
A generation of curious people who will greatly contribute to the continuation of the human race on our planet. It seems to me that in the future people will no longer be
They will practice religion in their daily lives and follow it closely, apparently they will study it more in the literary context, where it belongs.
It's really interesting how at a time when freedom of information is accessible to everyone, people still believe in the creation story.
Gabriel
Do not worry. I'm not excited. It just amuses me to occasionally put a mirror in front of their face and see how it affects them. A real zoo.
Raphael
You have nothing to be excited about this leftist handful. Even so, their opinion is worth as much as the skin of garlic. In any case, they do not set the agenda. They just grumble about it.
Raphael
Haim's response is high level, but your reference... not something.
Look at Haim's reaction. This is how an intelligent, enlightened and broad-minded person who respects the other person's opinion reacts or a low-brow and primitive person who only knows how to curse those who disagree with him?
Really enlightened!
Raphael
You didn't put a mirror in anyone's face.
You tried to create the impression that someone is trying to prevent you from studying Judaism.
That's not the truth and you know it.
You claim to have a broad knowledge of science. Hence you also know that core studies should not come at the expense of Jewish studies.
You are not working for anyone when you pretend to be a poor victim and immediately move to threats.
Note that you are the one who made the link between core studies and not studying Judaism.
You didn't put a mirror in front of anyone's face. You just showed your hysterical face. What are you afraid of, that your children will know the multiplication table? that they could read in English? Do you really want them to grow up to be lovable? why do you hate them
Raphael
At that moment you were appointed the overall head of the Taliban in Tarlabka. This wailer is named after the Ayatollah Khomeini. May you live for many good days. May God grant that you will not be able to say the Haftir when you read the Parshat of the week. Amen yes may it be.
Raphael
Be humble and don't decide what you know better than me, okay?
You didn't mirror anyone - you just showed that you have no idea what you're talking about.
rs
All in all, I put a mirror in front of your face by all in all making a copy paste of Haim's first comment and changing the core to Judaism and the ultra-Orthodox to the secular. I'm glad it annoys you at least as much as it annoyed me.
Be very careful to assume that I have more knowledge in the sciences than most of you have in Judaism.
To the hysterical Raphael:
No one wants to deprive you or anyone else of studying Judaism, the Bible, Mishnah, Gemara, etc.
For this reason your claim is irrelevant and not based on facts or logic.
Please try to address the matter, without hysteria and without spreading lies, if you are able.
post Scriptum. Thanks for the threats and bullying
Raphael
You don't understand what is most basic. I do not come to negate the cultural enterprise of the Jewish people for generations. I shout Gawald against your total disregard for the rest of science. Do not forget. that in your use of the Internet you ignore the fact that this device relies on all the sciences you despise. I am ready to sign that Rambam had more scientific knowledge than you. Did you know that Gaon from Vilna had a great knowledge of mathematics and astronomy? Ignoring this information will bring a kidney on the state. As far as I know the Iron Dome missiles that most likely saved your life rely on this knowledge. Do the bus you ride and the refrigerator in your house rely on this knowledge. Or on the tractate of Yavam or on the words of Shemaya and Abtalion? All I have left to say is that your place in the Taliban with Shtremels is guaranteed. There is a saying in the Talmud that I hope you know her "from all my teachers." King Solomon sent research expeditions to other countries. Read XNUMX Kings. The prophets of Israel had extensive knowledge. They were the people of the great world. Did you know that a quarter of all Nobel Prize recipients were Jewish? Did you know that the greatest pianist, Arthur Rubinstein was Jewish? Do you know that the first state auditor in Israel was Dr. Nebentzel, who was a member of Agudat Israel? Did it hurt his Jewishness? Did you know that one of the greatest sociologists, Emile Durkheim, was Jewish? Rabbi Kook did not mean you. Stay in your state and you will be perfumed.
Raphael
I am a descendant of a (relatively) ancient people with a glorious history and amazing achievements. I am proud of that.
I am ashamed of my religion, and of religion in general. I get to discuss a lot here, including with religious people. Their news, and therefore their news, are embarrassing. They live in Plato's cave, when science is the sun outside. Again and again and again it is explained to them that the facts they are basing themselves on are wrong, but they are theirs.
I think there is a place to teach Torah, customs and so on in schools, because it is part of our heritage. But before that you need a scientific basis (perhaps not the most appropriate word) of knowledge and ways of thinking. When a religious person tells me that evolution is "bullshit" then I know he is living the lies he was brought up with. When he justifies refusing to serve in the army with the false excuse of "his teachings and his art" then I know he is ready to sacrifice my life for the holiness of God.
And I am very ashamed of that.
Miracles
It's good that you are ashamed of your "Judaism". You have a lot to be ashamed of!!!
Raphael
People like you make me ashamed of my Judaism.
Life
You are absolutely right. This is also the reason, the only reason, that the ultra-orthodox do not serve in the army.
The first sin in the Torah is the sin of curiosity.
Denial of studying Judaism, the Bible, Mishnah, Gemara, according to the true interpretation of Sages among the secular communities is mainly for a political reason. The leaders of the secular communities are aware that with the introduction of authentic Jewish studies, the students will begin to ask questions and this in their view may cause a snowball to fall down the mountain at the bottom of which they will no longer be relevant, and they wish to prevent this with all their might at the expense of the future of their children and grandchildren. A school that does not teach the subjects of Judaism as it has been taught for hundreds and thousands of years will end up being closed permanently and the directors of these schools will be heavily fined and even imprisoned in prisons for extended periods.
post Scriptum. It will happen very soon when we will be the majority here and then you won't be able to complain because we will pay you back in exactly the same currency.
The denial of core studies among the ultra-orthodox communities is mainly for a political reason. The leaders of the ultra-Orthodox communities are aware that with the introduction of the core studies, the students will start asking questions and this, in their view, may cause a snowball to fall down the mountain at the bottom of which they will no longer be relevant, and they wish to prevent this with all their might at the expense of the future of their children and grandchildren. A school that does not teach the core subjects will end up being closed permanently and the principals of these schools will be heavily fined and even imprisoned in prisons for extended periods.