Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
And just because it is more reasonable to believe something does not make it true. It is more reasonable to believe that as an electron transfers from a lower to a higher orbit around its atom, it will travel between the two orbits in a linear fashion, much as you would do if you drove your car down the block. That's a very reasonable belief. It's also flat out wrong. The electron simultaneously disappears from the first orbit and appears in the second orbit, without crossing any points in between.
|
Bah. The electron was never not in both the second orbit and the first orbit. Electrons are not a localized phenomina.
And "Orbit" seems to be the wrong word to destribe how electrons bind to protons. "Cloud" seems better.
Quote:
|
It is reasonable to believe that one particle cannot effect its mate if the one particle is in San Francisco and its mate is on the moon. But it's been shown that if you manipulate the first particle, its mate immediately reacts. How is THAT possible? We don't know, but it does happen, and these two examples do not follow reasonable conclusions.
|
That is one interpritation of the experiement. I prefer locality -- observing the results of manipulating one particle changes which manipulations of the second particle you can see.
This means that every particle interaction slices reality along yet another axis.
Quote:
|
In short, just because it's reasonable to believe that a god started all of this does not in any way make it true.
|
The law of excluded middle does not hold with "reasonableness".
"It is reasonable to believe god started it all."
"It is reasonable to believe that god did not start it all."
Both of the above can be true without there being any conflict.
"It is unreasonable to believe god started it all."
"It is unreasonable to believe god did not start it all."
Both of the above can be true without there being any conflict.