Podcasts about logicians

Nightingale | Take Me Out To The Holosuite | Descent Pt. 2After a detailed look at the Annari-Kraylor conflict, we recap the Gabriel Bell Memorial Cup final between the Logicians and the Niners, and finally discuss the rumors of human rights abuses and the use of WMDs by the crew of the USS Enterprise.Brother Date! All the news that's fit to deliver via secret carrier waves.

Logicians are trained to pay close attention to the definitions of terms. For instance, in Patrick J. Hurley's Concise Introduction to Logic, chapter 2 is entirely about definitions. Definitions are a big deal. (Logic is a field of the discipline called Philosophy. Definitions are very important for the other fields, too). In law (I have a Masters in Philosophy, a Ph.D. in Public Law & American Politics, taught both Con Law and Logic), philosophy's love for definitions helps. Here is a conversation about what the word "woman" means. We could have picked other terms. Unlike all of the other words here on this description, some people think we need to redefine the term for political and/or moral reasons.The best correct definitions are those that provide necessary and sufficient conditions (in non-stipulative contexts). (A "stipulation" is just an agreement, like on a contract, or statute, of what a word means in a technical, limited sense). New gender terms that aren't merely stipulative suffer from a basic deficiency: they have trouble on their own terms respecting their own goals of inclusion and diversity rooted in self-identification . This is a pretty basic problem. And a lot of people can easily see it for exactly what it is. 

 Let's call this revisionist view the Self ID view. This new attempted definition of an old word, says Logic Professor Dr. Tomas Bogardus, Ph.D., gives neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for being a real woman. And no matter how you feel about social justice or moral requirements, this is a persistent problem for the revisionist Self ID view of what a woman really is. 

It does no good to try to manipulate people out of seeing this problem for what it is using shame techniques that are themselves as old as time. People can think for themselves. People can see the manipulation for what it is, and false shaming is no true key to a correct definition of any term. This new movement to incorporate Self-ID into the cutting edge definition of the term “woman” inevitably doesn't satisfy necessary and sufficient conditions. The classical definition for woman in classic, standard hard-copy dictionaries says a real woman is an adult, human female. Let's call that the Classical View. English is very old. That old definition does give a plausible, internally consistent set of both necessary and sufficient conditions for what all and only women are, but is considered defective by recent revisionists for alleged reasons of ethical failure. 

 We're in a real pickle if the classical definition meets the philosophical requirement for a good definition, but we are morally prohibited (we are told) from continuing to adopt it. 

Doesn't morality require us to be sensitive to truth in definitions? 

Or does morality require us to change definitions, even if they don't provide truthful cognitive connection with the meaning of the term ?

Because the new, cutting edged proposals for revising what the term “woman” means fails a standard test of the best, correct definitions, doesn't it suffer from a fatal flaw? That flaw would be: the Self-ID revisionist view doesn't tell us what the word really means. It doesn't pick out all and only women in an internally, logically consistent way. 

 Revisionist gender theorists are working to avoid the classical definition, but at what philosophical cost? 

How do we know these new, alleged demands of social justice really are binding on our old definitions in the way asserted ? Dr. Tomas Bogardus, Ph.D., who teaches Logic along with other courses in Philosophy at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California, takes us through his careful writing on this topic, including a history of the debate of these matters. You can view his scholarly papers on his website here : https://sites.google.com/site/tbogardus/

 The Republican Professor is a pro-understanding-reality, pro-getting-correct-and-accurate-definitions-of-terms podcast. 

Therefore, welcome Tomas Bogardus !

Cyber Men, Cybermats and the Brotherhood of Magicians Logicians! With nuwho done until the next special in April, we go back to our trip though classic who! We start where we left off with Patrick Troughton's second season. The Doctor, Jamie and new comer Victoria land on a deserted planet where a band of archeologists are attempting to find the secuities of a tomb on the planets. However all is not what it seems with Cybermen and the Brotherhood of Logicians plotting against our friends. Meanwhile we discuss the impact that Victoria has on the episode, the threat of the Cybermats and Owen gives a logic lesson! (This was recorded before the outbreak of the Omicron Variant and recorded inline with covid rules and guidelines at the time) Join James and Owen as they take a deep dive into Doctor Who's past, starting from the very beginning. Cheap sets, grumpy old men, unhealthily dedicated teachers, and so much more lie in wait. So, join us as we go deep Into The Black Archive every Monday at 8PM! Listen: Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3ia5R5ypWpWTvWEhaIpj7t Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/into-the-black-archive/id1562176677 Google Podcasts: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9hbmNob3IuZm0vcy80OWRkY2RjNC9wb2RjYXN0L3Jzcw== Anchor: https://anchor.fm/the-black-archive Breaker: https://www.breaker.audio/into-the-black-archive RadioPublic: https://radiopublic.com/into-the-black-archive-8XbxOk Contact Us: Twitter: @BlackArchivePod Email: BlackArchivePod@gmail.com James: @JamesMakesStuff Owen: @OwenC_

Captain Sisko works out his differences with a smug Vulcan in the only way he knows how - by recruiting his officers into a game of baseball. It's the Niners vs the Logicians when Take Me Out to the Holosuite goes into the Mission Log! Sponsored by Sponsored by

Captain Sisko works out his differences with a smug Vulcan in the only way he knows how - by recruiting his officers into a game of baseball. It's the Niners vs the Logicians when Take Me Out to the Holosuite goes into the Mission Log! Sponsored by Sponsored by

Captain Sisko works out his differences with a smug Vulcan in the only way he knows how - by recruiting his officers into a game of baseball. It's the Niners vs the Logicians when Take Me Out to the Holosuite goes into the Mission Log! Sponsored by Sponsored by

After a brief diversion in the shape of our Dragon Con panel, we are BACK to continue our journey through all of Doctor Who as we get started with Season 5 of the show. This episode, we discuss a story where our heroes get drawn into a remake of The Mummy starring a rag-tag group of archaeologists, some logicians, and the Cybermen… it’s The Tomb of the Cybermen!   Over the course of the episode, Julie praises Victoria’s characterisation, Anthony’s mind goes to the gutter, Reilly ponders whether the Scrubbing Bubbles brand is part of a Cyberman plot, and Don discusses the inferiority complex of the Brotherhood of Logicians. The whole team questions the archaeological method on display in this story and whether it was sensible in any way, shape, or form.   For those of you who want to watch this along with us, this story is available on DVD from via Amazon UK as part of the Revisitations 3 box set, and as a standalone release through Amazon US. It’s also available for streaming on Britbox US and Britbox UK.   Other media mentioned in this episode: Out of the Unknown (Amazon US | Amazon UK) Doomwatch (Amazon UK only) The Mummy [Hammer] (Amazon US | Amazon UK) The Mummy Trilogy [Universal] (Amazon US | Amazon UK) The Curse of the Mummy’s Tomb (Amazon US | Amazon UK) Star Trek: The Next Generation – The Complete Series (Amazon US | Amazon UK) Through Time: An Unauthorized and Unofficial History of Doctor Who, by Andrew Cartmel (Amazon US | Amazon UK)   Finally, you can also follow us and interact with us on various forms of social media - Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. You can also e-mail us at watchers4d@gmail.com. If you’re enjoying this podcast, please subscribe to the show, and leave us a rating or review.

Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams broadcast RSR's quantum mechanics article with an introduction and comments. - Prerequisite 1: RSR's List of Things that are Not Physical - Prerequisite 2: Know the 2-slit experiment - Other RSR QM resources below - Version 1.0 of the article... Quantum Mechanics' Wave-Particle Duality is a Triality by Bob Enyart Three is exact. Always. To infinite precision and regardless of how often it is used, in counting and equations, it never wears down. As is true with all integers, three is always precisely exact. Protons are always exact as are, in our experience, all neutrons. Like those baryons, all electrons are exact and identical to particles of their same kind whether primordial or formed just now through decay. And as with electrons, all the other leptons too of the same kind appear to be identical with others of the same kind including electron neutrinos, muons, and tau neutrinos. Hundreds of thousands of experiments have confirmed the extraordinarily successful mathematics of quantum mechanics leading to the conclusion that all particles of the same kind are identical (Ford, 2005, The Quantum World, p. 100). Yet at 1,835 times the (rest) mass of an electron, the proton is relatively enormous yet always exactly the same as all others and the two particles always have the opposite, yet exactly equal, electrical charges. So fermions, including all the particles mentioned so far, along with the quarks, all appear to be identical with others of their same kinds. The creatively named up and down, strange and charm, bottom and top quarks each are identical to all others of the same kind. And all of the antiparticles, as expected, such as antilepton positrons, appear to be identical with all others of their same kinds. As an aside, positron diffraction had been demonstrated in 1980 but it took almost four decades more to perform the full two-slit experiment with antimatter demonstrating the expected wave-particle duality (Ariga, et al., 2018, arxiv.org). That interference result was first obtained with light in 1801 and then with (normal) matter beginning in 1927 with electrons, then neutrons in 1988, atoms in 1991, and molecules beginning in 1994 with the largest projectiles to date in 2013 using a synthetic carbon-based molecule of 810 atoms (Eibenberger, et al., 2013, arxiv.org) and in 2019 with molecules of 2,000 atoms (Fein, et al., Nature Physics) weighing 25,000 to 40,000 AMU (atomic mass units). And likewise all bosons are identical with others of their same kind including the Z particle, the Higgs, and all photons as the ubiquitous and uniform force carrier of electromagnetism. (That is, all photons of the same energy levels are identical to all other similarly energized photons.) Manufacturing though, has taught mankind about unavoidable tolerances. So, how is it that all like particles, even those just now coming into existence, are apparently all absolutely identical? The exactness of repeatedly used numbers does not surprise scientists because, though materialists are known to deny this, numbers are not physical. Science itself cannot exist apart from numbers. And because numbers are not physical, scientific inquiry includes the non-physical. Numbers are a kind of information and, also often denied by materialists, information is not physical. Protons appear to be physical but certainly the statement and the concept that they are, is not physical. That statement, and any statement, as often observed, does not consist of the photons transmitting it to your eyes nor the molecules of ink on a page nor of the sound waves expressing it. Materialists may object but they disqualify themselves from being taken seriously. Rules of investigation, whether used by forensic criminologists or corporate accountants, should be valued to the extent that they help discover truth. The rules of the materialist, such as methodological naturalism, are the opposite. Materialism requires adherence to its rules of investigation especially if that means getting the most important answers completely wrong. Reviewing a Carl Sagan title, the famed Richard Lewontin (Jan. 9, 1997, New York Review of Books) admitted: We take the side of [materialist] science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs [and] in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations... Materialists’ objections are discarded because they arise from the ultimate bias, which is insistence especially if wrong. Contrary to that lack of humility, the New Testament indicates that even Christianity itself is falsifiable. If Christ is not risen, then our faith is false (1 Cor. 15:14). Yet materialists cannot match such courage, covering themselves in a layer of non-falsifiable anti-science. So because there is no discovery, or scientific law, or technological advancement that requires or affirms atheism (Enyart, 2011, rsr.org/technology), the public posturing of materialism as more scientific than theism is dishonest. RSR at NYC's main public libraryFor decades, renowned physicists, many Christians, and others have interpreted quantum mechanics as providing evidence against the materialist worldview. And even more, the observer himself appears to have a special status. Might there be then a specifically Christian insight into quantum mechanics and matter's wave-particle duality? Physics, like biology, is increasingly seen as information based. Some physicists speak of an “information wave” (ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4,  ref5, etc.) and even a primordial information wave. Quantum mechanics obeys some rules that seem almost grammatical. Subject and verb, for example, must agree in number. In organisms, it’s not the acids that encode it but the functional information that is the more fundamental substance. Human beings are body, soul, and spirit and the soul survives even if all atoms of our body are replaced over time and both soul and spirit survive even cremation, so our non-physical selves are of greater substance than our physical bodies. God exists in three persons from eternity past and created a form for the Son to indwell in which He walked in the garden, and in Nazareth, and in which He will continue to walk eternally including on the new Earth. God is Spirit through eternity past yet the Son has become flesh and taken humanity upon Himself and the Bible describes Him now as inhabiting a glorified body. The Father, the Holy Spirit, and now inhabiting a glorified body, the Son, these three are reflected in human beings as body, soul, and spirit. As God stamped the creation with His own triune image (see below), might elementary particles themselves bear that triunity? Rather than a wave-particle duality perhaps matter is a wave-particle-word triality. If so, then like with biology and even humanity, it is the non-physical information-based component behind matter that is the deeper substance, the more solid phenomenon, the harder reality. The exactness of fundamental particles is a bewildering phenomenon, so much so that asking why these are exact is a question either ignored or sufficient to drive the most brilliant men nearly insane. As Richard Feynman said in his Nobel lecture: I received a telephone call one day at the graduate college at Princeton from Professor Wheeler, in which he said, "Feynman, I know why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass" "Why?" "Because, they are all the same electron!" That's similar to saying that the reason all threes are exactly the same is because they're all the same three! Consider though that the exactness of particles is itself a quantum effect. Perhaps an electron is a mathematical expression. Likewise, perhaps a proton is a mathematical expression, or even a grammatical one, conditionally expressed as a particle or wave depending upon context and the grammatical rules of physics. Long realizing that atoms, and therefore, steel and diamonds, are mostly empty space, brings us to consider that perhaps the baryons and leptons of the atom are, in a way, less than empty space, that is, that they are non-physical. Information, being non-physical, would have no problem passing through either one or two slits, depending upon context. Regardless of how far it may extend through space a sentence requires agreement between subject and verb, just as entangled particles affect each other even over vast distances, seemingly violating the laws of classical physics but not the immaterial laws of math, information theory, and grammar. Quantum tunneling may seem impossible but what physical barrier can impede a probability, a sentence, or an equation? Of the 77 creation passages in Scripture, the two greatest parallel passages from the Old and New Testaments, Genesis 1 and John 1, both stress a literary, verbal creation. And interestingly, the great creation Psalm 19 does the same. (Note first though, that while "the" Word refers to God the Son who "became flesh and dwelt among us", this paper, not written by a pantheist, does not imply that matter is divine. We therefore use an uppercase "W" to refer to God as the Word and a lowercase "w" to refer to the wave-particle-word as information.) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... All things were made through Him, and without [the Word] nothing was made that was made. Nothing. In Genesis, to perform a creative act, He spoke, including when God "said", Let there be light. The Holy Spirit could have inspired Moses to simply write that God made light or God created light, and so on for the next seven instances. But instead, God "said." The nineteenth psalm C.S. Lewis famously described as, "one of the greatest lyrics in the world." The "higher critics", such as those of the Documentary Hypothesis, opining otherwise, describe the chapter as a disjointed concatenation of two unrelated poems (1904, Cheyne, The Book of Psalms, 2nd Ed., Vol. 1, p. 75; etc., etc.). However, they miss the structure whereby the first half describes the physical heavens in literary terms and the second half describes the written or literary Word of God in astronomical terms. Physical Heavens in Literary Terms: The heavens declare the glory of God And the firmament shows [Hb. tells] His handiwork Day unto day utters speech And night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard. Their line [Sept., Rom. 10:18, voice] has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world. Etc. The second part of Psalm 19 describes the Scriptures in terms not as evidently astronomical as the first half is literary, yet we can see it there. "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul… The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes…" Then, "Who can understand his errors" (from Hb. shagah) wanderings, as with the wandering planets which the ancients did not understand. Then, of those errors, "Let them not have dominion over me", using the same Hebrew word as Genesis 1 where the "lights in the firmament of the heavens… rule over the day and over the night." Other expressions may suggest the same parallel. For God's Word is as "perfect" as is the Sun's annual "circuit" (v. 6) through the stars, which can "convert the soul", which is an especially unusual Hebrew expression, translated literally as, returning the soul, with this verb reminding us of the Sun which returns "from one end of heaven… to the other" (v. 6). So nothing was created apart from the Word. Logos, there referring to God the Son (Jn. 1:14), with that Greek word also meaning idea, reason. The creation week is characterized by God "saying", and the creation Psalm describes the heavens in terms of speech and knowledge. As with all creation, God is the "Author of life" (Acts 3:15). Likewise with redemption He is the "Author" of salvation and of faith (Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 12:2). Even then regarding the ongoing operation of the universe we see the same literary perspective with God, "upholding all things by the word of His power" (Heb. 1:3). Rather than a wave-particle duality, perhaps more complete and leading to more scientific understanding is the description of matter as a wave-particle-word triality. And perhaps as with vegetation, animals, and people, the non-physical aspect of matter is, ironically, the greater substance. Plants have a body, animals have a body and soul (Gen. 1:24; Hb. nephesh), and human beings have a body, soul, and spirit (1 Thes. 5:23; Heb. 4:12), yet the non-physical realm, which happens also to be the domain of information, is the greatest substance for all three; for plants, animals, and people. If normal metabolism happened to replace every atom in a favorite pet's body, as long as it had breath, still its identity, that is, its soul, would persist. For animals too then, and even aside from their immaterial biological information, the "physical" component is not the greater substance. For human beings, and known through general and special revelation that, as above, our spirits survive even cremation, our physical body is not remotely the greater substance of our existence. And the genetic molecule is not the deepest substance of broccoli. For just as with ink in a book, even with plants, amino acids are not the essence. And in some respects clearly a human being is "an epistle... written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh" (2 Cor. 3:3). Again, a plant's substance, its essence, is not it's DNA but the functional information the genetic molecule and other cellular systems carry. In the same way, if fundamental particles have a wave-particle-word triality, the information is the deeper substance, expressing matter as a wave, or a particle, depending upon the context, both mathematical and linguistic. All human beings, but especially Christian theologians and quantum physicists, can see a triune stamp on the cosmos. Electrons, physicists have discovered, are of one of the three "flavors" of leptons and one of the three groupings of quarks form protons and neutrons, with quarks existing in one of three "colors" and of multiples of one-third electrical charge. Exactly three generations of elementary particles underlie all matter. Physicist Richard Feynman in his book QED asked how many fundamental actions are there to account for nearly all phenomena in the universe regarding light and electricity to which he answered: "There are Three!" And in his Nobel prize lecture Feynman said, astoundingly, that there are three unique ways of "describing quantum mechanics". Further, unlike our arbitrary earth-based units of measurement, scientists so far have discovered "two natural units", Planck's constant, h, and the speed of light, c. A "still-unanswered question is whether a third natural unit awaits discovery", for such a triune "'all-natural' physics" would "form a basis of measurement as complete as, and much more satisfying than, the kilogram, the meter, and the second." Might there, though, be more, say, of the leptons? Overlooking the theologian, Kenneth Ford, retired director of the American Institute of Physics, wrote, "No one knows why there are three flavors of particles..." yet he concludes, "Surprisingly, physicists feel confident that the third flavor marks the end of the trail—no more lie ahead." The Christian theologian by the Scriptures knows that God exists as three persons in one Trinity. So, unsurprisingly, man has a triune nature. Christ was three days in the tomb, which Jonah’s three days foreshadowed, as did Abraham’s three days of thinking that he would sacrifice his own son on that same hill called Golgotha, the Skull, and Mt. Moriah (Gen. 22:14; 2 Chron. 3:1). Israel's three patriarchs are Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The priestly tribe of Levi is from Jacob's third child (Gen. 29:34) as Leviticus is the Bible's third book. The day the law was given the sons of Levi killed "about three thousand men' (Ex. 32:28), whereas the day the Spirit was given, "that day about three thousand souls" were saved (Acts 2:41; 2 Cor. 3:6), for the law kills but the Spirit gives life (2 Cor. 3:6-7). The Hebrew Scriptures comprise three sections, the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (Luke 24:44), and the Bible names three archangels. The most noteworthy women are Eve, Sarah, and Mary. The magi brought gold, frankincense and myrrh. Three persons (one being the Son) started their public service at thirty years of age: Joseph (Gen. 41:46), a deliverer of his people; David (2 Sam. 5:4) seated on the messianic throne (2 Sam. 7:12-13); and "Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age" (Luke 3:23). God could have led Esther to fast for two days, or four; and He could have kept Jonah in the whale for one day, or a week, but three days and three nights prefigures God’s plan of salvation for Christ’s time in the grave. For Jesus "rose again the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:4). Thus the triune Christian God, the mystery of the Trinity, three Persons in One God, is the only true God. And even theoretically, unlike the unitarian Allah and any of the alleged pagan idols, the God of the Bible is the only one whose testimony we would be able to trust, for His triunity answers both the philosophical problem of the one and the many and it answers Socrates' challenge against theism titled Euthyphro's Dilemma. For, how could God Himself know that He is good, and not evil? Allah could not know that [John 5:31]. But with the Triune God, the Son testifies that for eternity past, the Father has never wronged the Son, and the Father of the Spirit, and the Spirit of the Son, an eternal threefold testimony for by the testimony of two or three witnesses the matter is established (Deut. 19:15; Eccl. 4:12; Mat. 18:16; John 5:31-39; 2 Cor. 13:1; 1 Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28). Even the one who never heard a Bible verse can notice that the Creator has imprinted our world with a triune nature. Space exists in three dimensions, height, width, and length, as does time in past, present and future. The electromagnetic force operates in positive, negative, and neutral, and in light, red, green, and blue blend into the hues of the rainbow whereas in pigment the three primary colors are red, yellow, and blue. We human beings live on this third planet from the Sun; we're made of atoms built of "just three basic particles", protons, neutrons, and electrons; and we have trichromatic color vision. Mankind's first known states of matter were solid, liquid, and gas and his first known number system used the Sumerian term "man" for 1, "woman" for 2, and the word "plurality" for 3, with math itself happening in the realm of positive, negative, and zero. His strongest shape for building is the triangle. Writers often give three examples and artists group in threes as in interior design, sculpting, and even movie directing, as compared to trilogy (1, 2, 3) there is no commonly used word for any other number of films. Photographers use the rule of thirds. Logicians use the three laws of logic as genetic scientists learned that DNA uses only three-letter words. It's not that only the number three describes reality (see rsr.org/360 and rsr.org/300). Rather, as known by architects, authors, and composers, a theme is most appreciated in the context of greater variety. If well designed, the greater the variety, the more appreciated the theme. So we humans are body, soul, and spirit (1 Thes. 5:23), made in the image of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. People live here, in heaven, and in hell. Those who love God cry, "Holy, holy, holy." Consider a hypothesis that is consistent with, well, just about everything, and that if true would help to answer many questions. Rather than a wave-particle duality, matter is a wave-particle-word triality, with "word" meaning information or, perhaps better, functional information. Quantum states are probabilistic and probability is conceptual, not physical. This may explain why, after a century of trying, currently there is no explanation for how a wave can physically collapse into a particle. No such explanation may exist. A survey of quantum physics instructors found that 30% "thought of the wave function as a physical matter wave, while nearly half preferred to view the wave function as containing information only..." A photon, like every other elementary particle, is primarily a functional information packet expressing itself, based on context and the rules of physical grammar, so to speak, as a particle or as a wave. (Experiment suggests even that a photon can exhibit aspects of both particle and wave simultaneously.) In quantum mechanics, a particle's probability is not based on a lack of information, as with a classical shell game with its one-third probability that the ball is under a particular cup. The probabilistic quantum state does not refer to a lack of knowledge about the state but to the state itself. Further, every particle, regardless of its state, is an expression of a quantum packet of information. So one consequence of the wave-particle-word triality hypothesis is that every particle is always in a quantum state. Of proton (and quark) manufacturing, so to speak, why are the tolerances exact? Why can't some protons (or their quarks), with the mass of more than 1,800 electrons, perhaps have only 99.7% or 100.1%, of the inverse charge of an electron? Why are all fundamental particles, even long after the Fall, apparently exactly identical to all others of the same kind? Elementary particles of the same kind are identical to one another because each is the expression of a mathematical and linguistic information packet, which packets are the essence of matter. A bottom quark is identical to all other bottom quarks in the way that the number 3 is exact and identical regardless of how many times it is expressed. Though it obeys a grammar and is fundamentally information, neither a particle nor a wave is an illusion. They are not non-physical in the sense that they only exist in one's perception. The wave does not occupy any abstract higher-dimensional Hilbert space (2016, The Quantum Handshake: Entanglement, Nonlocality and Transactions, John G. Cramer, Springer, p. 71; 2006, Cramer's transactional interpretation and causal loop problems, Synthese, Vo. 150, pp. 1-40). Instead, both the particle and the wave are actual expressions of the quantum information packet. (Should that be called a quip?) Why would a particle heading toward two slits transform itself into a wave? Why must a subject and verb agree in number? Why must the spin of a far-distant entangled particle equal zero with its entangled twin? Why grammatically is a singular subject typically paired with a plural verb when in a counterfactual subjunctive mood? These are the rules of language, human language and the language (punctuation, syntax even, grammar and composition) of physics. In both, context determines which expressions are appropriate. If we can't conceive of a particle going through two slits simultaneously, we also cannot conceive of any way that such a problem could challenge a non-physical entity. Information is not physical. It exists and flows in a non-physical dimension that is interfaced with our physical universe. Information can be generated by a man's spirit, which spirit itself is interfaced to his body. In some similarly bewildering manner, quantum information is interfaced to our physical cosmos. So, not aware of that functional information nor its role, in one camp the Copenhagen interpreters say "shut up and measure", arguing against even trying to understand. And another broad camp visualizes, in the place where the quip interfaces to the physical realm, either a multiverse or multiple non-existent physical dimensions, all because they are unwittingly trying to physicalize something that cannot be physicalized. When Newton described universal gravitation, he gave little thought to its mechanism, satisfying himself with describing what it does. Mankind has benefited ever since. Quantum physicists describe in precise detail what electrons do, for example, when they instantly jump between energy levels, but not why or how it is that they do this. (Participles, by the way, like adjectives, must agree with their substantives in case, gender, and number.) Likewise, we know the electric charge of a proton but why is it so? Maxwell's field equations addressed waves of electromagnetism a half century before Einstein spoke of individual quanta. So with the single photon's invariant zero mass we know that its velocity upon creation is light speed but why is it that speed? Following Newton's approach, if matter is a wave-particle-word triality, that gives us a clearer idea of what it is and what it is doing and even some insight into the why, even if we have no conception of the how. For example, the triality insight is supportive of the view of the particle as a mathematical equation, for, the quantum packet of functional information would include any such mathematical formulation. And this triality may help to better understand what is called the quantum conservation of weirdness. Particles can superimpose because their inherent mathematical expressions can superimpose, and the information packet containing those expressions also contain the grammatical rules to discern the proper contexts for such behavior. And a quantum state can be split because division is a valid operation on its mathematical expression. Particles can tunnel because experiment has shown that the rules of quantum syntax and grammar permit a flow of information such that these tiny physical barriers cannot prevent it. God thought E=mc2 and implemented that equality and many other beautiful mathematical equations in His creation. Likewise, design considerations and functional requirements led our inexhaustibly creative God to implement the quantum world. This provides a robust foundation for the macro world. And it also makes available these astounding microscopic capabilities to achieve otherwise impossible precision (as in navigation and smell) in biological organisms and for creative human inventors to exploit including by enabling information technology that could blur the distinction between easy and hard computational problems. Considering further this contrast between what and how, the spectacular discoveries of what the laws of science describe expose the physicist's ignorance of why and even of how they do it. The 2018 Oxford University Press text Conjuring the Universe: the origin of the laws of nature by Peter Atkins wears its author's atheism on its sleeve with the dust jacket claiming that the laws of nature leave "very little, if anything at all, for a Creator to do" and the Preface beginning, "The workings of the world have been ascribed by some to an astonishingly busybody but disembodied Creator… My gut recoils from this…" Yet right off, Chapter 1 makes it clear that the author (and by extension, all Oxford and the entire atheistic world) has no explanation for the ostensible topic of the book, the origin of laws. Two things are observed, however, about the nature of these laws, that they describe actions, and "that some are intrinsically mathematical and the others are adequately verbal" (p. 13). Thus many of nature's laws were discovered by thought experiments on such things as idealized gas, radiators, and spatial points (LaGrange), and even on things like trolleys and falling bodies. The hypothesis in this paper, that matter is fundamentally non-physical, has as a corollary, that the laws of quantum mechanics, like all laws, are themselves non-physical. The most fundamental of the laws of physics, found in the probabilistic quantum world, appear to be not only conceptual, but also declaratory. Thus an electron shall be offset by a proton; it may not decay (a prohibition); and its wave state will proceed until observed. Extrapolating from the quantum world, some of the classical laws seem to be declaratory rather than physical. For arguments sake, we can concede that methodological naturalism could possibly explain something like the inverse square law. Consider though, that classical objects shall attract each other; elements' properties shall recur in the periodic table; every action will produce a reaction. This paper's hypothesis suggests that no purely physical reason will ever be found to explain why or even how it could be that unlike the neutron, the charge of the proton and the electron are equal and opposite. Meanwhile, substantives like pronouns (current social insanity aside) are only masculine, feminine, or neutral. The corresponding electrical charge of various particles may exist because the respective quantum information packets of those particles are multi-field data records that have a sexagesimal value of plus or minus one unit in their respective electrical charge "fields", fields that is, not in the coulomb sense but in the data structure sense in information technology. So even with the inverse-square law, which has perhaps the most physicality of all the physical laws, as a particle is approached, force increases yet it does not reach infinity. Why not? Because its maximum value, is declared, not unlike when God said, "Let there be light", that is, as in computer programming, max value is set by definition. That definition is set either within the quantum information packet itself, or more likely it resides in a mathematical universal constant which is referenced by a pointer from within the packet, which provides part of the context within which that packet exists and can be expressed. Meanwhile, the non-physical is crashing down on the materialist from all sides. As though themselves glorious, numbers are not physical. Math is not physical. Information is not physical. Grammar is not physical. Logic is not physical. Reason is not physical. Ideas are not physical. Science is not physical. Concepts are not physical. Morality is not physical. Truth is not physical. Souls are not physical. Spirits are not physical. Codes are not physical. The square root of negative one is not physical (and so like everything else, by its use in the implementation of quantum mechanics, etc., therefore the √(−1) reveals the Creator). Infinity is not physical. Consciousness is not physical. Genomes are not physical. Pain is not physical. Your mind is not physical. Laws are not physical. And God is not physical. For ninety years now, various quantum physicists have even been arguing that particles themselves may not be physical! And they might be right. So the apparent exactness of all elementary particles may itself be evidence of their underlying non-physical numerical essence, with that exactness occurring by each particle's constant quantum expression of its value and worth in the eyes of the Beholder. So to the materialist, if it turns out that along with everything else, that matter itself is non-physical, well then, that's just piling on. For as Paul wrote to the Colossians, Christ "is the image of the invisible God… For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible" and He Himself is Spirit and for whatever it means, "in Him all things hold together." ### This draft is unfinished as of 4/9/20. RSR notes toward finalizing this article reside in RSR's shared Google Docs folder Quantum Mechanics including RSR's List of Quantum Mechanics Rules. Members of the RSR Research Team meet online via a Google Hangouts video conference on Monday nights at 5 p.m. Mountain Time. To join and get access to that and scores of other private team resources, see rsr.org/research-team. And please, your comments may help Bob decide whether to submit this draft to a creation journal, so don't hesitate to send them along to Bob@rsr.org. Thanks! RSR's Quantum Thoughts: - 2018: Quantum Biology: Doing what standard chemistry and physics can't - 2019: QB Pt. 2: Our seemingly impossible sense of smell - 2019: How Quantum Computers Do It: Finally, a Helpful Illustration - 2019: Google's Quantum Supremacy - 2019: Top Mathematicians: Ants & Bees, Mold & Amoebas - 2018: Coincidence or Determinism? Quantum theology and physics - 2015: An RSR preview show - 2020: Our rsr.org/wave-particle-duality-is-a-triality (this page) aka rsr.org/quantum and rsr.org/triality.  

Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams broadcast RSR's quantum mechanics article with an introduction and comments. - Prerequisite 1: RSR's List of Things that are Not Physical - Prerequisite 2: Know the 2-slit experiment - Other RSR QM resources below - Version 1.0 of the article... Quantum Mechanics' Wave-Particle Duality is a Triality by Bob Enyart Three is exact. Always. To infinite precision and regardless of how often it is used, in counting and equations, as is true with all integers, three is always precisely exact. Protons are always exact as are, in our experience, all neutrons. Like those baryons, all electrons are exact and identical to particles of their same kind whether primordial or formed just now through decay. And as with electrons, all the other leptons too of the same kind appear to be identical with others of the same kind including electron neutrinos, muons, and tau neutrinos. Hundreds of thousands of experiments have confirmed the extraordinarily successful mathematics of quantum mechanics leading to the conclusion that all particles of the same kind are identical (Ford, 2005, The Quantum World, p. 100). Yet at 1,835 times the (rest) mass of an electron, the proton is relatively enormous yet always exactly the same as all others and the two particles always have the opposite, yet exactly equal, electrical charges. So fermions, including all the particles mentioned so far, along with the quarks, all appear to be identical with others of their same kinds. The creatively named up and down, strange and charm, bottom and top quarks each are identical to all others of the same kind. And all of the antiparticles, as expected, such as antilepton positrons, appear to be identical with all others of their same kinds. As an aside, positron diffraction had been demonstrated in 1980 but it took almost four decades more to perform the full two-slit experiment with antimatter demonstrating the expected wave-particle duality (Ariga, et al., 2018, arxiv.org). That interference result was first obtained with light in 1801 and then with (normal) matter beginning in 1927 with electrons, then neutrons in 1988, atoms in 1991, and molecules beginning in 1994 with the largest projectiles to date in 2013 using a synthetic carbon-based molecule of 810 atoms (Eibenberger, et al., 2013, arxiv.org). And likewise all bosons are identical with others of their same kind including the Z particle, the Higgs, and all photons as the ubiquitous and uniform force carrier of electromagnetism. (That is, all photons of the same energy levels are identical to all other similarly energized photons.) Manufacturing though, has taught mankind about unavoidable tolerances. So, how is it that all like particles, even those just now coming into existence, are apparently all absolutely identical? The exactness of repeatedly used numbers does not surprise scientists because, though materialists are known to deny this, numbers are not physical. Science itself cannot exist apart from numbers. And because numbers are not physical, scientific inquiry includes the non-physical. Numbers are a kind of information and, also often denied by materialists, information is not physical. Protons appear to be physical but certainly the statement and the concept that they are, is not physical. That statement, and any statement, as often observed, does not consist of the photons transmitting it to your eyes nor the molecules of ink on a page nor of the sound waves expressing it. Materialists may object but they disqualify themselves from being taken seriously. Rules of investigation, whether used by forensic criminologists or corporate accountants, should be valued to the extent that they help discover truth. The rules of the materialist, such as methodological naturalism, are the opposite. Materialism requires adherence to its rules of investigation especially if that means getting the most important answers completely wrong. Reviewing a Carl Sagan title, the famed Richard Lewontin (Jan. 9, 1997, New York Review of Books) admitted: We take the side of [materialist] science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs [and] in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations... Materialists’ objections are discarded because they arise from the ultimate bias, which is insistence especially if wrong. Contrary to that lack of humility, the New Testament indicates that even Christianity itself is falsifiable. If Christ is not risen, then our faith is false (1 Cor. 15:14). Yet materialists cannot match such courage, covering themselves in a layer of non-falsifiable anti-science. So because there is no discovery, or scientific law, or technological advancement that requires or affirms atheism (Enyart, 2011, rsr.org/technology), the public posturing of materialism as more scientific than theism is dishonest. RSR at NYC's main public libraryFor decades, renowned physicists, many Christians, and others have interpreted quantum mechanics as providing evidence against the materialist worldview. And even more, the observer himself appears to have a special status. Might there be then a specifically Christian insight into quantum mechanics and matter's wave-particle duality? Physics, like biology, is increasingly seen as information based. Some physicists speak of an “information wave” (ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4,  ref5, etc.) and even a primordial information wave. Quantum mechanics obeys some rules that seem almost grammatical. Subject and verb, for example, must agree in number. In organisms, it’s not the acids that encode it but the functional information that is the more fundamental substance. Human beings are body, soul, and spirit and the soul survives even if all atoms of our body are replaced over time and both soul and spirit survive even cremation, so our non-physical selves are of greater substance than our physical bodies. God exists in three persons from eternity past and created a form for the Son to indwell in which He walked in the garden, and in Nazareth, and in which He will continue to walk eternally including on the new Earth. God is Spirit through eternity past yet the Son has become flesh and taken humanity upon Himself and the Bible describes Him now as inhabiting a glorified body. The Father, the Holy Spirit, and now inhabiting a glorified body, the Son, these three are reflected in human beings as body, soul, and spirit. As God stamped the creation with His own triune image (see below), might elementary particles themselves bear that triunity? Rather than a wave-particle duality perhaps matter is a wave-particle-word triality. If so, then like with biology and even humanity, it is the non-physical information-based component behind matter that is the deeper substance, the more solid phenomenon, the harder reality. The exactness of fundamental particles is a bewildering phenomenon, so much so that asking why these are exact is a question either ignored or sufficient to drive the most brilliant men nearly insane. As Richard Feynman said in his Nobel lecture: I received a telephone call one day at the graduate college at Princeton from Professor Wheeler, in which he said, "Feynman, I know why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass" "Why?" "Because, they are all the same electron! Rather, consider that the exactness of particles is itself a quantum effect. Perhaps an electron is a mathematical expression. Likewise, perhaps a proton is a mathematical expression, or even a grammatical one, conditionally expressed as a particle or wave depending upon context and the grammatical rules of physics. Long realizing that atoms, and therefore, steel and diamonds, are mostly empty space, brings us to consider that perhaps the baryons and leptons of the atom are, in a way, less than empty space, that is, that they are non-physical. Information, being non-physical, would have no problem passing through either one or two slits, depending upon context. Regardless of how far it may extend through space a sentence requires agreement between subject and verb, just as entangled particles affect each other even over vast distances, seemingly violating the laws of classical physics but not the immaterial laws of math, information theory, and grammar. Quantum tunneling may seem impossible but what physical barrier can impede a probability, a sentence, or an equation? Of the 77 creation passages in Scripture, the two greatest parallel passages from the Old and New Testaments, Genesis 1 and John 1, both stress a literary, verbal creation. And interestingly, the great creation Psalm 19 does the same. (Note first though, that while "the" Word refers to God the Son who "became flesh and dwelt among us", this paper, not written by a pantheist, does not imply that matter is divine. We therefore use an uppercase "W" to refer to God as the Word and a lowercase "w" to refer to the wave-particle-word as information.) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... All things were made through Him, and without [the Word] nothing was made that was made. Nothing. In Genesis, to perform a creative act, He spoke, including when God "said", Let there be light. The Holy Spirit could have inspired Moses to simply write that God made light or God created light, and so on for the next seven instances. But instead, God "said." The nineteenth psalm C.S. Lewis famously described as, "one of the greatest lyrics in the world." The "higher critics", such as those of the Documentary Hypothesis, opining otherwise, describe the chapter as a disjointed concatenation of two unrelated poems (1904, Cheyne, The Book of Psalms, 2nd Ed., Vol. 1, p. 75; etc., etc.). However, they miss the structure whereby the first half describes the heavens in literary terms and the second half describes the Word of God in astronomical terms. Physical Heavens in Literary Terms: The heavens declare the glory of God And the firmament shows [Hb. tells] His handiwork Day unto day utters speech And night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard. Their line [Sept., Rom. 10:18, voice] has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world. Etc. The second part of Psalm 19 describes the Scriptures in terms not as evidently astronomical as the first half is literary, yet we can see it there. "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul… The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes…" Then, "Who can understand his errors" (from Hb. shagah) wanderings, as with the wandering planets which the ancients did not understand. Then, of those errors, "Let them not have dominion over me", using the same Hebrew word as Genesis 1 where the "lights in the firmament of the heavens… rule over the day and over the night." Other expressions may suggest the same parallel. For God's Word is as "perfect" as is the Sun's annual "circuit" (v. 6) through the stars, which can "convert the soul", which is an especially unusual Hebrew expression, translated literally as, returning the soul, with this verb reminding us of the Sun which returns "from one end of heaven… to the other" (v. 6). To summarize, nothing was created apart from the Word. Logos, there referring to God the Son (Jn. 1:14), with that Greek word also meaning idea, reason. The creation week is characterized by God "saying", and the creation Psalm describes the heavens in terms of speech and knowledge. Rather than a wave-particle duality, perhaps more complete and leading to more scientific understanding is the description of matter as a wave-particle-word triality. And perhaps as with vegetation, animals, and people, the non-physical aspect of matter is, ironically, the greater substance. Plants have a body, animals have a body and soul (Gen. 1:24; Hb. nephesh), and human beings have a body, soul, and spirit (1 Thes. 5:23; Heb. 4:12), yet the non-physical realm, which happens also to be the domain of information, is the greatest substance for all three; for plants, animals, and people. If normal metabolism happened to replace every atom in a favorite pet's body, as long as it had breath, still its identity, that is, its soul, would persist. For animals too then, and even aside from their immaterial biological information, the "physical" component is not the greater substance. For human beings, and known through general and special revelation that, as above, our spirits survive even cremation, our physical body is not remotely the greater substance of our existence. And the genetic molecule is not the deepest substance of broccoli. For just as with ink in a book, even with plants, amino acids are not the essence. And in some respects clearly a human being is "an epistle... written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh" (2 Cor. 3:3). Again, a plant's substance, its essence, is not it's DNA but the functional information the genetic molecule and other cellular systems carry. In the same way, if fundamental particles have a wave-particle-word triality, the information is the deeper substance, expressing matter as a wave, or a particle, depending upon the context, both mathematical and linguistic. All human beings, but especially Christian theologians and quantum physicists, can see a triune stamp on the cosmos. Electrons, physicists have discovered, are of one of the three "flavors" of leptons and one of the three groupings of quarks form protons and neutrons, with quarks existing in one of three "colors" and of multiples of one-third electrical charge. Exactly three generations of elementary particles underlie all matter. Physicist Richard Feynman in his book QED asked how many fundamental actions are there to account for nearly all phenomena in the universe regarding light and electricity to which he answered: "There are Three!" And in his Nobel prize lecture Feynman said, astoundingly, that there are three unique ways of "describing quantum mechanics". Further, unlike our arbitrary earth-based units of measurement, scientists so far have discovered "two natural units", Planck's constant, h, and the speed of light, c. A "still-unanswered question is whether a third natural unit awaits discovery", for such a triune "'all-natural' physics" would "form a basis of measurement as complete as, and much more satisfying than, the kilogram, the meter, and the second." Might there, though, be more, say, of the leptons? Overlooking the theologian, Kenneth Ford, retired director of the American Institute of Physics, wrote, "No one knows why there are three flavors of particles..." yet he concludes, "Surprisingly, physicists feel confident that the third flavor marks the end of the trail—no more lie ahead." The Christian theologian by the Scriptures knows that God exists as three persons in one Trinity. So, unsurprisingly, man has a triune nature. Christ was three days in the tomb, which Jonah’s three days foreshadowed, as did Abraham’s three days of thinking that he would sacrifice his own son on that same hill called Golgotha, the Skull, and Mt. Moriah (Gen. 22:14; 2 Chron. 3:1). Israel's three patriarchs are Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The priestly tribe of Levi is from Jacob's third child (Gen. 29:34) as Leviticus is the Bible's third book. The day the law was given the sons of Levi killed "about three thousand men' (Ex. 32:28), whereas the day the Spirit was given, "that day about three thousand souls" were saved (Acts 2:41; 2 Cor. 3:6), for the law kills but the Spirit gives life (2 Cor. 3:6-7). The Hebrew Scriptures comprise three sections, the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (Luke 24:44), and the Bible names three archangels. The most noteworthy women are Eve, Sarah, and Mary. The magi brought gold, frankincense and myrrh. Three persons (one being the Son) started their public service at thirty years of age: Joseph (Gen. 41:46), a deliverer of his people; David (2 Sam. 5:4) seated on the messianic throne (2 Sam. 7:12-13); and "Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age" (Luke 3:23). God could have led Esther to fast for two days, or four; and He could have kept Jonah in the whale for one day, or a week, but three days and three nights prefigures God’s plan of salvation for Christ’s time in the grave. For Jesus "rose again the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:4). Thus the triune Christian God, the mystery of the Trinity, three Persons in One God, is the only true God. And even theoretically, unlike the unitarian Allah and any of the alleged pagan idols, the God of the Bible is the only one whose testimony we would be able to trust, for His triunity answers both the philosophical problem of the one and the many and it answers Socrates' challenge against theism titled Euthyphro's Dilemma. For, how could God Himself know that He is good, and not evil? Allah could not know that [John 5:31]. But with the Triune God, the Son testifies that for eternity past, the Father has never wronged the Son, and the Father of the Spirit, and the Spirit of the Son, an eternal threefold testimony for by the testimony of two or three witnesses the matter is established (Deut. 19:15; Eccl. 4:12; Mat. 18:16; John 5:31-39; 2 Cor. 13:1; 1 Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28). Even the one who never heard a Bible verse can notice that the Creator has imprinted our world with a triune nature. Space exists in three dimensions, height, width, and length, as does time in past, present and future. The electromagnetic force operates in positive, negative, and neutral, and in light, red, green, and blue blend into the hues of the rainbow whereas in pigment the three primary colors are red, yellow, and blue. We human beings live on this third planet from the Sun; we're made of atoms built of "just three basic particles", protons, neutrons, and electrons; and we have trichromatic color vision. Mankind's first known states of matter were solid, liquid, and gas and his first known number system used the Sumerian term "man" for 1, "woman" for 2, and the word "plurality" for 3, with math itself happening in the realm of positive, negative, and zero. His strongest shape for building is the triangle. Writers often give three examples and artists group in threes as in interior design, sculpting, and even movie directing, as compared to trilogy (1, 2, 3) there is no commonly used word for any other number of films. Photographers use the rule of thirds. Logicians use the three laws of logic as genetic scientists learned that DNA uses only three-letter words. It's not that only the number three describes reality (see rsr.org/360 and rsr.org/300). Rather, as known by architects, authors, and composers, a theme is most appreciated in the context of greater variety. If well designed, the greater the variety, the more appreciated the theme. So we humans are body, soul, and spirit (1 Thes. 5:23), made in the image of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. People live here, in heaven, and in hell. Those who love God cry, "Holy, holy, holy." Consider a hypothesis that is consistent with, well, just about everything, and that if true would help to answer many questions. Rather than a wave-particle duality, matter is a wave-particle-word triality, with "word" meaning information or, perhaps better, functional information. Quantum states are probabilistic and probability is conceptual, not physical. This may explain why, after a century of trying, currently there is no explanation for how a wave can physically collapse into a particle. No such explanation may exist. A survey of quantum physics instructors found that 30% "thought of the wave function as a physical matter wave, while nearly half preferred to view the wave function as containing information only..." A photon, like every other elementary particle, is primarily a functional information packet expressing itself, based on context and the rules of physical grammar, so to speak, as a particle or as a wave. (Experiment suggests even that a photon can exhibit aspects of both particle and wave simultaneously.) In quantum mechanics, a particle's probability is not based on a lack of information, as with a classical shell game with its one-third probability that the ball is under a particular cup. The probabilistic quantum state does not refer to a lack of knowledge about the state but to the state itself. Further, every particle, regardless of its state, is an expression of a quantum packet of information. So one consequence of the wave-particle-word triality hypothesis is that every particle is always in a quantum state. Of proton (and quark) manufacturing, so to speak, why are the tolerances exact? Why can't some protons (or their quarks), with the mass of more than 1,800 electrons, perhaps have only 99.7% or 100.1%, of the inverse charge of an electron? Why are all fundamental particles, even long after the Fall, apparently exactly identical to all others of the same kind? Elementary particles of the same kind are identical to one another because each is the expression of a mathematical and linguistic information packet, which packets are the essence of matter. A bottom quark is identical to all other bottom quarks almost in the way that the number 3 is exact and identical regardless of how many times it is expressed. Though it obeys a grammar and is fundamentally information, neither a particle nor a wave is an illusion. They are not non-physical in the sense that they only exist in one's perception. The wave does not occupy any abstract higher-dimensional Hilbert space (2016, The Quantum Handshake: Entanglement, Nonlocality and Transactions, John G. Cramer, Springer, p. 71; 2006, Cramer's transactional interpretation and causal loop problems, Synthese, Vo. 150, pp. 1-40). Instead, both the particle and the wave are actual expressions of the quantum information packet. (Should that be called a quip?) Why would a particle heading toward two slits transform itself into a wave? Why must a subject and verb agree in number? Why must the spin of a far-distant entangled particle equal zero with its entangled twin? Why grammatically is a singular subject typically paired with a plural verb when in a counterfactual subjunctive mood? These are the rules of language, human language and the language (punctuation, syntax even, grammar and composition) of physics. In both, context determines which expressions are appropriate. If we can't conceive of a particle going through two slits simultaneously, we also cannot conceive of any way that such a problem could challenge a non-physical entity. Information is not physical. It exists and flows in a non-physical dimension that is interfaced with our physical universe. Information can be generated by a man's spirit, which spirit itself is interfaced to his body. In some similarly bewildering manner, quantum information is interfaced to our physical cosmos. So, not aware of that functional information nor its role, in one camp the Copenhagen interpreters say "shut up and measure", arguing against even trying to understand. And another broad camp visualizes, in the place where the quip interfaces to the physical realm, either a multiverse or multiple non-existent physical dimensions, all because they are unwittingly trying to physicalize something that cannot be physicalized. When Newton described universal gravitation, he gave little thought to its mechanism, satisfying himself with describing what it does. Mankind has benefited ever since. Quantum physicists describe in precise detail what electrons do, for example, when they instantly jump between energy levels, but not why or how it is that they do this. (Participles, by the way, like adjectives, must agree with their substantives in case, gender, and number.) Likewise, we know the electric charge of a proton but why is it so? Maxwell's field equations addressed waves of electromagnetism a half century before Einstein spoke of individual quanta. So with the single photon's invariant zero mass we know that its velocity upon creation is light speed but why is it that speed? Following Newton's approach, if matter is a wave-particle-word triality, that gives us a clearer idea of what it is and what it is doing and even some insight into the why, even if we have no conception of the how. For example, the triality insight is supportive of the view of the particle as a mathematical equation, for, the quantum packet of functional information would include any such mathematical formulation. And this triality may help to better understand what is called the quantum conservation of weirdness. Particles can superimpose because their inherent mathematical expressions can superimpose, and the information packet containing those expressions also contain the grammatical rules to discern the proper contexts for such behavior. And a quantum state can be split because division is a valid operation on its mathematical expression. Particles can tunnel because experiment has shown that the rules of quantum syntax and grammar permit a flow of information such that these tiny physical barriers cannot prevent it. God thought E=mc2 and implemented that equality and many other beautiful mathematical equations in His creation. Likewise, design considerations and functional requirements led our inexhaustibly creative God to implement the quantum world. This provides a robust foundation for the macro world. And it also makes available these astounding microscopic capabilities to achieve otherwise impossible precision (as in navigation and smell) in biological organisms and for creative human inventors to exploit including by enabling information technology that could blur the distinction between easy and hard computational problems. Considering further this contrast between what and how, the spectacular discoveries of what the laws of science describe expose the physicist's ignorance of why and even of how they do it. The 2018 Oxford University Press text Conjuring the Universe: the origin of the laws of nature by Peter Atkins wears its author's atheism on its sleeve with the dust jacket claiming that the laws of nature leave "very little, if anything at all, for a Creator to do" and the Preface beginning, "The workings of the world have been ascribed by some to an astonishingly busybody but disembodied Creator… My gut recoils from this…" Yet right off, Chapter 1 makes it clear that the author (and by extension, all Oxford and the entire atheistic world) has no explanation for the ostensible topic of the book, the origin of laws. Two things are observed, however, about the nature of these laws, that they describe actions, and "that some are intrinsically mathematical and the others are adequately verbal" (p. 13). Thus many of nature's laws were discovered by thought experiments on such things as idealized gas, radiators, and spatial points (LaGrange), and even on things like trolleys and falling bodies. The hypothesis in this paper, that matter is fundamentally non-physical, has as a corollary, that the laws of quantum mechanics, like all laws, are themselves non-physical. The most fundamental of the laws of physics, found in the probabilistic quantum world, appear to be not only conceptual, but also declaratory. Thus an electron shall be offset by a proton; it may not decay (a prohibition); and its wave state will proceed until observed. Extrapolating from the quantum world, some of the classical laws seem to be declaratory rather than physical. For arguments sake, we can concede that methodological naturalism could possibly explain something like the inverse square law. Consider though, that classical objects shall attract each other; elements' properties shall recur in the periodic table; every action will produce a reaction. This paper's hypothesis suggests that no purely physical reason will ever be found to explain why or even how it could be that unlike the neutron, the charge of the proton and the electron are equal and opposite. Meanwhile, substantives like pronouns (current social insanity aside) are only masculine, feminine, or neutral. The corresponding electrical charge of various particles may exist because the respective quantum information packets of those particles are multi-field data records that have a sexagesimal value of plus or minus one unit in their respective electrical charge "fields", fields that is, not in the coulomb sense but in the data structure sense in information technology. So even with the inverse-square law, which has perhaps the most physicality of all the physical laws, as a particle is approached, force increases yet it does not reach infinity. Why not? Because its maximum value, is declared, not unlike when God said, "Let there be light", that is, as in computer programming, max value is set by definition. That definition is set either within the quantum information packet itself, or more likely it resides in a mathematical universal constant which is referenced by a pointer from within the packet, which provides part of the context within which that packet exists and can be expressed. Meanwhile, the non-physical is crashing down on the materialist from all sides. As though themselves glorious, numbers are not physical. Math is not physical. Information is not physical. Grammar is not physical. Logic is not physical. Reason is not physical. Ideas are not physical. Science is not physical. Concepts are not physical. Morality is not physical. Truth is not physical. Souls are not physical. Spirits are not physical. Codes are not physical. The square root of negative one is not physical (and so like everything else, by its use in the implementation of quantum mechanics, etc., therefore the √(−1) reveals the Creator). Infinity is not physical. Consciousness is not physical. Genomes are not physical. Pain is not physical. Your mind is not physical. Laws are not physical. And God is not physical. For ninety years now, various quantum physicists have even been arguing that particles themselves may not be physical! And they might be right. So the apparent exactness of all elementary particles may itself be evidence of their underlying non-physical numerical essence, with that exactness occurring by each particle's constant quantum expression of its value and worth in the eyes of the Beholder. So to the materialist, if it turns out that along with everything else, that matter itself is non-physical, well then, that's just piling on. For as Paul wrote to the Colossians, Christ "is the image of the invisible God… For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible" and He Himself is Spirit and for whatever it means, "in Him all things hold together." ### This draft is unfinished as of 4/9/20. RSR notes toward finalizing this article reside in RSR's shared Google Docs folder Quantum Mechanics including RSR's List of Quantum Mechanics Rules. Members of the RSR Research Team meet online via a Google Hangouts video conference on Monday nights at 5 p.m. Mountain Time. To join and get access to that and scores of other private team resources, see rsr.org/research-team. And please, your comments may help Bob decide whether to submit this draft to a creation journal, so don't hesitate to send them along to Bob@rsr.org. Thanks! RSR's Quantum Thoughts: - 2018: Quantum Biology Pt. 1: Doing what standard chemistry and physics can't - 2019: QB Pt. 2: Our seemingly impossible sense of smell - 2019: How Quantum Computers Do It: Finally, a Helpful Illustration - 2019: Google's Quantum Supremacy - 2019: Top Mathematicians: Ants & Bees, Mold & Amoebas - 2018: Coincidence or Determinism? Quantum theology and physics - 2015: An RSR preview show - 2020: Bob's rsr.org/wave-particle-duality-is-a-triality (this page) aka rsr.org/quantum and rsr.org/triality.  

07/02 Garage Logicians celebrate the 4th of July! Noted pianist Steven C Anderson provided the music from the park on the East shore of Spoon Lake.

Merriam-Webster's Word of the Day for May 26, 2020 is: homonymous • hoh-MAH-nuh-mus • adjective 1 : ambiguous 2 : having the same designation 3 : of, relating to, or being homonyms Examples: "The Chelyabinsk meteorite became a media celebrity after the videos of its explosion in mid-air, occurring in February 2013 near the homonymous city, went viral on social networks." — Luca Maltagliati, Nature, 17 Feb. 2017 "Like the bird homonymous with his name, 'Cro' operates like he's under the cover of night. Though Cromartie's numerically best game came against Tulane this fall, in which the senior recorded six tackles and a sack, Downing tabbed South Florida and Connecticut as the raider's brightest." — Katherine Fominykh, The Capital Gazette (Annapolis, Maryland), 12 Dec. 2019 Did you know? The "ambiguous" sense of homonymous refers mainly to words that have two or more meanings. Logicians and scientists who wanted to refer to (or complain about) such equivocal words chose a name for them based on Latin and Greek, from Greek hom- ("same") and onyma ("name"). In time, English speakers came up with another sense of homonymous referring to two things having the same name (Hawaii, the state, and Hawaii, the island, for example). Next came the use of homonymous to refer to homonyms, such as see and sea. There's also a zoological sense. Sheep and goats whose right horn spirals to the right and left horn spirals to the left are said to be homonymous.

Teaching and computers.  An amoral match made in hell? Simon and Eugene discuss the Logicians. Episode Synopsis: It’s a jolly lovely summer’s day at the Elsdene School and the boys are preparing for a field trip to a pharmaceutical company after spending the night planning a heist.  The boys seem a bit full of themselves … Continue reading 473 – Doomwatch – The Logicians

Batter up! It’s the epic showdown of the Logicians vs the Niners, and who better go step up to the plate than baseball fan and awesome dude Eric Ambler, of What Were We Watching fame! We’ll be unraveling the sheer joy of this frivolity in the middle of the Dominion War, discussing the skill level of all these aliens at this ancient Earth sport most of them haven’t heard of, lamenting yet another in the series of needlessly rude Vulcans, and delighting in Sisko’s borderline obsession. Keep an ear out for a diversion to discuss Avengers: Endgame (obviously). It’s the bottom of the Deep Space Ninth, and starbases are loaded! Don’t strike out! Listen now!

This week we cover story #37, "The Tomb of the Cybermen", in which the Cybermen prove to the Brotherhood of Logicians that the logical thing to do would have been to leave them in their tombs.   QotW: What’s your favorite Ben or Polly moment? Listener Mailbag Discussion of "The Tomb of the Cybermen" (Charlie 9, Trevor 7.75, David 8.1) Connor's Corner Discussion of Big Finish audio adventure "The Forbidden Time" (Charlie 9, Trevor 9.25, David 8.5) Hosts: Trevor Twitter: @WhovianTrev Tumblr: http://trevsplace.tumblr.com/ Charlie Twitter: @insanityinchaos Infinite Longbox Podcast Comic Conspiracy Podcast David Twitter: @gwythinn WWW: http://www.davidsafar.com/ Tumblr: http://maroonedwhovian.tumblr.com/ Join us next week for our review of Doctor Who story #38, The Abominable Snowmen!  This six-part story is mostly lost, with only one episode remaining.  The soundtrack is available from Audible.com.    

Reprinted from Wikipedia with thaks The Tomb of the Cybermen is the first of in the series that originally aired in four weekly parts from 2 September to 23 September 1967 and is the earliest serial starring as the to exist in its entirety. It stars and as companions and and features recurring villains the , as well as the introduction of the Cyberman Controller and the . On the planet Telos, an archeological expedition uncovers a hidden entrance in a mountain. The lands nearby, and the expedition is joined by the , and . Parry, the expedition's leader, explains that they are here to find the remains of the , who apparently died out five centuries before. The expedition is funded by Kaftan, who is accompanied by her giant manservant Toberman and her colleague Klieg. A man is electrocuted opening the doors, but the party manages to enter the chamber. They find a control panel and a large, sealed hatch. The Doctor is able to open two hidden doors in the walls, but the hatch remains sealed. Parry and Klieg continue to try and open it as Toberman slips out. The remaining members of the expedition begin to explore. Victoria and Kaftan come across a chamber with a -like wall inset facing a projection device that was apparently used to revitalise the Cybermen. Victoria curiously climbs inside. Kaftan secretly seals Victoria in the sarcophagus and tries to activate the projector pointing at the sarcophagus but the Doctor, thinking Victoria had only accidentally locked herself in, frees her. Meanwhile, Haydon and Jamie have been experimenting with a control panel in another room; a Cyberman slides into view and a gun fires, killing Haydon. The Doctor points out that Haydon was shot in the back. Throwing the switches again, the Cyberman -in reality an empty shell - is destroyed by the gun which emerges from a hidden panel, showing that the room is actually a testing range. Outside, Toberman reports to Kaftan that "It is done." Captain Hopper, the expedition's pilot, returns and angrily reveals that someone has sabotaged the — they cannot leave the planet until repairs are made. The hatch is finally opened. Leaving Kaftan and Victoria behind, the men descend through the hatch. They find a vast chamber beneath, with a multistorey structure containing cells of frozen Cybermen. Back in the control room, Kaftan drugs Victoria and reseals the hatch. Inside it, Klieg activates more controls in the tomb and the ice begins to melt. When Viner tries to stop him, Klieg shoots him dead and holds the rest at bay as the Cybermen return to life. Klieg reveals that he and Kaftan belong to the Brotherhood of Logicians, who possess great intelligence but no physical power. He is certain the Cybermen will be grateful for their revival and will ally themselves with him. Victoria awakes and confronts Kaftan, who threatens to shoot her if she tries opening the hatch. A small mechanical cybermat revives and attacks Kaftan, rendering her unconscious. Victoria grabs Kaftan's pistol and shoots the cybermat. Not knowing which lever opens the hatch, she leaves to find Hopper. Down in the tombs, the Cybermen free their leader, the Cyberman Controller, from his cell. When Klieg steps forward to take the credit for reviving them, the Cybercontroller grabs and crushes his hand, declaring, "You belong to us; You shall be like us." The Doctor realises that the tombs were an elaborate trap: the Cybermen were waiting for beings intelligent enough to decipher the controls to free them. The expedition will be converted into Cybermen in preparation for a new invasion of Earth. In the control room, Capt. Hopper and Callum have figured out how to open the hatch. Hopper descends into the tombs, and uses smoke grenades to distract the Cybermen while the humans make their escape - all but Toberman, who has his arms cybernetically converted. Klieg and Kaftan are moved into the testing range to keep them out of mischief while the others decide on their next course of action. Klieg extricates the weapon from the wall, an X-ray he calls a cybergun, to coerce the Cybermen to do their bidding. Meanwhile, the others fend off an attack by cybermats. Klieg and Kaftan step out, and Klieg fires the laser in the direction of the Doctor. Klieg misses, wounding Callum. He opens the hatch, and calls for the Cyberman Controller. The Controller climbs up, accompanied by Toberman, who has been partially cyberconverted and is under Cyberman control. The Controller moves slowly, as his energy is running low — most of the Cybermen have been ordered back to their tombs to conserve power. Klieg says he will allow the Controller to be revitalised if the Cybermen help him conquer the Earth. It agrees. The Doctor helps the Controller into the sarcophagus in an attempt to trap it there, but the revitalised Controller is too strong and breaks free. Toberman knocks Klieg unconscious. The Controller picks up Klieg's cybergun and kills Kaftan when she tries to block its return to the tombs. The death of Kaftan and the urging of the Doctor shake Toberman out of his controlled state. He struggles with the Controller and hurls it into a control panel, apparently killing it. The Doctor, wanting to make sure the Cybermen are no longer a threat, goes back down into the tombs with Toberman. Klieg regains consciousness and sneaks down with the cybergun and revives the Cybermen once again. Klieg expects to control them now that the Controller is dead, but a revived Cyberman throttles Klieg from behind and kills him. Toberman fights and kills this Cyberman by tearing open its breathing apparatus, while the Doctor and Jamie refreeze the others in their cells. Hopper's crew have repaired the ship, and the Doctor rewires the controls to the station so they can't be used. He then sets up a circuit to electrify the doors again along with the control panels. The Controller, still alive, lurches forward. Everyone tries to shut the outer doors, but the Controller is too strong. Toberman comes forward, pushes the others aside and uses his bare hands to shut the doors. He succeeds, completing the circuit, and both he and the Controller are electrocuted. The Doctor and his companions say good-bye to the expedition members and return to the TARDIS. No one notices a lone cybermat, moving along the ground toward Toberman's body. [] Continuity The iconography of this serial, in particular the image of Cybermen breaking through plastic sheeting to escape their tombs, has had an influence on nearly all subsequent Cyberman stories. Likewise, the idea of Cybermen being kept in cold storage has since been a continuing theme. The Doctor returns to Telos in the serial , where he also encounters the Cryons, the original inhabitants of the planet. The story contains a rare reference to the Doctor's family. When Victoria doubts he can remember his family because of "being so ancient", the Doctor says that he can when he really wants to and "the rest of the time they sleep in my mind" because he has "so much else to think about, to remember". The Doctor mentions here that he is about 450 years old. actor has stated that it was watching this serial that inspired his own costume as the Doctor. [] Production Serial details by episode EpisodeBroadcast dateRun timeViewership (in millions)Archive "Episode 1" 2 September 1967 23:58 6.0 16mm t/r "Episode 2" 9 September 1967 24:44 6.4 16mm t/r "Episode 3" 16 September 1967 24:14 7.2 16mm t/r "Episode 4" 23 September 1967 23:22 7.4 16mm t/r [] Writing The working titles for this story were The Ice Tombs of Telos and The Cybermen Planet. , who had previously been assistant to and been newly promoted to script editor on the preceding story, was allowed to produce this serial in order to prove that he could take over from as producer later on in the season. Bryant's own assistant, acted as script editor on this serial, but left the series after production of the serial was finished, deciding that he didn't want to be a script editor. When Bryant's eventual promotion to producer came, would become script editor. Toberman was originally intended to be deaf, hence his lack of significant speech; his hearing aid would foreshadow his transformation into a Cyberman. [] Recording The cybermats were controlled by various means - some by wires, some by wind-up clockwork, some by radio control, and some by simply being shoved into the shot. The scene of the Cybermen breaking out of their tombs was filmed entirely in one take. [] In print A novelisation of this serial, written by , was published by in 1978, entitled Doctor Who and The Tomb of the Cybermen. book Doctor Who and the Tomb of the Cybermen Series Release number 66 Writer Publisher Cover artist Jeff Cummins ISBN Release date 18 May 1978 Preceded by ' Followed by ' [] VHS, DVD and CD releases When the 's film archive was first properly audited in 1978, this serial was one of many believed (although it is absent in earlier 1976 listings). This story was prepared for release in early 1991 on cassette as part of the "Missing Stories" collection, with narration by Jon Pertwee. Then in late 1991, film of all four episodes were returned to the BBC from the -based television company. In May 1992, the serial was released on , to much fan excitement and with a special introduction from director Morris Barry. The VHS release topped the sales charts throughout the country. This was the only original Doctor Who episode from the original era to top the UK charts.[] With the recovery of the film prints, the planned soundtrack release was delayed until 1993, when contractual obligations forced its release. See . UK DVD front cover In the UK the was released 13 January 2002. A special edition of the DVD, with new bonus features, is to be released in the uk on 13 February 2012 in the third of the ongoing Revisitations DVD box sets. Following the 1993 cassette release, on 1 May 2006 the soundtrack was released on a 2-CD set with linking narration by and a bonus interview with Frazer Hines. This was the first existing story to be released on audio in the same format as the missing story range. [] Music release Music from The Tomb of the Cybermen Released 1997 Soundtrack Length 22:40 Via Satellite Records chronology (1993) Music from the Tomb of the Cybermen (1997) and sound effects from this story was released on a "mini-album" by Via Satellite in 1997. It is composed of 2 versions of the , sound effects from and used in the story. It was planned to be the first in a series of mini-albums, with and being mooted as future albums. Neither were produced. [] Track listing Track #ComposerTrack name 1 (realised by ) "Dr. Who Theme" 2 "Tardis Interior" 3 "Tardis Landing" 4 "Tardis Doors Opening" 5 M. Slavin "Space Adventures (Parts 1-3)" 6 J. Scott "Palpitations" 7 E. Sendel "Astronautics Theme (Parts 1-7)" 8 H. Fleischer "Desert Storm" 9 "Space Time Music (Parts 1-4) 10 Brian Hodgson "Tardis Take Off" 11 Ron Grainer (realised by Delia Derbyshire) "Dr. Who Theme (A New Beginning)" This recording does not actually feature in The Tomb of the Cybermen See also:  and [] References . Writer "Paula Moore" (), Director , Producer . . . , London. 5 January 1985–12 January 1985. (Panini Comics) (418). 3 February 2010. Shaun Lyon et al. (2007-03-31). . Outpost Gallifrey. Archived from on 2008-06-18. Retrieved 2008-08-30. . Doctor Who Reference Guide. Retrieved 2008-08-30. Sullivan, Shannon (2008-03-22). . A Brief History of Time Travel. Retrieved 2008-08-30. ^ , p 184 Morris Barry. Tombwatch. Event occurs at 8:20. Morris Barry. Tombwatch. Event occurs at 15:13. (1997) Album notes for Music from The Tomb of the Cybermen [CD Booklet]. , : Via Satellite Recordings (V-Sat ASTRA 3967). Ayres, Mark. . Archived from on 2007-10-12. Retrieved 2007-12-11. . Archived from on 2007-12-06. Retrieved 2007-12-11. [] Bibliography Andrew Beech (Producer), Peter Finklestone (Editor) (January 22). (Documentary; Special feature on The Tomb of the Cyberman DVD release). London, England: . Retrieved 2008-01-12. & (23). The Television Companion: The Unofficial and Unauthorised Guide to DOCTOR WHO (2nd ed. ed.). Surrey, UK: .  . The Tomb of the Cybermen. Writers , , Director , Producer . . . , London. 2 September 1967–23 September 1967. [] External links at at at the - The Tomb of the Cybermen [] Reviews reviews at reviews at [] Target novelisation reviews at

Straight Thinking #95:Head and Heart Evangelicals: Two Modern Logicians

Straight Thinking #94: The Light Ages: Two Medieval Logicians

Straight Thinking #93: God and Logic: Six Eminent Christian Logicians

mImAmsA - BhattarahasyamPart-06- Seven cause-effects of logicians