Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

    1.0   Math is naught without testimony

    Bohr seemed to think that a physical object becomes a real object only in the presence of an observer:

    " Nothing exists until it is measured." [1]

    [I knew I shouldn't have tried to measure that snake!]

    " Isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and
      observable only through their interaction with other systems. " [2]

    [Quantum particles are just abstractions? How do you get these abstractions to
     collide in the bubble chamber?]

    " There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description." [3]

    [An 'abstract physical'? That's a good one! Physical = 'pertaining to that which is
     material' [4] (i.e., shape). Abstract = 'thought of apart from concrete realities' [5]
     (i.e., no shape). Bohr is trying to get away with saying that he can explain how
     two particles collide without the particles. He's just going to do it, you know...

    As all mathematicians, Bohr knew something about Math, but very little about Physics. Shape doesn’t need an audience.
    It has nothing to do with observers. An object has shape irrespective of whether Bohr is watching. In our vernacular, we
    may characterize a lump of clay as formless, meaning amorphous, but this is not equivalent to ‘lacking structure.’ Neither
    does formless mean that the jury cannot reach a verdict because the shape of the object continues to change over time
    or because we are not certain of the object’s material constitution. When the Moon collides against an asteroid while we
    all sleep, hopefully they are both objects and exist irrespective of our knowledge. The idiots of Quantum get tangled in
    their own faulty language.

    The arguments that the mathematical physicists raise are contingent upon an observer. The mathemati-cians have made
    the definition of object depend on testimony, on what a mathematician perceives and measures. In the ridiculous world
    of Mathematical Physics an object is not what it is on its own, but what a mathematician says it is. The mathematicians
    have never learned that testimony and  time have nothing to do with the definition of the words shape and object. Shape
    has nothing to do with observers. Shape is what the Moon had even before life arose on Earth. Shape is to a static
    photograph what temporal parts and four-dimensionalism are to dynamic films and explanations. The definition of
    shape makes no provisions for observers, explanations, time, parts, or motion. We don't 'prove' that Mars is an object
    by standing on its surface or by ‘verifying’ its contour through the sense of sight. And we cannot prove that a black hole
    is an object through an experiment as some folks do:

    “ To prove that a compact object is a black hole, scientists would have to measure
      effects that only a black hole could produce.”   [6]

    The reason for this is simple. If we fail to prove that a star at the other end of the Universe is an object because we can’t
    see or touch it, is this star not an object for the purposes of our dissertation? A planet has shape irrespective of
    opinions, knowledge, or experiments. Shape is a static concept, and an object has shape by definition: its inability to
    alloy with space in one frame of the universal movie. Therefore, the definition of shape also makes no provisions for
    subcomponents or intervals. For the purposes of the category object, the Moon is comprised of a single piece.
Bohr says that
an object is not
an object without


     Home                    Book WGDE                    Glossary                    Extinction   

    Last modified 01/12/08

        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008
That can't be for real!
I gotta see an
ophthalmologist soon!

    2.0   Touch and see what?

    Perhaps the most widespread ‘bundle’ definition of the word object is the ‘touch/see’ proposal:

    “ object: Something perceptible by one or more of the senses, especially by vision or
      touch; a material thing.”  [7]

    “ a physical body is an object which can be described by the theories of classical
      mechanics, or quantum mechanics, and experimented upon by physical instruments.”  [8]

    “ physical object: a tangible and visible entity; an entity that can cast a shadow”  [9]

    Such definitions suffer from at least three obvious fatal diseases: circularity, dynamism, and proof.

           Circularity: Words such as something, thing, entity, particle, substance, medium, physical, construct,
    noun, structure, architecture, and body may not be included in the definition of object because they are ‘nothing’ but
    synonyms. Something is the word we are trying to define.

           Dynamic: The word object designates that which is conceptually static. We do not need to see
    something move or to go through the motions of touching it before we can call it an object. An object stands alone,
    with or without observers. An object is conceptually a photograph or a statue; it precedes motion. If the juror must
    touch or see an object before we can call it an object, a star located at the other side of the Universe would not be
    an object until the film begins to roll. Is an invisible neutrino not an object until it moves? Is a black hole not an object
    until it swallows a stupid relativist? Is my chair not an object in the middle of space where it cannot cast a shadow?
    If, as Newton reasoned, objects underlie motion, the attempt to predicate the definition of object on motion makes
    the definition circular.

           Proof: This touch/see attempt does not constitute a definition, but is rather a ludicrous attempt to
    ‘prove’ that an object exists. The proponent is not defining a word, but daring the skeptic to carry out an experiment.

    The fundamental problem with the see/touch definition of object is that it invokes a second object. Does an object become
    an object when an object touches it? The prosecutor is trying to pull a fast one. He's saying that a table is not an object
    unless your hand (another object) comes in physical contact with it. The touch/see definition presupposes the existence
    of the object that does the touching and seeing          (i.e., you, your hand, etc.). If a sphere is the only object in the
    Universe, is it not an object? Isn't an asteroid an object in the absence of gossip or motion? Wasn't Mars an object before
    life arose on Earth? Is the Moon not an object until the skeptic lands on it? Is a black hole not an object until the astronomer
    sees it through his telescope?

    The see/touch definition amounts to a test. This test or observation must be conducted by a conscious object. This makes
    the definition circular. All test definitions ever proposed in Philosophy of Science fail because they implicitly invoke a
    second object that carries out the experiment. In Science, we do not test definitions. If anything, we test theories. A
    definition is a proposition embodied in the prosecutor’s hypothesis that we agree upon without proof. The see/touch
    definition stealthily embodies a challenge and, hence, cannot serve as a foundation for a static scene.

    Therefore, touch and see are unacceptable criteria for the definition of the word object and must be discarded for the
    purposes of a scientific (consistent) presentation. Any use of the touch/see definition relegates the presentation to
    ordinary speech.

    3.0   Inconsistent usage

    Assuming, in light most favorable to relativists, that we accept ‘perceptibility’ as a criterion, the prosecutors are
    responsible for using it consistently throughout their presentation. As we will see in the following examples,
    mathematical physicists rarely follow this rule.

    The contemporary prosecutors begin their presentations by taking for granted the definition of the word object,
    perhaps assuming erroneously that the Philosophers of Science or English Majors have already settled the matter

    particle: In ‘particle physics’, a subatomic object with definite mass and charge.”  [10]

    By defining the crucial word ‘particle’ as an object, the mathematical physicists unwittingly rely on the ordinary
    definition of object that we find in dictionaries, which emphasizes the observer’s ability to see and touch it. The
    prosecutors of Mathematical Physics have no qualms with this vague definition. It suits their purposes just fine
    because they are going to ‘prove’ the existence of particles by seeing and touching them. [11] [12]

    Having established the notion of ‘particle’ firmly in the mind of the juror, the prosecutors now propose theories that
    openly violate these foundations:

           We can neither see nor touch a virtual or an anti-particle half the times.

    “ a pair of virtual particles may briefly ‘pop into existence’, and then annihilate
      each other a short while later.”  [13]

    “ Virtual pairs: pairs of particles and anti-particles can appear then disappear
      anywhere in space, provided that each pair exists for only a very short time
      interval” (p. 578)  [14]

    “ the vacuum energy can appear as a result of a quantum fluctuation and then
      vanish into nothing” (p. 100)  [15]

    So what do virtual and anti-particles look like, specifically during their brief non-entity stage? Do virtual and
    anti-particles qualify as objects during the time the mathematicians can’t detect them? Did the particle
    spontaneously lose length, width, and height? If so, by what rational process? These are the questions that
    a particle physicist must answer. The physical interpretation is the bottom line. This is what Physics is about.

    The mathematicians would rather have you believe the opposite: that they did their job and that issues such
    as how a particle vanished or what it looks like are opinions. We can’t verify your concerns anyways, so
    what’s the point? Qualitative stuff is outside the field of science because it is un-testable, unverifiable.
    You should take up these matters with your local philosophers, or perhaps with a shrink. These topics are
    beyond the purview of Mathematics.

    But here’s where they’re wrong! Qualitative matters may not have anything to do with Mathematics, yet they
    have all to do with Physics. The reason we invented and developed Mathematics in the first place was to get
    a feel for nature. We were trying to understand the relations within ideal geometric figures or why an apple
    falls to the ground rather than flying upwards to the sky. These are qualitative issues. The fact that we
    quantified them is secondary. That a cheetah chases down a gazelle is wholly a qualitative matter. We don’t
    need to know the exact speed of either animal to understand what is occurring. You may not be able to
    predict exactly how many seconds the cheetah will take to catch the gazelle, but you do get the intuitive
    idea that it won’t happen after you’ve had your own lunch. The entire purpose of Math is to help us infer
    physical interpretations of natural phenomena. If the mathematician is just going to use his equations to
    perpetually talk in abstract mode with no relation to the hands on world, then what is the purpose of all his
    functions, variables, and sets? What is the purpose of Math if the mathematician is going to delegate the
    task of deciphering his hieroglyphics to the philosopher?

    The issue of whether a virtual particle really exists has to be resolved by the proponent and not by a philosopher.
    It is the idiot of Mathematics who proposes this poppycock as an explanation for his equations. If the
    mathematician concludes and opines that a virtual particle flickers on and off like a firefly, it is his responsibility
    to provide the physical explanation for how this occurs. The mathema-tician’s attempt to delegate this to the
    philosopher, arguing that it is beyond his jurisdiction, only reinforces that Mathematics is not the language of
    Physics. It is by delegating loose ends to other fields that has permitted Mathematical Physics to stick around
    this long. The questions before us are strictly semantic and have nothing to do with measurement, magnitudes,
    or equations.

    From a strictly conceptual point of view (which the dimwitted mathematicians like to think are ‘philosophical,’
    by which they really mean that it is just your ‘opinion’), if space is made of virtual or anti-particles, the accelerator
    guy did not ‘create’ anything. He just managed to detect ‘something’ that was already there. The Greek
    philosophers already realized this over 2,000 years ago:

    “ nothing comes into being from not-being…‘all things were together’ and the
      coming into being of such and such a kind of thing is reduced to change of
      quality…things come into being out of existent things, i.e. out of things already
      present, but imperceptible to our senses because of the smallness of their bulk.”
      (Bk. I, Part 4)   [16]

    So the philosophers have already made their opinion public: Any ‘physicist’ that says that a particle was
    created from the vacuum is a stupid moron, especially if he works at one of the particle accelerators of the
    world! That’s what the philosophers say. So now the onus reverts to the particle mathematician. The burden
    of illustrating what he thinks a particle looks like falls squarely on his shoulders. The prosecutor is charged
    with telling the juror what a particle looks like before sharing his beliefs (theorizing). This is relevant to the
    presentation because he must relate shape and behavior. Why does a virtual particle flicker on and off?
    This is not an issue philosophy or opinion. This supernatural behavior is an intrinsic component of the
    theory that he is proposing. What does it matter whether he can answer with numbers and equations how a
    particle interacts if the particle he uses is a supernatural entity?

           A quasi-particle is a ‘state’ or an ‘excitation.’ It does not allow itself to be photographed…or even

    “  In the language of many-body quantum mechanics, a quasiparticle is a type of
      low-lying excited state of the system (a state possessing energy very close to
      the ground state energy) that is known as an elementary excitation.”  [17]

    [ Somehow, however, this verb miraculously morphs into a solid noun in the middle
     of the dissertation. The almost-particle becomes a well-delineated, discrete entity that
     has the ability to move and to interact with other ‘individuals’…]

    “ It turns out that the interactions between quasiparticles become negligible at
      sufficiently low temperatures, in which case we can obtain a great deal of information
      about the system as a whole, including the flow properties and heat capacity, by
      investigating the properties of individual quasiparticles.”  [18]

    it was shown that 2n quasi-particles at fixed positions span a 2n-1 dimensional
       Hilbert space, and that braiding such quasi-particles around one another…”   [19]

    The quasi-particle of Mathematical Physics is all motion and no substance. Therefore, the mathematical morons
    are twining and weaving verbs. It is meaningless and unethical to shove these qualitative issues under the rug
    or to philosophers. The owners of the problem are the mathematicians. They are introducing metaphor and
    ordinary speech (i.e., poetry) into a scientific scenario.

           A point particle is zero-dimensional (0D), so it is conceptually impossible to touch or see it.

    “ A point particle…does not have any volume or surface area; it is zero dimensional…
      Particle physics suggests that fundamental particles (quarks, electrons and other
      leptons) may be point particles which can contain mass, charge, spin, and multipole
      moments without occupying any volume.”  [20]

    It is disregard for definitions explicitly established or stealthily insinuated at the beginning of the presentation that
    converts physical interpretations of mathematical physicists into supernatural theories. The idiots live with such
    nonsense and profess it to be ‘science.’

Buzz Bill
Hello Houston? Control
Center? Can you hear
me? I repeat. I have now
confirmed that the Moon
is an object.
confirming objects through the sense of touch