Quantum Mechanics Not In Jeopardy: Physicists Confirm Decades-Old Key Principle Experimentally

To demonstrate, theorists thinking in positivist way can be actually pretty trolls, when it comes to understanding of Aether concept.

..English = 1 Verbosity = 1 Credibility = 1 Public interest = 1 Relevance = 1 Animosity generation = 1..

..English = 1 Verbosity = 1 Credibility = 1 Public interest = 1 Relevance = 1 Animosity generation = 1..

Regarding the credibility, you apparently don't believe the citations of peer-reviewed journals...? Regarding the animosity generation and the relevance - both frajo's, both your comments are way way more OT and ad-hominem attacks, then each my post here. Just think about it.

You usually do pretty well.

it doesn't disprove anything. In fact, as I've shown above, it clearly supports my point ...which once again shows us that atheists simply don't get it.

Only because you didnt digest the entire parable. I suppose you think fig trees have a collective will and a taste for revenge?

There is no Prime Mover and there need be none, even at the subatomic level. An equivalent, spontaneous interaction will have exactly the same results as one initiated by some scientist who pushes a button.

Regarding the animosity generation and the relevance - both frajo's, both your comments are way way more OT and ad-hominem attacks, then each my post here.

But if no sentient being observed the outcome of the experiment, how would we know the outcome?

Is there no competition between preachers?

But if no sentient being observed the outcome of the experiment, how would we know the outcome?

Born’s rule predicts that quantum interference, as shown by a double-slit diffraction experiment, occurs from pairs of paths. A generalized version of quantum mechanics might allow multipath (i.e., higher-order) interference, thus leading to a deviation from the theory. We performed a three-slit experiment ... thus ruling out third- and higher-order interference and providing a bound on the accuracy of Born’s rule.

But if no sentient being observed the outcome of the experiment, how would we know the outcome?

What difference does it make whether we 'know' or not? The universe functions with us or without us. And it will continue to do so after you and I are gone.

Religionists are irrepressibly egocentric.

But if no sentient being observed the outcome of the experiment, how would we know the outcome?

No one would care. But the outcome would still be controlled by the environment, whether an experimenter was involved or not.

This is where you make your mistake in thinking. You think you are important. The atoms that make up you, or any sentient being, are not the atoms that are affecting the experiment, OR ANY NATURALLY OCCURRING DOUBLE SLIT. Whether observed or not, the key is whether both slits are open or closed. Looking only affects OUR knowledge of what happened. It does not affect what happened.
Physicists that think otherwise are guilty of thinking they are the center of the Universe. They were supposed to given that up for Lent. Or perhaps it was Copernicus.

Again, just for the record, my theories lie wholly within the realm of possibility, unlike others. Unlike any religionist, who think god sneezes and the oceans swell.

Put this way, it does seem rather strange. On what basis are the pairs chosen, and why only ever pairs? How does this mesh with the many-worlds interpretation?

Makes me wonder if perhaps a photon approaching a slit is creating a plasmonic echo of itself in an adjacent slit, then interferes with that "ghost" on the way out. This might localize interactions exclusively to pairs of adjacent slits, perhaps leading to the photon's absorption if it induces symmetric echoes in both adjacent slits...

Expand your discussion at http://www.physic...=2812515

Is there no competition between preachers?

That would be AMONG, instead of 'between' as there are more than 2. As in 'no honor AMONG thieves' (or preachers).

Is there no competition between preachers?

How is consciousness defined?

Is the Copenhagen interpretation correct?
Is the quantum Darwinism interpretation correct?

..How is consciousness defined?

our unnatural state and the exact reason for it is described in the bible

The rain droplets are destroyed after their fall to ground, but when you would give them a chance to pass the same path many times, it would start to develop into conscious organisms quite spontaneously.

Our brains are too large, too complex,

..and too energy-hungry to be considered 'natural'.

How is consciousness defined?

To me the idea of having 'consciousness' is a little too much like the thoroughly discredited notion that people have or need to have a 'soul'. More wishful thinking, that is devising something to make us seem more unique and worthy of surviving beyond death. Humans have the same sort of aggregate self-awareness that animals have, it's just been driven to evolve to the point of dysfunction.

Our brains are too large, too complex, and too energy-hungry to be considered 'natural'. Most are born defective in some way or receive significant damage as they develop. They reach optimum function by age 15, when they promptly begin to deteriorate.

you sure about that jigga

The rain droplets are destroyed after their fall to ground, but when you would give them a chance to pass the same path many times, it would start to develop into conscious organisms quite spontaneously.

Bwahaaahaaahaaaahaaaa!!!

-Er I mean uh, you sure about that jigga?

It's the most natural explanation without any mysticism, isn't it?

Jigga may have a point. If you read my references, you'll find there's a thought-like component to quantume information.

My finger keeps slipping on my iPhone and rating you unintentionally. Or maybe it's the holy ghost -?

Questions:

Is the Copenhagen interpretation correct?

Is the quantum Darwinism interpretation correct?

Do these two interpretations (and others) lie in a perpetual state of superposition, forever preventing clarification?

"Your" theories? How do your theories differ from mainstream theories?

Translation: 'Because scientists are still entertaining conflicting models, then they really don't know what's going on and obviously never will. Therefore we can all return to the obvious and pleasant conclusion that there is a god who is responsible for everything.'

-Why this compulsion to know everything NOW? You realize this is pathology borne put of fear, yes?

Where are your stones man? Have some courage. Learn to wait.

Dolphins' cerebral cortex is 40% larger than human beings'

"Your" theories? How do your theories differ from mainstream theories?

They're better. They're better because they're unencumbered with political expediency, and are thus able to draw more rational, though uncomfortable, conclusions. Right frajo?

Dolphins' cerebral cortex is 40% larger than human beings'

I thought it was Americans who thought it was all about size. A human brain is larger % to body weight than most other animals. A womans pelvis grew wider to attempt to accommodate it's passage, and she became more sedentary as a result. We are still born prematurely, our skull plates unfused so we can squeeze through the pelvis and our brains can continue to grow. This is not natural.

Again, why do you read so much into everything? From where are you getting the extra information that's neither there, or implied?

"Your" theories? How do your theories differ from mainstream theories?

They're better. They're better because they're unencumbered with political expediency, and are thus able to draw more rational, though uncomfortable, conclusions. Right frajo?

So what your saying then, is they're more comforting for you, right?

So if it's "not natural," what is it?

Again, why do you read so much into everything? From where are you getting the extra information that's neither there, or implied?

Maybe a better response would be 'Why no Otto, that's not true because...' I think I understand religionists well enough to know how they think and why. Sure you're individuals and adhere to different beliefs- but you share common traits which are easy to spot because you always tend to ask the same questions and try to make the same points.

Am I a doctor? No I am Otto der Wunderkind.

Indeed, because they make sense, and I can explain them in rational terms.

I don't have to struggle with otherworldly concepts.

Well it's not god, fer sure. It's a breakout- a runaway phenomenon. Maybe it is a common occurrence out in the cosmos, but it has most likely never happened here before.

We crossed a threshold. Like I said , I think genesis describes it pretty well.

So what you're saying then is, you're just making it up as you go along, right?

O-o-kay then. Do you have a supersuit too? ...maybe a beanie with a propeller? LOL

I don't have to struggle with otherworldly concepts.
Do they scare you?

I've stated before that I think "original sin" clearly refers to sentience

This is not natural.

No, anybody here would agree with me on this- you guys are pretty transparent.

I know you guys do struggle to understand self-deprecating humor. Your egos are so fragile after all. I think ottos psycho-profiling has hit the nerve once again, oder?

This is not natural.

Try to have look to same deep ocean creatures at Google and tell me, what is really natural here. Most of primates are born underdeveloped, it's not so strange here. Soft skulls are common between infants of many other animals.

http://en.wikiped...ntanelle

Those creatures all evolved in response to 'natural' forces.

BTW Guys, this is not Facebook or other social club. Try to keep the matter of facts n discussion.

BTW Guys, this is not Facebook or other social club. Try to keep the matter of facts n discussion.

Bwaaahaaahaaahaaa!! Are you addressing Team Alizee with this comment?? Sorry but -facts-? As in sentient raindrops??

This is an unreasonable assumption. I, for one, only write that which I mean to write. No more, no less.

However, if you are in fact correct, what would be the point of anyone posting at all - as "Otto der Wunderkind" would have apparently predetermined everything anyone might say anyway?

Sorry but -facts-? As in sentient raindrops??

Not everyone- just mostly you religionists.

Offenbar braucht Otto eine psychologische Bewertung. :)

However, if you are in fact correct, what would be the point of anyone posting at all - as "Otto der Wunderkind" would have apparently predetermined everything anyone might say anyway?

Do you not see how unreasonable this is? Really?

Not everyone- just mostly you religionists. As in this specious argument of yours, offered in place of a genuine response.

Well then, I'm done conversing with you, as there's no point to reasoning with the unreasonable.

See, I knew you were going to cut and run. Get thee behind me Satan! (fur den Arsh lecken)

Jigga gets verrucht and resorts to a cobalt bomb bitch-slap to both uba and Otto. See, this is why nobody roots for team alizee. And I mean nobody.

Bleib du im ewigen Leben :)

Do these two interpretations (and others) lie in a perpetual state of superposition, forever preventing clarification?

Actually, pure observation is apparently deterministic.

Do these two interpretations (and others) lie in a perpetual state of superposition, forever preventing clarification?

Actually, pure observation is apparently deterministic.

Otto is more of a reporter, as in 'this is the way things are, can't you see that???'

Otto is more of a reporter, as in 'this is the way things are, can't you see that???'

Unfortunately not one of those who don't ponder only over the unchangeable they have to accept but still more over the inacceptible they feel obliged to change.

Is the Copenhagen interpretation correct?
Is the quantum Darwinism interpretation correct?
Do these two interpretations (and others) lie in a perpetual state of superposition, forever preventing clarification?

Translation: 'Because scientists are still entertaining conflicting models, then they really don't know what's going on and obviously never will.

"Your" theories? How do your theories differ from mainstream theories?

They're better. They're better because they're unencumbered with political expediency, and are thus able to draw more rational, though uncomfortable, conclusions. Right frajo?

We have to distinguish between model and interpretation. There is only one model of QM and there are several interpretations.

No. Your "theory" is very well politically exploitable by power hierarchies.

People here do seem reluctant to debate me when I describe things obvious to me like biblical prescience,

as in the tree of knowledge stuff above. Instead like frajo they just call it nonsense.

The thing I want to discount is the politics rampant in official history and science. For the good of all. So we can draw real conclusions about what actually happens and why.

Macht Sinn?

giving religionists much room for god in these theories where it doesn't belong.

Of course, as it's not a scientific subject.

Could you please be more attentive? I never used the term "nonsense".

Why then don't you read Eric Hobsbawm?

Learn to live with them and don't do upon others what you don't want to be done upon you.

Expand your discussion at http://www.physic...=2812515

Physicsforums doesn't allow open discussion of hypothetical concepts.

No. They are two ideas that have the same flaw. They think humans or at least intelligence matters to the Universe. Again this is pre-Copernican thinking.

I am fond of the many worlds interpretation but I notice that people generally find it disturbing and tend to reject it out of hand. I did that as well in the past. I have become more comfortable with it over time.

Expand your discussion at http://www.physic...=2812515

Physicsforums doesn't allow open discussion of hypothetical concepts.

I am sure that they allow everything, you just need to use nice language and be full in content.

If you desired say, to debate Einstein's theory of gravity and propose a differing conceptualization, they actually demand that you write and submit a full scientific paper and wait for it to be accepted before you're even allowed to discuss it (as if Einstein himself did it this way! (sarcasm)). Who's got time for that?

There's a big advantage to this policy: You don't waste your time with AWT proponents, cheaters, and their ilk.

The problem I have with it is the same problem atheists have with religion. It's not observable and it's non-falsifiable.

The problem I have with it is the same problem atheists have with religion. It's not observable and it's non-falsifiable.

It is potentially observable and falsifiable,

whereas god is not. Ever.

As science uncovers more and learns more, new things become possible.

The more we learn about religion, the more we realize it is not based on anything real, except for inappropriate emotions and desires.

Science creates more potential, religion inhibits potential.

Jigga may have a point. If you read my references, you'll find there's a thought-like component to quantum information.

Well, I like to think of myself as being savvy enough to discern the nuggets from the slag.

Uba says:

Jigga may have a point. If you read my references, you'll find there's a thought-like component to quantum information.

-And then he says:

Well, I like to think of myself as being savvy enough to discern the nuggets from the slag.

-And so we must conclude uba does not know the difference between pearls and swine.

why then is religion (and similar belief systems) a naturally occurring part of humanity?

Oh, I doubt that.

Sure He is.

I disagree.

why then is religion (and similar belief systems) a naturally occurring part of humanity?

It's not. Religion has been around as long as malaria and ricketts, doesn't mean they shouldn't all be cured.

Oh, I doubt that.

Sure He is.

I disagree.

-I know you do, because you don't THINK these things, you FEEL them. Can you tell the difference? I don't think so.

Understanding and accepting the scientific method means learning to detach your emotions and be willing to embrace knowledge in whatever form it presents itself, unsavory or not. What science has told us directly contradicts the existence of your god. Too bad.

Science has also shown us just how extremely dangerous religion is to the world today, and why. Your shared beliefs are pestilence.

Religion is no more a disease of humanity than emotion and wonder are diseases of humanity. Would you take those away too?

You mean like how the Nazis were so "peaceful" in working to abolish religions?

Or B. My consciousness ends and I observe nothing.

There's a big advantage to this policy: You don't waste your time with AWT proponents, cheaters, and their ilk.

Well, I like to think of myself as being savvy enough to discern the nuggets from the slag.

So... Does the act of observation actually affect quantum behavior or does it affect the way we percieve it? Or both?

That's ridiculous, as these concepts are decidedly post-Copernican.

Obviously, since quantum rules dictate measurement (observation) affects quantum behavior, then the behavior must change as a result of observation.

To observe, by definition, is a decision unto itself. Therefore, consciousness affects quantum reality.

Nazis Schmazis. If you think about it, you may conclude that, just because fascists did or didn't want to do something, doesn't mean that that thing was intrinsically good or bad.

The problem I have with it is the same problem atheists have with religion. It's not observable and it's non-falsifiable.

At least the Copenhagen interpretation has observations of the observers going for it.

Nonsense.Perhaps you didn't understand what I was referring to. Post as opposed to PRE-Copernican where people thought of Humans as the center of the Universe. Since BOTH concepts include the idea that humans somehow define the Universe simply by existing they both put humans at the center of the Universe. I suppose you don't see that as a problem and that could be why failed to understand what I was getting at.

Again it is NOT the observation as the observer is irrelevant. It is the METHOD of observation. Do the experiment either way you want. BUT don't bother to look. In the real world the electron or photon would behave the same whether you looked or not. The equipment is what defines the kind of result and not any act of observation.

True if no one looks no one will know but it is just plain bad science to assume that that there is magic in atoms simply because they are arrayed in a human being.

Wrong. It is NOT the observation, it is the boundaries of the equipment with which a person may or may not observe. And that definition is crap in any case. I can observe whether I decide to or not, indeed I do so rather often.

To give an example, set up a two slit experiment. Put a film detector in the path of the photons. Load the film into the detector. Open both slits. Then change the film and close either slit.

Now throw out the film. Do you really think that there was no interference pattern in the first and a single area exposed on the second? Just because we didn't look at the results? If you do then you believe in magic.

Just like the people that wrote the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Actually many religions ARE falsifiable. Fundamentalist Christianity, Islam and Hebrew are all falsified by the fact that we live in a very old world that never had a worldwide flood.

Yes the multi-worlds interpretation is not falsifiable but neither is the Copenhagen interpretation. But one does not require some magical effect of atoms simply because they are in humans. Thus the Multi-worlds is Post-Copernican thinking, wrong or right, and the Copenhagen is Pre-Copernican thinking, again wrong or right.

even banning folks like Jigga from these science sites might precipitate an unfortunate loss of valued information.

Do not use url-shortening services such as bit.ly, tinyurl.com.

pseudoscience theories.

abusive, snarky, obscene, or just plain nasty remarks about anything or anyone;

political and religious discussions;

Magic is what that is.

Every atom is an observer. There is nothing magic about the atoms in humans. That is what the Copenhagen Misinterpretation has going against it.

Why should it be a problem?, if it's apparently true?

You do know even your multi-worlds interpretation is observation dependent, right?

Installing the equipment, is an act of observation.

It's the act of observing

Without an observer, does the waveform break down?

How can you presume to know, if you never check?

Isn't the Copenhagen interpretation the prevailing interpretation?

That doesn't falsify the religion, but rather only one way of interpreting the text of particular portions.

So neither interpretation is truly science-based, and therefore your belief in any of them constitutes your own brand of religion?

No. Both are interpretations of the same mathematical model. One is satisfying to those with overweening egos and the other is disturbing even to those that think it might be true. I got over it, a bit.

You mean atoms that can actually figure out the very concepts of which we write ...aren't unique and special in the universe?

Looky! My coffee table is "observing" the television! LOL

The box did the observation" Really?

In the two-slit experiment, is it the slits (absence of matter) making the observation then?

How about other particles in superposition?

Obviously not, or entanglement couldn't work.

Is distance a factor? Might my coffee table affect your television? Why not?

Do you really think inanimate objects which perform no measurements at all, are really observers?

You do know the quantum rule in question stipulates that observation requires an interaction to determine a measurement, which affects the quantum state,

Therefore, the observer must be interactive rather than passive, right?

Therefore, the box (being passive) cannot be the observer after all, right?

I prefer to delegate this kind of work to my assistants.

It essentially demands that any arbitrary point in the universe has a virtually infinite energy potential, enough so as to create a whole new universe at the drop of a hat.

Both are interpretations of the same mathematical model. One is satisfying to those with overweening egos and the other is disturbing even to those that think it might be true. I got over it, a bit.

Of course this is philosophy and not science. There is no way to test it. At least I see none at present and I don't expect that there ever be one EVEN if we should prove that there are other universes. There is no predictive value to it so I am not married to the idea. I am just fond of it and only partly because it is my own idea overall.

it doesn't obeye the economical imperative of Ockham's Razor: There's nothing in physics which requires multiverses

You mean like how the Nazis were so "peaceful" in working to abolish religions?

You're not final arbiter of anything, sorry.

You're just one of many internet trolls, who don't understand the things, which are discussed here.

Everett's theory is falsifiable in lab experiments:

There is also a global effort to build quantum computers which, if successful, will be able to factor numbers exponentially faster than classical computers, effectively performing parallel computations in Everett's parallel worlds.

Complexity is not a problem if the other choices don't answer the questions.

It is no more complex than the CI with its spooky action and collapsing entanglements along with the completely unneeded assertions about observers.

It doesn't answer the questions:
Why is there is something rather than nothing?

Why does the Universe behave according to mathematics?

There is nothing in physics that requires the Copenhagen Interpretation at all.

It answers no questions that cannot be answered with other ideas. Something similar to what Dr. Prins likes for instance. I think he is wrong on Quarks but the idea of waves only that are constrained by boundaries seems quite effective to me. The general idea of waves only that are constrained by boundaries seems quite effective to me. It fits the evidence and doesn't have the baggage the CI does.

The NAZIs were Catholics.

The NAZIs were Catholics.

No. Concentration Camp Dachau had a "priests block" with nearly 3000 priests 90% of whom have been Catholics. One third of them have been murdered by the nazis.

You are mistaking the words for the reality. The map is not the territory. This is the hard part about this sort of discussion. The freight words carry can mislead. Ethelred

If something is possible then it exists.

So you're saying that killing millions to make the world conform to your ideals isn't necessarily intrinsically bad? Really?

The NAZIs were Catholics.

No. Concentration Camp Dachau had a "priests block" with nearly 3000 priests 90% of whom have been Catholics. One third of them have been murdered by the nazis.

Sorry, you're omitting a substantial amount of history. The Waffen SS were required to be Catholic,

the German laws requiring tithes to the Catholic church were created under the NAZIs.

The NAZIs sent Catholic priests into battle with their units and Hitler was rather fond of saying the NAZI movement was a movement for God.

The NAZIs were Catholics.

This is also where they gained the fervor against the Jewish peoples as they'd been indoctrinated to hate the Jews for hundreds of years.

Read the wiki page "On the Jews and Their Lies".

This is too coarse to be true. Not all of them were Catholics.

While the European antisemitism indeed has a history of many centuries it isn't exclusively a Catholic trait. Martin Luther himself was one of the most fervent haters of Jews. Read the wiki page "On the Jews and Their Lies".

...

xianists

...

Nazis used Rome to similar effect; before, during, and after the war.

Read the wiki page "On the Jews and Their Lies".

Ever read the Magna Carta?

After the war? How that?

Xianists are the inhabitants of Xi'an.

What's the context of my link to one of Luther's texts to do with your link to the Magna Charta?

After the war? How that?

Odessa used cover from the Vatican including fake passports and other doctored documents to escape to South America, Canada, Mexico, etc after the war.

In the two-slit experiment, is it the slits (absence of matter) making the observation then?

Having the affect anyway. It is the edges that have the effect. They define the boundary of the test.

Is distance a factor? Might my coffee table affect your television? Why not?

Yes, the speed of light is relevant. Yes and in both concepts for both questions.

Do you really think inanimate objects which perform no measurements at all, are really observers?

Within the limits of the inadequate word 'observers' yes. Do you really think that inanimate objects don't effect each other?

You do know the quantum rule in question stipulates that observation requires an interaction to determine a measurement, which affects the quantum state,

Do you know that the 'rule' was written by egocentric men? It is the INTERACTION and not the observation that affects the state of other matter.

It essentially demands that any arbitrary point in the universe has a virtually infinite energy potential, enough so as to create a whole new universe at the drop of a hat.

Not really. This is the tricky part and one of the reasons I have come to like the idea. And be disturbed a bit as well.

Consider the question, in one form or another, used by Fundamentalists and philosophers alike.

Why is there something rather than nothing?

When asked that, or something like it, on Comport about a decade ago I remembered a philosophical answer that I had run across once. Perhaps there is no choice in the matter. If something is possible then it exists. To put it more formally.

If something is mathematically, or perhaps logically, consistent and supports something like domains and sets and numbers then it exists. Perhaps not in the same sense we think of as reality but in a sense that some domains within the sets will feel that they are real if the domains should be capable of being self-aware. This makes time and existence, in some sense, illusory. Yet the illusion is as real as it gets to the inhabitants of any consistent universe of logic.

This goes for time and even concepts like freedom of choice in the less mechanical universes. We do not live in a mechanical universe. That is, we live in universe with chaos and unpredictability built into it.

This not only has an explanation for why the Universe exists it also explains why the Universe appears to be mathematically and logically consistent.

Of course this is philosophy and not science.

Bingo!

There is no way to test it. At least I see none at present and I don't expect that there ever be one EVEN if we should prove that there are other universes. There is no predictive value to it so I am not married to the idea. I am just fond of it and only partly because it is my own idea overall.

It's a great and simple concept. However, I don't agree. Apart from its lack of falsifiability it doesn't obeye the economical imperative of Ockham's Razor: There's nothing in physics which requires multiverses.

Complexity is not a problem if the other choices don't answer the questions.

It is no more complex than the CI with its spooky action and collapsing entanglements along with the completely unneeded assertions about observers. It doesn't answer the questions:

Why is there is something rather than nothing?

Why does the Universe behave according to mathematics?

There is nothing in physics that requires the Copenhagen Interpretation at all. It answers no questions that cannot be answered with other ideas. Something similar to what Dr. Prins likes for instance. I think he is wrong on Quarks but the idea of waves only that are constrained by boundaries seems quite effective to me. The general idea of waves only that are constrained by boundaries seems quite effective to me. . It fits the evidence and doesn't have the baggage the CI does.

You mean like how the Nazis were so "peaceful" in working to abolish religions?

Uba, The NAZIs were Catholics.

Those nazis didn't represent anymore Germany

"...the Nazis saw themselves as an effective replacement of Catholicism that would co-opt its unity and respect for hierarchy."

Philosophically speaking: Descartes might argue; individually, we can only know that we exist. Everything else is open to interpretation.

Sorry, you're omitting a substantial amount of history. The Waffen SS were required to be Catholic, the German laws requiring tithes to the Catholic church were created under the NAZIs. The NAZIs sent Catholic priests into battle with their units and Hitler was rather fond of saying the NAZI movement was a movement for God.

The NAZIs were Catholics. This is also where they gained the fervor against the Jewish peoples as they'd been indoctrinated to hate the Jews for hundreds of years.

History is not on your side in this argument.

Either Uba went post mad, or someone just got the ban hammer.

Either Uba went post mad, or someone just got the ban hammer.

How would they "know" whether the other slit was open or closed, so that they may therefore define the proper outcome of the test?

But hasn't quantum entanglement been demonstrated at a distance?

Certainly the photons given off from my coffee table heat the TV, but the interaction is localized to the TV.

The coffee table performs no measurement, therefore no observation is made.

It's basic causality. The interaction in question is the result of observation, not the other way around.

Well this question is largely and scientifically being answered by symmetry breaking in colliders

Descartes might argue; individually, we can only know that we exist. Everything else is open to interpretation.

Well, that's nothing more than philosophy, boarding on religion.

I would argue that chaos is an illusion of volume and unknowable circumstance.

Well, I think CP violations tend to suggest otherwise.

To each his on beliefs, I suppose.

or it's strangely deterministic in that all possible outcomes (from beginning to end) are already included (which limits the total possible number of multi-verses).

I don't see that yours offers any better answers to these questions.

As I've shown above, I disagree. It doesn't fit the evidence.

Dude, you REALLY need to read some history.

"The SS Standartenfuhrer Karl von Krempler, a specialist in Islam, was charged by Himmler and Arthur Phleps with organising the recruitment of Muslims from Bosnia into the Waffen-SS."

Descartes was a drunken fart

Toward the end of the war the SS was relaxing their standards and enlisting/conscripting anyone who would fight Russians. That Muslim division (florian geyer?) wore the red fez (red for blood of xians) and fought well as I recall.

Particles don't know anything. They have properties. They have wave/particle properties and the boundary of the path of the wave/particle includes the slits. No slit it's a boundary and not a place that can be passed through. This works the same in MW. Open the slit and you change the boundary conditions.

Yes. I did not say otherwise. Information is limited to the speed of light. Boundary conditions effect the wave but who knows if it is instant or at the speed of light. I suspect the latter since that would limit information to the SoL.

No. The interactionS are limited to the paths of the waves, controlled by boundaries, and of course the SoL.

No. Symmetry breaking tells us why there is more matter than anti-matter not why something.

I would argue that chaos is an illusion of volume and unknowable circumstance.

Argue all you want. It is still wrong. Chaos is a mathematical concept in this instance. The circumstances can be known and you can still get chaos. All you need is non-linear circumstances.

Why did you think I said it was disturbing? Beginning to get it now?

Quite a few physicists think time might be illusory.

Sure it does. The whole thing is math or rather logic, which would exist whether anyone explored it or not.

Showing that you disagree is not the same as showing that it doesn't fit the evidence. That claim shows you don't understand what CP violations mean. Perhaps you did understand and got confused in your attempt to avoid what I said.

To make it more clear since you seem to have mistaken antimatter for nothing:

Why are there CP violations instead of nothing?

Do I sense pride for these killers? And here I thought you were claiming to be such a peacenik...

Sorry about that. I've just been a bit bored. I'll stop now

Really? I don't find that disturbing, just unlikely. It's essentially saying the multi-verse knows all, in a God-like fashion. Hey! Maybe you have something here after all!

Once an observer begins to watch the particles going through the openings

Thus the mere act of observation affects the experimental findings

The "observer" in this experiment wasn't human

Institute scientists used for this purpose a tiny but sophisticated electronic detector that can spot passing electrons

Apart from "observing," or detecting, the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current.

The heat from the table is delivered to the TV, at the TV. The table has nothing to do with it, anymore.

Symmetry would demand that matter and antimatter exist in equal portions, effectively canceling each other into the mathematical nothingness from which they arise.

t's the "butterfly effect." Or more specifically, chaos describes systems which are highly sensitive to initial conditions

Really? I don't find that disturbing, just unlikely

It's essentially saying the multi-verse knows all, in a God-like fashion

Well if that were true, it seems it wouldn't be so malleable.

Though math can be used to describe nature, math itself isn't necessarily the form of nature.

As I described above, so the sum value of everything, can be other than zero.

Otto

I think he is still learning how much to quote and how much to leave out. I leave out as much as I can. After all the whole post is up there. I just want enough to show what I am responding to.

I have been accused of taking quotes out of context for trimming as tight as I do. Not here so far but elsewhere.

He isn't trolling. He may be evading but that is not trolling.

YOU are trolling. Got a bite too.

Why can't I get anyone to strike at my favorite troll?

The only religious belief of Scientology is that L. Ron Hubbard shalt not pay taxes.

Now for an extension of that troll.

Now that he is dead why does Scientology still exist?

My best guess is that Scientologists are so inept that they can't get on the net. Except on Wikipedia.

Lets 238 characters left. What to do what to do.

A minute passed. After a minute
Another minute passed.

Brevity is soul for twits and that line make me want to use all 1000 characters.

Another minute passed.

Haven't yo

Ethelred

Your message was unclear.

Admit it- you're getting nowhere.

How long before you accept that you are conversing with a holy wafer?

How long before you learn that ranting is counter productive?

wafer?
When I get wet.

Do I sense pride for these killers? And here I thought you were claiming to be such a peacenik...

In addition to physics and politics, do I sense a total lack of understanding from uba of war as well? You know nothing about this war or any war except for the crude propaganda you've been fed, yet you feel qualified to offer an opinion.

This indicates you're simple-minded, which your babbling posts confirm. It's no wonder you accept the god-nonsense without question, and why you are oblivious to basic facts which would instill doubts about it in most thinking people.

It can serve, however, to discourage potential recruits and fence-sitters... as can a show of justified emotion and indignity in exposing a religionists deception and subterfuge.

Otto is Gestapo. Figuratively of course. OKOK, maybe otto is Mossad. The main difference is that I feel I have won when they disappear.

You will NEVER have a genuine dialectic with a religionist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Waffen_Mountain_Division_of_the_SS_Handschar_(1st_Croatian)

Is anybody else here getting the opinion that we have another margin in our midst? Keeps asking the same questions and ignores the answers. Will not answer questions and changes the subject rather than admit gross errors. Keeps finding absurd ways of implicating god in everything.

NoNo, I was referring to the Eucharist wafer

"And they shall eat the messiah on that night, roasted over the fire, and matzos, with bitter herbs, shall they eat it."
-Exodus 12:8

I think he is still learning how much to quote and how much to leave out. I leave out as much as I can. After all the whole post is up there. I just want enough to show what I am responding to.

You really should read what you post.Carefully.

And the second experiment also works exactly as expected. No information was transferred faster than light. The only way you find out what you saw actually meant is to WAIT till you get the original data which travels at THE SOL.

Your point being? Keep in mind that you just showed that sentience is not needed. And the exchange there goes both ways ad infinitum.

It would leave energy. Still something not nothing.

Which is NOT an illusion and that was all I was dealing with.

Well you sounded as if you didn't like it. Not simply that you found it unlikely.

Sentience can emerge from logical iterative processes but the logic itself is not sentient. That is, logic does not look at itself. PARTS of a multi-verse can be sentient but not the whole thing. At least I don't see how.

In this way of thinking it isn't so much malleable as branching in multiple dimensions.

To boldly post ideas he is not sure of

Math describes nature BECAUSE it is synonymous with nature.

why is the night sky black?

I am pleased to have come up with AN answer even if it can never be known to be right or wrong.

Why is there a god instead of nothing?

Admit it- you're getting nowhere.

Oh. I saw that as Holy Water.

If it bothers you, don't read the quotes

Oh, I did. I thought there being a bridge between the observed and the human observer, made it particularly interesting.

t wasn't about information (we can interpret) traveling faster than light. It was about the particles themselves

You suggested my coffee table is actually affecting my TV by observing it. How is delivering photons to the TV an observation?

Right, but a sea of radiation is all there should be.

I had the impression you were implying that chaos was some sort of violation.

Well, I can imagine that if it's sophisticated enough to understand its own nature, it may well have the ability to expand and colonize.

Why would this branching be dependent only on that which we observe affects time?

Perhaps, but symmetry violations are disconcerting nonetheless.

And so am I. But why would you devalue mine with an expectation I would, in turn, value yours?

God's as likely as the universe, and equally as unlikely, I suppose.

As we discussed, there's no reason your multiverse can't be sentient (at least in part), so there's no reason there can't be a god.

Ice with bubbles. Now that's holey water you can chew!

I didn't discuss that. I discussed sentience WITHIN a multiverse not OF a multiverse. Sentience seems to require the ability to look at oneself. How could a Universe do that.

"Dialectic" is political cant intended to obfuscate not inform.

Why do you feel the need to get somewhere?

Little John: It'll take all the deer in Sherwood Forest to fill that belly!

There was no bridge.

Not even for the particle.

The TV heats the table and the table reflects back at the TV. No mystery and no observation.

It is STILL SOMETHING and NOT nothing.

Try assuming that I am not an idiot.

Well that is not the Universe then.

A god explains nothing

...like a nasty kid with a magnifying glass and an ant hill.

communication between the parts would be limited to the speed of light

Et cetera, ad infinitum.

Forgive me for wanting to make the world a better place, than merely trying to escape it for a few hours by trading polite barbs HERE.

s, and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis."

-It is intended to be used by trustworthy opponents in discussion

It implies that either opponent will be willing to concede.

Of course you know that the robin hood fable is just a retelling of the jesus/magdalene merovingian love story?

Mary magdalene/maid marion,

More akin to the manly hercules/heracles

robed celibate created to attract gays to the church

The observer is not the slits

it was the presence and activity of an observer

Or more succinctly, ordinary matter is not an observer.

Clearly the experimenters would disagree

hese photons cannot know about each other through any sort of normal exchange of information

It's beginning to appear that your "faith" in your favorite hypothesis is unshakable

So, how is your interpretation better than the scientists conducting the experiments?

Which has what, precisely, to do with quantum waveform collapse?

Are massless particles really "something?"

Or, He explains everything. It's a matter of perspective.

Again, a matter of perspective.

But didn't you just say time is an illusion?

Since light speed is time dependent, wouldn't that also be an illusion?

Physicists spooked by faster-than-light information transfer

When two particles are quantum mechanically ‘entangled’ with each other, measuring the properties of one will instantly tell you something about the other.

For example, one could imagine that the photons might have shared information before they left Geneva — but Gisin’s measurements showed that they could not

It seems to me that the evolution of the photons is governed by their wave form, which was set to an identical state for both photons by the entanglement. Therefore the communication occurred at the time of entanglement, and what would follow was at that event set

Et cetera, ad infinitum.

"The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined."

Source: http://www.conser...s_Murder

Or, He explains everything. It's a matter of perspective.

It may imply it but I have never seen the word used except from people pushing philosophies that they think are Papal Bulls. And its always been bull all right.

Its not.

No. A god explains nothing UNLESS IT STARTS TALKING. Something that clearly hasn't happened. Unless you believe Oral Roberts and the 800 foot Jesus. Without actual explanations from the hypothetical deity all you have is another step.

Do you have some problem with negative voting of every comment, which doesn't follow the topic of original article?

You can continue with your private discussion about religion and nacism with ubavontuba and otto1923 via messaging system

Of course not. Its the whole path

Again it is NOT the observation as the observer is irrelevant.

To give an example, set up a two slit experiment. Put a film detector in the path of the photons. Load the film into the detector. Open both slits. Then change the film and close either slit.

Now throw out the film. Do you really think that there was no interference pattern in the first and a single area exposed on the second? Just because we didn't look at the results? If you do then you believe in magic. Just like the people that wrote the Copenhagen Interpretation.

I asked you this previously and you ignored/evaded the question.

Do you really think that the film doesn't get exposed if it is thrown out without looking at it?

There is no other kind of matter. There is no magic in atoms that are in humans vs. atoms that are in the experiment EXCEPT that the atoms in the experiment actually DO SOMETHING.

If it looks weird you are very likely looking at it wrong.

They don't have to. Its really simple. A pair is formed. Particle A is, oh say, spin up and B therefor must be spin down. Test A and now you know what B must be. B did not magically become spin down. It was ALWAYS spin down.

I am not the one going of faith.

the multi-worlds interpretation is not falsifiable but neither is the Copenhagen interpretation.

Even when the experimenters themselves said there was no observer you blindly insist there was.

Even when the experimenters themselves said there was no observer you blindly insist there was.

The real question is why YOU think YOURS is better than theirs.

They said there was no observer and you insist that there was.

All I am doing with the other experiment is showing a way to look at it that MAKES SENSE. Quite unlike the usual claims of spooky action.

You brought it up without explaining why.

Do you have some problem with negative voting of every comment, which doesn't follow the topic of original article

You can continue with your private discussion about religion and nacism with ubavontuba and otto1923 via messaging system

I'd prefer to keep PO comments as on topic, as possible

, so I'm not using "report abuse" link

You can talk about them so they are something. This is evasion.

Without actual explanations from the hypothetical deity all you have is another step.

Lets hear what your excuse is for the behavior described in Genesis and Exodus.

Actually I said OTHERS think it is an illusion.

I said that from our perspective it is real.

Einstein's GR theory showed gravity is a fictional force

Unless someone can find a way the whole idea of spooky action is without foundation.

Best I can figure is that some people just want FTL so badly they can't (see) the evidence in front of them.

I am not the one going of faith.

But you already said:

the multi-worlds interpretation is not falsifiable but neither is the Copenhagen interpretation.

Therefore, there's no particularly logical reason to believe one over another, except as a matter of personal philosophy.

And therefore, to expect other people to believe as you do, simply because you want them to, and because your philosophy seems particularly logical to you, is the height of conceit.

Conservapedia isn't a source. They advocate geocentrism as factual on conservapedia. They're an ultra right wing christian fundamentalist propaganda machine.

He didn't say so. We should not insinuate just for the sake of rhetorics.

Conservapedia isn't a source. They advocate geocentrism as factual on conservapedia. They're an ultra right wing christian fundamentalist propaganda machine.

Right. I generally wouldn't use them, but in this case they are arguably correct. I particularly liked the succinct way in which they phrased the argument.

They're almost entirely incorrect.

They're almost entirely incorrect.

In this case, I disagree. Stalin alone is responsible for the deaths of millions. And that's only one of the 52 people mentioned.

So therefore consciousness and God and fairies, and whatever else we can talk about, are something?

They're almost entirely incorrect.

In this case, I disagree. Stalin alone is responsible for the deaths of millions. And that's only one of the 52 people mentioned.

Atheists have no exclusion from historical violence.

I know you rarely have the knoebels to debate me directly (if at all),

what is the difference between what xians were doing in china in 1860 and what the Japanese were doing there half a century later?

What is the difference, in % of populations killed, between the 30 years war in Germany and the Russian or the chinese revolutions?

How about what happened to the cathars in the inquisition, and any xians that happened to get in the way?

http://en.wikiped...ebellion

The causes were different.

The Cathars were Christians

The inquisition was a group of historical mass murderers supported by the RCC.

That was then, this is now. Religion (and the overpop it engenders) are the major cause of violence and misery today.

Stalin and Mao weren't killing because they were atheists. They were killing to spread their philosophy, which is EXACTLY why religionists kill.

religions make conflict inevitable.

Hey we agree on something. Your god IS a fairy.

If historically the atheists have been a murderous lot, and their ideology hasn't changed, what makes you think they'd be any different now (should they again attain power)?

Right. So how then did their atheism make them any better?

It seems history teaches us that conflict is more likely and more severe under atheism, than otherwise.

Is this the best example of a peaceful disposition you (as an atheist) can portray? Really?

Stalin wasn't an atheist,

neither was Hitler.

The fact you went to that as a source is laughable.

The propensity (for violence) exists in all religions.

their atheism was secondary to their primary ideology,

hitler and Stalin were both god fearing just like you.

How does religion make the slaughter any better?

Religion has always been far more vicious in it's effects.

I thought it was funny. ;-)

Hoden. Eier. Steine.

"The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined."

So again: How then did their atheism make them any better?

And obviously and purposefully, antagonistic.

That's not "knoebels". It's "cajones" or "archidia".

So you're saying religion (or lack thereof) is secondary to the propensity for violence? Hmm... I could swear that's what I've been saying...

their atheism was secondary to their primary ideology

That's not "knoebels". It's "cajones" or "archidia".

What do spiders have to do with it??

You've yet to demonstrate the portion I used is invalid.

So you're saying religion (or lack thereof) is secondary to the propensity for violence? Hmm... I could swear that's what I've been saying...

Well it didn't then did it? It made them the SAME. Only religions always claim the moral high ground- love thine enemies indeed.

30 yrs war- read about it yet?

Like I say, the moral high ground :D

No, I'm saying
their atheism was secondary to their primary ideology

Your source is highly impeachable, and the statements made within said source are laughable and unsubstantiated. You've failed to meet reasonable standards in citation.

Yet you're still insisting that people can be identified and grouped by attributes they do not have. Atheism isn't a codified group with rules, dogma, and scripture. We don't attend meetings as a part of a structured code within our non-belief. The two are not reconcilable.

However, I entirely agree that the problem isn't the belief, it's the dogma of the believers, otherwise known as religion, that is the problem.

Generally, in the countries in question, atheism was codified with rules, dogma, and scripture (Communist publications, for instance).

How is your being deliberately antagonistic a moral high ground?

How's that substantively differ from what I said? Perhaps you're confusing "primary ideology" with "religion?"

Sure. It was primarily a political war of the Holy Roman Empire

I'm unwilling to discuss this topic further with you, as you've shown you're unwilling to be intellectually honest within the discussion.

Sunnis kill shiia for far more obscure reasons.

you've shown you're unwilling to be intellectually honest

Sunnis kill shia and vice versa over a simple disagreement of legitimacy within the former empire of Islam. That is all. Which sociopath should have held the throne of doctrine is a simplistic argument.

So you're going to say that all secular laws are atheist doctrine and dogma?

The mental gymnastics you'll do in order to defend an indefensible position are unbelievable.

I'm unwilling to discuss this topic further with you, as you've shown you're unwilling to be intellectually honest within the discussion.

How is yours? You're the deliberately antagonistic preacher.

Quit playing dumb. I SAID, those 'atheists' you refer to didn't kill because they were atheists. The religionists I refer to kill BECAUSE they are religionists.

there would have been no war without Protestants hating Catholics and vice versa

Sunnis kill shiia for far more obscure reasons.

So. SH reaches the same conclusion I reached a few feet further back in this thread, that we are dealing with yet one more deceiving god lover who would rather feel superior to the anti-religionists by playing games with them than even attempting to be honest.

Don't presume to speak for me otto. Although our horse in the race is the same color, he doesn't necessarily share the same number.

because he/she finds my aggression unpleasant,

Pol Pot's lackeys killed anybody who wore eyeglasses. Same difference.

They actively sought to destroy religion (along with millions of people, in the process).

That's simply not true. The atheists kill because they are atheists and the religious kill in spite of (not because of) their religion.

That atheists were so alarmingly destructive during the 20th century, provides the argument that religion (at least) suppresses man's natural proclivity to violence.

That atheists were so alarmingly destructive during the 20th century

See? Even your own team disavows you.

As shown above, it was clearly SH who was being dishonest. Why didn't he back up his assertions about Stalin and Hitler (rhetorical)? Because he couldn't. They were lies.

Sunnis kill shiia for far more obscure reasons.
Nah. That's simply ignorance and stupidity.

I suppose it's worth trying to debate them, in order to understand the nature of their beliefs, rather than just slamming them on principle, isn't it? Maybe some aren't as intractable as others.

Personally, I believe I was reasonable with uba in the last thread, but it became clear that he was not being reasonable with me in return. Nothing left but to continually point that out, with indignity.

Again your perspective is asskewed. They actively sought to destroy all opponents, religionists being only some of them.

Generally, in the countries in question, atheism was codified with rules, dogma, and scripture (Communist publications, for instance).

So you're going to say that all secular laws are atheist doctrine and dogma?

I neither said nor implied such. The communists weren't simply secular. They actively sought to destroy religion (along with millions of people, in the process).

That's simply not true. Religious dogma gives adherents aegis to kill, to defend their faith. Read Joshua, jihad and Jesus the sword-bringer. God is ALWAYS on their side.

But your statement on atheists betrays another uba Prejudice: uba thinks that godless people are killers.

Your religions ENABLE violence. They DEMAND it when they are under threat, perceived or otherwise.

There is no more effective method of dividing people up into 'us' and 'them' than through religion.

"Quit playing dumb. I SAID, those 'atheists' you refer to didn't kill because they were atheists. The religionists I refer to kill BECAUSE they are religionists."

But SH was nice enough to give me a 5 on my fortright response. They like to keep you guys around to fiddle with. I just like to see you gone.

Your 'facts' in reference have been disproven many times in these threads.

But let me ask you this; why didn't you just seek out a more reputable source? Couldn't find one?

Why the unwarranted belligerence?

Well, I guess ignorance is bliss, isn't it? When you're done with the bible, read a newspaper:

It's unbelievable how willfully ignorant some people can be.

Personally, I believe I was reasonable with uba in the last thread, but it became clear that he was not being reasonable with me in return. Nothing left but to continually point that out, with indignity.

You are wrong. Atheist killers (generally) kill because they they have no moral construct which teaches them not to kill. Religious killers (generally) kill in spite of their moral constructs (religion).

On a related note: Have you found any supporting references to your assertions about Stalin and Hitler yet? Hmm?

You don't know much about the history of discrimination then, do you?

That's simply not true. You're mixing the Old and New Testaments, out of context.

Got anyhting like that in atheism? No? I thought not.

That's simply a lie. You made such an unreasonable and public spectacle of yourself

Yup. That's pretty darned stupid, isn't it? Sad, and stupid.

Of course they have a long way to go to catch up with the likes of atheist Kim Jong II.

The atheist is free to choose for himself what is bad

I made the observation that SH was a liar, because he was clearly lying. There was no belligerant intent.

Communist views on religion were/are (not surprisingly) similar to your own. And like you would, they persecuted the religious - mercelessly.

Ha, you think morality is the sole construct of religion. Utterly laughable.

Hitler's religion is well known,

It is well known that Stalin bolstered and donated heavily to the Russian Orthodox Church.

I'd recommend something other than Conservapedia.

atheists are free to choose their own moral principles

Violence in the NT.

"...tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937 to 1938."

I made the observation that SH was a liar, because he was clearly lying. There was no belligerant intent.

And I ignored this because I consider the source. This is the same source that states non-religous people have some sort of inability to be moral, although he has said otherwise in PMs. You can't maintain consistency Uba. That is of great detriment to your stance.

Violence in the NT.

Right. we've discussed this before. The first isn't a command, it's more of a sad commentary on human nature.

The second wasn't wholesale killing, or even remotely related to killing. It was simply a much needed public protest.

...are well covered under criminal and civil laws,

...are well covered under criminal and civil laws,

Which serves the atheist despots well, for when they write the laws, they then have a free hand to murder as many people as they want.

...are well covered under criminal and civil laws,

Which serves the atheist despots well, for when they write the laws, they then have a free hand to murder as many people as they want.

Along with millions, and millions, of others.

Along with millions, and millions, of others.

This indiscriminate murder only serves to prove my point. Atheists have no moral bounds, except what they make up as they go along.

Jesus WAS killed for that whole display,

Jesus WAS killed for that whole display,

Which only serves to bolster the sad commentary on humanity. Jesus didn't kill himself, nor did he order anyone else to do so.

Murders a felony here.

Murders a felony here.

So the atheist despots give it a different name, like "purging" or, "cleansing" or, whatever suits their evil purposes.

And neither do Islamist extremists who blow themselves up on busses-

OF COURSE HE KILLED HIMSELF

Correct. Just like inquisitors or zionists, or conquistadors.

Reminder #24- atheist despots don't kill because they're atheists. Religionists do kill because they're religionists.

And neither do Islamist extremists who blow themselves up on busses-

Do so in spite of their religion. Unlike atheist, who kill simply because it suits them to do so.

They killed in spite of their religion. Jesus gave no commands, to inquisitors, zionists, or conquistidors, to kill. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Nope, unless you mean to imply that every protester ever killed, killed himself. Is that your contention? Really?

Repetition doesn't make it true.

Why don't you try closing your eyes real tight and clicking your heels three times while saying, "I know it's true. I know it's true. I know it's true." Maybe that'll do it.

...are well covered under criminal and civil laws,

Which serves the atheist despots well, for when they write the laws, they then have a free hand to murder as many people as they want.

They killed in spite of their religion. Jesus gave no commands, to inquisitors, zionists, or conquistidors, to kill. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Repetition doesn't make it true.

Why don't you try closing your eyes real tight and clicking your heels three times while saying, "I know it's true. I know it's true. I know it's true." Maybe that'll do it.

But God often commands people to kill.

Is it maybe your self-proclaimed right to insult any believer?

What do you think of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"?

your insinuation sounds like a defamation of many people I know (and you don't know) who were as honest, friendly and peaceloving as one could be. In fact you are insulting some of my best friends without knowing them.

I've been raised in a hardcore Catholic environment. I never met anybody who claimed or insinuated that "god commands people to kill".

Perhaps you already have an example in your country. How many Mosques do you have on your street?

It's in the bible, which you know. Which means that, sooner or later, depending on conditions, it will be used as righteous justification to kill. Just because we've been lucky enough to grow up in peaceful societies, is no reason to deny it's not there to be used at the proper time. Which you also know.

Oh come on uba. Jihadis martyr themselves on the promise that they will go straight to heaven. How willfully blind are you?

Zionists aren't Xian. But all three groups found the authority in the OT I suppose. The pope, who by definition is/was a far better Xian than you, gave the ok to kill the godless.

because uba decides it isn't? Due to his own peculiar and truncated interpretation of scripture?

They are able to interpret scripture to suit their own ends. Just like you do.

Jesus wasn't a protester- he was a MARTYR. He rode into Jerusalem knowing he was going to be killed for his perfidy. As a man, he had the choice not to go, but he decided to give his life for the cause.

It doesn't matter whether the cause is just or not- only that the martyr is willing to die for it.

-Of course, being the ultimate Passive-ist, he could only say it was an inevitable consequence of his mission to spread peace and love throughout the world.

Your god gave you brains and you've squandered them. I suppose he would be pretty upset, if he was real.

Which serves the religionist despots well, for when they interpret the Law, they then have a free hand to murder as many people as they want. Or believe just about anything that suits them, just like you.

But God often commands people to kill. They state they experience the same conversations that your "moral" forebearers have. Many simply don't have an angel tell them to stop as Abraham stated he did.

Seems to do it for you.

Your God is insulting, frajo.

Sadly, the Roman Catholic Church long discouraged lay (and even scholarly) readings of the scriptures.

In practice, Catholicism long had little to do with the Bible. It still does (in many respects).

So why do you write "your god"? Want to convince me that you are not free of stupidity?
Ok, going down to that level: Trying to defend torture and Guantanamo?

I think it's been wise of the RCC to not take their scriptures as more than opinion pieces of the past.

Nahya, nahya, you are a stupid head ...thbtthbtthbtthbt! LOL

Why don't you try closing your eyes real tight and clicking your heels three times while saying, "I know it's true. I know it's true. I know it's true." Maybe that'll do it.

Only because they're led astray by evil men who abuse the religion for their evil purposes.

There's nothing peculiar about it. They're basic tenets that are readily understandable and generally agreed upon.

Sadly, the Roman Catholic Church long discouraged lay (and even scholarly) readings of the scriptures.

Although Islam doesn't have the clear-cut moral prohibitiion against killing as, say Christianity, it definitely prohibits indiscriminate killing.

In practice, Catholicism long had little to do with the Bible. It still does (in many respects).

Nope. They'd be doing so in spite of (contrary) to their religion, not because of it. In other words, they'd be behaving like atheists.

No man has greater love than that he lay down his life for his fellow man.

Correct. It was a sad commentary on humanity.

As usual, you started it:

Because they knew that, once the people got their hands on it, they would be reinterpreting it to suit their own particular needs (like uba), giving rise to the hundreds of sects and denominations scattered about the world. All claiming that they are truly the ones Jesus loves best.

Wow, this thread is a picture perfect example of why God's Law was created. Err...excuse me, I mean Godwin's Law ;^)

http://en.wikiped...'s_law.

Uba brought up the Nazis first (and pretty gratuitously at that), so I guess he automatically loses.

any interaction between the environment and an undetermined quantum property qualifies as an "observation" that collapses the waveform. No conscious, self aware entity is needed. Just understanding that makes a whole lot of hocus pocus disapear.

Which fits in very nicely with Jesus saying he came to divide, rather than unite. Pretty nifty, eh?

any interaction between the environment and an undetermined quantum property qualifies as an "observation" that collapses the waveform. No conscious, self aware entity is needed. Just understanding that makes a whole lot of hocus pocus disapear.

I disagree. Just "any interaction" is likely to result in yet another superimposed state which itself cannot be resolved without a conscious observation.

Which would make me question his philosophy. Why divide people in order to command them to love each other? Simply don't divide them.

There's no reason off the bat for it to result in another superimposed state at all.

Of course, you can disagree all you want, but then at least make it clear that you are expounding your own speculative ideas on QM rather than standard QM.

I suspect it's a matter of free will.

If it were free will, and Jesus is an avatar of God, then any action he performs is in direct opposition to free will.

Good job logically cornering yourself there.

Jesus isn't about forcing anyone to do anything, rather he's about choices. How is broadening one's choices an imposition on free will?

Of course, you can disagree all you want, but then at least make it clear that you are exponding your own speculative ideas on QM rather than standard QM.

I suspect it's a matter of free will.

Nope. They'd be doing so in spite of (contrary) to their religion, not because of it.

Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker's agnostic point of view

You don't have a choice when your creator is omnipotent, omniscient, and timeless.

Beyond that, his Avatar's mere appearance changes the free will of the world.

For a God to advocate free will there would have to be no imposition from said god upon your will. No interactions with the Jews of the Old testament, no interactions with mankind at all.

The Bible and your concept of a creator god soundly contradict free will on the whole. Merely by relaying information to us he has affected our will. By imposing an etherial punishment he impacts freedom of choice through aversion.

"There is no free will, only the pre-determined plan of our creator" -John Calvin

-This is jesus' passive-aggressive way of both bribing and threatening.

-And they like to drop big-deal names with 'von' in them like von Wise-acher to improve the perception of intellectual veracity. LOL

So you're also admitting Jesus is real?

Although it might be reasonable to suggest the 'von' modifies it to mean "lots of arrows" or, "arrows of plenty" - I just think it sounds cool.

I'm not really certain that there was an actual Jesus Christ. After all, where's the cross?

"You mean he's real?" "You're saying he's real?"
No of course I'm not.

Uba, your responses above show desperation. You're again tossing your own concepts to the wayside in order to reinforce dogma,

and now you're showing an inability to follow the conversation without trolling.

If you're unable to converse in an honest manner then any exchange of information is just a waste of time.

Logically cornered, and then the silliness begins. Hallmark of a dogmatist.

Are you sure it doesnt refer to this?

Or perhaps this- uber tuba = big trumpet:

There's no reason off the bat for it to result in another superimposed state at all.

Sure there is.

Probability only matters upon observation.

Therefore, the probability that the non-human observer observed what you intended for it to observe and affected the outcome of the observed particle is zero, unless you verify the results.

Or, substituting "cat" for non-human observer, we get the classic Schrodinger's Cat paradox. Is the cat alive, or dead? Did it observe the hammer breaking the vial, or not? Without checking, we can't know.

It sounds like you're an advocate for Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker's agnostic point of view. I lean more toward the Copenhagen interpretation.

I don't recall SE advocating for the CI.

Anyway, the cat is neither alive nor dead. To suggest it made the observation and finalized its own outcome, is contrary to the basis of the experiment.

what threshold of consciousness is required for collapse to take place in your view? Baby human? Toddler? With High school education? PhD?

I just consider the whole collapse resolution problem an indication of QM's incompleteness. Waveform collapse just never really seems to *end* anywhere, it just moves along, through the environment, experimental apparatus and observers-self-aware or not-alike.

I don't recall SE advocating for the CI.

Anyway, the cat is neither alive nor dead. To suggest it made the observation and finalized its own outcome, is contrary to the basis of the experiment.

Personally, I feel the waveform collapses at the first deterministic observation, and from then on, all subsequent observers will generally observe the same result.

Observation appears to come down to one thing, deterministic interaction. The observer, which is a bad term for purposes of explanation, simply need be an entity or entities that interact in a way to create determination.

Personally, I feel the waveform collapses at the first deterministic observation, and from then on, all subsequent observers will generally observe the same result.

Personally, I feel the waveform collapses at the first deterministic observation, and from then on, all subsequent observers will generally observe the same result.

Actually, as there are a number of valid interpretations, the one you feel is valid (from your point of view) is the one that works for you

For instance, another cat looking into the box may determine its brother is alive, or dead. Whereas a camera cannot.

Didn't you read SH's eloquent response, wherein he said exactly what I've been saying?

I'm always up for a good laugh.

Why don't you tell us what interpretation you favor again, and tell us why you think it's better than the CI, even though the majority of physicists disagree with you?

Didn't you read SH's eloquent response, wherein he said exactly what I've been saying?

What I said is circular logic. It's a great way of saying, "I don't know", and not owning up to it.

I'm always up for a good laugh.

You should have gotten one out of my definition. It was about as unscientific as you can get.

Nah, I've tried getting into hard physics discussions such as entanglement and information exchange, but I realize I don't have much to add by discussing it.

I can realize that and still enjoy learning about these things though I will never have the math to be making decisions about them.

I did notice that in your few bits of personal info you didn't mention any science degrees earned which might lend some credence to your 'feelings' -?

@Uba:

Thankyou. At least I can begin to make sense of your position with the above explainations. I don't have time to do so right now, but I will return to them next week. I did find your last comment reminded me of something in particular. Have you ever heard of the Quantum Suicide Machine?

What's it matter? You've just all but admitted you can't really understand any of it anyway.

Why don't you tell us what interpretation you favor again, and tell us why you think it's better than the CI, even though the majority of physicists disagree with you?

Yeah, but like I said, I lean more to the CI, rather than the MWI.

Didn't you read SH's eloquent response, wherein he said exactly what I've been saying?

What I said is circular logic. It's a great way of saying, "I don't know", and not owning up to it.

I'm always up for a good laugh.

You should have gotten one out of my definition. It was about as unscientific as you can get.

Which in a nutshell, pretty much sums up the various quantum interpretations (so to speak).

Perhaps the problem is you're not understanding my answers.

Let me be more specific....I tend to favor the CI. See: http://en.wikiped...retation

Whether the waveform collapses when a particle hits the detector, or when the cat observes the hammer, is irrelevant.

The information isn't valid until a concious observer makes the observation.

The reason for this is reason. The detector can't decide what has happened.

… the concious observer is the only one who can make a determination, and therefore concious observation is deterministic.

I feel the observer must be able to make a determination. In most circumstances, therefore, even a non-sentient observer can make determinations. For instance, another cat looking into the box may determine its brother is alive, or dead. Whereas a camera cannot.

Personally, I feel the waveform collapses at the first deterministic observation, and from then on, all subsequent observers will generally observe the same result.