More Quantum Mechanics Weirdness.
Og
In a pevious post we talked about QM. Especially
the famous two slit experiment where particles were shot
randomly at two slits in a wall. If the prticles were detected
as they went through the slits they formed two rows of
hits on the back wall brhind the slits. Exactly what a particle
should do. However if the particles were not detected as
they were shot through the slits they formed an interference
pattern of hits on the back wall.This is what a wave should do.
It should be impossible for particles to do this.
Here is a video to bring you up to speed if you
didn't read my last QM post.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ViQoUXu5uK0
Now it turns out that the two slit experiment has been taken
a step further and the results are even more amazing.
The same experiment was performed. The particles were
detected as they were shot through the slits. Only this time
the data from the detectors was saved to a computer hard
drive. The experimentors waited twenty four hours without
looking at the data or the back wall. After 24 hours they
would either read the data or delete it without ever having read it.
After doing one or the other they would then look at the back
wall.
The experementors found that everytime they read the data
from the detectors and then looked at the back wall they found
the two bars of hits (which had to have been formed the day
before during the shooting of the particles). Also everytime
they deleted the data from the detectors without reading it
and then looked at the back wall they found the interference
pattern. (which had to have been formed the day
before during the shooting of the particles) As many times
as the experiments were performed, the action of today
always matched the pattern that was formed on the back
wall yesterday.
How is this possible? Was a decision made today
somehow going back in time to influence the result of an
experiment performed yesterday? Or was the decision that
we made today already locked in by the result of yesterdays
experiment? Or did the pattern on the back wall not exist
untill a decision was made to read the data or delete it?
All tests performed thus far indicate that all matter operates
this way no matter how big the pieces. That is to say no matter
exists untill someone odserves it.
This is a crushing blow to the theory of evolution. If no
matter exists before someone observes it then the universe
couldn't exist untill humans evolved to a level of self awareness.
Are our observations today somehow going back in time and
causing our past? Was there another observer that kept the
universe in existence before we came on the scene? Or did
the universe come into existence at roughly the the same time
as mankind? None of these alternatives are possible in a
universe that came into existence by random chance.
Og
edi...@rcn.com
> Hello Guys.
> In a pevious post we talked about QM. Especially
> the famous two slit experiment where particles were shot
> randomly at two slits in a wall. If the prticles were detected
> as they went through the slits they formed two rows of
> hits on the back wall brhind the slits. Exactly what a particle
> should do. However if the particles were not detected as
> they were shot through the slits they formed an interference
> pattern of hits on the back wall.This is what a wave should do.
> It should be impossible for particles to do this.
>
> Here is a video to bring you up to speed if you
Your conclusion doesn't follow from the description of the experiment
Cabbage
> Hello Guys.
> In a pevious post we talked about QM. Especially
> the famous two slit experiment where particles were shot
> randomly at two slits in a wall. If the prticles were detected
> as they went through the slits they formed two rows of
> hits on the back wall brhind the slits. Exactly what a particle
> should do.
I don't think so. If you know that a beam of particles
went through a single slit, then you would observe the
single slit diffraction pattern. Since the width of an
individual slit is smaller than the separation between the
pairs of slits, the since the amount of spreading increases
as the slit gets narrower, you will observe not a "bar" of
hits, but a wide smudge. Two wide smudges if you
have two slits, or if your vision needs correction.
> However if the particles were not detected as
> they were shot through the slits they formed an interference
> pattern of hits on the back wall.This is what a wave should do.
> It should be impossible for particles to do this.
>
> Here is a video to bring you up to speed if you
> didn't read my last QM post.http://youtube.com/watch?v=ViQoUXu5uK0
>
> Now it turns out that the two slit experiment has been taken
> a step further and the results are even more amazing.
So, who did the experiment? Where did they publish
their results?
..........
> All tests performed thus far indicate that all matter operates
> this way no matter how big the pieces. That is to say no matter
> exists untill someone odserves it.
> This is a crushing blow to the theory of evolution. If no
> matter exists before someone observes it then the universe
> couldn't exist untill humans evolved to a level of self awareness.
> Are our observations today somehow going back in time and
> causing our past? Was there another observer that kept the
> universe in existence before we came on the scene? Or did
> the universe come into existence at roughly the the same time
> as mankind? None of these alternatives are possible in a
> universe that came into existence by random chance.
None of this QM stuff has anything to do with evolution.
Have you ever observed your bladder? No? Then it doesn't exist.
I'm afraid your arguments do not hold water.
Gotta go,
Cabbage
David Canzi
Og <O...@bashan.net> wrote:
>Now it turns out that the two slit experiment has been taken
>a step further and the results are even more amazing.
> The same experiment was performed. The particles were
>detected as they were shot through the slits. Only this time
>the data from the detectors was saved to a computer hard
>drive. The experimentors waited twenty four hours without
>looking at the data or the back wall. After 24 hours they
>would either read the data or delete it without ever having read it.
>After doing one or the other they would then look at the back
>wall.
> The experementors found that everytime they read the data
>from the detectors and then looked at the back wall they found
>the two bars of hits (which had to have been formed the day
>before during the shooting of the particles). Also everytime
>they deleted the data from the detectors without reading it
>and then looked at the back wall they found the interference
>pattern. (which had to have been formed the day
>before during the shooting of the particles) As many times
>as the experiments were performed, the action of today
>always matched the pattern that was formed on the back
>wall yesterday.
If this had actually happened, we wouldn't be hearing about
it only from you. It would be everywhere in the news media,
news groups and blogs.
--
David Canzi | Life is too short to point out every mistake. |
DougC
> the famous two slit experiment where particles were shot
> randomly at two slits in a wall. If the prticles were detected
> as they went through the slits they formed two rows of
> hits on the back wall brhind the slits. Exactly what a particle
> should do. However if the particles were not detected as
> they were shot through the slits they formed an interference
> pattern of hits on the back wall.
What kind of "detector?" It is interfering enough to cause an
interference pattern.
Nothing supernatural going on there.
Doug Chandler
DuhIdiot
news:htKdnUoZO5VJ8vfV...@northstate.net:
<snip attempt to rape quantum mechanics and force it to bear mysticism a
bastard child>
> That is to say no matter
> exists untill someone odserves it.
> This is a crushing blow to the theory of evolution.
<snip>
Even if you had something besides rectum-mined crap to prove the necessity
of a cosmic observer, (1) the observer need not be a god, never mind any
particular god you're shilling for and (2) evolution would not be affected
in the slightest. If matter needed observing to exist, we'd conclude that
somebody observed matter as it came alive and evolved. <shrug>
--
No SPAM in my email.
.
alextangent
> Hello Guys.
> In a pevious post we talked about QM. Especially
> the famous two slit experiment where particles were shot
> randomly at two slits in a wall. If the prticles were detected
> as they went through the slits they formed two rows of
> hits on the back wall brhind the slits. Exactly what a particle
> should do. However if the particles were not detected as
> they were shot through the slits they formed an interference
> pattern of hits on the back wall.This is what a wave should do.
> It should be impossible for particles to do this.
>
> Here is a video to bring you up to speed if you
It is well known that even the potential of observation causes the
wave function to collapse. The same thing has happened to your
argument, I fear; just thinking about reading it made it collapse.
A cite will not be forthcoming on this one as it's made up nonsense.
In fact, if true, it would allow signaling into the past. I'd vote for
telling Noah to leave the midgies off the Ark.
--
Regards
Alex McDonald
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
[...]
> Now it turns out that the two slit experiment has been taken
> a step further and the results are even more amazing.
> The same experiment was performed. The particles were
> detected as they were shot through the slits. Only this time
> the data from the detectors was saved to a computer hard
> drive. The experimentors waited twenty four hours without
> looking at the data or the back wall. After 24 hours they
> would either read the data or delete it without ever having read it.
> After doing one or the other they would then look at the back
> wall.
> The experementors found that everytime they read the data
> from the detectors and then looked at the back wall they found
> the two bars of hits (which had to have been formed the day
> before during the shooting of the particles). Also everytime
> they deleted the data from the detectors without reading it
> and then looked at the back wall they found the interference
> pattern. (which had to have been formed the day
> before during the shooting of the particles) As many times
> as the experiments were performed, the action of today
> always matched the pattern that was formed on the back
> wall yesterday.
(or maybe "quantum eraser") somewhere, and guessed what you
thought it meant. This description has nothing at all to do
with any experiment that has actually been performed.
The Wikipedia article,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser,
is pretty good. There's also a nice description at
http://strangepaths.com/the-quantum-eraser-experiment/2007/03/20/en/
Steve Carlip
Vend
> Hello Guys.
> In a pevious post we talked about QM. Especially
> the famous two slit experiment where particles were shot
> randomly at two slits in a wall. If the prticles were detected
> as they went through the slits they formed two rows of
> hits on the back wall brhind the slits. Exactly what a particle
> should do. However if the particles were not detected as
> they were shot through the slits they formed an interference
> pattern of hits on the back wall.This is what a wave should do.
> It should be impossible for particles to do this.
>
> Here is a video to bring you up to speed if you
> didn't read my last QM post.http://youtube.com/watch?v=ViQoUXu5uK0
Ok, thanks for the link.
This sounds quite odd. It would contraddict much everything we know
about quantum mechanics.
Do you have any reference?
> All tests performed thus far indicate that all matter operates
> this way no matter how big the pieces. That is to say no matter
> exists untill someone odserves it.
Not really.
> This is a crushing blow to the theory of evolution.
And there you go astray.
> If no
> matter exists before someone observes it then the universe
> couldn't exist untill humans evolved to a level of self awareness.
What is an observer? Is a chimp an observer? What about a fish? Or a
bacterium?
> Are our observations today somehow going back in time and
> causing our past?
I can't think of any way of testing this statement.
And anyway, what does it have to do with evolution?
> Was there another observer that kept the
> universe in existence before we came on the scene? Or did
> the universe come into existence at roughly the the same time
> as mankind? None of these alternatives are possible in a
> universe that came into existence by random chance.
Nothing to do with evolution.
coaster
> Hello Guys.
> In a pevious post we talked about QM. Especially
> the famous two slit experiment where particles were shot
> randomly at two slits in a wall. If the prticles were detected
> as they went through the slits they formed two rows of
> hits on the back wall brhind the slits. Exactly what a particle
> should do. However if the particles were not detected as
> they were shot through the slits they formed an interference
> pattern of hits on the back wall.This is what a wave should do.
> It should be impossible for particles to do this.
>
> Here is a video to bring you up to speed if you
There are many thought experiments that you may have heard of, each
with their own hypothesized outcomes, but few have ever been performed
and NONE deal with matter existing or not existing. They only deal
with wave/particle duality and information theory. My guess is you're
borrowing from many sources to invent something in your head that
doesn't actually exist.
Geoff
> The same experiment was performed. The particles were
> detected as they were shot through the slits. Only this time
> the data from the detectors was saved to a computer hard
> drive. The experimentors waited twenty four hours without
> looking at the data or the back wall. After 24 hours they
> would either read the data or delete it without ever having read it.
> After doing one or the other they would then look at the back
> wall.
> The experementors found that everytime they read the data
> from the detectors and then looked at the back wall they found
> the two bars of hits (which had to have been formed the day
> before during the shooting of the particles). Also everytime
> they deleted the data from the detectors without reading it
> and then looked at the back wall they found the interference
> pattern. (which had to have been formed the day
> before during the shooting of the particles) As many times
> as the experiments were performed, the action of today
> always matched the pattern that was formed on the back
> wall yesterday.
Why weren't they given a Nobel? This is huge!
A huge bunch of hooey.
Dan Luke
"Og" wrote:
> This is a crushing blow to the theory of evolution.
Hey, Joe!
We got any room left in the warehouse for another "crushing blow to the
theory of evolution?"
No?
Sorry, Og. Try the Discovery Institute.
--
Dan
"Don't make me nervous when I'm holdin' a baseball bat."
-Big Joe Turner
Mark VandeWettering
Presumably you are trying to describe the "delayed choice quantum
eraser" experiments. You didn't succeed. In particular, the time
scale of this experiment isn't days.
> How is this possible? Was a decision made today
> somehow going back in time to influence the result of an
> experiment performed yesterday?
No.
> Or was the decision that
> we made today already locked in by the result of yesterdays
> experiment?
No.
> Or did the pattern on the back wall not exist
> untill a decision was made to read the data or delete it?
How could we tell if that were true?
> All tests performed thus far indicate that all matter operates
> this way no matter how big the pieces.
This isn't actually true. For instances, apples always behave as
particles when passed through a double slit.
> That is to say no matter exists untill someone odserves it.
And this isn't true at all.
> This is a crushing blow to the theory of evolution.
It's not any kind of blow to the theory of evolution, since it's
mostly just mistakes on your part.
> If no
> matter exists before someone observes it then the universe
> couldn't exist untill humans evolved to a level of self awareness.
This doesn't follow as a conclusion of any of the double slit experiments.
> Are our observations today somehow going back in time and
> causing our past? Was there another observer that kept the
> universe in existence before we came on the scene? Or did
> the universe come into existence at roughly the the same time
> as mankind? None of these alternatives are possible in a
> universe that came into existence by random chance.
None of them would appear to be possible at all.
>
> Og
>
>
Paul J Gans
Actually, that will be done in 2019. When Noah got the signal
he *did* leave the midgies off the Ark.
However, evolution does exist and the niche occupied by those
midgies has been occupied by our current midgies. Our current
ones are NOT the ones that Noah left off the Ark.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
alextangent
Boomerangs don't.
alextangent
In certain parts round here, there are midgies so perfect in their
vicious blood sucking art that only God could have designed them.
Proof; every time I get bitten, I shout out "Jesus Christ!" And they
must have been on the Ark, as there hasn't been enough time for
microevolution to change the common fly into the exquisite skin-
piercing, blood-sucking and allergic-reaction pinnacle of God's design
we see today. 6000 years is not enough time (see my other paper on
insect baramin for details.) So nobody from the future has informed
Noah to deny them passage.
Ipso facto it is not possible for us to signal into the past.
But, Noah got a message from God that there was going to be a global
flood in the near future. That points to the inevitable conclusion;
not only (was/is/will be) God everywhere, he (was/is/will be)
everywhen too! And so He neatly sidesteps the quantum issues; as a
perpetual and infinite observer, He can create, sustain and collapse
wave functions at will.
Ipso facto it only possible for God to signal into the past. Praise
be!
How am I doing?
--
Regards
Alex McDonald
Desertphile
> Now it turns out that the two slit experiment has been taken
> a step further and the results are even more amazing.
Where are your citations? Why should anyone accept your word for
anything?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
wrote:
> On 1 Lug, 20:02, "Og" <O...@bashan.net> wrote:
=BULLSHIT DELETED=
> > How is this possible? Was a decision made today
> > somehow going back in time to influence the result of an
> > experiment performed yesterday? Or was the decision that
> > we made today already locked in by the result of yesterdays
> > experiment? Or did the pattern on the back wall not exist
> > untill a decision was made to read the data or delete it?
> This sounds quite odd. It would contraddict much everything we know
> about quantum mechanics. Do you have any reference?
No, of course he does not. Nando (apparently using a different
name to post under) is pulling bullshit out of his ass.
=CUTS.=
> > If no
> > matter exists before someone observes it then the universe
> > couldn't exist untill humans evolved to a level of self awareness.
> What is an observer? Is a chimp an observer? What about a fish? Or a
> bacterium?
These idiot NewAge assholes like Nando don't understand that when
physicists say "observation" they do not mean "observed by eyes,
human or gods or otherwise:" by "observe" they mean "how we have
measured one photon being absorbed by an electron or vice versa."
If the measurement (observation) is designed to see a particle, it
will see a particle; if the measurement is designed to see a wave,
it will see a wave. NewAge buttfucks claim this "proves" humans
create reality, which is bullshit: humans create the tools used to
measure (observe) photon / electron particle / wave duality----
they do not create that which is being measured.
Wombat
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:51:04 -0700 (PDT), Vend <ven...@virgilio.it>
> wrote:
>
> > On 1 Lug, 20:02, "Og" <O...@bashan.net> wrote:
>
> =BULLSHIT DELETED=
>
> > > How is this possible? Was a decision made today
> > > somehow going back in time to influence the result of an
> > > experiment performed yesterday? Or was the decision that
> > > we made today already locked in by the result of yesterdays
> > > experiment? Or did the pattern on the back wall not exist
> > > untill a decision was made to read the data or delete it?
> > This sounds quite odd. It would contraddict much everything we know
> > about quantum mechanics. Do you have any reference?
>
> No, of course he does not. Nando (apparently using a different
> name to post under) is pulling bullshit out of his ass.
I think Og is not Nando. Og is very weird in his 'beliefs' but
appears to be a standard fundementalist fucktard of the (supposedly)
Christian version.
Wombat
>
> =CUTS.=
>
> > > If no
> > > matter exists before someone observes it then the universe
> > > couldn't exist untill humans evolved to a level of self awareness.
> > What is an observer? Is a chimp an observer? What about a fish? Or a
> > bacterium?
>
> These idiot NewAge assholes like Nando don't understand that when
> physicists say "observation" they do not mean "observed by eyes,
> human or gods or otherwise:" by "observe" they mean "how we have
> measured one photon being absorbed by an electron or vice versa."
>
> If the measurement (observation) is designed to see a particle, it
> will see a particle; if the measurement is designed to see a wave,
> it will see a wave. NewAge buttfucks claim this "proves" humans
> create reality, which is bullshit: humans create the tools used to
> measure (observe) photon / electron particle / wave duality----
> they do not create that which is being measured.
>
TimK
"Desertphile" <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote in message
news:l3gn64llqkquc0lao...@4ax.com...
> These idiot NewAge assholes like Nando don't understand that when
> physicists say "observation" they do not mean "observed by eyes,
> human or gods or otherwise:" by "observe" they mean "how we have
> measured one photon being absorbed by an electron or vice versa."
>
> If the measurement (observation) is designed to see a particle, it
> will see a particle; if the measurement is designed to see a wave,
> it will see a wave. NewAge buttfucks claim this "proves" humans
> create reality, which is bullshit: humans create the tools used to
> measure (observe) photon / electron particle / wave duality----
> they do not create that which is being measured.
Those two paragraphs made opening up this thread worth it!
Nick Keighley
> In a pevious post we talked about QM. Especially
> the famous two slit experiment where particles were shot
> randomly at two slits in a wall. If the prticles were detected
> as they went through the slits they formed two rows of
> hits on the back wall brhind the slits. Exactly what a particle
> should do. However if the particles were not detected as
> they were shot through the slits they formed an interference
> pattern of hits on the back wall.This is what a wave should do.
> It should be impossible for particles to do this.
>
> Here is a video to bring you up to speed if you
> didn't read my last QM post.http://youtube.com/watch?v=ViQoUXu5uK0
>
> Now it turns out that the two slit experiment has been taken
> a step further and the results are even more amazing.
incredible!
> The same experiment was performed. The particles were
> detected as they were shot through the slits. Only this time
> the data from the detectors was saved to a computer hard
> drive. The experimentors waited twenty four hours without
> looking at the data or the back wall. After 24 hours they
> would either read the data or delete it without ever having read it.
> After doing one or the other they would then look at the back
> wall.
I guessing they actually used a photographic plate
rather than actually looked at a wall. Subatomic particals
tend not to mark walls too much. But still this does sound
a very interesting experiment!
> The experementors found that everytime they read the data
> from the detectors and then looked at the back wall they found
> the two bars of hits (which had to have been formed the day
> before during the shooting of the particles). Also everytime
> they deleted the data from the detectors without reading it
> and then looked at the back wall they found the interference
> pattern. (which had to have been formed the day
> before during the shooting of the particles) As many times
> as the experiments were performed, the action of today
> always matched the pattern that was formed on the back
> wall yesterday.
incredible!
> How is this possible? Was a decision made today
> somehow going back in time to influence the result of an
> experiment performed yesterday? Or was the decision that
> we made today already locked in by the result of yesterdays
> experiment? Or did the pattern on the back wall not exist
> untill a decision was made to read the data or delete it?
you mean like a collapsing of the wave function?
Amazing stuff this QM!
> All tests performed thus far indicate that all matter operates
> this way no matter how big the pieces. That is to say no matter
> exists untill someone odserves it.
wow! So, say, cricket balls can be diffracted around the wicket!
Is this why England lose to Pakistan!
> This is a crushing blow to the theory of evolution.
!!
> If no
> matter exists before someone observes it then the universe
> couldn't exist untill humans evolved to a level of self awareness.
> Are our observations today somehow going back in time and
> causing our past? Was there another observer that kept the
> universe in existence before we came on the scene? Or did
> the universe come into existence at roughly the the same time
> as mankind? None of these alternatives are possible in a
> universe that came into existence by random chance.
but! but! If the Supreme Observer kept the universe going
until we came along where is he now?
GOD MUST BE DEAD! Because otherwise the important
Wall Experiment wouldn't show the results it does!
--
Nick Keighley
And Man went on to prove Black was White
and was run over on the next zebra crossing
David Hare-Scott
"Nick Keighley" <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b708570f-032e-422e-ab28-
>
> wow! So, say, cricket balls can be diffracted around the wicket!
> Is this why England lose to Pakistan!
>
Some bowlers do seem to be able to get a ball to do things that standard
physics cannot explain. Does this mean that the popular belief is true and
that Shane Warne really is God?
David
John Wilkins
If he is, that explains a *whole* lot about the universe and his
supposed best creature.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Stuart
> "Nick Keighley" <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Just depends on the amount of English you impart..
Stuart
Rupert Morrish
> David Hare-Scott <com...@rotting.com> wrote:
>
>> "Nick Keighley" <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:b708570f-032e-422e-ab28-
>>
>>> wow! So, say, cricket balls can be diffracted around the wicket!
>>> Is this why England lose to Pakistan!
>>>
>> Some bowlers do seem to be able to get a ball to do things that standard
>> physics cannot explain. Does this mean that the popular belief is true and
>> that Shane Warne really is God?
>>
> If he is, that explains a *whole* lot about the universe and his
> supposed best creature.
It also explains why most organisms are killed by bleach. God really
didn't want his creation getting in his hair.
Walter Bushell
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> David Hare-Scott <com...@rotting.com> wrote:
>
> > "Nick Keighley" <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:b708570f-032e-422e-ab28-
> >
> > >
> > > wow! So, say, cricket balls can be diffracted around the wicket!
> > > Is this why England lose to Pakistan!
> > >
> >
> > Some bowlers do seem to be able to get a ball to do things that standard
> > physics cannot explain. Does this mean that the popular belief is true and
> > that Shane Warne really is God?
> >
> If he is, that explains a *whole* lot about the universe and his
> supposed best creature.
Of course Shane Warne is god, however so is everyone else.
--
What is done in the heat of battle is (normatively) judged
by different standards than what is leisurely planned in
comfortable conference rooms.
Walter Bushell
> David Hare-Scott <com...@rotting.com> wrote:
>
> > "Nick Keighley" <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:b708570f-032e-422e-ab28-
> >
> > >
> > > wow! So, say, cricket balls can be diffracted around the wicket!
> > > Is this why England lose to Pakistan!
> > >
> >
> > Some bowlers do seem to be able to get a ball to do things that standard
> > physics cannot explain. Does this mean that the popular belief is true and
> > that Shane Warne really is God?
> >
> If he is, that explains a *whole* lot about the universe and his
> supposed best creature.
What has this to do with penguins?
Og
"Wombat" <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote in message
news:19080c8c-c7d2-4f67...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On 2 Jul, 20:06, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:51:04 -0700 (PDT), Vend <ven...@virgilio.it>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 1 Lug, 20:02, "Og" <O...@bashan.net> wrote:
> >
> > =BULLSHIT DELETED=
> >
> > > > How is this possible? Was a decision made today
> > > > somehow going back in time to influence the result of an
> > > > experiment performed yesterday? Or was the decision that
> > > > we made today already locked in by the result of yesterdays
> > > > experiment? Or did the pattern on the back wall not exist
> > > > untill a decision was made to read the data or delete it?
> > > This sounds quite odd. It would contraddict much everything we know
> > > about quantum mechanics. Do you have any reference?
> >
> > No, of course he does not. Nando (apparently using a different
> > name to post under) is pulling bullshit out of his ass.
>
> I think Og is not Nando. Og is very weird in his 'beliefs' but
> appears to be a standard fundementalist fucktard of the (supposedly)
> Christian version.
>
> Wombat
That was nice of you to take up for me Wombat. Thanks.
It's my first time crossposting. A test.
Who is this nando cretin?
Og
Cory Albrecht
Just google for posts by "nando_r...@yahoo.com".
He claims to be a Muslim, but his beliefs seem more in line with a weird
new-agey animism than anything else.
For example, according to Nando the reason that astronomers cannot
predict with absolute perfect accuracy the future orbital positions of
comets, planets or the Moon is not because astronomers have limits on
teh precision of their measurements (i.e. kilometres instead of metres).
Instead, he believes that the inaccuracies are cause by the Moon, comet
or whatever actively deciding to change it's own orbital parameters such
that it does not arrive at the predicted place at the predicted time.
Wombat
Pot-kettle-black.
> Og
Cory has answered your question already. Meanwhile, I noticed you
ducked from that other thread when I asked you about genes that change
back to their original configuration and was that two losses of
information, and you went very silent when told the citrate using e-
coli were monoclonal. Did you feel you were out of your depth and
merely retired to come up with another heap composed of your
misunderstanding of science in a later thread?
Wombat
Og
Actually that other thread had a positive effect on you.
Normally you and your buddy steve will claim that any
gene alteration/defect equals new information of a sort.
At least now you are looking for a real example of new
information.
But to address your comment, don't you think it is
significant that the genes came back online doing exactly
what they designed to do. There are lots of possibilities
why this may have happened. It's possible that the genes
in question were still active in a small portion of the
population and when conditions were right, that small
portion outmultiplied the rest and became the majority
again. All cases of possible new information turn out to
be something like this.
> and you went very silent when told the citrate using e-
> coli were monoclonal. Did you feel you were out of your depth and
> merely retired to come up with another heap composed of your
> misunderstanding of science in a later thread?
The only way to prove that your e-coli had new information
would be to identify the gene sequence that enabled the eating
of citrate and prove that none of the ancestral stock had it.
Most of the time these new abilities in bacteria turn out
to be a peviously existing variation that suddenly found that
it had an advantage when the environment changed.
>
> Wombat
>
Og
Wombat
Typically, you side-stepped both points. Is there an increase in
information if the gene reverts to its original configuration, no
matter how unlikely that might be, and do you have any evidence that
the ability in e-coli was in the ancestral stock. For the latter you
could start by reading the extract, if not the full paper.
Wombat
Mike Painter
<snip>
>
> The only way to prove that your e-coli had new information
> would be to identify the gene sequence that enabled the eating
> of citrate and prove that none of the ancestral stock had it.
> Most of the time these new abilities in bacteria turn out
> to be a peviously existing variation that suddenly found that
> it had an advantage when the environment changed.
>
So some of the time they actually do evolve?
If your idea is valid what is the mechanism for turning these on and why
does only a small part of the population do so?
It would seem that in something like e. coli the vast majority would survive
since at the most reproducing would trigger this change.
But perhaps you argue for a portion of any given population to have this
needed "variation".
If that were true eradicating any species would be a trivial matter.
Cory Albrecht
> The only way to prove that your e-coli had new information
> would be to identify the gene sequence that enabled the eating
> of citrate and prove that none of the ancestral stock had it.
> Most of the time these new abilities in bacteria turn out
> to be a peviously existing variation that suddenly found that
> it had an advantage when the environment changed.
Oh? Please provide a cite for you unsupported assertion that new
abilities are actually pre-existing variations.
Scott Erb
> Hello Guys.
> This is a crushing blow to the theory of evolution. If no
> matter exists before someone observes it then the universe
> couldn't exist untill humans evolved to a level of self awareness.
> Are our observations today somehow going back in time and
> causing our past? Was there another observer that kept the
> universe in existence before we came on the scene? Or did
> the universe come into existence at roughly the the same time
> as mankind? None of these alternatives are possible in a
> universe that came into existence by random chance.
>
> Og
I've never seen quantum mechanics used as an argument against
evolution. I recently posted something about QM, Spinoza and free
will:
http://scotterb.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/spinoza-quantum-mechanics-and-free-will/
One can find lots of oddities in modern physics -- someone zooming
into a black hole will never fall in if looked at from another
perspective. A photon experiences no time, only velocity (is a photon
everywhere, all the time?) The universe came into existence at the
big bang with time and space a product of that event. Add to that the
weirdness of quantum mechanics, and it's clear our understanding of
the universe is still very weak. We're still only piecing together
the basics, building on Galileo and Newton, but no doubt in a few
hundred years our understanding today will look as primitive as
Galileo's.
Thus, evolution can't be disproven by QM, since the puzzles show only
that our theory has gaps and uncertainties. Unless we can find a way
to test these better, nothing in QM can truly undercut existing
scientific knowledge. In fact, to use it to argue against evolution
only works if you use QM to provide extreme skepticism to all
knowledge. That can be done, but unless we have a sense of where that
leads or why we should do it, it makes no sense to throw out science
as now understood (even though we know that science as now understood
is for this moment in history; our scientific knowledge will certainly
change over time).
My read: this notion that observation is necessary to actualize the
existence of a matter particle (which itself is only a ripple in a
field), if true, suggests that all we have is a probabilistic
universe. Perhaps consciousness 'experiences' a certain probable
reality and that's what this game is all about. But it's speculative
at this point. It could just be that we don't understand why it is
that we need to observe something to change it's state, or we could be
over-emphasizing the flux of the state, attributing something to
observation which actually is related to another attribute of the
particle that we do not understand.
IOW, interesting, humbling (modern physics shows how limited our
current understanding of reality is), but not enough to simply reject
the science we have. Time and space may be "simultaneous," but unless
we can figure out what that means for our world, I think we need to
deal with the temporal sequence with which this reality seems to
unfold.
http://scotterb.wordpress.com
alextangent
I'm still waiting for a cite for the QM post that started this thread.
Now this revolutionary and seminal work on pre-existng genes has
popped up. I must be reading the wrong journals.
--
Regards
Alex McDonald
alextangent
> On Jul 1, 2:02 pm, "Og" <O...@bashan.net> wrote:
>
> > Hello Guys.
> > � � This is a crushing blow to the theory of evolution. If no
> > matter exists before someone observes it then the universe
> > couldn't exist untill humans evolved to a level of self awareness.
> > Are our observations today somehow going back in time and
> > causing our past? Was there another observer that kept the
> > universe in existence before we came on the scene? Or did
> > the universe come into existence at roughly the the same time
> > as mankind? None of these alternatives are possible in a
> > universe that came into existence by random chance.
>
> > Og
>
> I've never seen quantum mechanics used as an argument against
You haven't been reading T.O. for very long then. Almost everything is
an argument against evolution in the hands of a fundie.
> I recently posted something about QM, Spinoza and free
> will:http://scotterb.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/spinoza-quantum-mechanics-an...
>
> One can find lots of oddities in modern physics -- someone zooming
> into a black hole will never fall in if looked at from another
> perspective. �A photon experiences no time, only velocity (is a photon
> everywhere, all the time?) �The universe came into existence at the
> big bang with time and space a product of that event. �Add to that the
> weirdness of quantum mechanics, and it's clear our understanding of
> the universe is still very weak. �We're still only piecing together
> the basics, building on Galileo and Newton, but no doubt in a few
> hundred years our understanding today will look as primitive as
> Galileo's.
Neither of TO or alt.talk.creatobabble are a physics or philosophy
groups. Especially alt.talk.creatobabble, the residents of which group
still have an understanding of science that's firmly rooted in the
bronze age.
Spinoza I can't comment on, but I would suspect that science has left
him behind too. Falling into a black hole is well understood (if
undesirable). A photon is not everywhere, all the time; that's a
misunderstanding. We're beyond Newton and Galileo, and well beyond the
basics. Yes, we'll look primitive in our understanding in a couple of
hundred years' time, but that's progress for you.
>
> Thus, evolution can't be disproven by QM, since the puzzles show only
> that our theory has gaps and uncertainties. �
Non-sequitur. QM and evolution are pretty far removed (unless you're
Roger Penrose, and there aren't many that subscribe to his QM
interpretation of mind). What gaps and uncertainties are there in QM
or evolutionary theory?
> Unless we can find a way
> to test these better, nothing in QM can truly undercut existing
> scientific knowledge. �
That's 100% nonsense. QM is an existing scientific theory that
explains the facts, so how can it undercut scientific knowledge?
Especially in an area where it has no application.
> In fact, to use it to argue against evolution
> only works if you use QM to provide extreme skepticism to all
> knowledge. That can be done,
No it can't.
> but unless we have a sense of where that
> leads or why we should do it, it makes no sense to throw out science
> as now understood (even though we know that science as now understood
> is for this moment in history; our scientific knowledge will certainly
> change over time).
One may personally have problems with both QM and evolution, but the
universe doesn't care. It still keeps rollin' along, generating all
these observations that both theories explain.
>
> My read: this notion that observation is necessary to actualize the
> existence of a matter particle (which itself is only a ripple in a
> field), if true, suggests that all we have is a probabilistic
> universe. �Perhaps consciousness 'experiences' a certain probable
> reality and that's what this game is all about. �But it's speculative
> at this point. �
Yes, very. You're confused between mind and observer.
> It could just be that we don't understand why it is
> that we need to observe something to change it's state, or we could be
> over-emphasizing the flux of the state, attributing something to
> observation which actually is related to another attribute of the
> particle that we do not understand.
If you mean hidden variables, there aren't any. Reality, I'm afraid,
is just like QM says it is. That's because /it explains to a high
degree of accuracy what we see/. And what is a "flux of state" please?
>
> IOW, interesting, humbling (modern physics shows how limited our
> current understanding of reality is),
I can't see that. Do you think QM is not explainable or understandable
in philosophical terms, and hence it's a poor theory, or not
understandable? Humility can only be the result of your knowledge, in
that /you/ don't understand it. It's not the result of QM, which
explains how things work -- reality -- very well indeed.
> but not enough to simply reject
> the science we have. �Time and space may be "simultaneous," but unless
> we can figure out what that means for our world, I think we need to
> deal with the temporal sequence with which this reality seems to
> unfold.http://scotterb.wordpress.com
That I'm afraid is just nonsense. What on earth are you trying to say
here?
--
Regards
Alex McDonald
TimK
"Scott Erb" <scot...@maine.edu> wrote in message
news:4f87758e-47be-4789...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Thus, evolution can't be disproven by QM, since the puzzles show only
> that our theory has gaps and uncertainties.
No, evolution can't be disproved by QM because QM has nothing to do with the
definition of evolution. It really is that simple.
Davej
> [...]
> Now it turns out that the two slit experiment has been taken
> a step further and the results are even more amazing.
Unless you have a cite or a link to a respectable source don't waste
time describing your fantasy.
Rupert Morrish
That's not addressing the comment.
1) Pick a sequence: GACT.
2) Change it: GAGT.
3) Change it back: GACT.
Now, if you assert that 1 and 3 contain the same amount of information,
then either 1->2 and 2->3 have no change in information, or one is a
gain and one is a loss.
If 1->2 causes a loss of function, and 2->3 causes that function to be
restored, either there is no link between information (as you define it)
and function, or it is possible for a random mutation to cause an
increase in information.
Which is it?
> There are lots of possibilities
> why this may have happened. It's possible that the genes
> in question were still active in a small portion of the
> population and when conditions were right, that small
> portion outmultiplied the rest and became the majority
> again. All cases of possible new information turn out to
> be something like this.
>
>> and you went very silent when told the citrate using e-
>> coli were monoclonal. Did you feel you were out of your depth and
>> merely retired to come up with another heap composed of your
>> misunderstanding of science in a later thread?
>
> The only way to prove that your e-coli had new information
> would be to identify the gene sequence that enabled the eating
> of citrate and prove that none of the ancestral stock had it.
None of the citrate got eaten. The thing about e coli (and most other
organisms) is that when they find a source of food they start
reproducing. So any individual in the original population that could
have metabolized the citrate would have, and would have produced
offspring that could also have metabolized the citrate, in which case
all the citrate would be gone. This didn't happen, therefore the
original population did not contain any individuals capable of
metabolizing citrate.
> Most of the time these new abilities in bacteria turn out
> to be a peviously existing variation that suddenly found that
> it had an advantage when the environment changed.
Not even close to most of the time. Do you remember what mono-clonal means?
>
>> Wombat
>>
>
> Og
>
>
Og
"Rupert Morrish" <rup...@morrish.org> wrote in message
news:6dfe7hF...@mid.individual.net...
You made a logical case I like that. But after giving this thought,
here is my personal opinion. Let's assume the sequence you
reffer to above was damaged beyond functioning. The next generation
would inherit the defect. The only way to restore the original
function would be by borowing genes as ecoli does, or for
another random blow to the sequence to shift the sequence
around again rearranging the protiens. This time landing in just the
right order so as to create the lost function. I am sure this is
what the three of you believe is going on. The problem is that
the odds against the protiens landing in just the right order are
astronomical. The chances are just as impossible the second
time as they were the first time. The odds have been calculated
and the odds against this are so great that they must be written in
exponential notation.
So the other options are gene borrowing or perhaps the
sequence was not destroyed but only ceased to operate
for a time. In my opinion, one of these two is likely.
Og
Rupert Morrish
> "Rupert Morrish" <rup...@morrish.org> wrote in message
> news:6dfe7hF...@mid.individual.net...
>> Og wrote:
>>> "Wombat" <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote in message
You're avoiding the question. Is there an increase or decrease in
information?
You should note that the odds are not at all astronomical - far better
than winning the lottery twice, which has certainly happened.
> So the other options are gene borrowing or perhaps the
> sequence was not destroyed but only ceased to operate
> for a time. In my opinion, one of these two is likely.
One of the bases was changed, which removed the function. This happens.
Whether it is likely or not is not relevant to the question of whether
or not there is an increase in information.
>
> Og
>
>>> There are lots of possibilities
>>> why this may have happened. It's possible that the genes
>>> in question were still active in a small portion of the
>>> population and when conditions were right, that small
>>> portion outmultiplied the rest and became the majority
>>> again. All cases of possible new information turn out to
>>> be something like this.
>>>
>>>> and you went very silent when told the citrate using e-
>>>> coli were monoclonal. Did you feel you were out of your depth and
>>>> merely retired to come up with another heap composed of your
>>>> misunderstanding of science in a later thread?
>>> The only way to prove that your e-coli had new information
>>> would be to identify the gene sequence that enabled the eating
>>> of citrate and prove that none of the ancestral stock had it.
>> None of the citrate got eaten. The thing about e coli (and most other
>> organisms) is that when they find a source of food they start
>> reproducing. So any individual in the original population that could
>> have metabolized the citrate would have, and would have produced
>> offspring that could also have metabolized the citrate, in which case
>> all the citrate would be gone. This didn't happen, therefore the
>> original population did not contain any individuals capable of
>> metabolizing citrate.
Have you read the Lenski paper, and do you now accept that this is a
novel function?
Scott Erb
I looked at the video he sited on the first post, and particles are
called "little bits of matter," and treated like marbles being shot.
Yet particles are ripples in fields. They are not really bits of
matter; they have mass probably only because of the Higgs field
(according to current theory). Perhaps part of the quantum weirdness
is also the way we can't conceive of matter as something other than a
chunk of something. Theories of the universe as a kind of holograph
and a few others out there that problematize our common sense view of
matter might clear a lot of this up too.
http://scotterb.wordpress.com
Scott Erb
> On Jul 7, 6:40 pm, Scott Erb <scott...@maine.edu> wrote:
> > One can find lots of oddities in modern physics -- someone zooming
> > into a black hole will never fall in if looked at from another
> > perspective. A photon experiences no time, only velocity (is a photon
> > everywhere, all the time?) The universe came into existence at the
> > big bang with time and space a product of that event. Add to that the
> > weirdness of quantum mechanics, and it's clear our understanding of
> > the universe is still very weak. We're still only piecing together
> > the basics, building on Galileo and Newton, but no doubt in a few
> > hundred years our understanding today will look as primitive as
> > Galileo's.
>
> Neither of TO or alt.talk.creatobabble are a physics or philosophy
> groups. Especially alt.talk.creatobabble, the residents of which group
> still have an understanding of science that's firmly rooted in the
> bronze age.
Actually the main page of this group's faq notes that origins aren't
just human, but could be the origin of the physical world. That would
entail physics or QM.
> Spinoza I can't comment on, but I would suspect that science has left
> him behind too. Falling into a black hole is well understood (if
> undesirable). A photon is not everywhere, all the time; that's a
> misunderstanding. We're beyond Newton and Galileo, and well beyond the
> basics. Yes, we'll look primitive in our understanding in a couple of
> hundred years' time, but that's progress for you.
My point is that from a certain perspective you'd never see someone
pass the event horizon, even though it's instantaneous from the
perspective of the person involved. It's a bit weird. And I'm not
sure what I mean by a misunderstanding of the photon. I didn't mean
everywhere, all the time, literally. But from its perspective it does
not experience time.
> > Thus, evolution can't be disproven by QM, since the puzzles show only
> > that our theory has gaps and uncertainties.
>
> Non-sequitur. QM and evolution are pretty far removed (unless you're
> Roger Penrose, and there aren't many that subscribe to his QM
> interpretation of mind). What gaps and uncertainties are there in QM
> or evolutionary theory?
There are many uncertainties in both, I suspect. QM has the biggie --
can it be unified with relativity? Science progresses (which is why
it does better than the religious fundies who want to define reality
according to their belief and not change it regardless of evidence).
No one would now say Darwin's view of evolution was accurate in its
detail. But his work was built upon.
> > Unless we can find a way
> > to test these better, nothing in QM can truly undercut existing
> > scientific knowledge.
>
> That's 100% nonsense. QM is an existing scientific theory that
> explains the facts, so how can it undercut scientific knowledge?
You misread what I wrote. Nothing in QM can undercut scientific
knowledge. You are agreeing with me, so you can't really think it's
non-sense.
QM at least allows us to predict. Does it explain facts? I'm not
sure you can make that claim.
> Especially in an area where it has no application.
Isn't that my point?
> > In fact, to use it to argue against evolution
> > only works if you use QM to provide extreme skepticism to all
> > knowledge. That can be done,
>
> No it can't.
Sure it can. Skepticism is alive and well, even if most people reject
it. It can be done, but most people don't think it makes much sense.
> > but unless we have a sense of where that
> > leads or why we should do it, it makes no sense to throw out science
> > as now understood (even though we know that science as now understood
> > is for this moment in history; our scientific knowledge will certainly
> > change over time).
>
> One may personally have problems with both QM and evolution, but the
> universe doesn't care. It still keeps rollin' along, generating all
> these observations that both theories explain.
Evolution is much stronger than QM due to the nature of the evidence
at hand, and the maturity of the theory. QM still isn't well
explained. The Copenhagen approach is increasingly under question.
> > My read: this notion that observation is necessary to actualize the
> > existence of a matter particle (which itself is only a ripple in a
> > field), if true, suggests that all we have is a probabilistic
> > universe. Perhaps consciousness 'experiences' a certain probable
> > reality and that's what this game is all about. But it's speculative
> > at this point.
>
> Yes, very. You're confused between mind and observer.
Not at all. You seem a bit dogmatic here, I'm considering
possibilities that are currently outside our scope of testing. They
may or may not be true, that's speculative. But a lot remains still
outside science, and speculation is allowed in those cases.
> > It could just be that we don't understand why it is
> > that we need to observe something to change it's state, or we could be
> > over-emphasizing the flux of the state, attributing something to
> > observation which actually is related to another attribute of the
> > particle that we do not understand.
>
> If you mean hidden variables, there aren't any. Reality, I'm afraid,
> is just like QM says it is.
A lot of people have made claims like that over the centuries, only to
find that future discoveries show that there are other variables,
hidden only because science was not yet able to find them. Again,
good science avoids dogmatism, and always accepts that unexpected
finds might alter the theory. You're veering away from a scientific
perspective there; don't start to mimic your religious foes!
>That's because /it explains to a high
> degree of accuracy what we see/. And what is a "flux of state" please?
I can't fathom why you think QM explains. I don't know physicists who
would make that claim. It can predict now. By flux I mean the
uncertainty before observation; the fact that QM deals with
probabilities, and has interesting aspects like non-locality
(instantaneous effect far from the particle, which seems impossible by
usual laws of physics), and quantum tunneling (theoretically you could
pass through a wall -- though the probability is so miniscule as to be
practically impossible).
> > IOW, interesting, humbling (modern physics shows how limited our
> > current understanding of reality is),
>
> I can't see that. Do you think QM is not explainable or understandable
> in philosophical terms, and hence it's a poor theory, or not
> understandable? Humility can only be the result of your knowledge, in
> that /you/ don't understand it. It's not the result of QM, which
> explains how things work -- reality -- very well indeed.
QM does not explain, that's part of the issue here. It simply gives
useful predictions. How it works and why, that's NOT known. In fact,
most physicists expect that we need to solve the issue of a unified
field theory before we can approach that. This leaves the door wide
open to speculations (e.g., the Deutsch "many worlds" theory which
says there are infinite parallel universes for each quantum
probability) and other apparently bizarre theories from scientists.
You seem to think QM is something it is not.
> > but not enough to simply reject
> > the science we have. Time and space may be "simultaneous," but unless
> > we can figure out what that means for our world, I think we need to
> > deal with the temporal sequence with which this reality seems to
> > unfold.http://scotterb.wordpress.com
>
> That I'm afraid is just nonsense. What on earth are you trying to say
> here?
Modern physics seems space-time as unified and as an entity (not the
old Newtonian view of space as the stage and time as units that
pass). That's hard for us to grasp, given our psychological
experience of space time as separate.
http://scotterb.wordpress.com
> --
> Regards
> Alex McDonald
Vend
>
> He claims to be a Muslim, but his beliefs seem more in line with a weird
> new-agey animism than anything else.
>
> For example, according to Nando the reason that astronomers cannot
> predict with absolute perfect accuracy the future orbital positions of
> comets, planets or the Moon is not because astronomers have limits on
> teh precision of their measurements (i.e. kilometres instead of metres).
> Instead, he believes that the inaccuracies are cause by the Moon, comet
> or whatever actively deciding to change it's own orbital parameters such
> that it does not arrive at the predicted place at the predicted time.
I think this is actually the belief of a sub-sect of Islam, which,
when it became prevalent, basically destroyed science in the Islamic
world.
Ernest Major
<O...@bashan.net> writes
>You made a logical case I like that. But after giving this thought,
>here is my personal opinion. Let's assume the sequence you reffer to
>above was damaged beyond functioning. The next generation would inherit
>the defect. The only way to restore the original function would be by
>borowing genes as ecoli does, or for another random blow to the
>sequence to shift the sequence around again rearranging the protiens.
>This time landing in just the right order so as to create the lost
>function. I am sure this is what the three of you believe is going on.
>The problem is that the odds against the protiens landing in just the
>right order are astronomical. The chances are just as impossible the
>second time as they were the first time. The odds have been calculated
>and the odds against this are so great that they must be written in
>exponential notation.
One common way for a sequence to be damaged beyond functioning is for a
point mutation to form a stop-codon, which truncates the corresponding
function. (That's what killed vitamin-C production in primates.) This is
reversed by a single point mutation.
There must be something wrong with the calculation of the odds, because
the mutation rate in E. coli is, fide Larry Moran, 5.4 in 10^10. Start a
colony with a single bacterium, and it doesn't take long until you've
got a colony in which, when you take into account the number of
bacteria, and the number of generations, the probability of the back
mutation becomes close to 1. (To give you an idea of the necessary
scale, you excrete of the order of 10^12 E. coli daily.)
In fact, it's obvious what is wrong with the calculation of the odds.
You've calculated the wrong odds. You've substituted the probability of
the random assembly of a gene from nucleotides for the probability of a
point mutation.
> So the other options are gene borrowing or perhaps the sequence was
>not destroyed but only ceased to operate for a time. In my opinion, one
>of these two is likely.
--
alias Ernest Major
Scott Erb
> "Scott Erb" <scott...@maine.edu> wrote in message
Well, quantum mechanics supposedly governs all of our space-time
universe, so it has something to do with everything. But his argument
that the apparent need for a human observer means that humans had to
be around for anything to happen is simply absurd. By that logic,
forest fires shouldn't start from a bolt of lightning if no one is
watching it, since the bolt can't hit without a human observer.
Clearly, that is NOT the case!
http://scotterb.wordpress.com
TimK
> On Jul 7, 4:00 pm, "TimK" <timk...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>> "Scott Erb" <scott...@maine.edu> wrote in message
>>
>> news:4f87758e-47be-4789...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Thus, evolution can't be disproven by QM, since the puzzles show only
>> > that our theory has gaps and uncertainties.
>>
>> No, evolution can't be disproved by QM because QM has nothing to do with
>> the
>> definition of evolution. It really is that simple.
>
> Well, quantum mechanics supposedly governs all of our space-time
You can't draw a direct link between QM and a change in allele frequencies
of a population over time. It's irrelevant until you can.
>...But his argument
> that the apparent need for a human observer means that humans had to
> be around for anything to happen is simply absurd. By that logic,
> forest fires shouldn't start from a bolt of lightning if no one is
> watching it, since the bolt can't hit without a human observer.
> Clearly, that is NOT the case!
> http://scotterb.wordpress.com
Too true.
I like your blog btw!
I too am proud not to "fit" into either party.
r norman
>
>You can't draw a direct link between QM and a change in allele frequencies
>of a population over time. It's irrelevant until you can.
Supposedly if you just solve the Schrodinger equation with the proper
boundary and initial conditions it all falls out. Well, OK, you need
to add gravity and all the other physics. That is the nature of
reductionism and materialism in science.
Of course I believe in emergent properties of complex systems so I
claim that such an argument is really meaningless: both impossible to
perform under any conceivable scheme of computation and impossible to
perform because there is no way to obtain the necessary data for the
boundary and initial conditions. But according to the notions of
mechanistic science, which I also believe in, there is nothing in
evolution beyond the working out of the laws of physics. It is just
that doing the working out is impossible.
conrad
wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:02:02 -0400, "Og" <O...@bashan.net> wrote:
> > Now it turns out that the two slit experiment has been taken
> > a step further and the results are even more amazing.
>
> anything?
>
When you go to that link and view the video, you will notice
in the video a poster on the wall in the background.
The poster is of the movie "What the bleep do we know"
If you are unfamiliar with it, then see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramtha
It's really a bunch of new-age psycho babble.
--
conrad
Paul J Gans
You are basically correct.
The word "observation" has a special meaning in quantum mechanics.
Basically it means a measurement, no matter how coarse.
So one does an experiment, perhaps to measure the energy of something,
and then one makes an "observation". That is, one makes a measurement
of this energy. One can repeat this measurement many times and then,
under certain assumptions, place an error bound on the quantity measured.
Saying that something doesn't exist until it is observed can be
translated into saying that no value for the energy of a system
is known until it is measured.
This is of course trivially true. But it does not at all mean
what certain folks who post here think it means.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
I'd make that "difficult", not impossible.
The link between, for example Newtonian mechanics as applied to
atoms and molecules and their thermodynamic properties was always
obvious. Thermodynamics was, however, treated as an "emergent
property".
Today, of course, we can calulate enough thermodyamic properties
from Newtonian mechanics (or quantum mechanics if you will) to
make the link clear.
Tomorrow may be better for biology.
r norman
wrote:
I still say "impossible". The laws of thermodynamics are statistical
averages based on the mathematical law of large numbers: deviations
from the expected value for large N are small and N is very large for
macroscopic systems. For biological systems, N is not very big and
there are multiplier effects magnifying molecular events to cellular
and organismal level so that deviations from the expected value have
macroscopic effects. That, combined with the fact that there is no way
of measuring the system and so establish the exact initial conditions,
ensures that it is not possible to calculate the behavior of any
reasonable biological evolutionary system from first principles.
Paul J Gans
Stated that way I can agree. But it might well be possible to
do computations based on principles *derived* from "first principles."
TimK
"r norman" <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote in message
news:fk38741nrk22arn14...@4ax.com...
All of which means that you can't draw a direct link between QM and a change
in allele frequencies of a population over time. Yet creationists will
continue to misuse QM and the Second Law as some weird sort of "proof" that
evolution can't be a correct explanation for the diversity of life.
TimK
"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eC9Ao2Xz...@meden.invalid...
>(To give you an idea of the necessary scale, you excrete of the order of
>10^12 E. coli daily.)
Simply beautiful. What a great example.
TimK
"Og" <O...@bashan.net> wrote in message
news:2sSdnWhIt4bxMe_V...@northstate.net...
You figured out he had you and you had to change the subject ever so
slightly. Now why don't you answer?
William Morse
> Hello Guys.
> In a pevious post we talked about QM. Especially
> the famous two slit experiment where particles were shot
> randomly at two slits in a wall. If the prticles were detected
> as they went through the slits they formed two rows of
> hits on the back wall brhind the slits. Exactly what a particle
> should do. However if the particles were not detected as
> they were shot through the slits they formed an interference
> pattern of hits on the back wall.This is what a wave should do.
> It should be impossible for particles to do this.
>
> Here is a video to bring you up to speed if you
> didn't read my last QM post.
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=ViQoUXu5uK0
>
> Now it turns out that the two slit experiment has been taken
> a step further and the results are even more amazing.
> detected as they were shot through the slits. Only this time
> the data from the detectors was saved to a computer hard
> drive. The experimentors waited twenty four hours without
> looking at the data or the back wall. After 24 hours they
> would either read the data or delete it without ever having read it.
> After doing one or the other they would then look at the back
> wall.
> The experementors found that everytime they read the data
> from the detectors and then looked at the back wall they found
> the two bars of hits (which had to have been formed the day
> before during the shooting of the particles). Also everytime
> they deleted the data from the detectors without reading it
> and then looked at the back wall they found the interference
> pattern. (which had to have been formed the day
> before during the shooting of the particles) As many times
> as the experiments were performed, the action of today
> always matched the pattern that was formed on the back
> wall yesterday.
> How is this possible? Was a decision made today
> somehow going back in time to influence the result of an
> experiment performed yesterday? Or was the decision that
> we made today already locked in by the result of yesterdays
> experiment? Or did the pattern on the back wall not exist
> untill a decision was made to read the data or delete it?
> this way no matter how big the pieces. That is to say no matter
> exists untill someone odserves it.
> This is a crushing blow to the theory of evolution. If no
> matter exists before someone observes it then the universe
> couldn't exist untill humans evolved to a level of self awareness.
> Are our observations today somehow going back in time and
> causing our past? Was there another observer that kept the
> universe in existence before we came on the scene? Or did
> the universe come into existence at roughly the the same time
> as mankind? None of these alternatives are possible in a
> universe that came into existence by random chance.
Gotta love the quantum weirdness. But it doesn't translate to a macro
scale, (still a major question in physics), so it is no more a crushing
blow to the theory of evolution than it is a crushing blow to
preventing a carpet from getting wet from rain by closing a window. If
you can do the second, then evolution can occur.
From my limited reading, there are several explanations of the quantum
weirdness you describe. One of them is complete determinism - the
universe knows whether the data will be deleted without reading so the
pattern is determined in advance. This interpretation of course implies
the absence of free will. There is also the standard model, which mostly
ignores the weirdness, and the many worlds hypothesis, which says for
the situation you describe that there are in fact two worlds, one in
which the data is deleted and the interference pattern occurs and one in
which the data is kept and no interference is seen.
Yours,
Bill Morse
Scott Erb
wrote:
There could also be one absolutiverse in which all that exists is
probability, and individuals through choice chart their course by
actualizing various probabilities. If you look at theories like
Pribram in neuroscience and some physicists studying quantum gravity,
the idea of a universe as a hologram is fascinating. This does open
up free will within a pre-determined (but pretty broad) set of
probabilities, made more complex because the choices of others are
integrated into the whole game. To me it's speculation based on very
uncertain science, though Pribram's brain research is fascinating.
Here again is speculation/playful thinking I had about this in my
blog:
http://scotterb.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/spinoza-quantum-mechanics-and-free-will/
Og
Hi.
It is obvious that you have given this a lot of thought.
I also think the idea of the universe as a hologram is fascinating.
I think it's more than just a fascinating idea. I think it's an
inescapable conclusion.
I get the impression of a virtual reality as would be generated by a
computer program. All that happens in QM can be made to happen
in a VR in a computer. A simple subroutine can make an event that
happened yesterday match a decision made today (provided the event
has not been observed yet). The idea of our choices triggering a reality
within a predetermined set of possibilities is exactly what happens in
a lot of computer games. QM suggests that this is also happening
in the universe. If there is a program or a hologram (which is generated
by a program) there must be a programmer. It's another inescapable
conclusion.
William suggested that QM wierdness doesn't translate into the macro
world. I have read claims that it does, and other claims that it doesn't.
I look forward to seeing the results of double slit experiments using bigger
pieces. Somebody is bound to try it sooner or later. Our understanding
of the universe could move forward a lot faster if the researchers were not
hamstrung by preconcieved notions. Most researchers are just looking
for ways to make QM fit into the evolution model. But it just doesn't.
The reversed rotation of many planets eliminates the famous "big bang"
theory from the list of possible origins. But in a VR planets can be made
to rotate any direction the programmer wants them to.
Og
edi...@rcn.com
> "Scott Erb" <scott...@maine.edu> wrote in message
There is much to much or much to little to swallow in one gulp
>Most researchers are just looking
> for ways to make QM fit into the evolution model
Which reearchers are trying to do that? QM has as much to do with
evolution as botany with bicycle riding.
>The reversed rotation of many planets eliminates the famous "big bang"
> theory from the list of possible origins.
What does the Big Bang have to do with the origins of our Solar
system? I believe that the BB predates out solar system by a few
billion years
Do you have any real knowledge of QM or cosmology beyond what might
have been gained by skimming a readers digest in a dentist's office...
Desertphile
It has been more than one week since the clown was asked for
citations in support his his asburd claims..... and no doubt there
are no citations since he made them all up.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
> So the other options are gene borrowing or perhaps the
> sequence was not destroyed but only ceased to operate
When are you going to provide a citation for your original absurd
assertions? It's been more than a week.
Scott Erb
>
> news:10509cb2-fd7e-459c...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi.
> It is obvious that you have given this a lot of thought.
> I also think the idea of the universe as a hologram is fascinating.
> I think it's more than just a fascinating idea. I think it's an
> inescapable conclusion.
Well, I wouldn't go that far! It's one of many theories in the physics
world trying to interpret existing data. It's potentially very
persuasive, but we need a lot more data and development.
> I get the impression of a virtual reality as would be generated by a
> computer program. All that happens in QM can be made to happen
> in a VR in a computer. A simple subroutine can make an event that
> happened yesterday match a decision made today (provided the event
> has not been observed yet). The idea of our choices triggering a reality
> within a predetermined set of possibilities is exactly what happens in
> a lot of computer games. QM suggests that this is also happening
> in the universe. If there is a program or a hologram (which is generated
> by a program) there must be a programmer. It's another inescapable
> conclusion.
First, your ideas remind me a bit of Bishop George Berkeley, whose
absolute idealism rejected even the existence of a material reality
and saw all existence as a dream of God. One can take his ideas in a
non-religious direction as well, and it's spawned interesting
philosophical thought (and a Star Trek character in the Next
Generation series named after Berkeley...addicted to the holodeck).
Still, if reality is holographic, beware of using analogy to our world
(video games) to assume it's the same. It may not be programmed as
such. Indeed, we could be collective programmers (sort of a
pantheistic approach, with no 'master programmer' outside the game).
All of that is speculation of course, I can't see any of it as
anything more than playful thought -- certainly not an inescapable
conclusion!
> William suggested that QM wierdness doesn't translate into the macro
> world. I have read claims that it does, and other claims that it doesn't.
Usually it doesn't in any measurable way (that's why the disagreement
between relativity and QM doesn't bother people as much as it might).
But there will be some borderline where it will matter, and at some
level it probably does matter, but in a way we have yet to be able to
measure. So I think it's still an open question, but ultimately a
unifying theory would be good.
> I look forward to seeing the results of double slit experiments using bigger
> pieces. Somebody is bound to try it sooner or later. Our understanding
> of the universe could move forward a lot faster if the researchers were not
> hamstrung by preconcieved notions. Most researchers are just looking
> for ways to make QM fit into the evolution model. But it just doesn't.
I don't think anyone has tried to make QM fit with evolution any more
than with other major macro theories at this point. I don't think
people have seen the need. Rather, they hope someday to unify QM and
general relativity.
> The reversed rotation of many planets eliminates the famous "big bang"
> theory from the list of possible origins. But in a VR planets can be made
> to rotate any direction the programmer wants them to.
It seems to me that if reversed rotation eliminated the big bang
theory, that would have made the news. I don't see how it threatens
big bang (and big bang is certainly not contradictory to a holographic
reality, or anything in QM). More interesting is why and what was the
big bang, if indeed that is the creation point of the current universe
(and of space-time itself). The Catholic church likes the Big Bang
because it suggests that space-time is an entity that was created in
some way.
http://scotterb.wordpress.com
Nick Keighley
> On Jul 7, 3:16 pm, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 7, 6:40 pm, Scott Erb <scott...@maine.edu> wrote:
> > > One can find lots of oddities in modern physics -- someone zooming
> > > into a black hole will never fall in if looked at from another
> > > perspective. A photon experiences no time, only velocity (is a photon
> > > everywhere, all the time?) The universe came into existence at the
> > > big bang with time and space a product of that event. Add to that the
> > > weirdness of quantum mechanics, and it's clear our understanding of
> > > the universe is still very weak.
QM is weird (non-intuitive) but that doesn't mean we (physicists)
don't understand
it.
<snip>
> > Neither of TO or alt.talk.creatobabble are a physics or philosophy
> > groups. Especially alt.talk.creatobabble, the residents of which group
> > still have an understanding of science that's firmly rooted in the
> > bronze age.
>
> Actually the main page of this group's faq notes that origins aren't
> just human, but could be the origin of the physical world. That would
> entail physics or QM.
>
> > Spinoza I can't comment on, but I would suspect that science has left
> > him behind too. Falling into a black hole is well understood (if
> > undesirable). A photon is not everywhere, all the time; that's a
> > misunderstanding. We're beyond Newton and Galileo, and well beyond the
> > basics. Yes, we'll look primitive in our understanding in a couple of
> > hundred years' time, but that's progress for you.
>
> My point is that from a certain perspective you'd never see someone
> pass the event horizon, even though it's instantaneous from the
> perspective of the person involved. It's a bit weird.
ok, odd from a "common sense" point of view but well understood
to a physicist. Most people's intuitive physics is about 2000 years
out
of date. Even first year undergraduates' intuition is suspect when it
comes to dropping things from moving trains and such like. Once
you get *that* right you're only 400 years out of data...
> And I'm not
> sure what I mean by a misunderstanding of the photon. I didn't mean
> everywhere, all the time, literally. But from its perspective it does
> not experience time.
if a photon can have a point of view... Though Eienstein used to
consider
what the world would look like from a tram travelling at the speed of
light.
A photon isn't everywhere in any sense. It's just its moment of
creation and
destruction occur simultaneously. If I send a photon from here to a
point a
metre away it was never on Mars.
> > > Thus, evolution can't be disproven by QM, since the puzzles show only
> > > that our theory has gaps and uncertainties.
>
> > Non-sequitur. QM and evolution are pretty far removed (unless you're
> > Roger Penrose, and there aren't many that subscribe to his QM
> > interpretation of mind). What gaps and uncertainties are there in QM
> > or evolutionary theory?
>
> There are many uncertainties in both, I suspect. QM has the biggie --
> can it be unified with relativity?
ok
> Science progresses (which is why
> it does better than the religious fundies who want to define reality
> according to their belief and not change it regardless of evidence).
> No one would now say Darwin's view of evolution was accurate in its
> detail. But his work was built upon.
>
> > > Unless we can find a way
> > > to test these better, nothing in QM can truly undercut existing
> > > scientific knowledge.
>
> > That's 100% nonsense. QM is an existing scientific theory that
> > explains the facts, so how can it undercut scientific knowledge?
>
> You misread what I wrote. Nothing in QM can undercut scientific
> knowledge. You are agreeing with me, so you can't really think it's
> non-sense.
I think the "truly" in your original statement was confusing.
QM does not undercut scientific knowledge because it *is*
scientific knowledge. The "truly" seems to imply you have some
doubt.
> QM at least allows us to predict. Does it explain facts? I'm not
> sure you can make that claim.
what does "explain" mean? Can you "explain" electric charge?
Scientific theories are models of reality. What is explanation?
> > Especially in an area where it has no application.
>
> Isn't that my point?
I'm not sure what your point is.
> > > In fact, to use it to argue against evolution
> > > only works if you use QM to provide extreme skepticism to all
> > > knowledge. That can be done,
>
> > No it can't.
>
> Sure it can. Skepticism is alive and well, even if most people reject
> it. It can be done, but most people don't think it makes much sense.
how does QM provide scepticism?
> > > but unless we have a sense of where that
> > > leads or why we should do it, it makes no sense to throw out science
> > > as now understood (even though we know that science as now understood
> > > is for this moment in history; our scientific knowledge will certainly
> > > change over time).
>
> > One may personally have problems with both QM and evolution, but the
> > universe doesn't care. It still keeps rollin' along, generating all
> > these observations that both theories explain.
>
> Evolution is much stronger than QM due to the nature of the evidence
> at hand, and the maturity of the theory.
QM has plenty of evidence. The electronic gadgets you own all
depend on QM. GPS depends on QM. Atom bombs depend on QM.
> QM still isn't well explained.
I still don't know what you mean by "explained"
> The Copenhagen approach is increasingly under question.
Copenhagen is only an interpretation it makes no difference
to the application of QM.
> > > My read: this notion that observation is necessary to actualize the
> > > existence of a matter particle (which itself is only a ripple in a
> > > field), if true, suggests that all we have is a probabilistic
> > > universe. Perhaps consciousness 'experiences' a certain probable
> > > reality and that's what this game is all about. But it's speculative
> > > at this point.
>
> > Yes, very. You're confused between mind and observer.
>
> Not at all. You seem a bit dogmatic here, I'm considering
> possibilities that are currently outside our scope of testing.
no. You're arm waving.
> They may or may not be true, that's speculative.
Which bit is the speculation?
> But a lot remains still
> outside science, and speculation is allowed in those cases.
but perhaps not as much as you think.
> > > It could just be that we don't understand why it is
> > > that we need to observe something to change it's state, or we could be
> > > over-emphasizing the flux of the state, attributing something to
> > > observation which actually is related to another attribute of the
> > > particle that we do not understand.
>
> > If you mean hidden variables, there aren't any. Reality, I'm afraid,
> > is just like QM says it is.
"The Ghost in the Atom" is a good read.
> A lot of people have made claims like that over the centuries, only to
> find that future discoveries show that there are other variables,
> hidden only because science was not yet able to find them. Again,
> good science avoids dogmatism, and always accepts that unexpected
> finds might alter the theory. You're veering away from a scientific
> perspective there; don't start to mimic your religious foes!
no. QM *really* says there are no hidden variables (or at least
the consequences of HVs would cause other problems. See Bell's
Inequality). Be careful not to confuse QM with New Agey psuedo-QM.
> >That's because /it explains to a high
> > degree of accuracy what we see/. And what is a "flux of state" please?
>
> I can't fathom why you think QM explains.
I don't know what "explain" means. If QM predicts that a tunnel diode
will work in a particular way and provides a model of that behaviour
hasn't QM explained the tunnel diode?
> I don't know physicists who
> would make that claim. It can predict now. By flux I mean the
> uncertainty before observation; the fact that QM deals with
> probabilities, and has interesting aspects like non-locality
> (instantaneous effect far from the particle, which seems impossible by
> usual laws of physics), and quantum tunneling (theoretically you could
> pass through a wall -- though the probability is so miniscule as to be
> practically impossible).
>
> > > IOW, interesting, humbling (modern physics shows how limited our
> > > current understanding of reality is),
>
> > I can't see that. Do you think QM is not explainable or understandable
> > in philosophical terms, and hence it's a poor theory, or not
> > understandable? Humility can only be the result of your knowledge, in
> > that /you/ don't understand it. It's not the result of QM, which
> > explains how things work -- reality -- very well indeed.
>
> QM does not explain, that's part of the issue here.
only because you keep on saying so.
> It simply gives
> useful predictions. How it works and why, that's NOT known. In fact,
> most physicists expect that we need to solve the issue of a unified
> field theory before we can approach that. This leaves the door wide
> open to speculations (e.g., the Deutsch "many worlds" theory which
> says there are infinite parallel universes for each quantum
> probability) and other apparently bizarre theories from scientists.
> You seem to think QM is something it is not.
I think you think that.
> > > but not enough to simply reject
> > > the science we have. Time and space may be "simultaneous," but unless
> > > we can figure out what that means for our world, I think we need to
> > > deal with the temporal sequence with which this reality seems to
> > > unfold.http://scotterb.wordpress.com
>
> > That I'm afraid is just nonsense. What on earth are you trying to say
> > here?
>
> Modern physics seems [sees?] space-time as unified and as an entity (not the
> old Newtonian view of space as the stage and time as units that
> pass). That's hard for us to grasp, given our psychological
> experience of space time as separate.
that's a people problem not a physics problem.
As I understand it it's not observation that collapses the wave
function
but interaction with the macroscopic. If an automatic camera takes
a picture is that an observation? Or is it only when a physicist
looks at the picture that it becomes an observation? Or when he
publishes?
--
Nick Keighley
We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which
divides us is
whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own
feeling
is that it is not crazy enough.
-- Niels Bohr
Nick Keighley
> "r norman" <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:fk38741nrk22arn14...@4ax.com...
<snip>
> > I still say [linking evolution and QM is] "impossible". The laws of thermodynamics are statistical
> > averages based on the mathematical law of large numbers: deviations
> > from the expected value for large N are small and N is very large for
> > macroscopic systems. For biological systems, N is not very big and
> > there are multiplier effects magnifying molecular events to cellular
> > and organismal level so that deviations from the expected value have
> > macroscopic effects. That, combined with the fact that there is no way
> > of measuring the system and so establish the exact initial conditions,
> > ensures that it is not possible to calculate the behavior of any
> > reasonable biological evolutionary system from first principles.
>
> All of which means that you can't draw a direct link between QM and a change
> in allele frequencies of a population over time. Yet creationists will
> continue to misuse QM and the Second Law as some weird sort of "proof" that
> evolution can't be a correct explanation for the diversity of life.
well the 2LoT does have something to say about life- for instance
there
must be an energy (low entropy) source available.
I know what the Creationist 2Lot says (I think it forbids snow flakes
and fridges as well). But what is the Creationist QM. Is that based
on some confused version of the Copenhagen interpretation?
--
Nick Keighley
Never express yourself more clearly than you think.
-- N. Bohr
Nick Keighley
> "Scott Erb" <scott...@maine.edu> wrote in message
> news:10509cb2-fd7e-459c...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> > There could also be one absolutiverse in which all that exists is
> > probability, and individuals through choice chart their course by
> > actualizing various probabilities.
how do they "actualize a probability". Is that a physical or non-
physical
process? (Note: I regard non-physical as a synonymn for non-existent).
> > If you look at theories like
> > Pribram in neuroscience and some physicists studying quantum gravity,
> > the idea of a universe as a hologram is fascinating. This does open
> > up free will within a pre-determined (but pretty broad) set of
> > probabilities, made more complex because the choices of others are
> > integrated into the whole game. To me it's speculation based on very
> > uncertain science, though Pribram's brain research is fascinating.
> > Here again is speculation/playful thinking I had about this in my
> > blog:
<snip>
> It is obvious that you have given this a lot of thought.
he's a bit better informed than you
> I also think the idea of the universe as a hologram is fascinating.
> I think it's more than just a fascinating idea. I think it's an
> inescapable conclusion.
define "hologram"
> I get the impression of a virtual reality as would be generated by a
> computer program.
clockwork. It's all clockwork. The universerse is made of teeny tiny
little
clockwork engines.
> All that happens in QM can be made to happen
> in a VR in a computer.
or clockwork.
> A simple subroutine can make an event that
> happened yesterday match a decision made today (provided the event
> has not been observed yet).
a cunning escapement mechanism.
> The idea of our choices triggering a reality
> within a predetermined set of possibilities is exactly what happens in
> a lot of computer games.
and clockwork
> QM suggests that this is also happening in the universe.
it does?
> If there is a program or a hologram (which is generated
> by a program)
I'm still mystified by this hologram. Would a clockwork driven Jacard
loom fit the bill?
> there must be a programmer. It's another inescapable conclusion.
the Clock Maker
> William suggested that QM wierdness doesn't translate into the macro
> world.
it blurs out into something like classical physics at macro-scopic
(our) scale
> I have read claims that it does, and other claims that it doesn't.
> I look forward to seeing the results of double slit experiments using bigger
> pieces.
last I heard they'd done it with bucky-balls (60 carbon atoms
arranged like a football).
> Somebody is bound to try it sooner or later. Our understanding
> of the universe could move forward a lot faster if the researchers were not
> hamstrung by preconcieved notions.
like why don't that measure the quantum indeterminacy of the earth?
hell next week we might end up orbitting another sun!
> Most researchers are just looking
> for ways to make QM fit into the evolution model.
name three
> But it just doesn't.
> The reversed rotation of many planets eliminates the famous "big bang"
> theory from the list of possible origins.
this is complete bollocks
> But in a VR planets can be made
> to rotate any direction the programmer wants them to.
clockwork!
--
Nick Keighley
"You are not thinking...you are merely being logical". Niels Bohr
Og
I agree that it may not be, but I see a lot of similarities.
> Indeed, we could be collective programmers (sort of a
> pantheistic approach, with no 'master programmer' outside the game).
I can't disprove the idea of us as collective programmers
operating within the program, but it seems unlikely for a couple of
reasons.
1. We can never get a result outside of what appears to be
a predetermined set of possibilities.
2. Operating from within the program we would be unable to
add any input untill the executable were running.
We can't make any major changes, only what's allowed us within
the code. We seem more like sprites than avatars.
> All of that is speculation of course, I can't see any of it as
> anything more than playful thought -- certainly not an inescapable
> conclusion!
More experiments are definitly needed.
> > William suggested that QM wierdness doesn't translate into the macro
> > world. I have read claims that it does, and other claims that it
doesn't.
>
> Usually it doesn't in any measurable way (that's why the disagreement
> between relativity and QM doesn't bother people as much as it might).
> But there will be some borderline where it will matter, and at some
> level it probably does matter, but in a way we have yet to be able to
> measure. So I think it's still an open question, but ultimately a
> unifying theory would be good.
>
> > I look forward to seeing the results of double slit experiments using
bigger
> > pieces. Somebody is bound to try it sooner or later. Our understanding
> > of the universe could move forward a lot faster if the researchers were
not
> > hamstrung by preconcieved notions. Most researchers are just looking
> > for ways to make QM fit into the evolution model. But it just doesn't.
>
> I don't think anyone has tried to make QM fit with evolution any more
> than with other major macro theories at this point.
I disagree. All research is done with the assumption that the universe
has always existed and that the laws of physics have always been
in place. The data is interpreted assuming this to be fact. But if
it's not fact they are barking up the wrong tree.
> I don't think
> people have seen the need. Rather, they hope someday to unify QM and
> general relativity.
>
> > The reversed rotation of many planets eliminates the famous "big
bang"
> > theory from the list of possible origins. But in a VR planets can be
made
> > to rotate any direction the programmer wants them to.
>
> It seems to me that if reversed rotation eliminated the big bang
> theory, that would have made the news.
If a spinning concentration of superdense matter explodes.
anything thrown out will be spinning in the same direction that
the original mass was spinning. This is not what we see in the
universe. This has been known for quite a while but is sidestepped
because it doesn't make sense under the evolution model which
is assumed to be fact. So instead of looking for alternative theories
they are looking for reasons why the planets don't spin like they are
supposed to given the 'assumed' fact that they started with big bang.
> I don't see how it threatens
> big bang (and big bang is certainly not contradictory to a holographic
> reality, or anything in QM). More interesting is why and what was the
> big bang, if indeed that is the creation point of the current universe
> (and of space-time itself). The Catholic church likes the Big Bang
> because it suggests that space-time is an entity that was created in
> some way.
> http://scotterb.wordpress.com
Most believers in the big bang believe that the universe has
compressed and exploded over and over again for eternity
and that it will eventually compress and explode again and
again and again. So they see this big bang not as a beginning but
as a repeating event in an endless cycle.
Og
Mike Painter
>
> If a spinning concentration of superdense matter explodes.
> anything thrown out will be spinning in the same direction that
> the original mass was spinning. This is not what we see in the
> universe. This has been known for quite a while but is sidestepped
> because it doesn't make sense under the evolution model which
> is assumed to be fact. So instead of looking for alternative theories
> they are looking for reasons why the planets don't spin like they are
> supposed to given the 'assumed' fact that they started with big bang.
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe.
As for the "spinning in the same direction" it would appear that you have
never had a basic science class or wandered through an exploratorium.
The next time you are at a track meet wacth the hammer throw.
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>If a spinning concentration of superdense matter explodes.
>anything thrown out will be spinning in the same direction that
>the original mass was spinning.
So?
> This is not what we see in the
>universe. This has been known for quite a while but is sidestepped
>because it doesn't make sense under the evolution model which
>is assumed to be fact.
Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the cosmos.
> So instead of looking for alternative theories
>they are looking for reasons why the planets don't spin like they are
>supposed to given the 'assumed' fact that they started with big bang.
The formation of planets has nothing whatsoever to do with the Big
Bang. The BB happened at least 5 billion years before the first
planets formed, and 10 billion years before the planets of our solar
system accreted.
I think you need to learn some science.
--
Bob.
TomS
<WZLdk.10338$LG4....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com>, Mike Painter stated..."
>
>Og wrote:
> >
>> If a spinning concentration of superdense matter explodes.
>> anything thrown out will be spinning in the same direction that
>> the original mass was spinning. This is not what we see in the
>> universe. This has been known for quite a while but is sidestepped
>> because it doesn't make sense under the evolution model which
>> is assumed to be fact. So instead of looking for alternative theories
>> they are looking for reasons why the planets don't spin like they are
>> supposed to given the 'assumed' fact that they started with big bang.
>
>Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe.
And why are creationists so concerned with denying the
scientific idea of a beginning in time to the universe?
Before the Big Bang was accepted, scientists generally
assumed that the universe was infinitely old. I could
understand why creationists wouldn't like that.
And what does the origin of the universe have to do with
a spinning concentration of superdense matter exploding?
>
>As for the "spinning in the same direction" it would appear that you have
>never had a basic science class or wandered through an exploratorium.
>
>The next time you are at a track meet wacth the hammer throw.
>
>
I vaguely recall that there once was a creationist argument
that was based on the rotation of the planets, but I don't
recall the details. Was it that all of the rotation of the
solar system was counter-clockwise? Or was it that there
were a couple of exceptions to the counter-clockwise
rotation (Venus and Uranus)? Creationist arguments being
what they are, they can get the same conclusion from any
premises.
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Robert Grumbine
[trim]
> I vaguely recall that there once was a creationist argument
> that was based on the rotation of the planets, but I don't
> recall the details. Was it that all of the rotation of the
> solar system was counter-clockwise? Or was it that there
> were a couple of exceptions to the counter-clockwise
> rotation (Venus and Uranus)? Creationist arguments being
> what they are, they can get the same conclusion from any
> premises.
It was the 'improbability' of the planets orbiting the sun
all in the same direction.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Scott Erb
> "On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:36:37 -0700, in article
>
>
>
> >Og wrote:
>
> >> If a spinning concentration of superdense matter explodes.
> >> anything thrown out will be spinning in the same direction that
> >> the original mass was spinning. This is not what we see in the
> >> universe. This has been known for quite a while but is sidestepped
> >> because it doesn't make sense under the evolution model which
> >> is assumed to be fact. So instead of looking for alternative theories
> >> they are looking for reasons why the planets don't spin like they are
> >> supposed to given the 'assumed' fact that they started with big bang.
>
> >Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe.
>
> And why are creationists so concerned with denying the
> scientific idea of a beginning in time to the universe?
The Catholic Church actually embraced it because a beginning to space-
time fits with their idea of a creation. The big bang is actually a
theory that can co-exist with at least some notion of creationism.
Scott Erb
> "Scott Erb" <scott...@maine.edu> wrote in message
>
>
> > pantheistic approach, with no 'master programmer' outside the game).
>
> I can't disprove the idea of us as collective programmers
> operating within the program, but it seems unlikely for a couple of
> reasons.
> 1. We can never get a result outside of what appears to be
> a predetermined set of possibilities.
Freud showed that the mind works subconsciously; we're not sure what
we can do. Also, have you ever had a dream where you know you're
dreaming? I used to do personal experiments in those dreams to try to
figure out the 'nature' of dream reality (how it functions, etc.) The
interesting thing is that one can experience a reality that we know is
just in the mind, and yet not have complete control, and often lose
ourselves in that illusion. Obviously the waking reality is different
than the dream reality, but whether or not we can be outside of it, or
if a part of us is unconsciously outside of it, well, that can't be
ruled out.
> 2. Operating from within the program we would be unable to
> add any input untill the executable were running.
There could be a level of communication (Jung called this
synchronicity) that allows us to subconsciously plan various things.
I'm not arguing that there is evidence for this -- any more than there
is evidence for a programmer. But the possibility exists. Also, one
could go the Bishop Berkeley approach and in fact consider this a
'dream' of God's. If you want to believe in a God, it probably would
be an entity totally outside our understanding (like ants are outside
ours). Moreover, it would be very likely that such a God would be
indivisible, sort of like that put forth by Plotinus:
http://scotterb.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/plotinus-and-augustine/
In that sense, we would be part of any God, not separate. For
instance, what if an entity had consciousness, and that consciousness
suddenly realized it was alone, and could conceive of another
consciousness. This "God" would be imperfect and conceive of
experience it could not have. The only way it could have it is not to
create a bunch of autonomous beings and a universe, but to actually
become multiple identities, find a way to hide that from itself, and
learn to experience interaction with other consciousness (hiding from
itself that it is all part of itself). Evolution could certainly be
part of this as well, nothing about that kind of speculation makes
evolution impossible.
> We can't make any major changes, only what's allowed us within
> the code. We seem more like sprites than avatars.
Perhaps that's something "we" chose...and maybe just as in dreams we
can have multiple identities and not realize our mind is creating
them, we might not realize the capacity of our own minds.
> > I don't think anyone has tried to make QM fit with evolution any more
> > than with other major macro theories at this point.
>
> I disagree. All research is done with the assumption that the universe
> has always existed and that the laws of physics have always been
> in place. The data is interpreted assuming this to be fact. But if
> it's not fact they are barking up the wrong tree.
I disagree. I think particle physicists and cosmologists have a view
of time that does not simply assume our psychological experience with
time. Time is in fact one of the most studied phenomena right now,
with a lot of theories out there about it's nature, and why we seem to
only experience it moving in one direction. But that no more denies
evolution than it denies the rise and fall of the Roman Empire.
> > It seems to me that if reversed rotation eliminated the big bang
> > theory, that would have made the news.
>
> If a spinning concentration of superdense matter explodes.
> anything thrown out will be spinning in the same direction that
> the original mass was spinning.
But planets didn't form that way.
> This is not what we see in the
> universe. This has been known for quite a while but is sidestepped
> because it doesn't make sense under the evolution model which
> is assumed to be fact. So instead of looking for alternative theories
> they are looking for reasons why the planets don't spin like they are
> supposed to given the 'assumed' fact that they started with big bang.
No, planets didn't start with the big bang. Planets came much later,
under different conditions. Also there is more matter than anti-
matter, another asymmetry that's difficult to explain (though
necessary for us to be here).
> > I don't see how it threatens
> > big bang (and big bang is certainly not contradictory to a holographic
> > reality, or anything in QM). More interesting is why and what was the
> > big bang, if indeed that is the creation point of the current universe
> > (and of space-time itself). The Catholic church likes the Big Bang
> > because it suggests that space-time is an entity that was created in
> > some way.
> >http://scotterb.wordpress.com
>
> Most believers in the big bang believe that the universe has
> compressed and exploded over and over again for eternity
> and that it will eventually compress and explode again and
> again and again.
That's one version, but I wouldn't say "most." Read Discover magazine
for last month or the month before, they had a fascinating story about
research into the "cause" of the big bang.
>So they see this big bang not as a beginning but
> as a repeating event in an endless cycle.
Some do. But many don't...and I think all recognize we don't have
enough data to know for sure.
alextangent
> On Jul 7, 3:16 pm, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 7, 6:40 pm, Scott Erb <scott...@maine.edu> wrote:
> > > One can find lots of oddities in modern physics -- someone zooming
> > > into a black hole will never fall in if looked at from another
> > > perspective. A photon experiences no time, only velocity (is a photon
> > > everywhere, all the time?) The universe came into existence at the
> > > big bang with time and space a product of that event. Add to that the
> > > weirdness of quantum mechanics, and it's clear our understanding of
> > > the basics, building on Galileo and Newton, but no doubt in a few
> > > hundred years our understanding today will look as primitive as
> > > Galileo's.
>
> > Neither of TO or alt.talk.creatobabble are a physics or philosophy
> > groups. Especially alt.talk.creatobabble, the residents of which group
> > still have an understanding of science that's firmly rooted in the
> > bronze age.
>
> Actually the main page of this group's faq notes that origins aren't
> just human, but could be the origin of the physical world. That would
> entail physics or QM.
>
> > Spinoza I can't comment on, but I would suspect that science has left
> > him behind too. Falling into a black hole is well understood (if
> > undesirable). A photon is not everywhere, all the time; that's a
> > misunderstanding. We're beyond Newton and Galileo, and well beyond the
> > basics. Yes, we'll look primitive in our understanding in a couple of
> > hundred years' time, but that's progress for you.
>
> My point is that from a certain perspective you'd never see someone
> pass the event horizon, even though it's instantaneous from the
> perspective of the person involved. It's a bit weird.
It might appear weird to you. To me it doesn't. It doesn't to lots of
other people either. So how does "weird" advance your argument that
our understanding of the universe is weak? Or that there are lots of
oddities in modern physics?
Did you mean incomplete? That I will agree.
> And I'm not
> sure what I mean by a misunderstanding of the photon. I didn't mean
> everywhere, all the time, literally. But from its perspective it does
> not experience time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldline might help you visualise why
such a statement doesn't have any real "meaning".
>
> > > Thus, evolution can't be disproven by QM, since the puzzles show only
> > > that our theory has gaps and uncertainties.
>
> > Non-sequitur. QM and evolution are pretty far removed (unless you're
> > Roger Penrose, and there aren't many that subscribe to his QM
> > interpretation of mind). What gaps and uncertainties are there in QM
> > or evolutionary theory?
>
> There are many uncertainties in both, I suspect. QM has the biggie --
> can it be unified with relativity?
QM and Special Relativity have been unified in QED (quantum
electrodynamics). General relativity is the problem here.
> Science progresses (which is why
> it does better than the religious fundies who want to define reality
> according to their belief and not change it regardless of evidence).
> No one would now say Darwin's view of evolution was accurate in its
> detail. But his work was built upon.
>
> > > Unless we can find a way
> > > to test these better, nothing in QM can truly undercut existing
> > > scientific knowledge.
>
> > That's 100% nonsense. QM is an existing scientific theory that
> > explains the facts, so how can it undercut scientific knowledge?
>
> You misread what I wrote. Nothing in QM can undercut scientific
> knowledge. You are agreeing with me, so you can't really think it's
> non-sense.
>
> QM at least allows us to predict. Does it explain facts? I'm not
> sure you can make that claim.
Eh? If it can make predictions, and the observed facts fit the
predictions, then it explains the facts. I'm sure. A theory that
doesn't explain the observed facts is like creationism; useless. You
seem to have some problem with explanations that appear counter-
intuitive. Unfortunately, that's QM for you.
>
> > Especially in an area where it has no application.
>
> Isn't that my point?
>
> > > In fact, to use it to argue against evolution
> > > only works if you use QM to provide extreme skepticism to all
> > > knowledge. That can be done,
>
> > No it can't.
>
> Sure it can. Skepticism is alive and well, even if most people reject
> it. It can be done, but most people don't think it makes much sense.
I'm lost at this point.
>
> > > but unless we have a sense of where that
> > > leads or why we should do it, it makes no sense to throw out science
> > > as now understood (even though we know that science as now understood
> > > is for this moment in history; our scientific knowledge will certainly
> > > change over time).
>
> > One may personally have problems with both QM and evolution, but the
> > universe doesn't care. It still keeps rollin' along, generating all
> > these observations that both theories explain.
>
> Evolution is much stronger than QM due to the nature of the evidence
> at hand, and the maturity of the theory. QM still isn't well
> explained. The Copenhagen approach is increasingly under question.
O lord. The Copenhagen interpretation is just that; an interpretation.
It isn't a theory, QM is the theory. And QM is mature, explains with
astonishing accuracy, and makes predictions too. It's one of 20th
century physics crowning glories.
>
> > > My read: this notion that observation is necessary to actualize the
> > > existence of a matter particle (which itself is only a ripple in a
> > > field), if true, suggests that all we have is a probabilistic
> > > universe. Perhaps consciousness 'experiences' a certain probable
> > > reality and that's what this game is all about. But it's speculative
> > > at this point.
>
> > Yes, very. You're confused between mind and observer.
>
> Not at all. You seem a bit dogmatic here, I'm considering
> possibilities that are currently outside our scope of testing. They
> may or may not be true, that's speculative. But a lot remains still
> outside science, and speculation is allowed in those cases.
Yes, but you posit a consciousness (mind) that generates reality. Do
dogs have that ability? Sponges? Bacteria? Cameras? Slits?
>
> > > It could just be that we don't understand why it is
> > > that we need to observe something to change it's state, or we could be
> > > over-emphasizing the flux of the state, attributing something to
> > > observation which actually is related to another attribute of the
> > > particle that we do not understand.
>
> > If you mean hidden variables, there aren't any. Reality, I'm afraid,
> > is just like QM says it is.
>
> A lot of people have made claims like that over the centuries, only to
> find that future discoveries show that there are other variables,
> hidden only because science was not yet able to find them. Again,
> good science avoids dogmatism, and always accepts that unexpected
> finds might alter the theory. You're veering away from a scientific
> perspective there; don't start to mimic your religious foes!
I think you need to read up a bit on QM, There is no religion
required. Hidden variable theories (and there are a number) don't
explain the observations. As theories, they're duds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem.
>
> >That's because /it explains to a high
> > degree of accuracy what we see/. And what is a "flux of state" please?
>
> I can't fathom why you think QM explains. I don't know physicists who
> would make that claim. It can predict now.
I can't fathom why you think QM doesn't explain what we observe. A
subtlety of language I'm not getting here, I suspect. Talk to a
physicist sometime.
> By flux I mean the
> uncertainty before observation; the fact that QM deals with
> probabilities, and has interesting aspects like non-locality
> (instantaneous effect far from the particle, which seems impossible by
> usual laws of physics),
Pay attention here. It was the "usual laws of physics". QM predicted
it before it was observed experimentally in 1969.
> and quantum tunneling (theoretically you could
> pass through a wall -- though the probability is so miniscule as to be
> practically impossible).
>
> > > IOW, interesting, humbling (modern physics shows how limited our
> > > current understanding of reality is),
>
> > I can't see that. Do you think QM is not explainable or understandable
> > in philosophical terms, and hence it's a poor theory, or not
> > understandable? Humility can only be the result of your knowledge, in
> > that /you/ don't understand it. It's not the result of QM, which
> > explains how things work -- reality -- very well indeed.
>
> QM does not explain, that's part of the issue here. It simply gives
> useful predictions. How it works and why, that's NOT known. In fact,
> most physicists expect that we need to solve the issue of a unified
> field theory before we can approach that. This leaves the door wide
> open to speculations (e.g., the Deutsch "many worlds" theory which
> says there are infinite parallel universes for each quantum
> probability) and other apparently bizarre theories from scientists.
> You seem to think QM is something it is not.
You don't know the first thing about QM I suspect.
>
> > > but not enough to simply reject
> > > the science we have. Time and space may be "simultaneous," but unless
> > > we can figure out what that means for our world, I think we need to
> > > deal with the temporal sequence with which this reality seems to
> > > unfold.http://scotterb.wordpress.com
>
> > That I'm afraid is just nonsense. What on earth are you trying to say
> > here?
>
> Modern physics seems space-time as unified and as an entity (not the
> old Newtonian view of space as the stage and time as units that
> pass). That's hard for us to grasp, given our psychological
> experience of space time as separate.http://scotterb.wordpress.com
Only if you don't understand the physics.
>
> > --
> > Regards
> > Alex McDonald
>
>
Mike Painter
<snip>
> Only if you don't understand the physics.
>
Sorry, you had an extra word in there. It should have read,
"Only if you don't understand physics."
>>
>>> --
>>> Regards
>>> Alex McDonald
Paul J Gans
>More experiments are definitly needed.
No, what is needed is that you learn a bit of quantum mechanics
before you start bloviating using it.
[...]
>I disagree. All research is done with the assumption that the universe
>has always existed and that the laws of physics have always been
>in place. The data is interpreted assuming this to be fact. But if
>it's not fact they are barking up the wrong tree.
This is wrong.
alextangent
wrote:
Yes. Thanks for the correction.
--
Regards
Alex McDonald
Scott Erb
> On Jul 8, 3:26 am, Scott Erb <scott...@maine.edu> wrote:
>
>
> It might appear weird to you. To me it doesn't. It doesn't to lots of
> other people either.
And many physicists specializing in it think it's very weird.
>So how does "weird" advance your argument that
> our understanding of the universe is weak? Or that there are lots of
> oddities in modern physics?
There are a lot of uncertainties and puzzles that need to be solved.
Arrogance that we understand most things is always misplaced.
> Did you mean incomplete? That I will agree.
Who knows, there could be revolutionary theories. It happens at
various points in the history of science. Do you think we've reached
a point where it won't happen again? I suspect in 500 years our
knowledge of today will look like Galileo would look to us. Some real
promising moves, but a lot of things wrong or mistaken.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldlinemight help you visualise why
> such a statement doesn't have any real "meaning".
I got the wording from a physics professor. I'll ask him.
> > There are many uncertainties in both, I suspect. QM has the biggie --
> > can it be unified with relativity?
>
> QM and Special Relativity have been unified in QED (quantum
> electrodynamics). General relativity is the problem here.
QED is now really the Electro Weak theory. And, of course, not only
isn't it a grand unified theory, but it relies on things like
renormalization and other quirks. Particle physics as well doesn't
explain, it describes, and that's where we are with a lot of this.
And the renormalizing works great, but seems sort of like cheating.
> > QM at least allows us to predict. Does it explain facts? I'm not
> > sure you can make that claim.
>
> Eh? If it can make predictions, and the observed facts fit the
> predictions, then it explains the facts.
NO! All that does is predict. Explanation is why something works.
The Standard Model of particle physics predicts and describes, but
does not explain why those things work.
>I'm sure. A theory that
> doesn't explain the observed facts is like creationism; useless.
Well duh. But that's setting the bar kind of low.
>You
> seem to have some problem with explanations that appear counter-
> intuitive. Unfortunately, that's QM for you.
You seem so set on insult mode that you don't even take the time to
try to understand the other person's perspective. Sheesh.
> O lord. The Copenhagen interpretation is just that; an interpretation.
> It isn't a theory, QM is the theory. And QM is mature, explains with
> astonishing accuracy, and makes predictions too. It's one of 20th
> century physics crowning glories.
And most studying it would say there is a lot more to know, that it
has more puzzles and incompletions than most. Of course it's a
crowning glory, but you seem to think it explains nature and doesn't
have a vast variety of uncertainties. I just read "The Fabric of the
Cosmos" by Brian Greene. He, and other people knee deep in
theoretical physics would probably disagree with you.
> Yes, but you posit a consciousness (mind) that generates reality.
Do
> dogs have that ability? Sponges? Bacteria? Cameras? Slits?
Where do I do that? What precisely are you reacting to? When did I
claim that?
> > A lot of people have made claims like that over the centuries, only to
> > find that future discoveries show that there are other variables,
> > hidden only because science was not yet able to find them. Again,
> > good science avoids dogmatism, and always accepts that unexpected
> > finds might alter the theory. You're veering away from a scientific
> > perspective there; don't start to mimic your religious foes!
> ...
> I think you need to read up a bit on QM, There is no religion
> required. Hidden variable theories (and there are a number) don't
> explain the observations. As theories, they're duds.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem.
Who said there is religion required? I'm just noting you're a bit
over the top in trying to say all is explained and pretending there
are no oddities that open up the possibility of interpretations you
might not like. You're being as dogmatic as a creationist. Your
mentality looks more like theirs. I'm approaching this with an
emphasis on science, agnosticism, and an open mind.
> I can't fathom why you think QM doesn't explain what we observe. A
> subtlety of language I'm not getting here, I suspect. Talk to a
> physicist sometime.
I have -- and read a lot. And they admit that there is a difference
between description and prediction on the one hand, and explanation on
the other.
> > By flux I mean the
> > uncertainty before observation; the fact that QM deals with
> > probabilities, and has interesting aspects like non-locality
> > (instantaneous effect far from the particle, which seems impossible by
> > usual laws of physics),
>
> Pay attention here. It was the "usual laws of physics". QM predicted
> it before it was observed experimentally in 1969.
Predicted the possibility. And what are the implications, why does it
happen? That's where you need explanation. There are a lot of
speculations, from Deutsch's many worlds theory to other interesting
thoughts about time and the nature of reality (such as the holographic
quantum gravity theory and holographic universe). You are the one who
needs to read up on this more, it seems!
> You don't know the first thing about QM I suspect.
Given the level of description about QM both of us are engaged in,
your insults seems desparate, like you're frustrated and don't know
what to say. Rather than just slide into insult mode and attack,
without apparently taking the other position seriously, I strongly
suggest you read and try to engage.
TimK
"Nick Keighley" <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b4ce982-51a7-4632...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Ah yes, fridges - I remember dropping that little f-bomb on a fundy and his
answer was that fridges didn't break the Second Law because they were
machines made by man - as if that were some sort of exemption. Even when I
suggested he unplug it to see how long it went on breaking the Second Law he
held to it that it was because it was a man-made machine.
Priceless...
Earle Jones
<533ab419-1488-47db...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Nick Keighley <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
*
As an optical engineer experienced in holography, I think it's a
bullshit extension of a concept about which you know nothing.
"The universe as a hologram" makes as much sense as "the brain as a
hologram", or any other such illiterate crap.
A hologram is a hologram. It is a two-dimensional recording using
coherent light to preserve both the amplitude and phase of an image.
With proper reconstruction techniques, one can show what appears to be a
three-dimensional image.
No more, no less.
The most successful application of holography is that little eagle on
your credit card, which is used there because it is a bit difficult to
copy.
Please stop co-opting scientific sounding words in the attempt to try to
sound like you know what you are talking about.
You don't.
earle
*
Scott Erb
> In article
> <533ab419-1488-47db-b299-06f9e70ca...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> As an optical engineer experienced in holography, I think it's a
> bullshit extension of a concept about which you know nothing.
>
> "The universe as a hologram" makes as much sense as "the brain as a
> hologram", or any other such illiterate crap.
I suspect Pribram, who has won a Nobel prize, knows more about this
than you. You are obviously a very ignorant person, dismissing ideas
because they don't conform with your biases.
Hmmmm, a Nobel prize winner or some usenet commentator. One says the
brain functions like a hologram and the universe could operate under
such principles (along with physicists who have similar theories, such
as quantum gravity), or some usenet crank like "Earle Jones." Sorry,
Earle, you simply don't measure up. You are the illiterate (piece of)
crap.
http://scotterb.wordpress.com
Earle Jones
"Og" <O...@bashan.net> wrote:
*
If you have some evidence that the laws of physics were different at
some time in the past, please present it here.
Otherwise, go on the assumption that the laws are the same now as they
were in the past.
earle
*
"A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again."
--Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744)
Do you understand the meaning of Pope's guidance?
Hint: The 'Pierian Spring' is the fountain of knowledge.
Paul J Gans
>No more, no less.
>You don't.
>earle
>*
I think you're responding to the wrong person. It wasn't
Nick Keighley who used the term "holograph" as if it was
the secret of the universe.
Paul J Gans
But the laws of physics *can* be tested to see if they have changed.
As a trivial example one can look at the spectrum of "old" hydrogen.
We know how old it is from its redshift. If the fundamental
constants have changed over time, it would show up.
Of course one test doesn't prove too much, but there are a number
of other ways that ancient physics can be checked. And there
have been occasional reports of slight variations.
Whether that amounts to anything is yet to be decided.
Earle Jones
*
Paul: Sorry! It wasn't aimed at Nick Keighley-- it was aimed at
whoever signs himself "Og".
earle
*
alextangent
> On Jul 11, 5:43 pm, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 8, 3:26 am, Scott Erb <scott...@maine.edu> wrote:
>
> > It might appear weird to you. To me it doesn't. It doesn't to lots of
> > other people either.
>
> And many physicists specializing in it think it's very weird.
OK, so be it. <shrug>
>
> >So how does "weird" advance your argument that
> > our understanding of the universe is weak? Or that there are lots of
> > oddities in modern physics?
>
> There are a lot of uncertainties and puzzles that need to be solved.
> Arrogance that we understand most things is always misplaced.
Thanks for the reminder. OK, you don't do arrogance, but do you do
clarity? Or specifics?
>
> > Did you mean incomplete? That I will agree.
>
> Who knows, there could be revolutionary theories. It happens at
> various points in the history of science. Do you think we've reached
> a point where it won't happen again? I suspect in 500 years our
> knowledge of today will look like Galileo would look to us. Some real
> promising moves, but a lot of things wrong or mistaken.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldlinemighthelp you visualise why
> > such a statement doesn't have any real "meaning".
>
> I got the wording from a physics professor. I'll ask him.
>
> > > There are many uncertainties in both, I suspect. QM has the biggie --
> > > can it be unified with relativity?
>
> > QM and Special Relativity have been unified in QED (quantum
> > electrodynamics). General relativity is the problem here.
>
> QED is now really the Electro Weak theory.
Eeek! Where did you get that from?
> And, of course, not only
> isn't it a grand unified theory, but it relies on things like
> renormalization and other quirks. Particle physics as well doesn't
> explain, it describes, and that's where we are with a lot of this.
> And the renormalizing works great, but seems sort of like cheating.
>
> > > QM at least allows us to predict. Does it explain facts? I'm not
> > > sure you can make that claim.
>
> > Eh? If it can make predictions, and the observed facts fit the
> > predictions, then it explains the facts.
>
> NO! All that does is predict. Explanation is why something works.
> The Standard Model of particle physics predicts and describes, but
> does not explain why those things work.
>
> >I'm sure. A theory that
> > doesn't explain the observed facts is like creationism; useless.
>
> Well duh. But that's setting the bar kind of low.
Actually, it's the acid test of all theories. It doesn't have a
specific height.
>
> >You
> > seem to have some problem with explanations that appear counter-
> > intuitive. Unfortunately, that's QM for you.
>
> You seem so set on insult mode that you don't even take the time to
> try to understand the other person's perspective. Sheesh.
Honestly, I wish I could, but you're just wittering on and throwing
out stuff like this.
>
> > O lord. The Copenhagen interpretation is just that; an interpretation.
> > It isn't a theory, QM is the theory. And QM is mature, explains with
> > astonishing accuracy, and makes predictions too. It's one of 20th
> > century physics crowning glories.
>
> And most studying it would say there is a lot more to know, that it
> has more puzzles and incompletions than most. Of course it's a
> crowning glory, but you seem to think it explains nature and doesn't
> have a vast variety of uncertainties. I just read "The Fabric of the
> Cosmos" by Brian Greene. He, and other people knee deep in
> theoretical physics would probably disagree with you.
>
> > Yes, but you posit a consciousness (mind) that generates reality.
> Do
>
> > dogs have that ability? Sponges? Bacteria? Cameras? Slits?
>
> Where do I do that? What precisely are you reacting to? When did I
> claim that?
In the bit you cut.
--------
My read: this notion that observation is necessary to actualize the
existence of a matter particle (which itself is only a ripple in a
field), if true, suggests that all we have is a probabilistic
universe. Perhaps consciousness 'experiences' a certain probable
reality and that's what this game is all about. But it's speculative
at this point. It could just be that we don't understand why it is
that we need to observe something to change it's state, or we could be
over-emphasizing the flux of the state, attributing something to
observation which actually is related to another attribute of the
particle that we do not understand.
--------
It helps not to over-snip.
>
> > > A lot of people have made claims like that over the centuries, only to
> > > find that future discoveries show that there are other variables,
> > > hidden only because science was not yet able to find them. Again,
> > > good science avoids dogmatism, and always accepts that unexpected
> > > finds might alter the theory. You're veering away from a scientific
> > > perspective there; don't start to mimic your religious foes!
> > ...
> > I think you need to read up a bit on QM, There is no religion
> > required. Hidden variable theories (and there are a number) don't
> > explain the observations. As theories, they're duds.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem.
>
> Who said there is religion required? I'm just noting you're a bit
> over the top in trying to say all is explained and pretending there
> are no oddities that open up the possibility of interpretations you
> might not like. You're being as dogmatic as a creationist. Your
> mentality looks more like theirs. I'm approaching this with an
> emphasis on science, agnosticism, and an open mind.
You're approaching it like some new-age philosopher in my book.
>
> > I can't fathom why you think QM doesn't explain what we observe. A
> > subtlety of language I'm not getting here, I suspect. Talk to a
> > physicist sometime.
>
> I have -- and read a lot. And they admit that there is a difference
> between description and prediction on the one hand, and explanation on
> the other.
So what explains the ultraviolet catastrophe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe.
>
> > > By flux I mean the
> > > uncertainty before observation; the fact that QM deals with
> > > probabilities, and has interesting aspects like non-locality
> > > (instantaneous effect far from the particle, which seems impossible by
> > > usual laws of physics),
>
> > Pay attention here. It was the "usual laws of physics". QM predicted
> > it before it was observed experimentally in 1969.
>
> Predicted the possibility. And what are the implications, why does it
> happen? That's where you need explanation. There are a lot of
> speculations, from Deutsch's many worlds theory to other interesting
> thoughts about time and the nature of reality (such as the holographic
> quantum gravity theory and holographic universe). You are the one who
> needs to read up on this more, it seems!
>
> > You don't know the first thing about QM I suspect.
>
> Given the level of description about QM both of us are engaged in,
> your insults seems desparate, like you're frustrated and don't know
> what to say. Rather than just slide into insult mode and attack,
> without apparently taking the other position seriously, I strongly
> suggest you read and try to engage.
Oh fuck off, you pompous prat. Say something that doesn't look like a
lot of handwaving about the nature of science, and QM in particular.
Stop speculating and using big words you don't understand, like
"Holographic quantum gravity theory". You can't even get your head
around the basics; according to you, even this is "an oddity";
<quote>
"someone zooming into a black hole will never fall in if looked at
from another perspective"
</quote>
>
> http://scotterb.wordpress.com
--
Alex McDonald
Scott Erb
> On Jul 12, 1:39 am, Scott Erb <scott...@maine.edu> wrote:
> > QED is now really the Electro Weak theory.
>
> Eeek! Where did you get that from?
Electro Weak theory subsumed QED when the weak force was unified with
electro-magnetism. QED is still used, but it's really part of the
larger theory.
> > > Yes, but you posit a consciousness (mind) that generates reality.
> > Do
>
> > > dogs have that ability? Sponges? Bacteria? Cameras? Slits?
>
> > Where do I do that? What precisely are you reacting to? When did I
> > claim that?
>
> In the bit you cut.
First, that is speculation not a posit. Second, it isn't
consciousness that creates reality below, but choses which probable
reality (which quantum probability) to experience. But that's just
playful speculation, it's not positing anything any true.
> My read: this notion that observation is necessary to actualize the
> existence of a matter particle (which itself is only a ripple in a
> field), if true, suggests that all we have is a probabilistic
> universe. Perhaps consciousness 'experiences' a certain probable
> reality and that's what this game is all about. But it's speculative
> at this point. It could just be that we don't understand why it is
> that we need to observe something to change it's state, or we could be
> over-emphasizing the flux of the state, attributing something to
> observation which actually is related to another attribute of the
> particle that we do not understand.
> --------
>
> It helps not to over-snip.
> > > You don't know the first thing about QM I suspect.
>
> > Given the level of description about QM both of us are engaged in,
> > your insults seems desparate, like you're frustrated and don't know
> > what to say. Rather than just slide into insult mode and attack,
> > without apparently taking the other position seriously, I strongly
> > suggest you read and try to engage.
>
> Oh fuck off, you pompous prat.
You seem very ill tempered, but you have more insult than argument.
You haven't denied anything I've said, I don't think you understand
QM, and you seem to dislike anything that questions the possibility
that a dogmatic materialist explanation of reality is all that is
allowed. I just don't think you have a logical approach to this, you
treat materialism sort of like a religion..
>Say something that doesn't look like a
> lot of handwaving about the nature of science, and QM in particular.
You're the one with a dogmatic view, I'm exploring possibilities of
what things mean. If you don't like that, fine. If you feel you have
to insult people who think differently than you, then that's your
problem, not mine.
> Stop speculating and using big words you don't understand, like
> "Holographic quantum gravity theory". You can't even get your head
> around the basics; according to you, even this is "an oddity";
Except, of course, I do understand and you know it. You're just
blabbering. You're engaging in the kind of thinking and argumentation
I work hard to make sure my students learn to avoid. I'm sorry you
didn't learn that lesson at some point yourself.
cheers,
scott
http://scotterb.wordpress.com
Scott Erb
no argument against my points -- you seem very upset that I sound "new
agey." Because I don't take your dogmatic materialism and consider
possibilities that are speculative and perhaps see a spiritual side of
life, your alarm bells ring, even though I'm not Christian, and I
believe the theory of evolution is a well confirmed and powerful
theory.
I thought about your visceral response, and had to recall one of the
geniuses of the 17th century, Blaise Pascal, who gave up science for
fideism. Pascal's genius may have rivaled Newton's (he's often
credited with creating the first computer, hence an early computer
language was named after him). So, if you're interested in perhaps
trying to think about where I'm coming from on this -- why I reject
dogmatic materialism just as strongly as I reject dogmatic religion,
my blog entry today is on Pascal and that issue:
http://scotterb.wordpress.com/2008/07/13/pascals-wager/
Og
> On Jul 11, 10:56 am, "Og" <O...@bashan.net> wrote:
> > "Scott Erb" <scott...@maine.edu> wrote in message
> >
> >
> > > Indeed, we could be collective programmers (sort of a
> > > pantheistic approach, with no 'master programmer' outside the game).
> >
> > I can't disprove the idea of us as collective programmers
> > operating within the program, but it seems unlikely for a couple of
> > reasons.
> > 1. We can never get a result outside of what appears to be
> > a predetermined set of possibilities.
>
> Freud showed that the mind works subconsciously; we're not sure what
> we can do. Also, have you ever had a dream where you know you're
> dreaming? I used to do personal experiments in those dreams to try to
> figure out the 'nature' of dream reality (how it functions, etc.) The
> interesting thing is that one can experience a reality that we know is
> just in the mind, and yet not have complete control, and often lose
> ourselves in that illusion. Obviously the waking reality is different
> than the dream reality, but whether or not we can be outside of it, or
> if a part of us is unconsciously outside of it, well, that can't be
> ruled out.
Yes I have had dreams in which I realized I was dreaming.
I also did experiments. Only my experiments were to see
how much control I could exert over the imaginary reality
of the dream. I found that I could exert quite a bit, but the
more control I exerted over the dream the more likely I was
to wake up. There have been experiments to see If anyone
could exert a similar control over the waking world, such
as attempts to move odjects with the human mind. To my
knowledge none have been succesful.
This suggests to me that a dream reality and the waking
reality are two differint things. If the universe is a VR then
the code appears to be write protected.
> > 2. Operating from within the program we would be unable to
> > add any input untill the executable were running.
>
> There could be a level of communication (Jung called this
> synchronicity) that allows us to subconsciously plan various things.
> I'm not arguing that there is evidence for this -- any more than there
> is evidence for a programmer. But the possibility exists. Also, one
> could go the Bishop Berkeley approach and in fact consider this a
> 'dream' of God's. If you want to believe in a God, it probably would
> be an entity totally outside our understanding (like ants are outside
> ours). Moreover, it would be very likely that such a God would be
> indivisible, sort of like that put forth by Plotinus:
> http://scotterb.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/plotinus-and-augustine/
> In that sense, we would be part of any God, not separate. For
> instance, what if an entity had consciousness, and that consciousness
> suddenly realized it was alone, and could conceive of another
> consciousness. This "God" would be imperfect and conceive of
> experience it could not have. The only way it could have it is not to
> create a bunch of autonomous beings and a universe, but to actually
> become multiple identities, find a way to hide that from itself, and
> learn to experience interaction with other consciousness (hiding from
> itself that it is all part of itself). Evolution could certainly be
> part of this as well, nothing about that kind of speculation makes
> evolution impossible.
Basically what you've just described is a variation of the
gnostic religion. It's an old religion. As old as christianity
at least. What is called 'new age' religion is basically
recycled gnosticism. I can't prove that this view is false
but I have reason to believe that it is. I won't get into
that here. Such a discussion belongs in religious newsgroup.
> > We can't make any major changes, only what's allowed us within
> > the code. We seem more like sprites than avatars.
>
> Perhaps that's something "we" chose...and maybe just as in dreams we
> can have multiple identities and not realize our mind is creating
> them, we might not realize the capacity of our own minds.
>
> > > I don't think anyone has tried to make QM fit with evolution any more
> > > than with other major macro theories at this point.
> >
> > I disagree. All research is done with the assumption that the universe
> > has always existed and that the laws of physics have always been
> > in place. The data is interpreted assuming this to be fact. But if
> > it's not fact they are barking up the wrong tree.
>
> I disagree. I think particle physicists and cosmologists have a view
> of time that does not simply assume our psychological experience with
> time. Time is in fact one of the most studied phenomena right now,
> with a lot of theories out there about it's nature, and why we seem to
> only experience it moving in one direction.
It's possible we are experiencing time moving only in
one direction because that's the way the program was
written to operate. I am not claiming any proof of this
but it fits into the VR model.
> But that no more denies
> evolution than it denies the rise and fall of the Roman Empire.
>
> > > It seems to me that if reversed rotation eliminated the big bang
> > > theory, that would have made the news.
> >
> > If a spinning concentration of superdense matter explodes.
> > anything thrown out will be spinning in the same direction that
> > the original mass was spinning.
>
> But planets didn't form that way.
I don't think they did either but most of the evolutionists
that I have talked to believe that all matter in the universe
was formed by this bang or at least by the events set in
motion by this bang.
> > This is not what we see in the
> > universe. This has been known for quite a while but is sidestepped
> > because it doesn't make sense under the evolution model which
> > is assumed to be fact. So instead of looking for alternative theories
> > they are looking for reasons why the planets don't spin like they are
> > supposed to given the 'assumed' fact that they started with big bang.
>
> No, planets didn't start with the big bang. Planets came much later,
> under different conditions. Also there is more matter than anti-
> matter, another asymmetry that's difficult to explain (though
> necessary for us to be here).
We really don't know if there is any anti matter.
> > > I don't see how it threatens
> > > big bang (and big bang is certainly not contradictory to a holographic
> > > reality, or anything in QM). More interesting is why and what was the
> > > big bang, if indeed that is the creation point of the current universe
> > > (and of space-time itself). The Catholic church likes the Big Bang
> > > because it suggests that space-time is an entity that was created in
> > > some way.
> > >http://scotterb.wordpress.com
> >
> > Most believers in the big bang believe that the universe has
> > compressed and exploded over and over again for eternity
> > and that it will eventually compress and explode again and
> > again and again.
>
> That's one version, but I wouldn't say "most." Read Discover magazine
> for last month or the month before, they had a fascinating story about
> research into the "cause" of the big bang.
>
> >So they see this big bang not as a beginning but
> > as a repeating event in an endless cycle.
>
> Some do. But many don't...and I think all recognize we don't have
> enough data to know for sure.
All the ones I have spoken to except you firmly oppose
the idea that the universe had a beginning.
Og
alextangent
You're a slippery one!
To quote you (since so much has been snipped) "I can't fathom why you
think QM explains. I don't know physicists who would make that
claim. It can predict now."
So what explains the ultraviolet catastrophe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe. And the reason
for my "visceral" response is your peculiar approach to answering this
question about your statement that QM doesn't explain (and that many
physicists of your acquaintance support your position). I see Jung,
Freud, Spinoza, Berkeley and now Pascal from you in this thread; it's
an impressive list, but still no Erb.
What does Erb think? Do other theories explain? Does QM (and it's
offspring) stand alone in its lack of explanatory power?
--
Alex McDonald
Earle Jones
"Og" <O...@bashan.net> wrote:
*
That is exactly like saying, "Most of the carpenters I have talked to
believe that all matter in the universe was formed by this bang..."
Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the big bang.
Evolution is a process that works on living forms and accounts for the
observed diversity in those forms.
earle
*
Desertphile
Rev Kent Hovind is the clown who constantly spewed the "Spinning
in the same direction" assertion. He claimed that the conservation
of angular momentum dictates that every body in the universe spin
in the same direction on the same axis, pointing in the same
direction.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Ernest Major
<42a385ce-7930-4782...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
alextangent <bl...@rivadpm.com> writes
>> QED is now really the Electro Weak theory.
>
>Eeek! Where did you get that from?
Glashow, Salam and Weinberg were awarded the 1979 Nobel Prize for
unifying QED with the theory of the weak interaction, producing the
"ElectroWeak Theory". Successful predictions of the theory include weak
neutral currents and the existence of the Z and W bosons.
--
alias Ernest Major
RichD
> > How is this possible? Was a decision made today
> > somehow going back in time to influence the result of an
> > experiment performed yesterday? Or was the decision that
> > we made today already locked in by the result of yesterdays
> > experiment? Or did the pattern on the back wall not exist
> > untill a decision was made to read the data or delete it?
> It is well known that even the potential of observation causes the
> wave function to collapse.
>
> In fact, if true, it would allow signaling into the past.
It is true.
It does not allow sigaling into the past.
--
Rich
RichD
> Freud showed that the mind works subconsciously;
No, he didn't. He interpreted dreams, like witch
doctors have been doing for thousands of years.
It's science, like tea leaf reading...
There is no scientific evidence for any 'subconscious'.
--
Rich
RichD
> > Now it turns out that the two slit experiment has been taken
> > a step further and the results are even more amazing.
> > ......
> > As many times as the experiments were performed,
> > the action of today always matched the pattern that
> > was formed on the back wall yesterday.
> > How is this possible? Was a decision made today
> > somehow going back in time to influence the result of an
> > experiment performed yesterday? Or was the decision that
> > we made today already locked in by the result of yesterdays
> > experiment? Or did the pattern on the back wall not exist
> > untill a decision was made to read the data or delete it?
>
> everything we know about quantum mechanics.
No, it's predicted by quantum mechanics.
Hence the point of the experiment.
> Do you have any reference?
It's done, reported in Physical Review.
> > All tests performed thus far indicate that all matter operates
> > this way no matter how big the pieces. That is to say no matter
> > exists untill someone odserves it.
>
> Not really.
Yes really. The moon isn't there until
someone looks. I don't care how much
it boggles your mind, it's science.
> > If no matter exists before someone observes it then
> > the universe couldn't exist untill humans evolved to a
> > level of self awareness.
>
> What is an observer? Is a chimp an observer?
> What about a fish? Or a bacterium?
This is unknown.
I don't know of any way to test it.
But it does imply that the Big Bang didn't
occur until somebody looked into the heavens.
Another way to think of it, is that time is
an illusion; everything happens all at once,
so to speak...
Spare me your emotional expostulations.
That is the logical implication of delayed choice.
> > Are our observations today somehow going back in time and
> > causing our past?
>
> I can't think of any way of testing this statement.
Delayed choice has been experimentally
verified. Causality is independent of time
sequence.
> And anyway, what does it have to do with evolution?
Nothing. Grog is a twit.
Still, that doesn't justify ignorance...
"I never head of that, I can't imagine it,
therefore it can't be true!!!!!"
--
Rich
Vince Morgan
"RichD" <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:23fdf94f-5d61-4f62...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
Actually, I do care. A perfectly (I suppose) good mind lost entirely.
And we didn't exist until the moon saw us first?
Get a mind.
Vince Morgan
news:23fdf94f-5d61-4f62...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
Yes, the science of boggled minds
Vince Morgan
"RichD" <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:23fdf94f-5d61-4f62...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
But, you just know that the magic thread is actually real. The emperor is
actually naked dude.