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

Jul 22, 2010
When waves - regardless of whether light or sound - collide, they overlap creating interferences. Austrian and Canadian quantum physicists have now been able to rule out the existence of higher-order interferences experimentally and thereby confirmed an axiom in quantum physics: Born’s rule. Copyright: IQC

(PhysOrg.com) -- When waves -- regardless of whether light or sound -- collide, they overlap creating interferences. Austrian and Canadian quantum physicists have now been able to rule out the existence of higher-order interferences experimentally and thereby confirmed an axiom in quantum physics: Born's rule. They have published their findings in the scientific journal Science.

In many propositions are made in probabilities. In 1926 German physicist Max Born postulated that the probability to find a quantum object at a certain place at a certain time equals the square of its wave function. A direct consequence of this rule is the as shown in the double slit diffraction experiment.

Born's rule is one of the key laws in quantum mechanics and it proposes that interference occurs in pairs of possibilities. Interferences of higher order are ruled out. There was no experimental verification of this proposition until now, when the research group led by Prof. Gregor Weihs from the University of Innsbruck and the University of Waterloo has confirmed the accuracy of Born’s law in a triple-slit experiment.

"The existence of third-order interference terms would have tremendous theoretical repercussions - it would shake quantum mechanics to the core," says Weihs. The impetus for this experiment was the suggestion made by physicists to generalize either quantum mechanics or gravitation - the two pillars of modern physics - to achieve unification, thereby arriving at a one all-encompassing theory. "Our experiment thwarts these efforts once again," explains Gregor Weihs.

Triple-slit experiment

Gregor Weihs - Professor of Photonics at the University of Innsbruck - and his team are investigating new light sources to be used for transmitting . He developed a single-photon source, which served as the basis for testing Born's rule. Photons were sent through a steel membrane mask which has three micrometer sized slits cut into it. Measurements were performed with the slits closed individually resulting in eight independent slit combinations. The data taken was then used to calculate whether Born’s rule applies.

"In principle, this experiment is very simple," says Gregor Weihs “and we were quite surprised to find that nobody hadn’t performed this experiment before." However, the physicists were struggling with measurement errors, which they were eventually able to overcome during their two year long Sisyphean task. "Our measurements show that we can rule out the existence of third-order interference up to a certain bound," says a happy experimental physicist Weihs. His next step will be to considerably lower the bound with an improved experiment.

Master of light particles

The experiment was performed at the Institute for Quantum Computing at the University of Waterloo in Canada, where Prof. Gregor Weihs worked before his appointment at the University of Innsbruck. Since 2008 he has been setting up his own research group at the Institute for Experimental Physics in Innsbruck, Austria, which now comprises twelve group members. The group, whose members come from all over the world, investigates the development of novel single-photon sources and entangled photon pairs from semiconductor nanostructures. The researcher’s ultimate goal is to integrate quantum optical experiments with functions on semiconductor chips.

Explore further: Interview with Gerhard Rempe about the fascination of and prospects for quantum information technology

More information: Ruling out Multi-Order Interference in Quantum Mechanics. Urbasi Sinha, Christophe Couteau, Thomas Jenewein, Raymond Laflamme and Gregor Weihs. Science 23.7.2010. dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1190545

Provided by University of Innsbruck

4.8 /5 (43 votes)

Related Stories

Quantum measurements: Common sense is not enough

Jul 22, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- In comparison to classical physics, quantum physics predicts that the properties of a quantum mechanical system depend on the measurement context, i.e. whether or not other system measurements ...

Opposites interfere

Jul 26, 2007

In a classic physics experiment, photons (light particles), electrons, or any other quantum particles are fired, one at a time, at a sheet with two slits cut in it that sits in front of a recording plate. For photons, a photographic ...

Observing a Photon no Longer a Seek-and-Destroy Mission

Jun 02, 2004

A team of University of Queensland, Australia physicists has devised a sophisticated measurement system for single particles of light, or photons, enabling them to investigate fascinating behaviour in the quantum world. ...

Yale scientists bring quantum optics to a microchip

Sep 08, 2004

A report in the journal Nature describes the first experiment in which a single photon is coherently coupled to a single superconducting qubit (quantum bit or "artificial atom"). This represents a new paradigm in which ...

Recommended for you

Progress in the fight against quantum dissipation

Apr 16, 2014

(Phys.org) —Scientists at Yale have confirmed a 50-year-old, previously untested theoretical prediction in physics and improved the energy storage time of a quantum switch by several orders of magnitude. ...

A quantum logic gate between light and matter

Apr 10, 2014

Scientists at Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics, Garching, Germany, successfully process quantum information with a system comprising an optical photon and a trapped atom.

User comments : 395

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Jigga
1.6 / 5 (13) Jul 22, 2010
Max Born in his textbook "Quantum Theory" in 1924 wrote:

"one obvious objection to the hypothesis of an elastic Aether (Space) arises from the necessity of ascribing to it the great rigidity it must have to account for the high velocity of Waves. Such a substance would necessarily offer resistance to the motion of heavenly bodies, particularly to that of planets. Astronomy has never detected departures from Newton's Laws of Motion that would point to such a resistance"....

.."The question of whether the waves are something "real" or a function to describe and predict phenomena in a convenient way is a matter of taste. I personally like to regard a probability wave, even in 3N-dimensional space, as a real thing, certainly as more than a tool for mathematical calculations ... Quite generally, how could we rely on probability predictions if by this notion we do not refer to something real and objective? (Max Born, Dover publ., 1964 in "Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance", p. 107)
Jigga
1.8 / 5 (14) Jul 22, 2010
"It seems to be clear, therefore, that Born's statistical interpretation of quantum theory is the only possible one. The wave function does not in any way describe a state which could be that of a single system; it relates rather to many systems, to an 'ensemble of systems' in the sense of statistical mechanics..." (Albert Einstein, on Quantum Physics, 1936)

.."I cannot but confess that I attach only a transitory importance to this interpretation. I still believe in the possibility of a model of reality - that is to say, of a theory which represents things themselves and not merely the probability of their occurrence. On the other hand, it seems to me certain that we must give up the idea of complete localization of the particle in a theoretical model. This seems to me the permanent upshot of Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty..." (Albert Einstein, on Quantum Theory, 1934)
Jigga
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 22, 2010
Born's rule is one of basic postulates of QM and as such it appears quite robust, nevertheless it has its limits at the case, when relativistic phenomena are manifesting (QM violates gravity in 4D space-time). Here it is shown that Born's rule is insufficient in universes so large that they contain identical multiple copies of observers, because one does not have definite projection operators to apply. Possible replacements for Born's rule include using the expectation value of various operators that are not projection operators, or using various options for the average density matrix of a region with an observation.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.2419

Actually you're not required to consider complete multiverse, even weak gravitational lensing is enough to affect the probability pattern at per-observer basis. This is particularly funny, because in dense aether theory the gravitational lensing is a quantum mechanics phenomena. We have QM postulate violated by QM effect here.
frajo
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 22, 2010
What have these quotes to do with the content of the article?
Jigga
1.5 / 5 (16) Jul 22, 2010
To demonstrate, theorists thinking in positivist way can be actually pretty trolls, when it comes to understanding of Aether concept.

BTW The Born rule fails at cosmological distances, too.

http://iopscience...9/07/008
otto1923
3.7 / 5 (10) Jul 22, 2010
To demonstrate, theorists thinking in positivist way can be actually pretty trolls, when it comes to understanding of Aether concept.
English = 1
Verbosity = 1
Credibility = 1
Public interest = 1
Relevance = 1
Animosity generation = 1
-Sorry dude, youre batting a solid 1. Or less.
Jigga
1.7 / 5 (14) Jul 22, 2010
..English = 1 Verbosity = 1 Credibility = 1 Public interest = 1 Relevance = 1 Animosity generation = 1..
Regarding the credibility, you apparently don't believe the citations of peer-reviewed journals...? Regarding the animosity generation and the relevance - both frajo's, both your comments are way way more OT and ad-hominem attacks, then each my post here. Just think about it.
otto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2010
..English = 1 Verbosity = 1 Credibility = 1 Public interest = 1 Relevance = 1 Animosity generation = 1..
Regarding the credibility, you apparently don't believe the citations of peer-reviewed journals...? Regarding the animosity generation and the relevance - both frajo's, both your comments are way way more OT and ad-hominem attacks, then each my post here. Just think about it.
I said I was sorry...
-And it's thAn... THAN each OF my postS here. Just tryin to help-
otto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2010
-And it should be 'any' instead of (or rather than) 'each'. You usually do pretty well.
galoot
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2010
says Gregor Weihs “and we were quite surprised to find that NOBODY HADN'T performed this experiment before."

That's beautiful quantum behaviour right there.
frajo
4 / 5 (9) Jul 23, 2010
Jigga/VestaR/NisaJ has been scoring himself at least two times in this thread. Moreover he did so recently at least six times more in other threads. Have a look at his activity page.
Moreover user accounts like "deepsand" who has not been active since march 2009 but voting for Jigga are suspect.
You usually do pretty well.
Is there no competition between preachers?
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2010
@Otto (from another thread, but on a relevant topic)
it doesn't disprove anything. In fact, as I've shown above, it clearly supports my point ...which once again shows us that atheists simply don't get it.

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

There is no Prime Mover and there need be none, even at the subatomic level. An equivalent, spontaneous interaction will have exactly the same results as one initiated by some scientist who pushes a button.
But if no sentient being observed the outcome of the experiment, how would we know the outcome?

See: http://en.wikiped...r's_cat

Like with Schrodinger's cat, the system remains in superposition until a sentient observer collapses the waveform. We simply can't analyze and agree on the result of the experiment without a sentient end observer.
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 23, 2010
Regarding the animosity generation and the relevance - both frajo's, both your comments are way way more OT and ad-hominem attacks, then each my post here.


Is that why you rated yourself again. Your posts NisaJ have all been deleted but you are still using the login to uprate yourself.

Sockpuppets again. You never learn.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2010
But if no sentient being observed the outcome of the experiment, how would we know the outcome?
No one would care. But the outcome would still be controlled by the environment, whether an experimenter was involved or not.

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

Ethelred
Agribusinessman
5 / 5 (1) Jul 23, 2010
As I read the equations there may be a possibility of 4th order interference (the experiment makes interference of odd higher orders highly improbable).

The experiment is good but not complete.
otto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 23, 2010
Is there no competition between preachers?
That would be AMONG, instead of 'between' as there are more than 2. As in 'no honor AMONG thieves' (or preachers).

Again, just for the record, my theories lie wholly within the realm of possibility, unlike others. Unlike any religionist, who think god sneezes and the oceans swell.
otto1923
3.5 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2010
But if no sentient being observed the outcome of the experiment, how would we know the outcome?
What difference does it make whether we 'know' or not? The universe functions with us or without us. And it will continue to do so after you and I are gone.

Religionists are irrepressibly egocentric.
otto1923
3 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2010
"18 I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return."

-Reality. It's a bitch.
PinkElephant
4.6 / 5 (5) Jul 23, 2010
Away from trolls and back to the topic... From the linked abstract:
Born’s rule predicts that quantum interference, as shown by a double-slit diffraction experiment, occurs from pairs of paths. A generalized version of quantum mechanics might allow multipath (i.e., higher-order) interference, thus leading to a deviation from the theory. We performed a three-slit experiment ... thus ruling out third- and higher-order interference and providing a bound on the accuracy of Born’s rule.
Put this way, it does seem rather strange. On what basis are the pairs chosen, and why only ever pairs? How does this mesh with the many-worlds interpretation?

Makes me wonder if perhaps a photon approaching a slit is creating a plasmonic echo of itself in an adjacent slit, then interferes with that "ghost" on the way out. This might localize interactions exclusively to pairs of adjacent slits, perhaps leading to the photon's absorption if it induces symmetric echoes in both adjacent slits...
Jigga
1.8 / 5 (9) Jul 24, 2010
Makes me wonder if perhaps photon is a particle spreading slower then the speed of light and spreading deBroglie wave around itself in similar way, like swimming duck is spreading ripples at the surface of river. This may enable to propagate deBroglie wave through all three slits at the same time and to interfere mutually under formation of flabelliform patterns behind slits. Perhaps these patterns are making vacuum foam more dense temporarily at the place of interference maxims in similar way, like soap foam after shaking? This would enable the subsequent propagation of photon particles with increased probability along direction of these patterns, perhaps leading to formation of patterns at the target plane.
gianni
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2010
Expand your discussion at http://www.physic...=2812515
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2010
But if no sentient being observed the outcome of the experiment, how would we know the outcome?
What difference does it make whether we 'know' or not? The universe functions with us or without us. And it will continue to do so after you and I are gone.

Religionists are irrepressibly egocentric.
So you adhere more to the "quantum Darwinism" interpretation, rather than the traditional Copenhagen interpretation.

Copenhagen:
"Many of the best minds in physics believe that observation has something to do with consciousness, but this raises several obvious questions: How is consciousness defined? What gives it this unique power to induce jumps in physical states?"

quantum Darwinism:
"...the
environment decides which
quantum properties are the fittest
and will ultimately survive to be
viewed by people."

Sources:

http://emergentfo...paradox/

http://public.lan...lity.pdf
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2010
Questions:

Is the Copenhagen interpretation correct?

Is the quantum Darwinism interpretation correct?

Do these two interpretations (and others) lie in a perpetual state of superposition, forever preventing clarification?
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2010
But if no sentient being observed the outcome of the experiment, how would we know the outcome?
No one would care. But the outcome would still be controlled by the environment, whether an experimenter was involved or not.

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

See: http://www.scienc...5013.htm
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2010
Again, just for the record, my theories lie wholly within the realm of possibility, unlike others. Unlike any religionist, who think god sneezes and the oceans swell.
"Your" theories? How do your theories differ from mainstream theories?
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2010
@PE:
Put this way, it does seem rather strange. On what basis are the pairs chosen, and why only ever pairs? How does this mesh with the many-worlds interpretation?

Makes me wonder if perhaps a photon approaching a slit is creating a plasmonic echo of itself in an adjacent slit, then interferes with that "ghost" on the way out. This might localize interactions exclusively to pairs of adjacent slits, perhaps leading to the photon's absorption if it induces symmetric echoes in both adjacent slits...
And why is this experiment seemingly always and only conducted in a two-dimensional form? What happens when the three slits aren't parallel? How about when some slits are horizontal, some vertical, and some whatever?
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2010
In case anyone wants an idea of just how numerous and confusing the differing quantum interpretations can be, here's a quick reference:

http://en.wikiped...echanics
ubavontuba
2.2 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2010
Expand your discussion at http://www.physic...=2812515

Physicsforums doesn't allow open discussion of hypothetical concepts.
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Jul 24, 2010
Is there no competition between preachers?
That would be AMONG, instead of 'between' as there are more than 2. As in 'no honor AMONG thieves' (or preachers).
Thanks a lot.
This usage of "among" and "between" in (American?) English is quite interesting as it differs from other languages.
otto1923
4 / 5 (1) Jul 24, 2010
Is there no competition between preachers?
It's more a logic problem than a language problem. You were asking if competition existed in the subset 'preachers' which implies 'at all' or between any 2 preachers. Besides Otto is more of a reporter, as in 'this is the way things are, can't you see that???'
otto1923
4.5 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2010
How is consciousness defined?
To me the idea of having 'consciousness' is a little too much like the thoroughly discredited notion that people have or need to have a 'soul'. More wishful thinking, that is devising something to make us seem more unique and worthy of surviving beyond death. Humans have the same sort of aggregate self-awareness that animals have, it's just been driven to evolve to the point of dysfunction.

Our brains are too large, too complex, and too energy-hungry to be considered 'natural'. Most are born defective in some way or receive significant damage as they develop. They reach optimum function by age 15, when they promptly begin to deteriorate.
Jigga
1 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2010
Is the Copenhagen interpretation correct?
Is the quantum Darwinism interpretation correct?
In context of dense aether theory they're both substantiated. It could be explained with using of rain droplet model, for example:

You cannot detect the motion of molecules inside of droplet just with observation of droplet surface due the geometric constrains: the portion of information will always remain before your eyes. This gives indeterministic character to the surface motion of droplets or particles, which are of composite character.

Regarding the evolution, evolutionary perspective is quite general and it can be extended to all material objects easily. For example during rain the resulting droplets are product of evolution, where droplets are eating vapors from air, they're colliding and dividing mutually, so that only most successful droplets are allowed to reach the ground.

IMO the same perspective can be applied to all particles in environment of vacuum fluctuations.
otto1923
3.5 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2010
AGAIN, our unnatural state and the exact reason for it is described in the bible:

"To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."" gen3:16

-We ate of the 'tree of knowledge'. It set us on a one-way path of the accumulation of more and more knowledge, as we soon overcame most natural attritive elements and the only significant enemy left was the tribe next door. Our ability to outthink the enemy allowed us to overrun him and impregnate all his females, greatly accelerating evolution of the intellect.

Human childbirth is so painful because our heads are so unnaturally large. And 'god' didn't inform the Authors- they were able to figure this out all by Themselves.

As Solomon says farther on, knowledge brings only pain.
Jigga
1.3 / 5 (8) Jul 24, 2010
..How is consciousness defined?
IMO this is the same stuff. From certain perspective even the most elementary particles exhibit a trace of conscious behavior: they're avoiding the obstacles inside of vacuum fluctuations, they're following the gradients of most dense vacuum like bacteria following the gradients of energy concentration (the food), they're tend to form larger colonies due the gravity, etc. The more stable object is, the better it becomes selected with quantum fluctuations and the more advanced it becomes: it exhibits extradimensional structures, which are enabling to serve as a memory and detector of extradimensions, the time dimension in particular.

The terrestrial conditions are unique with fact, they're undergo many repeated, but not quite regular changes (climatic and weather periods, tidal forces), which are preselecting material objects with respect to their ability to interact in time dimension. Which is why we can interact with so large part of Universe.
Jigga
1.3 / 5 (8) Jul 24, 2010
our unnatural state and the exact reason for it is described in the bible
It doesn't explain very much. IMO the intelligence and consciousness is just a product of repeated selection in field of quantum fluctuations. The rain droplets are destroyed after their fall to ground, but when you would give them a chance to pass the same path many times, it would start to develop into conscious organisms quite spontaneously. After all, I do believe, the first living organisms were oily droplets, which were selected by fluctuations at water surface or maybe with tidal waves. They're passed the same path and its density gradients many times, which accumulated the time dimension (density gradient of space-time) inside of them. So they're able to interact with the distant parts of Universe by now as a humans.

From this perspective our consciousness is basically a geometrical effect, i.e. the ability to interact / navigate in higher dimensions, time dimension in particular.
otto1923
4 / 5 (1) Jul 24, 2010
The rain droplets are destroyed after their fall to ground, but when you would give them a chance to pass the same path many times, it would start to develop into conscious organisms quite spontaneously.
Bwahaaahaaahaaaahaaaa!!!

-Er I mean uh, you sure about that jigga?
Jigga
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 24, 2010
Our brains are too large, too complex,
They doesn't differ so much with compare to brain of many other mammals. You have still smaller brain then the killer whale, for example. If they would be just a bit more intelligent, they would destroy their food sources and life environment fast. Dolphins' cerebral cortex is 40% larger than human beings', with sulci and gyri ("wrinkles") of near equivalent complexity with a similarly developed frontal lobe.
..and too energy-hungry to be considered 'natural'.
Dolphins are using their large brains for thermoregulation purposes, too - which is why the "aquatic ape" theory sounds rather attractive for me. Our large brains could be a rudiments of adaptation to the aquatic environment, which we used for different purpose after survival of some cataclysmic event in the past.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2010
How is consciousness defined?
To me the idea of having 'consciousness' is a little too much like the thoroughly discredited notion that people have or need to have a 'soul'. More wishful thinking, that is devising something to make us seem more unique and worthy of surviving beyond death. Humans have the same sort of aggregate self-awareness that animals have, it's just been driven to evolve to the point of dysfunction.

Our brains are too large, too complex, and too energy-hungry to be considered 'natural'. Most are born defective in some way or receive significant damage as they develop. They reach optimum function by age 15, when they promptly begin to deteriorate.
Therefore then, consciouness itself shouldn't be stable. Why then do we apparently wake up every morning to be the same person we were yesterday (within obvious brain-health constraints)?
Jigga
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 24, 2010
you sure about that jigga
It's the most natural explanation without any mysticism, isn't it? Oil droplets aren't so silly - they've rather complex and intelligent behavior, connected with active locomotion and searching for food gradients...

http://focus.aps..../v15/st7
http://www.popsci...-lab-rat

Can you estimate, what will happen, if you give them a lotta time and the sufficient / repeated path for traveling? The droplets, which are most successful in collection of surfactants will survive the others - they would divide and split in tidal waves into their offspring. Later the droplets, which would collect a chemicals, capable of transformation of more simpler molecules to surfactants (i.e. digestion of food) will survive the others. Even later the droplets, capable to dissolve another droplets for food (i.e. predators) will be preferred.

The chemical war and evolution between oil droplets can begin.
ubavontuba
2.7 / 5 (9) Jul 24, 2010
The rain droplets are destroyed after their fall to ground, but when you would give them a chance to pass the same path many times, it would start to develop into conscious organisms quite spontaneously.
Bwahaaahaaahaaaahaaaa!!!

-Er I mean uh, you sure about that jigga?
Jigga may have a point. If you read my references, you'll find there's a thought-like component to quantum information.
otto1923
3.3 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2010
It's the most natural explanation without any mysticism, isn't it?
No. Maybe you're speaking poetically as in 'april showers bring may flowers' -?
otto1923
2.8 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2010
Jigga may have a point. If you read my references, you'll find there's a thought-like component to quantume information.
I bet out of all your references and different explanations, only one at most has a chance of being right, and it's probably not yours. Kind of like all the religions in the world.

Skeptic Heretic, Ethelred, pink elephant or others can address you guys on quantum theory theories better than me.

My finger keeps slipping on my iPhone and rating you unintentionally. Or maybe it's the holy ghost -?
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (8) Jul 24, 2010
My finger keeps slipping on my iPhone and rating you unintentionally. Or maybe it's the holy ghost -?
Well then, I'm glad He's on my side. LOL ;)
otto1923
3.8 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2010
Questions:

Is the Copenhagen interpretation correct?

Is the quantum Darwinism interpretation correct?

Do these two interpretations (and others) lie in a perpetual state of superposition, forever preventing clarification?
Translation: 'Because scientists are still entertaining conflicting models, then they really don't know what's going on and obviously never will. Therefore we can all return to the obvious and pleasant conclusion that there is a god who is responsible for everything.'

-Why this compulsion to know everything NOW? You realize this is pathology borne put of fear, yes? Where are your stones man? Have some courage. Learn to wait.
"Your" theories? How do your theories differ from mainstream theories?
They're better. They're better because they're unencumbered with political expediency, and are thus able to draw more rational, though uncomfortable, conclusions. Right frajo?
ubavontuba
2.4 / 5 (8) Jul 24, 2010
Translation: 'Because scientists are still entertaining conflicting models, then they really don't know what's going on and obviously never will. Therefore we can all return to the obvious and pleasant conclusion that there is a god who is responsible for everything.'
Again, why do you read so much into everything? From where are you getting the extra information that's neither there, or implied?

-Why this compulsion to know everything NOW? You realize this is pathology borne put of fear, yes?
I'd argue that intentional ignorance is born of fear from the unknown.
Where are your stones man? Have some courage. Learn to wait.
"Waiting" is seldom a courageous act. Rather it's pursuits of curiosity and action in the face of adversity which take courage.
otto1923
2.8 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2010
Dolphins' cerebral cortex is 40% larger than human beings'
I thought it was Americans who thought it was all about size. A human brain is larger % to body weight than most other animals. A womans pelvis grew wider to attempt to accommodate it's passage, and she became more sedentary as a result. We are still born prematurely, our skull plates unfused so we can squeeze through the pelvis and our brains can continue to grow. This is not natural.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (8) Jul 24, 2010
"Your" theories? How do your theories differ from mainstream theories?
They're better. They're better because they're unencumbered with political expediency, and are thus able to draw more rational, though uncomfortable, conclusions. Right frajo?
So what your saying then, is they're more comforting for you, right?
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (8) Jul 24, 2010
Dolphins' cerebral cortex is 40% larger than human beings'
I thought it was Americans who thought it was all about size. A human brain is larger % to body weight than most other animals. A womans pelvis grew wider to attempt to accommodate it's passage, and she became more sedentary as a result. We are still born prematurely, our skull plates unfused so we can squeeze through the pelvis and our brains can continue to grow. This is not natural.
So if it's "not natural," what is it?
otto1923
3.3 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2010
Again, why do you read so much into everything? From where are you getting the extra information that's neither there, or implied?
Maybe a better response would be 'Why no Otto, that's not true because...' I think I understand religionists well enough to know how they think and why. Sure you're individuals and adhere to different beliefs- but you share common traits which are easy to spot because you always tend to ask the same questions and try to make the same points.

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

otto1923
3 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2010
"Your" theories? How do your theories differ from mainstream theories?
They're better. They're better because they're unencumbered with political expediency, and are thus able to draw more rational, though uncomfortable, conclusions. Right frajo?
So what your saying then, is they're more comforting for you, right?
Indeed, because they make sense, and I can explain them in rational terms. I don't have to struggle with otherworldly concepts.
So if it's "not natural," what is it?
Well it's not god, fer sure. It's a breakout- a runaway phenomenon. Maybe it is a common occurrence out in the cosmos, but it has most likely never happened here before.

We crossed a threshold. Like I said , I think genesis describes it pretty well.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2010
Again, why do you read so much into everything? From where are you getting the extra information that's neither there, or implied?

Maybe a better response would be 'Why no Otto, that's not true because...' I think I understand religionists well enough to know how they think and why. Sure you're individuals and adhere to different beliefs- but you share common traits which are easy to spot because you always tend to ask the same questions and try to make the same points.
So what you're saying then is, you're just making it up as you go along, right?

You should realize this is a logical fallacy which obstructs intellectual discourse (i.e. you're being unreasonable).
Am I a doctor? No I am Otto der Wunderkind.
O-o-kay then. Do you have a supersuit too? ...maybe a beanie with a propeller? LOL
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (8) Jul 24, 2010
Indeed, because they make sense, and I can explain them in rational terms.
Ha! I'll believe that when I see it.
I don't have to struggle with otherworldly concepts.
Do they scare you?
Well it's not god, fer sure. It's a breakout- a runaway phenomenon. Maybe it is a common occurrence out in the cosmos, but it has most likely never happened here before.
We can't be certain, but I'll agree it seems unlikely. However, many animals come close (suggesting it's not as "unnatural" as you'd provide).
We crossed a threshold. Like I said , I think genesis describes it pretty well.
I've stated before that I think "original sin" clearly refers to sentience.
otto1923
2.5 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2010
So what you're saying then is, you're just making it up as you go along, right?
No, anybody here would agree with me on this- you guys are pretty transparent.
O-o-kay then. Do you have a supersuit too? ...maybe a beanie with a propeller? LOL
I know you guys do struggle to understand self-deprecating humor. Your egos are so fragile after all. I think ottos psycho-profiling has hit the nerve once again, oder?
otto1923
2.5 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2010
I don't have to struggle with otherworldly concepts.
Do they scare you?
They're not real. Does reality scare you?
I've stated before that I think "original sin" clearly refers to sentience
Adam was already sentient enough to make an informed choice. What he learned were the consequences of disobeying the irrational god-derived rules- like 'obey 'god' and 'nakedness is bad'.
Jigga
1 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2010
This is not natural.
Try to have look to same deep ocean creatures at Google and tell me, what is really natural here. Most of primates are born underdeveloped, it's not so strange here. Soft skulls are common between infants of many other animals. The fontanelle is closed in all chimpanzee individuals by the age of 3, for example.

http://en.wikiped...ntanelle

BTW Guys, this is not Facebook or other social club. Try to keep the matter of facts n discussion.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2010
No, anybody here would agree with me on this- you guys are pretty transparent.
This is an unreasonable assumption. I, for one, only write that which I mean to write. No more, no less.

Therefore, if you can't confine your arguments to the context of the text, you're being unreasonable.

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

Do you not see how unreasonable this is? Really?
I know you guys do struggle to understand self-deprecating humor. Your egos are so fragile after all. I think ottos psycho-profiling has hit the nerve once again, oder?
Did you not see my "LOL?" Oder bist du blind?
otto1923
4 / 5 (1) Jul 24, 2010
This is not natural.
Try to have look to same deep ocean creatures at Google and tell me, what is really natural here. Most of primates are born underdeveloped, it's not so strange here. Soft skulls are common between infants of many other animals.

http://en.wikiped...ntanelle
Those creatures all evolved in response to 'natural' forces. We evolved in response to strategizing, fire-using, tool makers who were just a little bit less good at it than us.

Those who could anticipate an enemies actions could beat them on the battlefield and impregnate their females. This is constant selection for communicating, remembering, conceptualizing, and educating of the sort that has never been seen before.

Hunting animals or spearing fish is easy. Hunting humans is hard, especially when they are hunting you in turn.
Jigga
1 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2010
Those creatures all evolved in response to 'natural' forces.
Actually there are (nearly) no natural forces in the deep of ocean. The wild morphology of undersea creatures is just a product of the lack of external forces and the consequence of strong predator-prey strategies in environment, where every fish is just a little bit good then the other ones.
otto1923
4 / 5 (1) Jul 24, 2010
BTW Guys, this is not Facebook or other social club. Try to keep the matter of facts n discussion.
Bwaaahaaahaaahaaa!! Are you addressing Team Alizee with this comment?? Sorry but -facts-? As in sentient raindrops??
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2010
BTW Guys, this is not Facebook or other social club. Try to keep the matter of facts n discussion.
Bwaaahaaahaaahaaa!! Are you addressing Team Alizee with this comment?? Sorry but -facts-? As in sentient raindrops??
Er lacht wie ein Verruckter. Offenbar Otto braucht eine psychologische Bewertung. :D
otto1923
2 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2010
This is an unreasonable assumption. I, for one, only write that which I mean to write. No more, no less.
So much for Predetermination.
However, if you are in fact correct, what would be the point of anyone posting at all - as "Otto der Wunderkind" would have apparently predetermined everything anyone might say anyway?
Not everyone- just mostly you religionists. As in this specious argument of yours, offered in place of a genuine response.
Jigga
1.4 / 5 (8) Jul 24, 2010
Sorry but -facts-? As in sentient raindrops??
Every particle follows the gradient of environment density by principle of least action like waves are guided with gradient of refraction index. Bacteria follow the gradient of food, people are following the food, gold or money and another energy sources. The principle is always the same: we are following the environment, which would enable us to survive longer, because the speed of time is slowed down there.
Not everyone- just mostly you religionists.
Says the guy, who is promoting intelligent design and sentences like "we can all return to the obvious and pleasant conclusion that there is a god who is responsible for everything" here?
otto1923
2 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2010
Offenbar braucht Otto eine psychologische Bewertung. :)
Nur wann uba mir an den Po küssen. :)
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 24, 2010
However, if you are in fact correct, what would be the point of anyone posting at all - as "Otto der Wunderkind" would have apparently predetermined everything anyone might say anyway?

Do you not see how unreasonable this is? Really?
Not everyone- just mostly you religionists. As in this specious argument of yours, offered in place of a genuine response.
So what you're saying is, you really don't see how unreasonable this is, right?

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

Haben Sie einen angenehmen Tag. :)
otto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2010
Jigga gets verrucht and resorts to a cobalt bomb bitch-slap to both uba and Otto. See, this is why nobody roots for team alizee. And I mean nobody.
otto1923
1 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2010
Well then, I'm done conversing with you, as there's no point to reasoning with the unreasonable.
See, I knew you were going to cut and run. Get thee behind me Satan! (für den Arsh lecken)
Jigga
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2010
I'm not here for team building, but for finding and pointing out of connections, which nobody else can see. Such stance requires to stay outside of any team and intersubjectively accepted truths. If Mr. Galileo would play a team, he could never promote the heliocentric model.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2010
See, I knew you were going to cut and run. Get thee behind me Satan! (fur den Arsh lecken)
Oh, I haven't run. I'm just opting to reserve my responses for reasonable posters.

Erneut haben einen angenehmen Tag. :)
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2010
Jigga gets verrucht and resorts to a cobalt bomb bitch-slap to both uba and Otto. See, this is why nobody roots for team alizee. And I mean nobody.
Gotta admit, that was indeed uncalled for.
Bleib du im ewigen Leben :)
Thanks. That's much better than what you at first wrote (for which I gave you the one).
otto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2010
A superposition of dissonant epithets! Which one is genuine? Or are they both valid? Is the one in this universe sarcastic? Maybe god knows-
hush1
3 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2010
I do. I dream of a world where translation is superseded with fluency in/for/of the entire human language. And that is only the beginning.

Without the subjectivity inherent in translation(the translators), 'only' to be met with our own (insurmountable?) subjectivity. It's a start.

Our "interpretation" of Nature will undoubtedly 'appear' in another light with the fluency of the entire human language/vocabulary.

She waits for us -
Our fluency in all human communication.
And then? The translation/interpretation of Nature.

Another 'language', another addition,
to our extensions, our vocabulary,
to becoming One.

:)
Ethelred
not rated yet Jul 25, 2010
Do these two interpretations (and others) lie in a perpetual state of superposition, forever preventing clarification?
No. They are two ideas that have the same flaw. They think humans or at least intelligence matters to the Universe. Again this is pre-Copernican thinking.
Actually, pure observation is apparently deterministic.
Observation is never pure so it can’t be fully deterministic. All observations are dependent on the tools and the thinking of the observers. When dealing with quantum phenomena the tools define the possible outcomes, not the observers, except in their choice of tools. The interpretation of the results will often, but not always, be dependent on the suppositions of the observers. Every once in a while an observer notices that they were wrong in their expectations and then exciting things can happen.

Continued
Ethelred
4 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2010
Do these two interpretations (and others) lie in a perpetual state of superposition, forever preventing clarification?
No. They are two ideas that have the same flaw. They think humans or at least intelligence matters to the Universe. Again this is pre-Copernican thinking.
Actually, pure observation is apparently deterministic.
Observation is never pure so it can’t be fully deterministic. All observations are dependent on the tools and the thinking of the observers. When dealing with quantum phenomena the tools define the possible outcomes, not the observers, except in their choice of tools. The interpretation of the results will often, but not always, be dependent on the suppositions of the observers. Every once in a while an observer notices that they were wrong in their expectations and then exciting things can happen.

Continued
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2010
The double post was due to some weird Physorg error about bad parsing that had nothing in it that I had written.

Anyway to continue on-

The Copenhagen interpretation was, at least partly, effected by Eastern thinking despite all the Europeans that were involved. Fuzzy thinking can come from many sources and even brilliant minds can be suborned by it. Any scientific thinking in physics that puts human existence as a CAUSE must be considered suspect.

Which is not to say that all anthropic reasoning is wrong. Certainly our Universe must support human life since we do exist and therefor any theories that imply that life is impossible must be wrong.

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

Ethelred
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2010
Otto is more of a reporter, as in 'this is the way things are, can't you see that???'
Unfortunately not one of those who don't ponder only over the unchangeable they have to accept but still more over the inacceptible they feel obliged to change.
otto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2010
Otto is more of a reporter, as in 'this is the way things are, can't you see that???'
Unfortunately not one of those who don't ponder only over the unchangeable they have to accept but still more over the inacceptible they feel obliged to change.
Hmmm. People here do seem reluctant to debate me when I describe things obvious to me like biblical prescience, as in the tree of knowledge stuff above. Instead like frajo they just call it nonsense.

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

For instance there are a lot of politics involved in the 'weird physics' descriptions of quantum theory, giving religionists much room for god in these theories where it doesn't belong. Granted, entanglement is a tough one to describe, but uncertainty is not and it is one that people like uba tend to exploit in sermons and Sunday school.
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2010
Frajo needs a prayer for serenity:
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2010
Is the Copenhagen interpretation correct?
Is the quantum Darwinism interpretation correct?
Do these two interpretations (and others) lie in a perpetual state of superposition, forever preventing clarification?
Translation: 'Because scientists are still entertaining conflicting models, then they really don't know what's going on and obviously never will.
We have to distinguish between model and interpretation. There is only one model of QM and there are several interpretations. Interpretations don't conflict; they are comparable to different languages. It's up to you which interpretation you prefer. Most physicists opt for the CI.
"Your" theories? How do your theories differ from mainstream theories?
They're better. They're better because they're unencumbered with political expediency, and are thus able to draw more rational, though uncomfortable, conclusions. Right frajo?
No. Your "theory" is very well politically exploitable by power hierarchies.
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2010
We have to distinguish between model and interpretation. There is only one model of QM and there are several interpretations.
Well, you're right essentially.
No. Your "theory" is very well politically exploitable by power hierarchies.
What theory would that be? Truth or fiction- anything is potentially exploitable.
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2010
People here do seem reluctant to debate me when I describe things obvious to me like biblical prescience,
Of course, as it's not a scientific subject.
as in the tree of knowledge stuff above. Instead like frajo they just call it nonsense.
Could you please be more attentive? I never used the term "nonsense".
The thing I want to discount is the politics rampant in official history and science. For the good of all. So we can draw real conclusions about what actually happens and why.
Why then don't you read Eric Hobsbawm? Especially his "How Much History Does Future Need?".
Macht Sinn?
"Macht es Sinn?"
giving religionists much room for god in these theories where it doesn't belong.
Learn to live with them and don't do upon others what you don't want to be done upon you.
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2010
Of course, as it's not a scientific subject.
It is only ever a sociopolitical phenomenon and is thus a valid scientific topic for discussion when it relates to the thread subject. Or when some godder brings it up first.
Could you please be more attentive? I never used the term "nonsense".
Your usual implication. Debate me. Do not dismiss me.
Why then don't you read Eric Hobsbawm?
Maybe. Why doesn't he read me? Otto is more accessible than Eric.
Learn to live with them and don't do upon others what you don't want to be done upon you.
My feelings toward religionism, as you may know, is that it is a worthless and dangerous anachronism whose time is long past. It is an obvious threat to the world and must be opposed with every available means, at every possible opportunity. Before it kills us all. Macht's Sinn?
gianni
3 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2010
Expand your discussion at http://www.physic...=2812515

Physicsforums doesn't allow open discussion of hypothetical concepts.


I am sure that they allow everything, you just need to use nice language and be full in content.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2010
No. They are two ideas that have the same flaw. They think humans or at least intelligence matters to the Universe. Again this is pre-Copernican thinking.
That's ridiculous, as these concepts are decidedly post-Copernican.

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

To observe, by definition, is a decision unto itself. Therefore, consciousness affects quantum reality.
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2010
I am fond of the many worlds interpretation but I notice that people generally find it disturbing and tend to reject it out of hand. I did that as well in the past. I have become more comfortable with it over time.
The problem I have with it is the same problem atheists have with religion. It's not observable and it's non-falsifiable. At least the Copenhagen interpretation has observations of the observers going for it.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2010
Expand your discussion at http://www.physic...=2812515
Physicsforums doesn't allow open discussion of hypothetical concepts.
I am sure that they allow everything, you just need to use nice language and be full in content.
Nope. It's in (or was in) their guidelines. They only allow conversation (not debate) on broadly accepted tenets of science.

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

Censorship inhibits progress.
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2010
If you desired say, to debate Einstein's theory of gravity and propose a differing conceptualization, they actually demand that you write and submit a full scientific paper and wait for it to be accepted before you're even allowed to discuss it (as if Einstein himself did it this way! (sarcasm)). Who's got time for that?
There's a big advantage to this policy: You don't waste your time with AWT proponents, cheaters, and their ilk.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2010
There's a big advantage to this policy: You don't waste your time with AWT proponents, cheaters, and their ilk.
Well, I like to think of myself as being savvy enough to discern the nuggets from the slag.

Why throw out the baby with the bathwater?
james11
not rated yet Jul 25, 2010
Obviously, since quantum rules dictate measurement (observation) affects quantum behavior, then the behavior must change as a result of observation.

So... Does the act of observation actually affect quantum behavior or does it affect the way we percieve it? Or both?
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2010
The problem I have with it is the same problem atheists have with religion. It's not observable and it's non-falsifiable.
It is potentially observable and falsifiable, whereas god is not. Ever. As science uncovers more and learns more, new things become possible.

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

For instance, you have drawn inappropriate conclusions about science because you approach it from an emotion-based, religionist perspective. You discover and hold onto interpretations which have been discredited long ago, only because they fit the precepts of your religion.

This is lame.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2010
The problem I have with it is the same problem atheists have with religion. It's not observable and it's non-falsifiable.
It is potentially observable and falsifiable,
Oh, I doubt that.
whereas god is not. Ever.
Sure He is.
As science uncovers more and learns more, new things become possible.

The more we learn about religion, the more we realize it is not based on anything real, except for inappropriate emotions and desires.
And if they're such an antithesis to survival (as you demand), why then is religion (and similar belief systems) a naturally occurring part of humanity? Just how universal is it? Ever read an archeology report? Almost everything they find they immediately identify as having some very useful purpose (like hunting), or they suspect it had some religious significance.
Science creates more potential, religion inhibits potential.
I disagree. People inhibit people (just as the physicsforum site inhibits open debate).
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2010
Uba says:
Jigga may have a point. If you read my references, you'll find there's a thought-like component to quantum information.
-And then he says:
Well, I like to think of myself as being savvy enough to discern the nuggets from the slag.
-And so we must conclude uba does not know the difference between pearls and swine.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2010
Uba says:
Jigga may have a point. If you read my references, you'll find there's a thought-like component to quantum information.
-And then he says:
Well, I like to think of myself as being savvy enough to discern the nuggets from the slag.
-And so we must conclude uba does not know the difference between pearls and swine.
Are you stipulating that an infinite number of sockpuppets typing on an infinite number of computers will never produce a valid point? :D (apologies to Jigga, I couldn't resist)

All joking aside, even banning folks like Jigga from these science sites might precipitate an unfortunate loss of valued information.
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2010
why then is religion (and similar belief systems) a naturally occurring part of humanity?
It's not. Religion has been around as long as malaria and ricketts, doesn't mean they shouldn't all be cured.
Oh, I doubt that.
Sure He is.
I disagree.
-I know you do, because you don't THINK these things, you FEEL them. Can you tell the difference? I don't think so.

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

Science has also shown us just how extremely dangerous religion is to the world today, and why. Your shared beliefs are pestilence.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2010
why then is religion (and similar belief systems) a naturally occurring part of humanity?
It's not. Religion has been around as long as malaria and ricketts, doesn't mean they shouldn't all be cured.
Religion is no more a disease of humanity than emotion and wonder are diseases of humanity. Would you take those away too?
Oh, I doubt that.
Sure He is.
I disagree.
-I know you do, because you don't THINK these things, you FEEL them. Can you tell the difference? I don't think so.

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

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

You mean like how the Nazis were so "peaceful" in working to abolish religions?
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 25, 2010
You know, it occurred to me in thinking about the Fall from Grace, that the moment when Adam and eve realized they were naked and that god was the boss, marked not the end of mankinds innocence but the beginning of it's Domestication.

Learning to accept irrational edicts and following them into misery and death despite ones common sense or conscience, is akin to teaching a horse not to flinch at gunfire or a dog to do tricks. Religion has been the primary Tool of post-agricultural Taming of the species.

When Adam fell he was confined by a long list of constraints, the most brutal of which was being given the knowledge that he could and would die. This is the most powerful Tool that Shepherds can use to herd their flocks.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2010
God and the Scientific Method
by ubavontuba

Abstract:
It's commonly supposed that God is non-falsifiable. I endeavour to demonstrate otherwise.

Step 1. I die.

Either A. My consciousness continues and I observe religion has a valid basis in fact.

Or B. My consciousness ends and I observe nothing.

Note: Either Observation is valid, just don't ask me for my notes. ;)
james11
2 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2010
Do arguments and competition not spark innovation and progression?
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 25, 2010
Religion is no more a disease of humanity than emotion and wonder are diseases of humanity. Would you take those away too?
No, just religion. It exploits emotion for it's own nefarious ends.
You mean like how the Nazis were so "peaceful" in working to abolish religions?
Nazis Schmazis. If you think about it, you may conclude that, just because fascists did or didn't want to do something, doesn't mean that that thing was intrinsically good or bad. There is even a word for using 'nazis' to inappropriately make a point- I forget what it is.

Science and history has demonstrated that religionism is intrinsically bad. Time for it to end.
Or B. My consciousness ends and I observe nothing.
You're assuming consciousness exists and is not just another name for soul, which does not.
james11
1.5 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2010
Otto, explain someones sheer perseverance through evil influence.
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2010
There's a big advantage to this policy: You don't waste your time with AWT proponents, cheaters, and their ilk.
Well, I like to think of myself as being savvy enough to discern the nuggets from the slag.
I prefer to delegate this kind of work to my assistants.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2010
So... Does the act of observation actually affect quantum behavior or does it affect the way we percieve it? Or both?
Both, I suppose.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2010
That's ridiculous, as these concepts are decidedly post-Copernican.
Nonsense. Perhaps you didn't understand what I was referring to. Post as opposed to PRE-Copernican where people thought of Humans as the center of the Universe. Since BOTH concepts include the idea that humans somehow define the Universe simply by existing they both put humans at the center of the Universe. I suppose you don’t see that as a problem and that could be why failed to understand what I was getting at.
Obviously, since quantum rules dictate measurement (observation) affects quantum behavior, then the behavior must change as a result of observation.
Again it is NOT the observation as the observer is irrelevant. It is the METHOD of observation. Do the experiment either way you want. BUT don’t bother to look. In the real world the electron or photon would behave the same whether you looked or not. The equipment is what defines the kind of result and not any act of observation.

Continued
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2010
on a bit

True if no one looks no one will know but it is just plain bad science to assume that that there is magic in atoms simply because they are arrayed in a human being.
To observe, by definition, is a decision unto itself. Therefore, consciousness affects quantum reality.
Wrong. It is NOT the observation, it is the boundaries of the equipment with which a person may or may not observe. And that definition is crap in any case. I can observe whether I decide to or not, indeed I do so rather often.

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

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

Ethelred
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2010
Nazis Schmazis. If you think about it, you may conclude that, just because fascists did or didn't want to do something, doesn't mean that that thing was intrinsically good or bad.
So you're saying that killing millions to make the world conform to your ideals isn't necessarily intrinsically bad? Really?

Did you know George Santayana was an atheist? He's famous for writing: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

He also wrote: "Religion in its humility restores man to his only dignity, the courage to live by grace."
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2010
The problem I have with it is the same problem atheists have with religion. It's not observable and it's non-falsifiable.
Actually many religions ARE falsifiable. Fundamentalist Christianity, Islam and Hebrew are all falsified by the fact that we live in a very old world that never had a worldwide flood.

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

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


Magic is what that is.

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

Ethelred
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2010
@Ethelred:

What word processor are you using? The website won't let me post responses with your text in it.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2010
Nonsense.Perhaps you didn't understand what I was referring to. Post as opposed to PRE-Copernican where people thought of Humans as the center of the Universe. Since BOTH concepts include the idea that humans somehow define the Universe simply by existing they both put humans at the center of the Universe. I suppose you don't see that as a problem and that could be why failed to understand what I was getting at.
Why should it be a problem?, if it's apparently true?
You do know even your multi-worlds interpretation is observation dependent, right?
Again it is NOT the observation as the observer is irrelevant. It is the METHOD of observation. Do the experiment either way you want. BUT don't bother to look. In the real world the electron or photon would behave the same whether you looked or not. The equipment is what defines the kind of result and not any act of observation.
Installing the equipment, is an act of observation.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2010
True if no one looks no one will know but it is just plain bad science to assume that that there is magic in atoms simply because they are arrayed in a human being.
It's apparently not the atoms that comprise the observer that's relevant. It's the act of observing.
Wrong. It is NOT the observation, it is the boundaries of the equipment with which a person may or may not observe. And that definition is crap in any case. I can observe whether I decide to or not, indeed I do so rather often.
Sure. Even passive observation works. But again, the key term is "observation." Without an observer, does the waveform break down?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2010
To give an example, set up a two slit experiment. Put a film detector in the path of the photons. Load the film into the detector. Open both slits. Then change the film and close either slit.

Now throw out the film. Do you really think that there was no interference pattern in the first and a single area exposed on the second? Just because we didn't look at the results? If you do then you believe in magic.
How can you presume to know, if you never check? Maybe you're the one believing in magic?
Just like the people that wrote the Copenhagen Interpretation.
Isn't the Copenhagen interpretation the prevailing interpretation?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2010
Actually many religions ARE falsifiable. Fundamentalist Christianity, Islam and Hebrew are all falsified by the fact that we live in a very old world that never had a worldwide flood.
That doesn't falsify the religion, but rather only one way of interpreting the text of particular portions.
Yes the multi-worlds interpretation is not falsifiable but neither is the Copenhagen interpretation. But one does not require some magical effect of atoms simply because they are in humans. Thus the Multi-worlds is Post-Copernican thinking, wrong or right, and the Copenhagen is Pre-Copernican thinking, again wrong or right.
So neither interpretation is truly science-based, and therefore your belief in any of them constitutes your own brand of religion?

Funny that.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2010
even banning folks like Jigga from these science sites might precipitate an unfortunate loss of valued information.
I am NOT for banning the MultiNamed Crank for being a Crank. That is the main reason I have not joined the Physicsforum. It just plain stiffles interesting discussion.

I want him banned till with the DLs. But there isn't a rule against that.

There are rules that he breaks frequently.
Do not use url-shortening services such as bit.ly, tinyurl.com.
pseudoscience theories.
Of course there are other rules that are breached by many of us. Foul evil rules, created by cockroaches.
abusive, snarky, obscene, or just plain nasty remarks about anything or anyone;
Most of that is OK. It is the part about SNARKY. What kind of humorless cretin is against snark?
political and religious discussions;
NOW that is to LAUGH. Half the threads AND a quarter of the articles have something of the political or religious.

Ethelred
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 26, 2010
Magic is what that is.

Every atom is an observer. There is nothing magic about the atoms in humans. That is what the Copenhagen Misinterpretation has going against it.
You mean atoms that can actually figure out the very concepts of which we write ...aren't unique and special in the universe? So any ol' dumb set of atoms can do that?

Looky! My coffee table is "observing" the television! LOL
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2010
Why should it be a problem?, if it's apparently true?
Many things are 'apparently true' yet turn out wrong. Assuming you are the center of the Universe usually turns out wrong.
You do know even your multi-worlds interpretation is observation dependent, right?
I don't see it as depending on observation. Indeed I see it as it as independent of observation. Whole Universes should exist, in the Multiworlds interpretation, with no observers at all.
Installing the equipment, is an act of observation.
No. Its instalation and nothing else. Only USING the equipment AND actually looking at the results is observation. No look, no observation.

In other words Schrodinger's Cat is NOT both dead and alive if I don't look. It is either dead or alive but I don't know which Universe I am in till I look. Nevertheless, I am in one Universe or the other. The box did the observation and I see the box but not the cat.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2010
It's the act of observing
You do know that many physicists are just a tad egocentric don't you? That idea came from Indian mysticism and should have been tossed out.
Without an observer, does the waveform break down?
Sure. It is just that no one notices. Same idea as the question-

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it did it make a sound?

Of course it did. The world does not depend on us. It existed for billions of years before we showed up.

I want to know what they were smoking in Copenhagen. Bohr must have had some really good stuff.
How can you presume to know, if you never check?
I don't know till I check. But when I check it does not suddenly magically come to be. This all works so much better in the Multiworlds concept. No mysticism, no Cats that are both dead and alive in the same Universe. Two Universes with a cat alive in one and dead in the other. Notice that even in the Copenhagen concept you cannot choose which you are in.

More to come
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2010
The box did the observation" Really?

Let's test this to the extreme then:
In the two-slit experiment, is it the slits (absence of matter) making the observation then?

How about other particles in superposition? could they be observers too? What if their waveform collapse outcomes are dependent on the outcomes of the wave/particles they're observing - and vice versa (quantum entanglement)? Obviously not, or entanglement couldn't work.

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

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

You do know the quantum rule in question stipulates that observation requires an interaction to determine a measurement, which affects the quantum state, right? Therefore, the observer must be interactive rather than passive, right?

Therefore, the box (being passive) cannot be the observer after all, right?
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2010
Three minutes passed.
Isn't the Copenhagen interpretation the prevailing interpretation?
So was Newton's theory of Gravity yet even when he proposed it Edmund Hally didn't like the concept of a privileged place in the Universe. And Hally was right and Newton was wrong. Extend this to the present. Bohr was wrong.

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


Fundamentalism IS a different religion than non-fundamentalist Christianity. Look how many people have been killed over having different Christian religions. Don't mistake the name for the reality.
So neither interpretation is truly science-based, and therefore your belief in any of them constitutes your own brand of religion?
No. Both are interpretations of the same mathematical model. One is satisfying to those with overweening egos and the other is disturbing even to those that think it might be true. I got over it, a bit.

Ethelred
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2010
No. Both are interpretations of the same mathematical model. One is satisfying to those with overweening egos and the other is disturbing even to those that think it might be true. I got over it, a bit.
Well if not else, it makes for great science fiction! Who can ever forget the evil universe's bearded Spock?

Anyway, there's one problem with the multi-verse interpretation that dissatisfies me. It essentially demands that any arbitrary point in the universe has a virtually infinite energy potential, enough so as to create a whole new universe at the drop of a hat. Yet that potential never interacts with the various universes it creates? Hmm...

Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2010
This is a three lock box. No I don't watch too many movies. Why do you ask?
You mean atoms that can actually figure out the very concepts of which we write ...aren't unique and special in the universe?
Where did I say that? Nowhere. Conceptualization has nothing to do with being impinged upon by the fields of other particles
Looky! My coffee table is "observing" the television! LOL
I said no such thing, at least in the sense you are using. It is the failure of the language that has resulted in this. Particles are affected by other particles. In science words like 'observation' can come with meanings that were not intended. Just try having a discussion about 'information' with a Demski fan.

In this case 'observe' is not meant to imply consciousness. It can become quit difficult to avoid anthropocentric language. Assume that I didn't intend it most of the time.

The coffee table is affected by the television. It simply isn't aware of it.

The first key is turned
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2010
The box did the observation" Really?
Yes. But in the sense as explained above.
In the two-slit experiment, is it the slits (absence of matter) making the observation then?
Having the affect anyway. It is the edges that have the effect. They define the boundary of the test.
How about other particles in superposition?
No such thing in the Manyworlds interpretation.
Obviously not, or entanglement couldn't work.
Entanglement isn't a needed concept in the Manyworlds. What is needed is the idea that the particles have not affected anything.
Is distance a factor? Might my coffee table affect your television? Why not?
Yes, the speed of light is relevant. Yes and in both concepts for both questions.
Do you really think inanimate objects which perform no measurements at all, are really observers?
Within the limits of the inadequate word 'observers' yes. Do you really think that inanimate objects don't effect each other?

The second key has been turned
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2010
Thus with the turning of the third key
You do know the quantum rule in question stipulates that observation requires an interaction to determine a measurement, which affects the quantum state,
Do you know that the 'rule' was written by egocentric men? It is the INTERACTION and not the observation that affects the state of other matter.
Therefore, the observer must be interactive rather than passive, right?
No, since you you use 'observer' to mean sentient being that is.
Therefore, the box (being passive) cannot be the observer after all, right?
You are mistaking the words for the reality. The map is not the territory. This is the hard part about this sort of discussion. The freight words carry can mislead.

Ethelred
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2010
@frajo:
I prefer to delegate this kind of work to my assistants.
Well first of all, "aren't we special" (for having said assistants, and bragging about it)?

2nd: In that case, aren't you afraid you might essentially be letting others control you?

3rd: Are you some eccentric rich person who spends all day playing on the web, such that you feel you actually need assistants to increase your web-browsing efficiency?

4th: Do you have any job openings? ...'cause being an information specialist for an eccentric rich person who spends all day playing on the web sounds like a lot of fun to me. In essence, can I come and play too?
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2010
I rarely bring this up to avoid Cranking but here we go with another Triptych.

Panel the first
It essentially demands that any arbitrary point in the universe has a virtually infinite energy potential, enough so as to create a whole new universe at the drop of a hat.
Not really. This is the tricky part and one of the reasons I have come to like the idea. And be disturbed a bit as well.

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

Why is there something rather than nothing?

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

Brevity don't cut it. Two panels to go.
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2010
Both are interpretations of the same mathematical model. One is satisfying to those with overweening egos and the other is disturbing even to those that think it might be true. I got over it, a bit.
The only disturbing thing about the MWI is its lack of falsifiability. Next step for MWI proponents would be Hinduism: You'll never know whether it's true or false and thus it isn't science.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2010
The Second Panel. Thus the key ideas are here. A happy accident.

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

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

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

One last panel of overweening pomposity to go.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2010
The final trailing panel.

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

Ethelred
frajo
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 26, 2010
Of course this is philosophy and not science. There is no way to test it. At least I see none at present and I don't expect that there ever be one EVEN if we should prove that there are other universes. There is no predictive value to it so I am not married to the idea. I am just fond of it and only partly because it is my own idea overall.
It's a great and simple concept. However, I don't agree. Apart from its lack of falsifiability it doesn't obeye the economical imperative of Ockham's Razor: There's nothing in physics which requires multiverses.
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 26, 2010
it doesn't obeye the economical imperative of Ockham's Razor: There's nothing in physics which requires multiverses
Complexity is not a problem if the other choices don't answer the questions.

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

Why is there is something rather than nothing?

Why does the Universe behave according to mathematics?

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

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (6) Jul 26, 2010
You mean like how the Nazis were so "peaceful" in working to abolish religions?

Uba, The NAZIs were Catholics.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 26, 2010
You're not final arbiter of anything, sorry.


And where did I claim that? Nowhere.

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


You don’t even understand that I made no claim of authority. And a sockpuppet has NO business calling anyone a troll.

Everett's theory is falsifiable in lab experiments:


Let us know when someone does that. AND comes up with a better proposal than the one you posted. No funding in 13 years. Seems that no one with money thinks much of that.

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


Except that it does NOT require the Manyworlds idea. It would imply many worlds to some. Not to all. Both entanglement and multiple worlds could achieve the same results.

Ethelred
frajo
3 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2010
Complexity is not a problem if the other choices don't answer the questions.
Yes. But at least one of them (TI) claims to answer "the questions".
It is no more complex than the CI with its spooky action and collapsing entanglements along with the completely unneeded assertions about observers.
I'm not a fan of CI as it doesn't satisfy my aesthetic requirements.
It doesn't answer the questions:
Why is there is something rather than nothing?
That's pure philosophy. Maybe we are asking this question because we are not able to accept a limited scope of causality.
Why does the Universe behave according to mathematics?
Again, philosophy. Maybe because mathematics is constructed along the power set of empirical reality.
frajo
3 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2010
There is nothing in physics that requires the Copenhagen Interpretation at all.
We don't need any interpretation. But life wouldn't be easier without as we are not used to think in Hilbert spaces and unitary operators.
It answers no questions that cannot be answered with other ideas. Something similar to what Dr. Prins likes for instance. I think he is wrong on Quarks but the idea of waves only that are constrained by boundaries seems quite effective to me. The general idea of waves only that are constrained by boundaries seems quite effective to me. It fits the evidence and doesn't have the baggage the CI does.
I'm quite impressed by the beauty and the lucidity of his approach but unfortunately I'm not in a position to evaluate his idea.
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2010
The NAZIs were Catholics.
No. Concentration Camp Dachau had a "priests block" with nearly 3000 priests 90% of whom have been Catholics. One third of them have been murdered by the nazis.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 26, 2010
The NAZIs were Catholics.
No. Concentration Camp Dachau had a "priests block" with nearly 3000 priests 90% of whom have been Catholics. One third of them have been murdered by the nazis.

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

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

History is not on your side in this argument.
hush1
not rated yet Jul 26, 2010
You are mistaking the words for the reality. The map is not the territory. This is the hard part about this sort of discussion. The freight words carry can mislead. Ethelred


Incredulous! Glimmers of Taoism! And the freight of a single musical note? The infinite overtones of which a single musical note embellishes? Or is it simply the 'math' that is assigned to a splotch of ink on musical score?

If something is possible then it exists.


Incredulous! Surely said in jest! Is this where meaning and all words/all language begins!? As well as reality!?

The word "something" is "freighted" with meaning - because your imagination imagines all possibilities?

The word "nothing" is "freighted" with meaning -
because your imagination allows all possibilities?

Our imaginations are "something". Then allow our imaginations to imagined the possibility of our imaginations being a part of reality! "Nothing" forbids it!

The consequence?
There is no 'non-applicable'(pure) math!

:)
otto1923
2 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2010
So you're saying that killing millions to make the world conform to your ideals isn't necessarily intrinsically bad? Really?
Non sequitor. Vehment opposition to religionism does not equate one with nazis. Both are virulent, caustic, ruinous ideologies. Both should be opposed with equal vigor.

Religionism is as bad, if not worse, than nazism because it has enslaved far more people for far longer.

Nazism was designed to fight a war. Religions were designed to enable wars to be fought repeatedly and endlessly, by giving target groups a critical, eternal-life-threatening enemy to annihilate for the salvation of their souls.
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2010
The NAZIs were Catholics.
No. Concentration Camp Dachau had a "priests block" with nearly 3000 priests 90% of whom have been Catholics. One third of them have been murdered by the nazis.
Sorry, you're omitting a substantial amount of history. The Waffen SS were required to be Catholic,
No; I would know. Where did you get this rumour from?
the German laws requiring tithes to the Catholic church were created under the NAZIs.
Yes, the "Reichskonkordat" is a treaty between the Vatican and Germany from 1933 and is still valid. I'm sure the present German administration is not a bunch of nazis.
The NAZIs sent Catholic priests into battle with their units and Hitler was rather fond of saying the NAZI movement was a movement for God.
Of course. They needed to please a people whith 90% Protestants and Catholics.
frajo
3 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2010
The NAZIs were Catholics.
This is too coarse to be true. Not all of them were Catholics. Not all (nazi) Catholics were true believers; they had been "Weihwasserkatholiken". I recommend to read the wiki page "Religion in Nazi Germany".
This is also where they gained the fervor against the Jewish peoples as they'd been indoctrinated to hate the Jews for hundreds of years.
While the European antisemitism indeed has a history of many centuries it isn't exclusively a Catholic trait. Martin Luther himself was one of the most fervent haters of Jews. Read the wiki page "On the Jews and Their Lies".
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2010
Nazis were shameless opportunists, like religionists. Religions are created on the backs of former religions; xianists borrowed the trinity from egypt, the blessed mother from canaanites, the entire OT from the jews.

Nazi roots lay in occultism and freemasonry, both of which they subsequently outlawed. Hitler the messiah rode the SA into power and then destroyed them when they became a threat. He made a pact with Stalin as a prelude to invasion. Nazis used Rome to similar effect; before, during, and after the war.
Read the wiki page "On the Jews and Their Lies".
Ever read the Magna Carta?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2010
This is too coarse to be true. Not all of them were Catholics.
Of course not. For the most part Catholics aren't catholics.
While the European antisemitism indeed has a history of many centuries it isn't exclusively a Catholic trait. Martin Luther himself was one of the most fervent haters of Jews. Read the wiki page "On the Jews and Their Lies".
From one Christian construct to another christian construct. I misspoke when I said All, and I further misspoke when I substituted Catholic for Christian.

The NAZI party programs from 1920 on endorsed "freedom of religion" however, they stated explicitly that the NAZI Party, and the Waffen SS were "proponents of positive Christianity", even the Ottoman SS who were Muslim. Positive Christianity, which effectively meant de-judiazed Christianity, was the core religion of all NAZI party members. Not all Germans were party members. That may be what is tripping you up. And honestly, the last place you'll get honesty about NAZism is GER
frajo
3 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2010
...
Yes.
xianists
Xianists are the inhabitants of Xi'an.
...
Yes.
Nazis used Rome to similar effect; before, during, and after the war.
After the war? How that?
Read the wiki page "On the Jews and Their Lies".
Ever read the Magna Carta?
What's the context of my link to one of Luther's texts to do with your link to the Magna Charta?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2010
After the war? How that?
Odessa used cover from the Vatican including fake passports and other doctored documents to escape to South America, Canada, Mexico, etc after the war.
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2010
Xianists are the inhabitants of Xi'an.
No they play the xiano. And they endanger the world with their ongoing support for the worship of the UNREAL.
What's the context of my link to one of Luther's texts to do with your link to the Magna Charta?
If you had read it you would see that the first declaration of freedom contains a whole section on how to restrict the freedom of jews.
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2010
After the war? How that?
Odessa used cover from the Vatican including fake passports and other doctored documents to escape to South America, Canada, Mexico, etc after the war.
Those nazis didn't represent anymore Germany. They were individual criminals with accomplices in the Vatican who helped them along the rat lines. I wouldn't diminish the Vatican's resposibility by saying it was "used" by the nazi individuals.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2010
I could swear the topic has nothing to do with Nazis.

I seem to be mistaken.

If a discussion is so far of topic that I have to mention it then is it completely out of hand.

---------------

Now for a topic that thrust itself on the thread and should be dealt with.

Multinamed Crank has been downrating, via multiple logins anyone on the thread it disagrees with even on posts that it has nothing to say about. This has happened before and the only proper response is in kind as tit for tat is a proved tactic.

Frajo, Skeptic Heretic, ubavontuba and any one else that the reprehensible crank has attacked should support those that have been downrated by the MultiCrank.

At present MC has been using the Jigga Sockpuppet to attack those it disagrees with. It seems to think that no one notice if it posts as VestaR and attacks as Jigga.

Don't bother lying about this being off topic MultiCrank. YOU made it the topic with your continued bad behavior.

Drop the DLs.

Ethelred
hush1
1 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2010
In the interest of balance, may I invite all the still living Jewish SS officers to this thread of commentary?

The number is surprising high and the need to translate is superfluous because our (as in, we here on this forum) vocabularies extend well over the languages anticipated.

It's merely a suggestion/a thought - the personal, potential insights have the potential of value, regardless of anyone's bias.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 26, 2010
In the two-slit experiment, is it the slits (absence of matter) making the observation then?
Having the affect anyway. It is the edges that have the effect. They define the boundary of the test.
How would they "know" whether the other slit was open or closed, so that they may therefore define the proper outcome of the test?
Is distance a factor? Might my coffee table affect your television? Why not?
Yes, the speed of light is relevant. Yes and in both concepts for both questions.
But hasn't quantum entanglement been demonstrated at a distance? doesn't this contradict your interpretation?

See: http://www.physor...388.html
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 26, 2010
Do you really think inanimate objects which perform no measurements at all, are really observers?
Within the limits of the inadequate word 'observers' yes. Do you really think that inanimate objects don't effect each other?
They can, but that doesn't mean they do.

Certainly the photons given off from my coffee table heat the TV, but the interaction is localized to the TV. The atoms of the coffee table, itself, aren't directly affecting my TV, or its behavior. The coffee table performs no measurement, therefore no observation is made.
You do know the quantum rule in question stipulates that observation requires an interaction to determine a measurement, which affects the quantum state,
Do you know that the 'rule' was written by egocentric men? It is the INTERACTION and not the observation that affects the state of other matter.
It's basic causality. The interaction in question is the result of observation, not the other way around.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Jul 26, 2010
It essentially demands that any arbitrary point in the universe has a virtually infinite energy potential, enough so as to create a whole new universe at the drop of a hat.

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

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

Why is there something rather than nothing?

When asked that, or something like it, on Comport about a decade ago I remembered a philosophical answer that I had run across once. Perhaps there is no choice in the matter. If something is possible then it exists. To put it more formally.
Well this question is largely and scientifically being answered by symmetry breaking in colliders.

Philosophically speaking: Descartes might argue; individually, we can only know that we exist. Everything else is open to interpretation.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Jul 26, 2010
If something is mathematically, or perhaps logically, consistent and supports something like domains and sets and numbers then it exists. Perhaps not in the same sense we think of as reality but in a sense that some domains within the sets will feel that they are real if the domains should be capable of being self-aware. This makes time and existence, in some sense, illusory. Yet the illusion is as real as it gets to the inhabitants of any consistent universe of logic.
Well, that's nothing more than philosophy, boarding on religion.
This goes for time and even concepts like freedom of choice in the less mechanical universes. We do not live in a mechanical universe. That is, we live in universe with chaos and unpredictability built into it.
I would argue that chaos is an illusion of volume and unknowable circumstance.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 26, 2010
This not only has an explanation for why the Universe exists it also explains why the Universe appears to be mathematically and logically consistent.
Well, I think CP violations tend to suggest otherwise.
Of course this is philosophy and not science.
Bingo!
There is no way to test it. At least I see none at present and I don't expect that there ever be one EVEN if we should prove that there are other universes. There is no predictive value to it so I am not married to the idea. I am just fond of it and only partly because it is my own idea overall.
To each his on beliefs, I suppose.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 26, 2010
It's a great and simple concept. However, I don't agree. Apart from its lack of falsifiability it doesn't obeye the economical imperative of Ockham's Razor: There's nothing in physics which requires multiverses.
An excellent observation.

Worse, I would argue that it either has to be a conservation violation (amongst the entire multi-verse), or it's strangely deterministic in that all possible outcomes (from beginning to end) are already included (which limits the total possible number of multi-verses).
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 26, 2010
Complexity is not a problem if the other choices don't answer the questions.

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

Why is there is something rather than nothing?

Why does the Universe behave according to mathematics?
I don't see that yours offers any better answers to these questions.
There is nothing in physics that requires the Copenhagen Interpretation at all. It answers no questions that cannot be answered with other ideas. Something similar to what Dr. Prins likes for instance. I think he is wrong on Quarks but the idea of waves only that are constrained by boundaries seems quite effective to me. The general idea of waves only that are constrained by boundaries seems quite effective to me. . It fits the evidence and doesn't have the baggage the CI does.
As I've shown above, I disagree. It doesn't fit the evidence.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 26, 2010
You mean like how the Nazis were so "peaceful" in working to abolish religions?
Uba, The NAZIs were Catholics.
Dude, you need to read some history.

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

From: http://en.wikiped..._Germany

I only skimmed it, but this article looks interesting: http://www.takima...eligion/
otto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2010
Those nazis didn't represent anymore Germany
Nor did the nationalist Chinese represent china from Taiwan. Who knows what Nazis/SS retained when they fled? Just because we may not be aware of any surviving power structure, doesn't mean that one didn't survive, and still functions today. Come on frajo, speculate. What happened to the Blütfahne and all those Ehrenringen? And all that gold at the bottom of lake Toplitz?
otto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2010
"...the Nazis saw themselves as an effective replacement of Catholicism that would co-opt its unity and respect for hierarchy."
1) Don't use wiki for politically-charged references
2) Use wiki to look up the term 'propaganda'
3) Accept the fact that your judgment is critically poisoned by brainwashing from your fantasmic beliefs. Dude.
otto1923
3 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2010
Philosophically speaking: Descartes might argue; individually, we can only know that we exist. Everything else is open to interpretation.
Descartes was a propagandist. Just like Paul of tarsus. Even intellectuals and wannabes need to be propagandized. Proof- Descartes was superseded, just like all philo schools of thought. Until they are resurrected by neos, who are themselves superseded. Philosophy never led anywhere except for political philosophy, re Marx and Paul of tarsus. But they too are temporal and flawed, and will end as well.
Skeptic_Heretic
2 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2010
Either Uba went post mad, or someone just got the ban hammer.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 26, 2010
Sorry, you're omitting a substantial amount of history. The Waffen SS were required to be Catholic, the German laws requiring tithes to the Catholic church were created under the NAZIs. The NAZIs sent Catholic priests into battle with their units and Hitler was rather fond of saying the NAZI movement was a movement for God.

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

History is not on your side in this argument.
Dude, you REALLY need to read some history.

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

From: http://en.wikiped...roatian)
otto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2010
Either Uba went post mad, or someone just got the ban hammer.
Whaa? At least he's mostly on-topic, even though he doesn't understand it. Or doesn't want to.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 26, 2010
Either Uba went post mad, or someone just got the ban hammer.
Sorry about that. I've just been a bit bored. I'll stop now.
otto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2010
Toward the end of the war the SS was relaxing their standards and enlisting/conscripting anyone who would fight Russians. That Muslim division (florian geyer?) wore the red fez (red for blood of xians) and fought well as I recall.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Jul 27, 2010
How would they "know" whether the other slit was open or closed, so that they may therefore define the proper outcome of the test?


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

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


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

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


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

More
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Jul 27, 2010
The coffee table performs no measurement, therefore no observation is made.
The coffee table forms a boundary to the light from the TV. Observations are a little bird twittering in the wilderness.
It's basic causality. The interaction in question is the result of observation, not the other way around.
The interaction has nothing to do with observation as the word is used by you. Interactions are particle/waves behaving according the rules of the universe. This includes boundaries that are set by other p/ws.

Observation is a bugaboo of egos and is done by the interactions of the atoms that make up the cells that make up the brain from which the ego emerges as a property of some kinds of matter. There is no magic in those interactions. All the parts follow the rules.
Well this question is largely and scientifically being answered by symmetry breaking in colliders
No. Symmetry breaking tells us why there is more matter than anti-matter not why something.

Still more
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Jul 27, 2010
Descartes might argue; individually, we can only know that we exist. Everything else is open to interpretation.
f you want to go that route then, Descartes was a drunken fart who drank therefor he thought. And somewhat sloppily as he was assuming that his thoughts were his. However YOU could not quote him if that was all there was. Its crap philosophy for freshman. And the Philosophy Department of the University of Wallamaloo.
Well, that's nothing more than philosophy, boarding on religion.
Ah the hope of the religious. You hope to catch me thinking religious thoughts. Horse manure. Assume that there is a reality because it will kill you if you do the opposite.
I would argue that chaos is an illusion of volume and unknowable circumstance.
Argue all you want. It is still wrong. Chaos is a mathematical concept in this instance. The circumstances can be known and you can still get chaos. All you need is non-linear circumstances.

Extra more
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2010
Well, I think CP violations tend to suggest otherwise.
Wrong. CP violations are not mathematically inconsistent and I already covered M vs. AM not being the same as nothing vs. something.
To each his on beliefs, I suppose.
Again with the religious thinking. This is not a belief. It is a possibility that I am fond of.
or it's strangely deterministic in that all possible outcomes (from beginning to end) are already included (which limits the total possible number of multi-verses).
Why did you think I said it was disturbing? Beginning to get it now? Quite a few physicists think time might be illusory.
I don't see that yours offers any better answers to these questions.
Sure it does. The whole thing is math or rather logic, which would exist whether anyone explored it or not.

Dennis More
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2010
The last shoe drops.

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

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

Why are there CP violations instead of nothing?

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 27, 2010
Dude, you REALLY need to read some history.

"The SS Standartenfuhrer Karl von Krempler, a specialist in Islam, was charged by Himmler and Arthur Phleps with organising the recruitment of Muslims from Bosnia into the Waffen-SS."
Dude, you really need to read the rest of my posts on the topic.
otto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2010
Descartes was a drunken fart
'Beer drinkers are incapable of subtle thought.' -Nietzsche
-Descartes invented tic-tac-toe didnt he? Checkers?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 27, 2010
@Otto:
Toward the end of the war the SS was relaxing their standards and enlisting/conscripting anyone who would fight Russians. That Muslim division (florian geyer?) wore the red fez (red for blood of xians) and fought well as I recall.
Do I sense pride for these killers? And here I thought you were claiming to be such a peacenik...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 27, 2010
Particles don't know anything. They have properties. They have wave/particle properties and the boundary of the path of the wave/particle includes the slits. No slit it's a boundary and not a place that can be passed through. This works the same in MW. Open the slit and you change the boundary conditions.
Then how do you explain the outcome of this experiment:

http://www.scienc...5013.htm
Yes. I did not say otherwise. Information is limited to the speed of light. Boundary conditions effect the wave but who knows if it is instant or at the speed of light. I suspect the latter since that would limit information to the SoL.
Doubts about this are building. See: http://www.nature...038.html
No. The interactionS are limited to the paths of the waves, controlled by boundaries, and of course the SoL.
The heat from the table is delivered to the TV, at the TV. The table has nothing to do with it, anymore.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 27, 2010
No. Symmetry breaking tells us why there is more matter than anti-matter not why something.
Nope. It's showing why something. Symmetry would demand that matter and antimatter exist in equal portions, effectively canceling each other into the mathematical nothingness from which they arise. Since they break symmetry, and therefore aren't proportionate, from the nothing arises something.
I would argue that chaos is an illusion of volume and unknowable circumstance.

Argue all you want. It is still wrong. Chaos is a mathematical concept in this instance. The circumstances can be known and you can still get chaos. All you need is non-linear circumstances.
How's that different from what I said? It's the "butterfly effect." Or more specifically, chaos describes systems which are highly sensitive to initial conditions.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 27, 2010
Why did you think I said it was disturbing? Beginning to get it now?
Really? I don't find that disturbing, just unlikely. It's essentially saying the multi-verse knows all, in a God-like fashion. Hey! Maybe you have something here after all!
Quite a few physicists think time might be illusory.
Well if that were true, it seems it wouldn't be so malleable.
Sure it does. The whole thing is math or rather logic, which would exist whether anyone explored it or not.
Oh come now. Though math can be used to describe nature, math itself isn't necessarily the form of nature.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 27, 2010
Showing that you disagree is not the same as showing that it doesn't fit the evidence. That claim shows you don't understand what CP violations mean. Perhaps you did understand and got confused in your attempt to avoid what I said.

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

Why are there CP violations instead of nothing?
As I described above, so the sum value of everything, can be other than zero.
otto1923
3 / 5 (4) Jul 27, 2010
Do I sense pride for these killers? And here I thought you were claiming to be such a peacenik...
In addition to physics and politics, do I sense a total lack of understanding from uba of war as well? You know nothing about this war or any war except for the crude propaganda you've been fed, yet you feel qualified to offer an opinion.

This indicates you're simple-minded, which your babbling posts confirm. It's no wonder you accept the god-nonsense without question, and why you are oblivious to basic facts which would instill doubts about it in most thinking people.
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 27, 2010
Sorry about that. I've just been a bit bored. I'll stop now
Idle minds are the devils playground.
Really? I don't find that disturbing, just unlikely. It's essentially saying the multi-verse knows all, in a God-like fashion. Hey! Maybe you have something here after all!
Is anybody else here getting the opinion that we have another margin in our midst? Keeps asking the same questions and ignores the answers. Will not answer questions and changes the subject rather than admit gross errors. Keeps finding absurd ways of implicating god in everything.

Am I right?
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 27, 2010
-And abuses the quote button just to post a single question. A silly, bubbly version of übertroll.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jul 28, 2010
Otto

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

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

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

YOU are trolling. Got a bite too.

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

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

Now for an extension of that troll.

Now that he is dead why does Scientology still exist?

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

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

A minute passed. After a minute
Another minute passed.

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

Another minute passed.

Haven't you guys notice

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2010
Once an observer begins to watch the particles going through the openings
The method of looking changes the boundary.
Thus the mere act of observation affects the experimental findings
Observing requires a boundary change according to the Uncertainty Principle. No it doesn't use the word boundary.
The "observer" in this experiment wasn't human
You really should read what you post.Carefully.
Institute scientists used for this purpose a tiny but sophisticated electronic detector that can spot passing electrons
Which effects the electron.

It is weird just how often people post experiments that prove MY point instead of theirs.
Apart from "observing," or detecting, the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current.
Bad writing as the experimenters knew it would have an effect. This author is also having difficulty using anthropocentric terms not in keeping with the actual experiment.

The continuing adventures of Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2010
And the second experiment also works exactly as expected. No information was transferred faster than light. The only way you find out what you saw actually meant is to WAIT till you get the original data which travels at THE SOL.

Yes its annoying. I don't like it either but I tend to go on reality not hopes or fantasy.
The heat from the table is delivered to the TV, at the TV. The table has nothing to do with it, anymore.
Your point being? Keep in mind that you just showed that sentience is not needed. And the exchange there goes both ways ad infinitum.
Symmetry would demand that matter and antimatter exist in equal portions, effectively canceling each other into the mathematical nothingness from which they arise.
Wrong. It would leave energy. Still something not nothing. The something arose from the energy that produced the matter anti-matter pairs and not from nothing.

On a five post mission
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2010
t's the "butterfly effect." Or more specifically, chaos describes systems which are highly sensitive to initial conditions
Which is NOT an illusion and that was all I was dealing with.
Really? I don't find that disturbing, just unlikely
Well you sounded as if you didn't like it. Not simply that you found it unlikely.
It's essentially saying the multi-verse knows all, in a God-like fashion
Not sure of that. I don't see logic as being sentient. Sentience can emerge from logical iterative processes but the logic itself is not sentient. That is, logic does not look at itself. PARTS of a multi-verse can be sentient but not the whole thing. At least I don't see how.
Well if that were true, it seems it wouldn't be so malleable.
In this way of thinking it isn't so much malleable as branching in multiple dimensions.

To boldly post ideas he is not sure of
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2010
Though math can be used to describe nature, math itself isn't necessarily the form of nature.
But that is the point of the idea. Math describes nature BECAUSE it is synonymous with nature. Not in the Newtonian sense. In the iterative cell processor sense.

Sure I could be wrong and the only things that get explained is those two questions. But I consider the questions a bit more profound than 'why is the night sky black?' which IS a much deeper question than it appears on the surface.

http://en.wikiped..._paradox

In hopes that someone will learn something. Himself included.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2010
As I described above, so the sum value of everything, can be other than zero.
Which is begging the question. Why something instead of nothing? Yes we couldn't ask the question if we didn't exist but that is not an effective answer for those that ask the question. Me included. I can live with not knowing but I am pleased to have come up with AN answer even if it can never be known to be right or wrong.

Perhaps THIS way will help as you are religious.

Why is there a god instead of nothing? Which, of course makes an unneeded assumption but you seem trying to avoid the question no matter how it is posed rather than dealing with it.

A popular move but I prefer to take such questions head on. I make no guarantee that the answer is right. I only require that it not violate known laws nor contradict evidence. Avoiding tough questions is a sure way to never have answers except by accident.

Ethelred
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2010
Otto

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

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

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

YOU are trolling. Got a bite too.

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

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

Now for an extension of that troll.

Now that he is dead why does Scientology still exist?

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

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

A minute passed. After a minute
Another minute passed.

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

Another minute passed.

Haven't yo

Ethelred
?
otto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 28, 2010
Your message was unclear.

Are you saying Otto is a scientologist?? This is an outrage!

I think you're reluctance to declare the religionist a troll is only for the somewhat selfish reason that sparring partners are hard to come by. But he is impervious to argument or evidence, he doesn't answer direct questions honestly and etc.

Admit it- you're getting nowhere. How long before you accept that you are conversing with a holy wafer?
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 28, 2010
Your message was unclear.
The beginning of the message was for you and seemed clear to me. The rest was filler to reach the 1000 character limit. Partly from a Monty Python recording.
Admit it- you're getting nowhere.
I am getting somewhere. Emphasis on 'I'. The question is whether anyone else is getting anywhere. Me I am clarifying, on record, things that have mostly remained in my head for several years.

Questions about what I write helps what refine my thoughts. What parts are wrong and what parts are pure crap or merely not thought through.
How long before you accept that you are conversing with a holy wafer?
When I get wet.

How long before you learn that ranting is counter productive?

Where the Islamic Nazis actually Turkish as it seems that was in what is here. Turks are recent migrants from the Russian steppes. I would have expected Persians who are actually partly descended from Aryans. Why anyone thinks a bunch of slaughtering horse barbarians are

Ethelred
otto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 28, 2010
How long before you learn that ranting is counter productive?
How long before you learn that reason is counter productive with religionists? Sorry, but NEVER have I seen here or anywhere where reason deprogrammed a religionist.

It can serve, however, to discourage potential recruits and fence-sitters... as can a show of justified emotion and indignity in exposing a religionists deception and subterfuge. I think both approaches are complimentary. You guys are the good cops. Otto is Gestapo. Figuratively of course. OKOK, maybe otto is Mossad. The main difference is that I feel I have won when they disappear.

You will NEVER have a genuine dialectic with a religionist.

Moslems in the Wehrmacht:
http://en.wikiped...roatian)

-Most foreign recruits were in waffen SS formations because other branches of the wehrmacht werent allowed to have them.
otto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 28, 2010
wafer?
When I get wet.
NoNo, I was referring to the Eucharist wafer, which indeed changes into the very body of Xrist and so makes catholics actual cannibals, according to some reports. A bonafide miracle on command, if done properly according to instruction:

"And they shall eat the messiah on that night, roasted over the fire, and matzos, with bitter herbs, shall they eat it."
-Exodus 12:8
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Jul 28, 2010
Do I sense pride for these killers? And here I thought you were claiming to be such a peacenik...
In addition to physics and politics, do I sense a total lack of understanding from uba of war as well? You know nothing about this war or any war except for the crude propaganda you've been fed, yet you feel qualified to offer an opinion.

This indicates you're simple-minded, which your babbling posts confirm. It's no wonder you accept the god-nonsense without question, and why you are oblivious to basic facts which would instill doubts about it in most thinking people.
This is nothing but flak, thrown up to distract people away from the point in question.

It's becoming quite clear that you're not whom you've pretended to be, as it seems peace is very far from your mind. ...very far, indeed.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2010
q]Sorry, but NEVER have I seen here or anywhere where reason deprogrammed a religionist. Michael Schermer. You need to start reading Scientific American.
It can serve, however, to discourage potential recruits and fence-sitters... as can a show of justified emotion and indignity in exposing a religionists deception and subterfuge.
So far all it has served is ranting by you.
Otto is Gestapo. Figuratively of course. OKOK, maybe otto is Mossad. The main difference is that I feel I have won when they disappear.
Then you should try reason. Take another look at the threads where you had been ranting back and forth. Then I brought in reason and they left.

A snail crawling on a straight razor
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2010
and surviving.
You will NEVER have a genuine dialectic with a religionist.

"Dialectic" is political cant intended to obfuscate not inform. It leads to utter crap like 'the end of history' and other fuzzy minded political/sociological/economic garbage dependent on fantasy models of human beings that simply do not exist.

I have had reasoned discussions with religious people. You haven't simply because refuse to engage in one, you would rather troll.

You aren't a very talented troll either. Please see these links to Master Troll Paul Goodpuppy.

http://forums.pro...=46674.1

His first post was tame for him. NOW the second page of posts is where he really goes to town.

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


I see, the Balkans. The Land Of Rampant Insanity, genocide and vampires. The SS must have fit right in.

I have com to kick ass and chew bubblegum
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2010
Is anybody else here getting the opinion that we have another margin in our midst? Keeps asking the same questions and ignores the answers. Will not answer questions and changes the subject rather than admit gross errors. Keeps finding absurd ways of implicating god in everything.
Ha! This coming from someone whom we've already established sees visions of words and phrases that don't exist, and chooses obstructionism over reason.

Oops, did I upset you Otto? Na na, wird alles gut werden.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2010
and I am all out of bubblegum.
NoNo, I was referring to the Eucharist wafer
Oh. I saw that as Holy Water. The blood and body bit is something most Christians don't do. Blessing water somehow made me think of homeopathy just now.
"And they shall eat the messiah on that night, roasted over the fire, and matzos, with bitter herbs, shall they eat it."
-Exodus 12:8
Now that one matches Paul.

Ethelred
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2010
I think he is still learning how much to quote and how much to leave out. I leave out as much as I can. After all the whole post is up there. I just want enough to show what I am responding to.
I quote a lot in order to keep the context, as I find folks often lose the context, either intentionally, or not.

If it bothers you, don't read the quotes.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2010
You really should read what you post.Carefully.
Oh, I did. I thought there being a bridge between the observed and the human observer, made it particularly interesting.
And the second experiment also works exactly as expected. No information was transferred faster than light. The only way you find out what you saw actually meant is to WAIT till you get the original data which travels at THE SOL.
It wasn't about information (we can interpret) traveling faster than light. It was about the particles themselves.
Your point being? Keep in mind that you just showed that sentience is not needed. And the exchange there goes both ways ad infinitum.
You suggested my coffee table is actually affecting my TV by observing it. How is delivering photons to the TV an observation?
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2010
It would leave energy. Still something not nothing.
Right, but a sea of radiation is all there should be.

http://en.wikiped...mbalance

Which is NOT an illusion and that was all I was dealing with.
I had the impression you were implying that chaos was some sort of violation.
Well you sounded as if you didn't like it. Not simply that you found it unlikely.
No, I really like it. It makes for great sci-fi.
Sentience can emerge from logical iterative processes but the logic itself is not sentient. That is, logic does not look at itself. PARTS of a multi-verse can be sentient but not the whole thing. At least I don't see how.
Well, I can imagine that if it's sophisticated enough to understand its own nature, it may well have the ability to expand and colonize. Therefore, perhaps there's an element of sentience to most, or all of the multi-verse (or not, of course).
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2010
In this way of thinking it isn't so much malleable as branching in multiple dimensions.
Why would this branching be dependent only on that which we observe affects time?
To boldly post ideas he is not sure of
Yup. Fun, isn't it?
Math describes nature BECAUSE it is synonymous with nature.
Perhaps, but symmetry violations are disconcerting nonetheless.
why is the night sky black?
Uh, 'cause it aint green? (joking)
I am pleased to have come up with AN answer even if it can never be known to be right or wrong.
And so am I. But why would you devalue mine with an expectation I would, in turn, value yours?
Why is there a god instead of nothing?
God's as likely as the universe, and equally as unlikely, I suppose. As we discussed, there's no reason your multiverse can't be sentient (at least in part), so there's no reason there can't be a god.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2010
Admit it- you're getting nowhere.
Why do you feel the need to get somewhere?

Now if I saw words and phrases that didn't exist and chose obstructionism over logic, I could see that you might feel I am in error of judgement. ;)
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 29, 2010
Oh. I saw that as Holy Water.
Ice with bubbles. Now that's holey water you can chew!
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2010
If it bothers you, don't read the quotes
It doesn't bother me. It does waste a lot of the 1,000 character limit for something easily checked.
Oh, I did. I thought there being a bridge between the observed and the human observer, made it particularly interesting.
There was no bridge. ALL quantum experiments are done with instruments. None require a human being to observe them. Which has the been the point. Its the atoms of the instruments and not the atoms of sentient beings that causes the effects.
t wasn't about information (we can interpret) traveling faster than light. It was about the particles themselves
The particles didn't travel faster than light. Nor did information. Not even for the particle. This is exactly the sort of experiment that is easily explained in the Many Worlds Interpretation. The particle particle pair is in BOTH of two universes, you don't know which you are in until you test. There is no spooky action in the MWI.

What we have here
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2010
is a failure to communicate
You suggested my coffee table is actually affecting my TV by observing it. How is delivering photons to the TV an observation?
Again you seem to be having language difficulties. Effecting things is not the same as human observation. The TV heats the table and the table reflects back at the TV. No mystery and no observation.

I can't help it if you and others use ambiguous words. Nor can I help it if English simply doesn't have a good set of words for what is going on here. It is like trying to deal with gender neutrality in Spanish. Nothing but circumlocution and awkwardness.
Right, but a sea of radiation is all there should be.
Which I knew years ago. It is STILL SOMETHING and NOT nothing.
I had the impression you were implying that chaos was some sort of violation.
Try assuming that I am not an idiot. True I only have one book on Chaos theory. Not including fantasy novels.

Ahh, but the strawberries that's...
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2010
that's where I had them.
Well, I can imagine that if it's sophisticated enough to understand its own nature, it may well have the ability to expand and colonize.
Well that is not the Universe then.
Why would this branching be dependent only on that which we observe affects time?
Again with the fantasies about observation. Branching would be independent of sentient observation. Sentience is irrelevant to the functioning of the Universe. Assuming otherwise turns everything to crap. Solipsism. Kant.
Perhaps, but symmetry violations are disconcerting nonetheless.
If we didn't find them I might have had to become religious. So, no I don't find them disconcerting. All it really means is that while thinking about symmetry can lead to new ideas you shouldn't carried away with it. Perfect symmetry means there would be nothing but boredom except that there would be nothing to be bored.

Little John: It'll take all the deer in Sherwood Forest to fill that belly!
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2010
Friar Tuck: And twice that to fill your empty head!
And so am I. But why would you devalue mine with an expectation I would, in turn, value yours?
It is not a matter of valuation. It is that yours is based on a god that needs an explanation every bit as much as a universe does. It is one more step and an unneeded one. A god explains nothing because the god would then be what needed explaining. And any god that created the world described in Genesis has a LOT of explaining to do.
God's as likely as the universe, and equally as unlikely, I suppose.
No. A god only adds at least one more step. Probably others as the god Christians believe in seems a just a tad deranged or at least like a nasty kid with a magnifying glass and an ant hill.

What is next?
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Jul 29, 2010
The Andes Plain Crash Cook Book?
As we discussed, there's no reason your multiverse can't be sentient (at least in part), so there's no reason there can't be a god.
I didn't discuss that. I discussed sentience WITHIN a multiverse not OF a multiverse. Sentience seems to require the ability to look at oneself. How could a Universe do that. Only the inhabitants of a universe could do so. If nothing else a Universe would take the entire life of the Universe to even notice that it existed as communication between the parts would be limited to the speed of light. In the kind of universe we live in anyway.

Ice with bubbles. Now that's holey water you can chew!
That makes my teeth hurt.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2010
I didn't discuss that. I discussed sentience WITHIN a multiverse not OF a multiverse. Sentience seems to require the ability to look at oneself. How could a Universe do that.
Not to get too esoteric, but as Sagan was fond of saying, Life may be the only manner in which the Universe can know itself. Just as the brain is what gives rise to the mind allowing for knowledge of one's self, Life may be the brain, or the mind of the Universe.

We could very well be the Multiversal equivalent of poetry philosophy, or even psychology.

Again, this is merely esoteric philosophy with no evidence of any form, nor any theology of any form.
otto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2010
"Dialectic" is political cant intended to obfuscate not inform.
Classic dialectic is only a constructive method of argument:

"The aim of the dialectical method is resolution of the disagreement through rational discussion, and ultimately the search for truth."

"Hegelian dialectic, usually presented in a three-fold manner, was stated by Heinrich Moritz Chalybaeus as comprising three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction, an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis, and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis."

-It is intended to be used by trustworthy opponents in discussions intended to actually get somewhere, as opposed to absolutely nowhere. It implies that either opponent will be willing to concede.
otto1923
3 / 5 (4) Jul 29, 2010
Why do you feel the need to get somewhere?
Because:
http://www.jta.or...ial-book
-and because:
http://en.wikiped...massacre
-and because:
http://www.rnw.nl...e-8-dead
-and because:
http://en.wikiped...shooting
-and because:
http://leviticus1...bigotry/
-and also because:
http://hisvorpal....s-again/
-and, of course:
http://www.radaro...d-digger

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

I'll say it again: ANYONE who advocates a belief in the unreal shares in the guilt for the misery that it causes.
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2010
Little John: It'll take all the deer in Sherwood Forest to fill that belly!
Of course you know that the robin hood fable is just a retelling of the jesus/magdalene merovingian love story? You didnt? Mary magdalene/maid marion, robins band of merry men/disciples, robbing from the rich to feed the poor, etc.

More akin to the manly hercules/heracles godman precursor than the effeminate long-haired, robed celibate created to attract gays to the church heirarchy (and out of the communities) I suppose-
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 30, 2010
There was no bridge.
What I meant was there was a bridge of space. The observer is not the slits and is (relatively) remote from them. I.e. contrary to your assertion, it was the presence and activity of an observer and NOT the mere presence of matter in the vicinity which made the difference. Or more succinctly, ordinary matter is not an observer.
Not even for the particle.
Clearly the experimenters would disagree. "at least 100,000 times faster than the speed of light... these photons cannot know about each other through any sort of normal exchange of information."

It's beginning to appear that your "faith" in your favorite hypothesis is unshakable. So, how is your interpretation better than the scientists conducting the experiments?
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 30, 2010
The TV heats the table and the table reflects back at the TV. No mystery and no observation.
Which has what, precisely, to do with quantum waveform collapse?
It is STILL SOMETHING and NOT nothing.
Are massless particles really "something?"
Try assuming that I am not an idiot.
Sincerely, I do not assume you're an idiot.
Well that is not the Universe then.
...from one universe to another.
A god explains nothing
Or, He explains everything. It's a matter of perspective.
...like a nasty kid with a magnifying glass and an ant hill.
Again, a matter of perspective.
communication between the parts would be limited to the speed of light
But didn't you just say time is an illusion? Since light speed is time dependent, wouldn't that also be an illusion?
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 30, 2010
Et cetera, ad infinitum.
"The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined."

Source: http://www.conser...s_Murder
Forgive me for wanting to make the world a better place, than merely trying to escape it for a few hours by trading polite barbs HERE.
So why aren't you exemplifying how atheism leads to a more peaceful disposition?

Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Jul 30, 2010
s, and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis."
In other words its a snowjob by another name.
-It is intended to be used by trustworthy opponents in discussion
If that was true it wouldn't be formalized. Then again its German.
It implies that either opponent will be willing to concede.
It may imply it but I have never seen the word used except from people pushing philosophies that they think are Papal Bulls. And its always been bull all right.

Perhaps its Marx's fault that its turned into dogma based on fantasy.
Of course you know that the robin hood fable is just a retelling of the jesus/magdalene merovingian love story?
Its not.
Mary magdalene/maid marion,
Came from a French story that had nothing to do with Robin Hood.
More akin to the manly hercules/heracles
No. Its based on a series of tales about alleged or possibly real highwaymen in Saxon England. More baggage was added later by bards.

Trolls on film at 11
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2010
But I prefer Girls On Film and the time doesn't matter.

The line from the best Robin Hood - The Adventures of Robin Hood with Errol Flynn. All the rest make the mistake of trying to be realistic with a bunch of stuff made up by peasants and bards.
robed celibate created to attract gays to the church
You need to do something about that fixation of yours. Besides the gay guy, no not Guy of Gisborne, was the King. Yes Richard the Lion Heart was going at it with the French King when he wasn't murdering Arabs, Jews, Samaritans, Gypsies and pretty much anyone else that stood in the same place too long.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2010
The observer is not the slits
Of course not. Its the whole path.
it was the presence and activity of an observer
This is getting really strained. Its NOT the activity and presence is completely irrelevant. Its the physical structure of the experimental equipment.

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

Do you really think that the film doesn't get exposed if it is thrown out without looking at it?
Or more succinctly, ordinary matter is not an observer.
There is no other kind of matter. There is no magic in atoms that are in humans vs. atoms that are in the experiment EXCEPT that the atoms in the experiment actually DO SOMETHING.
Clearly the experimenters would disagree
Some might. They believe in spooky action. They MAY be right. But they are ones that are mystified. I am not. It makes sense if you use a different point of view.

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

You say tomato
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2010
And I say tomato
hese photons cannot know about each other through any sort of normal exchange of information
They don't have to. Its really simple. A pair is formed. Particle A is, oh say, spin up and B therefor must be spin down. Test A and now you know what B must be. B did not magically become spin down. It was ALWAYS spin down.
It's beginning to appear that your "faith" in your favorite hypothesis is unshakable
I am not the one going of faith. YOU are the one with a faith in observers. I am just using reason. The only thing you have done to show that sentience is special is to KEEP SAYING IT. Even when the experimenters themselves said there was no observer you blindly insist there was. It doesn't get more faithlike than that.

You say potato
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2010
And I say potato
So, how is your interpretation better than the scientists conducting the experiments?
The real question is why YOU think YOURS is better than theirs. They said there was no observer and you insist that there was. All I am doing with the other experiment is showing a way to look at it that MAKES SENSE. Quite unlike the usual claims of spooky action.
Which has what, precisely, to do with quantum waveform collapse?
Nothing. You brought it up without explaining why. TVs and tables were not involved in waveform collapse even if such thing exists. I just pointed out that whatever was happening was actually happening even if no one looked.

Are massless particles really "something?"


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

Tomato tomato
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2010
Potato potato
Or, He explains everything. It's a matter of perspective.
No. A god explains nothing UNLESS IT STARTS TALKING. Something that clearly hasn't happened. Unless you believe Oral Roberts and the 800 foot Jesus. Without actual explanations from the hypothetical deity all you have is another step.
Again, a matter of perspective.
Yes. The perspective of a rational human being looking at behavior and judging it the same way I would judge any sentient being.

Lets hear what your excuse is for the behavior described in Genesis and Exodus. Killing children is inherently killing innocents. And both books have lots of that.
But didn't you just say time is an illusion?
Actually I said OTHERS think it is an illusion. I said that from out perspective it is real.

I'm sorry
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2010
But I just don't see the conflict in this.
Since light speed is time dependent, wouldn't that also be an illusion?
It is measurable and calling that sort of thing illusory is just trying to avoid the issue. Though I did see someone saying that Einstein's GR theory showed gravity is a fictional force and I need read over that a few more times. At least once with plenty of sleep. It looked a bit like it might make sense. It literaly was a matter of perspective.

And taking another look at the alleged FTL experment.
Physicists spooked by faster-than-light information transfer
Bad as physorg there. Most of the commentators there were fully aware that the title was completely false.
When two particles are quantum mechanically ‘entangled’ with each other, measuring the properties of one will instantly tell you something about the other.
And it would of told the same exact thing if they tested it in a one by one by one box.

MY BRAIN HURTS
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2010
WELL, IT WILL HAVE TO COME OUT THEN.
For example, one could imagine that the photons might have shared information before they left Geneva — but Gisin’s measurements showed that they could not
False. They couldn't be entangled without sharing information. It is part of the process of entanglement.

From comment 4055
It seems to me that the evolution of the photons is governed by their wave form, which was set to an identical state for both photons by the entanglement. Therefore the communication occurred at the time of entanglement, and what would follow was at that event set
Which is exactly what I just wrote BEFORE I read that. There has never been any information exchanged at FTL in ANY of these experiments. No one has even a clue as to how it could be done. Unless someone can find a way the whole idea of spooky action is without foundation. Best I can figure is that some people just want FTL so badly they can't the evidence in front of them.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2010
Alizee

Those ones are totally unwarranted by any standard. Because of those for the last several days I have found a thread, and ENTIRE thread, for each of those illegitimate ones. And gave you ones. For both active sockpuppets.

I will now get even more extreme. If you continue this reprehensible it will be two threads PER sockpuppet. You are in a LOT of threads and I have mostly been ignoring you. That has changed the last several days do your misbehavior.

I can go farther as well if you insist on this continuing behavior of giving ones to anyone that disagrees with you in any way whatsoever.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2010
Et cetera, ad infinitum.
"The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined."

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

Conservapedia isn't a source. They advocate geocentrism as factual on conservapedia. They're an ultra right wing christian fundamentalist propaganda machine.
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 30, 2010
Or, He explains everything. It's a matter of perspective.
Like I say, nowhere are you getting and nowhere will you get. Youre just enjoying yourself, at the expense of world survival!!
It may imply it but I have never seen the word used except from people pushing philosophies that they think are Papal Bulls. And its always been bull all right.
Oh I couldnt agree with you more, that state-sponsored philosophy (the kind that gets published) is rarely what it claims to be. But it has always been darn good propaganda, as in the german philos preparing their enthusiasts for the world wars. It works JUST LIKE the bible did before the Enlightment began its obsolescence.
Its not.
Yeah it is. Merovingians were french. Same old tale tailored for the venue, told many times in many different languages. Jesus and the magdalene certainly werent the first. But the maid marion character is absolutely mary mag, 'the one jesus loved', from john.
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 30, 2010
No. A god explains nothing UNLESS IT STARTS TALKING. Something that clearly hasn't happened. Unless you believe Oral Roberts and the 800 foot Jesus. Without actual explanations from the hypothetical deity all you have is another step.
The impotent god explains nothing but demands belief. Its got to have people speaking for it.
Do you have some problem with negative voting of every comment, which doesn't follow the topic of original article?
The impotent aetherial explains nothing but demands belief.

These threads usually deterioriate into godders and the aetherial flooding them with nonsense and people responding to them in vain. Neither theory explains anything yet both claim to explain everything. The deluded compulsives who try to sell them are impervious to critical analysis and people who try to reason with them are only wasting their time.
otto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2010
You can continue with your private discussion about religion and nacism with ubavontuba and otto1923 via messaging system
You can continue discussing your aether somewhere where it may actually be appreciated- how about outer space? You are preaching to an empty church here.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2010
Of course not. Its the whole path
But earlier you stated:
Again it is NOT the observation as the observer is irrelevant.
And:
To give an example, set up a two slit experiment. Put a film detector in the path of the photons. Load the film into the detector. Open both slits. Then change the film and close either slit.

Now throw out the film. Do you really think that there was no interference pattern in the first and a single area exposed on the second? Just because we didn't look at the results? If you do then you believe in magic. Just like the people that wrote the Copenhagen Interpretation.
In this case, it is merely the properties of the "film" (passive detector) which are changing, thereby belying what you said here.

So which is it, the slit configuration that matters, or the observation? Make up your mind.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2010
This is getting really strained. Its NOT the activity and presence is completely irrelevant. Its the physical structure of the experimental equipment.

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

Do you really think that the film doesn't get exposed if it is thrown out without looking at it?
As shown above, it's the observation which matters, not the slit configuration. Therefore, the film would only matter if someone looked at it (but this isn't provable). Perhaps, if no one looks at it, the film isn't exposed (as we think of it) as the quanta of the film itself remain superimposed between exposed and not exposed.
There is no other kind of matter. There is no magic in atoms that are in humans vs. atoms that are in the experiment EXCEPT that the atoms in the experiment actually DO SOMETHING.
Again, the slits don't matter. Only the observation matters.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2010
If it looks weird you are very likely looking at it wrong.
Or, it just as easily may, indeed, be weird.
They don't have to. Its really simple. A pair is formed. Particle A is, oh say, spin up and B therefor must be spin down. Test A and now you know what B must be. B did not magically become spin down. It was ALWAYS spin down.
It's much deeper than that. even if they oscillate, they oscillate together.

However, IMO, I think a likely cause of spooky action is simply a lack of chaos. That is, these systems are so simple that they simply aren't affected by chaos until they are disturbed. It's that we fundamentally expect chaos that makes it seem so spooky (again, just an opinion).
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2010
I am not the one going of faith.
But you already said:
the multi-worlds interpretation is not falsifiable but neither is the Copenhagen interpretation.
Therefore, there's no particularly logical reason to believe one over another, except as a matter of personal philosophy. And therefore, to expect other people to believe as you do, simply because you want them to, and because your philosophy seems particularly logical to you, is the height of conceit.
Even when the experimenters themselves said there was no observer you blindly insist there was.
Then who verified the observation?
Even when the experimenters themselves said there was no observer you blindly insist there was.
Where did they say that? Are we still talking about the Swiss photon experiment?

Hmm... I re-read both articles and they both seem to specify that there were observers. Maybe you mean the electron experiment and the non-human observer? Again, the end observer is still human.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2010
The real question is why YOU think YOURS is better than theirs.
I thought it was implied that I was agreeing with their conclusions (as I provided the articles). Besides, except as a matter of personal philosophy, I don't think my interpretation is particularly superior. It's that you demand I recognize it as being less valid than yours that I'm arguing against.
They said there was no observer and you insist that there was.
It seems you are clearly wrong about that.
All I am doing with the other experiment is showing a way to look at it that MAKES SENSE. Quite unlike the usual claims of spooky action.
I disagree. Spooky action makes a particular sense, when you consider they may be chaos free systems.
You brought it up without explaining why.
I brought it up as a sarcastic response to your insistence that the actual Schrodinger box (and the slits) were observers.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2010
Do you have some problem with negative voting of every comment, which doesn't follow the topic of original article
Even if that was what you were doing then YES. You aren't doing that and lying about won't change it.
You can continue with your private discussion about religion and nacism with ubavontuba and otto1923 via messaging system
False.

First the discussion is not nor is it intended to be private and the PM system can't handle muliple people. Second it IS ON TOPIC and you know it. It is about QM and methods of interpretation.

This is nothing but another of your childish displays of pique.
I'd prefer to keep PO comments as on topic, as possible
Is that why you constantly bring in your off-topic AWITSBULL nonsense? In practicly every thread?

Did Jehovah die and apoint you the god of the forum?
, so I'm not using "report abuse" link
You aren't using the link because we are on topic any you are just lying.

Expect your ratings to drop even further.

Ethelred
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2010
You can talk about them so they are something. This is evasion.
So therefore consciousness and God and fairies, and whatever else we can talk about, are something?
Without actual explanations from the hypothetical deity all you have is another step.
But there are explanations and revelations.
Lets hear what your excuse is for the behavior described in Genesis and Exodus.
I thought I've made it plain that I don't ascribe to a literal interpretation.

Anyway, you have to consider His audience at the time. These were primitive societies. Fear was, apparently, a useful tool. Heck, it still works today (like the M.A.D. doctrine).
Actually I said OTHERS think it is an illusion.
Actually, you didn't specify whether you were including yourself, or not.
I said that from our perspective it is real.
Which implies that from another perspective it isn't. You do know the Bible essentially states time is meaningless to God, right?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2010
Einstein's GR theory showed gravity is a fictional force
This is correct. In GR, gravity is not a force. It's geometry.

If you are who I think you are, we've discussed this before, and I'm glad to see you're finally accepting it.

If I'm wrong about you, I'm still glad to see you reaching for this concept. It's one of the stumbling blocks that makes GR hard to grasp.
Unless someone can find a way the whole idea of spooky action is without foundation.
Like I said, I think it may simply be a lack of chaos.
Best I can figure is that some people just want FTL so badly they can't (see) the evidence in front of them.
I can't blame anyone for having this sentiment. And who knows? They might be right.

frajo
3 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2010
I am not the one going of faith.
But you already said:
the multi-worlds interpretation is not falsifiable but neither is the Copenhagen interpretation.
Therefore, there's no particularly logical reason to believe one over another, except as a matter of personal philosophy.
This vicinity to beliefs and superstition is what makes me dislike the multiverse picture as an "interpretation of QM". To construct a non-falsifiable interpretation of QM blurs the frontiers between science and non-science too much. There is no advantage for scientific cognition.
And therefore, to expect other people to believe as you do, simply because you want them to, and because your philosophy seems particularly logical to you, is the height of conceit.
He didn't say so. We should not insinuate just for the sake of rhetorics.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2010
Conservapedia isn't a source. They advocate geocentrism as factual on conservapedia. They're an ultra right wing christian fundamentalist propaganda machine.
Right. I generally wouldn't use them, but in this case they are arguably correct. I particularly liked the succinct way in which they phrased the argument.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2010
He didn't say so. We should not insinuate just for the sake of rhetorics.
Actually he has said so, several times.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.5 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2010
Conservapedia isn't a source. They advocate geocentrism as factual on conservapedia. They're an ultra right wing christian fundamentalist propaganda machine.
Right. I generally wouldn't use them, but in this case they are arguably correct. I particularly liked the succinct way in which they phrased the argument.

They're almost entirely incorrect. Half his sources are blog posts from fundamentalists. This is akin to having the Imam tell you that the vest you're wearing isn't a bomb.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2010
They're almost entirely incorrect.
In this case, I disagree. Stalin alone is responsible for the deaths of millions. And that's only one of the 52 people mentioned.

Atheists have no exclusion from historical violence.
otto1923
3 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2010
They're almost entirely incorrect.
In this case, I disagree. Stalin alone is responsible for the deaths of millions. And that's only one of the 52 people mentioned.
That was then, this is now. Religion (and the overpop it engenders) are the major cause of violence and misery today.

Stalin and Mao weren't killing because they were atheists. They were killing to spread their philosophy, which is EXACTLY why religionists kill. In that respect religionists are EXACTLY the same as the despots you refer to. No difference. Each claims the moral justification for murder and misery.

Religions don't even require despots. Their structure and composition are enough to initiate violence whenever conflict occurs. And religions make conflict inevitable.
So therefore consciousness and God and fairies, and whatever else we can talk about, are something?
Hey we agree on something. Your god IS a fairy.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.8 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2010
They're almost entirely incorrect.
In this case, I disagree. Stalin alone is responsible for the deaths of millions. And that's only one of the 52 people mentioned.

Atheists have no exclusion from historical violence.

Stalin wasn't an atheist, neither was Hitler.

Not surprising when you look up theism, there is no count attributed. Dubious reporting and slanted viewpoints. Conservapedia is an utter joke. The fact you went to that as a source is laughable.
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2010
OK frajo, I know you rarely have the knoebels to debate me directly (if at all), but tell me- what is the difference between what xians were doing in china in 1860 and what the Japanese were doing there half a century later? What is the difference, in % of populations killed, between the 30 years war in Germany and the Russian or the chinese revolutions? How about what happened to the cathars in the inquisition, and any xians that happened to get in the way?
http://en.wikiped...ebellion
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2010
I know you rarely have the knoebels to debate me directly (if at all),
What's "knoebels" supposed to mean?
what is the difference between what xians were doing in china in 1860 and what the Japanese were doing there half a century later?
You forgot Nanking 1937. Christians were involved, but not their religion.
What is the difference, in % of populations killed, between the 30 years war in Germany and the Russian or the chinese revolutions?
The causes were different.
How about what happened to the cathars in the inquisition, and any xians that happened to get in the way?
Don't understand. The Cathars were Christians, too. Konstantinopolis 1204. The inquisition was a group of historical mass murderers supported by the RCC.

http://en.wikiped...ebellion
Another civil war, the main causes being social unjustice, a rotten administration, and the interference of external powers. Nothing to do with religion. The same as Northern Ireland.
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2010
Hoden. Eier. Steine.

"The rebels attempted social reforms and the replacement of Confucianism, Buddhism and Chinese folk religion by a form of Christianity" -Whatever the real reasons for it, xianity made glorious. Thorough. Righteous.
The causes were different.
The results were the SAME which is my point. Religion or pseudo-religion; same difference.
The Cathars were Christians
Sort of. No matter- they weren't the RIGHT kind, were they? And so they were exterminated.
The inquisition was a group of historical mass murderers supported by the RCC.
Religionists. The propensity exists in all religions.

Thankyou for your kindly response.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2010
That was then, this is now. Religion (and the overpop it engenders) are the major cause of violence and misery today.
If historically the atheists have been a murderous lot, and their ideology hasn't changed, what makes you think they'd be any different now (should they again attain power)?
Stalin and Mao weren't killing because they were atheists. They were killing to spread their philosophy, which is EXACTLY why religionists kill.
Right. So how then did their atheism make them any better?
religions make conflict inevitable.
It seems history teaches us that conflict is more likely and more severe under atheism, than otherwise.
Hey we agree on something. Your god IS a fairy.
Is this the best example of a peaceful disposition you (as an atheist) can portray? Really?

So then, is it your religion that is making you so adversarial?
otto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2010
If historically the atheists have been a murderous lot, and their ideology hasn't changed, what makes you think they'd be any different now (should they again attain power)?
Your despots- their atheism was secondary to their primary ideology, whereas religionists kill PRIMARILY because their religion is under threat. Your despots were communists, fascists first, atheists second.

And as SH pointed out and you ignored, hitler and Stalin were both god fearing just like you. But in their case they murdered because of their ideologies, which in fact were only pseudo religions anyway.
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2010
Right. So how then did their atheism make them any better?
How does religion make the slaughter any better?
It seems history teaches us that conflict is more likely and more severe under atheism, than otherwise.
It seems you study history like you study the bible. Look up Thirty Years War. Religion has always been far more vicious in it's effects.
Is this the best example of a peaceful disposition you (as an atheist) can portray? Really?
I thought it was funny. ;-)
ubavontuba
1.1 / 5 (8) Jul 31, 2010
Stalin wasn't an atheist,
"Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society."

Source: http://en.wikiped...Religion

neither was Hitler.
As Hitler wasn't himself clear on his personal beliefs, and he readily used religion for propagandist purposes, it's hard to say what he believed. It's pretty clear though that some in his inner circle thought he was atheist, or agnostic.

"Hitler's intimates, such as Joseph Goebbels, Albert Speer, and Martin Bormann suggest that Hitler generally had negative opinions of religion,"

Source: http://en.wikiped...atements
The fact you went to that as a source is laughable.
You've yet to demonstrate the portion I used is invalid.
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 31, 2010
The propensity (for violence) exists in all religions.
Atheists have no exclusion from historical violence.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 31, 2010
their atheism was secondary to their primary ideology,
So you're saying religion (or lack thereof) is secondary to the propensity for violence? Hmm... I could swear that's what I've been saying...

So again: How then did their atheism make them any better?
hitler and Stalin were both god fearing just like you.
False (see above).
How does religion make the slaughter any better?
It doesn't.
Religion has always been far more vicious in it's effects.
Wrong.

Again:
"The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined."
I thought it was funny. ;-)
And obviously and purposefully, antagonistic.

frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2010
Hoden. Eier. Steine.
That's not "knoebels". It's "cajones" or "archidia".
"The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined."
A big distortion of the true distribution of responsibilities among all those who were not actively engaged in preventing the crimes of their compatriot governments, including the mass movements of willful helpers and silent majorities.
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2010
So again: How then did their atheism make them any better?
Well it didn't then did it? It made them the SAME. Only religions always claim the moral high ground- love thine enemies indeed. 30 yrs war- read about it yet?
And obviously and purposefully, antagonistic.
Like I say, the moral high ground :D
That's not "knoebels". It's "cajones" or "archidia".
What do spiders have to do with it??
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2010
So you're saying religion (or lack thereof) is secondary to the propensity for violence? Hmm... I could swear that's what I've been saying...
No, I'm saying
their atheism was secondary to their primary ideology
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2010
That's not "knoebels". It's "cajones" or "archidia".
What do spiders have to do with it??
Spiders are "arachnes".
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2010
You've yet to demonstrate the portion I used is invalid.
Not my job. Your source is highly impeachable, and the statements made within said source are laughable and unsubstantiated. You've failed to meet reasonable standards in citation.

So you're saying religion (or lack thereof) is secondary to the propensity for violence? Hmm... I could swear that's what I've been saying...
Yet you're still insisting that people can be identified and grouped by attributes they do not have. Atheism isn't a codified group with rules, dogma, and scripture. We don't attend meetings as a part of a structured code within our non-belief. The two are not reconcilable.

However, I entirely agree that the problem isn't the belief, it's the dogma of the believers, otherwise known as religion, that is the problem.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 01, 2010
Well it didn't then did it? It made them the SAME. Only religions always claim the moral high ground- love thine enemies indeed.
How's that different from what you're doing?
30 yrs war- read about it yet?
Sure. It was primarily a political war of the Holy Roman Empire.

See: http://en.wikiped...equences
Like I say, the moral high ground :D
How is your being deliberately antagonistic a moral high ground?
No, I'm saying
their atheism was secondary to their primary ideology
How's that substantively differ from what I said? Perhaps you're confusing "primary ideology" with "religion?"
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 01, 2010
Your source is highly impeachable, and the statements made within said source are laughable and unsubstantiated. You've failed to meet reasonable standards in citation.
I've met reasonable standards. This is much more a direct reference to history, than a reference to their ideology or opinion. The portions I quoted are supportable through additional sources and your statements to the contrary have, so far, been easily falsified.

It seems to me it's you who has failed to meet any reasonable standard. Why didn't you back up your assertions that Stalin's and Hitler's religious convictions were anything other than as I represented them?
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 01, 2010
Yet you're still insisting that people can be identified and grouped by attributes they do not have. Atheism isn't a codified group with rules, dogma, and scripture. We don't attend meetings as a part of a structured code within our non-belief. The two are not reconcilable.
Generally, in the countries in question, atheism was codified with rules, dogma, and scripture (Communist publications, for instance).

In China alone, in a plan that lasted just three years, as many as 30 to 38 million people died of famine - during ideal growing seasons!

See: http://en.wikiped...arvation
However, I entirely agree that the problem isn't the belief, it's the dogma of the believers, otherwise known as religion, that is the problem.
Nope. It's evil people that will use any means necessary to corrupt people and societies that are the problem. Atheists just seem to be particularly adept at it.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2010
Generally, in the countries in question, atheism was codified with rules, dogma, and scripture (Communist publications, for instance).
So you're going to say that all secular laws are atheist doctrine and dogma? The mental gymnastics you'll do in order to defend an indefensible position are unbelievable.

I'm unwilling to discuss this topic further with you, as you've shown you're unwilling to be intellectually honest within the discussion.
otto1923
3 / 5 (4) Aug 01, 2010
How is your being deliberately antagonistic a moral high ground?
How is yours? You're the deliberately antagonistic preacher.
How's that substantively differ from what I said? Perhaps you're confusing "primary ideology" with "religion?"
Quit playing dumb. I SAID, those 'atheists' you refer to didn't kill because they were atheists. The religionists I refer to kill BECAUSE they are religionists.
Sure. It was primarily a political war of the Holy Roman Empire
Again with the Dummheit. AGAIN, there would have been no war without Protestants hating Catholics and vice versa. Would you kill someone because they claimed god did or did not have a mother? Given the same circumstances, YES you WOULD. Because the eternal souls of you and your children would be at stake. Sunnis kill shiia for far more obscure reasons.
otto1923
2.3 / 5 (4) Aug 01, 2010
I'm unwilling to discuss this topic further with you, as you've shown you're unwilling to be intellectually honest within the discussion.
So. SH reaches the same conclusion I reached a few feet further back in this thread, that we are dealing with yet one more deceiving god lover who would rather feel superior to the anti-religionists by playing games with them than even attempting to be honest.

Proving that: religion thrives on dishonesty, both in rejecting the truth when it is presented, and in lying to others about the efficacy of ones belief system in light of those truths.

Physician, heal thyself.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2010
Don't presume to speak for me otto. Although our horse in the race is the same color, he doesn't necessarily share the same number.
Sunnis kill shiia for far more obscure reasons.
Sunnis kill shia and vice versa over a simple disagreement of legitimacy within the former empire of Islam. That is all. Which sociopath should have held the throne of doctrine is a simplistic argument.
otto1923
5 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2010
Sorry SH, but in ottos mind
you've shown you're unwilling to be intellectually honest
= deceit. Misrepresentation in order to make a point. That is what you were saying, isnt it? I speak for myself.

And to frajo who likes to one me because he/she finds my aggression unpleasant, I think she is failing to recognize ubas veiled aggression in his game playing and prevarication and misrepresentation and disdain (lies).
Sunnis kill shia and vice versa over a simple disagreement of legitimacy within the former empire of Islam. That is all. Which sociopath should have held the throne of doctrine is a simplistic argument.
The excuses religionists contrive to kill each other are always trivial, but it is the belief in the unreal to begin with, and the nonsense dogmae which they concoct to support it, which gives them just cause to murder on the basis of those trivialities.

Pol Pot's lackeys killed anybody who wore eyeglasses. Same difference.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2010
So you're going to say that all secular laws are atheist doctrine and dogma?
I neither said nor implied such. The communists weren't simply secular. They actively sought to destroy religion (along with millions of people, in the process).
The mental gymnastics you'll do in order to defend an indefensible position are unbelievable.
What a load of hooey!

I've defended it openly and honestly (unlike the Mr. No-references-Skeptic Heretic).
I'm unwilling to discuss this topic further with you, as you've shown you're unwilling to be intellectually honest within the discussion.
Nah, that's obviously your shtick.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Aug 01, 2010
How is yours? You're the deliberately antagonistic preacher.
How bad is it when even those who would defend your position, called you a troll (rhetorical)? Pretty darn bad.
Quit playing dumb. I SAID, those 'atheists' you refer to didn't kill because they were atheists. The religionists I refer to kill BECAUSE they are religionists.
That's simply not true. The atheists kill because they are atheists and the religious kill in spite of (not because of) their religion.
there would have been no war without Protestants hating Catholics and vice versa
The Holy Roman Empire was fearful of losing its socio-political grip on the people, as the church itself had become the socio-political organization. Leaving the church was essentially a revolutionary secession from the empire.
Sunnis kill shiia for far more obscure reasons.
Nah. That's simply ignorance and stupidity.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Aug 01, 2010
So. SH reaches the same conclusion I reached a few feet further back in this thread, that we are dealing with yet one more deceiving god lover who would rather feel superior to the anti-religionists by playing games with them than even attempting to be honest.
Nah. That's your shtick.

Apparently (like seeing words and phrases that simply aren't there) this appears to be yet another trait of the atheists. Rather than debate honestly, they either quit, or start in with the ad hominem attacks. How droll.

As shown above, it was clearly SH who was being dishonest. Why didn't he back up his assertions about Stalin and Hitler (rhetorical)? Because he couldn't. They were lies.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 01, 2010
@Otto:
Don't presume to speak for me otto. Although our horse in the race is the same color, he doesn't necessarily share the same number.


See? Even your own team disavows you.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2010
because he/she finds my aggression unpleasant,
Again, how is your aggression exemplifying and supporting your argument for the superior civility of the atheist? Obviously, it is not - thereby falsifying your entire argument.

As you, yourself, demonstrate: Atheists are immoral, rude, and potentially very dangerous.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 01, 2010
Pol Pot's lackeys killed anybody who wore eyeglasses. Same difference.
Again, exemplifying that it isn't religion that drives people to violence.

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

So, perhaps Otto should be arguing for MORE religion! LOL
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2010
They actively sought to destroy religion (along with millions of people, in the process).
Again your perspective is asskewed. They actively sought to destroy all opponents, religionists being only some of them. You godders think it's all about you, don't ya?
That's simply not true. The atheists kill because they are atheists and the religious kill in spite of (not because of) their religion.
That's simply not true. Religious dogma gives adherents aegis to kill, to defend their faith. Read Joshua, jihad and Jesus the sword-bringer. God is ALWAYS on their side.

But your statement on atheists betrays another uba Prejudice: uba thinks that godless people are killers.
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2010
That atheists were so alarmingly destructive during the 20th century, provides the argument that religion (at least) suppresses man's natural proclivity to violence.
Nah, see, this is the problem when you guys don't bother to educate yourselves about your faith and instead swallow all the hype. Your religions ENABLE violence. They DEMAND it when they are under threat, perceived or otherwise. They are the primary vehicle for resolving conflict through violence.

There is no more effective method of dividing people up into 'us' and 'them' than through religion. All that other crap that all religions have in common- morality, chosen people, special favors, eternal youth- THAT is all HYPE. So you will know just who to fight and what flag to fight under, when the time comes. And the time ALWAYS does come.
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2010
That atheists were so alarmingly destructive during the 20th century
Ahem. Maybe you missed it the first of 20 times, so Otto will repeat it again:

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

See? Even your own team disavows you.
But SH was nice enough to give me a 5 on my fortright response. They like to keep you guys around to fiddle with. I just like to see you gone.

otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2010
As shown above, it was clearly SH who was being dishonest. Why didn't he back up his assertions about Stalin and Hitler (rhetorical)? Because he couldn't. They were lies.
Your 'facts' in reference have been disproven many times in these threads. But let me ask you this; why didn't you just seek out a more reputable source? Couldn't find one? Why the unwarranted belligerence?
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2010
Sunnis kill shiia for far more obscure reasons.
Nah. That's simply ignorance and stupidity.
Well, I guess ignorance is bliss, isn't it? When you're done with the bible, read a newspaper:
http://articles.l...20100709
Skeptic_Heretic
2.5 / 5 (4) Aug 01, 2010
It's unbelievable how willfully ignorant some people can be.
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2010
I suppose it's worth trying to debate them, in order to understand the source of their beliefs, rather than just slamming them on principle, isn't it? Maybe some aren't as intractable as others.

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

otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2010
I suppose it's worth trying to debate them, in order to understand the nature of their beliefs, rather than just slamming them on principle, isn't it? Maybe some aren't as intractable as others.

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


ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2010
Again your perspective is asskewed. They actively sought to destroy all opponents, religionists being only some of them.
Wow. Took that way out of context, didn't you?

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

Anyway, here's the proper context:
Generally, in the countries in question, atheism was codified with rules, dogma, and scripture (Communist publications, for instance).
So you're going to say that all secular laws are atheist doctrine and dogma?
I neither said nor implied such. The communists weren't simply secular. They actively sought to destroy religion (along with millions of people, in the process).
See? It was about secularism versus persecution.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2010
That's simply not true. Religious dogma gives adherents aegis to kill, to defend their faith. Read Joshua, jihad and Jesus the sword-bringer. God is ALWAYS on their side.
That's simply not true. You're mixing the Old and New Testaments, out of context.

Christianity (i.e. the New Testament) repeatedly admonishes us to refrain from violence - thereby giving particularly devout Christians a reputation for peacefulness (like the Religious Society of Friends).

"Some branches of the Religious Society of Friends are known to the general public today for testifying to their religious beliefs by refusing to participate in wars, and by social action, for instance on behalf of the environment and equal rights for all."

http://en.wikiped..._Friends

Got anyhting like that in atheism? No? I thought not.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 02, 2010
But your statement on atheists betrays another uba Prejudice: uba thinks that godless people are killers.
Some are. That particularly hateful and vengeful people come from both Christian and atheist backgrounds is not at all surprising. However, the Christian at least has a social understanding, and is regularly reminded, that violence is bad. The atheist is free to choose for himself what is bad. So, which hateful and vengeful person is more likely to commit mayhem?

That a relative handful of atheists (being a minority) initiated so much death in the 20th century, supports this.
Your religions ENABLE violence. They DEMAND it when they are under threat, perceived or otherwise.
New Testament references, please.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 02, 2010
There is no more effective method of dividing people up into 'us' and 'them' than through religion.
You don't know much about the history of discrimination then, do you?

To name but a few other dividing categories (besides religion):

1 Race and Ethnicity
2 Age
3 Sex and Gender
4 Caste
5 Employment
6 Sexual Orientation
7 Language
9 Disability

Source: http://en.wikiped...mination

And there are many more, like: politics, social status, appearance, dress, height, weight, clique, associations, country of origin...

Shall I go on?
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 02, 2010
"Quit playing dumb. I SAID, those 'atheists' you refer to didn't kill because they were atheists. The religionists I refer to kill BECAUSE they are religionists."
You are wrong. Atheist killers (generally) kill because they they have no moral construct which teaches them not to kill. Religious killers (generally) kill in spite of their moral constructs (religion).
But SH was nice enough to give me a 5 on my fortright response. They like to keep you guys around to fiddle with. I just like to see you gone.
See? No moral compunctions at all. No understanding of the need for tolerance.
Your 'facts' in reference have been disproven many times in these threads.
Really? When? Where?
But let me ask you this; why didn't you just seek out a more reputable source? Couldn't find one?
Didn't you see all of my supporting Wikipedia references? You do know that Wikipedia generally lists sources and their facts are easily verified, right? What standard are you using?
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 02, 2010
Why the unwarranted belligerence?
To what "unwarranted belligerance" do you refer?

I made the observation that SH was a liar, because he was clearly lying. There was no belligerant intent.
Well, I guess ignorance is bliss, isn't it? When you're done with the bible, read a newspaper:
Yup. That's pretty darned stupid, isn't it? Sad, and stupid.

Of course they have a long way to go to catch up with the likes of atheist Kim Jong II. How high is his body count now? ...4 million? ...5 million? Who knows?
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Aug 02, 2010
It's unbelievable how willfully ignorant some people can be.
Indeed.

On a related note: Have you found any supporting references to your assertions about Stalin and Hitler yet? Hmm?
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Aug 02, 2010
Personally, I believe I was reasonable with uba in the last thread, but it became clear that he was not being reasonable with me in return. Nothing left but to continually point that out, with indignity.
That's simply a lie. You made such an unreasonable and public spectacle of yourself that even those who would argue with you, disavowed you.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.8 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2010
You are wrong. Atheist killers (generally) kill because they they have no moral construct which teaches them not to kill. Religious killers (generally) kill in spite of their moral constructs (religion).

Ha, you think morality is the sole construct of religion. Utterly laughable.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2010
On a related note: Have you found any supporting references to your assertions about Stalin and Hitler yet? Hmm?
Hitler's religion is well known, to state otherwise is willful ignorance.

Stalin is a bit trickier. I'd suggest the following reading,

Dmitri Volkogonov, Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy
Steven Merritt Miner, Stalin's Holy War: Religion, Nationalism, and Alliance
and Simon Sebag Montefiore, Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar

It is well known that Stalin bolstered and donated heavily to the Russian Orthodox Church. There's even a movement to cannonize him as a saint for his works for the church.
You need to read more. I'd recommend something other than Conservapedia.
otto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2010
Let's see, what do we have here...
You don't know much about the history of discrimination then, do you?
Yah, but like I SAID, religion does it best.
That's simply not true. You're mixing the Old and New Testaments, out of context.
Right. Uba the good Xian gets to pick and choose what he agrees with in the bible. But xians much better than uba (because they believe that the ENTIRE bible is the impeccable word of god, like it says) will act according to whatever they find there, depending on the situation. Which is why it exists in the form that it does.
Got anyhting like that in atheism? No? I thought not.
I looked in the manual, but somebody tore out that chapter. Kind of like what happened with the gospel of Mary magdalene.
That's simply a lie. You made such an unreasonable and public spectacle of yourself
Agreed. Otto can be quite spectacular. I was only a little quicker to judge than them. Where'd they all go? Guess they got fed up with ubas silliness.
otto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 02, 2010
Yup. That's pretty darned stupid, isn't it? Sad, and stupid.
I'm guessing this is in reference to intra-Moslem conflict? They would say the exact same things about you, and they would be as right about you as you are about them. Put your people together in an overcrowded state, give you some machetes and have your children miss a few meals...
Of course they have a long way to go to catch up with the likes of atheist Kim Jong II.
Repeat #22: Your despots do not kill because they are atheists, but religionists kill because their beliefs tell them to. Ubas head has become hardened because he has turned away from the ENTIRE word of god. Maybe a parable would work?
The atheist is free to choose for himself what is bad
Yah, I choose the 1st commandment, which tells me that your god is better than the rest. That's bad.
otto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2010
Violence in the NT (I quote from the previous thread uba bailed out of0:

34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' -Matt10

-AND:

"Jesus led his followers into jerusalem on the hebrews holiest day, marched into the temple, threw out all the lawful currency traders there, and confronted the sadducees face to face and told them he was their king. He then calmly awaited martyrdom as an example for the millions who would follow. This is a clear expression of audacity, of Force of Will. Not Peace.

"You cant have revolution without martyrs. Jesus taught the world how to do this as no one else ever had." -Otto the Spectacular

-Jesus wasnt questioning authority. He was spitting in its face. This is violence.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2010
I made the observation that SH was a liar, because he was clearly lying. There was no belligerant intent.
And I ignored this because I consider the source. This is the same source that states non-religous people have some sort of inability to be moral, although he has said otherwise in PMs. You can't maintain consistency Uba. That is of great detriment to your stance.
otto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 02, 2010
This I like:
Communist views on religion were/are (not surprisingly) similar to your own. And like you would, they persecuted the religious - mercelessly.
So then, to a religionist, otto = stalin because both dont like religion. Otto is a despot in training. A nazi without zyklonB.

I and millions of others are awakening to the moral bankruptcy that is religion. For example: religion commandeers a code of ethics, claims it is the exclusive product of their belief, and attaches the rider that only their god can minister it. And THEN claims that only believers can recognize it, and that unbelievers have no moral code as a result.

And THEN they claim that all who rightfully oppose this hypocrisy and the ruin that it engenders, are 'dangerous' and stalin-like. Because ONLY their religion can offer the proper restraint.

THIS is why religions are evil. They steal as they stole ethics. They lie by proclaiming it their own. They oppress by proclaiming that unbelievers are immoral.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 02, 2010
Ha, you think morality is the sole construct of religion. Utterly laughable.
I didn't say that. I said atheists don't have a (formal) moral construct (like religions do). Or more specifically, atheists are free to choose their own moral principles, whereas religions offer moral constructs which teach principles that are generally agreed upon within the religious association.

Even more succinctly: There's generally a greater social awareness to religious morals.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 02, 2010
Hitler's religion is well known,
Right. As I've shown, his inner circle (those that knew him best) said he had negative opinions of religion.

See: http://en.wikiped...atements Stalin is a bit trickier. So you're saying you couldn't really find anything? No surprise that.
It is well known that Stalin bolstered and donated heavily to the Russian Orthodox Church.
Only because he needed their support in the war. It's all in my reference:

http://en.wikiped...Religion

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

"During World War II, the Church was allowed a revival as a patriotic organization..."

"Just days before Stalin's death, certain religious sects were outlawed and persecuted."

Oh yeah, he had a heart of gold, didn't he? (sarcasm)
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 02, 2010
@SH:
I'd recommend something other than Conservapedia.
I backed this up with numerous additional references. So I supppose you're going with your strange condition wherein you ignore references again? What's up with that?
otto1923
3 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2010
atheists are free to choose their own moral principles
That's not true. All those principles that you think are yours are well covered under criminal and civil laws, except those which are outdated or absurd. This ensures that religionists can't impose their own particular interpretations on others.

And no, the bible is not the source of those laws. It only claims that it is.

ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 02, 2010
Violence in the NT.
Right. we've discussed this before. The first isn't a command, it's more of a sad commentary on human nature.

The second wasn't wholesale killing, or even remotely related to killing. It was simply a much needed public protest.
otto1923
3 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2010
"...tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937 to 1938."
Along with millions, and millions, of others. All 'enemies' of the state. Again, egocentric religionists still think they are the center of the universe.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 02, 2010
I made the observation that SH was a liar, because he was clearly lying. There was no belligerant intent.
And I ignored this because I consider the source. This is the same source that states non-religous people have some sort of inability to be moral, although he has said otherwise in PMs. You can't maintain consistency Uba. That is of great detriment to your stance.
And here you're apparently lying again. What's up with that?

How else you might justify your confusion over formalized moral constructs within societies versus personal moral choices, is beyond me.
otto1923
3 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2010
Violence in the NT.
Right. we've discussed this before. The first isn't a command, it's more of a sad commentary on human nature.

The second wasn't wholesale killing, or even remotely related to killing. It was simply a much needed public protest.
Right. According to uba, the final source for correct bible interpretation. See center-of-universe comment above.

Jesus WAS killed for that whole display, wasn't he? Along with the millions of believers who were following his lead?
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 02, 2010
...are well covered under criminal and civil laws,
Which serves the atheist despots well, for when they write the laws, they then have a free hand to murder as many people as they want.
otto1923
3 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2010
...are well covered under criminal and civil laws,
Which serves the atheist despots well, for when they write the laws, they then have a free hand to murder as many people as they want.

...are well covered under criminal and civil laws,
Which serves the atheist despots well, for when they write the laws, they then have a free hand to murder as many people as they want.
Murders a felony here. And goddess freely break any and all commandments in service of their god. It's in the bible. Ask the Jesuits.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 02, 2010
Along with millions, and millions, of others.
This indiscriminate murder only serves to prove my point. Atheists have no moral bounds, except what they make up as they go along.
otto1923
3 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2010
Along with millions, and millions, of others.
This indiscriminate murder only serves to prove my point. Atheists have no moral bounds, except what they make up as they go along.
And neither do Islamist extremists who blow themselves up on busses- but uba thinks they're stupid.

Reminder #23- atheist despots don't kill because they're atheists. Religionists do kill because they're religionists.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 02, 2010
Jesus WAS killed for that whole display,
Which only serves to bolster the sad commentary on humanity. Jesus didn't kill himself, nor did he order anyone else to do so.
otto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 02, 2010
Jesus WAS killed for that whole display,
Which only serves to bolster the sad commentary on humanity. Jesus didn't kill himself, nor did he order anyone else to do so.
OF COURSE HE KILLED HIMSELF- that's what martyrs do. Haven't opened that Book yet, have you?

If uba jumped off a bridge, he would blame the rivet if he drowned.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 02, 2010
Murders a felony here.
So the atheist despots give it a different name, like "purging" or, "cleansing" or, whatever suits their evil purposes.
otto1923
2 / 5 (5) Aug 02, 2010
Murders a felony here.
So the atheist despots give it a different name, like "purging" or, "cleansing" or, whatever suits their evil purposes.
Correct. Just like inquisitors or zionists, or conquistadors.

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

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (9) Aug 02, 2010
And neither do Islamist extremists who blow themselves up on busses-
Do so in spite of their religion. Unlike atheist, who kill simply because it suits them to do so.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Aug 02, 2010
OF COURSE HE KILLED HIMSELF
Nope, unless you mean to imply that every protester ever killed, killed himself. Is that your contention? Really?

I guess I can't reasonably expect you to see how unreasonable that is...
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 02, 2010
Correct. Just like inquisitors or zionists, or conquistadors.
They killed in spite of their religion. Jesus gave no commands, to inquisitors, zionists, or conquistidors, to kill. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Reminder #24- atheist despots don't kill because they're atheists. Religionists do kill because they're religionists.
Repetition doesn't make it true.

Why don't you try closing your eyes real tight and clicking your heels three times while saying, "I know it's true. I know it's true. I know it's true." Maybe that'll do it.
otto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 02, 2010
And neither do Islamist extremists who blow themselves up on busses-
Do so in spite of their religion. Unlike atheist, who kill simply because it suits them to do so.
Oh come on uba. Jihadis martyr themselves on the promise that they will go straight to heaven. How willfully blind are you?
otto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 02, 2010
They killed in spite of their religion. Jesus gave no commands, to inquisitors, zionists, or conquistidors, to kill. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Zionists aren't Xian. But all three groups found the authority in the OT I suppose. The pope, who by definition is/was a far better Xian than you, gave the ok to kill the godless.

I must say, you're awfully presumptuous to be deciding whether or not these people were doing gods work or not. They certainly thought they were. How would you know that your condemnation of them isn't a mortal sin? because uba decides it isn't? Due to his own peculiar and truncated interpretation of scripture?

They are able to interpret scripture to suit their own ends. Just like you do.
otto1923
2 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2010
Nope, unless you mean to imply that every protester ever killed, killed himself. Is that your contention? Really?
Jesus wasn't a protester- he was a MARTYR. He rode into Jerusalem knowing he was going to be killed for his perfidy. As a man, he had the choice not to go, but he decided to give his life for the cause.

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

What Jesus had in stock for the world- Violence:

21"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved." -matt10

-Of course, being the ultimate Passive-ist, he could only say it was an inevitable consequence of his mission to spread peace and love throughout the world.
otto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2010
Repetition doesn't make it true.

Why don't you try closing your eyes real tight and clicking your heels three times while saying, "I know it's true. I know it's true. I know it's true." Maybe that'll do it.
Nah, it's obviously true, but the fact that you don't see this means you're just one more brain-dead godder who's traded his ability to think for a belief in the preposterous. Because it FEELS good.

Your god gave you brains and you've squandered them. I suppose he would be pretty upset, if he was real.
otto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2010
...are well covered under criminal and civil laws,
Which serves the atheist despots well, for when they write the laws, they then have a free hand to murder as many people as they want.
Which serves the religionist despots well, for when they interpret the Law, they then have a free hand to murder as many people as they want. Or believe just about anything that suits them, just like you.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.8 / 5 (5) Aug 03, 2010
They killed in spite of their religion. Jesus gave no commands, to inquisitors, zionists, or conquistidors, to kill. Quite the opposite, in fact.
But God often commands people to kill. They state they experience the same conversations that your "moral" forebearers have. Many simply don't have an angel tell them to stop as Abraham stated he did.
Repetition doesn't make it true.

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

Seems to do it for you.
frajo
1 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2010
But God often commands people to kill.
You don't believe in gods. He knows that you don't believe in gods. Thus it doesn't matter for him what you insinuate. Neither does it matter for you. Or does it? Is it maybe your self-proclaimed right to insult any believer? What do you think of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"?

I've been raised in a hardcore Catholic environment. I never met anybody who claimed or insinuated that "god commands people to kill". While I don't belong to that subset of people, your insinuation sounds like a defamation of many people I know (and you don't know) who were as honest, friendly and peaceloving as one could be. In fact you are insulting some of my best friends without knowing them.
Skeptic_Heretic
2 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2010
Is it maybe your self-proclaimed right to insult any believer?
It isn't self proclaimed. In the US, Christians are the first to pound the "free speech" button when it comes to enforcing prayer in schools, or adding capitulation statements to acts of faith. Your background and mine are not dissimilar, you were simply born a believer.
What do you think of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"?
It's Christian and Islamic Hate speech submitted as propaganda. If you're trying to insinuate that I don't insult Jews or Muslims in the same manner, you're quite incorrect. I'm an equal opportunity insultor.
your insinuation sounds like a defamation of many people I know (and you don't know) who were as honest, friendly and peaceloving as one could be. In fact you are insulting some of my best friends without knowing them.
There were a great many kind NAZIs as well, that doesn't refute the statement "nazism is evil".
Skeptic_Heretic
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 03, 2010
Frajo,

Come to the US some day and let me show you what Christianity looks like to us on this side of the pond. Perhaps then you'll understand the vitriolic intent and constant assaults upon reason that the religous perpetrate here.

Perhaps you already have an example in your country. How many Mosques do you have on your street? How often do they chant, "God hates fags" "Flush the abortion doctors" or perhaps "Freedom, go to hell".

The most radical muslim dialog-o-gogue is a joke compared to the incessant hatred spewed from the windows of Christianity's highest towers in this country.
otto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 03, 2010
I've been raised in a hardcore Catholic environment. I never met anybody who claimed or insinuated that "god commands people to kill".
It's in the bible, which you know. Which means that, sooner or later, depending on conditions, it will be used as righteous justification to kill. Just because we've been lucky enough to grow up in peaceful societies, is no reason to deny it's not there to be used at the proper time. Which you also know.

Religionist beliefs insult intelligence, no matter how benign (at the moment). Adherents enable the worst to occur in its name when the support any belief in the irrational.

otto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 03, 2010
Perhaps you already have an example in your country. How many Mosques do you have on your street?
How about those roving bands of disaffected Muslim youth burning cars throughout France a few years ago, seemingly because they had the god-given right to do so? Or crap salman rushde or the Danish journalists got because they disrespected the wrong god?

All religionists share responsibility for acts such as this wherever they occur, because they all advocate a belief in the unreal, which is the root cause of them.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (6) Aug 03, 2010
It's in the bible, which you know. Which means that, sooner or later, depending on conditions, it will be used as righteous justification to kill. Just because we've been lucky enough to grow up in peaceful societies, is no reason to deny it's not there to be used at the proper time. Which you also know.
Sooner or later? It was stated explicitly that the second Iraq conflict was a CRUSADE. These religions are death cults. The only reward exists in death. The judgement of action doesn't occur until death. They squeal with glee when any event occurs that stands as a precursor to apocalypse. We're all considered evil to them. So be it, but the true evil is in discrimination, which all religious peoples engage in whole heartedly by God's edict.

Your God is insulting, frajo. If you're offended by my stating so, too bad. As an individual I take responsibility for my actions. Your friends, by edict of faith, do not.

ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 03, 2010
Oh come on uba. Jihadis martyr themselves on the promise that they will go straight to heaven. How willfully blind are you?

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

Although Islam doesn't have the clear-cut moral prohibitiion against killing as, say Christianity, it definitely prohibits indiscriminate killing.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 03, 2010
Zionists aren't Xian. But all three groups found the authority in the OT I suppose. The pope, who by definition is/was a far better Xian than you, gave the ok to kill the godless.
Well, any self-described Christian who professes to find his authority in the Old Testament is definitely missing basic tenets of what it means to be a Christian (as demonstrated by their works).

As for the Zionist, they too have similar prohibitions against killing.
because uba decides it isn't? Due to his own peculiar and truncated interpretation of scripture?
There's nothing peculiar about it. They're basic tenets that are readily understandable and generally agreed upon.

They are able to interpret scripture to suit their own ends. Just like you do.
Sadly, the Roman Catholic Church long discouraged lay (and even scholarly) readings of the scriptures.

In practice, Catholicism long had little to do with the Bible. It still does (in many respects).
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 03, 2010
Jesus wasn't a protester- he was a MARTYR. He rode into Jerusalem knowing he was going to be killed for his perfidy. As a man, he had the choice not to go, but he decided to give his life for the cause.
Thank goodness for that.
It doesn't matter whether the cause is just or not- only that the martyr is willing to die for it.
No man has greater love than that he lay down his life for his fellow man.
-Of course, being the ultimate Passive-ist, he could only say it was an inevitable consequence of his mission to spread peace and love throughout the world.
Correct. It was a sad commentary on humanity.
Your god gave you brains and you've squandered them. I suppose he would be pretty upset, if he was real.
That's just petulent. Are ad hominem attacks all you have left?

Here, let me momentarily stoop to this level of argument myself:

Nahya, nahya, you are a stupid head ...thbtthbtthbtthbt! LOL
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 03, 2010
Which serves the religionist despots well, for when they interpret the Law, they then have a free hand to murder as many people as they want. Or believe just about anything that suits them, just like you.
Nope. They'd be doing so in spite of (contrary) to their religion, not because of it. In other words, they'd be behaving like atheists.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 03, 2010
But God often commands people to kill. They state they experience the same conversations that your "moral" forebearers have. Many simply don't have an angel tell them to stop as Abraham stated he did.
They're either nuts, listening to the wrong voice, or not Christians, I suppose.
Seems to do it for you.
Gee, now I'm repetitive? In the PM's, you accused me of being inconsistent! Which is it?
frajo
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2010
Your God is insulting, frajo.
Why don't you understand that I don't have gods or godesses? Is it plain stupidity, is it an inability/unwillingness to discuss without resorting to simplifying binary schemes like atheism--theism? Ever heard of agnosticism? Certainly.
So why do you write "your god"? Want to convince me that you are not free of stupidity?
Ok, going down to that level: Trying to defend torture and Guantanamo?
frajo
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2010
Sadly, the Roman Catholic Church long discouraged lay (and even scholarly) readings of the scriptures.

In practice, Catholicism long had little to do with the Bible. It still does (in many respects).
I think it's been wise of the RCC to not take their scriptures as more than opinion pieces of the past.

But I'm glad to see at least one educated user here.

No matter whether agnostic, atheist, or believer - the most disgusting people are uneducated "preachers" who don't even learn after being corrected.
Like that guy who stubbornly not only is repeating that Catholics have to follow "the" scriptures but also refuses to learn that Hinduism, Buddhism don't have anything to do with the scriptures of the Abrahamic religions.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2010
So why do you write "your god"? Want to convince me that you are not free of stupidity?
Ok, going down to that level: Trying to defend torture and Guantanamo?
You can claim to be whatever you want but your actions are those of an Abrahamic Apologist and theistic philosopher. Pascal's wager is simply a way to keep your security blanket.

I think torture is abhorrent so you're not getting any points there either.

You have the same wild misperception of atheism that the faithful hold. I am not merely atheist, which is a state of finding no evidence to support the existence of any god, I am anti-theist. If you are an agnostic theist, you're simply a confused self-contradiction.
I think it's been wise of the RCC to not take their scriptures as more than opinion pieces of the past.

Now who's being stupid? The RCC uses their dogma as a weapon. Simply look at Africa and the "good" the RCC does with its "opinion pieces" in that region.
otto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2010
Nahya, nahya, you are a stupid head ...thbtthbtthbtthbt! LOL
As usual, you started it:
Why don't you try closing your eyes real tight and clicking your heels three times while saying, "I know it's true. I know it's true. I know it's true." Maybe that'll do it.
Otto only ever responds to Xian passive-aggression.

Uba likes baiting people- gives him a feeling of power. Like Jesus in the temple.

Bait away. Otto likes mud-slinging back at godders.
otto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2010
Only because they're led astray by evil men who abuse the religion for their evil purposes.
And they would be saying the exact same things about you. And both would be right.
There's nothing peculiar about it. They're basic tenets that are readily understandable and generally agreed upon.
And here we arrive face-to-face with a basic uba disconnect... He should know that most all of xianity believes that the OT is an inseparable part of the NT, as it says, and they will act according to whatever they find there depending on the situation.

Ubas heretical audacity is unsettling even to the enlightened anti-religionist. But Otto knows that this is the sort of personality who decides to reject reality for fiction to begin with.

This egocentricity is why we have the hundreds of sects and denominations scattered about the world. All claiming that they are truly the ones Jesus loves best.
otto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2010
Sadly, the Roman Catholic Church long discouraged lay (and even scholarly) readings of the scriptures.
Because they knew that, once the people got their hands on it, they would be reinterpreting it to suit their own particular needs (like uba), giving rise to the hundreds of sects and denominations scattered about the world. All claiming that they are truly the ones Jesus loves best.
Although Islam doesn't have the clear-cut moral prohibitiion against killing as, say Christianity, it definitely prohibits indiscriminate killing.
Ubas saintly passivity is very pleasant, but what would he do when the enemy is at the gate and threatening to exterminate all those who are truly the ones Jesus loves best? Scream for help from st. Bernards and Benedictines?

I bet he would reassess the joshuan philosophy of the OT, as did the Jews after ww2. Which is precisely what it's there for.
Gawad
3 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2010
Wow, this thread is a picture perfect example of why God's Law was created. Err...excuse me, I mean Godwin's Law ;^)

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

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

As for the whole "observation" subthread (which was a little more on topic shall we say?), I think it's almost tragic: the term "observation" has caused so much confusion even among professionals in QM it should always come with a huge disclaimer. It's to the point that it helps steer even the most rational minds into the strangest philosophical wonderlands.

For anyone who still happens to struggle with the concept, but to keep it simple: any interaction between the environment and an undetermined quantum property qualifies as an "observation" that collapses the waveform. No conscious, self aware entity is needed. Just understanding that makes a whole lot of hocus pocus disapear.
otto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2010
In practice, Catholicism long had little to do with the Bible. It still does (in many respects).
And they would say the exact same things about you, and sadly, both of you would be right. Only they would be a little more right (less wrong?) than you because, after all, they DO know the bible. Even maccabees and ecclesiasticus and song of song of songs, etc.
Nope. They'd be doing so in spite of (contrary) to their religion, not because of it. In other words, they'd be behaving like atheists.
And they would be saying the exact same things about you... I said this already. To them you are worse than an atheist- you are an apostate, a false god, an antichrist.

Have at it. Better dust off that old testament.
No man has greater love than that he lay down his life for his fellow man.
Right. And this is about the point when religionists begin doing this, in holy wars against one another. You do realize that god IS on both sides dont you? Thats WHY 'he' is evil.
otto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2010
Correct. It was a sad commentary on humanity.
Per my last comments, indeed it is. Time to throw religions on the rubbish pile of history where they all belong. Even the only 'correct one' which is yours.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2010
As usual, you started it:
LOL I guess arguing with the unreasonable really does make oneself unreasonable in turn! LOL

Thanks Otto ...and have a nice day. :)
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2010
Because they knew that, once the people got their hands on it, they would be reinterpreting it to suit their own particular needs (like uba), giving rise to the hundreds of sects and denominations scattered about the world. All claiming that they are truly the ones Jesus loves best.
Which fits in very nicely with Jesus saying he came to divide, rather than unite. Pretty nifty, eh?
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 05, 2010
Wow, this thread is a picture perfect example of why God's Law was created. Err...excuse me, I mean Godwin's Law ;^)

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

Uba brought up the Nazis first (and pretty gratuitously at that), so I guess he automatically loses.
LOL I'd never heard of this, but I'll concede on the merit of it. Thanks for the illumination.
any interaction between the environment and an undetermined quantum property qualifies as an "observation" that collapses the waveform. No conscious, self aware entity is needed. Just understanding that makes a whole lot of hocus pocus disapear.
I disagree. Just "any interaction" is likely to result in yet another superimposed state which itself cannot be resolved without a conscious observation.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2010
Which fits in very nicely with Jesus saying he came to divide, rather than unite. Pretty nifty, eh?

Which would make me question his philosophy. Why divide people in order to command them to love each other? Simply don't divide them.
otto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2010
Yeah, why divide them up and set them at each others throats, if you want everybody to love one another? You actually like the ruinous conflict and suffering this has caused? You think it's about filling up the world with more xians and fewer of everybody else yes? Except that's OT-

Unless you agree with Otto, that this was the Purpose for which your religions were created, to manage conflict because conflict was always inevitable. Otto doesn't like it but Otto knows it is absolutely necessary.

Onward Xian soldiers eh uba?
Athabasca
3 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2010
any interaction between the environment and an undetermined quantum property qualifies as an "observation" that collapses the waveform. No conscious, self aware entity is needed. Just understanding that makes a whole lot of hocus pocus disapear.
I disagree. Just "any interaction" is likely to result in yet another superimposed state which itself cannot be resolved without a conscious observation.


There's no reason off the bat for it to result in another superimposed state at all. And I have no idea where you could be getting that there would be a > 50% ("likely") change of leading to another superimposed state. These states are extremely FRAGILE, it's one of the reasons quantum computing researchers have such a hard time preventing their qbits from accidentally interacting with the environment and losing coherence. Of course, you can disagree all you want, but then at least make it clear that you are exponding your own speculative ideas on QM rather than standard QM.
Athabasca
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2010
"change of leading" = "chance of leading"
Gawad
3 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2010
Exponding = expounding.

Gads but I hate these little jumpy edit boxes.

And sorry, the above two posts should have been posted using my regular account (gawad).
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 05, 2010
Which would make me question his philosophy. Why divide people in order to command them to love each other? Simply don't divide them.
I suspect it's a matter of free will.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 05, 2010
There's no reason off the bat for it to result in another superimposed state at all.
Sure there is. Probability only matters upon observation. Therefore, the probability that the non-human observer observed what you intended for it to observe and affected the outcome of the observed particle is zero, unless you verify the results. Or, substituting "cat" for non-human observer, we get the classic Schrodinger's Cat paradox. Is the cat alive, or dead? Did it observe the hammer breaking the vial, or not? Without checking, we can't know.
Of course, you can disagree all you want, but then at least make it clear that you are expounding your own speculative ideas on QM rather than standard QM.
It sounds like you're an advocate for Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker's agnostic point of view. I lean more toward the Copenhagen interpretation.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2010
I suspect it's a matter of free will.

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

Good job logically cornering yourself there.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 06, 2010
If it were free will, and Jesus is an avatar of God, then any action he performs is in direct opposition to free will.
Sorry, I don't see the conflict.

Jesus isn't about forcing anyone to do anything, rather he's about choices. How is broadening one's choices an imposition on free will?
Good job logically cornering yourself there.
This reads like a rather desperate ploy. What's up with that?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2010
Jesus isn't about forcing anyone to do anything, rather he's about choices. How is broadening one's choices an imposition on free will?
You don't have a choice when your creator is omnipotent, omniscient, and timeless.

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

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

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

"There is no free will, only the pre-determined plan of our creator" -John Calvin
otto1923
3 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2010
Of course, you can disagree all you want, but then at least make it clear that you are exponding your own speculative ideas on QM rather than standard QM.
-This is ubas scientific method of making the evidence fit the conclusion which supports his beliefs.
I suspect it's a matter of free will.
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life...18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands CONDEMNED already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."john3

-This is jesus' passive-aggressive way of both bribing and threatening. Jehovah said, 'obey or die' and he made good on his threats. Jesus the godman cures acne and offers immortality, and all the weakwilled shills with bad skin fall for it.

-Not a very respectable individual. This is someone most people would not want to associate with, let alone worship.
otto1923
3 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2010
-And jesus, just like benny hinn, doesnt even have to make good on his promises! Jesus offers life after death without a shred of evidence or even one witness (except he himself) to support it.

No matter- a lie, when delivered and repeated with sufficient authority, is all it takes.
Nope. They'd be doing so in spite of (contrary) to their religion, not because of it.
-See? Believers will even make up their own mantras to deceive themselves and stifle thought.

http://www.youtub...PF_PmHuQ
otto1923
3 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2010
Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker's agnostic point of view
-And they like to drop big-deal names with 'von' in them like von Wise-acher to improve the perception of intellectual veracity. LOL
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 07, 2010
You don't have a choice when your creator is omnipotent, omniscient, and timeless.
So you're saying God is real then?
Beyond that, his Avatar's mere appearance changes the free will of the world.
...and Jesus too?
For a God to advocate free will there would have to be no imposition from said god upon your will. No interactions with the Jews of the Old testament, no interactions with mankind at all.
Do your interactions with people impose upon your free will? How is this any different?
The Bible and your concept of a creator god soundly contradict free will on the whole. Merely by relaying information to us he has affected our will. By imposing an etherial punishment he impacts freedom of choice through aversion.
So again, you're admitting he's real?
"There is no free will, only the pre-determined plan of our creator" -John Calvin
"A contrasting ...view maintains ...he chose to give each individual free will..."

http://en.wikiped...tination
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 07, 2010
-This is jesus' passive-aggressive way of both bribing and threatening.
So you're also admitting Jesus is real?

-And they like to drop big-deal names with 'von' in them like von Wise-acher to improve the perception of intellectual veracity. LOL
LOL I'm rather partial to names with 'von' in them. Without 'von,' ubatuba means "many arrows" in the Tupi language of Brazil. (It's also the name of a tourist city in Brazil).

http://en.wikiped.../Ubatuba

Although it might be reasonable to suggest the 'von' modifies it to mean "lots of arrows" or, "arrows of plenty" - I just think it sounds cool.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2010
So you're also admitting Jesus is real?
As a concept, or a character in a book, certainly. As a flesh and blood person who once walked the streets, no.

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

Uba, your responses above show desperation. You're again tossing your own concepts to the wayside in order to reinforce dogma, and now you're showing an inability to follow the conversation without trolling.
"You mean he's real?" "You're saying he's real?"
No of course I'm not. If you're unable to converse in an honest manner then any exchange of information is just a waste of time.

Logically cornered, and then the silliness begins. Hallmark of a dogmatist.
otto1923
3 / 5 (4) Aug 07, 2010
Although it might be reasonable to suggest the 'von' modifies it to mean "lots of arrows" or, "arrows of plenty" - I just think it sounds cool.
Are you sure it doesnt refer to this?

4 Like arrows in the hands of a warrior
are sons born in one's youth.

5 Blessed is the man
whose quiver is full of them.
They will not be put to shame
when they contend with their enemies in the gate." psalms127

-You guys always end up back in the OT where all the action is-

http://en.wikiped...iverfull

otto1923
3 / 5 (4) Aug 07, 2010
Or perhaps this- uber tuba = big trumpet:

"20 When the trumpets sounded, the people shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the people gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it- men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys." joshua6

"8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace." ecc3

-A time for the NT and a time for the OT. A Proper Time for everything under the Sun. Just like the Seasons. No religion can survive without the option for either. None ever has.
otto1923
3 / 5 (4) Aug 07, 2010
I'm not really certain that there was an actual Jesus Christ. After all, where's the cross?
Well, theres a chunk of it in here:

http://saintpeter...ross.jpg

-atop the authentic egyptian obelisk set right in the middle of st. peters square (why the hell does a pagan icon occupy such a sacred place??)

The story goes that there are enough slivers of the cross in reliquaries across xiandom to build a small ship-
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2010
@SE:
"You mean he's real?" "You're saying he's real?"
No of course I'm not.
So then you're saying you DO have free will in making this determination. And therefore, your whole argument that God limits free will is a logical fallacy, isn't it?

ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 07, 2010
@SE:
Uba, your responses above show desperation. You're again tossing your own concepts to the wayside in order to reinforce dogma,
Which concepts have I supposedly tossed aside?
and now you're showing an inability to follow the conversation without trolling.
Nah. that'd be you. You've obviously become desperate.
If you're unable to converse in an honest manner then any exchange of information is just a waste of time.
Indeed. So why don't you drop the desperate attacks and converse honestly?
Logically cornered, and then the silliness begins. Hallmark of a dogmatist.
More desperation on your part? Really now?

Come on SE. You're a smart guy. You can do better than this.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 07, 2010
@Otto:
Are you sure it doesnt refer to this?
LOL Hardly.
Or perhaps this- uber tuba = big trumpet:
LOL "The Big Tuba." I love it!
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2010
And there comes the dogmatic part of you statements again. Not only are you losing track of the subject of the conversation but you're attempting projection. Quite alright. I tire of this.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2010
To what "dogmatic part" do you refer?

In what way am I losing track of the discussion?

In what way have I attempted projection?

Was your latest logical fallacy all you had?

I'm disappointed in you SE ...disappointed, indeed.
Athabasca
5 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2010
Part the first:
There's no reason off the bat for it to result in another superimposed state at all.
Sure there is.
Well, you can certainly consider the information in the original superimposed state to have become entangled in the environment, fair enough.
Probability only matters upon observation.
I don't see why, but if the only thing that matters is results, I suppose. Anyway, I gave my definition of observation, care to explicitly provide yours? That might help clear things up.
Therefore, the probability that the non-human observer observed what you intended for it to observe and affected the outcome of the observed particle is zero, unless you verify the results.
I'm sorry, but first off, that statement simply doesn’t follow from the last unless you assume the necessity of a human to perform an observation. So obviously my last post just went right past you, or you are a true believer in the interpretation that human consciousness—exclusively—causes collapse.
Athabasca
5 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2010
Part the second:
But *where* do you get that from? Pauli acknowledged his own "quantum mysticism"; is your belief of the same order? You've repeated your position, but it’s one that seems, to me at any rate, to have an unclear origin. Second, I haven't brought up anyone's *intentions* involving any non-human "observers" nor do I see why from that, even if I had, their probability of observing and affecting an outcome would be 0, unless, again, you assume that this is so simply because *your* non-human observers aren't human. That's circular reasoning. At any rate, my original statement was about Q superpositions in general, not just in experiments *meant* for human observers.
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2010
Part the third:

Still, out of curiosity, what threshold of consciousness is required for collapse to take place in your view? Baby human? Toddler? With High school education? PhD? What about BEFORE there were any humans? Did superimposed waveforms not collapse before that? That human requirement is simply not in the math, and it's not in the Copenhagen Interpretation, AFAICS. And if for some reason you think it is, I can only suggest you go back and do some careful revision while trying to leave out any preconceptions and biases. After that, if you want to say "*I* believe a human observer is needed for waveform collapse" then fine, I won't argue with you, but at least don't attribute that to QM in general; not even to basic CI.

Also, sorry, wrong login for the 2 previous posts (sigh!)
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2010
Part the fourth:

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

No we can't, but why would it matter? It doesn't matter. In this case the cat will know. In other cases the quantum info can be transferred to the (non self-aware) environment and nobody "knows", yet the original superimposed state nonetheless collapses. Why wouldn't it? Wait! Let me guess, "Because no human is there to observe it," am I getting that right? O.k., I get your stance. You are completely, 100% anthropocentric. I just don't get WHY.
Gawad
not rated yet Aug 11, 2010
Part the last:

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


I just consider the whole collapse resolution problem an indication of QM's incompleteness. Waveform collapse just never really seems to *end* anywhere, it just moves along, through the environment, experimental apparatus and observers—self-aware or not—alike. But even in CI the notion of observer and observation is left open. I.e., consciousness is simply not a requirement of CI. So you certainly don't sound CI to me. Ethelred himself is CI and he certainly has made the point several times. Maybe you could point to a finer-grained interpretation to sum up your views.

If I must be placed in a camp, then it's certainly more on the side of objective collapse (I'll bet you're not surprised), with some fondness for the work done by Penrose on this front.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2010
I don't recall SE advocating for the CI.

Anyway, the cat is neither alive nor dead. To suggest it made the observation and finalized its own outcome, is contrary to the basis of the experiment.
Tahoma
2 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2010
Cat will be indeed dead, because it's entangled with device via box material and gas inside.
Gawad
not rated yet Aug 13, 2010
I don't recall SE advocating for the CI.


And that would explain why I didn't mention "SE", by which I assume you mean "SH" (Skeptic_Heritic). I wrote "Ethelred". Seriously.

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


Tell it to the cat. I think you deeply misunderstand the "basis of the experiment." At least you show no understanding of it. (Not that it ever was anything other than a thought experiment meant to demonstrat the, euh, shortcomings of QM.) You've answered none of my questions and simly keep repeating your mantra without explantion. The only people I've ever met who do that are those at a dead end. Good day.
Gawad
not rated yet Aug 13, 2010
Terribly sorry, I attributed a fondness for CI to Ethelred, when in fact he specifically wrote "I am fond of the many worlds interpretation". My bad! I must have confused that with someone else...but with the lenght of this thread I'll be darned to find who.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2010
@Gawed:

Perhaps the problem is you're not understanding my answers. Let me be more specific. There are many interpretations of the cat experiment. I tend to favor the CI.

See: http://en.wikiped...retation

Whether the waveform collapses when a particle hits the detector, or when the cat observes the hammer, is irrelevant. The information isn't valid until a concious observer makes the observation.

The reason for this is reason. The detector can't decide what has happened. The cat can't understand why it's in the box at all, the concious observer is the only one who can make a determination, and therefore concious observation is deterministic.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2010
@Gawed continued:
what threshold of consciousness is required for collapse to take place in your view? Baby human? Toddler? With High school education? PhD?
That's a good question. I can't say for certain except to say I feel the observer must be able to make a determination. In most circumstances, therefore, even a non-sentient observer can make determinations. For instance, another cat looking into the box may determine its brother is alive, or dead. Whereas a camera cannot.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2010
@Gawaed, final:
I just consider the whole collapse resolution problem an indication of QM's incompleteness. Waveform collapse just never really seems to *end* anywhere, it just moves along, through the environment, experimental apparatus and observers-self-aware or not-alike.
Perhaps. There's always the argument that the superposition just moves on. For instance, how can we know what an observer saw unless he tells us, and even then, how can we be certain he is telling the truth?

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

Therefore, it's perfectly conceivable that the cat in the box did make a deterministic observation, and all subsequent observations will simply validate his. However, it's debatable - as a dead (if he died not knowing he was dying) can't really constitute an observer. Perhaps only the alive cat's observation is valid, in his case.
Gawad
not rated yet Aug 13, 2010
@Uba:

Thankyou. At least I can begin to make sense of your position with the above explainations. I don't have time to do so right now, but I will return to them next week. I did find your last comment reminded me of something in particular. Have you ever heard of the Quantum Suicide Machine?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2010
I don't recall SE advocating for the CI.

Anyway, the cat is neither alive nor dead. To suggest it made the observation and finalized its own outcome, is contrary to the basis of the experiment.
Observation appears to come down to one thing, deterministic interaction. The observer, which is a bad term for purposes of explanation, simply need be an entity or entities that interact in a way to create determination.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2010
Personally, I feel the waveform collapses at the first deterministic observation, and from then on, all subsequent observers will generally observe the same result.
Just remember uba, it's not what you FEEL that is important, it's what IS. You'll need to grasp this at the end of the discussion if and when they are able to demonstrate without doubt that you are absolutely unequipped to be making rational interpretations about things you know nothing about.

Again, it's not what you WANT, it's what IS, which determines reality.

Hope this helps.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2010
@Otto:

Actually, as there are a number of valid interpretations, the one you feel is valid (from your point of view) is the one that works for you. The CI has not been invalidated. That you FEEL it's invalid, is irrelevant.

In point of fact, it remains the favored interpretation amongst physicists.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2010
@SH:
Observation appears to come down to one thing, deterministic interaction. The observer, which is a bad term for purposes of explanation, simply need be an entity or entities that interact in a way to create determination.
Eloquently put.
otto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2010
Personally, I feel the waveform collapses at the first deterministic observation, and from then on, all subsequent observers will generally observe the same result.
Uba, these theories are composed of numbers, not words. The scientists who work with them use mathematics, not semantics, to understand them. No doubt they have very good explanations for these phenomena which can only be represented, and justified, mathematically.

Physicists will often try to explain these things to the lay public but their words are, at best, gross approximations for phenomena which can only be explained mathematically; at worst they are erroneous and dangerously misleading.

These gentlemen here may not grasp the complexities of the theories, but they certainly appreciate the enormous amount of time and study needed to do so. They have been patient with you in trying to convey what they understand with words which they nevertheless know are, in reality, inadequate.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2010
Cont.
Personally, I feel the waveform collapses at the first deterministic observation, and from then on, all subsequent observers will generally observe the same result.
My point is that statements such as yours, deciding which particulars of some theory are this or that, due to what you might 'feel', belie an extreme and fundamental lack of what these theories are or what they are for.

It is an audacity beyond ignorance; and again, I suspect it stems from a deep faith in a belief system which explains the universe in words and images which itself leaves no room for experimentation or mathematics.

Dont worry (well, maybe you SHOULD), but you are not alone. Most all religionists think with emotion, not reason. Most have the gall to try to tell scientists that the world cannot be any more complicated than they themselves can be expected to grasp.

After all, god would not do something like that to believers; that is, create a world that only unbelievers could understand.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2010
@Otto:

Give it a rest. How many other people do you know who understood Hawking's formulations well enough to determine he failed to include the GP/KE of the infalling particle (split from the VP pair)?

How many other people do you know who forced the CERN LSAG committee to re-examine their cosmic ray bombardment argument from the 2003 report, to the 2008 report?

You think you know me Otto, but clearly, you do not.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2010
Well- certainly not this guy:
Actually, as there are a number of valid interpretations, the one you feel is valid (from your point of view) is the one that works for you
-This guy thinks that these theories are dependent on personal interpretation.
For instance, another cat looking into the box may determine its brother is alive, or dead. Whereas a camera cannot.
THIS guy thinks cats can collapse waveforms (they can- but only by bumping into them.) Otto knows this only because he trusts the scientists who tell him so- like the people in this thread who have politely been trying to tell you you're wrong.

Sorry uba- I only know what I read here. And I'm reading you as someone who doesn't understand what he's talking about. Because the people here say so, using concepts and terms i am familiar with.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2010
Didn't you read SH's eloquent response, wherein he said exactly what I've been saying?

Haven't you bothered to view any of my references that also support what I've been saying?

Apparently not.

It seems you're so eager to find fault with me that you'll assert fault - whether it exists, or not!

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

I'm always up for a good laugh.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2010
Didn't you read SH's eloquent response, wherein he said exactly what I've been saying?

What I said is circular logic. It's a great way of saying, "I don't know", and not owning up to it.
I'm always up for a good laugh.
You should have gotten one out of my definition. It was about as unscientific as you can get.
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Aug 14, 2010
Why don't you tell us what interpretation you favor again, and tell us why you think it's better than the CI, even though the majority of physicists disagree with you?
Nah, I've tried getting into hard physics discussions such as entanglement and information exchange, but I realize I don't have much to add by discussing it.

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

I did notice that in your few bits of personal info you didn't mention any science degrees earned which might lend some credence to your 'feelings' -?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2010
Didn't you read SH's eloquent response, wherein he said exactly what I've been saying?

What I said is circular logic. It's a great way of saying, "I don't know", and not owning up to it.
I'm always up for a good laugh.
You should have gotten one out of my definition. It was about as unscientific as you can get.

Which in a nutshell, pretty much sums up the various quantum interpretations (so to speak).
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2010
Nah, I've tried getting into hard physics discussions such as entanglement and information exchange, but I realize I don't have much to add by discussing it.

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

I did notice that in your few bits of personal info you didn't mention any science degrees earned which might lend some credence to your 'feelings' -?
What's it matter? You've just all but admitted you can't really understand any of it anyway.

Here's a reference to start with though: http://en.wikiped...echanics
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2010
@Uba:

Thankyou. At least I can begin to make sense of your position with the above explainations. I don't have time to do so right now, but I will return to them next week. I did find your last comment reminded me of something in particular. Have you ever heard of the Quantum Suicide Machine?
Yeah, but like I said, I lean more to the CI, rather than the MWI. I do think it has real world value in that we should anecdotally expect to see enormously and statistically improbable runs of "luck." It'd be like a gambler at a roulette table always betting on red, and being right hundreds and thousands of times in a row. Or, flipping a coin and always calling heads and being right hundreds and thousands of times in a row.

That this kind of luck is undocumented (AFAIK) suggests the many worlds interpretation may not be valid (but it doesn't necessarily invalidate it though).
Xaero
1 / 5 (4) Aug 15, 2010
This page is trying to insert Java/PDF virus block

/iframe src="hxxp://85.234.190.64/tds/in.cgi?default"

after open ad block delivered via customizable script page hxxp://adms.physorg.com/openads/www/delivery/ajs.php

You can analyze it after saving complete page to disk.
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Aug 15, 2010
What's it matter? You've just all but admitted you can't really understand any of it anyway.
Yah but I understand you. Otto doesn't pretend to know what he doesn't know.
Why don't you tell us what interpretation you favor again, and tell us why you think it's better than the CI, even though the majority of physicists disagree with you?
Otto favors the one which will be proven right in due time. Uba favors the one that is the prettiest I guess? The one that brings him closer to god?
Yeah, but like I said, I lean more to the CI, rather than the MWI.
Yes I understand that leaning thiscway or that helps during experimentation and when writing papers, like surfboarding.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2010
Didn't you read SH's eloquent response, wherein he said exactly what I've been saying?

What I said is circular logic. It's a great way of saying, "I don't know", and not owning up to it.
I'm always up for a good laugh.
You should have gotten one out of my definition. It was about as unscientific as you can get.

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

You'd be speaking incorrectly if that was the case.
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2010
Perhaps the problem is you're not understanding my answers.
That's for sure! And I stated as much.
Let me be more specific....I tend to favor the CI. See: http://en.wikiped...retation


Thanks, I'm familiar with it. You'd already said you favored CI prior to “being specific”, so I guess I'd now just have to consider you very specifically CI...Except you sound precisely like someone who favors "consciousness causes collapse".
Whether the waveform collapses when a particle hits the detector, or when the cat observes the hammer, is irrelevant.
I think this is where we disconnect, as to me (and the math) relevancy is simply, well, irrelevant
The information isn't valid until a concious observer makes the observation.
"Validity" doesn't play a part in it either: These are subjective notions you're adding in and I'm not sure where you're getting them from. CI simply uses "measurement" without defining what that is.
Gawad
not rated yet Aug 19, 2010
The reason for this is reason. The detector can't decide what has happened.
The detector doesn’t have to; all it has to do is measure the superimposed/entangled property. That’s all that CI requires: sensitivity to the relevant property. And voilà! You get a “deterministic interaction”, wave function collapse and entanglement with the measuring apparatus, and hopefully a lab tech down the line who can convey the results to the rest of us so we can get entangled with the info as well. (And, BTW, in the MWI the *observer* gets split off just as surely as the cat)
… the concious observer is the only one who can make a determination, and therefore concious observation is deterministic.
Like I said, this is your addition to CI and sounds A LOT more like "consciousness causes collapse" than CI. Go ahead, get the operation; you’ll feel much better after you do ;-)
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Aug 19, 2010
I feel the observer must be able to make a determination. In most circumstances, therefore, even a non-sentient observer can make determinations. For instance, another cat looking into the box may determine its brother is alive, or dead. Whereas a camera cannot.
Whoa. Wait a minute. If I’ve parsed this correctly you’ve just stated that a cat qualifies as “a non-sentient observer” that “can make determinations” but a camera can’t. So both the cat and the camera are *non-sentient* but somehow the cat can make a determination…but not the camera? O.k., I’ll state flat out that this world view makes no sense to me and that you and I must understand the world very, very differently.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Aug 19, 2010
Personally, I feel the waveform collapses at the first deterministic observation, and from then on, all subsequent observers will generally observe the same result.
In a broad sense, I don’t disagree with what you write here, although I would substitute “observation” with “measurement” and leave the requirement of a conscious observer out of the notion of “deterministic measurement”…but you know that already, right? Anyway, as I’d said, thanks for taking the time to write up your answers. I *do* think I grasp your position more clearly, albeit without necessarily agreeing with it.

More news stories

Better thermal-imaging lens from waste sulfur

Sulfur left over from refining fossil fuels can be transformed into cheap, lightweight, plastic lenses for infrared devices, including night-vision goggles, a University of Arizona-led international team ...

Robotics goes micro-scale

(Phys.org) —The development of light-driven 'micro-robots' that can autonomously investigate and manipulate the nano-scale environment in a microscope comes a step closer, thanks to new research from the ...

Hackathon team's GoogolPlex gives Siri extra powers

(Phys.org) —Four freshmen at the University of Pennsylvania have taken Apple's personal assistant Siri to behave as a graduate-level executive assistant which, when asked, is capable of adjusting the temperature ...

Deadly human pathogen Cryptococcus fully sequenced

Within each strand of DNA lies the blueprint for building an organism, along with the keys to its evolution and survival. These genetic instructions can give valuable insight into why pathogens like Cryptococcus ne ...