Will atheists win the fight?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#411 May 4, 2013
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
It has been demonstrated that at the quantum level "future events" can affect past events. That is, future observations can collapse a wave function in the past.
" http://www.omg-facts.com/Science/Events-In-Th... ;
Here is a report from the actual experiment being done:

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0610241v1

The point: "Once more, we find
that Nature behaves in agreement with
the predictions of Quantum Mechanics
even in surprising situations where a ten-
sion with Relativity seems to appear "

Classical reasoning and understanding are simply wrong. Quantum mechanics describes these situations but does NOT require time reversed causality. I tis only when attempting to describe this situation using classical ideas that you get into trouble.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#412 May 4, 2013
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
Can a human 'observe' anything at the quantum level? Is it not all done through instrumentation that extends human 'observation' to the quantum level?
Well, part of the issue was whether the conscious decision of how to build the experiment (to detect photon position or not) was what affected the wave/particle behavior of the photons.

What the delayed choice experiments do is make the 'choice' happen in a *mechanical* detector. The interference pattern *still* happens or not depending on the state of the *detector*.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#413 May 4, 2013
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
Joe Smith was right, when you look at how babies were being murdered by the abortion doctor and staffs at a Philadelphia clinic, the spinal cords of living babies were severed, and there is no public outrage.
You still have not explained why you keep giving money, to a KNOWN PEDOPHILE ORGANIZATION.

Why?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#414 May 4, 2013
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
Joe Smith was right.
You still have not explained why you keep giving money, to a KNOWN PEDOPHILE ORGANIZATION.

Why?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#415 May 4, 2013
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
Joe Smith was right, when you look at how babies were being murdered by the abortion doctor and staffs at a Philadelphia clinic, the spinal cords of living babies were severed, and there is no public outrage.
You lie, naturally. Did you post a link to your alleged "crimes"?

No.

So you are still lying-- all the while, LIVING CHILDREN ARE BEING RAPED EVEN NOW BY YOUR PRIESTS.

And you?

YOU DO NOT CARE AT ALL.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#416 May 4, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
Abortion is a sticky wicket Paul
I have mixed feelings on this issue
Public outrage - surely you jest
No outrage whatever at two illegal wars
No outrage at the financial meltdown in 2008
No outrage about missing WMD's
No outrage on honor killing
No outrage on unchecked Pedophilia in the Catholic Church
There was outrage over a minor sexual incident with Bill Clinton, Which to Europeans was hilarious.
Have you gone to mass today?I just got back from my complimentary continental breakfast of unleavened bread and wine at the local parish
And there is also the fact that many abortion providers in the U.S. are, in fact, Christians. Witness, for example, the heinous murder of George Tillman at the Lutheran church where he served as a deacon. Abortion is not a believer vs. nonbeliever issue. It has more to do with women's rights.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#417 May 4, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
And there is also the fact that many abortion providers in the U.S. are, in fact, Christians. Witness, for example, the heinous murder of George Tillman at the Lutheran church where he served as a deacon. Abortion is not a believer vs. nonbeliever issue. It has more to do with women's rights.
Indeed. It >>is<< a women's rights issue.

Take the Republican Party: they are more interested in controlling a woman's uterus than they are in putting in moderate background checks for potential gun owners...

... wait...what?

Yep. Their voting record tells the story...

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#418 May 4, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed. It >>is<< a women's rights issue.
Take the Republican Party: they are more interested in controlling a woman's uterus than they are in putting in moderate background checks for potential gun owners...
... wait...what?
Yep. Their voting record tells the story...
Yes, sad to say. And the Republicans used to be the pro-science party. So much so that Neil de Grasse Tyson endorsed them for that in the past. As a small business man I used to be very pro-Republican. There minor squabbles with abortion did not bother me since I could not see them changing anything. Unfortunately lately they have abandoned there fiscal conservative policies and aimed at the yahoos of the world. I am a man without a party. The excessive social spending of the left still gets me angry at the waste involved. And the Republicans have gone all out fundy.

Gun owners control both parties, at least when it comes to restricting gun use.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#419 May 5, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
Skepticism seem a sound philosophy for those who are searching for truth.
May providence save us from those who pretend "know it all"
Ignorant creationist troll who can't face up to facts and must play games like a child.
Paul WV

Beckley, WV

#420 May 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you don't get it. The Boltzmann brain paradox *comes* from an investigation of the possibility of a multiverse. To even discuss Bolzmann brains depends on 'eternal inflation' which is a characteristic of the multiverse and NOT of our universe.
The Boltzmann Brain Paradox only shows the improbability of there being human life in this universe. The concept of a 'multiverse' is only a way of trying to make the improbable probable.
Paul WV

Beckley, WV

#421 May 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a report from the actual experiment being done:
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0610241v1
The point: "Once more, we find
that Nature behaves in agreement with
the predictions of Quantum Mechanics
even in surprising situations where a ten-
sion with Relativity seems to appear "
Classical reasoning and understanding are simply wrong. Quantum mechanics describes these situations but does NOT require time reversed causality. I tis only when attempting to describe this situation using classical ideas that you get into trouble.
You keep arguing:'Classical reasoning and understanding are simply wrong."; when the scientists making these claims are well aware of the difference between 'Classical' reasoning and 'Quantum' reasoning.

No one says the quantum math does not work, but this is only ignoring the quantum paradoxes and not answering them.
Imhotep

Silver Springs, FL

#422 May 5, 2013
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep arguing:'Classical reasoning and understanding are simply wrong."; when the scientists making these claims are well aware of the difference between 'Classical' reasoning and 'Quantum' reasoning.
No one says the quantum math does not work, but this is only ignoring the quantum paradoxes and not answering them.
I just got back from my complimentary continental breakfast at the local parish

Here is something you should find interesting

JQI fellow and University of Maryland physics professor Victor Galitski, Jr. has just published a majesterial book called Exploring Quantum Mechanics. To be exact, the book has several additional authors: Victor Galitski (professor Galitski's grandfather), Boris Karnakov, and Vladimir Kogan.

The book consists of 700 problems in quantum mechanics along with worked-out answers.

The problems have been collected over about 60 years, first by the lead author, the late Prof. Victor Galitski, Sr.

Over the years, new problems were added and the material polished by Prof. Boris Karnakov.

PS:
I still wrestle with Christian math which consists of one - plus one - plus one - equal one

And then you have the obvious problem of historicity

Tacitus

Like those of the Jewish writer Josephus, the works of the ancient historians Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus do not provide proof that Jesus Christ ever existed as a "historical" character.

Pliny the Younger, Roman Official and Historian (62-113 CE)

Tacitus, Roman Politician and Historian,(c. 56-120 CE)

Suetonius, Roman Historian (c. 69-c. 122 CE)

When addressing the mythical nature of Jesus Christ, one issue repeatedly raised is the purported "evidence" of his existence to be found in the writings of Flavius Josephus, the famed Jewish general and historian who lived from about 37 to 100 CE.

In Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews appears the notorious passage regarding Christ called the "Testimonium Flavianum" ("TF"):

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

The are: No sculptures, no drawings, no markings in stone, nothing written in his own hand; and no letters, no commentaries, indeed no authentic documents written by his Jewish and Gentile contemporaries, Justice of Tiberius, Philo, Josephus, Seneca, Petronius Arbiter, Pliny the Elder, et al., to lend credence to his historicity."

In the final analysis there is no evidence that the biblical character called "Jesus Christ" ever existed.

All of these historians were born well after the alleged events.

'Hearsay' is not 'evidence' for a reason!

Caesar by comparison is easily verified.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#423 May 5, 2013
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
The Boltzmann Brain Paradox only shows the improbability of there being human life in this universe. The concept of a 'multiverse' is only a way of trying to make the improbable probable.
No, that is NOT what the Boltzmann brain paradox is about.*IF* the universe lasts infinitely into the future and *if* there are quantum fluctuations at the required level,*then* it is more likely that any given conscious brain is delusional instead of sane.

The Boltzmann brain paradox does NOT say it is improbable that there is human life in the universe. Furthermore, the paradox primarily *happens* in a multiverse scenario: and then it is used to show the theory is unhealthy.

In other words, you don't understand what the paradox is about, what context it is in, and what the proposed resolutions are. You found some article in a popular magazine that you misunderstood. And now you base your whole argument on that misunderstanding.

The multiverse isn't a way to get around the Boltzmann Brain paradox: it is the *context* of the Boltzmann Brain paradox.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#424 May 5, 2013
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep arguing:'Classical reasoning and understanding are simply wrong."; when the scientists making these claims are well aware of the difference between 'Classical' reasoning and 'Quantum' reasoning.
No one says the quantum math does not work, but this is only ignoring the quantum paradoxes and not answering them.
But most of the paradoxes come from attempting to say that particles have definite properties at all times. THAT is the problem: it is classical thinking, not quantum mechanical thinking. Quantum mechanics is NOT a causal theory, it does NOT say that particles have definite positions, spins, momenta, etc at all times. Instead, it has *probabilities* and describes how those probabilities change over time. Furthermore, those probabilities are described waves that can interfere.

So, for example, let's look at the double slit experiment. If only one slit is open, then the probability wave only goes through one slit, so there is no interference and the pattern of detections on the screen is a nice 'bump.

If we open both screens, the probability wave goes through both slits and interferes, so we get an interference pattern on the other side. This interference pattern is built up from discrete bursts corresponding to particle detection, just like for when only one screen is open.

If we set up a detector on the other side of the screens that could tell which slit a 'particle' goes through, then the phase of the wave from the two slits is affected by the detector and randomized, so no interference pattern is found on the screen.

In the delayed choice experiments, the detector has two states: one for detecting which slit is gone through and one for not. If the detector is set to 'detect', then the phases are randomized and no interference pattern is seen. If the detector is set to 'no detect', then an interference pattern is seen. In some experiments, the detector even has intermediate resolutions and varying levels of interference are seen. This is even if the detector is placed well away from the screens.

And that is the double slit experiment from quantum eyes. The problem comes if you want to think about it through classical eyes. In this case, the problem happens if you insist on asking which slit a particle has gone through. That is simply not a question with a definite answer.

In particular, if you insist on asking which slit the particle goes through in the delayed choice experiments, then you inevitably get into paradoxes about causality. Once again, quantum mechanics is NOT a causal theory. If you insist on considering causes and their timing, you are talking classically. And classical ideas are the ones that quantum mechanics *replaced*. You don't explain the new theory in terms of the old one: you explain the old one in terms of the new. In other words, the question isn't asking which slit the particle goes through. That isn't a legitimate quantum question. The real question is why large things appear to act classically. And *this* is answered by decoherence.

Once again, you show your lack of understanding by the questions you ask.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#425 May 5, 2013
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep arguing:'Classical reasoning and understanding are simply wrong."; when the scientists making these claims are well aware of the difference between 'Classical' reasoning and 'Quantum' reasoning.
Yes, they are. And the predictions of quantum mechanics have been verified in every instance in which it has been tested. The problems happen when you attempt to mix classical and quantum aspects by asking questions like: which path did the particle take? or what is the actual spin on this particle at this time? or how does one entangled particle know what the other is doing? These are all *classical* questions. The experiments show that the classical ideas inevitably lead into paradoxes. But the quantum mechanics itself is internally consistent, not causal, and respects time.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#426 May 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, sad to say. And the Republicans used to be the pro-science party. So much so that Neil de Grasse Tyson endorsed them for that in the past. As a small business man I used to be very pro-Republican. There minor squabbles with abortion did not bother me since I could not see them changing anything. Unfortunately lately they have abandoned there fiscal conservative policies and aimed at the yahoos of the world. I am a man without a party. The excessive social spending of the left still gets me angry at the waste involved. And the Republicans have gone all out fundy.
Gun owners control both parties, at least when it comes to restricting gun use.
Yes, the $$ funneled into Washington via the NRA and from gun-makers, has purchased a great deal.

None of it useful to the actual citizenry, though.

If you examine the spending habits of the modern Democratic party? You will notice that they have become the party of fiscal responsibility-- the sort of politician that USED to be happy in the Republican camp, has left-- and landed in the Democrat camp.

Sure, there are a few nut-wing Demowimps left, but they are not in control of much of anything.

But the ReThugs? They are all about the rich, getting richer-- and most of them are desperately wanting to JOIN the rich-rich party of 1%. Many have, as result of being in office....

... follow the money.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#427 May 5, 2013
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
The Boltzmann Brain Paradox only shows the improbability of there being human life in this universe. The concept of a 'multiverse' is only a way of trying to make the improbable probable.
You still have not explained why you keep giving your money to Pedophiles.

Why?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#428 May 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
But most of the paradoxes come from attempting to say that particles have definite properties at all times. THAT is the problem: it is classical thinking, not quantum mechanical thinking. Quantum mechanics is NOT a causal theory, it does NOT say that particles have definite positions, spins, momenta, etc at all times. Instead, it has *probabilities* and describes how those probabilities change over time. Furthermore, those probabilities are described waves that can interfere.

So, for example, let's look at the double slit experiment. If only one slit is open, then the probability wave only goes through one slit, so there is no interference and the pattern of detections on the screen is a nice 'bump.

If we open both screens, the probability wave goes through both slits and interferes, so we get an interference pattern on the other side. This interference pattern is built up from discrete bursts corresponding to particle detection, just like for when only one screen is open.

If we set up a detector on the other side of the screens that could tell which slit a 'particle' goes through, then the phase of the wave from the two slits is affected by the detector and randomized, so no interference pattern is found on the screen.

In the delayed choice experiments, the detector has two states: one for detecting which slit is gone through and one for not. If the detector is set to 'detect', then the phases are randomized and no interference pattern is seen. If the detector is set to 'no detect', then an interference pattern is seen. In some experiments, the detector even has intermediate resolutions and varying levels of interference are seen. This is even if the detector is placed well away from the screens.

And that is the double slit experiment from quantum eyes. The problem comes if you want to think about it through classical eyes. In this case, the problem happens if you insist on asking which slit a particle has gone through. That is simply not a question with a definite answer.

In particular, if you insist on asking which slit the particle goes through in the delayed choice experiments, then you inevitably get into paradoxes about causality. Once again, quantum mechanics is NOT a causal theory. If you insist on considering causes and their timing, you are talking classically. And classical ideas are the ones that quantum mechanics *replaced*. You don't explain the new theory in terms of the old one: you explain the old one in terms of the new. In other words, the question isn't asking which slit the particle goes through. That isn't a legitimate quantum question. The real question is why large things appear to act classically. And *this* is answered by decoherence.

Once again, you show your lack of understanding by the questions you ask.
Damn, that is some interesting commentary you write.

And I even understood everything you wrote, too-- that's not trivial.:)

Quantum Mechanics is a lovely theory, which proves the old saying: reality is more weird and more strange that ordinary fiction could ever be.

And I have to agree--it's weird for sure.

But kinda cool as well-- since all matter is fundamentally operating at the quantum level, and since all of that is probabilistic in nature?

(and has been well established by repeated experimentation)

Then, we humans >>must<< discard the idea of omniscience completely.

Quantum Mechanics fundamentally prohibits omniscience to exist-- it literally requires "not observing" to operate, and omniscience by definition, is "observing everything".

Thus, in a Quantum Mechanical Universe (ours), there cannot possibly exist a being who possesses Omniscience-- or even Omnipresence--for that would imply omniscience, and be prohibited.

Thus? Quantum Mechanics proves ALL classical definitions of god-- to be 100% myth.

Cool!

The only gods that are left, are the less-than-Divine ones, such as you'll often see in Pagan religious ideas.
KJV

United States

#429 May 5, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Damn, that is some interesting commentary you write.

And I even understood everything you wrote, too-- that's not trivial.:)

Quantum Mechanics is a lovely theory, which proves the old saying: reality is more weird and more strange that ordinary fiction could ever be.

And I have to agree--it's weird for sure.

But kinda cool as well-- since all matter is fundamentally operating at the quantum level, and since all of that is probabilistic in nature?

(and has been well established by repeated experimentation)

Then, we humans >>must<< discard the idea of omniscience completely.

Quantum Mechanics fundamentally prohibits omniscience to exist-- it literally requires "not observing" to operate, and omniscience by definition, is "observing everything".

Thus, in a Quantum Mechanical Universe (ours), there cannot possibly exist a being who possesses Omniscience-- or even Omnipresence--for that would imply omniscience, and be prohibited.

Thus? Quantum Mechanics proves ALL classical definitions of god-- to be 100% myth.

Cool!

The only gods that are left, are the less-than-Divine ones, such as you'll often see in Pagan religious ideas.
And it's so cool that QM fails so by scientific definition it is no longer a viable scientific Theory.
Lincoln

United States

#430 May 5, 2013
Since no fight exists there may be no winners

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 21 min NightSerf 18,446
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 46 min NightSerf 3,819
News Why I quit atheism 2 hr Richardfs 678
There is no meaning without God (Jul '15) 3 hr Richardfs 47
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 4 hr Eagle 12 5,663
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr Into The Night 43,080
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 6 hr It aint necessari... 737
A Universe from Nothing? 9 hr Eagle 12 417
More from around the web