“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#123 Apr 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Pretty much *every* experiment at the quantum level shows this: double slit experiment, Aspects experiment, and experiment dealing with entanglement.
<quoted text>
http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.2404
Quote:
"Thus, the suggested link between human consciousness and collapse of wave function does not seem viable."
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0101077
Quote:
"We argue that modern experiments and the discovery of decoherence have have shifted prevailing quantum interpretations away from wave function collapse towards unitary physics"
Paul WV is just a troll. He has had his azz whipped endlessly over on Topix Evolution threads.

Frankly, I though he had died or moved away or something.

It's amusing to see he's back, repeating the same bullshyt that was completely refuted over on the Evolution threads.

I guess he finally got tired have having his azz handed to him by the scientists over there.

He will steadfastly refuse to learn anything-- and will repeat the same already-disproved bs over and over.

Not unlike Stump-John, come to think of it. More words, sure-- but the same failed tactic of repeat-repeat-repeat the lie, to see if it sticks.
Lincoln

United States

#124 Apr 20, 2013
The largest Islamic worship center in New England, the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, announced on its website Friday that it was closed until further notice after a reportin The Boston Globe said one of the Boston Marathon bombers had worshiped at an affiliated Cambridge mosque.

The FBI identified Muslim brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as the bombing suspects. After they killed an MIT campus police officer around midnight Thursday, Tamerlan died in a blazing shootout with police and Dzhokhar eluded capture, triggering a massive manhunt that paralyzed the Boston area Friday.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#126 Apr 21, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Paul WV is just a troll. He has had his azz whipped endlessly over on Topix Evolution threads. "
I've not seen one Theist get whooped up on over on that thread.
Guess it's because atheist start in such a huge hole trying to defend evolution.
Funny in this day and age people still believing in that myth.
How many times were dropped on your head as a baby?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#127 Apr 21, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Paul WV is just a troll. He has had his azz whipped endlessly over on Topix Evolution threads. "
I've not seen one Theist get whooped up on over on that thread.
Of course you haven't!

To see that? You'd have to be able to...

.... read.

You simply haven't demonstrated that ability.

So your opinion is pretty much worthless.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#128 Apr 21, 2013
KJV wrote:
Guess it's because atheist start in such a huge hole trying to defend evolution.
Proof of evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#132 Apr 23, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
It would have to have happened for me to have observe it.
As soon as you learn to read? Then it'll become clear to you...

... however this is highly unlikely-- you have so far, demonstrated a total inability to learn.

Sad.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#133 Apr 23, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
There is none. I know.
See? You prove you cannot read...

... sad.

Proof of evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/
Paul WV

Beckley, WV

#134 Apr 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Pretty much *every* experiment at the quantum level shows this: double slit experiment, Aspects experiment, and experiment dealing with entanglement.
<quoted text>
http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.2404
Quote:
"Thus, the suggested link between human consciousness and collapse of wave function does not seem viable."
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0101077
Quote:
"We argue that modern experiments and the discovery of decoherence have have shifted prevailing quantum interpretations away from wave function collapse towards unitary physics"
Your quote from the link:
"Thus, the suggested link between human consciousness and collapse of wave function does not seem viable."

It only 'suggests' does not prove. Have they proven the hypothesis false; yes or no? Please link to experiments proving the hypothesis false.
Paul WV

Beckley, WV

#135 Apr 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Both. The wave function describes the probabilities as changing in time. It is a real thing that can be measured by looking at those probabilities. Yes, there is, ultimately, only the appearance of collapse. The whole idea of 'collapse of the wave function' is an old one that has been replaced by the concept of decoherence.
Ultimately, the problem is that many people want a classical understanding of a quantum level phenomenon and that isn't possible. If you want to think of quantum particles as little balls with definite properties, then you will get into many paradoxes. That simply isn't how the quantum world works.
You keep saying:'If you want to think of quantum particles as little balls with definite properties, then you will get into many paradoxes.' This is just a strawman argument for there are many physicists, well versed in quantum mechanics, who find these paradoxes do exist. Now give me experimental evidence that has proven beyond doubt the observer plays no part in wave function collapse. I want a clearly written peer reviewed article that says the observer plays no part- not:‘appears’ to play no part - in quantum wave function collapse.
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#136 Apr 24, 2013
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
I want a clearly written peer reviewed article that says the observer plays no part- not:‘appears’ to play no part - in quantum wave function collapse.
I want a clearly written peer reviewed article that shows that a dead man can fly to outer space on a cloud :D Show me your evidence!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#137 Apr 24, 2013
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep saying:'If you want to think of quantum particles as little balls with definite properties, then you will get into many paradoxes.' This is just a strawman argument for there are many physicists, well versed in quantum mechanics, who find these paradoxes do exist. Now give me experimental evidence that has proven beyond doubt the observer plays no part in wave function collapse. I want a clearly written peer reviewed article that says the observer plays no part- not:‘appears’ to play no part - in quantum wave function collapse.
You won't get such a definitive statement from a real scientist. There is always a *possibility* that consciousness has *some* role to play. So *real* scientists will make cautious statements like it 'appears to have no role' when they have found evidence that it has not role.

But what we have found is that the whole notion of wave function collapse is unnecessary and that the decoherence model actually helps us understand the process that was previously called collapse. Furthermore, in the decoherence model, consciousness is irrelevant and merely having photons is enough to effect the 'collapse'. Finally, this distinction is important in certain areas such as quantum computing, where we want to learn how to maintain quantum states for longer periods of time. Once again, it is interaction with the environment that is relevant,*not* having conscious observers.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#138 Apr 24, 2013
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
Your quote from the link:
"Thus, the suggested link between human consciousness and collapse of wave function does not seem viable."
It only 'suggests' does not prove. Have they proven the hypothesis false; yes or no? Please link to experiments proving the hypothesis false.
Truthfully, most physicists consider it a dead issue of very little interest. The whole question is irrelevant to how the vast majority of physicists actually do physics. So questions of 'collapse of wave function' are generally not considered at all. Instead, the calculations are done which are relevant to the situation they are studying. For those who *are* interested, decoherence is a simpler description of the mechanics and has been verified by experiment. Consciousness is irrelevant in that model.
Paul WV

Beckley, WV

#139 Apr 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Truthfully, most physicists consider it a dead issue of very little interest. The whole question is irrelevant to how the vast majority of physicists actually do physics. So questions of 'collapse of wave function' are generally not considered at all. Instead, the calculations are done which are relevant to the situation they are studying. For those who *are* interested, decoherence is a simpler description of the mechanics and has been verified by experiment. Consciousness is irrelevant in that model.
What most physicists do is to ignore the uncomfortable facts that throw their materialistic world view into question. There is nothing wrong with these scientists ignoring these uncomfortable realities of quantum mechanics, but ignoring them does not make them go away.
CunningLinguist

Lady Lake, FL

#140 Apr 24, 2013
Paul WV wrote:
http://iheu.org/story/new-glob al-report-discrimination-again st-non-religious
Paulie! Where have you been?

You are one of my favorite RCC slaves. Dedicated to a fault. Kudos!
I hope you are well and pleased with the new pope Frank.:-)

Then let me share the good news with you. Here's where secular humanism will take you, given the chance. Will you support this or fight it?:

THE AFFIRMATIONS OF HUMANISM: A STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php...

[1] We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

[2] We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, explain the world in supernatural terms, and look outside nature for salvation.

[3] We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.

[4] We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.

[5] We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.

[6] We [prefer] negotiation and compromise to [resolve] differences and achiev[e] mutual understanding.

[7] We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.

[8] We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.

[9] We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on [prejudices] and strive to work together for the common good.

[10] We want to protect, preserve and enhance the earth, and avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.

[11] We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.

[12] We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.

[13] Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.

[14] We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. Together we discover normative standards tested by their consequences.

[15] We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.

[16] We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.

[17] We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.

[18] We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas.

[19] We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.

[20] We believe in optimism, hope, learning, truth, joy, tolerance, love, compassion, beauty, and reason rather than pessimism, despair, dogma, ignorance, guilt or sin, fear, hatred, selfishness, ugliness, and blind, irrational faith.

[21] We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.

Allah willing...:-)

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#141 Apr 24, 2013
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
What most physicists do is to ignore the uncomfortable facts that throw their materialistic world view into question. There is nothing wrong with these scientists ignoring these uncomfortable realities of quantum mechanics, but ignoring them does not make them go away.
I agree. Bu those realities do not say what you seem to think they do. Consciousness is not a relevant factor is quantum mechanics any longer. The concept of the collapse of the wave function is now seen as more a 'convenient fiction' rather than reality. The point is that the Copenhagen interpretation was a strange mix of quantum and classical ideas and has been replaced by a more purely quantum system. What was a 'collapse of a wave function' before is now 'decoherence' and is produced by interaction with an environment and not only by consciousness.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#142 Apr 24, 2013
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
Your quote from the link:
"Thus, the suggested link between human consciousness and collapse of wave function does not seem viable."
It only 'suggests' does not prove. Have they proven the hypothesis false; yes or no? Please link to experiments proving the hypothesis false.
Proof of evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#143 Apr 24, 2013
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep saying:'If you want to think of quantum particles as little balls with definite properties, then you will get into many paradoxes.' This is just a strawman argument for there are many physicists, well versed in quantum mechanics, who find these paradoxes do exist. Now give me experimental evidence that has proven beyond doubt the observer plays no part in wave function collapse. I want a clearly written peer reviewed article that says the observer plays no part- not:‘appears’ to play no part - in quantum wave function collapse.
Proof of evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#144 Apr 24, 2013
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
What most physicists do is to ignore the uncomfortable facts that throw their materialistic world view into question. There is nothing wrong with these scientists ignoring these uncomfortable realities of quantum mechanics, but ignoring them does not make them go away.
Proof of evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/
Paul WV

Beckley, WV

#145 Apr 25, 2013
CunningLinguist wrote:
<quoted text>
Paulie! Where have you been?
You are one of my favorite RCC slaves. Dedicated to a fault. Kudos!
I hope you are well and pleased with the new pope Frank.:-)
Then let me share the good news with you. Here's where secular humanism will take you, given the chance. Will you support this or fight it?:
THE AFFIRMATIONS OF HUMANISM: A STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php...
[1] We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.
[2] We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, explain the world in supernatural terms, and look outside nature for salvation.
[3] We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.
[4] We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.
[5] We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.
[6] We [prefer] negotiation and compromise to [resolve] differences and achiev[e] mutual understanding.
[7] We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.
[8] We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.
[9] We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on [prejudices] and strive to work together for the common good.
[10] We want to protect, preserve and enhance the earth, and avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.
[11] We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.
[12] We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.
[13] Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.
[14] We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. Together we discover normative standards tested by their consequences.
[15] We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.
[16] We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.
[17] We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.
[18] We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas.
[19] We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.
[20] We believe in optimism, hope, learning, truth, joy, tolerance, love, compassion, beauty, and reason rather than pessimism, despair, dogma, ignorance, guilt or sin, fear, hatred, selfishness, ugliness, and blind, irrational faith.
[21] We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.
Allah willing...:-)
As St Paul wrote: "They will hold to an outward form of godliness but deny its power." What's it power you ask? God!

What secular humanists and atheists have in common is that they cannot distinguish between the trees in the forest of religions and will only lose the war. As the old saying goes: "Know your enemy."

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#146 Apr 25, 2013
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
As St Paul wrote: "They will hold to an outward form of godliness but deny its power." What's it power you ask? God!
What secular humanists and atheists have in common is that they cannot distinguish between the trees in the forest of religions and will only lose the war. As the old saying goes: "Know your enemy."
But.

You Genuine Catholics™ use SECULAR methods to FILTER your own bibles!

Do you follow ALL the Old Testament commandments? No?

Then you used SECULAR means to choose which ones you like, and which ones you do not like.

Secular Reasoning for the WIN-- superior in all ways to religious reasoning.

Proof of evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/

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
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 1 hr Richardfs 181
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Richardfs 233,230
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 3 hr woodtick57 2,632
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 4 hr Morse 5,963
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 12 hr Morse 23,279
faith & pride 13 hr geezerjock 1
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 15 hr _Bad Company 214
More from around the web