Come on, Creationists!

[Ella S.]

Abraham in ca 1650 BC was an eye witness to the aftermath of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah.
Do you take his word for it ????

...no? Why do you ask?

 

[Ella S.]

This is a common misconception. Measuring things does not interfere with the results.
Actually, the very sentence makes no sense since the very meaning of results comes from measuring.

And I have a very good knowledge of linear algebra. So, what is your evidence?

Please no internet links. I do not debate links, and here is a mile high pile of crap out there when it comes to QM (Prof. Susskind words).

So, use your words, math formulas and wit, or whatever you can throw at me.

What have you got, that we can submit to rational analysis?

Ciao

- viole

"Prove it but don't link to any studies." Ha, no.

 

[viole]

"Prove it but don't link to any studies." Ha, no.

Of course. I expect that people understand what they study, especially if that makes their case, and are able to express it in their own words,

If not, then I will simply assume that they do not have what it takes to understand anything, which would make any debate with them pointless.

Don't you agree?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ppp]

"Prove it but don't link to any studies." Ha, no.

Viole is correct. Fundamentally, if you understand the topic, then you should be able to at least reference the relevant math. Not necessarily do the detailed math, but give a rough sketch that hits all of the objects, their interactions and relationships. And how that sketch supports your point, and no others.

 

[Ella S.]

Of course. I expect that people understand what they study, especially if that makes their case, and are able to express it in their own words,

If not, then I will simply assume that they do not have what it takes to understand anything, which would make any debate with them pointless.

Don't you agree?

Ciao

- viole

For one, I don't study quantum mechanics, I'm just sharing the opinions I've heard of people who do. It isn't my case. If I'm in error, then please feel free to tell me how I am, but saying that measurement can't interfere with the result of what's being measured isn't true. I already gave an example of how that can happen on a larger scale.

If you are a quantum physicist and have a better understanding of the topic, then I think that would be a valuable input on the discussion and I apologize if I've misinformed anyone.

In a more abstract sense, no, I don't think it makes sense to extrapolate that someone is wholly incapable of understanding anything just because they don't understand something they've studied or are currently studying. That actually sounds like a converse accident fallacy to me.

 

[Ella S.]

Viole is correct. Fundamentally, if you understand the topic, then you should be able to at least reference the relevant math. Not necessarily do the detailed math, but give a rough sketch that hits all of the objects, their interactions and relationships. And how that sketch supports your point, and no others.

Viole told me not to reference the relevant math. They specifically told me not to link to any outside internet sources.

 

[ppp]

Viole told me not to reference the relevant math.

Are you sure you read that right?

So, use your words, math formulas and wit, or whatever you can throw at me.

 

[Ella S.]

Are you sure you read that right?

Please no internet links. I do not debate links, and here is a mile high pile of crap out there when it comes to QM (Prof. Susskind words).

Yes, I am pretty sure.

It's a moot point, though. It's not my argument. Is it wrong to share the opinions of other people in a field that I personally don't study in a thread that otherwise does not make mention of the opinions of people in that field?

If so, why? Merely because I can't personally verify what they're saying? Maybe in a formal debate, sure, but is it inappropriate to share anecdotes in a web forum? I kind of thought that was the point of discussion on sites like this.

 

[cladking]

Reality is a misleading term. What do you mean with that?

Exactly.

Reductionistic science breaks everything down to study it but in failing to put it back together they forget that reality even exists.

Of course with reductionistic science it's not necessary to postulate reality even exists therefore you can ignore its existence and live in a reduced world that magically obeys natural law and can be expressed through math.

 

[viole]

For one, I don't study quantum mechanics

Which was obvious, considering your posts.

and I told you to post the relevant math. I am a mathematician who did some work for quantum physicists, so I am not afraid of it. i asked you to throw anything you have at me, Just no links. I want to debate you, not links, unless you are author of their contents.

and if you do not have enough knowledge about it to sustain a rational, and scientific debate then, like in the case of weddings, object about it, or be silent forever. That would save you from future embarassement.

You might think I am being arrogant. But I am not. i just believe that we are all ignorant about most things. What I do not tolerate is pontificating about things we are ignorant about it. That would be like me pontificating about Chinese medieval poetry, when any post of mine about it, would make it obvious that I have no clue about the subject. Like you just did with quantum mechanics.

ciao

- viole

 

[Ella S.]

Which was obvious, considering your posts.

and I told you to post the relevant math. I am a mathematician who did some work for quantum physicists, so I am not afraid of it. i asked you to throw anything you have at me, Just no links. I want to debate you, not links, unless you are author of their contents.

and if you do not have enough knowledge about it to sustain a rational, and scientific debate then, like in the case of weddings, object about it, or be silent forever.

ciao

- viole

I am not going to do that. When I know the opinions of experts in a field, I will continue to provide my understanding of those opinions.

It is possible that I misunderstand their opinions. I'm open to correction. You're merely demanding that I support a position that isn't mine, which I think is a little odd. If I'm wrong in my description of the consensus opinions in that field, please demonstrate to me what the actual consensus opinion is.

If not, then I'm not really taking any of your objections to what I've said seriously.

 

[ppp]

Yes, I am pretty sure.

I quoted the passage from their post that specifically ask you to give them the math. And then refutation you cite the part that tells you not to use links to debate. You know that math and internet links are not the same thing, right?

Personally, I think that your response to wild wanderer was entirely correct. The act of observing does disturb the observed. Instrument function does affect measurements. Heat. Vibration. EM radiation. All culprits.

 

[viole]

I am not going to do that. When I know the opinions of experts in a field, I will continue to provide my understanding of those opinions.

What understating of their opinions?

You asked, if that was you, whether someone had enough knowledge in linear algebra to address your claims. I do. So, what is the evidence of your claims?

what do you have?

It is possible that I misunderstand their opinions. I'm open to correction. You're merely demanding that I support a position that isn't mine, which I think is a little odd. If I'm wrong in my description of the consensus opinions in that field, please demonstrate to me what the actual consensus opinion is.

if it is not yours, why do you use it? What is your position about it?

for instance, what do you think of the inclusion of observers in the wave function? That would make your argument moot, right?

If not, then I'm not really taking any of your objections to what I've said seriously.

Of course not. In your shoes, I would not either.

ciao

- viole

 

[Ella S.]

I quoted the passage from their post that specifically ask you to give them the math. And then refutation you cite the part that tells you not to use links to debate. You know that math and internet links are not the same thing, right?

Personally, I think that your response to wild wanderer was entirely correct. The act of observing does disturb the observed. Instrument function does affect measurements. Heat. Vibration. EM radiation. All culprits.

The only math that I'm aware of on the subject comes in the form of fairly lengthy papers on the subject. I don't think a single equation taken out of that context would make sense, and if it did, I don't have the prerequisite knowledge to figure out which specific equation I need to point to.

I also don't even have those papers on hand. I have emailed one of the quantum physicists I spoke to about this and I am waiting to hear back with the papers that they showed me when we had this conversation. I honestly don't know if I will hear back from them, though.

The point being that, if I can obtain the evidence, it's going to have to be an external link to a longer study which includes a good deal of linear algebra, if I remember it correctly.

 

[viole]

The point being that, if I can obtain the evidence, it's going to have to be an external link to a longer study which includes a good deal of linear algebra, if I remember it correctly.

Which you probably neither understand, nor be able to defend.
So, why do you accept it? And how can you possibly defend it here, since it is obvious you do not understand it? Amazing you asked people if they have knowledge in linear algebra when they challenged you, when even a child would see that you do not have a knowledge about the subject either.

Is that really so easy you to convince you about anything? Just add some math that average people do not understand, and hope they swallow it?

Really?

ciao

- viole

 

[Ella S.]

What understating of their opinions?

My understanding of what those opinions are, not why they're held.

You asked, if that was you, whether someone had enough knowledge in linear algebra to address your claims. I do. So, what is the evidence of your claims?

what do you have?

I might be able to contact one of the quantum physicists that I spoke to on this issue, but they referenced a study that had a lot of linear algebra in it. While I don't fully understand the study, it's possible that someone like you might be able to. I just didn't see a point in wasting my time trying to contact them over a study that neither of us would have been able to have valuable insight on.

if it is not yours, why do you use it? What is your position about it?

Some deference to expert opinion is necessary in life, particularly in the natural sciences where studies are built upon past studies that the individual scientist referencing that study has not personally peer-reviewed.

for instance, what do you think of the inclusion of observers in the wave function? That would make your argument moot, right?

I honestly don't know.

 

[Ella S.]

Which you probably neither understand, nor be able to defend.
So, why do you accept it? And how can you possibly defend it here, since it is obvious you do not understand it?

Is that really so easy you to convince you about anything? Just add some math that average people do not understand, and hope they swallow it?

Really?

ciao

- viole

I accept expert opinions on relevant fields when I'm not personally able to form a more detailed opinion about them. I would not be able to defend them to another expert in that field.

It has very little to do with adding math that average people don't understand and hoping that they swallow it. I'm really not sure where you get such a bad faith interpretation of what I've said here.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You would if people were trying to justify their hare-brained behavior against others under the Conie Cultural Commandments, and force you and your children to adhere to their Bunny Doctrine by legal and martial force.

No one is doing any such thing.

 

[viole]

My understanding of what those opinions are, not why they're held.

Well, can you defend them without asking them? If not, then you did not understand them

might be able to contact one of the quantum physicists that I spoke to on this issue, but they referenced a study that had a lot of linear algebra in it. While I don't fully understand the study, it's possible that someone like you might be able to. I just didn't see a point in wasting my time trying to contact them over a study that neither of us would have been able to have valuable insight on.

Lol, that won’t do. Neither of us? I know QM, and it does not entail anything you say. Shall I throw some algebra at you so that you believe me?

I honestly don't know.

Of course you don’t. Probably you do not even know what a wave function is. Which is the basic in QM.

but then, again, I have to ask. What gives you the courage to even address these issues? What would you think of me if I started pontificating about Chinese poetry, when everyone would notice immediately that I have no clue about Chinese poetry?

so, what makes QM, relativity, or physics in general such that to somehow empower the most clueless to pontificate about them without any fear of embarassment?

ciao

- viole

 

[Wildswanderer]

Are you saying some peoples opinions don't count just because they oppose consensus? Or should it be based on the validity of a position?

No I'm saying why waste your life trying to prove a negative?