metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Plus they supply links.Actually, many of the articles are well written and very well cited using academic and other credible sources.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Plus they supply links.Actually, many of the articles are well written and very well cited using academic and other credible sources.
First of all, Wikipedia is no kind of an authoritative source.
.
If they are very well cited using academic and other credible sources, then reference the academic and other credible sources!Actually, many of the articles are well written and very well cited using academic and other credible sources.
It says: "The theorem is built on the basic presumption that the laws of quantum mechanics hold"In this case it does not matter, since it just lays down a mathematical proof based on the modern theory of QM. And that proof makes it obvious that there is not such a thing as spooky actions at a distance in QM (without hidden variables). By the way, the references say the same thing. And the theorem is part of any introductory course on QM.
If you do not agree, all you have to do is find a fault in the mathematical proof or in the assumptions of QM. Or we could go through that together, if you prefer.
What do you propose to attack? The assumption that composite states can be mathematically treated as tensor products? Or what else, exactly?
Ciao
- viole
They do. They have numbers in brackets that will take you to the bottom of the page so you can see what the source is of the number you clicked on, as well as all of the sources used in the article.If they are very well cited using academic and other credible sources, then reference the academic and other credible sources!
It says: "The theorem is built on the basic presumption that the laws of quantum mechanics hold"
As we know, all scientific theories are eventually discarded. We cannot know what theory will replace QM and what parts of the new theory will be consistent with the old theory.
Additionally, I note that you have studiously avoided addressing the main thrust of the argument. FTL communication is, at least theoretically, possible with three entangled photons.
No theories don't always get completely discarded.It says: "The theorem is built on the basic presumption that the laws of quantum mechanics hold"
As we know, all scientific theories are eventually discarded. We cannot know what theory will replace QM and what parts of the new theory will be consistent with the old theory.
Additionally, I note that you have studiously avoided addressing the main thrust of the argument. FTL communication is, at least theoretically, possible with three entangled photons.
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theoriesIn some cases a theory or idea is found baseless and is simply discarded. For example, the phlogiston theory was entirely replaced by the quite different concept of energy and related laws. In other cases an existing theory is replaced by a new theory that retains significant elements of the earlier theory
First of all, studies show that Wikipedia is accurate some 74 percent of the time. Well that's better than a 50-50 shot, that doesn't mean that it's a good source. Wikipedia isn't designed to be a primary or even a secondary source of information. Most people who edit Wikipedia are males in their late 20s. Many of these people have axes to grind, and don't hesitate to ban people whose ideas don't agree with theirs. Thus, it is not surprising that . Wikipedia is not a reliable source, period. Even legitimate corrections are often reverted and by bots. I have had simple grammatical correction reverted by bots. Copyrighted information cannot make its way into Wikipedia. Obviously, the more valuable the information is, the more likely it is to be copyrighted.They do. They have numbers in brackets that will take you to the bottom of the page so you can see what the source is of the number you clicked on, as well as all of the sources used in the article.
Maybe you don't get where I'm coming from. Let me break it down for you.So, your initilal argument that relativity is broken because of QM, is now turned into: relativity is broken, because QM might be broken, too?
http://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/First of all, studies show that Wikipedia is accurate some 74 percent of the time. Well that's better than a 50-50 shot, that doesn't mean that it's a good source. Wikipedia isn't designed to be a primary or even a secondary source of information. Most people who edit Wikipedia are males in their late 20s. Many of these people have axes to grind, and don't hesitate to ban people whose ideas don't agree with theirs. Thus, it is not surprising that . Wikipedia is not a reliable source, period. Even legitimate corrections are often reverted and by bots. I have had simple grammatical correction reverted by bots. Copyrighted information cannot make its way into Wikipedia. Obviously, the more valuable the information is, the more likely it is to be copyrighted.
Say what you want. Of course Wiki isn't 100%, but nothing is, and study-after-study has shown Wiki to have accurate and reliable information.And last year, a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found that Wikipedia had the same level of accuracy and depth in its articles about 10 types of cancer as the Physician Data Query, a professionally edited database maintained by the National Cancer Institute.
The self-described "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has fared similarly well in most other studies comparing its accuracy to conventional encyclopedias, including studies by The Guardian, PC Pro, Library Journal, the Canadian Library Association, and several peer-reviewed academic studies.
...
A Small Study of Our Own
To add to the debate, Life's Little Mysteries carried out its own, albeit small, test of Wikipedia's accuracy by consulting experts from two very different walks of life: theoretical physics and pop music.
Life's Little Mysteries asked Adam Riess, professor of astronomy and physics at Johns Hopkins University and one of the scientists credited with proposing the existence of dark energy , to rate Wikipedia's "dark energy" entry.
"It's remarkably accurate," Riess said. "Certainly better than 95 percent correct."
This is not true, however, of the page about the indie pop band "Passion Pit," according to its drummer, Nate Donmoyer. Donmoyer found 10 factual errors on his band's page ranging from subtle to significant. Some information even appeared to have been added to the page by companies or organizations in search of publicity.
"It's kind of crazy," Donmoyer told LLM. "I don't think I can trust Wikipedia again. The littlest white lies can throw its whole validity off."
It may make sense that Wikipedia would have more reliable articles about academic topics than pop culture ones, considering that the latter are more prone to rumors and hearsay
Encyclopedia Britanica is not a good source, either. So saying that Wikipedia is as good as another encyclopedia means nothing. At any rate, the facts in the link do not bear out the title.http://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/
Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature.
http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html
Say what you want. Of course Wiki isn't 100%, but nothing is, and study-after-study has shown Wiki to have accurate and reliable information.
Then by all means get busy and informing everyone.Encyclopedia Britanica is not a good source, either.
Besides, it's easier to simply impugn the source, without pointing out any actual errors.http://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/
Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature.
http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html
Say what you want. Of course Wiki isn't 100%, but nothing is, and study-after-study has shown Wiki to have accurate and reliable information.
Why are people saying that GOD is separate from existence? Is it not obvious that all perceivable existence is a product of GOD in some fashion or another? Mathematical symmetry is observable in all existence. You would be hard pressed to find any sort of believer who denies that nature or the laws that bind existence to not be of GOD, yet pride wants to separate the theist, deist, pantheist, atheist and agnostic.Of course. And by the way, I'm not criticizing or against Kaku's or your views. I'm just trying to see if they're the same as mine. (By the way, intelligence=truth=logos, hence my thoughts go to Heraclitus)
And I think they might be, or at least very close. I call my view pantheistic, or rather panentheistic. My thoughts and views lean towards Heraclitus and Spinoza, and I've learned that Einstein's views were also very close to them and my own.
Would you call yourself a deist rather than pantheist/panentheist? Is your God (and Kaku's) separate from the world (like in monotheism or deism) and not part of the universe? Or is it just simply that you don't want to give your (and Kaku's) beliefs a specific label?
Perhaps if you read the original post, you would see that I made three specific points. I can only assume that the over-wrought dwelling on the first point shows that the second and third are too strong to be even acknowledged.Besides, it's easier to simply impugn the source, without pointing out any actual errors.
Perhaps if you read the original post, you would see that I made three specific points. I can only assume that the over-wrought dwelling on the first point shows that the second and third are too strong to be even acknowledged
This merely impugns the source without addressing the issue.First of all, Wikipedia is no kind of an authoritative source.
Unsupported speculationSecond, the claim is that no kind of communication is possible with dual-entangled systems (not even slower than light). In addition, the theorem relies on multiple unproven assumptions.
Now you're doing what you so frequently decry, ie, quoting the latest fashion in science.Finally, Triple-entangled photons are now a reality, a discovery that does allow for theoretical communication.
I don't think I've seen you pointing this out before; please explain what logical fallacy science is based on. Thank you.Science is based on a logical fallacy.
Untrue.Your linked post......
This merely impugns the source without addressing the issue.
No, that's exactly what the link says. It says, ...it is not possible for one observer, by making a measurement of a subsystem of the total state, to communicate information to another observer. So even if the theorem is 100 percent true, it still doesn't support viole's contention that the theorem forbids FTL communication. It forbids all communication, not just FTL communication. That's because there's no known theoretical or practical way of setting the state of one side to anything without destroying the entanglement, thus meaningful information cannot be transmitted. This does not change the measurements of the speed of communication between the two particles as 10,000 times the speed of light.Unsupported speculation
Well, it's really simple. It's called the Problem of Induction. I'm surprised you haven't heard of it, because it was thought up by David Hume, who died in 1776, so really it's been around for at least 240 years.I don't think I've seen you pointing this out before; please explain what logical fallacy science is based on. Thank you.
I'm surprised you haven't heard of it, because
These are the people I'm looking for. I have no interest at all in evolution or creationism. I want to debate Bayesian epistemology with someone–someone like this guy right here, but it seems that I'm not likely to find one of these guys in this forum (though I keep hoping).