I did my research a lot. There's nothing defies the uncertainty of quantum mechanics. Or else, you may show your links which provides mainstream alternative explanation of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment. YOU CAN'T, period! That's why your reply only contains assertions but 0 argument.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Absolute Truth
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
I did my research a lot. There's nothing defies the uncertainty of quantum mechanics. Or else, you may show your links which provides mainstream alternative explanation of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment. YOU CAN'T, period! That's why your reply only contains assertions but 0 argument.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
No. That's not what they say. You're the one giving the selective misrepresentation. I used to be RCC. I know what they say. Yes, that's what the doctrine says. But that's not how it works in the field. RC clergy are highly respectful of other clergy. In my own town, the RC bishop allowed the Episcopal diocese to hold their diocesan assembly in the RC cathedral, use their altar for Eucharist, etc. That wouldn't have happened if the RCC didn't hold them in high esteem spiritually. The RCC and my own denomination have been in conversation for years about reconciling. That wouldn't happen if the RCC didn't hold my denomination in high spiritual esteem. You're absolutely wrong on this point, no matter what the doctrine says.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Look. Them. Up. The information is available. One doesn't have to go to the encyclopedia or peer-reviewed articles to show that the sun was bright in Zanzibar the other day. Your "prove it!" is gaslighting.
No, I called Pat Robertson a clown -- which he is, rabid fundigelicals notwithstanding. Read it again. You're reading it wrong.
Bandwagon fallacy. I'm talking about spiritual authorities -- bishops and bona fide clergy, not televangelists and their minions.
And that accusation is what you, yourself are guilty of here. Again: spiritual authorities, not minions. People believe all sorts of things. It's the apostles' faith that matters. You know: the ones who stand in apostolic succession. Everything else is ecclesial white noise.
From: Why delayed choice experiments do Not imply retrocausality
Why delayed choice experiments do Not imply retrocausality by David Ellerman
Abstract
Although retrocausality might be involved in quantum mechanics in a number of ways, the focus here is on the delay-choice arguments popularized by John Archibald Wheeler. There is a common fallacy that is often involved in the interpretation of quantum experiments involving a certain type of separation such as the: double-slit experiments, which-way interferometer experiments, polarization analyzer experiments, Stern-Gerlach experiments, and quantum eraser experiments. The fallacy leads not only to flawed textbook accounts of these experiments but to flawed inferences about retrocausality in the context of delayed choice versions of separation experiments.
Keywords
Retrocausality Delayed choice experiments Quantum eraser experiments
1 Introduction: retrocausality in QM
There are a number of ways that the idea of retrocausality arises in quantum mechanics (QM). One way, which is analyzed here, is the argument largely due to Wheeler [19] that delayed-choice experiments reveal a type of retrocausality.
There is also the two-vector approach to QM pioneered by Aharonov et al.:
in which a quantum system is described, at a given time, by two (instead of one) quantum states: the usual one evolving toward the future and the second evolving backwards in time from a future measurement [1, p. 1].
Cramer’s [4] transactional interpretation of QM also involves the idea of a second wave travelling backwards in time. The idea of QM as involving a wave travelling backwards in time goes back at least to Arthur Eddington’s Gifford Lectures in 1927:
The probability is often stated to be proportional to ψ2" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-table; line-height: normal; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;">ψ2ψ2, instead of ψ" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-table; line-height: normal; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;">ψψ, as assumed above. The whole interpretation is very obscure, but it seems to depend on whether you are considering the probability after you know what has happened or the probability for the purposes of prediction. The ψ2" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-table; line-height: normal; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;">ψ2ψ2 is obtained by introducing two symmetrical systems of ψ" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-table; line-height: normal; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;">ψψ-waves travelling in opposite directions in time; one of these must presumably correspond to probable inference from what is known (or is stated) to have been the condition at a later time [6, fn. pp. 216–217].
Finally the idea of retrocausality might arise when space-like separated entangled systems are viewed from different inertial frames of reference. Abner Shimony popularized the idea of “peaceful coexistence” [17, p. 388] in spite of the “tension” between QM and special relativity.
In order to explore further the tension between quantum mechanics and relativity theory, let us consider an experimental arrangement in which [system 1] and [system 2] are tested by observers at rest in different inertial frames, and suppose that the tests are events of space-like separation. If the reduction of ψ" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-table; line-height: normal; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;">ψψ is to be interpreted causally, then which of the events is the cause and which is the effect? There is obviously no relativistically invariant way to answer this question. It could happen that in one frame of reference the testing of [system 1] is earlier than the testing of [system 2], and in the other frame the converse is the case [17, p. 387].
If a measurement of system 1 was taken as the “cause” and the reduction of system 2 the “effect” then in certain inertial frames the effect would precede the cause. This might be interpreted as a type of retrocausality or rather as a type of causal connection where the usual notions of “cause” and “effect” do not apply. As Shimony put it:
The wiser course is to say that quantum mechanics presents us with a kind of causal connection which is generically different from anything that could be characterised classically, since the causal connection cannot be unequivocally analysed into a cause and an effect [17, p. 387].
These other ways in which retrocausality might arise in QM are mentioned solely to emphasize that this paper is only concerned with Wheeler’s delayed-choice arguments."
It has been shown that the arrow of possibly may be reversed in QM. but it has not been falsified nor demonstrated.
It is not "gaslighting, and I did not ask you to prove anything. It is a legitimate request to ask some on for references to support an argument beyond their anecdotal subjective testimony.
The following is your quote.You did not refer to Pat Robertson. You referred to me as 'you'.
What you describe is group confirmation bias.
This remains subjective, anecdotal testimony.
No, what is references is what is taught and believed by the fundamentalists and the Roman Church. I was raised in th eRoman Church and for one year studied to be a priest of the Saint Francis Order. you are misusing the Bandwagon fallacy.
No.
Personal testimony reflects people as individuals can believe in 'all sorts of things.' What I cited is what the churches believe and teach. All you have presented is personal subjective testimony and no references.
.[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
Main stream academic source provided.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
And I said that if you're really interested, you can look them up. Talk to someone other than extremist fundigelicals.
Yes. I said that all you provided were the rantings of a clown, meaning the Pat Robertson site. You. Read. It. Wrong.
No. I didn't expect to see anything. I was surprised. It didn't confirm a preexisting bias. It did, however, change my mind about what is reality.
Again: how many witnesses does it take to magically become objective evidence? There were at least two witnesses to each incident.
The fundigelicals aren't spiritual authorities. What is taught by the RCC is what the bishops say.
Anecdotal testimony.
Yes.
No, you cited a spiritual crazy man and a bit of doctrine that the bishops I've talked to certainly don't interpret without provisos. You'll have to do better than this.
ecco
Veteran Member
Let's go back to the start of the conversation:
WRONG!
As just one of many examples:
The writings (by Shogi Effendi, if I recall) describe a meeting Ballulah had with a high ranking Government Official. I questioned the validity of the writing because there was no way the exact words could have been recorded. So, thus far, I was referring only to the official Bahai writing.
Then, several people tried to explain how Shogi Effendi got the exact quotes. This included an individual who said he got information from an official Bahai site or from knowledgeable people on a Bahai forum.
This is just one example of many.
Your assertion "You knew, based on the post of one individual without knowledge of the Baha'i." is ignorant nonsense. You could have asked before posting it and I would have explained it then. But no, you wanted to make an accusation without knowing (remembering?) the actual facts.
WRONG!
As just one of many examples:
The writings (by Shogi Effendi, if I recall) describe a meeting Ballulah had with a high ranking Government Official. I questioned the validity of the writing because there was no way the exact words could have been recorded. So, thus far, I was referring only to the official Bahai writing.
Then, several people tried to explain how Shogi Effendi got the exact quotes. This included an individual who said he got information from an official Bahai site or from knowledgeable people on a Bahai forum.
This is just one example of many.
Your assertion "You knew, based on the post of one individual without knowledge of the Baha'i." is ignorant nonsense. You could have asked before posting it and I would have explained it then. But no, you wanted to make an accusation without knowing (remembering?) the actual facts.
ecco
Veteran Member
It has nothing to do with disagreeing with Bahai writings. It also has nothing to do with "arrogant hostile bias toward the Baha'i Faith without knowledge of the context of how the Baha'i Faith considers the writings and guidance in the writings."
Some people who believe in the Bahai religion point to the unerring prophecies as a reason they believe. I ask to be shown the prophies. One person stated (I'm paraphrasing) that Ballula warned Napoleon to mend his ways or face big problems. I asked to see the actual prophecy (the actual writings of Ballula to Napolean). These writings are at least partially based on knowledge that was commonly availble. These writings do not contain any specificity. Therefore, by any reasonable standards, they do not qualify as prophecies.
So, I had "knowledge of the context of how the Baha'i Faith considers the writings and guidance in the writings". With that knowledge, I came to the conclusions stated in the previous paragraph. They are not based on an "arrogant hostile bias", but on a rational analysis of the situation.
I know that it makes you feel better to write off my comments as those from a person with an "arrogant hostile bias" than from a rational evaluation of the actual readings of the proffered prophecies. If anything, people believing in the overall concepts of Bahai are the ones whose views are biased.
ecco
Veteran Member
Once again, my pointing out the shortcomings of various aspects of Bahai writings is not based on ignorance. It is based on reading and evaluating the writings upon which Bahais base their faith. I've given several specific examples.
ecco
Veteran Member
I thought personal attacks were frowned on in civilized forums.
But that's OK. When reason and logic fail, I guess you see your only option is to try to demean me personally.
You seem to be able to hold your own against Creationists. I don't recall you ever using terms like the above when showing them how illogical their beliefs are. You just point out when and how their beliefs are illogical. It seems you can't take it when someone shows that your religious beliefs are just as illogical as theirs.
Only a selective reading without knowledge of the Baha'i Faith. You may disagree with the Baha'i Faith, the writings and guidance are for an Age of humanity and do not represent absolute Truth. The religions of the world represent an evolving spiritual humanity that changes over the millennia.
Yes, your personal attacks would be frowned on in civilized forums.
Careful 'most Christian leaders is not a meaningful. It is not my opinion, because it is a matter of fact that at least 30 to 40 % of the USA are fundamentalist Christians that would follow Pat Robertson.
Second hand anecdotal references are not adequate. Please cite sources, and actually growing up in the Roman Church and studying the documents you are completely wrong. I cited direct sources that conflict with your second hand assertions. You need to do better than that.
undamentalists in statistics are 25.4% + 6.5% black protestestants and mainline Protestants are only 14.7% The recent polls on believing in a literal Genesis is 38%
From: Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics
denomination
- Christian - 70.6%
- Evangelical Protestan - 25.4%
- Mainline Protestant - 14.7%
- Historically Black Protestant - 6.5%
- Catholic - 20.8%
- Mormon -1.6%
- Orthodox Christian - 0.5%
- Jehovah's Witness - 0.8%
- Other Christian - 0.4%
Last edited:
ecco
Veteran Member
Well, let's try to follow the thread.
Me:
Can you honestly deny that Christians believe Christianity is the True Religion and religions such as Islam, Hinduism, and even Bahai are False Religions?
You:
Some Christians certainly do. But the preponderance of the religion — including those with spiritual authority — don’t make that kind of judgment about other religions.
Above you commented that spiritual authorities don't make that kind of judgment about other religions. Specifically that their religion is the True religion and the others are not.
But, in fact, spiritual leaders and lay people do believe the other religions are not the True religion. To that point I wrote: Then it should be easy to list prominent Christians who believe Muhammad is a true Messenger and Allah is the True God.
You didn't/couldn't. So instead, you reworded it to "but most Christian leaders I know would say that Muhammed is a true messenger for Islam". Yes, for Islam. But that wasn't the context, was it? I would agree that most people agree that, for Muslims, Muhammad represents a true Messenger. However, that was not the question. The question was Do Christians believe Muhammed is a True Messenger and do Christians believe that the god (Allah) he represents, is the True God.
It remain selective commentary from limited quotes, and does not represent a more complete understanding of the Baha'i Faith
As far as the origin of the citation by Shoghi Effendi (you recall has no meaning) your dealing with anecdotal he said or maybe he said what the source is, which is not a good argument. It is likely the knowledge was handed down to Shoghi Effendi by Abdu'l baha, and Abdu'l baha learned it from Baha'u'llah. Therefore the exact wording was likely handed down as was other knowledge of the history of the life of Baha'u' lah. The family was the main transmission of the knowledge of the life of Baha'u'llah
ecco
Veteran Member
These "clowns" have followings in the millions. To those millions they are mainstream and authoritative.
Another note on "mainstream". I have heard of Olsteen and Graham (both) for many years. I have never heard of the people you listed. So much for "mainstream".
So, I looked.
- The archbishop of Canterbury may be a big deal in England. Here he is relatively unknown.
- Which Kenneth Carter are you referring to?
- Elizabeth Eaton is head of a sect of 3.5 million followers; Osteen's televised sermons are seen by over 7 million viewers weekly and over 20 million monthly in over 100 countries.
In any case, let's use your Mainstream, authoritative non-clowns. Please show a post by any of them stating that Islam or Hinduism is a True Religion and that Allah and Shiva are True Gods.
ecco
Veteran Member
I'm glad to see you've calmed down and refrained from calling me nasty names.
In another conversation in this thread, you speak of the meaning of The Latin phrase extra Ecclesiam and quote from the writings of Saint Cyprian of Carthage, a bishop of the 3rd century. You comment on the writing style that is often used as shorthand for the doctrine that the Church. You discuss the dogma in the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches. Etc. Etc.
I believe it would be fair to say that your comments represent merely selective commentary from limited quotes, and not from a complete understanding of the History of the Christian religion.
Criticizing my understanding of Bahai while, at the same time, trying to sound like an expert in Christian history is hypocritical.
ecco
Veteran Member
Uh huh. "Anecdotal he said", "maybe he said". If I thought it was worth the time, I would go back and find the threads and the authors and the specific comments.
Nevertheless, the type of comments I got back then supporting the knowledge of the writers were just as vague and meaningless as yours today:
- It is likely
- exact wording was likely handed down
- The family was the main transmission
When I say your religion is just like others, this is a good example. Christians cannot say how anyone recorded the exact words from the Sermon on the Mount; Bahais cannot say how anyone recorded the exact words spoken between Ballula and the high Government officials. You believe because you don't question anything. You believe because you want to believe. Then you criticize me for pointing it out.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
"Number of followers" =/= "mainstream." Many people watch Jerry Springer, too, but that doesn't mean his programming is in good taste. "Mainstream" means "recognized denominations with a history of middle of the road theology. The Anglican Communion is such a body. So is the RCC. Kenneth Carter is the head of the United Methodist Church. Eaton is head of the ELCA. These are all mainstream bodies, whose theology is mainstream. Joel Osteen preaches a non-tradtional prosperity gospel and leads a non-denominational group, meaning that his credentials are questionable. Graham has taken his father's ministry and completely bastardized it. Also not theologically in the mainstream.
Again, if you're really that interested in finding out what these spiritual leaders have to say about the validity of Islam and Hinduism, I'm sure there's plenty to feed your curiosity. If you're not really interested, you won't look. I think you're mostly interested in creating an argument, and I'm not going to feed that monster.