paarsurrey
Veteran Member
And that is just one's opinion. Neither truthful Religion nor Science supports it. Right? Please
Regards
-
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!
When science goes gibberish; what does it indicate?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
Regards
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Science supports it for sure. It is demonstrable that if one claims that "science has gone gibberish" they simply don't understand what is being claimed. That, however, doesn't always mean that the scientific claim is true. It just means that the subject doesn't understand what the terms in use mean.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
That sounds about right to me. It is rather predictable that some religious people will indulge in anti-science rhetoric.
McBell
Unbound
What is my opinion?
That you call science you do not understand and or dislike gibberish?
You have fully demonstrated just that for years right here on RF.....
MrMrdevincamus
Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
As science 'progresses' and indulges more and more into theoretical physics and other disciplines like advanced cosmology I have noticed that they no longer adhere to the scientific method as keenly as say a decade ago. The (entrenched) science establishment (aka ESE) embraced string theory long before it made any verifiable predictions. The Metaverse (Meta-Universe) theories have no empirical proof of existence but ESE members talk as if they were a proven theory with supporting evidences and peer review, which none is true. The elite leftist orientated (read atheist) science establishment are grasping for anything but the standard theistic friendly one universe standard (hot model) big bang theory! I hope and pray there will be a merging of metaphysics and traditional physics soon. As it stands now ES science is faltering, unable to describe dark energy and dark matter or answer questions like why the universe is expanding faster instead of slowing down along with a brace of other items.
MrMrdevincamus
Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
Happy BD !
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
The only quantum interpretation that explains quantum weirdness without relying on absurd ideas like observer influence is the Transactional Interpretation--which is finally, after science chasing its tail for a hundred years, beginning to be taken seriously. Quantum transactions taking place in a timeless environment is the only rational explanation for what's going on.
And yes, they've just recently discovered that the universe is not only accelerating, but the distance we're able to see in the universe is the same in all directions (13 billion light years), and is limited by the fabric of the universe itself going superluminal at that point. it isn't limited by relativity to light speed like energy and matter are withing that fabric/ether/whatchamacallit.
And finally, there have been several significant atheist-scientists and professional skeptics (e.g. Dawkins, Krauss) in recent years who have been forced to admit that a laissez-faire (deist) God cannot be ruled out. Even Hawking, after his "proof" that God didn't cause the Big Bang, had to come down begrudgingly from his high horse after it was shown almost immediately to be wrong.
I've never heard any mainstream science talking about transactional interpretation. You have pointed me to a site that talks about it in a past thread but do you have any science references?
I pretty much agree with the rest of what your saying.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
Best place to start, including the references at the bottom:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation
Ruth Kastner's Understanding Our Unseen Reality is the most intuitive and up to date take on TIQM.
What do you think is the main difference in the many worlds interpretation which also solves the Copenhagen issues?
There is no real way to say that any interperation is dominant because they are always interperations of provable experiments.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
It doesn't address the timeless element of quantum transactions such as entanglement. And I think it's beginning to be sent the way of the Copenhagen Interpretation for similar reason, incredibility. I mean it would indicate that an infinite number of new universes are created for every Planck time that passes. Some scientists are calling BS on it, same as the Moon not being there when we aren't looking at it.
TI explains all quantum weirdness, but scientists have been reluctant to accept it due to how it handles time. But rather than thinking of it as taking place backward in time, it's been made more palatable by considering the quantum "world" (quantumland as Kastner puts it) to be timeless.
Kramer's inspiration for TI goes back to Richard Feynman, who told of a telephone call he received from his mentor, John Wheeler:
I received a telephone call one day at the graduate college at Princeton from Professor Wheeler, in which he said, "Feynman, I know why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass" "Why?" "Because, they are all the same electron!"
That may be the greatest example of thinking outside the box ever.
MrMrdevincamus
Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
The Copenhagen is basically on the outs, or on the way, with science. But observer influence, as with Schroedinger's cat and the two slit experiment, is irrelevant. What collapses a quantum transaction into reality is absorption, by the retina of an eye or a rock. Quantum weirdness is still weird because we don't understand how quantum particles go from our 4-D universe to timeless quantumland. But quantum trans actions were occurring eons before any life, much less sentient life, had formed in the universe. Entanglement and superposition are indeed real world phenomena. So is uncertainty, but only because the odds of a given outcome are 50-50. And to be honest, we don't really know how that works. A photon ends up following one of two paths in the double slit experiment, with or without sentient observation.
IOW, you're slipping in blind faith belief in the absence of proof or even evidence. My theory is that micro-quantum transactions are enabled in timeless quantumland, by passing through the Planck space-time "gaps" in the fabric of our 4-D universe.
"Dovetails nicely" and "theistic concerns" are loaded phrases which can mean whatever your faith wants them to mean. My main objection to them is that there is a perfect explanation for why God wants to remain hidden--free will. Revealed religionists have been trying to explain why God does or doesn't intervene since the first cave man shaman. The book of Job was the culmination of that effort with the astounding divine declaration that it's none of our business--thus encoding the biggest clerical cop-out in history. The priesthood wants to maintain its power rather than doing the heavy lifting of deducing an objective moral code with a possible God that fits the facts--and thus undermining said power. They've painted themselves into a corner, and modern science is shining the light of Truth on their embarrassing situation.
Just the opposite. It's forcing honest scientists, of both atheistic and theistic bent, to acknowledge the necessity of being agnostic about whatever they believe or don't believe in--because there is a perfect lack of evidence for or against God. At one point, I thought that such perfection could only be divinely wrought. But then it occurred to me that we can't use the absence of evidence, as evidence, however perfect that absence might be.
MrMrdevincamus
Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
I can't agree with that! A common parable among physicists goes like this; "Usually, if you put 100 physicists in a room you will find 100 slightly different interpretations of quantum mechanics." That was true as of yesterday, lol I make it my business to know those things, because of the links of cosmology, particle physics and religious metaphysical stuff. That said my guess is that we, you and I, are diametrically opposed in our world view paradigm, general ideas and favorite interpretations and or theories of science. For example my least favorite interpretation of QM is the transactional interpretation. That's because it allows paradoxes of science to occur and other non forgivable transgressions upon my intellect. But hey, there is no harm in disagreeing etc, it nurturers discovery and new ideas.
irrelevant to you perhaps! Lol! But not to John Freeman and hundreds of other PhD enabled eminent mathematicians and physicists.
Please vet ie verify that claim with a source or explain in detail? The retina has nothing to do with collapse of the wave function. Well it does pump information to our brain. But its the sentient brain, ie thoughts,such as the observations that bring a particle out of superposition allowing it to be either a particle or a wave. The fairly recent discovery of quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons corroborates or at least adds credibility to the above and other aspects of the Copenhagen interpretations. http://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-microtubules-corroborates.html
'Timeless quantum land'? Explain and source please Btw I use the word weird as a sub for non-intuitive. We do have a theory about how virtual particles seem to pop in and out of existence. Ever hear of the quantum foam?
God is sentient. Besides observation is not needed for the process to work it simply makes an 'either or proposition'!
What? Absolutely not. Entanglement is works in the real world and has been vetted by empirical experiment. If an entangled particle separated by miles changes spin its twin will do the same. Where are you getting your information my friend?
Actually according to classical QM the double slit experiment observation only forces the particle to choose. If not observed it still will do either or in accordance with the laws of probability
Not really, no more than science does on a daily basis.
First all quantum transactions are micro. Second quantum land is not timeless if you mean the foam. Third there are no gaps in the 'fabric' of our universe. The 'fabric' of the universe is just a descriptive term as a means to visualize various theories etc. Its not a real item. Last but not least why do you get to make up theories and I don't? lol ~
Absolutely not! And 'Dovetails nicly' means The Copenhagen Interpretation fits and explains how miracle and prayer could work. I hope I do not have to explain theistic concerns but if I do I will be happy to.
First, what is a religionists? Did you mean religion? or a theologian? That said, again I don't know where you are getting your information Even your words do not exist in the lexicon of the disciplines you are critiquing. If you like I can help you understand your misconceptions of God as well as how to read the bible and be able to understand both on both an intellectual and spiritual level.
No, no, no! lol, more of the same. By that I mean more falsehoods no sourcing of empty claims. There is NO truth in your statements.
There are gigabytes of evidence for the existence of God. Man this thing is so long it
would make the pope weary. How many shards....nah wrong forum!
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Well, at least we can conclude that God is not everywhere, or He is not observing those particles.
Kidding aside (although I am a bit serious about that), what you say is incorrect. When we do not observe it, then it is not true that the electron crosses either one slit or the other. In a sense, it crosses both. The unobserved electron is actually a probability wave, and that is why we observe an interference pattern (like waves do) on the other side when we do not observe which slits it actually crosses.
But what happens when we observe it? Observing means interacting with the electron. What happens is that we get entangled with the electron.
So, the two state system (eigenvectors), which is in a superposition of both
1) electron on the left
2) electron on the right
Become the two state system (still in a superposition of both)
1) electron on the left, observer see it going to the left
2) electron on the right, observer sees it on the right
So, when viole sees the electron going right, there is another viole that sees it going left, and both exist in a superposition of coherent states (eigenvectors). We and the electron will become entangled, we become basically the same system, like two entangled electrons whose spins always agree, or counter-agree, independently from being observed by a third party or not.
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
When science goes gibberish; what does it indicate?
One aspect of it is that:
It indicates that the matter does not relate to science.
Regards
One aspect of it is that:
It indicates that the matter does not relate to science.
Regards
McBell
Unbound
Most of the time it is simply the inability of the one calling it gibberish to understand it.
You have thoroughly demonstrated just that numerous times in this very thread.
MrMrdevincamus
Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
SORRY FOR MY LONG ABSENCE FROM THE BOARD HOPEFULLY THE GLUE AND SCREWS USED TO PUT ME TOGETHER THIS TIME WILL HOLD!
The problem is that most atheists want to pick and choose what type of evidence they will accept. Most of the time when the subject is the evidence of God or spirituality or metaphysics is being discussed they accept only empirical evidence. The reason for that is they know science is the study of the material world, so empirical science ie the scientific method rules out anything immaterial. However, even science, especially advanced particle physics and astrophysics etc accepts evidence such as proofs rendered from observation. An example of the latter would be accepting a high probability* as confirmation of truth. I think the last example of this was Penroses calculation that rendered a one with sixteen zeros (to one) as probability of being true, and was accepted as such. Ie truth or true without a direct or empirical evidence needed. So even assumptions when backed with evidence of say an overwhelming circumstantial nature or a result based on probabilities is as good as empirical experiment.
The problem is that most atheists want to pick and choose what type of evidence they will accept. Most of the time when the subject is the evidence of God or spirituality or metaphysics is being discussed they accept only empirical evidence. The reason for that is they know science is the study of the material world, so empirical science ie the scientific method rules out anything immaterial. However, even science, especially advanced particle physics and astrophysics etc accepts evidence such as proofs rendered from observation. An example of the latter would be accepting a high probability* as confirmation of truth. I think the last example of this was Penroses calculation that rendered a one with sixteen zeros (to one) as probability of being true, and was accepted as such. Ie truth or true without a direct or empirical evidence needed. So even assumptions when backed with evidence of say an overwhelming circumstantial nature or a result based on probabilities is as good as empirical experiment.