Quantum physics disproves evolution?!

Here's a little something I gave my CAM teacher (she didn't get the hint and showed us that Gawdawf' What-the-Bleep movie anyway...):

nz205.jpg
 
Rolfe said:
Sigh. I suppose there's really no succinct refutation of such arrant nonsense.
Rolfe.
Click to expand...
Well the problem is that with a lengthy refutation they will refuse to accept it, will only address certain points and simply spout more nonsense in response.

The succinct refutation is
"Well that's bollocks".

Again they are equally unlikely to accept it, however as a response it does save us time.

If they want to spend ages formulating a "metaphor" that is otherwise pointless then I guess that's their time. Might be a better use of time to learn a musical instrument or do some gentle exercise but, hey, live and let live.

Bottom line - when someone goes to all that trouble to plummet down a road of wilful ignorance there is little you can do to help them. Often very bright people can be very creative in bending facts to their personal beliefs.
 
Rolfe- I suggest reversing the argument. Simply ask the "QM proves it!" claimant if he would be kind enough to demonstrate the mathematics supporting his specific argument, with specific reference to (fill in animal pathology topic here.)
If he has the slightest idea what he is talking about, you might learn something interesting.
But don't hold your breath.
 
Rolfe said:
That's as good as anything!
Rolfe.
Click to expand...

The SAD bit is that I'd emailed a copy to my CAM teacher at UC, and it went completely over her head.

Here's another one.
 

Attachments

  • quantum019.jpg
    quantum019.jpg
    58.2 KB · Views: 17
Soapy Sam said:
If he has the slightest idea what he is talking about, you might learn something interesting.
But don't hold your breath.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, Sam, most of these nimrods can't do math, and haven't the slightest idea what quantum mechanics actually MEANS. Just that it sounds neat and that maybe-just-maybe it makes their woo-woo into true-woo.

I've tried pounding sand down that rathole before - you can prove it and they still won't believe it. Sigh.

:(
 
Last edited:
Tony4245 said:
Unfortunately, Sam, most of these nimrods can't do math, and haven't the slightest idea what quantum mechanics actually MEANS. Just that it sounds neat and that maybe-just-maybe it makes their woo-woo into true-woo.

I've tried pounding sand down that rathole before - you can prove it and they still won't believe it. Sigh.

:(
Click to expand...

That's exactly my point.

When I think I understand something, I try explaining it someone else. I often find my understanding is patchy, which tells me I need to go back and have another look.

The problem Rolfe describes is one we all know- by claiming QM support anyone gains apparent credibility to the uncritical. As QM is damnably hard to understand , it's hard for any normal person, even if well educated, to disprove the argument.

Unlike the "God diddit!" argument though , it is testable. But why should you or I do the work? Asking someone, in public, before witnesses, to demonstrate the mathematics he used to reach his conclusion puts him on the spot. If he can't do it , it becomes apparent to witnesses (and maybe even to him!) that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Curiosity- Nimrod was a mighty hunter as I recall, (and Elgar knew well. )Whence the above usage?
 
Soapy Sam said:
Unlike the "God diddit!" argument though , it is testable. But why should you or I do the work? Asking someone, in public, before witnesses, to demonstrate the mathematics he used to reach his conclusion puts him on the spot. If he can't do it , it becomes apparent to witnesses (and maybe even to him!) that he doesn't know what he is talking about.
Click to expand...

I agree. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Soapy Sam said:
Curiosity- Nimrod was a mighty hunter as I recall, (and Elgar knew well. )Whence the above usage?
Click to expand...

You are correct - it's American slang for an idiot.
I seem to recall that the British early-warning radar aircraft is called that as well...
;)
 
Most of us here know that, despite the use of probabilities, QM is a precise mathematical theory. In fact it is the most precise scientific theory ever developed. The apparent “fuzziness” and randomness of QM comes from attempting to create metaphors for understanding the results. These imprecise interpretations are NOT QM and cannot, by themselves, be used to explain any paranormal phenomena.

Perhaps the best way to explain the precision of QM is to point out that each of the millions of transistors in your PC operates on QM principles and was conceived, designed, and manufactured using QM. Yet every one of those transistors operates in a precise and predictable way. You don’t get different results every time you turn on your PC.

To use QM to explain any paranormal phenomena you must first formulate the equations that describe the event and which give precise, predictable results. You must then make measurements to verify that the results match the predictions. Then, and only then, can you develop a metaphor to interpret the meaning of the equations.

So, when confronted with a QM “explanation” for alleged paranormal behavior, ask not only “Where are the equations?”, but also, “What do those equations predict?” and “Where are the measurements that confirm the equations are correct?”

Most of us here know that not only do they not have any relevant equations, they don’t have any measurements either.

Which is really a roundabout way of saying you can’t make a theory to explain “something” if you don’t have “something” you can measure first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom