Regarding Franko...

[Mordred]

So what you are claiming is that when YOU say something is magical its not really magical, but if any other religion says something is magical … then it is magical. NICE double standard A-Theist.

First, I have no religion. Second, I never claimed that anything was magical or supernatural. In fact, I claim exactly the opposite. My evidence for that claim is that the phenomenon I refer to is readily observable in nature, not to mention easily repeatable. If something is a part of nature...how can it be supernatural? That is exactly what you are claiming...that a part of nature is supernatural. It would be funny if it didn't contradict the very definitions of the words.

The fact is, if your can’t comprehend it Mildred – it’s magic. And you are only fooling yourself if you try and claim otherwise. Now, lets see how much of a fool you are willing to be …

Who is Mildred? One of the voices in your head? Forget to take your medication again?

The thing is...I do comprehend it. I comprehend wave-particle duality and indeterminancy quite well. By your definition I guess that means that it is not magical to me. That is a strange definition of magical you have there though...

Going to take a crack at the question I keep asking? What did Einstein win his Nobel prize for?

 

[Franko]

Mildred,

First, I have no religion. Second, I never claimed that anything was magical or supernatural. In fact, I claim exactly the opposite.

Yes … me all realize that YOU claimed that it was the opposite, but this here is one of dem dar “Skeptics” forums, and here you actually have to PROVE your claims – not just make them like the A-Theist “magic-land” you must have come from.

My evidence for that claim is that the phenomenon I refer to is readily observable in nature

I thought you couldn’t directly observe QM scale activity? You are contradicting yourself.

… not to mention easily repeatable.

If you are claiming that it is “RANDOM”, then how can it be “predictable”. I believe those two words are opposites once you exit “the pessimistic neverland of A-Theism” and enter the real world (a skeptics forum).

If something is a part of nature...how can it be supernatural?

Great! So I claim that “God” is part of nature; Ergo God is NOT supernatural, Ergo GOD EXIST. Wow! That was simple Vanessa. Thanks for proving God’s existence for Her. She’ll be relieved …

That is exactly what you are claiming...that a part of nature is supernatural. It would be funny if it didn't contradict the very definitions of the words.

You said it … not me. Now speaking of Supernatural claims, explain this magic “free willy power all you A-Theists claim to possess … ?

 

[Loki]

Franko,

If you are claiming that it is “RANDOM”, then how can it be “predictable”. I believe those two words are opposites ...

Nice attempt to subtly rephrase what was actually said into something that was not said (or implied), but which you can ridicule. Mordred said the phenomenon was observable, and that the observation can be repeated. The observation is that the phenomenon has a probabilistic nature.

phenomenon = probabilistic
observation = repeatable

Does that make it simpler to grasp? Now, can you explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes...?

Oh, and Einstein won his Nobel prize for "Saving Private Ryan", wasn't it?

 

[The Fool]

Again its humerous to watch Franks reaction to a beating.

Mordred, You must realise that Frank starting the childish name calling and tantrums Is the only indication you will ever get that he has no answer. Franks only goal is to beat people down with dogma and repetition....

At least you fluxhed out Frank, He doesn't like to use the wraith id for name calling, he tries to keep the styles a bit different....Its sad really, when he first arrived he was quite agile. But, like Gollum, I fear he has worn the ring too long.

 

[wraith]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: QUANTUM PROBABILITIES

The dice throwing is what some people on this planet call an a-n-a-l-o-g-y.[/B]

Too bad that it's not an analogy, unless youre claim that two things happening one after the other is the same as doing it once, then going back in time and replaying it as the same thing. Eh, whatever makes you sleep easier at night...



[QUOTE]This is exactly why your "rewind" scenario is exactly analogous to observing two events in identical universes with identical initial conditions.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, only the conditions arnt 100% identical

Look back a little in this thread. It seemed quite obvious to everyone else that quantum mechanics is probabilistic and not deterministic. Can you give me a valid explanation for the phenomenon of quantum tunneling without a probabilistic model?

So the majority = true? Sorry, not in my books bub.

Quantum tunneling without a probabilistic model? Buggered if I know lol

Your idea that this strawman is actually necessitated by a universe where the laws of physics do not constitute a consciousness is still another unfounded assumption on your part.

Whenever you break TLOP, just let me know...

 

[wraith]

They are not. If you are merely "replaying" what has already happened...then of course what has already happened will happen again. If you are not doing this, but merely starting from the same exact initial conditions, then the outcomes will not necessarily be the same.

ahhh, if youre replaying it, then it has the EXACT conditions, hence the same outcome.

Then you say that if you have the exact same conditions then it will not necessarily have the same outcome.

Again, which one is it sport?

 

[wraith]

Wraith he's claiming that QM is magical. Standard John Bell tripe. In the next breathe he will tell you that his beliefs are not based on supernatural or mystical concepts ... go figure ... ?

one born every minute

 

[wraith]

He doesn't like to use the wraith id for name calling, he tries to keep the styles a bit different....Its sad really, when he first arrived he was quite agile. But, like Gollum, I fear he has worn the ring too long.

HAHAHAHHHHAHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WOO!

classic
just classic

 

[Loki]

wraith,

ahhh, if youre replaying it, then it has the EXACT conditions, hence the same outcome.

Then you say that if you have the exact same conditions then it will not necessarily have the same outcome.

Again, which one is it sport?

Concentrate. Think about what was written, not what you *think* was written. See if you can figure out why there is a difference between the two scenarios. (Hint...the key word is "replay").

 

[wraith]

na

the key word is "Fate"

 

[BillyJoe]

Re: Re: QUANTUM PROBABILITIES

The probability distribution would be exactly the same.....

Yes, I understand that to be the case as well.

.....but the whole point is that this does not necessarily gaurantee the same outcome.....

This is what I thought had not been proven but I cannot remember where I heard this.
However, if you are certain that this is the case, I will accept it until I hear otherwise

I agree [that this is no basis for "free will"], I've never said anything in support of free will being real....

Okay, we're agreed on that.

.....I do not have conclusive evidence either way, therefore my default position is that it doesn't exist.

Great. You don't take into account anything for which there is no positive proof. Exactly my position.

I also continue to operate in everyday life with the assumption that I do indeed have free will because the idea, independent of truth, is useful.

Well, I would say that I operate in everyday life as if I have free will (in other words, I am not actively assuming it, I just take it for granted) and, it just so happens that this turns out to be useful.

And Schrodinger's cat is both alive and dead (in the thought experiment at least)

My signature summarizes the opinion of Bernard Leikind.

His interpretation is that only a pure quantum state evolves as a probability wave. The probability wave collapses as soon as it interacts with another part of the universe (contrary to popular belief, it is not consciousness that collapses the wave function). A cat is in a continual interaction with other parts of the universe and therefore it is never in a superposition of states. It is always either alive or dead.

Do you disagree?

 

[BillyJoe]

ahhh, if youre replaying it, then it has the EXACT conditions, hence the same outcome.

Then you say that if you have the exact same conditions then it will not necessarily have the same outcome.

Again, which one is it sport?

Perhaps I can help.

Make a video of an event.
Play the video.
Replay the video.
The play and replay are identical.

Take two identical universes, Universe A and Universe B.
Let Universe A play itself out.
Let Universe B play itself out.
Universe A and Universe B play themselves out differently.

See the difference?

 

[Ceinwyn]

Re: Re: Re: QUANTUM PROBABILITIES

Yes, I understand that to be the case as well.

This is what I thought had not been proven but I cannot remember where I heard this.
However, if you are certain that this is the case, I will accept it until I hear otherwise

Okay, we're agreed on that.

Great. You don't take into account anything for which there is no positive proof. Exactly my position.

Well, I would say that I operate in everyday life as if I have free will (in other words, I am not actively assuming it, I just take it for granted) and, it just so happens that this turns out to be useful.

My signature summarizes the opinion of Bernard Leikind.

His interpretation is that only a pure quantum state evolves as a probability wave. The probability wave collapses as soon as it interacts with another part of the universe (contrary to popular belief, it is not consciousness that collapses the wave function). A cat is in a continual interaction with other parts of the universe and therefore it is never in a superposition of states. It is always either alive or dead.

Do you disagree?

But what if that probability wave fights back? I mean, that it doesnt give way?

Is that possible?

Flame away, sorry.

 

[BillyJoe]

Logic and math are abstract systems created by human beings. They are based on certain assumptions, such as A!=~A. The universe does not necessarily follow these assumptions. To assume that it does would be to ignore the evidence. An electron for instance can be both spin up and spin down at the same time (it's spin state is both A and ~A). This violates a basic assumption of omnivalent logic. Where there is a contradiction between logic and our observations of how the universe works, if the observations are not flawed (which they do not appear to be), we must conclude that it is our logic which is in error.

Mordred, do you mean that.....

Logic does not apply to the real world.
Mathematics is an invention not a discovery.
Empiricism is the only path to truth.

BillyJoe.

 

[BillyJoe]

RANDOM and PROBABILITY

RANDOM is an instance of the class PROBABILITY.

RANDOM is when the probabilities of all the possible outcomes are equal.


Does this help?.....


regards,
BillyJoe

 

[Mordred]

I thought you couldn’t directly observe QM scale activity? You are contradicting yourself.

No I am not, you can directly observe the outcomes of events. The outcomes of those events seem to obey quantum mechanics. Do you have a better model that can explain why this is so?

If you are claiming that it is “RANDOM”, then how can it be “predictable”. I believe those two words are opposites once you exit “the pessimistic neverland of A-Theism” and enter the real world (a skeptics forum).

Where have I ever claimed randomness? Hmmmm, I haven't. Probabilistic and random are not the same thing. If you do an experiment over and over and over and over, and the results always end up fitting the predicted probability distribution...is it random? I think not.

Great! So I claim that “God” is part of nature; Ergo God is NOT supernatural, Ergo GOD EXIST. Wow! That was simple Vanessa. Thanks for proving God’s existence for Her. She’ll be relieved …

Great!!! Oh wait...you took that a step farther than I did. I said that something was a part of nature, therefore it wasn't supernatural. Then I said, here is my evidence that it is part of nature (it is readily observable in nature...you can check this out for yourself quite easily). So, you just skipped that last part didn't you. Your line of reasoning doesn't prove your conclusion from you premises...so where is your evidence that supports your conclusion?

You said it … not me. Now speaking of Supernatural claims, explain this magic “free willy power all you A-Theists claim to possess … ?

Great, so we are making headway here. Your Goddess is not supernatural in any way. Can you explain where she came from now?

I do not see why I should explain the concept of free will and its possibility...as I have never claimed that it exists. Again, would you mind discussing my arguments with me and not the arguments that you wish me to have...

 

[Mordred]

ahhh, if youre replaying it, then it has the EXACT conditions, hence the same outcome.

No, if you are "replaying" it, it has the exact same conditions...and has already happened, so will happen as it already has.

Then you say that if you have the exact same conditions then it will not necessarily have the same outcome.

Again, which one is it sport?

What I am saying does not contradict itself...it is only what you are saying I am saying which does. Get it sport?

I think BillyJoe does, maybe you should reread his post until you understand.

 

[Mordred]

Mordred, do you mean that.....

Logic does not apply to the real world.
Mathematics is an invention not a discovery.
Empiricism is the only path to truth.

BillyJoe.

Heh, something like that

And I agree with Leikind (although defining what is and isn't a "pure" quantum state is important). That's why I put in the thought experiment at least in parentheses, because it makes certain assumptions. Assumptions which aren't exactly true if one was to actually carry out the experiment.

 

[Mordred]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: QUANTUM PROBABILITIES

Too bad that it's not an analogy, unless youre claim that two things happening one after the other is the same as doing it once, then going back in time and replaying it as the same thing. Eh, whatever makes you sleep easier at night...

I never claimed they were exactly the same...I was using an everyday, macroscopic event governed by probability to illustrate a concept. Obviously that managed to elude you.

Yeah, only the conditions arnt 100% identical

Wait, is this a claim that if you were to "rewind" time to a certain previous time, that the conditions at that time would not be what they were previously at that time? Or is it a claim that two perfectly identical universes with perfectly identical initial conditions (by definition because this is a hypothetical thought experiment and that is how they are defined)...somehow do not have identical conditions?

So the majority = true? Sorry, not in my books bub.

Merely stating that other people didn't seem to have a problem with the proof that I offered...wondering what your problem with it was.

Quantum tunneling without a probabilistic model? Buggered if I know lol

So your argument is that quantum mechanics must be wrong...but you cannot provide an alternate model to explain one of the observable phenomenon that quantum mechanics readily explains? Why should I take you seriously then?

Whenever you break TLOP, just let me know...

Whenever you understand that trite crap like this doesn't prove that a set of rules is conscious...let me know. Furthermore, when you actually understand what the laws of physics really say...let me know...

Incidentally, I'm still waiting for an answer to a question Franko.

 

[CWL]

Just out of curiosity,

Who knows what Einstein won the Nobel Prize for?

Nobody answer until Franko does. ok?

I have in fact posted a link in this thread which gives away the answer.

Franko, old boy, why are you afraid to answer? Scared that you will fall in one of those devious A-Theist traps again?

Oh... BTW it's enjoyable to watch your debate with "Mildred". Tell me, have you always resorted to name calling when you lack arguments?