Regarding Franko...

[Titanpoint]

So probability isn't magic...but an explanation of our observations based on a probabilistic model is? Exactly where does the magic come in then?

Also waiting for an explanation from Franko/wraith about a model to explain the interference pattern observed in the doulbe slit experiment. Also wouldn't mind seeing an actual opinion about how the universe must be described by simple math...and how the tensor calculus in general relativity is somehow simple, while the wave equations of quantum mechanics aren't.

Mordred. wraith is Franko. See the gentlehorse thread.

TP

 

[wraith]

So probability isn't magic...but an explanation of our observations based on a probabilistic model is? Exactly where does the magic come in then?

If I flip a coin, it seems as if youre saying that the outcome comes out from no where.

Also waiting for an explanation from Franko/wraith about a model to explain the interference pattern observed in the doulbe slit experiment. Also wouldn't mind seeing an actual opinion about how the universe must be described by simple math...and how the tensor calculus in general relativity is somehow simple, while the wave equations of quantum mechanics aren't.

buggered if I know

 

[wraith]

Mordred. wraith is Franko. See the gentlehorse thread.

TP

hahaha
you have it all figured out hey TeePee?
interesting

 

[BillyJoe]

Titanpoint,

I don't think the Gentlehorse thread proves that wraith is Franko.

For what it's worth, I don't think they are the same person.
I have no troulble getting Franko to expand on his ideas.
With wraith it's like getting blood out of a stone.

regards,
BillyJoe (over and out).

 

[whitefork]

Another quote:

[Discussing the partial reflection of light by glass]

Try as we might to invent a reasonable theory that can explain how a photon "makes up its mind" whether to go through glass or bounce back, it is impossible to predict which way a given photon will go. Philosophers have said that if the same circumstances don't always produce the same results, predictions are impossible and science will collapse. Here is a circumstance -- identical photons are always coming down in the same direction to the same piece of glass -- that produces different results. We cannot predict whether a given photo will arrive at A or B [reflected or pass through]. All we can predict is that out of 100 photons that come down, an average of 4 will be reflected by the front surface [of the piece of glass]. Does this mean that physics, a science of great exactitude, has been reduced to calculating only the probability of an event, and not predicting exactly what will happen? Yes. That's a retreat, but that's the way it is: Nature premits us to calculate only probabilities. Yet science has not collapsed.

Richard Feynman, QED. Page 19. (Nobel Prize in physics, 1965)

If you use arguments from physics to try and prove your position, you will attract the attention of physicists, and they will offer an opinion about your understanding of their science. If you talk about logic, you'll have the opinion of logicians.

Suppose you take your theory to a physicist, and he rejects it on account of your representation of Quantum theory. You can say it's because he is atheistic and is predisposed to reject deism on that ground.

You go to a theologian, and he sees that business about the Goddess creating one universe but not the others. He will say, that's interesting, but you're rehashing Plotinus, Proclus, and the Gnostics, and they have a more solid theological grounding. Read their works and the critiques, and get back to us. Your theologian may be an atheist, too.

Sooner or later, you may run out of acceptable peers to review your work.

 

[Mordred]

If I flip a coin, it seems as if youre saying that the outcome comes out from no where.

No, I've never claimed that a coin toss was a random event (perhaps you should stop attacking my statements by pointing out flaws in arguments that I haven't made). If you idealize a coin toss as an example, it can be thought of as random, but in reality it is not.

buggered if I know

So you wish me to believe that you're interpretation of the universe is correct, yet you cannot provide an explanation for a readily observable phenomenon which can be easily explained by quantum mechanics? That is hardly what I would call convincing.

 

[ABI]

Wraith’s first post:

[materialises...]

Here


Franko’s first post after departure :

[...materializes]

... I was summoned?

Here

Franko=Wraith

 

[Franko]

Mordred:

Ooops … meant to post this the other day …

Did you see me claiming to be an agnostic? Agnosticism is not a middle ground between theism and atheism.

IS THERE A GOD?

1) YES or TRUE (Theist/Deist)
2) NO or FALSE (Atheist)
3) MAYBE? … or UNKNOWN/NOT ENOUGH INFO (Agnostic)

Play semantics all you want Mordred. Why should I care?

You believe that the Universe is the result of magic (ultimately incomprehensible[Heisenberg/Bell]), and you believe that you have magic “free will powers” that are utterly incomprehensible. You are a mystic, and you are a mystic regardless of how many “magic sheepskins” the A-Theist seminary bestows upon you, assuring us of your “Scientific Wisdom by Divine Proidvence”.

Those who use it as such are doing so incorrectly. I lack a belief in a god. Therefore, I am an atheist.

Since there is no evidence that a flipped coin will land “Heads” up all the evidence indicates that it will land “Tails” up?

The Fact of the matter is … you HATE the idea of a superior force controlling you, and deep down, you dread the thought of existing perpetually.

Incidentally, I asked an interesting question that I don't think has been answered yet...

Can you (or anyone else for that matter) provide an explanation for the interference pattern that arises in the double slit experiment using a deterministic model?

The interference pattern ONLY occurs when no observation is made of the individual slits. No Observation, means Not enough information, means Agnosticism. Of course if you are an Atheist with magic “free will” powers, not enough information should mean FALSE (slit #1) – shouldn’t it?

 

[Franko]

Titanpout whined:

Mordred. wraith is Franko. See the gentlehorse thread.

TP

(pretty much given up on even pretending to defend the Cult of A-Theism any more)

So then after a while … he starts getting hissy because NO ONE is paying ANY attention to his crying like a little girl so …

ABI (Newbie) a.k.a. Titanpout trying to hide his shameful Obsession with me:
Wraith’s first post:
(I’m really Serpent’s sock-puppet)

Franko’s first post after departure :
(I am really the Wraith’s sock-puppet)

Franko=Wraith

Yes? … and … Your Point?!?!?

Titanpout = ABI

So What?

 

[Franko]

Titanpoint,

I don't think the Gentlehorse thread proves that wraith is Franko.

For what it's worth, I don't think they are the same person.
I have no troulble getting Franko to expand on his ideas.
With wraith it's like getting blood out of a stone.

regards,
BillyJoe (over and out).

I'm sorry Billyjoe, but Titanpout has already made up your mind for you, so please don't question his judgment or we will have to start several derogatory threads about you and jointly whine to the moderators that you be banned for expressing an opinion that differed from Ms. Prissy-pants-and-Prozac.

 

[Mordred]

Play semantics all you want Mordred. Why should I care?

You can disagree and not care all you want...as long as you understand my position on the topic and do not use this disagreement to assign to me a position that I have never taken.

You believe that the Universe is the result of magic (ultimately incomprehensible[Heisenberg/Bell]), and you believe that you have magic “free will powers” that are utterly incomprehensible.

Case in point. I have never claimed to have free will. I have told you this repeatedly, and yet you keep insisting that I somehow have. Either show me where I have claimed to have free will...or admit that you are in error in this regard and move on.

You are a mystic, and you are a mystic regardless of how many “magic sheepskins” the A-Theist seminary bestows upon you, assuring us of your “Scientific Wisdom by Divine Proidvence”.

I'm an empiricist. If judging theories based on how well they can explain and predict our actual observations of the universe is mysticism...you must once again be using a definition that no one else uses.

The interference pattern ONLY occurs when no observation is made of the individual slits. No Observation, means Not enough information, means Agnosticism. Of course if you are an Atheist with magic “free will” powers, not enough information should mean FALSE (slit #1) – shouldn’t it?

What a great non-answer. Are you sure you understand exactly what is going on in the double slit experiment? According to you, a photon should only ever go through one slit whether it is being measured or not, correct? Then why is it, when we don't measure at the slits to see which one a photon goes through, it creates an interference pattern, which exactly matches what we would expect if the photon went through both slits? Agnosticism and free will have absolutely nothing to do with this. If you make a measurement and break down the wave function, the photon will behave just as would be expected classically, going through one slit or the other, like a nice little particle. If you don't break down the wave function, it creates an outcome for which it seems the only possible explanation is that the photon went through both slits. Can you explain this using your model?

 

[Franko]

Mildred:

You can disagree and not care all you want...as long as you understand my position on the topic and do not use this disagreement to assign to me a position that I have never taken

Go back and read the posts!

I said that you were an A-Theist from the start.

You hemmed and hawed and pretended like you weren't really. You tried to pretend that you weren't just a brain-washed Religious fanatic ...

But in the end you couldn't recite the Lord's prayer, and you had to concede you are an A-Theist.

just like I said.

I'm right about you in all the other ways too. You'll see it sooner or later ...

 

[De_Bunk]

.

 

[Mordred]

Mildred

First, I ask for the last time that you extend the courtesy of referring to me by my correct name.

Go back and read the posts!

I said that you were an A-Theist from the start.

Amazing!!! Especially since I have been saying that I am an atheist since the start. What a wonderous victory on your part...now if you would only start using the correct definition of the word.

But in the end you couldn't recite the Lord's prayer, and you had to concede you are an A-Theist.

You never asked me to recite the lord's prayer. I can do it now if you like Of course it holds no meaning for me. Can it really be called a concession on my part if I have stated quite plainly beforehand that I'm an atheist? Again, what an astounding rhetorical coup for you...

I'm right about you in all the other ways too. You'll see it sooner or later ...

Again, incredibly convincing logic. Absolutely ironclad.

Mind addressing any of the arguments I have actually made...or even making any of consequence yourself? Explanation of quantum tunneling? Explanation for the double slit experiment? Contention that the tensor calculus used by Einstein in GR is "simple" mathematics? Proof that the universe must adhere to an arbitrary system of logic? Any emprical evidence at all for your positions?

 

[wraith]

No, I've never claimed that a coin toss was a random event (perhaps you should stop attacking my statements by pointing out flaws in arguments that I haven't made). If you idealize a coin toss as an example, it can be thought of as random, but in reality it is not.[/B]

youre the one who used it as an analogy
lol

So you wish me to believe that you're interpretation of the universe is correct, yet you cannot provide an explanation for a readily observable phenomenon which can be easily explained by quantum mechanics? That is hardly what I would call convincing.

I dont have to know how a plane actually flies. What I need to know is why it flies. Same thing with our little discussion. Whats one thing that you know of, in which you have the complete information, where the outcome is different than expected.

 

[wraith]

Wraith’s first post:




Here


Franko’s first post after departure :



Here

Franko=Wraith

where did you come from?

let the big boys handle this ok...

 

[Mordred]

youre the one who used it as an analogy
lol

I used rolling dice to illustrate a concept. I believe it was Franko who first introduced the whole coin flip deal. As I stated, I never said it was random, and pointed out then that it is only so if you idealize it.

I dont have to know how a plane actually flies. What I need to know is why it flies.

It never occurred to you that knowing how could potentially illuminate why? You seem to have your own particular conception of how anyway...the problem being that it doesn't seem to conform to what we have actually observed of reality.

[b[Same thing with our little discussion. Whats one thing that you know of, in which you have the complete information, where the outcome is different than expected. [/B]

As far as we know...quantum tunneling. This is just you restating once again a hidden variable interpretation based objection. The problem is that we have no indication that these hidden variables exist. We have no way of knowing if they do, no idea how we would measure them, no indication that they are needed to explain any phenomena at all. Accepting that...why should I believe that they are there?

 

[wraith]

I used rolling dice to illustrate a concept. I believe it was Franko who first introduced the whole coin flip deal. As I stated, I never said it was random, and pointed out then that it is only so if you idealize it.[/B]

I denied that concept from memory

It never occurred to you that knowing how could potentially illuminate why? You seem to have your own particular conception of how anyway...the problem being that it doesn't seem to conform to what we have actually observed of reality.

Well, I never really told how I believed how it worked...
It was more about why yours didnt cut the bill

As far as we know...quantum tunneling. This is just you restating once again a hidden variable interpretation based objection. The problem is that we have no indication that these hidden variables exist. We have no way of knowing if they do, no idea how we would measure them, no indication that they are needed to explain any phenomena at all. Accepting that...why should I believe that they are there?

I dont buy into this hocus mumbo jumbo

 

[Mordred]

Well, I never really told how I believed how it worked...
It was more about why yours didnt cut the bill

Oh yeah, I remember, it doesn't cut the bill because it is consistant with all the experimental evidence and doesn't presuppose unnecessary variables without proof in order to conform to an arbitrary logical system.

I dont buy into this hocus mumbo jumbo

Great, not buying into hocus mumbo jumbo you are then conceding that there is no evidence at all for the existance of "hidden" or as of yet undiscovered variables, correct?

 

[Loki]

I dont buy into this hocus mumbo jumbo

And your only alternative relies upon some "unknown/unseen" variables. Surely we invoke your "Lack of evidence = unknown" rule here : you can't explain Quantum Tunnelling, therefore your position is "I don't know". This is clearly different from "it's deterministic".

Would this be accurate? :

"I don't accept QM Probabilities and I don't accept determinism".