Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Eugene Shubert, Aug 13, 2015.
But no doubt you'll continue your evangelistic crusade.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Likewise, my interpretation doesn't suggest a magic pixie.
So you have forgone your mythical omnipotent pixie in favour of the natural cycle of cosmology and physics?
My work is done. I can now die a happy man, and replenish the soil.
Please explain how your ordinary demented mind could become so deranged as to imagine why the One causing an intentional creation event, as per my definition of quantum creation, should be called a pixie. Nevertheless, you're terribly confused about the nature of quantum theory. Probability amplitudes do not cause events. I recommend that you look up What Is the Quintessence of All Physical Law?
Yet another reference to yet another of Eugene's anti-science diatribes.
Still it's a pretty good illustration of how he twists things to suit his own particular (uniformed) viewpoint.
Why do you think there's a "one"?
Because I've seen Jet Li in the film.
I love that film. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I don't really give a flying fuck what you want to call your demented imaginary deity.
Your preaching and agenda on this forum and elsewhere is as plain as Dog's balls.
That's why your usual dishonest actions of sticking your preaching into a science forum, has been moved to something far more appropriate.
Although I do suggest one more step down to Cesspool.
Now calm down, take a Disprin and have a good lay down before you have a coronary.
You have a right to call a butterfly a flying pig if you want. You don't get to apply a definition to something which is already defined.
The fact that you don't even know what creationism is puts a strain on your conversation. All the knowledge in the world is of no use to fools. The Eagles.
I have a problem with the term "creation" in this context. My problem is twofold. First, the term "creation" implies a creator of some kind - usually a conscious being. In the case of "quantum creation", I'm not sure who the creator is supposed to be.
The second problem I have is that the term "creationist" is generally used to refer to religious fundamentalists who believe that God created the universe. More specifically, it is often used to refer to biblical literalists. So, I fear that the term "quantum creationist" might wrongly imply that a scientist who believes in the big bang, for example, does so on biblical or religious grounds, which would be wrong.
I haven't watched it yet. Does he confess to being a "quantum creationist" in the video? Does he actually use the term "quantum creation"?
So it's a good thing, then?
As already noted, Professor Alexander Vilenkin and Professor David Z. Albert both confessed to being quantum creationists, if the post by tashja is to be believed. Also both Vilenkin and Stephen Hawking use the term "quantum creation."
Also, as recognized by Freeman Dyson and myself, quantum theory implies the existence of a Divine mind. That is the Creator. But that's a separate thread. The issue here is the acceptability of the label "quantum creationist" in mainstream physics.
The evidence for the existence of a Divine mind makes the phrase "quantum creationism" perfectly reasonable.
As already explained, quantum, in quantum creationism, is a modifier and the Divine Mind recognized by Freeman Dyson and myself makes quantum creationism a perfectly acceptable phrase.
I'll take your word for it. I'll watch the video clip when I have time, to get the context.
I'd be most interested to hear about how quantum theory implies the existence of a divine mind.
Well, this is the first use I've heard of that label. So, if I had to guess, I'd say it is not widely accepted in mainstream physics at this time.
Maybe this is the appropriate thread for your to present your proof of the divine mind, then.
Even the best science may have roots in superstition. Alchemy vs chemistry is only one example.
Quantum physics, believe it or not, is still in its infancy. At most, it is only two levels of causality removed from sourcery and demons. String theory never even bothered to try and leave, mainly because it is easy to modify it to predict or account for anything observed simply by adjusting a few of its free parameters. That's a disingenuous way to do science, and that is a charitable assessment.
It suffices that I quote Freeman Dyson only to justify my use of the modifier quantum for quantum creationism.
Freeman Dyson wrote:
"The universe shows evidence of the operations of mind … Atoms in the laboratory are weird stuff, behaving like active agents rather than inert substances. They make unpredictable choices between alternative possibilities according to the laws of quantum mechanics. It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every atom."
Ah, so there is a magic pixie. Changed your mind again!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! shakes head, typical.
Separate names with a comma.