Are You A Quantum Creationist?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Eugene Shubert, Aug 13, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    LIM... this made me smile physically, in a good way.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    this actually says, and only says , the universe may have it's own consciousness. nothing more.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    shrugs.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    You are free to believe that every atom and subatomic particle in the universe has a mind of its own. Or there is One Divine Mind that decides how every particle behaves at each instant. Just recognize that the mere existence of probability amplitudes don't determine anything and that mainstream physicists are persuaded overwhelmingly that all the fundamental laws of physics are ultimately probabilistic and that all our fundamental physical laws turning out to be deterministic eventually is incredibly unlikely.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2015
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    if you actually had any proper education, you would probably stay away from all those YT faithfull videos.
    sometimes, things are that simple.
    shrugs.
    also, please show how you're not spewing hypocritical, contradicting[that you cannot even recognize that you're doing] nonsense ?
     
  8. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    it's actually referred to as work and experience. i'm 100% sure you CANNOT say the same.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    shrugs.

    except you just have shown you have no clue about anything of this scanairo.

    according to whom ?
    a mentally disabled youtube faithfull ?
     
  9. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    Those wanting to check my authoritative sources (mostly explanations by Richard P. Feynman) are free to look up What Is the Quintessence of All Physical Law?
     
  10. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,899
    Just because you quote "authoritative sources"[1] doesn't mean that your interpretation of those sources is in any way correct[2].
    And, in fact, the argument put forward by you shows that you don't have a clue as what those sources were really saying, since you essentially claim two contradictory things are true.

    It really is time this thread was moved to the Cesspool.

    1 Plus, of course, this simply boils down - at BEST (i.e. IF you had correctly understood what was being said) - to argument from authority.
    2 You having an incorrect interpretation is, apparently, a sine qua non of your position, as shown by your entire posting history here and elsewhere.
     
    krash661 likes this.
  11. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    I'm amused by your inability to state what those contradictions are.
     
  12. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,899
    Now THAT'S a decidedly specious rebuttal.
    Since YOU couldn't be bothered to do anything other than reference your argument on a different forum (and didn't even have the good grace to provide a link) I didn't consider there to be any need to drag that argument over to this forum.
    I.e. the discussion here is about your scientific ignorance and willingness to twist reality[1], not that argument in particular.

    I'm amused by your willingness to characterise my reasons for not stating those contradictions as "inability".

    1 Presumably, given the nonsense you do post, deliberate.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2015
    krash661 likes this.
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,325
    Only an agenda laden fool would not see that those contradictions you speak of do not stick out like dog balls.
     
  14. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    Then let me spruce it up a bit:

    Pretty please, with sugar on top, kindly post two contradictory statements by me.
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,325

    And appropriately with all that demented illusional baggage, you are in the correct section, despite your original dishonest attempt to post in science.
    And who or what the hell is a Zog?
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,325
    [1] You originally posted your nonsense in science in an attempt to skirt around the real definition of your trolling.
    [2] You deliberately misinterpret/misrepresent qualified scientists in your vane effort to push your stupid mythical creationist/intelligent design event.
     
    krash661 likes this.
  17. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    Zog is an innocent character that falls in a very entertaining children's story by Julia Donaldson.

    "Zog is the keenest dragon in school. He’s also the most accident-prone, getting into one scrape after another as he learns to roar and fly and breathe fire. But who is the mysterious little girl that keeps coming to his aid? And can she really help with his toughest test: capturing a princess?
    Zog won the Galaxy Book Award in 2010 and the Oxfordshire Book Award 2011."



    Zog is also an obscure reference to a complex political and theological theory. Out of the two, I recommend the children's story for you.
     
  18. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    if you actually had any proper education, you would probably stay away from all those YT faithfull videos.
    sometimes, things are that simple.
    and probably would not misinterpret any quote/statement, made by actually qualified individuals.. but i guess we can just say this occurred because, simply, you have no clue of what you spew, correct ?, yes, yes... of course that's correct.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    same ole' same ole' from the mentally obsolete, as they click on whatever link, and then cannot comprehend and then flawlessly claim genius..
    pathetic.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    shrugs again.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,325

    So Zog is on the same level/definition as your silly mythical pixie in the sky?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    i'm amused as to you are clueless of as you contradict yourself.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    shrugs.
     
  21. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,899
    Quite simple:
    1 "It is the nature of Nature to act unpredictably".
    2 "quantum mechanics repudiated naturalism".

    There's nothing in QM that appeals to, let alone relies on, anything other than natural laws and forces - as is essentially clear in your first statement. Yet you somehow manage to come to the conclusion that QM "repudiates" natural laws by being "unpredictable".
    In essence you're arguing "nature isn't predictable, quantum mechanics isn't predictable therefore it's not natural".

    Coupled with this piece of facile cr*p: "It appears that an inescapable conclusion to be drawn from mainstream quantum theory is that naturalism isn't science".
    Naturalism is defined as "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world" and is a philosophical concept[1], it's not actually claimed to be a scientific one. In other words a more than ridiculous argument in the first place.

    1 Of course, you may be talking about methodological naturalism[2], but that's a working hypothesis, and STILL isn't "repudiated".
    2 If so I can't help but wonder if you left it deliberately vague so as to provide space for back-pedalling when caught out in your egregious error.
     
    krash661 likes this.
  22. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,899
    No mention of "Zog" in that link.
    And nothing on that page qualifies as a theory - "political" or otherwise.
     
  23. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    Right. Physicists shouldn't be asked in a physics forum if any of them are quantum creationists.

    Pretty please, with sugar on top, kindly contrast what qualified scientists have written about science and what I've written that contradicts their statements.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page