First I'd like to say it's a farce that this thread even remains open however...
@ Prom,
Prometheus - There is nothing scientific about trying to merge quantum mechanics with consciousness.
That is not the opinion of the person who created Quantum mechanics.
The announcement of the Nobel Prize in Physics for 1932 was delayed until November 1933. It was at that time that it was announced Heisenberg had won the Prize for 1932 "for the creation of quantum mechanics, the application of which has, inter alia, led to the discovery of the allotropic forms of hydrogen" and Erwin Schrödinger and Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac shared the 1933 Prize "for the discovery of new productive forms of atomic theory".
Prometheus seems to be determined to alter Heisenbergs belief that consciousness causes collapse. Could that be the case or would prometheus be more comfortable rewriting history altogether to exclude the entire concept.
Could that be the same Heisenburg who wrote:
Just how an "observer" and an "observation" somehow trigger a quantum 'event' and so form the basic substrate of our physical 'reality' appears to be intrically connected with matters of consciousness and perception, making leading edge science not only stranger than we believe, but perhaps even stranger than we can believe
@ Anyone,
Please note the above paragraph in case Prometheus gets the authority to delete it. It does not fit within his prescribed belief system so should be censored.
“
Originally Posted by kwhilborn
Maybe it's time to let Heisenberg have a go at what is right, because "conventional" views are not explaining some of the probabilities.
Prom response - I don't understand your point here.
Maybe this quote can clear that up.
Not everyone agreed with the new Copenhagen interpretation, or with Max Born and Werner Heisenberg's statement about future work. Einstein and Schrödinger were among the most notable dissenters. Until the ends of their lives they never fully accepted the Copenhagen doctrine. Einstein was dissatisfied with the reliance upon probabilities. But even more fundamentally, he believed that nature exists independently of the experimenter, and the motions of particles are precisely determined.
@ prom,
You are the moderator who moved a consciousness thread from the physics section to the Cesspool after only 4 posts.
you claim
“
Believe it or not I am intelligent enough to be able to tell the difference between facts and opinions and moderate accordingly.
”
You have argued that good ideas cannot come from bad ideas (at least not often), and I argue a bad idea can at least stir the imagination. It would be nice if research forums worked like a giant puzzle where everyone could find a piece to fit.
Let me get this straight... Arguing that bad ideas cannot lead to good ideas, you simply talk about a few bad ideas? Huh?
I LOVE HOW YOU DELETE THIS NEXT GIBBERISH FROM YOUR QUOTE IN THE POST ABOVE
The operative word here is "might." The Andrew Wakefield "research" into the hazards of the MMR vaccine didn't lead to anything good happening (maybe if you are a measles virus your perspective will differ, but if that is the case how are you typing on the internet?) and the Walter Wagner LHC scaremongering has cost a lot of money and resulted directly in someone's death.
Is your objective here to show bad ideas can only lead to bad ideas by representing 2 bad ideas?
The operative word here is "might." The Andrew Wakefield "research" into the hazards of the MMR vaccine didn't lead to anything good happening (maybe if you are a measles virus your perspective will differ, but if that is the case how are you typing on the internet?) and the Walter Wagner LHC scaremongering has cost a lot of money and resulted directly in someone's death.
Very poor argument really.
Tell the guy who invented post-its bad ideas cannot pay off. Like brainstorming no idea should be considered bad during ideation. Your computer monitor was a bad idea. The touch feature took 30+ years to make work, but now most screens are touch screens.
@ prom,
You argue that bad ideas cannot have any merit, yet considering possibilities is the entire basis of free thinking. Use your noggin.
If you are going to move a consciousness thread to the cesspool, and you are
“
Prom - I am intelligent enough to be able to tell the difference between facts and opinions and moderate accordingly.
”
then really you should understand the point of
Maybe it's time to let Heisenberg have a go at what is right
Werner Heisenberg was a well respected man in the field of quantum physics.
He "Created Quantum mechanics", and won a Nobel prize for it in 1932.
Many people in Sciforums (including Prom apparently) seem to remember him (if they have heard of him), as a woo-woo for his well known view of consciousness role in physics.
@ Prom,
By not understanding that sentence, it really does cast a murky shadow on your
“Prom - I am intelligent enough to be able to tell the difference between facts and opinions and moderate accordingly. ”
if you move a consciousness thread into the cesspool after 4 posts. You obviously have dismissed someone whom you apparently have never heard of, and that means this decision was not based on education or
“
Prom - I am intelligent enough to be able to tell the difference between facts and opinions and moderate accordingly.
”
I think it could have been moved fairly into the philosophy thread, or maybe even general science.
But moving a thread into the cesspool just because you disagree with the guy who created Quantum mechanics Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, John von Neumann, Wolfgang Pauli, and many today who are trying to incorporate the consciousness role into new physics,
is just a slap in the face to these and many other people.
simply out of arrogance and your belief that,
“
Prom - I am intelligent enough to be able to tell the difference between facts and opinions and moderate accordingly.
”
New physics cannot develop here because of people like you. Nobody would ever post ideas like (this link) this here.
http://www.generativescience.org/ps-papers/qmc1h.html
and although that may make you happy. Some of us enjoy reading.
I am not arguing for or against consciousness in quantum physics. I am arguing against censoring topics based on....
“
Prom - I am intelligent enough to be able to tell the difference between facts and opinions and moderate accordingly.
”
@ Prom,
If you are such an all knowing genius, then why do we even have a forum, maybe you can just tell us all how it is?
p.s. I am well versed with the real James Randi, and have exchanged mail and email with him and his staff.
I think it is foolish and naive to think of "telepathy" as something without experimentation results, however you are not the only fool to choose the path of lesser probabilities. The sceptic James Randi was probably most noted for his ill conceived television show where he would get subjects to demonstrate their abilities (often inconclusively). If anyone cares to sponsor the experiments in a controlled setting I can statistically prove telepathy and precognition exist. I can/have carry on statistical anomalies for as long as I am healthy increasing the probabilities over time. James Randi organization is a fraud (Yes I state his offer is fraudulent) as they want something that can be demonstrated in a short video clip, and do not accept probabilities as success. They are also quite clear that they want the experiments to be very quick. Nothing that would require time.
My foolish rants? How is it that you want to keep these threads going when it only serves to demonstrate your
a) Poor Judgement
b) name calling antics.
c) poor intelligence
d) evident maturity level
If you were in the right your arguments would make a lot more sense than they do, and you would not resort to name calling.
I have been polite and demonstrate all of my points well, and this is why my arguments have favoured more support.
I have suggested this thread be locked before. I did not start it. I simply agreed that you are a very bad moderator.
