Is law of attraction an absolute hoax?

Discussion in 'Parapsychology' started by entelecheia, Sep 7, 2012.

  1. seagypsy Banned Banned

    bolding mine (why do we have to point this out?)

    So you aim to convert huh? That is called proselytizing. People don't like that. If I were to go to a parapsychology forum or a bible forum or any other faith based website homing a forum, and tried to convince or convert the believers over to the realm of the real, the realm of science, I would be received much in the same way that you are being treated here. Who is right or wrong in regards to believing/non-believing is irrelevant. No one has any social right to go and force feed an idea down another persons throat then bitch when that idea is rejected. Just take the reaction we have given and accept that you should have anticipated it so therefore you kinda got it coming to ya.

    You are not being mistreated here anymore than I would be mistreated by theists if I barged into their hangout and told them how stupid I perceive their notions of god to be. That's as stupid as going into a Harley biker bar and screaming that Harleys suck! Or wearing a star wars costume to a star trek convention.

    I have no opinion on this POA LOA whatever it is. I don't give two shits about it. But when people start bitching because people have a normal reaction to their behavior it annoys me. If you want unconditional acceptance of your claims, go to a forum that promotes the ideas that you present. Skeptics do read those forums even if few participate, and some even convert. I was not Muslim when I first read the Qur'an but I ended up converting to it without any Muslims insisting that I did. I didn't even meet any Muslims before I converted. Of course after meeting too many I ended up disavowing the faith and eventually god all together, but that's besides the point. You will get more converts by just passively discussing your ideas with those of like minds than you will by trying to force your opinions on those who militantly oppose it. And this is true for any idea you hope to spread. Even atheism.

    Also you don't have to resort to ad hom. Claiming that skeptics are illiterate is rude, obnoxious, and just a plain lie. And you want us to trust you. We don't tend to trust liars.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Just set out a falsifiable theory that can be tested through science and we're all with you on the road to discovery.
    The difference is that radio waves can be evidenced and telepathy can not. Radio waves are falsifiable. Telepathy is not (i.e. it might just be a poor receiver / transmitter)... and the issue would be discerning the "hits" from background guesswork and coincidence.

    I have seen no evidence of telepathy, but I have seen evidence of tricks of the mind that lead people to believe in telepathy - just google Derren Brown and his ability to "read minds" and cold-reading etc.
    If non-skeptics could provide any proof or even a mere hint of supportable evidence to support their case then things might at least progress, rather than have one person without evidence spouting and trying to convince someone who is willing to accept without evidence.
    I think the phrase is "put up or shut up".
    Whether one finds a particular post "intelligent" or not really is not the issue when there are clearly such disparate ideas of what constitutes intelligence.
    I'm sure some, like me, have and found them not to work. But then I'm sure you would provide a possible reason as to the failure such that it makes the claim unfalsifiable.
    Or will you accept that if a person (or perhaps two) tries the approach and fails then the claim is wrong?
    The issue is not that things are not easily explained, but that people jump on the experience as being evidence of the paranormal rather than just an unlikely occurrence of the probabilistically-possible normal.
    It is natural for all people to do a "double-take" - not because of anything paranormal but merely because of the unlikeliness of the "coincidence". Afterall, it was an expected result then we would hardly refer to it as a coincidence or be surprised by it in any way. But unlikely events occur all the time.
    If an event has a 1 in a million chance of happening to any person on a given day, then each day we would still expect 7,000 such events to occur.
    But some people might still call it a miracle.
    And you ask skeptics to be intelligent??
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    @ Sarkus,
    Telepathy cannot be measured is the point. Maybe some day. Radio waves could not be measured hundreds of years ago either. That was part of a point you missed. Not important. I'm not going to dumb it down. You could focus on something and then notice the coincidences on that subject will increase. I will say that you should attempt focusing on something unlikely to occur and see if you can manifest it, however too much doubt in your mind would likely poison/negate the results. The more often you are successful the more successful you will be because your faith increases. You don't exactly ooze faith.

    @ seagypsy,
    If you are not open to gain information, learn, or have an open mind then what is the point of reading forum threads. If you are not interested in the subject then what purpose brings you here? I know there are some self appointed paranormal police who feel they can boost their self esteem by loitering in the paranormal threads and repeating the same dry skepticism we now expect here, but if you do not wish to be swayed into supernatural beliefs then why bother reading here. You could say the same to me but the skeptics never write any substance, it is all copy/paste from something they wrote here on the paranormal forum when it first began. Yadda, Yadda, something, something, won't work, etc. Kind of sad.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. seagypsy Banned Banned

    I have other motives for reading these threads. Human behavior fascinates me. Especially when we behave so illogically. I say "we" because I also behave illogically sometimes. I found your bitching about skeptics then claiming that you need them to be illogical. I also find that going to a particular group, who regularly opposes certain types of ideas, and expecting them to react differently to an idea that has all the properties of idea they regularly oppose, to be illogical.

    Sometimes threads can serve a purpose entirely outside the intention of those who participate in it. For instance one may post in a thread intending to show off their intellectual prowess but instead it reveals their intense stupidity, arrogance, stubbornness, rudeness, and/or propensity to be socially uncouth. It's like watching college students participate in hotdog eating contests. There is no sanity in promoting these types of ideas to a science forum. Sure, the subforum is pseudoscience, but it is under the umbrella of being a science forum, so any subforum is implied to be a scientific view of whatever the subforum is headed as. I may be wrong. Maybe the creators of this site wanted to invite pseudoscience lovers over to chat so that THEY could try to convert the believers over to REAL science. If that's the case then THAT is acceptable, because the site owners make the rules here, the written and unwritten ones.

    If a religious website has a sub-forum called "Science" I would not expect to find anything other than scientific ideas shot down, with the religions ganging up on the science lover. This is human nature. For you to expect anything other than a normal human response to an outsider trying to convert the group is absurd.

    Basically, I object to your bitching about having your idea rejected. I object to your calling all skeptics illiterate and implying that we have some self esteem issue. I object to your unwillingness to be objective. You are either unwilling or unable to consider the possibility that your idea is fallible.

    NO ONE is obligated to believe any idea you promote just because YOU SAY SO. Get off your arrogant high horse and learn to understand your audience a bit. If your idea is reasonable, it should stand up to testing. If you don't want it tested then save it for people who believe anything they are told, or people who accept faith as some valid intelligent approach to understanding reality.
  8. seagypsy Banned Banned

    EXACTLY!! that is why I suggested that you focus on the hope that skeptics will stop posting against you in threads. It is highly unlikely that skeptics will ever be silent against your ideas. You also have plenty of faith, so there will be little risk of your lack of faith negating the results. So only someone of strong faith can "prove" statistically any validity to the claim.

    So do it already. Send up those pleas to the universe that skeptics stop challenging your posts and we will all watch and see if it happens. If you are correct the result will be, either all the posting skeptics will all lose internet service permanently, skeptics will all become paralyzed from the wrists down, Jesus will return and make himself known, the world will implode, sciforums will permanently close down, or you will start posting real science rather than absolute bullshit.

    I will even join and help you with this. I will send up pleas to the universe that you stop posting bullshit and then calling people names for not eating it up.
  9. entelecheia Registered Senior Member

    One question:

    The maximun dream of Leonardo DaVinci and subsequent scientist was to built a flying machine.
    Can you explain how 'law of attraction' could have been helped them in order to achieve it?

    It was impossible!, because The Transmission Chain couldnt have been discovered through their incipient knowledge of anatomy.
  10. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    @ entelecheia,
    I've seen a child that wants to be a Pony when she grows up. I don't see your point. I suppose if I was attempting to use LOA and I were DaVinci I would do daily affirmations that I could fly. Perhaps he may have developed a balloon or glider that worked in such a case. It does seem futile to affirm or visualize something known as impossible as "faith/belief" can enter into it. For actual LOA instructions try "Think and grow rich" by Napoleon Hill or just Google LOA.

    @ seagypsy,
    Deja-Vu. Maybe you and Crunchycat can share your study of human behavior. That is the reason he gives for perusing the paranormal sites. Fair enough. That does seem better than just appointing yourself as the Paranormal Police to inflate your ego by entering topics which are obviously not measurable/proveable at this time. I am unsure how you get the idea that I want skeptics out of these forums. Your last post #45 made no sense to me at all. I argue on behalf of spirituality on a science forum because I (note this psychology) feel I have methods that people can use to prove paranormal things to themselves. I have converted some. I feel bad for the skeptics because I think they are missing out on a reality that is only a few hours of experimenting away. If you send someone a message to call you and they do, it can be convincing. If you can do it often, it becomes more convincing.

    The easiest method of telepathy is influencing someones dreams. There was a lab setting experiment with double blinds and locked doors that demonstrated this. They defied 75 million to one odds. Odds are ignored by skeptics because they always hang onto that one chance in a zillion. Until mankind can actually measure telepathy waves many skeptics will be forced to remain in the dark. I think 75 million to one odds are pretty good, but that's just me I guess.

    Note: When I was in university I entered a hot dog eating contest simply for the free lunch. I think that was a very sane choice, and I calmly ate my fill.

    Without skeptics then I am just preaching to the choir.

    Telepathy and Law of Attraction are real. It is no skin off my nose what you believe. These are things you could prove to yourself with minimal investments of time, as both things are very easy.

    @ seagypsy,
    I avoided speaking of The Double slit experiment in your Absolute Reality Thread, but it is the absolute core of that debate. Nobody brought up this experiment on that thread, but you need to know this debate was made famous by Bohrs-Einstein.

    Your question seems to show you (like many) are not fully aware of how important the double-slit experiment was/is to mankind.

    Einstein figured all items collapse into matter with no observation/measurement required.

    People like me might believe Bohrs/BELL

    This Theorem concludes it takes conscious observation to collapse our physical world into particles. Until then they remain possibility waves.

    I am not making this up...

    Watch this 5 minute cartoon to understand.

    80% of quantum physicists believed in the coppenhagen interpretation of the double slit experiment for some time. This means that for a while (not anymore because it is too spooky) 80% of quantum physicists believed matter does not exist unless it is observed by someone. This means your bathroom does not exist right now, as it is only possibility waves. If you think that is crazy another explanation is the many worlds theory... They think you exist in thousands of possible worlds.

    I am not making this up...

    This is science. If you watch that cartoon and fully understand the implications of the math then you can see why it messed with Einsteins brain so much over the years. That is the most discussed and important experiment in history, and much of our quantum theory is based upon it.

    Matter does not exist unless it is observed.–Einstein_debates

    Imagine Bohr–Einstein arguing like old ladies over this.
    Bohr said the "moon does not exist unless it is observed"
    Einstein says, "Yes, It does"
    Bohr said the "moon does not exist unless it is observed"
    Einstein says, "Yes, It does"
    Bohr said the "moon does not exist unless it is observed"
    Einstein says, "Yes, It does"

    Bells math says Bohr was right, but I'm sure nobody on sciforums will take that stance. This is an Einstein crowd.

    I will post this in the other thread so you can see t get blown to bits by sciforum members, but this view is still popular despite that.
    Pretty spooky stuff...

    Oh. I cannot post it there as it is closed for now, but nobody there buys into the Coppenhagen Interpretation.

    Good-luck finding reality, but many think we are in a holographic projection and it is backed by science not wishful thinking.

    Not my experiment, Not my math, Not my conclusions

    This is very DEEP science. It requires much DEEP thought, and not spontanious conclusions.

    So 2 main choices are "Nothing exists unless it is observed" or "Every possibility exists like treebranches"

    Kind of hard to grasp?
    @ seagypsy,

    Yet you think telepathy is such a reach. Our world may not exist unless people are on it to observe/measure it. This is not my thoughts. This is 120 year old science.

    Here is the experiment again. It is very important to know this.
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2012
  11. entelecheia Registered Senior Member


    Ahá! not possible, in DaVinci epoch hot air effect on gravity was known? helio was known? i doubt it.
    Knows you the answer?
  12. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Randi is offering you a million clams to put your money where your mouth is. But like most claimants, you refuse the challenge for a variety of lame excuses.
    In the end, you're fully aware, as are the rest of us, that the real reason is that you know you will not pass the test.
    All of what you posted above was gobbledygook.

    You provided the link:
    You should have read it.
    Let's do so now:
    Well, DUH! Since it's hit, we are now aware of the end result of the probability and the wave function collapses.
    As you can see, the Copenhagen interpretation is the exact opposite from what you just claimed it was.

    Maybe you only misread the opening header of the wiki article?
    Next time you try to use valid scientific idea to back up your woo, you should ensure that it means what you think it means.
  13. seagypsy Banned Banned

    All the hostile insulting remarks above should make it clear why I think this way.Making remarks like "I feel sorry for you..." " it's so sad that you..." You sound like an insulting little twat of a cheerleader who thinks she is better than the not so skinny girl. All the while barfing every meal up because you don't really feel good enough.

    No you just think you are better than everyone else. I'm willing to bet that you have no real friends at all and you are too arrogant to understand why. And 7000 facebook "friends" do not count as friends.

    Here you sound like a condescending self righteous bastard of an evangelist who takes people's money and promises them god's love and prayers answered. You have no concept of what it means to be a pleasant person at all.

    I tell ya what, I'll try sending YOU a message tonight. You let me know what dreams you had in the morning.

    so you are a cheap opportunist too huh?

    then stop whining about their skeptism. By the way, didn't you say back in post number
    yeah you said you were gonna go away for a while..... guess you forgot.

    Why didn't you, that would have been the most appropriate place on this entire forum to bring it up. Though I think it has already been talked to death. But still it would have been on topic and relevant to the discussion. The thread will be back open. I asked trippy to either split it or move it to a more appropriate thread since all sorts of ideas, many not based on accepted science, were starting to crop up. I didn't want them silenced, just sorted appropriately. And the thread has been and hopefully will remain tolerant given the nature of the OP. The nature being that it is to remain subjective and that no claims of fact are being made in the OP. However if anyone anywhere in Sciforums makes a claim of FACT they will be required to back it up or catch heat. and No One has a right to bitch for being asked to back up their claims with credible evidence.

    move this to an appropriate thread and I may read it and even test out your math. but it is off topic for this thread so I am ignoring it.
    I will respond to this in the appropriate thread. debating whether anything exists or not is not on topic for this thread. and from here on out you are being ignored. I have been an unintentional collaborator in derailing this thread too long already. I wish I would have realized sooner. My apology to Sciforums as a whole. From now on, one rant per thread for me. If the object of my rant doesn't get it on the first try, then they are simply trolls begging for food.
  14. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    @ Neverfly,
    If you read my posts then you should be aware I have contacted JREF. That stands for James Randi Educational Foundation in case you needed to know. JREF indicates they are only interested in short videos they can poke fun at and the challenge does not accept probabilities as proof. Common sense dictates that until Telepathy can be measured somehow then the ONLY possible way to possibly convince anyone would be by defying probabilities. I challenge JREF to accept probabilities.

    @ Neverfly,
    This is complicated stuff. I will find a website that can dumb it down a bit.
    Here we go...

    Despite the fact I post in paranormal areas I did attend University for science and was a licensed Engineer. I think I understand The Copenhagen Interpretation and could do recite the various thought experiments in my sleep.

    I will try to explain it to you better so you understand. (pretending I am wrong only makes you look silly here)

    I know it is hard to comprehend, but this experiment seems to show that
    This means that it exists as probability waves only. It takes a consciousness to make it collapse into matter.

    Examine the Schrodingers cat thought experiment to understand.

    This is a very deep subject. I think the cartoon is probably about as good an explanation as you will understand.

    Don't forget this was co authored by Bohrs who claimed the moon does not exist unless it is observed. Not Einstein.
  15. seagypsy Banned Banned

    No end to the insults. Have you ever heard that you will catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. You are a rude obnoxious son of a bitch. and you want to convert us. No you don't. You want to convince yourself that you are better than us.

    Mod's, at what point are we allowed to tell someone to fuck off?
  16. Neverfly Banned Banned

    I'm a member of the JREF forum although inactive for several years... Probabilities is not evidence of success, Kwhilborn.
    I agree that that particular link you posted describes your interpretation: That description is wrong. HowStuffWorks wouldn't be my first choice in reliability... You should see their article on how a steam engine works. It's appalling.

    Let's try a peer reviewed article on the subject:
  17. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    @ Seagypsy,
    I give you permission to swear at me, but neverfly wrote and copied a heck of a lot of stuff that he totally got wrong. He can say I am wrong till cows come home, but he is still wrong and cannot grasp wikipedia so i found a simpler version for him to grasp.

    @ neverfly,

    posting various copies of the interpretation is fine but it says right in the abstract of the PEER reviewed link you gave,
    NOTE: Did we both use the same paragraph and bolded the same things almost to prove our alternate views. Probabilities means existing as probability waves, and collapsed means collapsed into matter. Google: Wave vs Particle duality.–particle_duality

    You can interpret the Double-Slit Experiment whatever way makes you feel better. Many worlds and Copenhagen have already been tossed aside by many.

    You can also interpret the Copenhagen Interpretation however you like, but your version is not the way it is taught. I have seen too many people fail to grasp what this actually means and feel such is the case again. Einstein and Schrodinger also thought the concept was far fetched, but it is still the way the concept goes.

    @ Seagypsy,

    Both of you have made equal attempts at rudeness, and I actually thought you would enjoy the double slit stuff based on your question in the science forum. This experiment is key however.

    @ Neverfly,
    If JREF refuses to accept probabilities then their offer is fraudulent, as the only way to actually prove telepathy otherwise would be by direct measurement when no such tools are known to exist. This is simply fact.

    @ Neverfly and Seagypsy,
    Feel free to edit your previous posts and remove content neverfly if you grasp that you may have made an error and dont want it on record. Not many people are aware even of these interpretations.

    I apologize for being rude, but I do put up with my own share of jabs.
  18. seagypsy Banned Banned

    How can you say Neverfly is wrong? YOU have said that this is a subject that cannot be proven right or wrong. So you are no more right than he is by your logic. If it cannot be proven then how do you know? You don't do you? You just want to call people stupid for disagreeing with you. If the skeptics of this thread don't convert will some supernatural punishment be enacted upon you? If not then stop taking everything so personal and accept that some people will not agree with you. Move on without the insults. Is that really so hard or are you just too small minded to be ok with people disagreeing with you? Why dont you keep an open mind, open to the possibility and the okay-ness of other people not sharing your view.

    I would love the double slit conversation, but not in this thread. You are off topic.
  19. Neverfly Banned Banned

    I quoted it directly to you.

    Yes, I quoted that too. And note: I underlined and bolded differently, this time. And that quote does not say "you can interpret it in whatever way makes you feel better."
    It says that the interpretation is not based on realities at the submolecular level. It says it's a math used to describe what cannot be directly observed. This, too, is what the wikipedia article said and I quoted on.

    So, now, you're refusing to believe a journal and wiki. Wiki I can forgive. But at this point, you're just stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that you've gotten it wrong.
    kwhilborn: "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up!"
  20. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    @ Neverfly,

    Your link to Peer Reviewed version contains only the abstract. I am not purchasing this text for sake of this discussion.

    One of the authors of the Copenhagen Interpretation was Bohrs. Bohrs claimed the moon does not exist unless it is observed. This was the co-authors view.

    The experiment shows that collapsing a wave through observation turned it into 2 bands similar to marbles / particles being shot through the two slits, however until the measurement / observation is made the interference pattern remains.

    Particles / Marbles / Nature / Reality / Matter / Spacetime Reality - are all the same things from which we are quoting.

    While light is waves it is not matter, and the random particle could exist anywhere (like schrodingers cat) at this time.

    Waves / Probabilities / unobserved / probability wave - are also the same in these quotes.

    If it says "not based on realities" (like your quote above), then they are also saying "not based on nature", "not based on matter", "not based on particles". Matter only exists as a probability.

    Remember that this was co-authored by Bohrs and took his view that the moon does not exist unless it is observed.

    Now Einstein and Schrodinger knew Bohrs had lost it. I mean it is INSANE to think the moon does not collapse into matter when no conscious observer/measurement looks at it.

    In Fact: Schrodinger invented a thought experiment to demonstrate how ridiculous this concept was.

    The idea is that you put a cat in a box with a 50/50 odds of living through a random event inside this box.


    So now there is no cat inside the box according to Bohrs. Bohrs says that until the cat is measured / observed it exists ONLY as a probability wave. It will not be until the door is opened that the probability is decided (I would argue based on expectancy) and the cat is either alive or dead. Bohrs would argue that even if the cat was dead a week upon opening the cat would materialize as a rotting corpse.

    Bohrs would argue that if your fridge door was closed nothing inside would exist except as probability waves until the door is opened.

    I had originally thought Schrodinger also felt this way, but he created this experiment to show how absurd it was.

    Einstein also thought this Interpretation was woo, and made a point of saying so often.

    However this WAS a widely accepted version of events. The Copenhagen Interpretation.

    @ neverfly this is your last quote in previous post,
    notice it says Intepretation is
    Realities is matter that can be seen and observed. If the Copenhagen is "NOT BASED ON MATTER THAT CAN BE SEEN AND OBSERVED" then it must be based on the probability wave where matter does not yet exist.
    This one I might take to mean The Copenhagen Interpretation uses math to describe what cannot be directly observed.
    If matter has not been observed / measured then according to Bohrs it is only a mathematical probability of matter that cannot be directly observed.

    I really thought the dang cartoon did a good job explaining this

    We are now many years later and there are many ways of escaping the Copenhagen Interpretation conclusions, and there are Copenhagen Interpretation conclusions that are written by people who do not understand or grasp this as they feel it is too silly to ever have been considered.

    People say the Copenhagen Interpretation is complete woo. This does not alter the premise of it which is iput simply "that matter does not exist unless it is observed."

    Here is another description. In this description Actuality means real / matter / observed / measured.

    uncertainties not resolved until it is observed means that the particle can be anywhere in a known path and exists merely as a probabilty and is not real or real matter. It is merely invisible math.

    The act of measurement turns potentiality into actuality
    Bohr would argue that the cat was neither dead or alive inside schrodingers box until the moment it was viewed by an outside source when the box i opened, and then
    Quote from
    Bells Theorem arguably proved Bohr was correct, however I am not arguing for either principle at the moment other to say I am describing them correctly.

    Here is a good video i just found for you

    The part where the cats are in "quantum flux" or the undecided state in the video is when "matter does not exist until it is observed" thing I'm trying to explain.

    maybe videos will do better explaining this.
    is a silly trailer for movie about this interpretation. It was a very important Interpretation at the time.

    This thread is good
    Imagine you are all by yourself in your house.

    You may read a book, play a game, take a nap and then your sister arrives at 7 pm for a visit.

    Well ALL of the time you spent alone (according to Copenhagen interprettion) you did not really do anything. You were in a state of quantum flux. there was the possibility you " read a book, play a game, take a nap", but maybe you "ate lunch, played playstation, and did some aerobics". You recall living every second, but what you actually did did not become actuality / matter/ real /real spacetime / collapsed until you were observed by your sister. This is like the cat in the box alive or dead. It is the same idea.

    But who collapses your sister who has collapsed you. It seems everyone needs collapsing in this copenhagen view world.
    NOTE: Wave function collapse is a fancy way of saying "becomes reality".

    thus according to Heisenberg "reality is in the observations, not in the electron
    I have been repeating "reality does not exist unless observed", but "Reality is in the observation" is the same thing

    This is deep. I really want you to get this neverfly, and I am not speaking sarcastically. This double-slit experiment has brought out religion in people. Seriously. (please dont ask for links)

    Now wrap your minds around the Many worlds theory. Every choice you make is lived out to its conclusion on another identical world that is also splitting constantly? Seems a bit much imho.–body_problem
    This post may or not be real yet as I am typing here. Once I go to bed and my wife sees me then my history to that point has been collapsed.


    Maybe my wife does nor need to be an observer. Maybe my dog qualifies. Maybe an insect.

    What qualifies as a conscious observer to effect collapse of light into reality?

    watch this one as well.

    good luck.
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2012
  21. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Your post was long and I removed all irrelevant material in quoting. My apologies if I missed something important. I've summarized your misconceptions below.:
    That's reasonable and I would not ask you to. However, for this point, the abstract does suffice, anyway.
    No, you don't get to totally change their words to fit your round peg in a square hole.
    You also do not get to twist others words in history, either.
    Your claim that Bohr claimed the Moon did not exist is a piece of fiction.
    And then you went and made this up off the top of your head...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Inventing some more historical fiction, here?
    No. He said it can only be known to us prior to direct observation as a probability or Wave Function.
    By the way, Bohr, not "Bohrs."
    Wrong, again.
    It simply means that the Wave Function does not represent reality. Reality being that which exists but we cannot determine. The wave function only represents, mathematically, what we cannot determine but is not representing the reality. The wording is quite clear and your strange twisting of it is absurd to the extreme.
    Quoting a bit that you refer to with bold mine:
    Cannot be said. Did you read that? Cannot be said to have a definite state. That is all it means.
    I've already demonstrated that your arguments as to what Bohr might say is complete fiction.
    Perhaps because, like you, they have rather absurd misconceptions. I'm gathering a lot of folks are holding this misconception... In spite of the many resources available to correct this misconception...
    No, you are explaining your own interpretation and it's been shown that it is mostly fictitious.
  22. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    @ neverfly,
    I did try... sigh
    under heading criticism.
    Type in "Does the moon exist" in google and you will find hundreds of references to the famous Bohr-Einstein debate. I am sure they both stated their sides in every way, shape, and size over the years. I apologize if I did not quote it exactly but the point is that BOHR SAYS THE MOON/EVERYTHING NEEDS OBSERVATION TO MAKE IT COLLAPSE INTO REALITY.

    @ Neverfly,
    This is not an argument. There is only 1 Copenhagen Interpretation. You can butter it up all you like but it will always boil down to "Matter does not exist unless observed, until Observation Matter can exist in a myriad of forms that are not solid matter such as a cat that is neither dead or alive until observed".

    It is meant to be weird , strange, absurd. That is why there is so much arguments against it.

    Arguing your point is not making you look like a genius especially when I see the answers in quotes you are sending me.

    maybe that article.

    I think you think they are arguing that this is true. I am arguing that is the meaning of the Copenhagen interpretation.

    I am trying to help you grasp it but you must think "absurdly" to get this. It makes about as much sense as the many worlds theory which you will probably also argue means something different.

    I suppose this guy also sees it wrong..,-Even-On-Copenhagen&id=613309
    I do not agree much with this guy, but he is using the moon as an example and seems to grasp the Copenhagen Interpretation much better than you.

    Note: you seem much more confident in your wrong position than you did when you started a thread about quantum collapse.
  23. Neverfly Banned Banned

    No, you're refusing to deal with your error. I have explained, clearly, where your misconception is. I have shown relevant articles with clear quotes. You insist on re-wording quoted material to mean what you want it to mean.
    I clarified what Bohr has said all throughout, in spite of Einsteins teasing. He maintained the same position, yet, you will claim he changed it (Fictitiously- as he never did) in a feeble attempt to make it appear as though you're not in error by 'casting doubt' on the issue. It's still fiction. You made it up.

    At this point, I've done all I can. It is you not grasping the actual Copenhagen Interpretation. In spite of quotes, clear wording and a concise explanation- you flat out refuse. The thread should be permitted to proceed- but bear in mind- your personal misconceptions will lend no credence at this point to any arguments you make trying to support LOA based upon them.

    Edit to add: I notice you edited your post AFTER I quoted and replied to you. You added links. It makes no difference, I've made it clear what your misconception is and exposed your tactics in trying to support it.
    From one link:
    Your links support what I've been saying. Completely. There is no room for doubt.
    The other link gives this:
    You're refusal to accept that the Copenhagen Interpretation does not claim that wave functions are a physical reality is based on your desire to use that (misconception) to support the notion of LOA. You have a strong biased interest and it's no wonder you're so unwilling to part with it.
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2012

Share This Page