Quantum Creationism -- Is It Science Or Is It Religion?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Eugene Shubert, Jan 8, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,959
    False. I've been in this thread since page 1.

    You slid your way in all innocent at first but ultimately you couldn't resist flogging your bullshit and infecting this perfectly sane thread with your off-topic utterly-ignorant-of-anything- logical nonsensical preaching.

    Start your own thread so the rest of us can live or lives without your special brand of drivel.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,073
    What has that to do with anything?
    You responded to me personally, to one of my posts, with ad hominem thrown in.
    You engaged me!
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,959
    Everything you have posted - in addition to being nonsense - is off topic. Go make your own thread.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,073
    OK, where did you want to go with this thread?
    No one is preventing you from posting your observations.
    What in your mind is "quantum creation" and how does that happen?
    And how do you want to interpret "creation".
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,073
    I think I've said all I can in regard to this thread.
    I'll bow out and rake the sand for you. There are a lot of "scientific hazards out there".
     
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,959
    That is shockingly reasonable of you.
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    Write4U's problems go beyond that. He has swallowed Tegmark's kool-aid and apparently believes that not just that rocks are mathematical, but that rocks are mathematics.

    The fundamental problem with this is the map-territory distinction disappears a mess of confusion. It's a problem for Tegmark and a problem for his disciples.

    Apparently, Write4U can no longer tell the difference between 3 rocks and the number 3.

    Because of this basic confusion, Write4U will use terms like "mathematical function" to refer to physical objects like rocks and daisies. Because he believes that everything is mathematics, he talks about ridiculous notions such as "universal mathematics".
    The ideas are only unfalsifiable if we are willing to accept attempts to redefine words like "mathematical function" and "reality" - i.e. if we're willing to accept the premise that these two things in particular are synonyms. On the other hand, if we use the regular, well-established definitions of the words, then the distinction between concepts and physical objects is a simple matter of common sense. A concept can't act on the physical world in any way. Only physical things can interact physically. Thus, mathematics can't cause anything or do anything in the physical world.

    We could make the same mistake Write4U (and Tegmark) is making with any mental construct. For instance, I could assert that the underlying structure of reality is, in fact, unicorns. Here's how my "theory" of unicorns would go...

    Unicorns have the "potential" to do anything in the physical world. Everything in the physical world is actually made of unicorns, but sometimes the unicorns are "enfolded potential unicorns". When a unicorn acts, its potential can "unfold" and become "reality". The universe started when many unicorns spontaneously unfolded their potentials and became particles and stars and stuff. Unicorns are most closely perceived today in the colours of the rainbow. There, the colour magic in the horns of the unicorns becomes manifest and observable. However, we must also realise that unicorn potential is also enfolded in such mundane things as rocks and chairs. A careful observer will notice that objects come in "ones". You might count three rocks, but in reality this is one plus one plus one rock. "One" is a very significant number in unicorn theory. It follows naturally from the observation that each unicorn has but a single magical horn. Note the similarity with the religious texts of the world: one bible, one Qur'an, one Bhagavad Gita. The renegade physicist David Bang was the first to suggest that the laws of quantum physics can be reproduced by inferring the frolicking of unicorns, as seen in the two-slit experiment. Each unicorn follows one single path from a slit to a point on the screen, where its potential unfolds and its rainbow light can be observed (although in some cases some colours - maybe all but one - remain enfolded in the potential of the unicornverse).

    Obviously, this is all scientifically useless, just like the notion that the universe is mathematics. It is also unfalsifiable for the same reasons.
     
    DaveC426913 likes this.
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,959
    Be sure to supply
    • three links to articles that passingly use the word "potential",
    • five excepts - of at least twelve paragraphs each - from articles that contain the word "anything",
    • at least one totally spurious generic dictionary definition,
    • a Tegmark TedTalk where he uses the word "physical"...
    Serious question though: how long would such a promulgation be entertained here? Would SciFo happily be a platform for that member to flog his pet woo?


    Oh wait what am I saying...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2023
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    Write4U:

    As usual, you skipped over or ignored most of what I wrote to you in my previous replies. I doubt you can maintain concentration long enough to work through that much stuff point by point. Note, however, that my replies were direct responses to the reams of drivel that you continually produce without apparent thought or effort. If only you took a little time to stop and think, once in a while...
    A long time ago, several people here tried to educate you about the technical meaning of the word "potential", as it is actually used in science. Obviously, none of that stuck.

    Your use of the word "potential" is about as useful as unicorn theory. You seem to use the word "potential" just to mean "anything that might happen in the future". So, a mountain lake has the "potential for generating electricity". It also, I assume, has the "potential for water-skiing" and the "potential for being a fish habitat". The scientific value of such statements is negligible, in most contexts.
    So "potential" is just a fancy term to mean "anything that might happen at some time in the future"?

    Is "implicate order" just a fancy term to mean "whatever 'potential' is physically possible"?

    This isn't science.
    What equipment can we use to detect the pilot waves in the double-slit experiment?
    Word salad.
    So, is it the pilot waves that are detected or the particles? What equipment is necessary to detect the waves?
    You did not answer the question I asked you - again. Can't you answer the questions I ask you?
    You're asking me how particles interact? How do you expect me to respond? Do you want me to give you a crash course in Physics 101? Why haven't you already learned some basics?
    In what way is "chirality" a "relationship"?

    You're just pulling out random words whose meanings you don't know, again. Aren't you? Why do you keep pretending you're talking about science?
    Whose fault is that, do you think?
    Bohmian mechanics isn't a Theory of Everything.
    I think you're unaware of how the word "observation" is used in quantum physics.

    You seem to be talking about a human being becoming aware of some kind of event.
    It would be more accurate to say, in the context of quantum physics, that the event is the observation.
    No. It doesn't. In fact, it doesn't make any assumptions about what causes the "collapse of the wave function".
    If you're talking about your idea, why do you put "Penrose" at the end? Is it your idea, or Penrose's?

    Either way, your failure to specify what you mean by "observation" makes it virtually impossible to extract anything useful from this claim.
    If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to see it, it still falls? Okay, as far as that goes.
    I don't think you have a good understanding of how the term is used in science.
    You haven't defined it.
    So your "observation" means a human being becoming conscious that something has happened?
    I agree. But this is your muddled version of quantum physics, which is quite different from the actual ones.
     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,644
    Now you are conflating constants with mathematical properties. As you said before, they are different.

    You have managed to confuse yourself thoroughly, so again I will let you argue with yourself.
     
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,959
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,073
    Exactly what is a rock then?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    If that sentence is supposed to be a persuasive argument, I am unable to make any sense of it. Must be my misunderstanding, tsk,tsk.
    Interesting that you should use mathematics to claim there is no mathematics in nature.
    Nono... I talk about "generic universal mathematics", not human mathematics.
    math·e·mat·ics
    noun
    1. the abstract science of number, quantity, and space. Mathematics may be studied in its own right ( pure mathematics ), or as it is applied to other disciplines such as physics and engineering ( applied mathematics ).
      "a taste for mathematics"
      • the mathematical aspects of something.
        plural noun: mathematics
        "the mathematics of general relativity"
    more ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics

    And nobody is saying that mathematical functions are causal forces. They are the guiding principles that determine "HOW" things happen in the physical world.
    Except that it is only you who is entertaining thoughts of unicorns, as evidenced in the next paragraph.
    Now that kind of thinking makes you worthy of scorn. It not only wrong, it is duplicitous.
    That does not follow at all. How Trumpian, you accuse me of making things up and then make things up to prove your point. It is clear that you are obsessed with unicorns.
    It is a figment of YOUR imagination and has nothing to do with Tegmark's MUH (or my understanding of his theory) and is pure ad hominem.

    What is Max Tegmark known for?
    https://www.chartwellspeakers.com/speaker/max-tegmark/#

    I promised to bow out, but I am not going to sit here and listen to fabricated falsehoods by every Tom, Dick, and Harry.
     
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,073
    Are you talking about Tegmark? You think you are superior to Tegmark?
    Tegmark's propositions are not worthy for posting in the hallowed halls of SciFo?

    Yes..... let's cleanse the scientific world from the scourge of Tegmark and students of his hypothesis.

    Let me remind you that it is you now who is hijacking this thread with nonsense!
     
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,073
    You do not rule my life or set the time and date for me to respond to your drivel. I'll respond to you in my time. You are not the most important thing in my life, is that clear?
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,644
    Apparently . . . not.
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,073
    Ahh, the "technical meaning" such as "electrical potential". But you see that is not the only definition there is, as with "permittivity"

    Well, I'll post my reply in the thread Infinite Potential, lest this will be turned around and blame me for Off-Topic posting.
     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,073
    Then leave me alone. It is your pathetic little cabal that continues to single me out for ridicule.
    If you think I am your whipping boy, you are seriously mistaken.
    In fact I won't be as forgiving as I have been with your uncivilized behaviors on a public forum.
     
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,959
    Piffle. You are not a victim here; you are the instigator. You have earned everything that's come your way.

    If you don't want to read responses here, use the Unfollow button at the top of the page.

    *gasp* Careful there, Billvon, he might just open up a can of potential enfolding on you!
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2023
  22. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,509
    ...which just shows how you learn nothing from any of these exchanges. The point that was made in that little digression was that "permittivity" was an invented term, having no previous accepted meaning, specifically so it could be used as a technical term. It has no other usage. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/permittivity

    So the case of "potential" is not at all like that of "permittivity".
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2023
  23. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,509
    And here come the victimhood and conspiracy cards......

    Have you been taking lessons fromTrump, suddenly?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page