WHO is GOD in terms of SCIENCE ?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by hansda, Mar 14, 2012.

  1. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
    @ughaibu --

    I was simply responding to Hansda's rather obvious attempt to twist quantum theory into something it's not.

    @hansda --

    And your attempt to use the wrong definition of an observer when talking about quantum phenomena is dishonest, especially since you've known better for quite a while now.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Irrelevent
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    Is this your own definition of 'Observer of Physics' ?

    OR

    You have some reference ?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    It's the raw definition of information theory which all sciences are based on (keywords highlighted):

    If you want to see specific physics definitions which say the same thing but in laymans terms, here you go (keywords highlighted):

     
  8. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    As per wiki , there are multiple definitions of 'observer' . You can refer this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_demon also .

    In SR speed of Light is constant with relative to an observer .

    So, there is no standard definition of the term 'observer' in Physics .
     
  9. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
    @hansda --

    Crunchy didn't say that it was the "standard" definition, just that it's the "raw" definition. Note the word he chose carefully as there's a very good reason he chose it.
     
  10. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    Thats what I am saying that a standard definition for the term 'observer' in Physics should be made ; so that there should be no confusion with this term 'observer' .
     
  11. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
    @hansda --

    That would be impossible. The best way to avoid such confusion is to know what you're talking about. Are we talking quantum theory? If so then we need to stick to the definitions used in quantum theory. And the same rule applies to all of the sciences.
     
  12. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    If the terms 'mass' , 'energy' and 'force' can be defined ; why not the term 'observer' can be defined ?
     
  13. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
    @hansda --

    For the exact same reason you're having trouble, there are too many definitions. The raw definition that Crunchy gave you is probably as good as it's going to get. The best solution is not to come up with another definition but to know what the fuck you're talking about, which would mean that you would have to do some research.
     
  14. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    Exactly what Arioch said. ^^^
     
  15. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,073
    Nothing we know of

    Nothing we know of

    Nothing we know of
     

Share This Page