Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
shrodinger uses probability wave function because he doesn't know what is going on. He only sees the result of what is going on. All of our observations to this to date.
yes and no. Philosophers can make up anything they want about quanta because nobody knows what it is. For you that is ok. For us it is better to say we don't know enough about it yet. Why you get mad and use all those negative adjectives I'll never know.
Where I draw the line is when you start teaching to people that don't understand your take for what it is. I say let them decide with all the information we have. For themselves, without the use of any negative adjectives like "magic" and "handcuffed", or "backwards thinkers.". But thats just no bs me.
just give them the straight poop.
Schrodinger came up with the idea of a wave function because he noticed that the behavior of quanta reminded him of a wave. It was not accidental. It was creative observation.
I am giving the straight poop. Current Evolution Theory is all magic. The scientific word for these magical tricks is Natural. Is it Natural for dead chemicals to start arguing with each other? Is it Natural for dead chemicals to want to survive? (Dawkin's " selfish gene"). For me it is strange that such a theory is taken at all seriously.
When one thinks of Evolution as Creative Intelligence that is learning and changing based upon what it is learning, then everything falls into place.
The major departure is that the non-material becomes fundamental. No problem here since quanta IS non-material.
De Broglie wrote a very incisive essay examining how Bergson's Creative Evolution was able to foresee Quantum Physics. Not a small compliment from one of the greatest Quantum physicists.
Schrodinger came up with the idea of a wave function because he noticed that the behavior of quanta reminded him of a wave. It was not accidental. It was creative observation.
You are so full of misinformation that it's beyond ridiculous.
No Schrodinger did not come up with the idea of a wave function based on the bs you just posted.
Why not read it what Schrodinger himself said. Take note that it does not reflect your false statements.
Current Evolution Theory is all magic. The scientific word for these magical tricks is Natural.
Is it Natural for dead chemicals to start arguing with each other? Is it Natural for dead chemicals to want to survive? (Dawkin's " selfish gene"). For me it is strange that such a theory is taken at all seriously.
Moderator cut: Insulting It was not meant to be taken seriously. Again why not read what Dawkins himself has to say about his book. You can find this quote in the INTRODUCTION TO THE 30TH ANNIVERSARY EDITION of the Selfish Gene.
Quote:
The Selfish Gene has been criticized for anthropomorphic personification and this too needs an explanation, if not an apology. I employ two levels of personification: of genes, and of organisms.
Personification of genes really ought not to be a problem, because no sane person thinks DNA molecules have conscious personalities, and no sensible reader would impute such a delusion to an author.
Like he said...no sane person would ever think that DNA molecules have conscious personalities.
Schrodinger came up with the idea of a wave function because he noticed that the behavior of quanta reminded him of a wave. It was not accidental. It was creative observation.
I am giving the straight poop. Current Evolution Theory is all magic. The scientific word for these magical tricks is Natural. Is it Natural for dead chemicals to start arguing with each other? Is it Natural for dead chemicals to want to survive? (Dawkin's " selfish gene"). For me it is strange that such a theory is taken at all seriously.
When one thinks of Evolution as Creative Intelligence that is learning and changing based upon what it is learning, then everything falls into place.
The major departure is that the non-material becomes fundamental. No problem here since quanta IS non-material.
De Broglie wrote a very incisive essay examining how Bergson's Creative Evolution was able to foresee Quantum Physics. Not a small compliment from one of the greatest Quantum physicists.
well, I believe I said that. philosophers can make stuff up at will when needed to till fill emotional needs.
we magic guys have to stay with facts.
well, I believe I said that. philosophers can make stuff up at will when needed to till fill emotional needs.
we magic guys have to stay with facts.
Facts???? About stuff that happened millions or billions of years ago?
It's all a story and a wild one at that. Completely contrived. I particularly like the part of chemicals who strive to survive. A wonderful story for children!
The Selfish Gene has been criticized for anthropomorphic personification and this too needs an explanation, if not an apology. I employ two levels of personification: of genes, and of organisms.
Personification of genes really ought not to be a problem, because no sane person thinks DNA molecules have conscious personalities, and no sensible reader would impute such a delusion to an author.
Like Dawkins said...no sane person would ever think that DNA molecules have conscious personalities.
Attack the idea, not the person. Using the word "obtuse" to attack a person's intelligence is no less a personal attack than calling a person "stupid" or "an idiot" and are all considered personal attacks under the TOS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marka
Be civil, no personal attacks, flaming, or insults. We may attack ideas (politely) but we do not attack the speaker of the idea. Be careful with your words, there is a point where being direct crosses a line into blunt, in-your-face hostility. Please, report bad posts instead of engaging in flame wars on the boards. Insulting another member or a moderator will not be tolerated anywhere on this website. This includes Direct Messages and Reputation Comments.
Facts???? It's all a story and a wild one at that. Completely contrived
Quote:
con·trived:
adjective
deliberately created rather than arising naturally or spontaneously.
created or arranged in a way that seems artificial and unrealistic.
Now do tell us how the Theory of Evolution is completely contrived?
You have a lot of explaining to do as there is an enormous amount of Evolution evidence and not one ounce of it was contrived.
Evolution after all arose naturally and spontaneously.
Instead of repeating with the usual how about giving strong examples of what you are talking about.
We all know that Dawkins did not attribute conscious personalities to any DNA molecules. So what exactly are you talking about?
We see non-scientists all the time making grand accusations that are simply not accurate at all. This is the danger of non-scientists reading scientific material. They come away confused and then proceed to self-condition themselves with their own interpretation of what they read then turn around and spread this misinformation. This is what we have seen you do all throughout this thread.
So again Dawkins did not attribute conscious personalities to any DNA molecules. So what exactly are you talking about?
Facts???? About stuff that happened millions or billions of years ago?
It's all a story and a wild one at that. Completely contrived. I particularly like the part of chemicals who strive to survive. A wonderful story for children!
yup, the rock record is completely contrived. No way does newer sediment lay on the older ground and animals die on top of older rocks. And when we line up all the living animals from sea to air, the transitions are not present in any way shape or form. get it ...lol ... shape or form
I think you won me over. Its best to base our best guess on what we don't know. That way silly facts will not get in the way of steadfast opinions. We have no idea what "quanta" is, so lets just start making sit ups.
Facts???? About stuff that happened millions or billions of years ago?
It's all a story and a wild one at that. Completely contrived. I particularly like the part of chemicals who strive to survive. A wonderful story for children!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
Moderator cut: Insulting
Like Dawkins said...no sane person would ever think that DNA molecules have conscious personalities.
LOL. Richrf, you are making Matadora mad coz you are blaspheming her bible wrote by her god, Dawkins. Oh by the way, what else is new? That's ALL they (scientists) do say a 'fact' based on their careful observation and then later on when someone points out their BS, they think of a new clever way to weed out of it.... LOLOLOLOL. puhlease...
Who is blindly following who here? For serious.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
