View Single Post
Old 06-08-2022, 12:17 AM
Harry Diogenes
Location: Germany
16,770 posts, read 4,977,966 times
Reputation: 2112
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
What you are saying is the same as those that supported Hoyle over Lamaitre.
They could have also produced dissenting views.
EVERY bit of scientific research...especially "breakthroughs" see a lot of dissent.


That you completely reject a top scientist that is published in the top physics journals tells me:
A. You know squat about it yourself.
B. You are ruled by your bias.
You are missing two options.

C. Maybe I DO know more about the relevant QM than someone who is also NOT a QM physicist.
D. I am basing my view on those QM physicists who DO know more than Robert Lanza. You are not the only one who can use argument from authority, and at least mine are relevant. Remember that list of actual relevant authorities who shot down Lanza's ideas?

So instead of once again evading the logic, you need to address your problem that his theory is based on the false idea that in the double slit experiment, it is the researchers' mind that causes the light to act as a wave or a particle. That is not what is meant by 'observer'.

Nowhere in the QM literature I have read does it argue for some immaterial mind to explain how matter and energy works.
Reply With Quote

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:24 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top