Quantum Physics vs. Religion??

[PoliticalChic]

There is no "religion vs reality". They are simply too different. Our five senses can experience huge parts of reality.
Religion is based on the occult. There is nothing there that is "real".

"Our five senses can experience huge parts of reality."

Let's 'see.'

1. The interpretations and explanations provided by science come, mainly by way of our observations, and a few instruments. Human observations. But birds and bees communicate within the ultraviolet portion of sunlight… a part of the spectrum that humans don’t see. Ultraviolet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
2. And eyesight is our most important sense. It provides the majority of our sensory information about the world. Consider how much less we’d know if we had no eyes. Even so…we’d probably feel that we knew everything about our surroundings. But we don’t know about the world in ultraviolet. Or in infrared. We live between 400 and 700 nanometers.What Wavelength Goes With a Color
3. And the inner ear contains hair cells that are moved by sound waves between 20 and 20,000 Hertz.Sensitivity of Human Ear That’s the extent of our contact with the real world. Beyond said ranges…we don’t know about it!
4. Further, our sensory system actually distorts the information that we do collect. For example, there is no such thing as color in the real world: color is made in the mind based on the wavelength information that the eyes send to the brain.And, when we look at a rock, or any solid material, what we are actually seeing is swarms of subatomic particles with lots of empty space between; over 99% of the rock is empty space. Yet, that’s not what our limited senses and processing center tell us is true and real.
5. So, do we gather and understand half of what there is to know about the universe? A tenth? A millionth? Is it possible that there is a force, God, in the universe, and we are unable to process the information due to our limited senses and limited ability to interpret sensory data? Parker, "The Genesis Enigma," chapter nine

 

[PoliticalChic]

The point?

The point is, you have no point.

An Index to Creationist Claims

I don't doubt for a moment that you weren't able to understand the OP.
I appreciate the honesty in revealing that it was over your head.


But....most things are, aren't they.

I didn't doubt for a moment that this would be another thread of your goofy "quote-mining" to include "quotes" from Berlinski and other Disco'tute charlatans.

I appreciate your consistent pattern of opening goofy threads that are littered with "quotes" from creationist/Flat Earth hacks.

Still no discussion of anything in the OP?

Good to see you work to ability.

I discussed your continuing "quote-mining" of Berlinski. He is a fraud.

Good to see your association with Disco'tute frauds.

1. The term 'quote-mining' is, itself, a fraud. It is a way the less astute have of avoiding the facts presented.

2. Further, it takes a certain kind of dolt....your kind of dolt....to argue the source when the facts are correct.

3. "David Berlinski (born 1942) is an American philosopher, educator, and author. Berlinski is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. A critic of the theory of evolution, Berlinski is theologically agnostic and refuses to theorize about the origins of life.[1] He has written on philosophy, mathematics and a variety of fictional works."
David Berlinski - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The term "fraud" doesn't seem to be there.....perhaps you were recalling your own nutjob resume.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I was heading that way----we tend to be linear thinkers when it comes to time. I think it's a mistake but right now it's the best our little beaners can do.

The understanding of the Big Bang is that there was nothing before it....not even time!

Only by people who do not understand the Big Bang, like you.

All the energy in the universe existed before the Big Bang. It is what went bang. Only time began at the Big Bang.

"All the energy in the universe existed before the Big Bang."

What an childish post.....where did that energy come from?

Only childish to a child who doesn't understand Grammar School basic science.

In Grammar School you were supposed to be taught the First Law of Thermodynamics which was taught in Grammar School as the Law of Conservation of Energy, which is "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

As promised.....


6. Like the 'hair shirt of the artists' that never lets him rest, there is some desire in the atheist that cannot abide folks believing in God, and religion.

The attacks on religion as superstition and fable aside, a reading of the highest levels of modern science cause one to believe that there are scientists paid to write the most absurd of ideas.


a. "The many-worlds interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the universal wave function and denies the actuality of wave function collapse. Many-worlds implies that all possible alternative histories and futures are real, each representing an actual "world" (or "universe")....conclusion is that the universe (or multiverse in this context) is composed of a quantum superposition of very many, possibly even non-denumerably infinitely[2]many, increasingly divergent, non-communicating parallel universes or quantum worlds"
Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Get that?

Everything that doesn't happen here, is actually happening as we speak, in some other imaginary universe.

Understand? Some universe where things fall up, and fire freezes you....


And, certainly....no First Law of Thermodynamics applies.


Raise your hand if you buy that.
By raising your hand, you are tacitly describing your 'faith' in the anti-religion religion.
Amen.




7. " [Richard] Dawkins, ["...an atheist, a vice president of the British Humanist Association"...wikipedia] among others, has embraced the ‘multiverse,’ [the Landscape] idea, that there could be an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natural laws of physics, vastly different from ours. Why, then, scruple at the Deity? After all, the theologian need only apply to a single God and a single universe. Dawkins must appeal to infinitely many universes crammed with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental physical parameters changing as one travels the cosmos. And- the entire gargantuan structure scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to experience."
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion," chapter seven



Now, get this:

Dawkins actually writes, “The key difference between the radically extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis, is one of statistical improbability.”
Ibid.

 

[Hollie]

The point?

The point is, you have no point.

An Index to Creationist Claims

I don't doubt for a moment that you weren't able to understand the OP.
I appreciate the honesty in revealing that it was over your head.


But....most things are, aren't they.

I didn't doubt for a moment that this would be another thread of your goofy "quote-mining" to include "quotes" from Berlinski and other Disco'tute charlatans.

I appreciate your consistent pattern of opening goofy threads that are littered with "quotes" from creationist/Flat Earth hacks.

Still no discussion of anything in the OP?

Good to see you work to ability.

I discussed your continuing "quote-mining" of Berlinski. He is a fraud.

Good to see your association with Disco'tute frauds.

1. The term 'quote-mining' is, itself, a fraud. It is a way the less astute have of avoiding the facts presented.

2. Further, it takes a certain kind of dolt....your kind of dolt....to argue the source when the facts are correct.

3. "David Berlinski (born 1942) is an American philosopher, educator, and author. Berlinski is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. A critic of the theory of evolution, Berlinski is theologically agnostic and refuses to theorize about the origins of life.[1] He has written on philosophy, mathematics and a variety of fictional works."
David Berlinski - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The term "fraud" doesn't seem to be there.....perhaps you were recalling your own nutjob resume.

The term "quote-mining" precisely defines the entirety of your goofy posts. You do nothing more than cut and paste snippets of "quotes" from Harun Yahya and fundie Christian websites. I'll agree it's intellectually lazy because for those with your limitations, it saves you the burdensome task of actually writing out comments.

Encyclopedia of American Loons Search results for Berlinski

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here(sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

Diagnosis: Boneheaded, pompous and arrogant nitwit; has a lot of influence, and a frequent participator in debates, since apparently the Discovery Institute thinks that’s the way scientific disputes are settled (although he often takes a surprisingly moderate view in debates, leading some to suspect that he is really a cynical fraud rather than a loon).

(for a nice description of the difference between skepticism and paranoid denialism, I recommend these three articles: here, here, and here.)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Hollie said: ↑

The term "quote-mining" precisely defines the entirety of your goofy posts. You do nothing more than cut and paste snippets of "quotes" from Harun Yahya and fundie Christian websites. I'll agree it's intellectually lazy because for those with your limitations, it saves you the burdensome task of actually writing out comments.

True.

It's also an easy way to lie by editing quotes.

 

[edthecynic]

I was heading that way----we tend to be linear thinkers when it comes to time. I think it's a mistake but right now it's the best our little beaners can do.

The understanding of the Big Bang is that there was nothing before it....not even time!

Only by people who do not understand the Big Bang, like you.

All the energy in the universe existed before the Big Bang. It is what went bang. Only time began at the Big Bang.

"All the energy in the universe existed before the Big Bang."

What an childish post.....where did that energy come from?

Only childish to a child who doesn't understand Grammar School basic science.

In Grammar School you were supposed to be taught the First Law of Thermodynamics which was taught in Grammar School as the Law of Conservation of Energy, which is "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Get that?

Everything that doesn't happen here, is actually happening as we speak, in some other imaginary universe.

Understand? Some universe where things fall up, and fire freezes you....


And, certainly....no First Law of Thermodynamics applies.

And , of course, some imaginary universe where you are not a dolt! But not this one!

While many universes can be imagined, none of these extra universes have been proven to exist in reality. OTOH, the FLoT has been proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule and is a reality.

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."
— Richard Dawkins

 

[PoliticalChic]

I was heading that way----we tend to be linear thinkers when it comes to time. I think it's a mistake but right now it's the best our little beaners can do.

The understanding of the Big Bang is that there was nothing before it....not even time!

Only by people who do not understand the Big Bang, like you.

All the energy in the universe existed before the Big Bang. It is what went bang. Only time began at the Big Bang.

"All the energy in the universe existed before the Big Bang."

What an childish post.....where did that energy come from?

Only childish to a child who doesn't understand Grammar School basic science.

In Grammar School you were supposed to be taught the First Law of Thermodynamics which was taught in Grammar School as the Law of Conservation of Energy, which is "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Get that?

Everything that doesn't happen here, is actually happening as we speak, in some other imaginary universe.

Understand? Some universe where things fall up, and fire freezes you....


And, certainly....no First Law of Thermodynamics applies.

And , of course, some imaginary universe where you are not a dolt! But not this one!

While many universes can be imagined, none of these extra universes have been proven to exist in reality. OTOH, the FLoT has been proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule and is a reality.

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."
— Richard Dawkins

You dunce....there was no law of physics that applies before the Big Bang.

None.

And no energy, nor matter.



See....folks who understand science....that leaves you out, of course, recognize how finely tuned this world is for human life.....too finely tuned to be an accident.
That is the reason the religion of anti-religion came up with the multiverse theory.



Imagine....there are individuals...scientists....who disparage religion, but espouse the absurd idea that the laws of science here are reversed elsewhere.



8. Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University, Leonard Susskind, writing with the kind of honesty that all of us should try to emulate, admits that if the ‘multiverse’ theory falls apart, the atheist scientists- he is one- would be between a rock and a hard place:
“If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world.

But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.” Interview with Lenny Susskind Uncommon Descent

 

[Hollie]

I was heading that way----we tend to be linear thinkers when it comes to time. I think it's a mistake but right now it's the best our little beaners can do.

The understanding of the Big Bang is that there was nothing before it....not even time!

Only by people who do not understand the Big Bang, like you.

All the energy in the universe existed before the Big Bang. It is what went bang. Only time began at the Big Bang.

"All the energy in the universe existed before the Big Bang."

What an childish post.....where did that energy come from?

Only childish to a child who doesn't understand Grammar School basic science.

In Grammar School you were supposed to be taught the First Law of Thermodynamics which was taught in Grammar School as the Law of Conservation of Energy, which is "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

As promised.....


6. Like the 'hair shirt of the artists' that never lets him rest, there is some desire in the atheist that cannot abide folks believing in God, and religion.

The attacks on religion as superstition and fable aside, a reading of the highest levels of modern science cause one to believe that there are scientists paid to write the most absurd of ideas.


a. "The many-worlds interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the universal wave function and denies the actuality of wave function collapse. Many-worlds implies that all possible alternative histories and futures are real, each representing an actual "world" (or "universe")....conclusion is that the universe (or multiverse in this context) is composed of a quantum superposition of very many, possibly even non-denumerably infinitely[2]many, increasingly divergent, non-communicating parallel universes or quantum worlds"
Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Get that?

Everything that doesn't happen here, is actually happening as we speak, in some other imaginary universe.

Understand? Some universe where things fall up, and fire freezes you....


And, certainly....no First Law of Thermodynamics applies.


Raise your hand if you buy that.
By raising your hand, you are tacitly describing your 'faith' in the anti-religion religion.
Amen.




7. " [Richard] Dawkins, ["...an atheist, a vice president of the British Humanist Association"...wikipedia] among others, has embraced the ‘multiverse,’ [the Landscape] idea, that there could be an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natural laws of physics, vastly different from ours. Why, then, scruple at the Deity? After all, the theologian need only apply to a single God and a single universe. Dawkins must appeal to infinitely many universes crammed with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental physical parameters changing as one travels the cosmos. And- the entire gargantuan structure scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to experience."
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion," chapter seven



Now, get this:

Dawkins actually writes, “The key difference between the radically extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis, is one of statistical improbability.”
Ibid.

The point?

The point is, you have no point.

An Index to Creationist Claims

I don't doubt for a moment that you weren't able to understand the OP.
I appreciate the honesty in revealing that it was over your head.


But....most things are, aren't they.

I didn't doubt for a moment that this would be another thread of your goofy "quote-mining" to include "quotes" from Berlinski and other Disco'tute charlatans.

I appreciate your consistent pattern of opening goofy threads that are littered with "quotes" from creationist/Flat Earth hacks.

Still no discussion of anything in the OP?

Good to see you work to ability.

I discussed your continuing "quote-mining" of Berlinski. He is a fraud.

Good to see your association with Disco'tute frauds.

1. The term 'quote-mining' is, itself, a fraud. It is a way the less astute have of avoiding the facts presented.

2. Further, it takes a certain kind of dolt....your kind of dolt....to argue the source when the facts are correct.

3. "David Berlinski (born 1942) is an American philosopher, educator, and author. Berlinski is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. A critic of the theory of evolution, Berlinski is theologically agnostic and refuses to theorize about the origins of life.[1] He has written on philosophy, mathematics and a variety of fictional works."
David Berlinski - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The term "fraud" doesn't seem to be there.....perhaps you were recalling your own nutjob resume.

Berlinski is certainly a critic of evolution. As a shill for the Disco' tute, what else would expect, honesty and

I was heading that way----we tend to be linear thinkers when it comes to time. I think it's a mistake but right now it's the best our little beaners can do.

The understanding of the Big Bang is that there was nothing before it....not even time!

Only by people who do not understand the Big Bang, like you.

All the energy in the universe existed before the Big Bang. It is what went bang. Only time began at the Big Bang.

"All the energy in the universe existed before the Big Bang."

What an childish post.....where did that energy come from?

Only childish to a child who doesn't understand Grammar School basic science.

In Grammar School you were supposed to be taught the First Law of Thermodynamics which was taught in Grammar School as the Law of Conservation of Energy, which is "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Get that?

Everything that doesn't happen here, is actually happening as we speak, in some other imaginary universe.

Understand? Some universe where things fall up, and fire freezes you....


And, certainly....no First Law of Thermodynamics applies.

And , of course, some imaginary universe where you are not a dolt! But not this one!

While many universes can be imagined, none of these extra universes have been proven to exist in reality. OTOH, the FLoT has been proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule and is a reality.

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."
— Richard Dawkins

You dunce....there was no law of physics that applies before the Big Bang.

None.

And no energy, nor matter.



See....folks who understand science....that leaves you out, of course, recognize how finely tuned this world is for human life.....too finely tuned to be an accident.
That is the reason the religion of anti-religion came up with the multiverse theory.



Imagine....there are individuals...scientists....who disparage religion, but espouse the absurd idea that the laws of science here are reversed elsewhere.



8. Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University, Leonard Susskind, writing with the kind of honesty that all of us should try to emulate, admits that if the ‘multiverse’ theory falls apart, the atheist scientists- he is one- would be between a rock and a hard place:
“If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world.

But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.” Interview with Lenny Susskind Uncommon Descent

1. Did you happen to notice your "quote- mine" referencing Susskind was from a 2006 article from the ID'iots at Uncommon Descent?


2. How about something more current without your editing and parsing of "quotes".

Physicist Leonard Susskind Rejects Intelligent Design

Submitted by Jur on Fri, 08/27/2010 - 21:52

Stanford University theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind rejects the idea of "intelligent design" as a theory for the origins of the universe.


Physicist Leonard Susskind Rejects Intelligent Design ScienceDump

 

[Hollie]

See....folks who understand science....that leaves you out, of course, recognize how finely tuned this world is for human life.....too finely tuned to be an accident.
That is the reason the religion of anti-religion came up with the multiverse theory.

Wow. You "quote-mined" that ridiculous bit of drivel right from fundie Christian websites.

If these were objective statements based on observation rather than imposed conclusions of a Christian fundamentalist worldview, perhaps it would be remarkable. But they're not. They're nonsense "quote-mines"

It is simply laughable to claim that everything is "finely tuned.” The illusion of order is primarily an artifact of scale. We live in a profoundly violent and chaotic universe, but are spared direct experience with most of that chaos because it occurs on cosmic and geologic time scales, while we exist on a human time scale.

This (luckily for us) means most of us expend our lifetimes in the brief moments of calm between supernovae, asteroid impact, and cometary bombardment.

We have already established that “complexity” is more a function of your limited imagination, your fondness fro "quote-mining" and your really goofy need to spam the board with ID'iot creationist drivel.

 

[edthecynic]

You dunce....there was no law of physics that applies before the Big Bang.

None.

And no energy, nor matter.

If that were true there would be no energy now.

 

[PoliticalChic]

See....folks who understand science....that leaves you out, of course, recognize how finely tuned this world is for human life.....too finely tuned to be an accident.
That is the reason the religion of anti-religion came up with the multiverse theory.

Wow. You "quote-mined" that ridiculous bit of drivel right from fundie Christian websites.

If these were objective statements based on observation rather than imposed conclusions of a Christian fundamentalist worldview, perhaps it would be remarkable. But they're not. They're nonsense "quote-mines"

It is simply laughable to claim that everything is "finely tuned.” The illusion of order is primarily an artifact of scale. We live in a profoundly violent and chaotic universe, but are spared direct experience with most of that chaos because it occurs on cosmic and geologic time scales, while we exist on a human time scale.

This (luckily for us) means most of us expend our lifetimes in the brief moments of calm between supernovae, asteroid impact, and cometary bombardment.

We have already established that “complexity” is more a function of your limited imagination, your fondness fro "quote-mining" and your really goofy need to spam the board with ID'iot creationist drivel.

"It is simply laughable to claim that everything is "finely tuned.”"


I do so look forward to your post, otherwise I would have had to have found another moron to post something that reeked of such ignorance.


1. "Alan Paige Lightman (born November 28, 1948) is an American physicist, writer, and social entrepreneur. He is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the author of the international bestseller Einstein's Dreams. He was the first professor at MIT to receive a joint appointment in the sciences and the humanities."
Alan Lightman - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


2. Now, let's see what LIghtman says about your post:

" …according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water.

Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.

As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life.

The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life. The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist."
The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith
By Alan P. Lightman
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720




I know I should feel guilty, picking on a mental midget like you....but it is such a buzz!

 

[PoliticalChic]

You dunce....there was no law of physics that applies before the Big Bang.

None.

And no energy, nor matter.

If that were true there would be no energy now.

Au contraire.

It is true....and that means your lack of understanding is on display.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What is the explanation for that group of rabid anti-religion scientists?
Why put the kind of effort in that they do....when, as I have shown, much of their conjecture is based on at least as much "faith" as theology is?
But they go right on accepting, and promulgating utter nonsense.....

Sometimes they reveal the reasons....


9. Just as in politics we find that there is a huge cadre of "useful idiots," folks who follow leaders in an unthinking manner, and fail to judge the ramifications, we find "useful idiots" shuffling along with the scientific atheists.

They mutter all sorts of attacks on religion and religious folks, without ever understanding the truly non-scientific basis for the attacks.



"Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it.

‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life,in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.


It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.'" Amazing admission - Lewontin Quote - creation.com

Lewontin define the 'science' in question as "... unsubstantiated just-so stories,..."


So we see the basis is materialism, Marxism, and ideology rather than science.
And the useful idiots proclaim belief in 'em.

 

[Hollie]

See....folks who understand science....that leaves you out, of course, recognize how finely tuned this world is for human life.....too finely tuned to be an accident.
That is the reason the religion of anti-religion came up with the multiverse theory.

Wow. You "quote-mined" that ridiculous bit of drivel right from fundie Christian websites.

If these were objective statements based on observation rather than imposed conclusions of a Christian fundamentalist worldview, perhaps it would be remarkable. But they're not. They're nonsense "quote-mines"

It is simply laughable to claim that everything is "finely tuned.” The illusion of order is primarily an artifact of scale. We live in a profoundly violent and chaotic universe, but are spared direct experience with most of that chaos because it occurs on cosmic and geologic time scales, while we exist on a human time scale.

This (luckily for us) means most of us expend our lifetimes in the brief moments of calm between supernovae, asteroid impact, and cometary bombardment.

We have already established that “complexity” is more a function of your limited imagination, your fondness fro "quote-mining" and your really goofy need to spam the board with ID'iot creationist drivel.

"It is simply laughable to claim that everything is "finely tuned.”"


I do so look forward to your post, otherwise I would have had to have found another moron to post something that reeked of such ignorance.


1. "Alan Paige Lightman (born November 28, 1948) is an American physicist, writer, and social entrepreneur. He is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the author of the international bestseller Einstein's Dreams. He was the first professor at MIT to receive a joint appointment in the sciences and the humanities."
Alan Lightman - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


2. Now, let's see what LIghtman says about your post:

" …according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water.

Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.

As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life.

The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life. The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist."
The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith
By Alan P. Lightman
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720




I know I should feel guilty, picking on a mental midget like you....but it is such a buzz!

As usual, nothing but cut and paste. You should feel guilty only of a being too lazy and too incompetent to actually string words into coherent sentences.

Email Alan Lightman and ask him to do a search with the terms "Shoemaker-Levy". Let us know what he comes back with.

 

[PoliticalChic]

See....folks who understand science....that leaves you out, of course, recognize how finely tuned this world is for human life.....too finely tuned to be an accident.
That is the reason the religion of anti-religion came up with the multiverse theory.

Wow. You "quote-mined" that ridiculous bit of drivel right from fundie Christian websites.

If these were objective statements based on observation rather than imposed conclusions of a Christian fundamentalist worldview, perhaps it would be remarkable. But they're not. They're nonsense "quote-mines"

It is simply laughable to claim that everything is "finely tuned.” The illusion of order is primarily an artifact of scale. We live in a profoundly violent and chaotic universe, but are spared direct experience with most of that chaos because it occurs on cosmic and geologic time scales, while we exist on a human time scale.

This (luckily for us) means most of us expend our lifetimes in the brief moments of calm between supernovae, asteroid impact, and cometary bombardment.

We have already established that “complexity” is more a function of your limited imagination, your fondness fro "quote-mining" and your really goofy need to spam the board with ID'iot creationist drivel.

"It is simply laughable to claim that everything is "finely tuned.”"


I do so look forward to your post, otherwise I would have had to have found another moron to post something that reeked of such ignorance.


1. "Alan Paige Lightman (born November 28, 1948) is an American physicist, writer, and social entrepreneur. He is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the author of the international bestseller Einstein's Dreams. He was the first professor at MIT to receive a joint appointment in the sciences and the humanities."
Alan Lightman - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


2. Now, let's see what LIghtman says about your post:

" …according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water.

Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.

As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life.

The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life. The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist."
The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith
By Alan P. Lightman
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720




I know I should feel guilty, picking on a mental midget like you....but it is such a buzz!

As usual, nothing but cut and paste. You should feel guilty only of a being too lazy and too incompetent to actually string words into coherent sentences.

Email Alan Lightman and ask him to do a search with the terms "Shoemaker-Levy". Let us know what he comes back with.

1. "As usual, nothing but cut and paste."
As usual with one of your limited ability, the phrase 'cut and paste' is simply a way for the simple minded to avoid dealing with the meaning of the post.

2. You see, those are words, and they have meanings, and taken as a whole....the meaning here is that you are an unmitigated dunce who has been put, soundly, in her place.

BTW.....I ;provide the link to Lightman's essay. If you had the intellect to understand it, I'd suggest you read it....but your post obviated that option.


Now, wipe that egg off your chin and come up with another soft-ball post that I can knock out of the park!!

 

[Hollie]

See....folks who understand science....that leaves you out, of course, recognize how finely tuned this world is for human life.....too finely tuned to be an accident.
That is the reason the religion of anti-religion came up with the multiverse theory.

Wow. You "quote-mined" that ridiculous bit of drivel right from fundie Christian websites.

If these were objective statements based on observation rather than imposed conclusions of a Christian fundamentalist worldview, perhaps it would be remarkable. But they're not. They're nonsense "quote-mines"

It is simply laughable to claim that everything is "finely tuned.” The illusion of order is primarily an artifact of scale. We live in a profoundly violent and chaotic universe, but are spared direct experience with most of that chaos because it occurs on cosmic and geologic time scales, while we exist on a human time scale.

This (luckily for us) means most of us expend our lifetimes in the brief moments of calm between supernovae, asteroid impact, and cometary bombardment.

We have already established that “complexity” is more a function of your limited imagination, your fondness fro "quote-mining" and your really goofy need to spam the board with ID'iot creationist drivel.

"It is simply laughable to claim that everything is "finely tuned.”"


I do so look forward to your post, otherwise I would have had to have found another moron to post something that reeked of such ignorance.


1. "Alan Paige Lightman (born November 28, 1948) is an American physicist, writer, and social entrepreneur. He is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the author of the international bestseller Einstein's Dreams. He was the first professor at MIT to receive a joint appointment in the sciences and the humanities."
Alan Lightman - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


2. Now, let's see what LIghtman says about your post:

" …according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water.

Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.

As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life.

The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life. The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist."
The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith
By Alan P. Lightman
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720




I know I should feel guilty, picking on a mental midget like you....but it is such a buzz!

As usual, nothing but cut and paste. You should feel guilty only of a being too lazy and too incompetent to actually string words into coherent sentences.

Email Alan Lightman and ask him to do a search with the terms "Shoemaker-Levy". Let us know what he comes back with.

1. "As usual, nothing but cut and paste."
As usual with one of your limited ability, the phrase 'cut and paste' is simply a way for the simple minded to avoid dealing with the meaning of the post.

2. You see, those are words, and they have meanings, and taken as a whole....the meaning here is that you are an unmitigated dunce who has been put, soundly, in her place.

BTW.....I ;provide the link to Lightman's essay. If you had the intellect to understand it, I'd suggest you read it....but your post obviated that option.


Now, wipe that egg off your chin and come up with another soft-ball post that I can knock out of the park!!

As usual, you're utterly unable to defend what you cut and paste. You mindlessly cut and paste rote lists of links to websites. You neither understand (nor can understand), what you cut and paste.

See....folks who understand science....that leaves you out, of course, recognize how finely tuned this world is for human life.....too finely tuned to be an accident.
That is the reason the religion of anti-religion came up with the multiverse theory.

Wow. You "quote-mined" that ridiculous bit of drivel right from fundie Christian websites.

If these were objective statements based on observation rather than imposed conclusions of a Christian fundamentalist worldview, perhaps it would be remarkable. But they're not. They're nonsense "quote-mines"

It is simply laughable to claim that everything is "finely tuned.” The illusion of order is primarily an artifact of scale. We live in a profoundly violent and chaotic universe, but are spared direct experience with most of that chaos because it occurs on cosmic and geologic time scales, while we exist on a human time scale.

This (luckily for us) means most of us expend our lifetimes in the brief moments of calm between supernovae, asteroid impact, and cometary bombardment.

We have already established that “complexity” is more a function of your limited imagination, your fondness fro "quote-mining" and your really goofy need to spam the board with ID'iot creationist drivel.

"It is simply laughable to claim that everything is "finely tuned.”"


I do so look forward to your post, otherwise I would have had to have found another moron to post something that reeked of such ignorance.


1. "Alan Paige Lightman (born November 28, 1948) is an American physicist, writer, and social entrepreneur. He is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the author of the international bestseller Einstein's Dreams. He was the first professor at MIT to receive a joint appointment in the sciences and the humanities."
Alan Lightman - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


2. Now, let's see what LIghtman says about your post:

" …according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water.

Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.

As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life.

The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life. The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist."
The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith
By Alan P. Lightman
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720




I know I should feel guilty, picking on a mental midget like you....but it is such a buzz!

As usual, nothing but cut and paste. You should feel guilty only of a being too lazy and too incompetent to actually string words into coherent sentences.

Email Alan Lightman and ask him to do a search with the terms "Shoemaker-Levy". Let us know what he comes back with.

1. "As usual, nothing but cut and paste."
As usual with one of your limited ability, the phrase 'cut and paste' is simply a way for the simple minded to avoid dealing with the meaning of the post.

2. You see, those are words, and they have meanings, and taken as a whole....the meaning here is that you are an unmitigated dunce who has been put, soundly, in her place.

BTW.....I ;provide the link to Lightman's essay. If you had the intellect to understand it, I'd suggest you read it....but your post obviated that option.


Now, wipe that egg off your chin and come up with another soft-ball post that I can knock out of the park!!

As usual, you're utterly unable to defend what you cut and paste. You mindlessly cut and paste rote lists of links to websites. You neither understand (nor can understand), what you cut and paste.


Alan Lightman writes, “according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen…'

Well yeah. If today was Monday, it wouldn't be Sunday. Kind'a stating the obvious.

But then again, you have difficulty with the obvious.

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. Now...if those scientists who see their mission as the assault on theology, on religion, intend to rely on quantum physics to prove that God is wholly unnecessary to explain creation, i.e., Lawrence Krauss' claim "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..." then we need examine the predictive abilities of quantum theory.

a. The theory has been very successful in predicting the exact values of energy levels of the hydrogen atom, including the energy difference in orbitals (the Lamb shift), and other probabilistic predictions.

b. But the basis of the predictions is every possible permutation. So, in assessing the path of a particle from A to B, the particle may journey via "paths that visit the restaurant that serves that great curried shrimp, and then circle Jupiter a few times before heading home; even paths that go across the universe and back." Feynman's phrase, from Hawking and Mlodinow, "The Grand Design," p.ix

Get it? It requires positing everything and anything....



11. What follows from this is that there is never a definite "history" to any process, and that includes the origin of the universe.
"Quantum physics tells us that no matter how thorough our observation of the present, the (unobserved) past, like the future, is indefinite and exists only as a spectrum of possibilities. The universe, according to quantum physics, has no single past, or history. " Op.Cit., p. 82


This may be fine for those who are willing to accept every single possibility, on matter how remote, no matter how absurd.





Wait a moment....let's not forget that, while every path of creation is possible "We will see that, like a particle, the universe doesn't have just a single history, but every possible history, each with its own probability;" (p.83)

Every possibility? Sound like science to you?
Not quite......


But...there is one possibility that the scientific atheists refuse to consider. Outright refuse! The one espoused by theology.
Seems they will claim that religion is myth and superstition....but their myth and superstition, e.g., "the universe doesn't have just a single history, but every possible history, each with its own probability;" is acceptable.

And that is just fine with me....as long as everyone realizes what is going on.



So...to rely on quantum theory to dispel religious notions is akin to simply repeating "is not, is not!"

 

[Hollie]

10. Now...if those scientists who see their mission as the assault on theology, on religion, intend to rely on quantum physics to prove that God is wholly unnecessary to explain creation, i.e., Lawrence Krauss' claim "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..." then we need examine the predictive abilities of quantum theory.

a. The theory has been very successful in predicting the exact values of energy levels of the hydrogen atom, including the energy difference in orbitals (the Lamb shift), and other probabilistic predictions.

b. But the basis of the predictions is every possible permutation. So, in assessing the path of a particle from A to B, the particle may journey via "paths that visit the restaurant that serves that great curried shrimp, and then circle Jupiter a few times before heading home; even paths that go across the universe and back." Feynman's phrase, from Hawking and Mlodinow, "The Grand Design," p.ix

Get it? It requires positing everything and anything....



11. What follows from this is that there is never a definite "history" to any process, and that includes the origin of the universe.
"Quantum physics tells us that no matter how thorough our observation of the present, the (unobserved) past, like the future, is indefinite and exists only as a spectrum of possibilities. The universe, according to quantum physics, has no single past, or history. " Op.Cit., p. 82


This may be fine for those who are willing to accept every single possibility, on matter how remote, no matter how absurd.





Wait a moment....let's not forget that, while every path of creation is possible "We will see that, like a particle, the universe doesn't have just a single history, but every possible history, each with its own probability;" (p.83)

Every possibility? Sound like science to you?
Not quite......


But...there is one possibility that the scientific atheists refuse to consider. Outright refuse! The one espoused by theology.
Seems they will claim that religion is myth and superstition....but their myth and superstition, e.g., "the universe doesn't have just a single history, but every possible history, each with its own probability;" is acceptable.

And that is just fine with me....as long as everyone realizes what is going on.



So...to rely on quantum theory to dispel religious notions is akin to simply repeating "is not, is not!"

1. To rely on quantum theory to prop up religious notions is akin to rattling bones or reading tea leaves to cure disease.

2. Be sure to copy me on your email to Alan Lightman.

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. Now...if those scientists who see their mission as the assault on theology, on religion, intend to rely on quantum physics to prove that God is wholly unnecessary to explain creation, i.e., Lawrence Krauss' claim "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..." then we need examine the predictive abilities of quantum theory.

a. The theory has been very successful in predicting the exact values of energy levels of the hydrogen atom, including the energy difference in orbitals (the Lamb shift), and other probabilistic predictions.

b. But the basis of the predictions is every possible permutation. So, in assessing the path of a particle from A to B, the particle may journey via "paths that visit the restaurant that serves that great curried shrimp, and then circle Jupiter a few times before heading home; even paths that go across the universe and back." Feynman's phrase, from Hawking and Mlodinow, "The Grand Design," p.ix

Get it? It requires positing everything and anything....



11. What follows from this is that there is never a definite "history" to any process, and that includes the origin of the universe.
"Quantum physics tells us that no matter how thorough our observation of the present, the (unobserved) past, like the future, is indefinite and exists only as a spectrum of possibilities. The universe, according to quantum physics, has no single past, or history. " Op.Cit., p. 82


This may be fine for those who are willing to accept every single possibility, on matter how remote, no matter how absurd.





Wait a moment....let's not forget that, while every path of creation is possible "We will see that, like a particle, the universe doesn't have just a single history, but every possible history, each with its own probability;" (p.83)

Every possibility? Sound like science to you?
Not quite......


But...there is one possibility that the scientific atheists refuse to consider. Outright refuse! The one espoused by theology.
Seems they will claim that religion is myth and superstition....but their myth and superstition, e.g., "the universe doesn't have just a single history, but every possible history, each with its own probability;" is acceptable.

And that is just fine with me....as long as everyone realizes what is going on.



So...to rely on quantum theory to dispel religious notions is akin to simply repeating "is not, is not!"

1. To rely on quantum theory to dispel religious notions is akin to using medical science to cure disease vs. rattling bones of reading tea leaves.

2. Be sure to copy me on your email to Alan Lightman.

I appreciate your serving as a foil for so many of these posts, and I'm still chuckling as how you fell into that "laughable....fine-tuned...." thing, where I eviscerated you with Dr. Lightman stating exactly what I posted.

That was fun.

But you've outlived your usefulness, and, frankly, much of this thread has proven well beyond your limited abilities.


You may return to the 24-hour All Cartoon Network.

 

[Hollie]

10. Now...if those scientists who see their mission as the assault on theology, on religion, intend to rely on quantum physics to prove that God is wholly unnecessary to explain creation, i.e., Lawrence Krauss' claim "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..." then we need examine the predictive abilities of quantum theory.

a. The theory has been very successful in predicting the exact values of energy levels of the hydrogen atom, including the energy difference in orbitals (the Lamb shift), and other probabilistic predictions.

b. But the basis of the predictions is every possible permutation. So, in assessing the path of a particle from A to B, the particle may journey via "paths that visit the restaurant that serves that great curried shrimp, and then circle Jupiter a few times before heading home; even paths that go across the universe and back." Feynman's phrase, from Hawking and Mlodinow, "The Grand Design," p.ix

Get it? It requires positing everything and anything....



11. What follows from this is that there is never a definite "history" to any process, and that includes the origin of the universe.
"Quantum physics tells us that no matter how thorough our observation of the present, the (unobserved) past, like the future, is indefinite and exists only as a spectrum of possibilities. The universe, according to quantum physics, has no single past, or history. " Op.Cit., p. 82


This may be fine for those who are willing to accept every single possibility, on matter how remote, no matter how absurd.





Wait a moment....let's not forget that, while every path of creation is possible "We will see that, like a particle, the universe doesn't have just a single history, but every possible history, each with its own probability;" (p.83)

Every possibility? Sound like science to you?
Not quite......


But...there is one possibility that the scientific atheists refuse to consider. Outright refuse! The one espoused by theology.
Seems they will claim that religion is myth and superstition....but their myth and superstition, e.g., "the universe doesn't have just a single history, but every possible history, each with its own probability;" is acceptable.

And that is just fine with me....as long as everyone realizes what is going on.



So...to rely on quantum theory to dispel religious notions is akin to simply repeating "is not, is not!"

1. To rely on quantum theory to dispel religious notions is akin to using medical science to cure disease vs. rattling bones of reading tea leaves.

2. Be sure to copy me on your email to Alan Lightman.

I appreciate your serving as a foil for so many of these posts, and I'm still chuckling as how you fell into that "laughable....fine-tuned...." thing, where I eviscerated you with Dr. Lightman stating exactly what I posted.

That was fun.

But you've outlived your usefulness, and, frankly, much of this thread has proven well beyond your limited abilities.


You may return to the 24-hour All Cartoon Network.

Yet another cut and paste. These are the same silly attempts at insult you litter your other threads with. You're cutting and pasting your cutting and pasting.

I haven't received a copy of your email to Mr. Lightman. You were instructed to copy me on that email.

In the meantime, why don't you provide us with a description of the "fine tuning" of the universe and this solar system in particular with specific emphasis on that little dalliance that occurred on this planet 65 million years ago.