Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Syntactic Confectionery Delight
 
PerlMonks  

Re^16: Who is your favorite scientist and why?

by james28909 (Deacon)
on Dec 18, 2017 at 03:27 UTC ( #1205767=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^15: Who is your favorite scientist and why?
in thread Who is your favorite scientist and why?

there is a key difference in the knowledge between me and you. if you are atleast semi fluent in quantum mechanics ( i am no genius or scientist, i just like reading and watching stuff about it) then we are atleast some what on the same page. therefore there is a key piece of information that you are not sharing with me. a tyson quote about "this is a horror" isnt going to work. HORROR IS A HUMAN EMOTION. take the human out of the equation. stop basing the things off of your feelings. look at the facts. i once was atheist, i laughed at people who even contemplated a god or creator. but now i do believe the universe was created. for what reason, i have no idea... no person does. but what seems as "smart" particles popping into existence just because they were measured or observed is what intrigued me i guess. how could a piece of matter have awareness? anyways... maybe you have a different view on it, and i wish you would elaborate even further on your views. it may enlighten me or any future readers.
  • Comment on Re^16: Who is your favorite scientist and why?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^17: Who is your favorite scientist and why?
by Arunbear (Prior) on Dec 18, 2017 at 20:58 UTC
    a tyson quote about "this is a horror" isnt going to work...
    This is a red herring because I didn't provide such a quote from Dr. Tyson. This is what I quoted:

    But why confine ourselves to things too wondrous or intricate for us to understand, whose existence and attributes we then credit to a superintelligence? Instead, why not tally all those things whose design is so clunky, goofy, impractical, or unworkable that they reflect the absence of intelligence?

    No mention of horror there. He shows evidence for the lack of intelligence in some natural designs. Is that hard for you to understand?
    but what seems as "smart" particles popping into existence just because they were measured or observed is what intrigued me i guess

    I agree that is intriguing. I'm not a scientist either so I must defer to their knowledge. Look at what these scientists say e.g. at 2:00 they mention: "Does a microscopic particle spontaneously clone itself in midair?". They admit that they don't know but that probably at the quantum level the particle can be in many places at once.

    The honest answer is to admit we don't understand it fully yet. The easy answer is to say that the particles are smart or have awareness. I prefer the honest approach. It's important to not carry our biases into the quantum world and expect it to behave according to our macroscopic common sense.

      no the easiest answer is to say "there is no god/creator/existence". that is the easiest answer.

      the harder answer is ... well that is what these scientists are doing. which does not include anything "easy" and is right on par with my own beliefs.

      "Is that hard for you to understand?" understand what? a quote? his opinion? your opinion? what are the facts you/they are basing this opinion from? you have not provided me with any actual facts other than quotes. can you pull up ANY pertinent data related to the quote you just mentioned? or will that be another quote as well?

      for you to be persuaded, so easily, just by what someone has said, it makes me lose my sense of wonderment with you. ill continue though because i know that you are full of knowledge about these things you are trying to tell me.

      so here is your chance. tell me. and if not responded to with requested data i will not continue this conversation any further. do not quote anyone, i dont want any videos. dont attack my beliefs. i dont want your emotion. i want YOU to tell ME some FACTS/EVIDENCE that support YOUR CLAIMS that there is NO CREATOR. i want cold hard facts... nothing more nothing less.

      EDIT: also the link to the video you posted literally explains the answer to your question 52 more seconds into the video. 2:52 and is a corner stone of my beliefs. watch the whole video. it /should/ blow your mind once you grasp it. why and how does a particle propagate itself upon observation or being measured? the particle or wave itself seems "aware". i cannot say it IS aware, but it sure as hell seems like it. xD "thats the enigma". ALSO once you grasp this, watch quantum eraser and then delayed choice quantum eraser. it also changes its properties, "in the past", upon when and where they were observed or measured in the "present"...

      EDIT 2: also you should check out 2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Is the Universe a Simulation?. i also do not know if this universe is a simulation. it sure seems like some kind of mechanism though. and yes i am aware that i posted videos after asking you not to, but it is only in response to the question you asked abuot the video you posted, which also happened to answer that question (without you realizing it)

      EDIT 3: also, i want to add... that this double slit experiment was setup online as well for people around the globe to participate in. ill try to find it again, you can google it though. seems like the results did not deviate from what was expected. also check out james gates videos. those are purely theoretical though.

        understand what? a quote? his opinion? your opinion? what are the facts you/they are basing this opinion from? you have not provided me with any actual facts other than quotes.
        There are many facts in the article containing the quote. I even gave you a link, but you seem to be too lazy to read it.
        and if not responded to with requested data i will not continue this conversation any further.
        Given the poor quality of your discourse so far, that would be a great kindness on your part :)
        dont attack my beliefs.
        Red herring. I don't really care about your beliefs. Believe whatever you want to believe. I care about your reasoning, your evidence, or rather lack of evidence in this case.
        i want YOU to tell ME some FACTS/EVIDENCE that support YOUR CLAIMS that there is NO CREATOR.
        Yet another red herring. I made no such claims. I only raised doubts about your claims that there is a creator.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1205767]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others imbibing at the Monastery: (7)
As of 2020-04-09 09:49 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    The most amusing oxymoron is:
















    Results (47 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?