It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Quantum Mechanics shows there's life after death

page: 10
31
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   
here is another link on why quantum biology is gaining momentum. It surmises the reasons why current classical ideas about the human body is incorrect. More scientists even reluctant ones it seems are acknowledging quantum processes plays a very important role in biology

www.nutrienergetics.com...




These researchers, and many others we could have mentioned, seem to be thinking along the same lines: that there is some field or energy controlling biological systems other than or in addition to the biochemical and physical systems. Peter Fraser's research reaches a similar conclusion. After nearly twenty-five years of research, Peter Fraser has amassed evidence for how a quantum electrodynamic field, which he calls the human body-field, underlies and controls the biochemical activities of the body. He has mapped out the "structure" of the body-field, detailing such aspects as Energetic Drivers, Integrators, and Terrains. His model shows how the overall body-field is comprised of subfields that form along with the fetus and develop as organ and organ systems develop. He has uncovered detailed information pathways in the body-field that correlate to a multitude of specific physiological processes. His theory truly is a bridge between biology and physics, and has important ramifications for explaining how the body both loses and regains health. If you would like to know more about Fraser's research, you can read the book The Unturned Stone.


www.ks.uiuc.edu...


Many important biological processes taking place in cells are driven and controlled by events that involve electronic degrees of freedom and, therefore, require a quantum mechanical description. An important example are enzymatically catalyzed, cellular biochemical reactions. Here, bond breaking and bond formation events are intimately tied to changes in the electronic degrees of freedom. Key events during photosynthesis in plants and energy metabolism in eucaryotes also warrant a quantum mechanical description - from the absorption of light in the form of photons by the photosynthetic apparatus to electron transfer processes sustaining the electrochemical membrane potential. Because of the importance of sensing light to both plants (for regulating vital functions) and animals (for vision), the interaction between light and biological photoreceptors is widespread in nature, and also requires a quantum mechanical description. A prime example is the protein rhodopsin which is present in the retina of the human eye and plays a key role in vision. Our computational tool are combined quantum mechanical/molecular (QM/MM) simulations, that allow to combine an electronic level description of the active region with a classical model of the environment provided by the remainder of the biomolecular system and solvent. This allows us to study the electronic level processes underlying these systems in their natural cellular environment.


Evidence Of Macroscopic Quantum Tunneling Detected In Nanowires


ScienceDaily (June 9, 2009) — A team of researchers at the University of Illinois has demonstrated that, counter to classical Newtonian mechanics, an entire collection of superconducting electrons in an ultrathin superconducting wire is able to “tunnel” as a pack from a state with a higher electrical current to one with a notably lower current, providing more evidence of the phenomenon of macroscopic quantum tunneling.





[edit on 12-12-2009 by loner007]




posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


I know you have me on ignore, but this is not only a response towards you, but also a response for others to read who are capable of critical intelligent though to be able to discern the inaccuracies of your statements.


Good points,


Good points?! Are you serious??? Someone signs up for the first time, enters a thread with a BS response stating that he didn't even bother to read my post's, and *that* is considered a 'good point'? No wonder you think we aren't debating here! It's like your treating honesty and reasoning as if it were a deadly virus to be avoided at all cost's!!!


The problem is they can't debate the issue or they have been lied to and told they are a good debater.They look foolish and their ATS ego is bruised so they lash out.


You truly are an arrogant narcissist aren't you? You really think you've bruised my ego here? That is about as infantile as me taking offense to a three year old for calling me a poop face and stealing my cookie. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but your childish mindset just is not that important enough to me where it'll bruise my ego.


The point is, there has been a lot of information produced on this thread and a debate is always welcomed.


Point is... You really have no idea what the point is. You discuss one interpretation of quantum mechanics, that being the Copenhagen interpretation as if it were the *only* interpretation that exists. This is evident by your inquiries as to what other interpretations and that there are none. You would have people believe that no other interpretations exist and that you know oh so much about quantum mechanics. Your a complete wannabe poser; I went so far as to link and *quote* these other interpretations that exist and you just outright blatantly ignore them.

You have no drive to actually debate here, you never did and despite a few attempts to debate you turn around and stomp your feet like a temper tantrum toddler. I'm sorry if being honest is liken to taking that binky away, but it is time to grow the hell up. Your a big boy now, so start acting like it.


Sadly, we have heard from trolls that are stinking up the thread with mindless bloviating.


I can't get over the blatant misuse of the label 'troll'. If your going to call someone a troll, then at least learn what a troll is, how and when to use the word properly.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


A troll is someone who has nothing to add other than insults.. If i remmber your very first post on my own thread was the following..

oh and i called you a troll my self without the need of reading your posts on this thread? wonder why lets see..




Holy fecal matter batman! Our minds are a fusion reactor that will go nova and blow our heads apart someday?! Yikes... I sure hope your wrong...


and then.. My responce

er no i ..

but then again u do go supernova when u die

just shows you have no clue and are trolling sad but true


and this is even more funny

Trolling?! How is that trolling? You made a ridiculously bold claim that our minds operate the same way a star does. This is literally the first time I've heard that our minds are a fusion reaction that will someday god nova and blow our heads apart violently. Like I said, I sure do hope your wrong with that claim.

[EDIT TOO ADD]

Perhaps *really dense* minds like those who believe they operate like stars are one that turn into blackholes.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by sirnex]


why? because even tho you EDITED the post you still did not READ what i posted

Helps if you read the IOP

I said the UNIVERSE not a star... so please next time you jump on a topic Get a clue or take the time to READ IT


see?

You are a classic troll.. Fact. If you do not or can not UNDERSTAND what a DEBATE is without coming across as a TROLL then you should not post unles you KNOW what you are trying to say.. Insulting people is NOT smart it just makes you less educated than i thought you was.

And feel free to bash my typing skills i guess that was your first comeback or BUT YOUR BLAH BLAH ect..

enjoy



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by loner007
 


Thanks for the links.

This is my first time hearing about Peter Fraser and I will have to check that out.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by 13579
 



A troll is someone who has nothing to add other than insults.. If i remmber your very first post on my own thread was the following..


Technically, the definition of a troll is a little more involved than just that. Heck, if we go by the full definition of a troll, then your being a troll through out this post. Hypocrite.

I would also appreciate if you could keep your hypocritical straw men troll's out of this as they have no place here. This thread is not your thread, this thread is not the same topic as your thread, and the quoted text was never said in this thread. It's essentially meaningless to this thread.

If we wish to go by "first posts", I never came here as a troll. I never insulted anyone and in fact all I did was basically agree with another user and briefly explain that the sciences being used by the OP have never nor now state what the OP says it does. Again, I find it very hard to believe that my use of honesty in this thread is enough to label me a troll.

Yes, I did get a bit on the OP for his blatant purposeful misuse of the sciences he discusses and I did explain why honest people like me attack dishonest people like him, but even such an act falls short of being a troll. Often time's people who don't know how to use the label properly or don't understand what a troll is will slander the insult around mislabeling people who are trying to do some good here.

I raised very good and valid points in this thread and demanded a little more honesty in debate, this is no where near 'troll like' behavior. The OP even went so far as to blatantly ignore links and quotes from those links that backed up everything I said. In retrospect, the OP makes a bogus claim and never once backs that claim up with quotes that explicitly state what his beliefs are. I'm sure you folks enjoy this circle jerk of a thread, but I don't really wish to partake in your party games.

There is nothing wrong with asking you to be honest when discussing a topic with me. Again, take your hypocritical straw men trolls elsewhere and you have a wonderful day.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
found another link this is damn interesting..
www.mind-lamp.com...



Studies at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) Laboratory have suggested that the mind has the subtle capacity to influence the output of devices known as Random Event Generators (REGs). The Mind Lamp is a new ambient LED lamp, created by Psyleron, in collaboration with researchers from the PEAR lab. By exerting an influence on the quantum-scale probabilistic events that control it, your mind may be able to affect the colors that the Mind Lamp displays.


I am trying to find the mind experiments in which they show mind can influence matter. When i find them i post them

twm.co.nz...

another good link to macro quantum effects
www3.amherst.edu...

[edit on 12-12-2009 by loner007]



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by loner007
found another link this is damn interesting..
www.mind-lamp.com...



Studies at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) Laboratory have suggested that the mind has the subtle capacity to influence the output of devices known as Random Event Generators (REGs). The Mind Lamp is a new ambient LED lamp, created by Psyleron, in collaboration with researchers from the PEAR lab. By exerting an influence on the quantum-scale probabilistic events that control it, your mind may be able to affect the colors that the Mind Lamp displays.


I am trying to find the mind experiments in which they show mind can influence matter. When i find them i post them

twm.co.nz...

[edit on 12-12-2009 by loner007]


The assumption that intention of thought causes a change in the number generator is a logical fallacy. Correlation does not imply causation. More research would need to be conducted before we can call this evidence of PK. Has anything been researched or detected leaving the human body to affect the number generator, specifically the electronics that allows for the numbers to be generated in the first place... Which parts of the electronics are effected and such like that. Please don't be intellectually lazy and jump the gun to early. Use that noodle.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by loner007
 



another good link to macro quantum effects
www3.amherst.edu...


Certainly was an interesting article. I'll highlight some good points raised in the article itself.

*For Dr. Leggett, quantum mechanics at the macroscopic level is still uncertain

*Schrödinger felt this acutely. He himself felt something with quantum mechanics was wrong.

*Dr. Pearle and colleagues in Italy propose to add a term to Schrödinger's equation that, in effect, constantly jiggles the fabric of the universe. Atomic-scale objects only jiggle a little and thus remain a blur, which preserves the predictions of quantum mechanics. Larger objects, like people or the Moon, jiggle more and quickly fall into a definite here and there, which corresponds to everyday experience.

*Most physicists believe that the reason macroscopic objects do not appear as a quantum mechanical smudge of possibilities is a mechanism known as decoherence, whereby the continuous jostling against the surrounding environment nudges objects out of the blur of possibilities into one particular reality.

Yet what is immensely funny here is the OP's seemingly love for decoherence. It is exactly because of decoherence that we don't exist as a quantum mechanical being that survives after death for no apparent reason or in any discernible place.

Thank you for the article, I really enjoyed it and it really did help enlighten me in regards to the points I was raising earlier in regards to the OP's assertions. If people could just comprehend what they were reading, I never would have been called a troll to begin with.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I took you off ignore because I figured you were trolling the thread with more of your nonsense and it's worse than I thought. You don't have a clue as to what your talking about but your ATS ego was bruised when you looked foolish.

You said:


Point is... You really have no idea what the point is. You discuss one interpretation of quantum mechanics, that being the Copenhagen interpretation as if it were the *only* interpretation that exists. This is evident by your inquiries as to what other interpretations and that there are none. You would have people believe that no other interpretations exist and that you know oh so much about quantum mechanics. Your a complete wannabe poser; I went so far as to link and *quote* these other interpretations that exist and you just outright blatantly ignore them.


Here you are lying.

When did I say or act like Copenhagen was the only interpretation?

I don't think you even know what this means.

I want you to quote me where I said or implied that Copenhagen was the only interpretation. This shows you are a troll that doesn't have a clue.

I have talked about parallel realities and other universes throughout the thread so how can I only be talking about Copenhagen?

You don't understand what your reading. If you did you wouldn't make an idiotic statement like that.

Do you know the difference between Copenhagen and many worlds? How can I "only" be talking about Copenhagen when I have talked about other universes?

You should be ashamed of yourself for lying and being such a troll.

I want you to quote where I said Copenhagen was the "only" interpretation. You got this silly idea in your head because you don't have a clue as to what I'm talking about because your a troll.

So back up your claim. Where did I say this?

In my first post I talked about quantum immortality.


That the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics, as opposed to the Copenhagen interpretation, the latter of which does not involve the existence of parallel universes. Note, though, that parallel universes may be possible through other mechanisms in the Copenhagen interpretation.


If I'm talking about quantum immortality and other universes, how can I "only" be talking about Copenhagen?

You are a joke and your lying.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Again, you don't have a clue as to what your reading.


*Dr. Pearle and colleagues in Italy propose to add a term to Schrödinger's equation that, in effect, constantly jiggles the fabric of the universe. Atomic-scale objects only jiggle a little and thus remain a blur, which preserves the predictions of quantum mechanics. Larger objects, like people or the Moon, jiggle more and quickly fall into a definite here and there, which corresponds to everyday experience.

*Most physicists believe that the reason macroscopic objects do not appear as a quantum mechanical smudge of possibilities is a mechanism known as decoherence, whereby the continuous jostling against the surrounding environment nudges objects out of the blur of possibilities into one particular reality.


This supports what I have been saying. Of course classical objects don't appear as quantum possibilities. This is because of Decoherence you idiot.

The quantum mechanical effects don't just dissapear.They just can't be measured because of decoherence but we know they are still present.

Have you ever heard of Louis de Broglie and matter waves? Even though we are in a state of decoherence we still exhibit our wave nature.


Louis de Broglie (1892-1987) tried to expand on Bohr's ideas, and he pushed for their application beyond hydrogen. In fact he looked for an equation which could explain the wavelength characteristics of all matter. His equation was experimentally confirmed in 1927 when physicists Lester Germer and Clinton Davisson fired electrons at a crystalline nickel target and the resulting diffraction pattern was found to match the predicted values. In de Broglie's equation an electron's wavelength is a function of Planck's constant (6.626×10−34 joule-seconds) divided by the object's momentum (nonrelativistically, its mass multiplied by its velocity). When this momentum is very large (relative to Planck's constant), then an object's wavelength is very small. This is the case with every-day objects, such as a person; given the enormous momentum of a person compared with the very tiny Planck constant, the wavelength of a person would be so small (on the order of 10−35 meter or smaller) as to be undetectable by any current measurement tools. On the other hand, many small particles (such as typical electrons in everyday materials) have a very low momentum compared to macroscopic objects. In this case, the de Broglie wavelength may be large enough that the particle's wave-like nature gives observable effects.


en.wikipedia.org...

We even have macroscopic scale objects in a state of superposition. It's called Bose–Einstein condensate.


A Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC) is a state of matter of a dilute gas of weakly interacting bosons confined in an external potential and cooled to temperatures very near to absolute zero (0 K, −273.15 °C, or −459.67 °F). Under such conditions, a large fraction of the bosons occupy the lowest quantum state of the external potential, and all wave functions overlap each other, at which point quantum effects become apparent on a macroscopic scale.


en.wikipedia.org...

You can even see pictures of this superposition.

www.nanopicoftheday.org...


A series of three false-color images of a gas of ultra-cold Rubidium atoms at temperatures of (left to right) 400, 200, and 50 nanoKelvins (nK), show the emergence of a Bose-Einstein condensate (or BEC), a new macroscopic state with unique and fascinating properties. At 400 nK (very near absolute zero temperatures), the atoms behave like a conventional gas, with a smooth distribution of high and low energy atoms. At 200 nK, the BEC begins to appear in the form of a significant fraction of near-zero energy atoms, shown as a peak in the center of the image. The skirt surrounding the peak is the remaining noncondensed atoms. By 50 nK, the noncondensed fraction has all but vanished, leaving about three thousand atoms in a single macroscopically occupied wavefunction--the Bose-Einstein condensate. The images are about 200 micrometers on a side.


www.nanopicoftheday.org...

Again, you don't have a clue as to what your talking about. Your just trolling the thread.

So death can't be seen in isolation from the whole. This is because even though we are under the illusion of isolation we are still connected to things we can measure and things we can't measure because of decoherence.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by R-evolve

Originally posted by TheRepublic
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


exactly. energy can be neither created nor destroyed. matter is just energy trapped in form.


Surely the energy, body matter, becomes energy for bacteria, worms and such as we decompose. Theres nothing to suggest self awareness is separate from body matter. Our energy is recycled either through earth or flame.


There is also nothing to suggest it is the result of matter, so that is a moot point.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by angrysniper
There is also nothing to suggest it is the result of matter, so that is a moot point.


Irregardless, it's just pure stupidity to believe either way is more truer than the other. Neither opinion has been proven as of yet, so there is literally no reason to have a belief that one is more truer than the other. Yes, I understand that is honesty and that honesty is absolutely hated on ATS, but I personally love being honest with people.

Until something is absolutely proven, there is no reason to believe it to be true.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by devilishlyangelic23
 


Alright, so there we have it. A tool who admits that he can't bother to read someones posts but "thinks" that the person he isn't listening to is being "schooled". Ah damn, I love the lack of intelligence here on ATS. Get off the soap box you poser. No, it's not an insult, it's how *YOU* are acting. Don't dare come into a damn thread, BS me, telling me you can't bother to read a damn post and then try and attempt to say I am being "schooled" here. I fing hate lying little twerps.


oh, right...because calling me a tool and a poser is definitely going to convince me that YOU are the correct person here
i cannot be bothered to read your posts because i cannot take you seriously. if you're as intelligent as you claim to be, you will be able to find more productive things to say than calling people names. failing to behave in a mature manner significantly reduces your credibility.

i will repeat myself. name calling is the last defence for a person who is desperate.

welcome to my ignore list, i hope you enjoy your stay



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 07:41 AM
link   
my reply on 10/12 was the best thing said so far!!!



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by devilishlyangelic23
 


It's special Olympics week on ATS....

So your under the belief that you can garner an intelligent correct assumption of someone else intelligence by *NOT* reading their posts? Perhaps you shouldn't be discussing how intelligent someone is or is not if you openly admit to not reading a damn thing they have to say. I'm starting to get the impression that you may possibly be one of the three other gentlemen I've been discussing this topic with.

It's just simply to coincidental that you sign up out of the blue, your first post is an open denial of reading anything I say and an attack against me to boot. Yet I'm the damn troll; This is just flipping hilarious.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





It's special Olympics week on ATS....


How crass...



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Do you have any article links?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 



I took you off ignore because I figured you were trolling the thread with more of your nonsense and it's worse than I thought.


Nah, you took me off because you love me; I'm flattered.


You don't have a clue as to what your talking about but your ATS ego was bruised when you looked foolish.


Here, let me repeat:

You truly are an arrogant narcissist aren't you? You really think you've bruised my ego here? That is about as infantile as me taking offense to a three year old for calling me a poop face and stealing my cookie. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but your childish mindset just is not that important enough to me where it'll bruise my ego.


Do you know the difference between Copenhagen and many worlds? How can I "only" be talking about Copenhagen when I have talked about other universes?


Well, I was under the impression that it was the Copenhagen interpretation, I didn't reply to the thread until page three, so naturally I forgot the explicit statement of 'many worlds'. Forgetfulness does not make someone a liar, so I really don't appreciate the unfounded slanderous libel against me.


I want you to quote where I said Copenhagen was the "only" interpretation. You got this silly idea in your head because you don't have a clue as to what I'm talking about because your a troll.


Now that I have been made aware of which interpretation you were discussing I can't point this out. Nor have I explicitly said that you had said any interpretation was the only one, but that you were discussing said interpretation as *IF* it were the only interpretation. Please learn how to comprehend what your reading. Your arguing something here that never even happened.


If I'm talking about quantum immortality and other universes, how can I "only" be talking about Copenhagen?


Irregardless of which interpretation, the many worlds interpretation has never stated anything in which you state it does. There is no explicit or implied mechanism for the consciousness of this universe to transfer into another universe upon death nor any mechanism cited for this transference or what happens to the consciousness of the other 'you'. Many worlds states that all these multiple you's are separate distinct individuals that exist just as you exist here in this universe


This supports what I have been saying. Of course classical objects don't appear as quantum possibilities. This is because of Decoherence you idiot.


Here, let's post this again.


Most physicists believe that the reason macroscopic objects do not appear as a quantum mechanical smudge of possibilities is a mechanism known as decoherence, whereby the continuous jostling against the surrounding environment nudges objects out of the blur of possibilities into one particular reality.


If reading comprehension was your forte you would readily notice that it is explicitly because of decoherence that disproves your assertion. Because of decoherence, all possibilities in the macro world are collapsed into only *one* reality.


The quantum mechanical effects don't just dissapear.They just can't be measured because of decoherence but we know they are still present.


"the continuous jostling against the surrounding environment nudges objects out of the blur of possibilities into one particular reality."

Decoherence


In the Copenhagen interpretation, the superposition of states was described by a wave function, and the wave function collapse was given the name decoherence.

...

But the original sense remains, decoherence refers to the untangling of quantum states to produce a single macroscopic reality.


Decoherence causes the quantum states to collapse into one reality upon interaction.


Decoherence does not provide a mechanism for the actual wave function collapse; rather it provides a mechanism for the appearance of wavefunction collapse.


Decoherence is not an actual mechanism of function, but a mechanism for the appearance of this state of collapse into one reality. The mechanism itself of function has never been experimentally observed and decoherence may or may not be real and there are other explanations existent that explain experimental observations equally well without decoherence being involved.



Have you ever heard of Louis de Broglie and matter waves? Even though we are in a state of decoherence we still exhibit our wave nature.


Your point is? Wave/particle duality states nothing of continuation of consciousness after death nor do the results of subsequent experiments even assert this as well.


We even have macroscopic scale objects in a state of superposition. It's called Bose–Einstein condensate.


Are you asserting that we are BEC's?


You can even see pictures of this superposition.


Your point is? How are you equating an induced system as being equally true to consciousness? Nothing about BEC's state anything about continuation of consciousness after bodily death.


Again, you don't have a clue as to what your talking about. Your just trolling the thread.


Read my signature please.


So death can't be seen in isolation from the whole. This is because even though we are under the illusion of isolation we are still connected to things we can measure and things we can't measure because of decoherence.


We could possibly be in superposition between death and alive, but death is still death and superposition of the two states don't imply explicitly nor indirectly any continuation of consciousness. We still don't even have a clear understanding of what consciousness is or how it arose or how it operates; Yet you wish to make some very bold assertions without backing them up, pretending that all these different aspects of quantum mechanics say consciousness survives death. Any subsequent survival of mind after death could possibly disprove superposition of the two states in my opinion.

[EDIT TO ADD]

Talk about lying...


In my first post I talked about quantum immortality.

That the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics, as opposed to the Copenhagen interpretation, the latter of which does not involve the existence of parallel universes. Note, though, that parallel universes may be possible through other mechanisms in the Copenhagen interpretation.


True, you did talk about quantum immortality. Well, not really, you only mentioned it in the last sentence as a conclusion to what was previously stated prior to that statement. In that OP, nothing was said at all about MWI explicitly and there are other interpretations of quantum mechanics that allow for parallel universes. Even some interpretations of the Copenhagen interpretation allow for parallel universes. If you can't fing explicitly state your point of view properly, then no wonder such confusion arises. Your discussing a topic that has a huge wide variety of interpretations all based on the same results and experiments. Damn man... Your something else.

[edit on 13-12-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by 13579
reply to post by sirnex
 





It's special Olympics week on ATS....


How crass...




So... You agree that someone can openly state that they haven't bothered to read someone else posts and make a valid opinion of their intelligence? Your so silly and I love the two word response!



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


I also forgot to point out that all these thing's your discussing about quantum mechanics are separate interpretations by themselves.

Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Decoherence is a separate interpretation.

Many worlds is a separate interpretation.

de Broglie–Bohm theory is a separate interpretation.

Yet your lumping these three interpretations together as if they are all one and the same. These are all separate and distinct interpretations of the same observed results. Some interpretations haven't been proven to be true at all, especially many worlds interpretation, at this point it is nothing but speculation.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join