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.

 

Can you really say Evolution has no Meaning ?

page: 37
5
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2021 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

But everything from the enzymes, to organelles, to cells, to tissues, to organs are all intricately designed to serve a particular function that acts according to a somewhat predictable framework. It's far from random. Our brains consist of 100,000,000,000 neurons meticulously wired together to allow consciousness. This doesn't happen by accident.


The word random is actually not good to use as people may think it means some totally random mix like you throw a bunch of stuff in a bag and shake it up...lol And that isn't what we are talking about.

I agree 100% life is not some random process as there are uncountable things going on that follow very precise processes. The randomness part is the end product of a species is not predetermined. Humans were not predetermined and are a result of millions of other non-predetermined events. What humans will be in a million years is also not predetermined either, so when we say random we are talking about one path led to a tree and another path led to a platypus with no intelligent design in play.



edit on 4-5-2021 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2021 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You are incorrect. Quantum measurements do not require consciousness. They require observation. You do not have to be conscious to observe, as the mountains would tell you.

So when a quantum "particle" has its path impeded, a measurement is taken at that point. In your experiment (double slit), you can alter the measurement simply by changing the slits. No consciousness required.

A better way to look at the "observer" is to call it "producing information". If information is produced in an interaction, it has been observed and the quantum wave is collapsed. If this did not happen, how on Earth would the sun illuminate Mars when we aren't even there? Or the far side of the moon. We have evidence it DOES affect it in the signs it leaves behind. So even without a human, that photon is collapsing and when the information of its interaction with the surface happens.



posted on May, 4 2021 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Yeah, I just take it a step further and conclude that the genetic code needed a programmer. 3.2 billion nucleotides of data doesn't code itself in a billion years.



originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: cooperton

You are incorrect. Quantum measurements do not require consciousness. They require observation. You do not have to be conscious to observe, as the mountains would tell you.

So when a quantum "particle" has its path impeded, a measurement is taken at that point. In your experiment (double slit), you can alter the measurement simply by changing the slits. No consciousness required.

A better way to look at the "observer" is to call it "producing information". If information is produced in an interaction, it has been observed and the quantum wave is collapsed.


There's no way around it... the variable in the experiment is whether ot not they are able to determine specifically the slit that the photon ought to go through. I even saw it done live before. The light pattern changes to a particle-like behavior solely when we, in essence, trap it into having to choose a slit. It's remarkable



If this did not happen, how on Earth would the sun illuminate Mars when we aren't even there? Or the far side of the moon. We have evidence it DOES affect it in the signs it leaves behind. So even without a human, that photon is collapsing and when the information of its interaction with the surface happens.


You're using an observing device though to make the record. It's like Schroedinger's cat, the moment you make the measurement it takes shape. These are their examples of how this stuff works, not mine... although I am a proponent of it, and it makes sense with the way I have observed the world around me. The synchronicities that have occurred in my life are indicative of the nonlocality principle in quantum physics as well, and it is apparent there is an intelligible aspect to it as well.



originally posted by: Phantom423

Please cite a research paper that reflects your opinion. Not just your outdated opinions.



Please cite a research paper that shows you exist. I don't want to waste my time if I'm talking to someone that doesn't exist. If there's no empirical evidence that you exist then it is merely your outdated opinion that you exist, and therefore it holds no credence.

You see how annoying that logic is?

Look up the Copenhagen interpretation. That is where they concluded observation is integral to wave function collapse. When the measurement is made, the wave function collapses
edit on 4-5-2021 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2021 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton




Please cite a research paper that shows you exist. I don't want to waste my time if I'm talking to someone that doesn't exist. If there's no empirical evidence that you exist then it is merely your outdated opinion that you exist, and therefore it holds no credence.

You see how annoying that logic is?

Look up the Copenhagen interpretation. That is where they concluded observation is integral to wave function collapse. When the measurement is made, the wave function collapses


You're wrong. Cite a paper that says a human consciousness is required for the Wigner experiment.



posted on May, 4 2021 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

You're wrong. Cite a paper that says a human consciousness is required for the Wigner experiment.


This is by far your best one yet. You're asking to prove that a conscious human is required to conduct an experiment??



posted on May, 4 2021 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Proof once again that you know nothing about science or the Wigner quantum eraser experiment. Look it up.

You really should get yourself some good books and stop reading all the cult porn.



posted on May, 4 2021 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Proof once again that you know nothing about science or the Wigner quantum eraser experiment. Look it up.

You really should get yourself some good books and stop reading all the cult porn.



That experiment involves the fact that observation generates a conclusion regarding entangled particles. entangled particles establish opposite spin states simultaneously upon observation. You will try to weasel your way out of this empirical evidence because you hate science, but the observer effect is undeniable.



posted on May, 4 2021 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Proof once again that you know nothing about science or the Wigner quantum eraser experiment. Look it up.

You really should get yourself some good books and stop reading all the cult porn.



That experiment involves the fact that observation generates a conclusion regarding entangled particles. entangled particles establish opposite spin states simultaneously upon observation. You will try to weasel your way out of this empirical evidence because you hate science, but the observer effect is undeniable.



Despite the "observer" in this experiment being an electronic detector—possibly due to the assumption that the word "observer" implies a person—its results have led to the popular belief that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.[3] The need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process


Poor understanding of physics = magic
edit on 4-5-2021 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2021 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Proof once again that you know nothing about science or the Wigner quantum eraser experiment. Look it up.

You really should get yourself some good books and stop reading all the cult porn.



That experiment involves the fact that observation generates a conclusion regarding entangled particles. entangled particles establish opposite spin states simultaneously upon observation. You will try to weasel your way out of this empirical evidence because you hate science, but the observer effect is undeniable.



You misunderstand what the observer effect as you put it actually is. Its like a baseball being thrown the ball has no idea its about to be hit by a bat to right field and change its direction. The bat makes contact with the ball changing its momentum and off it goes. Same with observing a photon. The act of observing it has an effect on it same as a bat hitting a ball. This means that until such time as you looked there was no particle there, it was just a quantum energy fluctuation, your looking changed that. To look you have to do something that changes it such as send it through a feild or hit it with photons.

The observer can be anything that effects it, light from a glaxy billions of light years away interacts with an electron here on earth you change its state its no longer in a superposition. A person doesnt have to be involved at all case in point long before we showed up there was stuff happening in our galaxy.
edit on 5/4/21 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2021 @ 06:04 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Still waiting on you to either admit you were wrong or show me an example of something coming from nothing.

a reply to: TzarChasm

It's not magic, it's a fact that measurement is an effector on physical systems. Either believe the empirical data or don't. It's so funny how you guys pick and choose science based on your belief system
edit on 5-5-2021 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2021 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Wrong.



posted on May, 5 2021 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: dragonridr

Still waiting on you to either admit you were wrong or show me an example of something coming from nothing.

a reply to: TzarChasm

It's not magic, it's a fact that measurement is an effector on physical systems. Either believe the empirical data or don't. It's so funny how you guys pick and choose science based on your belief system


Energy can create matter we have used light to create matter. Anytime you have energy you can convert it to matter.

futurism.com...

www.forbes.com...

This is almost the same process used at the beginning of the universe only now we can do it in a lab
edit on 5/5/21 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2021 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

Energy can create matter we have used light to create matter. Anytime you have energy you can convert it to matter.

futurism.com...

www.forbes.com...

This is almost the same process used at the beginning of the universe only now we can do it in a lab


It's not creating matter from nothing, it is transferring energy into another form. That is perfectly within the confines of energy conservation. You cannot, on the other hand, create or destroy energy, or in other words, create something from nothing, or turn something into nothing.



posted on May, 5 2021 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: dragonridr

Still waiting on you to either admit you were wrong or show me an example of something coming from nothing.

a reply to: TzarChasm

It's not magic, it's a fact that measurement is an effector on physical systems. Either believe the empirical data or don't. It's so funny how you guys pick and choose science based on your belief system


I posted a credible resource that determines your understanding to be a "misconception". Which is another word for wrong.


edit on 5-5-2021 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2021 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton




It's not magic, it's a fact that measurement is an effector on physical systems. Either believe the empirical data or don't. It's so funny how you guys pick and choose science based on your belief system


Your interpretation is wrong on this point. The idea that consciousness must be a part of the measurement process is not correct. Here's several explanations:




"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being;but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory." - Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, p. 137

"Was the wave function waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some highly qualified measurer - with a PhD?" -John Stewart Bell, 1981, Quantum Mechanics for Cosmologists. In C.J. Isham, R. Penrose and D.W. Sciama (eds.), Quantum Gravity 2: A second Oxford Symposium. Oxford: Clarendon Press, p. 611.

 


According to standard quantum mechanics, it is a matter of complete indifference whether the experimenters stay around to watch their experiment, or instead leave the room and delegate observing to an inanimate apparatus which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic measurements and records them by a time-irreversible proce
ss (Bell, John (2004). Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy. Cambridge University Press. p. 170. ISBN 9780521523387.). The measured state is not interfering with the states excluded by the measurement. As Richard Feynman put it: "Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not." (Feynman, Richard (2015). The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. III. Ch 3.2: Basic Books. ISBN 9780465040834.).



You should read the work of John Bell. His explanations are very understandable and make sense. Feyman is also very good but more mathematical in his approach.



posted on May, 5 2021 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Cooperton is mixing up scientific terminology with biblespeak. No wonder he's confused.



posted on May, 5 2021 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I'm curious to know, if there is such a debate on whether the established facts and accepted theories on how life propagated on this planet are so fundamentally wrong, why not collect a few of your most esteemed colleagues together and publish your version of the facts in an established and formal journal? Get your theories and arguments peer reviewed and tested. This is the way science works, so merely arguing the symantics of terms and meanings with strangers on an internet forum is just a waste of time for you, surely? If you think you have something, publish it.



posted on May, 5 2021 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TerraLiga

Because magic sky daddies doing magic through other dimensions doesn't really get much positive review.

I'd suspect.



posted on May, 5 2021 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Cooperton is mixing up scientific terminology with biblespeak. No wonder he's confused.


He doesn't understand much of this material. I mean, few of us really do. But his is less so.



posted on May, 5 2021 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
During WWII Germany there were countless papers that showed that Germany was the apex race and it was all backed by "science". lol.

And what is the significant error in this? No, you can't see it? This is exactly the same sort of method and evidence used by your tribe to convince you of a supernatural super-being.

Still can't see it? I'll tell you. Peer review. Everyone outside of the German political hierarchy knew this was rubbish. An apt simile for what everyone outside of creationism thinks of your theories.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join