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: 39
5
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2021 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: dragonridr


As i said your wrong and did not understand the experiment go figure. What the double-slit experiment did was make the slits equal the wavelength of the light. When this happens the light interferes with itself giving us a diffraction pattern. Space the holes too far apart or too close together you see particles. Had nothing to do with measuring anything passing through the slits. Again if your going to learn about science at least take the time to get it right.


No lol. Watch this video it breaks it down very simply:

youtu.be...


Different experiment here's the double slit and it shows interference when the wavelength equals the size of the slits



edit on 5/6/21 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2021 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr


Different experiment here's the double slit and it shows interference when the wavelength equals the size of the slits




oh ok, haha yeah I was wondering what you were talking about. I was referring to the double slit experiment relevant to quantum physics.



posted on May, 7 2021 @ 04:32 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 7-5-2021 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2021 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Ahh yes the material reductionist interpretation. Well the variable in the experiment is whether or not the experimenter is able to detect the slit, which causes the light to behave like a particle. Pretty phenomenal no matter how much you want to avoid the obvious conclusion.



posted on May, 7 2021 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton




Ahh yes the material reductionist interpretation


What the hell is that?? Another one of your crackpot excuses. Provide evidence or shut up.



posted on May, 7 2021 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Double slit experiment. Proof positive that it's beyond your comprehension.





edit on 7-5-2021 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-5-2021 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2021 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

There's two experiments named the same thing. You don't have to be so aggro just be chill were all trying to know the truth I hope.



posted on May, 7 2021 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Funny that you should bring up the Copenhagen interpretation. Are you familiar with the principle that no truth can be attributed to an object except according to the results of its measurement? Can you provide measurement of the extra dimensional mind you mentioned?



meas·ure
/ˈmeZHər/
verb

1. ascertain the size, amount, or degree of (something) by using an instrument or device marked in standard units or by comparing it with an object of known size.


👆 You ready to answer this yet?



posted on May, 8 2021 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Can you provide measurement of the extra dimensional mind you mentioned?



The Copenhagen interpretation, and the evidence that supports it, shows me that the mind and its ability to investigate is a causal factor in the universe. If the things that are being studied have substance, then the mind that is studying it has even more importance. This is of course up for interpretation, but it seems to me that our bodies and the material world are a most fitting interface for the mind to have its existence. I suppose our minds can be traced to the primordial Mind that designed the world we live in, which has most definitely attributes of a design



posted on May, 8 2021 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Incredulity and looking at contemporary organisms backwards would show signs of design, which you have aptly demonstrated.



posted on May, 8 2021 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Can you provide measurement of the extra dimensional mind you mentioned?



The Copenhagen interpretation, and the evidence that supports it, shows me that the mind and its ability to investigate is a causal factor in the universe. If the things that are being studied have substance, then the mind that is studying it has even more importance. This is of course up for interpretation, but it seems to me that our bodies and the material world are a most fitting interface for the mind to have its existence. I suppose our minds can be traced to the primordial Mind that designed the world we live in, which has most definitely attributes of a design



The Copenhagen interpretation does not state that that is your interpretation. Thanks to quantum computing we learned its a matter of decoherence. A person need not be involved to get a wave function to collapse. in order for quantum computing to work you need to maintain coherence. In other words, we are learning how to isolate a system. When we take a measurement we change the system which causes the collapse of the wave function.



posted on May, 8 2021 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Can you provide measurement of the extra dimensional mind you mentioned?



The Copenhagen interpretation, and the evidence that supports it, shows me that the mind and its ability to investigate is a causal factor in the universe. If the things that are being studied have substance, then the mind that is studying it has even more importance. This is of course up for interpretation, but it seems to me that our bodies and the material world are a most fitting interface for the mind to have its existence. I suppose our minds can be traced to the primordial Mind that designed the world we live in, which has most definitely attributes of a design



The Copenhagen interpretation does not state that that is your interpretation. Thanks to quantum computing we learned its a matter of decoherence. A person need not be involved to get a wave function to collapse. in order for quantum computing to work you need to maintain coherence. In other words, we are learning how to isolate a system. When we take a measurement we change the system which causes the collapse of the wave function.


And there is NO evidence that consciousness is responsible or even relevant to the experiment and its results. And again, this tangent of discussion is unrelated to evolution. Much deserving of clarification but unrelated no less.



posted on May, 8 2021 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton


A new interpretation of quantum mechanics suggests reality does not depend on the measurer

Date:
October 8, 2020
Source:
Aalto University
Summary:
For 100 years scientists have disagreed on how to interpret quantum mechanics. A recent study supports an interpretation that is close to classical scientific principles




"The results suggest that there is no logical reason for the results to be dependent on the person conducting the measurement.According to our study, there is nothing that suggests that the consciousness of the person would disturb the results or create a certain result or reality," says Jussi Lindgren.

This interpretation supports such interpretations of quantum mechanics that support classical scientific principles.

"The interpretation is objective and realistic, and at the same time as simple as possible. We like clarity and prefer to remove all mysticism," says Liukkonen.

The researchers published their last article in December 2019, which also utilized mathematical analysis as a tool to explain quantum mechanics. The method they used was stochastic optimal control theory, which has been used to solve such challenges as how to send a rocket from the Earth to the Moon.


QM is not magic. There's no guy in the sky with a magic wand guiding the experiment.

The weight of the Copenhagen Interpretation rests in the mathematics. If you think that consciousness is critical to the experiment, then present the data. Present the mathematics. Otherwise, it's just your opinion. And worthless.



posted on May, 8 2021 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

From the horse's mouth:




Heisenberg explained the objective character of this registration process as follows.“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 the quantum theory. It must also be pointed out that in this respect the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory is in no way positivistic. For whereas positivism is based on sensual perceptions of the observer as elements of reality, the Copenhagen interpretation regards things and processes which are describable in terms of classical concepts, i.e., the actual, as the foundation of any physical interpretation.” [5] (p. 22). Thus, Heisenberg neither requires nor refers to the mind, the brain, or human knowledge for the actualization of potential values, which appear in successful measurements as actual values of an observable inferrable from a resulting classically describable record in accordance with the EE-link; only the interaction of the measured system with the greater world in a way so as to produce such a classical record is required. It is such a record from which the mind could later acquire knowledge if the recorded, classically describable measurement outcome is later attended to.



posted on May, 8 2021 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Your requirement that these experiments must include a human/conscious being to be successful would mean that every law in the universe would require a conscious being to create them. The laws of thermodynamics existed before a human even existed in the universe. All physical laws and constants exist INDEPENDENTLY. There is no dependence on a conscious being for the laws to exist.



Laws are developed from data and can be further developed through mathematics; in all cases they are directly or indirectly based on empirical evidence. It is generally understood that they implicitly reflect, though they do not explicitly assert, causal relationships fundamental to reality, and are discovered rather than invented.[2]


That's why your interpretation is totally wrong. "Discovered" means that it always existed. It was not "invented" by anyone. Big difference.


edit on 8-5-2021 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2021 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton




were all trying to know the truth I hope


If you're trying to learn the truth, you have to understand the known science first. If you have a hypothesis that may disagree with what's known, that's fine. But you need to propose an experiment to prove your case. Even if you don't have the resources for an experiment itself, you can write up a protocol suggesting how/why you would conduct it. That's the way you reach the truth.




We conclude this section with the words of Richard Feynman in Lecture Notes on Physics [148]:

The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is the experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of the scientific truth. But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws to be tested come from? Experiment itself helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints. But also needed is the imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations- to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess.



posted on May, 8 2021 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton




were all trying to know the truth I hope


If you're trying to learn the truth, you have to understand the known science first. If you have a hypothesis that may disagree with what's known, that's fine. But you need to propose an experiment to prove your case. Even if you don't have the resources for an experiment itself, you can write up a protocol suggesting how/why you would conduct it. That's the way you reach the truth.




We conclude this section with the words of Richard Feynman in Lecture Notes on Physics [148]:

The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is the experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of the scientific truth. But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws to be tested come from? Experiment itself helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints. But also needed is the imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations- to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess.




Hence why I have been (repeatedly) asking for verifiable measurements of this "extra dimensional mind" hypothesis. It's an incredible claim that requires incredible evidence.

It would be especially helpful to demonstrate such measurements historically influencing evolution.
edit on 8-5-2021 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2021 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
It's an incredible claim that requires incredible evidence.


My quom with evolution. There's no evidence that it can actually happen, yet you champion this garbage theory as if it has any basis in reality
edit on 8-5-2021 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2021 @ 11:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
It's an incredible claim that requires incredible evidence.


My quom with evolution. There's no evidence that it can actually happen, yet you champion this garbage theory as if it has any basis in reality


Only if you choose to ignore science and what we have learned in the past 100 years.

All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.

The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.



Then there is embryos and how they have similarities between species for example at one point you had gills. then there is bacteria we see it all the time they build up immunities to antibiotics.



posted on May, 9 2021 @ 03:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
It's an incredible claim that requires incredible evidence.


My quom with evolution. There's no evidence that it can actually happen, yet you champion this garbage theory as if it has any basis in reality


Cooperton is a pupil of the Ken Ham school of science. Nothing short of a physical and visual change from cat to monkey will be enough. He completely disregards the most basic taxonomy that even a child would understand.

DNA commonality, the (incomplete but evidential) fossil record, isolation experiments, shared foetal development, excessive inactive genes, etc are not enough. He wants to SEE speciation and adaptation happen.

This is not only scientifically utterly ignorant, but the most idiotic request for proof there can be.




top topics



 
5
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join