God exists, but not the way most people want it to, or recognize.

a reply to: fastzombie

If you have a foundation you might understand the the opposition from so many scientists to QM becoming what it is transforming into, a cult... the Cult of the Quantum

Experimental physics encompasses all the disciplines of physics that are concerned with data acquisition, data-acquisition methods, and the detailed conceptualization (beyond simple thought experiments) and realization of laboratory experiments. It is often contrasted with theoretical physics, which is more concerned with predicting and explaining the physical behaviour of nature than the acquisition of empirical data.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: fastzombie


Science is a method not a position. Until we can come to a theory that reconciles the macro and micro of physics nothing is settled about the nature of reality.

I think we are all fish in the water trying to guess what is outside and theorists make educated guesses and bicker and argue with one another... but the experimentalist are the fish who poke their head out of the water to take a look.

Physics is moving beyond QM, that old bag...

originally posted by: fastzombie
a reply to: iamthevirus

Yes, sorry it's a bit wordy but then that's quantum mechanics for you.

The idea or position that consciousness plays no part in creating our reality, eg a non conscious instrument can measure reality.
The idea that the potential for consciousness exists in everything. The more complex a thing is -a measuring instrument for example - the higher on the consciousness spectrum it becomes. So consciousness is playing a role in creating reality.

Do you know why Erwin Schrödinger brought up the famous Schrödinger's cat paradox? Wikipedia mentions it, but it's usually not mentioned in (entertainment or educational) media that brings it up (or quantum physicists bringing it up). They always talk about it as if you can actually have a cat that is both alive and dead at the same time.* That's not why Schrödinger brought it up (to give that impression).

*: take for example Stargate SG-1, s1e16 "Enigma":

They did get the remark about it being a misconception right though (I refer back to Freeman Dyson's video for why it is a misconception). And it's not a theory, and he didn't say what is claimed at 0:36, he brought it up because that's the contradiction that a certain component (0:48) of the so-called Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics leads to, showing that it (that component in the interpretation) is in error.* His point was that it cannot be the right interpretation because it leads to a paradox/contradiction. Not that the paradox/contradiction can be an actual reality because of the way quantum physics works. Quantum physicists have put so much of a spin on the public impression of the term "Schrödinger's cat", that people seem to forget that paradoxes are not actual possible situations (possibilities, possible realities) and that when an interpretation leads to a paradox, it must therefore be wrong.

*: as a reminder, here are the synonyms for paradox as listed on thesaurus.com (I'll use the same color scheme to show which words are most similar, since a synonym doesn't necessarily need to mean exactly the same thing, but it does show the relation and similarity in meaning between these words):

noun contradiction, puzzle

absurdity
...
error
mistake
nonsense

By the way, when an interpretation by scientists has been shown to be in error/wrong many decades ago, and it is still being touted as "science" and promoted under the marketingbanner "Science" (such as in the Sci-Fi show and scene above), the correct term for this interpretation (idea/philosophy) is "pseudoscience".

“Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called ‘knowledge.’* [Latin: scientia; KJ: “science” Greek: gnoʹsis] By making a show of such knowledge, some have deviated from the faith.

May the undeserved kindness be with you.” (1Ti 6:20,21)

The english word "science" comes from the Latin scientia, meaning knowledge. Essentially, knowledge means familiarity with facts/truths/certainties/realities* acquired by personal experience, observation, or study. *: i.e. things that are factual/certain/absolute/conclusive/correct, without error. (wherever you see a / I'm using synonyms as reminders to counter certain unverified and popular philosophies and misconceptions about what science is supposed to be about, what you can count as "science", usually those that tie in with the popularity of both general and selective agnosticism and the philosophy of relativism)

Knowledge (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2)

...
Knowledge (gno'sis) is put in a very favorable light in the Christian Greek Scriptures. However, not all that men may call “knowledge” is to be sought, because philosophies and views exist that are “falsely called ‘knowledge.’” (1Ti 6:20) ...
... Thus Paul wrote about some who were learning (taking in knowledge) “yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge [...] of truth.” (2Ti 3:6, 7)

“... having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power and from these turn away. From among these arise men who slyly work their way into households and captivate weak women loaded down with sins, led by various desires, always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth.” (2Ti 3:5-7)

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

“So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.” (Ephesians 4:14)

“Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;” “We have much to say about him, and it is difficult to explain, because you have become dull in your hearing. For although by now* [Lit., “in view of the time.”] you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment* [Or “their perceptive powers.”] trained to distinguish both right and wrong.” (Col 2:8; Hebrews 5:11-14)

Synonyms for "right" and "wrong" are "true/certain" and "false/in error" respectively. So according to the Bible, yes, we can know some things for certain, such as that 1+1=2. A statement of an absolute fact (pardon the redundancy in that expression, just for clarity against the popularity of South Park's agnostic code, which I sometimes refer to as the philosophy of vagueness, although rarely cause I'm worried most people who have been taken in by it won't understand that description; with "it" I'm referring to relativism as described under the link before, in the subsection "An Assault on Truth"). Ah well, here it is (but it's better in the context of what's explained in the introductory section):

...

An Assault on Truth

Pontius Pilate was hardly the first person to question the idea of absolute truth. Some ancient Greek philosophers made the teaching of such doubts virtually their life’s work! Five centuries before Pilate, Parmenides (who has been considered the father of European metaphysics) held that real knowledge was unattainable. Democritus, hailed as “the greatest of ancient philosophers,” asserted: “Truth is buried deep. . . . We know nothing for certain.” Perhaps the most revered of them all, Socrates, said that all that he really knew was that he knew nothing.

This assault on the idea that truth can be known has continued down to our day. Some philosophers, for instance, say that since knowledge reaches us through our senses, which can be deceived, no knowledge is verifiably true. French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes decided to examine all the things he thought he knew for certain. He discarded all but one truth that he deemed incontrovertible: “Cogito ergo sum,” or, “I think, therefore I am.”

A Culture of Relativism

Relativism is not limited to philosophers. It is taught by religious leaders, indoctrinated in schools, and spread by the media. Episcopal bishop John S. Spong said a few years ago: “We must . . . move from thinking we have the truth and others must come to our point of view to the realization that ultimate truth is beyond the grasp of all of us.” Spong’s relativism, like that of so many clergymen today, is quick to drop the Bible’s moral teachings in favor of a philosophy of “to each his own.” For example, in an effort to make homosexuals feel more “comfortable” in the Episcopal Church, Spong wrote a book claiming that the apostle Paul was a homosexual!

In many lands the school systems seem to engender a similar type of thinking. Allan Bloom wrote in his book The Closing of the American Mind: “There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.” Bloom found that if he challenged his students’ conviction on this matter, they would react with astonishment, “as though he were calling into question 2 + 2 = 4.” [whereislogic: which is ironic cause that's a statement of absolute truth that we can be absolutely certain of, like my earlier example of 1+1=2. There's no "ambiguity" here, which by the way is listed as a synonym for paradox on thesaurus.com, in red.]

The same thinking is promoted in countless other ways. For instance, TV and newspaper reporters often seem more interested in entertaining their viewers than in getting at the truth of a story. Some news programs have even doctored or faked film footage in order to make it appear more dramatic. And in entertainment a stronger attack is mounted on truth. The values and moral truths that our parents and grandparents lived by are widely viewed as obsolete and are often held up to outright ridicule.

Of course, some might argue that much of this relativism represents open-mindedness and therefore has a positive impact on human society. Does it really, though? And what about its impact on you? Do you believe that truth is relative or nonexistent? If so, searching for it may strike you as a waste of time. Such an outlook will affect your future.

Next page: Why Search for Truth?

MANY religious organizations claim to have the truth, and they offer it eagerly to others. However, between them they offer a dizzying profusion of “truths.” Is this just another evidence that all truths are relative, that there are no absolute truths? No. In his book The Art of Thinking, Professor V. R. Ruggiero expresses his surprise that even intelligent people sometimes say that truth is relative. He reasons: “If everyone makes his own truth, then no person’s idea can be better than another’s. All must be equal. And if all ideas are equal, what is the point in researching any subject? Why dig in the ground for answers to archeological questions? Why probe the causes of tension in the Middle East? Why search for a cancer cure? Why explore the galaxy? These activities make sense only if some answers are better than others, if truth is something separate from, and unaffected by, individual perspectives.” In fact, no one really believes that there is no truth. When it comes to physical realities, such as medicine, mathematics, or the laws of physics, even the staunchest relativist will believe that some things are true. Who of us would dare to ride in an airplane if we did not think that the laws of aerodynamics were absolute truths? Verifiable truths do exist; they surround us, and we stake our lives on them.

The Price of Relativism

It is in the moral realm, though, where the errors of relativism are most apparent, for it is here that such thinking has done the most harm. The Encyclopedia Americana makes this point: “It has been seriously doubted whether knowledge, or known truth, is humanly attainable . . . It is certain, however, that whenever the twin ideals of truth and knowledge are rejected as visionary or harmful, human society decays.” Perhaps you have noticed such decay. ...

What Is the Truth?

So let us leave the murky waters of relativism and examine briefly what the Bible describes as the pure waters of truth. (John 4:14; Revelation 22:17) In the Bible, “truth” is not at all like the abstract, intangible concept over which philosophers debate. ...

I'm sorry for messing up the lay-out of the 2nd page of that article, but I'm so out of space, just wanted to include that remark about "the murky waters of relativism", akin to my expression "the philosophy of vagueness", without losing too much context. As this is one of the most important components of the indoctrination and conditioning of the human mind by the one described in the Bible as "the father of the lie". This way of thinking, is a key component or means he uses to increase the spread and popularity of myths/false stories, lies and erronuous philosophies/ideas (especially about God or related to God and His creation, i.e. the realities that surround us), often under the marketingbanner "Science", or as suppsed knowledge, insight, understanding, enlightenment and even spirituality (especially once you get into the field of quantum mechanics as applied to New Age philosophy and Eastern mysticism; but the philosophical contradictions are also misapplied in Western theology and apologetics to counter materialism, as was mentioned in this thread, as if it counters that). OK, now I'm done.

a reply to: iamthevirus

interestingengineering.com...

cosmosmagazine.com...

physicstoday.scitation.org...

a reply to: iamthevirus

Constructor Theory serves as more of a bridge between Quantum Physics and classical physics. Not a replacement.

a reply to: whereislogic

It's only a paradox when observed through the confining, limited lens of the material world.

a reply to: Untun

Now you're getting it. In a rudimentary sort of way.

a reply to: whereislogic

This is just a wall of text. TLDR

originally posted by: socialmediaclown
a reply to: whereislogic

It's only a paradox when observed through the confining, limited lens of the material world.

See my latest edit, at the very end. Thanks for the demonstration of what I was talking about there (that way of thinking).

a reply to: whereislogic

I'm sorry, I can't read that garbled mess. And you used a clip from a TV series (a horrible one at that) to back up your claims... Re-edit your post. Make it make sense.

a reply to: socialmediaclown

Sorry, no can do, out of time for any edits. The videoclip was an example of my remark about entertainment media not bringing up the real reason why Schrödinger brought up the cat paradox in response to the relevant component of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (when they, the media, brings up Schrödinger's cat, The Big Bang Theory show does the same thing; one of the Star Trek shows probably as well, can't remember). In this case, not even mentioning the word "paradox/contradiction". At least the Tollan guy said it was a misconception, that's something I guess, but that's not what the viewer will take away from it as being 'the (established) science' (because it's not Sam saying it, so that part will be seen as the fictional part in Sci-Fi, even though it's the other way around). The video "to back up [my] claims" (regarding why it is a misconception, what's mentioned at 0:48 in the clip), was Freeman Dyson's presentation and explanations linked on page 5 (and the related evidence he discusses), as I mentioned in my comment right after the clip. Freeman Dyson uses the terms "unnecessary and misleading" rather than "misconception", in the quotation that I used in my comment (but that is a summarizing conclusion, based on the evidence discussed in the rest of the video).

Also, don't diss the best show ever made from my perspective (the most enjoyable, and possibly the most thought-provoking for me, although Babylon 5 is also a contender for that title). Just go watch some more The Last of Us, The Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, Stranger Things, Peaky Blinders, Sherlock, Lost, Vikings, The Boys or Westworld. To name a few of the top 21 modern crappy shows on IMDB (ordered by number of votes), plus The Last of Us which is rising up the rankings and incredibly overrated at 9.1, running now. I'm sure your and other's continued contributions to the viewer ratings will ensure that they'll keep making these crappy style modern shows. At a rate of 10 episodes per 2 years on average for 10 times the budget as the old-fashioned 20-26 episodes per season (quality) shows. Please don't take this part of my comment too seriously, but with a grain of salt. I'm just ranting a bit about modern shows, little to do with you, or your opinions and tastes in entertainment (I just used examples that are popular in the general audience, some of which bug me for what they do with their inflated budgets compared to Stargate SG-1, or even Stargate Atlantis, Babylon 5 or Star Trek DS9, my favorite shows).

Or were you just talking about that episode, the quality of that video, or only that scene? I rate the episode at 7 (1 point less than IMDB, one of the reasons being that annoyance I feel when the audience is misled regarding the topic of Schrödinger's cat in favor of promoting the earlier mentioned wrong impression, and the way they can't get it right, I'd like a Sci-Fi show to, for once, mention some of the things I've mentioned about it in my comment, i.e. to get it right, that would be enjoyable to me to see and up my ratings for that episode. Let a Vulcan get it right in a Star Trek show, that would be so cool).

Thank you for that, interesting theory and future testing might bring about interesting results and evidence. However the idea of some abstract conductor entity that sets limits on possibility doesn't seem to be all that vastly different from, the panpsychic view as it operates in a consensus reality. It justs shifts the mystery somewhat. I mean panpsychism is viewed as being a somewhat mystical take on the universe but it was proposed by an atheist who remains one, as far as I'm aware. However this conductor entity that sets limits on what's possible could have all sorts of mystic/theistic interpretations placed on it I also see the proponent also believes in the many worlds theory which is problematic.

a reply to: whereislogic

The entertainment industry is garbage.

youtu.be...

www.scientificamerican.com...

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: socialmediaclown

The videoclip was an example of my remark about entertainment media not bringing up the real reason why Schrödinger brought up the cat paradox in response to the relevant component of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (when they, the media, brings up Schrödinger's cat, The Big Bang Theory show does the same thing; one of the Star Trek shows probably as well, can't remember). In this case, not even mentioning the word "paradox/contradiction". At least the Tollan guy said it was a misconception, that's something I guess, ...

Since I brought it up, it starts at 2:41:

Notice, no mention of the word "paradox/contradiction", or the real reason why Schrödinger brought it up to demonstrate which component of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is wrong, instead, the wrong impression (and this misconception described at 0:48 in the Stargate clip earlier, that it is based on, about the role of the observer) is given and promoted that you can actually have a cat that is both alive and dead at the same time. A cat that exists as such, as if that's an actual possibility. Total nonsense and pseudoscience. And Schrödinger did not bring it up to "explain the Copenhagen interpretation of QM", as if to condone that nonsense posing as science and marketed under that banner, as Sheldon describes the situation in the scene above further enforcing the impression that this is science. That is what I was talking about earlier when I was explaining the following:

originally posted by: whereislogic
Do you know why Erwin Schrödinger brought up the famous Schrödinger's cat paradox? Wikipedia mentions it, but it's usually not mentioned in (entertainment or educational) media that brings it up (or quantum physicists bringing it up). They always talk about it as if you can actually have a cat that is both alive and dead at the same time.* That's not why Schrödinger brought it up (to give that impression).

*: take for example Stargate SG-1, s1e16 "Enigma":

They did get the remark about it being a misconception right though (I refer back to Freeman Dyson's video for why it is a misconception). And it's not a theory, and he didn't say what is claimed at 0:36, he brought it up because that's the contradiction that a certain component (0:48) of the so-called Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics leads to, showing that it (that component in the interpretation) is in error.* His point was that it cannot be the right interpretation because it leads to a paradox/contradiction. Not that the paradox/contradiction can be an actual reality because of the way quantum physics [or reality] works. Quantum physicists have put so much of a spin on the public impression of the term "Schrödinger's cat", that people seem to forget that paradoxes are not actual possible situations (possibilities, possible realities) and that when an interpretation leads to a paradox, it must therefore be wrong.

I made a small edit in between brackets there now.

Here they do it again:

Getting it wrong again. At least Penny's common sense is prevailing at the end. Here's another show promoting the same wrong impression and misconception:

I watched till 1:30 and no mention of the word "paradox/contradiction". The programming is real people! Fight it by using “your power of reason. And stop being molded by this system of things,* [Or “this age.” See Glossary.] but be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” (Romans 12:2, and the ending of verse 1)

Silicon Valley does it too:

Either they all missed the point described in the line on wikipedia that mentions:

This thought experiment was devised by physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935[1] in a discussion with Albert Einstein[2] to illustrate what Schrödinger saw as the problems of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Or someone deliberately made it so that all these writers missed the real reason Schrödinger brought it up. And for some reason want to promote the impression that paradoxes/contradictions are actual possibilities, that science supports this nonsense (remember the synonyms for paradox?) and that Schrödinger was 'explaining' it (as Sheldon erronuously puts it) or "to help understand" it (as the guy in the scene above erronuously puts it, re-enforcing the same wrong impressions, misconceptions and myths/false stories).

a reply to: whereislogic

I don't care about actors reading from scripts during performance art that is clearly defined as entertainment. It's completely irrelevant. Apparently you missed my relevant links about the Nobel Peace Prize winners. Go ahead and let them know that they're dabbling in fake pseudoscience and nonsense. Go ahead.

a reply to: socialmediaclown

Likewise millions of people vote for a president from time to time.

a reply to: Untun

How does this comment add to the discussion

a reply to: socialmediaclown

People vote for Miss America, a president and even the Nobel Prize winners.

Some voted for, some voted against.
Some have interest in the chosen, some don't.

Will it have been worth it? Time will tell.

a reply to: Untun

The biggest problem with social media is that people don't care about the quality of discussion. Most people are online simply seeking attention.

Refer to clip

Never got the hype about the cat experiment. I mean the fact the cat is conscious throws the whole thing off anyway.