Hyper evolution in the bible

Depending upon exactly what you mean by 'uniformitarianism' I'm not sure I agree with your first statement. Science accepts that the Earth, even the universe, has had some pretty major changes. According to pretty standard cosmology, it used to be all plasma. That it no longer is plasma, is a fairly large change.

quote:

---

The Bible strongly suggests in a number of places that this is incorrect, that the universe has undergone major fundamental shifts, even in what men have considered it's basic principles.

---

That's nice, randman, but where is the evidence? Major shifts in basic principles ought to leave a mark.

---

No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Also, who says there are no "marks".

---

Not I. But I did ask for evidence of some, should you feel they are there.

quote:

---

Science views the data under certain assumptions, such as a static past, a physical world similar to what we see now, similar processes, etc,...

---

Until evidence to the contrary comes forth, sure. Is that not reasonable?

quote:

---

Maybe the universe as a whole is like that as well.

---

Maybe. Maybe-not. Where is the evidence? Without it, all you have is a wish.

---

No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

You really seem to like making references to relativity and quantum mechanics, but from what I can tell you are expounding something like a physics version of pop-psychology. I'm sorry, but you don't make much sense. Statements like...

quote:

---

Most physicists believe that GR and QM have not been harmonized, and that may be true...

---

... illustrate the point. That may be true? What an understatement! Getting the two to play nice would be like finding the Grail and having it filled with Guinness to boot.But, and much more importantly, all you are presenting are 'ifs' and 'maybes' and 'could possiblies'. I can make those up for the rest of my life and not one would mean anything without evidence. And merely stating...

quote:

---

Well, evidence has begun to come forth.

---

... doesn't cut it. You have to say specifically what evidence and provide math, charts, and singing telegrams. Evidence. Evidence. Not 'because it kinda sorta looks like maybe'. What you are providing is extraordinarily vague, and it is unconvincing in direct relation to its vagueness.To be honest, I'm not sure what you are trying to argue with this post.

---

No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

It's not extraordinarily vague. What part do you not understand?

---

Its not the physics. Its you. You are littering your posts with little fragments of physics but you aren't really going anywhere with them. You aren't making any arguments. What you are doing is mentioning some component of physics-- minimally mentioning it-- then saying 'ooh, neato, maybe it could be that...' Well, that isn't an argument. Maybe it COULD be that... but it still isn't an argument. 'Could bees' are a dime a dozen. Make a case for something.

quote:

---

the time is relative?
principles of entanglement (action at a distance)
the concept of a whole picture of earth being a streak in space-time rather than a sphere in space?
the concept of physical form being derived from an information pattern?

---

Pick one, and make a case. Make a case not for the physics, but for... well, for whatever it is you are trying to say. Right now, I read your posts and see something like 'time is relative' and think, "Ok. Fine. Time is relative. Big deal. What is randman's point in mentioning that? And, how does his argument for that opinion work?"

---

No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I have not argued with you about any of the science sprinkled throughout your posts.Time is relative. Fine.Quantum Mechanics. General Relativity. Fine.But what is the point you are trying to make? Is it this?

quote:

---

... certain assumptions are based on outdated science

---

Ok. Now make an argument. How do you get to this conclusion? Right now, I'm feeling like either you do not have a real argument or you are giving me only pieces of an argument. Either way is no good.Do you know how to make an argument? Step one leads to step two leads to step three leads to step four and so on. The best I can get from you is step one, step ten, step twenty-three. There! See, there is your evidence. For example...You've mentioned numerous times that time is relative. Ok. Lets go with that. (Remember. I am making up the rest of this. I don't know if this is what you actually believe, but that doesn't matter. This is illustration.) Scientists use the idea of time to make calculations. They are using an outdated concept of time. Therefore,the science is invalid. That is a good nutshell version. It tells me the point, but there are gaps. What calculations in particular depend upon outdated concepts of time? Does it matter? For most purposes, Newton's outdated laws work fine. Maybe it doesn't matter if the concept of time is outdated. Without the details, I can't tell. Nor can you, for that matter. Perhaps the scientists aren't using outdated notions after all. Without the particulars, I can't tell. And you are loath to give particulars. If I said to certain members of these forums, "The Bible is full of contradictions." What would be the first response? "Give me an example." Right?As it is. You give the conclusion, if it is your conclusion, that some science is invalid because it uses outdated notions. You give your premise that time is relative, BUT there is NOTHING-- or very little-- connecting the two. It is your job to make those connections. You've had to prove a geometry problem right? Do you look at the problem and leap to the answer? Or do you work the problem step by step? Making an argument is like that. You have to show your steps. If you don't, no one knows how you did it.Pointing at a layer of rock isn't providing evidence. Pointing at the sky isn't the same as making an argument about cosmology. An argument, a chain of reasoning, must accompany the pointing for it to be evidence. You point. You do not provide the chain of reasoning.Did Darwin, , point at birds and squeal, "There is your evidence!!!" No, Darwin pointed at birds and said, "Notice how this bird resembles the one from ten miles North. Notice that... etc and etc. From this I reason that..." Can you see the difference between that and what you have been doing? If you cannot tell the difference, I suggest to you honestly that you sit down and reflect.When you give someone directions do you tell them only the major roads. "Take I-90." Well that is fine if you live on I-90 and your friend, who is trying to visit, also lives on I-90, but otherwise your friend has a very good chance of getting lost. And I am. And what might be a very fine opinion is about to be tossed because that opinion's owner cannot or will not speak in any but the vaguest generalities. You won't tell me which roads to take to get to your conceptual house. All you want to say is that I'll be driving on I-90 (call it 'time is relative highway') some of the way, and I'll drive on county road 85 (call it 'GR') a bit. Those directions are crap. They are meaningless.

---

No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

I am happy to elaborate, but could be reprimanded for being off-topic

---

That is a possibility.

quote:

---

My hypothesis is we will discover that the past is changing, slowly, but as more time passes, the changes add up and create significantly more changes. It's sort of a multi-verse idea except not that all states exist in reality, although that could be, but that several states interact to form one single state.

---

Well, could be. But where is the math? Right now, to be honest, I don't think you really have a hypothesis. You have a guess or a wish or something that sounds cool.

quote:

---

But that is not well-established.

---

Keep things in perspective. This isn't established at all. I am not aware of any theorist who is working on the jiggly-pole-in-spacetime idea.

quote:

---

What is well-established, imo,is the nature of what we call reality consists of information. We see that in QM, and we see that in General Relativity, as I have pointed out.

---

You've mentioned this before. I'd say the idea is far from well-established, even going so far as to call it pretty iffy. But 'information' has become such a jargon word, I am always afraid to even try to guess what it means to someone.

quote:

---

What brings matter into form is something beyond matter, an information and energy pattern.

---

This is why I am not sure what you mean. QM strongly suggests that at the smallest levels, things are pretty random and it is hard to call random a 'pattern'. Remember Einstein's "God does not play dice quip?"Your next two paragraphs kinda fall flat with the randomness of QM in mind.

quote:

---

For example, the concepts of things being rooted in a world outside normal space, but real nonetheless is very similar if not identical to what religious traditions call "spiritual."

---

Invalid inference at both steps, but I am seriously out of time.Must go to work.I'll finish tonight.

---

No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

For example, I think the principle of entanglement largely has overshadowed the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, but let's don't go there because it would involve a whole new tangent.

---

Sorry. No. The random components of QM have not been eclipsed by entanglement or by anything else, whatever you might think. That is, this view is not expressed by any qualified physicist of whom I am aware. Nor am I aware of any research that suggests it. If you have evidence to the contrary please present it.Nor is this a tangent. Your argument rested, and still rests, upon this idea of your that there is a pattern in the randomness. You cannot dismiss a criticism of a primary premise of your argument and still expect me to care what you say next.

quote:

---

Suffice for this argument is that the randomness is within set parameters of the non-observed design.

---

It is most definitely not sufficient to say that. This is a keystone of your argument and what you are asking me to do is swallow it whole because you say so. It doesn't work that way. I object to your premise. Now defend it or the argument is over.What I think is happening is that you need this component of the argument, and you are hoping that you can slip it in and get me to concede the point by acting as if my objection were really to other anciliary point and then asking me to swallow a slightly reworded version of the point to which I objected. That is not a savory debate tactic.

quote:

---

The "random" element was just an indication of exactly what I am talking about, not a contradiction.

---

Pure sophistry.

quote:

---

Either way, the information pattern is what the thing is. The physical appearance as matter is merely a derived manifestation of the pattern, which exists the same regardless of which form is manifested,

---

Yes, but you've pulled this out of thin air. IE., you've just made it up.

---

No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Wrong. You are not listening.

---

Wrong. I am listening. Is it not true that most of my posts have been attempts to squeeze information-- he he -- out of you? Reread. You are not very forthcoming. I am still trying to figure out exactly how your reasoning works. It is starting to make some sense, and I have to say, it may be the best ID argument I've ever seen. But that remains to be seen.

quote:

---

The pattern is not in the randomness. You are not following the point at all.

---

Layer one: 'waves' of energy and/or information
Layer two: observable data, ie. the not mechanically predictable results of particle experiments.
Layer three: The universe we see.Layer one 'collapses' into layer two. Right? I'm not so sure. Take a look at your own quote.

quote:

---

Actually Wheeler says quantum phenomena are neither waves nor particles but are intrinsically undefined until the moment they are measured.

---

Neither waves nor particles. Intrinsically undefined. The reason Wheeler can say this is that the wave and particle ideas are mathatical tricks. Also from one of your links.

quote:

---

It turns out that very naturally the referent of quantum physics is not reality per se but, as Niels Bohr said, it is "what can be said about the world", or in modern words, it is information.

---

Note, very importantly, that quantum physics is talking about not 'reality' but about what we can say about it-- that is, about how we can describe it. The math, the wave functions, the sum over histories are language. They are not the world as it is, at least, not any more than my describing a beach ball is the beach ball. That's why there are different ways to do it-- ie. Feynman's sum over histories vs. Schodinger's wave function. Its like speaking French vs. German, but the language isn't the world. What you've got with quantum mechanics right now is what we had with Newton and gravity. Newton's math could describe the effects of gravity, but they did not explain it. Einstein gave us the explaination-- gravity is a curve in spacetime.The real foundation as far as observable effects is the irritating unpredictable results in the experiments.You can't reverse the foundation and the language. That is part of why I have been saying 'pattern in the randomness'. Those results are what count. Eventually, perhaps, there will be something deeper, which can be tested, but right now there isn't.Time for work.--- Unsuspectingly, I made it home in time to continue before your reply --Another reason I say 'pattern in the randomness' is that if one were to find a formula that predicts the apparently random effects observed, one has also automatically proven that the effects had not been random after all but that they were a very complicated pattern-- that is, there was a pattern in the randomness. One of the links you posted suggests that the effects will always appear random because we will never know enough to solve the problem.Now lets assume that there is a pattern in the randomness, or 'under' it. The two statements seem functionally equivalent to me. But we don't know what it is. Now, where do you go from there?This message has been edited by John, 08-25-2005 11:52 AM

---

No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

I feel like we are talking past one another.

---

Certainly. That is colloquially called 'communication' but, then, I have been accused of being cynical.

quote:

---

QM is about reality, not just how we describe it. It's not just "a trick" as you suggest.

---

QM is about reality, certainly. But the math isn't the reality. It is possible to construct charts and graphs plotting the likely number of deaths from a gunshot wound per year. You can plot deaths through time, etc. and you can get predictive results within a range. What you cannot do is conclude that the charts and graphs and numbers somehow form an 'underpinning' of information from which the results emerge. That seems to be the stance you are taking.

quote:

---

The fact is there is a probability pattern existing, which exists whether the particle is in an undefined state, a wave-like state, or a particle-like state in a discrete position.

---

The results are what they are. The statistical descriptions of them don't somehow 'make' those results be what they are. It just doesn't make sense to say that a probability pattern 'exists'. There are zillions of probability patterns for various things. You don't really believe that the probability patterns of murders across the United States somehow causes those murders?QM has the data and the math, several versions of it, to create the graphs and charts. You cannot, however, infer that these charts are anything more than descriptions-- language.The rest of what you write just reiterates the idea that probability patterns somehow exist, which makes no sense. That point should be obvious when you apply the same reasoning to other probability calculations, like wheat harvests and weather patterns. Something causes these fluctuations, the math describes them. The math is not the cause. Something may cause the behavior observed in particles, but that something is not the language used to describe the behavior.

---

No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

The particle is one thing...

---

That is kind of a bizarre thing to say about a particle, as they tend to do very un-thing-like things as appear in two places at once. I'd be careful with this track, though it isn't relevant to this discussion for reasons I am about to present.

quote:

---

...not many as are the players in your example.

---

But you are talking about many players. One particle == one result. One result gives you one result. You need hundreds or thousands of results to figure out the probability of getting a result the next time. In other words, the data is obtained precisely as it is in my analogy-- via compiling numerous observations.

quote:

---

We are talking about the properties of a single object, not behaviour patterns of multiple people.

---

You aren't making sense. How about another analogy?What are the chances that you will commit suicide after having had this discussion with me? Well, we gather data about the suicide rates of those who've spoken with me extensively and work out a probability. Lets say its 1 in ten people off themselves. Now, we apply the data to you. You have a 1 in ten chance of offing yourself. Notice, we are talking about a single object-- you--, not multiple objects yet the math is still valid.Perhaps of interest...

quote:

---

Due to the interpretation of the wave function, quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory. It does not tell us with certainty what happens to a particular particle. Instead, it tells us, for instance, the probabilities for the particle to be detected in certain locations. If many experiments are done, with one particle per experiment, the numbers of experiments with particles being detected in the various possible locations are in proportion to the quantum mechanical probabilities.
Page not found | Department of Physics

---

quote:

---

Why? Just because you think it doesn't make sense is not evidence this isn't so.

---

I gave you ample reasons for this statement. Don't pretend that I asked you to accept it on my word alone. I find that terribly offensive.

quote:

---

The fact is the thing is a probability pattern.

---

Especially when in the very next sentence you make precisely the error for which you've just chastised me.

quote:

---

The probility pattern exists regardless of the physical state of the particle.

---

The probability pattern is math. Like all probability formula it is an average, of sorts, of the results of multiple observations. It is not a thing in itself. If you insist on calling these probability patterns things-in-themself you are obligated to accept all probability calculations as things-in-themself. This you are wont to do. Because it makes no sense.

quote:

---

But discussing probability patterns for behaviour instead of for both physical appearance, form and behaviour, as you are doing, is not germane to the discussion.

---

I think perhaps you are forgetting where the data for these calculations originate. One does not measure 'probability patterns'. One observes hundreds and thousands of discrete events and then makes up the math that describes the results. This, like it or not, is how the hard science works. Please tell me how this is not the case? And assuming it is the case, my analogies are relevant, like them or not. Those analogies are one-to-one analogous.

quote:

---

In other words, we are talking about the nature of physical existence...

---

Well, yes. But you grossly overstate the state of the arts.

quote:

---

and what QM has discovered is that physical states are derived from a probability pattern that exists regardless of the physical state

---

Again you forget the origen of the data. Having observed thousands of events and written a formula to describe them, you elevate the formula above the data.

quote:

---

and as such, the pattern is the more permanent and non-random feature of which the less permanent and random appearance of matter is derived from.

---

Thought experiment. Juxtapose the conception I describe and the one you describe. The two are identical as far as I can tell except that in your case the mathematical description has become the reality.Chronologically...1)Countless observations stretching back a hundred years or so.
2)Construction of formula which describe the results of #1.
3)In your case, #2 is considered more fundamental than #1How is step three justified? Do you object to #1 or #2?

quote:

---

It doesn't make sense to you because you have a false and outdated concept of what physical reality consists of.

---

awwwww... cute. Does randman feel like mud-slinging now?

---

No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Not if the thing is a probability pattern at it's root. That's the point.

---

I know your point is that a probability pattern is the 'root', but it is one you haven't supported. That is my point.

quote:

---

I don't know what you are talking about. One particle can give more than one result. That's part of the point here.

---

Then you radically-- RADICALLY-- do not understand what is going on in particle experiments. Scientists don't measure the same particle over and over. Particles are destroyed or radically altered when measured, thus fire one particle through a cyclotron and get one result. You can't grab the same particle and try again. You have to get a new particle. Its not like pool where you can bounce the same ball around the table.

quote:

---

So? What does that matter to this discussion at all?

---

It matters because this describes precisely how the data, upon which your argument-- well, at least the science-- rests, has been and is accumulated. Do you honestly not understand the basic-nose-to-the-grindstone-guy-in-white-lab-coat science?

quote:

---

In fact, I am not even sure with millions of results, you can ever figure out the probability of getting the exact same result "the next time", whatever that means. The point is not determining the probability, but that it exists at all.

---

????? Do you not know what 'probability' means? This statement suggests that you haven't a clue. How many sides are on a die? Six. How many ones are on a die? One. The probability, assuming a fair die, in one in six that you will roll a one 'next time'. The same works with repeated events. Throw a dart at a dart board. Count the times you throw-- say, 100. Count the times you hit the pie-shaped section labeled '18'-- say six. The probability of hitting the 18 section 'next time' is six in one-hundred, or three in fifty. That little calculation right there is your 'probability pattern', though QM uses much more complicated formulas.

quote:

---

No, it's not. That's totally wrong.

---

Having just discovered that you don't know what probability means, I repeat. The probability pattern is math.

quote:

---

Math is merely a description of the existing design, not the other way around.

---

Can one see the 'probability pattern' and thus measure it and describe it? Nope. Has any scientist ever seen such a thing? Nope. What, then, have scientists seen? Thousands of individual results which, they have discovered, can be described by certain mathematical formulas. The math is secondary to the results. How else would you get the math? You can't measure the 'probability pattern'. You can't detect it directly at all. All you have is thousands of results, which can be described via some very complicated math. That math is generated in exactly the same way as one would generate a probability for the roll of a die, for the toss of dart, or for the chance of rainfall in London. You are loath to admit that these 'probability patterns' are the 'root' of rain in London, for example, yet they are generated in precisely the same way as are the patterns in QM. How is the one different from the other?It is a very simple concept but you are stubbornly ignoring the source of the data and you don't know what probability means.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you insist on calling these probability patterns things-in-themself you are obligated to accept all probability calculations as things-in-themself.

---

​

Why?

---

Because if you do not so remain consistent you are guilty of a logical fallacy know as special pleading-- that is, insisting that an argument works just fine in one case but does not work at all in a sufficiently similar case.

quote:

---

No, there need not be hundreds or thousands of discrete events at all, and just 2 events in the 2-slit experiment is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of particles in wave/particle duality.

---

Rand, you should step back from the theory and take a look at how scientists actually get the data.

quote:

---

The event itself, not thousands, but one experiment is sufficient...

---

This shows how little grasp you have of the hard science, and of probability. I dare you to construct, or derive, a probability formula that gets even close from one toss of a dart. It cannot be done. Like it or not, the formulas of QM came from thousands of tosses of the dart, so to speak. You cannot get around that point. One hundred years of experiment are against you. The formulas of QM were not derived from anything but those thousands of experiments. That is as factual as factual gets. I don't know why you can't understand that. Do you claim that the formulas were not derived from the experiments?

quote:

---

No, there need not be hundreds or thousands of discrete events at all

---

Take a few minutes to learn what 'probability' means, and how it is calculated.

quote:

---

hence regardless of the derived, observed form

---

Here is your problem. The observed form is not derived. The observed form is observed. Regardless of how things exist in unknown reality, we have to start with the observed. And that is just what QM has done. It has started with the observed and made math to describe it. That math takes the form of probabilities. You can't reasonably deny that. History is against you. What you have to do is justify claiming that those derived-from-experiment probabilities are somehow primary-- causal in some sense-- and not secondary description as all other probabilities happen to be.

quote:

---

I don't know what you are talking about since what I am saying is not dependant on the math at all, but is derived from the observations in experiments.

---

Lol! What do you think is derived BUT the math? That is a serious question. What does the math point to besides itself?Now think about relativity. Einstein took a few observations-- very few, quite amazing-- and made a formula that described them. Einstein accepted the math on faith as describing reality. However, not everyone did. Fortunately for relativity some years later, came a chance to test the math against the real world and the math matched. Wow! What do you know, the math describes something tangible. In this case also, you see, the math is descriptive. With QM, right now, you have that untested and untestable, as far as anyone knows, math. Sure, it describes the results, but what makes it become more than a description? What do scientists derive besides mathematical formulae? That is something you don't seem to get. What one derives from the experiments are mathematical formulae, and those formulae are derived in precisely the same way as are dart throwing probabilities, murder statistics, and craps odds. What is the justification for making those formulae primary, rather than secondary-- that is, they describe not create-- as in all other statistics applications?

quote:

---

You just have an old definition of what a thing is, a definition which is outdated by QM. The more classical concepts seem right to many, which is why QM seemed so weird, even to Einstein, but what you are failing to realize is that QM is weird to your perspective, and that's because it contradicts pretty much every notion you have expressed on what constitutes physical matter and "things."

---

I haven't argued against any of the weird results of QM, but only against the leap from math as descriptive to math as proscriptive. And that is the way the inference runs. Quantum physicists went from observations of odd results in cyclotrons, to math that describes it, and now you, and some others perhaps, to the reification of that math (calling it 'derived' doesn't really change anything). You do not accept that reification in other contexts. What makes this case different?You can object to my statement that scientists looked at the observations and created the math to describe it, but this seems rather silly. If there were no observations, what would have been the basis of the math? What does the math describe if not the observations? In other words, eliminate all of the experimental results and what does the math describe? Well... nothing observable, nothing testable, nothing verifiable. All you've got is a formula. You have a statistical distribution like any other. What makes this particular statistical distribution different? So far you have not answered that question. The entire discussion can be concluded if you answer the following questions:1) Scientists observe the results of particle experiments? I am assuming you'll answer 'yes'.
2) Scientists make, or derive formulas to describe the experiments? Again, I assume you'll answer 'yes'.
3) Now, you have math that is descriptive of the results of particle experiments. If you do, in fact, answer yes to the two preceeding questions you are locked into accepting the opening statement of #3.
4) What makes the math go from descriptive as in #3 to proscriptive or to somehow being the underpinning of reality instead of just the language used to describe it? What is the justification for claiming the formula become, somehow, reality?#4 is the question you need to answer. You can claim that the math is derived from the experiments, and it is. No argument, but lots and lots of math is derived from other experiments and yet that math is not considered to be, by you or anyone else, to be causal or substantial, but merely descriptive. Why is it different in this case?There is perhaps an analogy with electromagnetic waves. The math for those was derived from experiment. However, they can be directly measured, or detected, with something as simple as iron filings or a compass. How does one detect a 'probability wave' other than by running lots of experiments and, well, making up the math? Consequently claiming that the math is primary is circular.Anyway, chew on that. I'd prefer you just answer question #4, listed above.

---

No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Of course, but the particle can give more than one result in the sense of being wave-like.

---

Given the context in which I made my statement, your comment makes no sense.

quote:

---

Your arguments rests on false analogies, not direct engagement of the data.

---

The analogies are illustrative, not supportive. The core argument engages the data about as directly as it can be engaged. That argument you have not yet so much as acknowledged. I'll quote myself for you. That argument looks like this:

quote:

---

1) Scientists observe the results of particle experiments? I am assuming you'll answer 'yes'.

​

2) Scientists make, or derive formulas to describe the experiments? Again, I assume you'll answer 'yes'.

​

3) Now, you have math that is descriptive of the results of particle experiments. If you do, in fact, answer yes to the two preceeding questions you are locked into accepting the opening statement of #3.

​

4) What makes the math go from descriptive as in #3 to proscriptive or to somehow being the underpinning of reality instead of just the language used to describe it? What is the justification for claiming the formula become, somehow, reality?

---

If you cannot address those four lines please do not respond.

quote:

---

Here's a link for instance, where one quantum physicist is working on newer mathematical equations to describe the real nature and event of what a particle is and does.

---

Notice your own language. Describe. Formulas describe. Calling it 'real' doesn't change anything. And you are right. That is exactly what he is doing. Zeilinger is describing quantum effects in terms of information theory.Notice...

quote:

---

Zeilinger thinks that before we can truly understand quantum theory, it must be connected in some way to what we know and feel.

---

quote:

---

Now Zeilinger proposes to rebuild quantum mechanics on a similar basis, to put it in terms that need no debatable philosophy.

---

Read between the two quotes. It is too much to paste into this message. Zeilinger is attempting to make QM palitable by couching it in terms familiar to non-scientists. It says so in the paper you quote. He is not jumping off the deep end and claiming that information 'underlies' realilty, as it seems you do.

quote:

---

Zeilinger's conceptual leap is to associate bits with the building blocks of the material world. In quantum mechanics, these building blocks are called elementary systems, and the archetypal elementary system is the spin of an electron. The only possible outcomes of measuring an electron's spin are "up" and "down".

---

The root of Zeilinger's formula, or conception, is not 'information' but electron spin. 'Information' doesn't 'underpin' his physics. His physics sits on the very detectable spin of electrons. Information theory describes it. And it is very simple to prove. If lab results conflict with information theory, which one wins? The winner is the true 'root'. The winner is the lab.

quote:

---

The formula for a probability pattern is immaterial. That's not what I am talking about. What I, and QM, talks about is then nature of fundamental physical existence. You need to get your head around the idea that it's not math we are discussing here, and it's not based on thousands of calculations.

---

Really, you have got to be joking. The methods-- THE METHODS-- of the science are immaterial? You deny then that QM comes from observations made in a lab? Scientists did not base their theories on these results? You, not I, need to take a look at the real science. You seem to have no idea how it works.I no longer have time for this. You've essentially discarded the hard science in favor of you theory, and in doing so you've leapt into the absurd.Take care.

---

No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

John, you clearly just refuse to engage the point.

---

That is really quite rich. I've debated myself about whether it is worth continuing. It is not. The longer this continues the more I realize that you don't know what's actually going on in the labs, you don't know the science works, and you can't follow an argument, not even your own. There are numerous examples in this post, but I am tired of the run around.

---

No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com