RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (415) < ... 382 383 384 385 386 [387] 388 389 390 391 392 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Henry J



Posts: 5388
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2019,09:35   

They couldn't be un-ending, cause weren't we told that infinities don't exist?

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2225
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2019,15:53   

New picture of Denyse.

No, not the first picture.  Scroll down.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2389
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2019,14:08   

It’s a good thing that UD isn’t a religious site.
Link

  
stevestory



Posts: 11970
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2019,19:55   

Quote
Healthcare analyst: Religion is good for health but its effects are hard to study
Overall, one suspects that many researchers would rather explain the facts away than research them. That said, Fisher offers much interesting data.

Posted on April 21, 2019 AuthorNews Comment(0)



For the first time, “No Religion” is the most popular choice for Americans
People who, forty years ago, would have cited the church their parents once attended as their “religion” now say “no religion.” That’s probably because, in current urban society, they no longer experience social penalties for being honest. It’s still a decline but to discuss it intelligently, we need to see clearly what it is a decline in.

Posted on April 21, 2019 AuthorNews Comment(1)


Easter Sunday viewing: a dramatised “Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel
Here: Food for thought. (More here.) END

Posted on April 21, 2019 Authorkairosfocus Comment(1)



Here’s a pop Darwin look at the origin of religion
At the BBC, a writer offers an explanation of the Christian practice of Communion, Darwinism-style. Along the way, he discovers that apes are spiritual.

Posted on April 21, 2019 AuthorNews Comment(1)

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2389
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2019,20:34   

Quote (stevestory @ April 21 2019,19:55)
Quote
Healthcare analyst: Religion is good for health but its effects are hard to study
Overall, one suspects that many researchers would rather explain the facts away than research them. That said, Fisher offers much interesting data.

Posted on April 21, 2019 AuthorNews Comment(0)



For the first time, “No Religion” is the most popular choice for Americans
People who, forty years ago, would have cited the church their parents once attended as their “religion” now say “no religion.” That’s probably because, in current urban society, they no longer experience social penalties for being honest. It’s still a decline but to discuss it intelligently, we need to see clearly what it is a decline in.

Posted on April 21, 2019 AuthorNews Comment(1)


Easter Sunday viewing: a dramatised “Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel
Here: Food for thought. (More here.) END

Posted on April 21, 2019 Authorkairosfocus Comment(1)



Here’s a pop Darwin look at the origin of religion
At the BBC, a writer offers an explanation of the Christian practice of Communion, Darwinism-style. Along the way, he discovers that apes are spiritual.

Posted on April 21, 2019 AuthorNews Comment(1)

Are you suggesting that UD is a religion blog? I am shocked!! UD is nothing but science... OK, I couldn’t keep a straight face. It would be like talking to Joe and actually taking what he had to say seriously.

  
stevestory



Posts: 11970
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2019,22:15   

Quote
10
Brother Brian April 22, 2019 at 6:37 pm
Aron
 
Quote
     
In fact from this point on I need everybody to read my posts in Lewis Black’s voice
     
That’s fine. As long as you read my posts in the voice of Deadpool. And ET’s in the voice of Lennie from Of Mice and Men.


linky

tell me about the rabbits you faggot!!!1

   
fnxtr



Posts: 3175
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2019,22:19   

Quote (stevestory @ April 22 2019,20:15)
Quote
10
Brother Brian April 22, 2019 at 6:37 pm
Aron
 
Quote
     
In fact from this point on I need everybody to read my posts in Lewis Black’s voice
     
That’s fine. As long as you read my posts in the voice of Deadpool. And ET’s in the voice of Lennie from Of Mice and Men.


linky

tell me about the rabbits you faggot!!!1

Naw, ET's voice would be Tennessee Tuxedo's sidekick Chumley.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
stevestory



Posts: 11970
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2019,06:57   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ April 21 2019,21:34)
Are you suggesting that UD is a religion blog? I am shocked!! UD is nothing but science... OK, I couldn’t keep a straight face. It would be like talking to Joe and actually taking what he had to say seriously.

Nonsense! UD is a Serious Science blog!

Quote
Is evolutionary ethics compatible with Christian ethics?

Richard Weikart: In this [Darwinian ] view ethics is merely a tool—some evolutionists even say an illusion—that helps humans survive and reproduce. It is neither objective nor universal nor immutable.

Posted on April 22, 2019 AuthorNews Comments(13)


link to hard Science

   
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 473
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2019,11:13   

Quote (fnxtr @ April 22 2019,21:19)
Quote (stevestory @ April 22 2019,20:15)
 
Quote
10
Brother Brian April 22, 2019 at 6:37 pm
Aron
   
Quote
     
In fact from this point on I need everybody to read my posts in Lewis Black’s voice
     
That’s fine. As long as you read my posts in the voice of Deadpool. And ET’s in the voice of Lennie from Of Mice and Men.


linky

tell me about the rabbits you faggot!!!1

Naw, ET's voice would be Tennessee Tuxedo's sidekick Chumley.

I imagine Sherrie-ET sounds like a racist, homophobic, foul-mouthed Mortimer Snerd.

Add 300lbs around the middle and Joe probably looks like him too.

--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

  
stevestory



Posts: 11970
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2019,08:48   

Quote
Gordon Davisson April 23, 2019 at 9:33 pm
       
Quote
 Could that be because, however well-attested, the Big Bang is unpopular among cosmologists? (Due, we are told, to its apparent theistic implications.)
     
 
Not really, no. The big bang is pretty much universally accepted among cosmologists (and astronomers and physicists and…). (Its alleged theistic implications, on the other hand, are not generally taken seriously.)

That’s why this isn’t big news; it doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t pretty much already know.


have we seen this Gordon Davisson fellow before? My memory is not what it used to be.

ETA is Dense seriously saying that it's scientists the Big Bang is unpopular with? Is she fucking daft?

Edited by stevestory on April 24 2019,09:52

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2389
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2019,09:24   

Quote (stevestory @ April 24 2019,08:48)
Quote
Gordon Davisson April 23, 2019 at 9:33 pm
         
Quote
 Could that be because, however well-attested, the Big Bang is unpopular among cosmologists? (Due, we are told, to its apparent theistic implications.)
     
 
Not really, no. The big bang is pretty much universally accepted among cosmologists (and astronomers and physicists and…). (Its alleged theistic implications, on the other hand, are not generally taken seriously.)

That’s why this isn’t big news; it doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t pretty much already know.


have we seen this Gordon Davisson fellow before? My memory is not what it used to be.

ETA is Dense seriously saying that it's scientists the Big Bang is unpopular with? Is she fucking daft?

Rhetorical question of the year award.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5388
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2019,10:41   

Would it matter if a theory was unpopular? How people feel about conclusions is not among the criteria for accuracy; if it was, where would global warming theory be today? (I doubt any sane sensible schooled people like its main conclusions.)

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2225
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2019,12:32   

There used to be  a DaviDson in the UD Choir of Loonies.  He was a retired something whose world shaking theory was that evolution had happened in the distant past, but it was stopped now.

Besides general UD style loonieness, he was also famous for not knowing how his many blogs worked.  He kept adding onto his first message until it's length clogged things up and then he'd start a new blog.

However, he wasn't as aggresively stupid as some of the current UD denizens.

He died a few years ago.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5388
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2019,15:52   

He clogged his blog? Surely not!

  
JohnW



Posts: 3215
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2019,16:14   

Quote (CeilingCat @ April 24 2019,10:32)
There used to be  a DaviDson in the UD Choir of Loonies.  He was a retired something whose world shaking theory was that evolution had happened in the distant past, but it was stopped now.

Besides general UD style loonieness, he was also famous for not knowing how his many blogs worked.  He kept adding onto his first message until it's length clogged things up and then he'd start a new blog.

However, he wasn't as aggresively stupid as some of the current UD denizens.

He died a few years ago.

John A Davidson, if I remember correctly.  Back in the Golden Age Of Tard, when giants roamed UD.  Well, Dembski and DaveTard, anyway.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1919
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2019,16:34   

Quote (JohnW @ April 24 2019,16:14)
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 24 2019,10:32)
There used to be  a DaviDson in the UD Choir of Loonies.  He was a retired something whose world shaking theory was that evolution had happened in the distant past, but it was stopped now.

Besides general UD style loonieness, he was also famous for not knowing how his many blogs worked.  He kept adding onto his first message until it's length clogged things up and then he'd start a new blog.

However, he wasn't as aggresively stupid as some of the current UD denizens.

He died a few years ago.

John A Davidson, if I remember correctly.  Back in the Golden Age Of Tard, when giants roamed UD.  Well, Dembski and DaveTard, anywat.

We loved it so.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
stevestory



Posts: 11970
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2019,13:10   

Quote
DNA uses “climbers’ ropes method” to keep tangles at bay
It all just swished into place among unthinking cells billions of yours ago. Otherwise we wouldn’t be here. Go tell it on the mountain.

Posted on April 25, 2019 AuthorNews Comment(0)


Go tell It on the mountain? That seems like a weird thing to say. Almost like it's a song lyric. I wonder what the rest of the verse is. I'm sure it's very scientific, whatever it is.

   
Henry J



Posts: 5388
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2019,14:56   

Why would a song lyric need to be scientific? :p

  
sparc



Posts: 2015
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2019,05:40   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ April 21 2019,14:08)
It’s a good thing that UD isn’t a religious site.
Link

Doesn't their "[i]spread the love[/]" slogan rather carry some downright sexual connotation.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
stevestory



Posts: 11970
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2019,08:02   

Quote
Logic & First Principles, 19: Are We Part Of A Boltzmann Brain Grand Delusion World (Or The Like)?
Posted on April 26, 2019 Authorkairosfocus Comment(1)
if KF loses five more IQ points he's going to be time cube guy

Edited by stevestory on April 26 2019,09:05

   
KevinB



Posts: 449
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2019,08:19   

Quote (stevestory @ April 26 2019,08:02)
Quote
Logic & First Principles, 19: Are We Part Of A Boltzmann Brain Grand Delusion World (Or The Like)?
Posted on April 26, 2019 Authorkairosfocus Comment(1)
if KF loses five more IQ points he's going to be time cube guy

Why does KF always add a comment containing only the title of the post to the post?

Has the UD management told him that if his posts don't attract comments, he'll have his posting privilege taken away?

  
stevestory



Posts: 11970
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2019,08:24   

It's always just the title of his post, so I suspect it's some software peculiarity related to his posting privileges or something.

   
JohnW



Posts: 3215
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2019,09:53   

Quote (stevestory @ April 26 2019,06:24)
It's always just the title of his post, so I suspect it's some software peculiarity related to his posting privileges or something.

"Because he's barking mad" is more likely.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3175
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2019,10:19   

Quote (stevestory @ April 26 2019,06:02)
Quote
Logic & First Principles, 19: Are We Part Of A Boltzmann Brain Grand Delusion World (Or The Like)?
Posted on April 26, 2019 Authorkairosfocus Comment(1)
if KF loses five more IQ points he's going to be time cube guy

KF is another one who didn't get the brown acid advisory.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
stevestory



Posts: 11970
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2019,11:37   

Quote
15
Gordon Davisson April 25, 2019 at 9:27 pm
Bornagain77 @ 10:
Quote
Over the years here on UD, Gordon Davisson has also often times tried to unsuccessfully defend his Darwinian belief that the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, is somehow not incompatible with Darwinian evolution, (or at least defend the possibility that entropy is not directly defeating to Darwinism).


“Unsuccessful” only in the sense that I haven’t convinced you. But is that due to my not making a solid case, or you you refusing to accept anything that doesn’t fit your views? Funny thing is that almost all of the competent physicists and chemists agree with me, and not you. I think you should take a serious look at the possibility that it might be you that’s being blinded by your biases.

But you’re actually talking about something completely different here:
   
Quote
 
In short, experiments in Quantum Mechanics have now demonstrated that, (directly contrary to what Gordon Davisson and other Darwinists apriorily believe), entropy is not a property of a system, but is a property of an observer who describes a system.    


This has nothing to do with evolution or “uphill” vs. “downhill”; the second law has essentially the same implications no matter which definition you use (or rather, it had better be the same, or else you’re going to have trouble matching the last century-and-a-half of research, usage, and testing). You appear to be arguing that it does have something to do with consciousness having a special role in the universe, which is a completely different question from evolution.

But you’re wrong about it implying a special role for consciousness, because:

A) It implies that observers are special to themselves, not in any objective sense. That is, to me, my observations and knowledge are special but yours aren’t; you’re just another part of the universe. To you, yours are special, but mine aren’t; I an just another part of the universe. To a third observer, neither one of us is anything special.

B) Even more importantly, there’s no implication that the observers being talked about are conscious observers. A non-conscious observer might seem like nonsense to you, but to the physicists actually working on this it seem to consider it entirely normal. Worse, when they run experiments to test these ideas, they actually use non-conscious “observers”. This means that they are specifically not showing something special about consciousness.

Let’s look at some examples of non-conscious “observers”. In your video (or at least, the linked paper version), you cite the quantum zeno effect, in which continuous “observation” prevents something from changing state. You cited two experimental demonstrations of this effect. In the first experiment (phys.org summary, actual paper), they used used a laser beam to “observe” atoms’ positions via fluorescent scattering:
   
Quote
   
The fluorescence emitted by the atoms can, in principle, be captured by a detector and thus constitutes a position measurement of the emitting atom. […] We introduce a position measurement rate Γm which we define to be the scattering rate of photons from the imaging beam, and note that this underestimates the actual scattering rate since it neglects the spontaneous emissions during the subsequent recooling of atoms to |D>.


…I don’t see anywhere that they bother to mention whether they actually captured the emitted photons or what the detector’s efficiency (if any) was, let alone whether they had a conscious observer watching the detector’s output. If conscious observation were required, all of these things would’ve been critical elements of the experiment, but they left them out. Furthermore, to show that conscious observation is a critical part of this, they would’ve had to compare runs where they had the laser on but no (running) detector vs. runs where the laser and detector were both on but no conscious observer was watching the detector vs runs where laser, detector, and conscious observer were all there. Instead, they just looked at how the effect depended on the laser’s intensity (and hence the “position measurement rate” defined in the quote).

In the second experiment you cited, an interaction-free version of the quantum Zeno effect (paper) they also used a laser beam as the “observer”. The descriptions are a bit hard to follow, since they sort of turn the observer/observed relation backward, and use whether a Bose-Einstein condensate remains in an unstable state to detect whether it’s being “observed” by a laser:
   
Quote
 
In our experiments, we employ an ultracold gas in an unstable spin configuration, which can undergo a rapid decay. The object [“observer” -GD]–realized by a laser beam–prevents this decay because of the indirect quantum Zeno effect and thus, its [the laser beam/”observer”‘s] presence can be detected without interacting with a single atom.    
 

Again, the quantum Zeno effect happened without any sign that a conscious observer was involved, let alone necessary. In fact, it’s pretty clear that they didn’t have an actual conscious observer watching the laser, because they were using the Bose-Einstein condensate to tell whether the laser was on or off.

The last example I’ll discuss is one you cited in your comment #11 where “quantum knowledge” can allow deleting data to absorb heat rather than producing it (ScienceDaily summary, actual paper). Here there are explicit (if hypothetical) observers involved. Three of them: Alice, who knows something classical about the state of the system; Bob, who doesn’t, and Quasimodo, who has a quantum memory that’s entangled with the state of the system. But they never discuss whether these “observers” are actually conscious, only how their states relate to the system. When analysing Quasimodo’s interactions with the system, “he” is treated as a normal quantum system. Furthermore, there’s a (somewhat fanciful) picture of “him” in figure 2, where he’s shown as a rectangular box with two robotic-looking arms (and the desciption starts “An observer, here represented by a machine with a quantum memory, Q, erases a system, S.”).

So, basically, you’ve latched onto the term “observer” and assumed it has to do with consciousness, but the actual physics — in all of these cases — is the same whether the “observer” is conscious or not.


linky

it will not surprise the experienced observer that batshit77 responds with approximately eleventy billion words and references to thermodynamics, ATP, Erwin Schrodinger, Michael behe, Steven Weinberg, entropy, Sam Harris, Jim Al-Khalili, David Bohm, special relativity, and the book of Romans.

Edited by stevestory on April 26 2019,12:44

   
JohnW



Posts: 3215
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2019,11:59   

Quote (stevestory @ April 26 2019,09:37)
it will not surprise the experienced observer that batshit77 responds with approximately eleventy billion words and references to thermodynamics, ATP, Erwin Schrodinger, Michael behe, Steven Weinberg, entropy, Sam Harris, Jim Al-Khalili, David Bohm, special relativity, and the book of Romans.

No Turin Shroud?  He's off his game.  Must be coming down with something.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2389
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2019,12:09   

SteveStory
Quote
it will not surprise the experienced observer that batshit77 responds with approximately eleventy billion words and references to thermodynamics, ATP, Erwin Schrodinger, Michael behe, Steven Weinberg, entropy, Sam Harris, Jim Al-Khalili, David Bohm, special relativity, and the book of Romans.


Now, that was prophetic.

Batshitcrazy77
Quote

As the bible itself states,,,

Quote
Romans 1:22
Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools,

  
Henry J



Posts: 5388
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2019,12:23   

Quote (JohnW @ April 26 2019,10:59)
No Turin Shroud?  He's off his game.  Must be coming down with something.

Maybe an increase in entropy?

  
Lethean



Posts: 234
Joined: Jan. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2019,12:33   

Quote (stevestory @ April 26 2019,11:37)
       
Quote
15
Gordon Davisson April 25, 2019 at 9:27 pm
Bornagain77 @ 10:

But you’re wrong about it implying a special role for consciousness, because:

A) It implies that observers are special to themselves, not in any objective sense. That is, to me, my observations and knowledge are special but yours aren’t; you’re just another part of the universe. To you, yours are special, but mine aren’t; I an just another part of the universe. To a third observer, neither one of us is anything special.

B) Even more importantly, there’s no implication that the observers being talked about are conscious observers. A non-conscious observer might seem like nonsense to you, but to the physicists actually working on this it seem to consider it entirely normal. Worse, when they run experiments to test these ideas, they actually use non-conscious “observers”. This means that they are specifically not showing something special about consciousness.


linky

it will not surprise the experienced observer that batshit77 responds with approximately eleventy billion words and references to thermodynamics, ATP, Erwin Schrodinger, Michael behe, Steven Weinberg, entropy, Sam Harris, Jim Al-Khalili, David Bohm, special relativity, and the book of Romans.


Yeah, everyone involved in selling a pile of bullshit, from batshit's religious apologetics to Chopra-tic woo-meisters, love that "observer effect" equivocation even more than the "it's just a theory" horse crap. They latch on to the colloquial definition of observer to smuggle in the consciousness bit.

It's like claiming that when you checked the air pressure in your car tire with a conventional air pressure gauge the true pressure changed slightly because you were consciously observing the needle when in reality it's the physical interaction that leaks a small but detectable amount. In the scientific sense the observer is the gauge, or laser, or magnifying glass, or coil, etc. and not the IDiot manipulating it.

Preaching to the choir here, but whatever.

--------------
"So I'm a pretty unusual guy and it's not stupidity that has gotten me where I am. It's brilliance."

"My brain is one of the very few independent thinking brains that you've ever met. And that's a thing of wonder to you and since you don't understand it you criticize it."


~Dave Hawkins~

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2389
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2019,12:49   

Quote (Lethean @ April 26 2019,12:33)
Quote (stevestory @ April 26 2019,11:37)
       
Quote
15
Gordon Davisson April 25, 2019 at 9:27 pm
Bornagain77 @ 10:

But you’re wrong about it implying a special role for consciousness, because:

A) It implies that observers are special to themselves, not in any objective sense. That is, to me, my observations and knowledge are special but yours aren’t; you’re just another part of the universe. To you, yours are special, but mine aren’t; I an just another part of the universe. To a third observer, neither one of us is anything special.

B) Even more importantly, there’s no implication that the observers being talked about are conscious observers. A non-conscious observer might seem like nonsense to you, but to the physicists actually working on this it seem to consider it entirely normal. Worse, when they run experiments to test these ideas, they actually use non-conscious “observers”. This means that they are specifically not showing something special about consciousness.


linky

it will not surprise the experienced observer that batshit77 responds with approximately eleventy billion words and references to thermodynamics, ATP, Erwin Schrodinger, Michael behe, Steven Weinberg, entropy, Sam Harris, Jim Al-Khalili, David Bohm, special relativity, and the book of Romans.


Yeah, everyone involved in selling a pile of bullshit, from batshit's religious apologetics to Chopra-tic woo-meisters, love that "observer effect" equivocation even more than the "it's just a theory" horse crap. They latch on to the colloquial definition of observer to smuggle in the consciousness bit.

It's like claiming that when you checked the air pressure in your car tire with a conventional air pressure gauge the true pressure changed slightly because you were consciously observing the needle when in reality it's the physical interaction that leaks a small but detectable amount. In the scientific sense the observer is the gauge, or laser, or magnifying glass, or coil, etc. and not the IDiot manipulating it.

Preaching to the choir here, but whatever.

And then this pile of nonsense from Axel
Quote
How interesting that that second law of thermodynamics should be so quintessentially Judaeo-Christian. Drawing order from chaos – a duty delegated to us. Even the ‘2’ is evocative of the second Person of the Most Holy Trinity ; a figure that I believe even atheist Linus Pauling noted cropped up with extraordinary regularity in biology.

  
  12447 replies since Dec. 29 2013,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (415) < ... 382 383 384 385 386 [387] 388 389 390 391 392 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]