A complex case against intelligent design

[rrobs]

I see. So you ignore the substance and focus on the trivial. I gave detailed reasons why I disagree with what you quoted. I have also talked to a fairly large number of physicists about quantum mechanics, and I haven't found the viewpoint of the article to be present, let alone common, among them.

You call three short sentences detailed? Then you tell me I know nothing? What's not to ignore?

 

[rrobs]

Sorry was not going to bother you but my ignorance is showing. What is smuruious?

Facetiousness. In other words, it's not a real word. It's a commonly used figure of speech used in the English language meant to convey that I don't believe for one second you are really curious as to what I think, that you just want to criticize.

 

[Polymath257]

You call three short sentences detailed? Then you tell me I know nothing? What's not to ignore?

The length of a statement is not related to its truth. If you want more detail, just ask.

 

[ecco]

RE: More than a comic book understanding of Quantum Mechanics?

Yes.

Bull. Care to list your math degrees.

Everybody buys into something.

You bought into the same nonsense that people have bought into for the past 2000-3000 years. Nuttin special there.

None of those things were in God's original plan. They are all a result of Adam's disobedience.

The disobedience that God planned. Yup, you bought into it.

I don't. I buy into something totally different. Read my posts.

Yeah. I just did. Which is why I said: Yup, you bought into it.

 

[rrobs]

The length of a statement is not related to its truth. If you want more detail, just ask.

The moment the probability wave of a particle from the sun collapses on my eye, nobody else sees that same particle. Likewise for everybody else. Whoever collapses the wave function of the particle that particle "belongs" to them and them alone. Now I understand that the particles emitted by the sun are so numerous and similar that we all see more or less the same sun. And yet we don't. We each see our own version of the sun. In one sense the world is objective and yet subjective at the same time. In that sense, nature is not purely objective which is more or less what I averred in my original reply

I will admit, it's been some time since I engaged the physical sciences, including calculus. I'm not even sure I could differentiate a simple function, let alone Schrodinger's equation, without some review. It's just not something I do everyday anymore. Anyway, if what I said above about wave collapsing is no longer de rigueur, I'm open to the latest. Thanks in advance.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Sorry was not going to bother you but my ignorance is showing. What is smuruious?

I suspect a poor attempt at humor. A nonsense word that rhymes with 'curious'.

 

[rrobs]

RE: More than a comic book understanding of Quantum Mechanics?

Bull. Care to list your math degrees.

No.

You bought into the same nonsense that people have bought into for the past 2000-3000 years. Nuttin special there.

Nice to know I have company.

The disobedience that God planned.

He did? News to me.

Yup, you bought into it.

Brilliant observation. Don't know how you figured out I believe the scriptures.

Yeah. I just did. Which is why I said: Yup, you bought into it.

Logical conclusion, given the suppositions you made. Problem is, most of your suppositions are false.

 

[ecco]

Isn't it ignorant humans who make science? Who else makes it?

Humans who have gotten an education and do research in their fields of specialization so that they are not ignorant. People with advanced degrees in math who have a real understanding of the concepts of QM.

Technically you are right about proof. I was going with the profane views. The correct thing to have said would be, "people thought the world is flat." They also thought the atom was the smallest particle in nature. Now they think it's quarks and leptons. Who knows what they'll think down the road. I trust that is more to your liking.

You were going with the fundie views. Also, it's not about posting things to my liking. It's about not embarrassing yourself by posting nonsense.

I have to give you credit for ascertaining the extent of my knowledge of science with minimal evidence. I'm not sure how you did it.

It was when you pretended to understand QM. That is why I asked what high-level maths degrees you possess.

 

[ecco]

Quoted me out of context.

So you say. Care to show how.

 

[Bear Wild]

I suspect a poor attempt at humor. A nonsense word that rhymes with 'curious'.

Got it, thanks. Disappointing attempt but not a surprise from him.

 

[rrobs]

I suspect a poor attempt at humor. A nonsense word that rhymes with 'curious'.

Your suspicions are well founded. I thought is was a rather capital attempt at humor. Oh well, humor, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[rrobs]

So you say. Care to show how.

No.

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑
The Koran says similar things. The writings of Bahá'u'lláh say similar things. Do you ignore these out of hand?


Oh, wait. I know. Your books are real because they say so. Other's books also say so, but you don't believe it.

Putting words in my mouth.

I didn't put any words in your mouth. I asked questions and made assertions. You did not answer them. You did not dispute them.

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑
Would you be hard pressed to state who said that?

No.

So you say, but then you don't/can't.

 

[ecco]

If God put man (Adam) in charge, it didn't last long. God soon realized his mistake and stepped in and killed (almost) everybody and everything.

The book doesn't say that.

The bible does say that. Which book are you referring to?

 

[rrobs]

Humans who have gotten an education and do research in their fields of specialization so that they are not ignorant. People with advanced degrees in math who have a real understanding of the concepts of QM.

Like yourself? Like I said, for all I know you have a PhD in QM from Stanford.

You were going with the fundie views. Also, it's not about posting things to my liking. It's about not embarrassing yourself by posting nonsense.

Nonsense, like reality, is subjective.

It was when you pretended to understand QM. That is why I asked what high-level maths degrees you possess.

Ah, if you hadn't accused me of pretending, I would have told you what degrees I had. But you had to go spoil it with silly rhetoric.

 

[rrobs]

ecco said: ↑
Would you be hard pressed to state who said that?



So you say, but then you don't/can't.

yes/no

 

[rrobs]

I didn't put any words in your mouth. I asked questions and made assertions. You did not answer them. You did not dispute them.

Maybe I'm bored with this, I just don't care.

 

[ecco]

Don't know how you figured out I believe the scriptures.

It was when you quoted scripture...

Gen 1:28,

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

...to support your argument.

God declared all good (functional) when He finished. He then relinquished control of the earth to Adam. From that point on things went according to how Adam took care of them. God's hand was out of the equation. The world is what it is today, not by God's efforts, but by man's.

 

[ecco]

Like yourself? Like I said, for all I know you have a PhD in QM from Stanford.

Unlike you, I have not been pretending to have more than a superficial knowledge of QM. You have been, in some silly ways.

Nonsense, like reality, is subjective.

Cutsey one-liners are an indication the poster has nothing of substance to say. You've posted a lot of cutsey one-liners.

Ah, if you hadn't accused me of pretending, I would have told you what degrees I had. But you had to go spoil it with silly rhetoric.

I used to word "pretending" to soften the overall impact. No need to show your degrees. Your comments since the beginning of the discussion have made your level of understanding of QM quite apparent.