If you could have any question answered - what would it be?

On the trevp/sniper "ding-dong": Sniper's the one making extravagant claims about the correct interpretation of QM (upon which there is *no* concensus). The burden of proof is clearly on him. If he had the evidence to support his claims he'd have a Nobel prize by now.

'lo Mike. I'm puzzled by this one. Unless you intend it to represent the inside of Sniper's head?

Tumbleweed in the wind...


So, yeah. Quite possibly!

Is it a showdown at High Noon?

What happened to Schrodinger's cat....

It quantum tunelled to the nearest bowl of good cat food.

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:
On the trevp/sniper "ding-dong": Sniper's the one making extravagant claims about the correct interpretation of QM (upon which there is *no* concensus). The burden of proof is clearly on him. If he had the evidence to support his claims he'd have a Nobel prize by now.

I have quoted a significant number of highly resepcted physicists who say (at the very least) that conciousness is implicated and some say much more than that. Some here disagree with them but NO ONE as yet has offered any reasoning. The ball is in their court. Having the evidence to deserve a Nobel prize and actually getting one are two very different things. Proving a theory takes sound argument on the one side and a receptiveness to that proof on the other. Ask Galileo.

quote:

Originally posted by mongo:
(Sniper)

It is all as you say down to interpretation (of scientific evidence) but having researched it for the last 10 years I think my interpretion is right but I'm open to anything new that sheds light on this terrain.

Could you expand on the 'researched it' part please? Are you qualified to research this topic? Have you any physics qualifications at all?

Regards, Paul.[/QUOTE]

Thank you, yes I do. How about you?

Dude! Where's my car!?

quote:

Originally posted by Trevp:
[QUOTE]


[QUOTE] You are becoming increasingly irrational. I have not insulted you in any way. I know I said I would not participate further, but your posts have annoyed me sufficiently to respond.

Nonesense. You sought to belittle me argument by associating it with the type of lunecy offered by David Icke. A cheap trick.

quote:

1. The Quantum Enigma book is interesting but its authors admit that it is controversial. It is in the realms of philosophy rather than science and there is no evidence in real terms to support it. It is claimed that consciousness is implicated, but where is the proof?

The authors are very very careful about what they say for the many reasons they give but the conclusions are firm enough. Obviously you have not read it. So don't comment on it. Their arguments are based firmly on the evidence of quantum theory and not merely on philosophy. Read it for yourself.

quote:

2. Regarding the double slit experiment, there are two versions of this and you do not make it clear as to which you are referring. The double slit experiment was devised by Thomas Young in 1803 and as such it predates the development of quantum theory by a considerable margin. It was devised to determine whether light was a wave or a particle (as in Newton's corpuscular theory). It was much later when single photons or other particles were used that the experiment raised questions about the nature of small particles.

Thanks for the lesson but I teach this stuff. It was perfectly obvious what double slit experiment I was referring to. More obfuscation from you.

quote:

3. I am not embarrassed in the slightest - but you should be. An apology would not be out of place. Your comments about my intelligence are insulting and have no foundation.

The fact that you think you know more about this subject than Feyman is hysterical. truly laughable. No apology to you who sought to align my work with the sort of tosh spouted by Icke. You have yet to show how consciousness is not part of the picture.

quote:

. Your list of interpretations is not in dispute, but the type of books you read are suspect. Also as I stated in a previous post, the multitude of different interpretations simply confirm the lack of consensus about quantum theory.

I have read everything out there - I read all sides of the argument. I read academic journals and take part on academic fora and I read the popular stuff too. 'lack of consensus' about the interpretation of quantum theory is what you should have written! You see you are still at. Misrepresenting quantum theory. Can you give examples from your beginners book of which sets of equations are contraversial or which experiments in and of themselves are contraversial?

Again, if you think Professor Henry Stapp et al are so demonstrably wrong that my quoting their views shows me to be in some way mentally defective then it should be easy enough to show how we have all gone wrong. That is the challenge you have not accepted so far. Perhaps you can get together with Mongo and Mike and your beginners guide and work on it together? I await your arguments.

competition. status.
Why does mankind worship them, more and more?

quote:

Originally posted by Sniper:

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:
On the trevp/sniper "ding-dong": Sniper's the one making extravagant claims about the correct interpretation of QM (upon which there is *no* concensus). The burden of proof is clearly on him. If he had the evidence to support his claims he'd have a Nobel prize by now.

I have quoted a significant number of highly resepcted physicists who say (at the very least) that conciousness is implicated and some say much more than that. Some here disagree with them but NO ONE as yet has offered any reasoning. The ball is in their court. Having the evidence to deserve a Nobel prize and actually getting one are two very different things. Proving a theory takes sound argument on the one side and a receptiveness to that proof on the other. Ask Galileo.

But it's just one interpretation among many. Plenty of equally respected physicists would disagree, and either remain agnostic re interpretation, or prefer another one (e.g. Many Worlds). You write as if your interpretation is the correct one, but this cannot be known at present.

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:
[QUOTE]

But it's just one interpretation among many. Plenty of equally respected physicists would disagree, and either remain agnostic re interpretation, or prefer another one (e.g. Many Worlds). You write as if your interpretation is the correct one, but this cannot be known at present.

It is known (by some). There is no consensus true. I doubt there ever will be. Most never look into this long enough and hard enough - like I demonstrated earlier what physicists believe or not believe as to meaning does not alter how they use the equations to do their day jobs so why should they have any view at all, certainly they don't need a view one way or any other. Those that do choose to believe one interpretation can rarely back it up with anything like coherent thinking (including those who believe conciousness collapses the wave function)and it is not difficult to pull their view apart. People believe what they want to believe in religion and yes, sometimes science too. The history of science is littered with theories which were once held to be true but have now been utterly discarded. That fact that some scientist believe one theory over another with very little evidence to support their choice is why I started this little dialogue in the first place - to show Mike that his 'faith' in the gospel of science is not as unproblematic as he may have thought.

Sniper said-

quote:

That is the challenge you have not accepted so far. Perhaps you can get together with Mongo and Mike and your beginners guide and work on it together? I await your arguments.

Sniper, you are beginning to sound like a real tosser now. I have followed you and Mike spatting your way across this forum with little or no interest in which of you had the biggest willie, but it would appear to me that when trevp. questioned your precis, you attacked his intellectual ability to do this. What the hell gives you the right to assume this ? FFS grow up man!

quote:

Originally posted by Sniper:

quote:

Originally posted by Trevp:
[QUOTE]


[QUOTE] You are becoming increasingly irrational. I have not insulted you in any way. I know I said I would not participate further, but your posts have annoyed me sufficiently to respond.

Nonesense. You sought to belittle me argument by associating it with the type of lunecy offered by David Icke. A cheap trick.

quote:

1. The Quantum Enigma book is interesting but its authors admit that it is controversial. It is in the realms of philosophy rather than science and there is no evidence in real terms to support it. It is claimed that consciousness is implicated, but where is the proof?

The authors are very very careful about what they say for the many reasons they give but the conclusions are firm enough. Obviously you have not read it. So don't comment on it. Their arguments are based firmly on the evidence of quantum theory and not merely on philosophy. Read it for yourself.

quote:

2. Regarding the double slit experiment, there are two versions of this and you do not make it clear as to which you are referring. The double slit experiment was devised by Thomas Young in 1803 and as such it predates the development of quantum theory by a considerable margin. It was devised to determine whether light was a wave or a particle (as in Newton's corpuscular theory). It was much later when single photons or other particles were used that the experiment raised questions about the nature of small particles.

Thanks for the lesson but I teach this stuff. It was perfectly obvious what double slit experiment I was referring to. More obfuscation from you.

quote:

3. I am not embarrassed in the slightest - but you should be. An apology would not be out of place. Your comments about my intelligence are insulting and have no foundation.

The fact that you think you know more about this subject than Feyman is hysterical. truly laughable. No apology to you who sought to align my work with the sort of tosh spouted by Icke. You have yet to show how consciousness is not part of the picture.

quote:

. Your list of interpretations is not in dispute, but the type of books you read are suspect. Also as I stated in a previous post, the multitude of different interpretations simply confirm the lack of consensus about quantum theory.

I have read everything out there - I read all sides of the argument. I read academic journals and take part on academic fora and I read the popular stuff too. 'lack of consensus' about the interpretation of quantum theory is what you should have written! You see you are still at. Misrepresenting quantum theory. Can you give examples from your beginners book of which sets of equations are contraversial or which experiments in and of themselves are contraversial?

Again, if you think Professor Henry Stapp et al are so demonstrably wrong that my quoting their views shows me to be in some way mentally defective then it should be easy enough to show how we have all gone wrong. That is the challenge you have not accepted so far. Perhaps you can get together with Mongo and Mike and your beginners guide and work on it together? I await your arguments.

Sniper,

This truly is my last post on the subject, but this latest response from you deserves a comment:

1. I have not read "The Quantum Enigma" but it is nonetheless popular science. These books are NOT peer reviewed and are generally written to sell the maximum number of copies rather than restrict themselves to verifiable and established concepts. If they did, the books would not sell in such numbers.

2. It was NOT clear as to which version of the double slit experiment you were referring. I have no interest in obfuscation. I would be interested to know at which university you teach quantum physics (so that I could advise anyone considering a physics course not to go there).

3. I have NEVER claimed to be an expert in quantum theory. NONE of my posts have indicated that I claim to know more than Feynman. I have not attempted to align your "work" with the idiocy of David Icke (although I have to point out that you have not actually presented any of your so-called "work", you have simply regurgitated second hand metaphysics from other people). I was actually comparing Nick Herbert to David Icke (gratuitous it may be - but I suggest that you have a look at his blogs and website- you will see what I mean). I do not need to show that consciousness is NOT part of the picture - you need to demonstrate that it IS part of the picture. If you were a scientist, you would know this. You are using the same argument that theists use to challenge atheists. It is not a rational position.

4. I can categorically state that you haven't read "everything" out there. There is simply too much of it in too many journals. You are becoming ridiculous. Also (and I know this is a cheap shot) you should learn how to spell "controversial" as you use the word such a lot. I have never claimed that Henry Stapp is demonstrably wrong about anything (I have not read any of his work). I suspect that you cannot prove that he is demonstrably right.

With regard to you being mentally defective (see your last paragraph), it is not for me to comment. I will leave the readers of this thread to decide. However, I see no point in any further engagement with someone with such fixed and irrational views.

Good luck with your future "research"

Trev

quote:

Originally posted by munch:
How can old Nahampkin be younger than than Young Nahampkin?

The World is not logical.

Could you expand on the 'researched it' part please? Are you qualified to research this topic? Have you any physics qualifications at all?

Regards, Paul.[/QUOTE]

Thank you, yes I do. How about you?[/QUOTE]

What qualifications? Which ones?

[QUOTE]
Proving a theory takes sound argument on the one side and a receptiveness to that proof on the other. Ask Galileo. [QUOTE]

A sound argument would be nice. As soon as you are able to recognise one please post it.

And, (this is the best bit), are you comparing yourself to Galileo???? Really???

Now David Icke i can quite understand.

Mentally defective? you sniper? Who could think such a thing.

My question would be to George Mallory & Sandy Irvine.......did they reach the top in 1924, 29 years before Tenzing & Hillary?

quote:

Originally posted by Trevp:
[QUOTE]

Sniper,

This truly is my last post on the subject, but this latest response from you deserves a comment:

[QUOTE] 1. I have not read "The Quantum Enigma" but it is nonetheless popular science. These books are NOT peer reviewed and are generally written to sell the maximum number of copies rather than restrict themselves to verifiable and established concepts. If they did, the books would not sell in such numbers.

Read it first then make comments - you are merely making unfounded assumptions. Plenty of people had the chance of reviewing the book on the website that was provided - Reviews and ResponsesI note 'American Journal of Physics, March 2007. The reviewer was N. David Mermin, emeritus professor of Physics at Cornell University, and a frequent commentator on quantum mechanics' is one of the first reviews listed and he is not quite so cavelier and dismissive as you are - after all he actually the book.

quote:

2. It was NOT clear as to which version of the double slit experiment you were referring. I have no interest in obfuscation. I would be interested to know at which university you teach quantum physics (so that I could advise anyone considering a physics course not to go there).

It was clear I was talking about quantum experiments so why you would assume I was talking about the earlier pre-quantum double slit experiment is a mystery to me.

quote:

3. I have NEVER claimed to be an expert in quantum theory. NONE of my posts have indicated that I claim to know more than Feynman. I have not attempted to align your "work" with the idiocy of David Icke (although I have to point out that you have not actually presented any of your so-called "work", you have simply regurgitated second hand metaphysics from other people). I was actually comparing Nick Herbert to David Icke (gratuitous it may be - but I suggest that you have a look at his blogs and website- you will see what I mean). I do not need to show that consciousness is NOT part of the picture - you need to demonstrate that it IS part of the picture. If you were a scientist, you would know this. You are using the same argument that theists use to challenge atheists. It is not a rational position.

You said 'The double slit experiment is not a "quantum experiment" as you put it'

I quote professor Richard Feynman (the double slit experiment) is ‘designed to
contain all of the mystery of quantum mechanics.’ Professor Jim Al-Khalili refers to the behavior displayed in this experiment as ‘nature’s conjuring trick’ a very apt rubric. You think you are right and Feynman was wrong and you talk of irrationality. It is clear you are a total chump. I have not quoted any views held by Nick Herbert - I merely quoted a list of interpretations the comments to which ARE MY OWN. I look forward to your next 'last post' on this matter.

This simple fact is I have avoided giving my own views wherever possible in order to give the views of respected physicists - it is of course more difficult to argue with their arguments than mine (an anonymous chap on a hifi forum)and no one NO ONE has offered one word of refutation of their views. You said 'but I would dispute the assertion that this is linked with consciousness' but you have singularly failed to offer one word other than to harp on about David Icke in a pathetic and desperate attempt to save face by ridiculing me by association - you need to significantly up your game. Why is consciousness not implicated in the double slit experiment (the modern version)- if you can't answer then let Mongo take a pop at it - he knows lots about science as I note he reads books by Richard dawkins. I am so looking forward to it I can hardly contain myself.

Sniper, that Quantum Enigma book looks interesting, I'll give you that. However, I still think your level of conviction outstrips any possible justification, given the highly controversial nature of the interpretation of QM. I think this is what trevp has in mind when he says you come across as irrational. I will give that book a try though.

Regards
Nigel

Droodzilla,

All I have said is that I think the scienctists I quoted are correct. Having researched this whole area in detail for 10 years I think I am entitled to an opinion. Trevp on the other hand has read an introduction to quantum theory and insists conciousness is not implicated in certain quantum experiments which is manifestly the case and he believes the double slit experiment is not even quantum in direct contradiction to some of the greatest physicists of the 20 century (not to mention common sense). Please do give me an example of my irrationality. Unlike trevp I can back up anything I have said with quotes from well known physicists and sound argument. There is nothing in any of my posts that even remotely smacks of irrationailty. I just happen to be right. Many physicists believe the Many Worlds Interpretation (up to 40% accroding to some polls).

'(The many-worlds interpretation) has been regarded as both the most outlandish and extravagant interpretation of quantum mechanics and yet the most straightforward depending on which side you are on. In fact I tend to oscillate between these two extremes myself, one day wondering how any one could be so silly to give it the time of day,another wondering how anyone could possibly consider any
alternative.

Professor Jim Al-Khalili

Presumably those who believe the Many Worlds interpretation would say they are right too, are they also irrational?

quote:

Originally posted by Sniper:
Droodzilla,

All I have said is that I think the scienctists I quoted are correct. Having researched this whole area in detail for 10 years I think I am entitled to an opinion. Trevp on the other hand has read an introduction to quantum theory and insists conciousness is not implicated in certain quantum experiments which is manifestly the case and he believes the double slit experiment is not even quantum in direct contradiction to some of the greatest physicists of the 20 century (not to mention common sense). Please do give me an example of my irrationality. Unlike trevp I can back up anything I have said with quotes from well known physicists and sound argument. There is nothing in any of my posts that even remotely smacks of irrationailty. I just happen to be right. Many physicists believe the Many Worlds Interpretation (up to 40% accroding to some polls).

'(The many-worlds interpretation) has been regarded as both the most outlandish and extravagant interpretation of quantum mechanics and yet the most straightforward depending on which side you are on. In fact I tend to oscillate between these two extremes myself, one day wondering how any one could be so silly to give it the time of day,another wondering how anyone could possibly consider any
alternative.

Professor Jim Al-Khalili

Presumably those who believe the Many Worlds interpretation would say they are right too, are they also irrational?

Sniper,

Again, you persist in publishing lies about my posts. I am keen to escape from this ridiculous debate but again, I am forced to defend my position. EVERYTHING you have said about me in the above quote is WRONG.

1. I most certainly have not "insisted" that consciousness is not implicated in certain quantum experiments I have merely challenged you to provide evidence that it is. So far you have not. You don't appear to understand the distinction between hypothesis and theory.

2. I have not said anything in this debate that is not factual. Exactly what "sound argument" have YOU actually provided?

3. Do not presume to know what I have or haven't read on the subject.

4. The fact that you mention "the double slit" experiment in the singular when there have been many variants of it (single photons and electrons, polarised light, entangled photons etc) suggests that you do not know your subject matter very well. As I have said before, the original double slit experiment was devised in 1803, well before the origin of quantum theory. Also, if you read my posts, I have NEVER denied the validity of any quantum interpretation of double slit experiments.

5. To quote from the above, you have stated: "There is nothing in my posts that even remotely smacks of irrationality. I just happen to be right". I think you will find that this is in itself an irrational statement. If you re-read some of the drivel that you have written, you will see just how irrational it is (providing of course that you posses the necessary intellect to apply some logic).

I have no issues with quantum theory, but you need to understand that the more philosophical aspects are purely hypothetical at the present. Quoting from various professors will not change this. Your quotations say that consciousness is IMPLICATED from some aspects of quantum theory. That is not proof.

Please do not continue to publish twisted and misinterpreted nonsense about my posts.

quote:

Presumably those who believe the Many Worlds interpretation would say they are right too, are they also irrational?

It depends on the strength of their conviction. If they advance the MW interpretation as a tentative hypothesis, I have no issue. If they claim they are right and all other interpretations are wrong, I see this as irrational, given the current state of knowledge.

Your claim that "It is known (by some). There is no consensus true. I doubt there ever will be.", in reply to one of my posts, puts you in the latter category, in my view (I assume you include yourself in the "some"). See also the quote at point 5 of trevp's post above.

The irony is I'm not unsympathetic to attempts to link QM and consciousness - but I see all such attempts as highly speculative right now. Maybe the Quantum Enigma book will change my mind.

Regards
Nigel

Why are small tins of baked beans dearer than the large ones?

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:

quote:

Presumably those who believe the Many Worlds interpretation would say they are right too, are they also irrational?

It depends on the strength of their conviction. If they advance the MW interpretation as a tentative hypothesis, I have no issue. If they claim they are right and all other interpretations are wrong, I see this as irrational, given the current state of knowledge.

Your claim that "It is known (by some). There is no consensus true. I doubt there ever will be.", in reply to one of my posts, puts you in the latter category, in my view (I assume you include yourself in the "some"). See also the quote at point 5 of trevp's post above.

The irony is I'm not unsympathetic to attempts to link QM and consciousness - but I see all such attempts as highly speculative right now. Maybe the Quantum Enigma book will change my mind.

Regards
Nigel

Actually I don't see all the other interpretations as totally wrong at all. They all have something to say for themselves, after all the interpretations I listed are 'main line' interpretations as opposed to total barking mad nonsense (althought the many Worlds comes close)and do (as I have said) account (to varying degrees)for the evidence albeit at superfical levels in some instances. It is possible (with the aid of some subtle tweaking)to rework some of the more plausible interpretations and even Everett/De Witt to make them right in my view and I have done this in detail including at the level of demonstrating how Bryce de Witt has misinterpretated Everett's original phd thesis and putting right his dodgy equations.

I am glad you are interested enough and open minded enough to take at look at Quantum Enigma. If you are intrigued by their commentary you might like to read my own book on the subject the details of which I will provide you with as an when you have finished Quantum Enigma and if you so desire. You may then come to see that my conviction is based on the fact that I know considerably more about this subject than you or Trevp have hitherto supposed. At 500 pages it has more detail, breadth, depth and precision than Quantum Enigma and surveys the whole terrain from respected scientific authority to New Age mumbo-jumbo from the ultra materialist to religious arguments showing how each are fundamentally flawed perspectives and introducing in some detail how to resolve all the current interpretation problems.

Some years ago I demonstrated beyond any doubt that the tried and tested methods for doing something were simlistic and fundamentally flawed. The 'authority' of the day (who would have had to give me their jobs if they accepted my view)refused to look at the evidence stating that:'If the current way of doing things were simplistic and fundamentally flawed someone would have noticed and no one has so they ain't'. This bunch of no-hopers then employed one of my staff to implement my changes using slightly different labels and terminology and claiming it as their own work rather than face losing face. Sometimes someone is just right and all the others are wrong.

You say I am being irrational because you assume I am not right but what if I am? Would I still be irrational? Sometimes science has only progressed because of the conviction of one man who went against the grain. Just because so many othe others are confused does not mean I have to be nor does it mean that you have to be. Trevp is another story however.