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

quote:

Originally posted by Trevp:

quote:

Originally posted by Sniper:

Trevp tried to belittle this book 'Quantum Enigma' (which he has not read)by saying it was not peer reviewed - I proved that it was. Trevp said the double slit experiment was not a quantum experiment (no evidence given) I proved that it was. He has shown himself to be unworthy of being taken seriously and he has often been insulting.

3/ However, I feel that if anyone disagrees with anything posted on any thread here then they should be the ones to back up their views. Despite many challenges trevp failed to offer even one argument. What he did do was try to turn the focus away from his inability to offer an argument or even an alternative view by way of quotes from other scientists. What he did do was say he had a beginners guide to quantum physics (but not that he had read it) and on this basis alone rejected the views of prize winning physics professors. The misdirection continued by pouring scorn on Nick Herbert (who has a PhD and has held many teaching and research positions unlike, I suspect trevp) rather than offer any insight. I never in fact quoted or discussed any of Herbert’s views (many of which are entirely conventional and sane)I merely quoted a list of interpretations but trevp (in order to belittle my views and misdirect the audience jumped on the fact that Herbert has a few unconventional views - something that in no way negates the views of the other scientists I quoted. far from demolishing my views he has singularly failed to offer any refutation whatsoever and has shown himself to be rather dim.

Sniper,

I have now requested twice that you cease publishing these attacks.

1. I have not tried to "belittle" the Quantum Enigma book. I simply pointed out that it was not peer reviewed. You say you have "proved" otherwise - how exactly?

2. I have not provided argument because it is not possible to demonstrate the non-existence of anything. On the other hand, you have singularly failed to produce any kind of rational argument - about anything! (I am repeating myself somewhat here but you don't seem to understand the basics of logic). All I tried to do with my original post was to introduce some perspective into your one-sided view of the subject. I have since been subject to all manner of insults from you (a couple of examples are in the above quotation).

3. Regarding the book which you dismiss as a "beginners book" (Introduction to Quantum Mechanics), I suggest that you read it before dismissing it (although as you have claimed in a previous post to have read "everything" you must already have done so - in which case you have not understood it).

4. Your supposition that I do not have a PhD is false.

I suggest that you follow Mongo's advice and get some medical help for your delusional state.

quote:

btw - I have just been commissioned to write another book

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:

quote:

Originally posted by mongo:
Ah. Mr Lacey. I've been expecting you.

You seem to appear regularly in order to post something contrary simply for the sake of being contrary? Still each to his own.

So?

Some people fall easily into pack / herd bullying mentality; I do hope you don't mind me remaining apart from that kind of person and having my own point of view.

quote:

This is from sniper himself;

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

.

Is this your evidence of Sniper comparing himself to Galileo? It is no such thing.

It doers, however, mention Galileo.

quote:

Originally posted by mongo:

quote:

btw - I have just been commissioned to write another book

The medicine sniper! Quickly now, quickly!

quote:

btw - I have just been commissioned to write another book - demolishing Dawkin's 'Unweaving the Rainbow'. It won't take long. 'Reweaving the Rainbow: An Appraisal of the Dangerous Ideas of Dennett and Dawkins'.

quote:

Originally posted by Sniper:

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:

quote:

Everyone else (with the exception of the sound judgment demonstrated by Mike lacey) has talked aload of a balls.

Sniper - do you include me in that category.

You have accused me of being irrational because I have researched something in depth (more depth than the authors of Quantum Enigma)and have come to a certain conclusion backed up by siginficant scientists that one view is correct and the others (to varying degrees)are wrong. You talk of the strength of my convictions as if you have a fool-proof method of measuring them but you don't. Who is being irrational here? I have offered you access to my work but you chose to withdraw yourself from any dialogue. Insofar as you have at least attempted to take a look at the terrain with an open mind and because I am a decent fellow I repeat my offer to you. Perhaps if you let me have your email address I will send you something but I dont want it discussed here as I don't think the audience is even remotely qualified or genuinely interested. I can well foresee (as do others)the type of stupidity that would follow based on my experiences thus far.

quote:

Originally posted by Sniper:

quote:

Originally posted by Trevp:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sniper:

[QUOTE] I have now requested twice that you cease publishing these attacks.

Then stop your childish and moronic responses which beg to be ignored or laughed at. You dish it out but you can't take it.

1

quote:

. I have not tried to "belittle" the Quantum Enigma book. I simply pointed out that it was not peer reviewed. You say you have "proved" otherwise - how exactly?

I posted a link to the quantum enigma website where they publish many peer reviews. Can't you read?

quote:

2. I have not provided argument because it is not possible to demonstrate the non-existence of anything. On the other hand, you have singularly failed to produce any kind of rational argument - about anything! (I am repeating myself somewhat here but you don't seem to understand the basics of logic). All I tried to do with my original post was to introduce some perspective into your one-sided view of the subject. I have since been subject to all manner of insults from you (a couple of examples are in the above quotation).

I have asked you to back up your view that the physcis professors are wrong. You have not even attempting to do this. You are clearly a half wit. Your replies are full of manipulative misdirection. You simply ignore the challenge as do the other chumps.

quote:

3. Regarding the book which you dismiss as a "beginners book" (Introduction to Quantum Mechanics), I suggest that you read it before dismissing it (although as you have claimed in a previous post to have read "everything" you must already have done so - in which case you have not understood it).

I am long past needing to read a beginners guide. In what way I have misunderstood it? Give clear examples. If you have read it then why did you not know the double slit experiment I referred to was a quantum experiment?

quote:

4. Your supposition that I do not have a PhD is false.

How much did it cost?

quote:

Originally posted by Trevp:
Sniper,

Droodzilla's excellent and very clear post above has inspired me to re-read a considerable portion of this thread. You claim that I have not made an argument. This is incorrect. However, arguments can become disjointed though the medium of a forum so here is my argument in its entirety:

The premises of the argument are as follows:

1. An hypothesis can only attain the status of a theory on the basis of verifiable, reproducible evidence.

2. It is irrational to hold a definite belief in the absence of verifiable, reproducible evidence.

3. As far as I am aware, there is no verifiable, reproducible evidence of a link between consciousness and quantum theory.

Having laid out the premises of the argument, the actual argument is as follows:

You hold a definite view that there is a link between consciousness and quantum theory.

There is no verifiable, reproducible evidence of the link between consciousness and quantum theory.

Therefore your view is irrational.

The logic of this argument is irrefutable and the first two premises I think are also not in question. The weak point of the argument is premise number three. Because I am not an expert in quantum theory, I stand to be corrected on this point. My argument stands until you can produce the necessary evidence to invalidate the third premise of my argument. So far you have not done so. You have listed many hypothetical statements from various professors but you have not provided any experimental evidence.

Until you provide the necessary evidence, I would request that you refrain from insulting my intelligence.

quote:

Originally posted by Sniper:

quote:

Originally posted by Trevp:
Sniper,

Droodzilla's excellent and very clear post above has inspired me to re-read a considerable portion of this thread. You claim that I have not made an argument. This is incorrect. However, arguments can become disjointed though the medium of a forum so here is my argument in its entirety:

The premises of the argument are as follows:

1. An hypothesis can only attain the status of a theory on the basis of verifiable, reproducible evidence.

2. It is irrational to hold a definite belief in the absence of verifiable, reproducible evidence.

3. As far as I am aware, there is no verifiable, reproducible evidence of a link between consciousness and quantum theory.

Having laid out the premises of the argument, the actual argument is as follows:

You hold a definite view that there is a link between consciousness and quantum theory.

There is no verifiable, reproducible evidence of the link between consciousness and quantum theory.

Therefore your view is irrational.

The logic of this argument is irrefutable and the first two premises I think are also not in question. The weak point of the argument is premise number three. Because I am not an expert in quantum theory, I stand to be corrected on this point. My argument stands until you can produce the necessary evidence to invalidate the third premise of my argument. So far you have not done so. You have listed many hypothetical statements from various professors but you have not provided any experimental evidence.

Until you provide the necessary evidence, I would request that you refrain from insulting my intelligence.

Droodzilla is as dozy as you are. Let me cut through the bullshit of your deeply silly post and ask you one question - was Galileo irrational?

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:
[QUOTE]


I'm a great believer in free, open discussion - however irritating, or wrong-headed one finds some of the contributions. For this reason, closed, or invitation only forums do not appeal to me - too much danger of groupthink, and becoming isolated from the wider community of reason, upon which progress in science, and all other forms of intellectual endeavour depends. Also, I don't disclose my e-mail address on public forums as a matter of principle. For these reasons, I'm afraid I can't take up your offer, but I remain grateful to you for drawing the Quantum Enigma book to my attention.

Regards
Nigel

quote:

Originally posted by Consciousmess:

[QUOTE] I am strongly of the opinion that it is the emergent property of material, physical components entirely made up within the natural world.

quote:

The 'quantum arena' is simply religious people trying to grasp onto scientific credence, when clearly there is nothing scientific with religion - it is entire faith and that is why I resent it.

quote:

Originally posted by Trevp:
Sniper,

[QUOTE] Droodzilla's excellent and very clear post above has inspired me to re-read a considerable portion of this thread. You claim that I have not made an argument. This is incorrect. However, arguments can become disjointed though the medium of a forum so here is my argument in its entirety:

quote:

The premises of the argument are as follows:

1. An hypothesis can only attain the status of a theory on the basis of verifiable, reproducible evidence.

quote:

2. It is irrational to hold a definite belief in the absence of verifiable, reproducible evidence.

quote:

3. As far as I am aware, there is no verifiable, reproducible evidence of a link between consciousness and quantum theory.

quote:

Having laid out the premises of the argument, the actual argument is as follows:

You hold a definite view that there is a link between consciousness and quantum theory.

There is no verifiable, reproducible evidence of the link between consciousness and quantum theory.

quote:

Therefore your view is irrational.

quote:

The weak point of the argument is premise number three. Because I am not an expert in quantum theory, I stand to be corrected on this point

quote:

My argument stands until you can produce the necessary evidence to invalidate the third premise of my argument. So far you have not done so.

quote:

You have listed many hypothetical statements from various professors but you have not provided any experimental evidence.

quote:

Until you provide the necessary evidence, I would request that you refrain from insulting my intelligence.

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:
If I was a student of yours, I'd want my money back.

quote:

Originally posted by Sniper:

quote:

Originally posted by Trevp:
Sniper,

[QUOTE] Droodzilla's excellent and very clear post above has inspired me to re-read a considerable portion of this thread. You claim that I have not made an argument. This is incorrect. However, arguments can become disjointed though the medium of a forum so here is my argument in its entirety:

You are an arch obfusticator. You said all the physics professors and myself are wrong and I ask you to say why you think we are wrong. I have constantly challenged you do to this and you have persistantly failed to do so - THIS is the argument you have failed to supply.

quote:

The premises of the argument are as follows:

1. An hypothesis can only attain the status of a theory on the basis of verifiable, reproducible evidence.

No one (neither myself or any of the physics professors I quoted) have denied this, nor would we (I think I can speak for them in this rather obvious matter).

quote:

2. It is irrational to hold a definite belief in the absence of verifiable, reproducible evidence.

No one (neither myself or any of the physics professors I quoted) have or would deny this.

quote:

3. As far as I am aware, there is no verifiable, reproducible evidence of a link between consciousness and quantum theory.

No one would deny that 'as far as you know...' after all you have claimed the double slit experiment is not a quantum experiment proving you do not know the first thing about quantum theory. However you are simply wrong to say there is no evidence and herein lies your problem. According to Quantum Enigma by Rosenblum and Kuttner, industrial strength physcicists who say things like:

'The physical reality of an object depends on how you choose to look at it'. Physics had encountered consciousness but did not yet realize it'.

They way you chose to look at it through experiments that have been carried out thousands and thousands of times.

Do you honestly think all the respected, highly qualified, award winning, published and peer reviewed physicists are all irrational? Again, if we are so barking mad then it should be simplisity itself to demonstrate how and why but you have singularly failed to do this. You have offered no evidence whatsoever. Remember, according to you, the belief in something for which there is no evidence is irrational.

quote:

Having laid out the premises of the argument, the actual argument is as follows:

You hold a definite view that there is a link between consciousness and quantum theory.

There is no verifiable, reproducible evidence of the link between consciousness and quantum theory.

Again, you are simply wrong. Where is your demonstration that there is no link?

quote:

Therefore your view is irrational.

No, therefore, the exact opposite is true. You make a conclusion based on the fact you are ignorant. You even admit that point three is your weak point (which is a step in the right direction). Points 1 and 2 have never been in debate. Your whole post is a joke and anyone who can't see through it is a joke.

quote:

The weak point of the argument is premise number three. Because I am not an expert in quantum theory, I stand to be corrected on this point

True. Very true.

quote:

My argument stands until you can produce the necessary evidence to invalidate the third premise of my argument. So far you have not done so.

The third premis of your 'argument' is not an argument at all - it is a statement of belief (moreover it is an erroneous statement of belief). Why you (or anyone else)would think it is an argument and not a mere statement of belief is a mystery to me.

quote:

You have listed many hypothetical statements from various professors but you have not provided any experimental evidence.

I am not obliged to. You say they are wrong which is appalling arrogance on your part. You say you have a beginners guide to quantum physics. You talk about the weak parts of your knowledge and how you are not an expert in quantum physics and yet you insist you are right and they are wrong and you call me irrational? And you demand I do not insult your intelligence? I have suggested you read 'Quantum Enigma' because they will answer your questions - not because i can't but because it would take very long posts in order to do the subect justice. IF you are genuinely interested please read their book. If, as I have said before you are intrigued by their book you can read mine. Their book is not popular science if by that you mean popular on the level of something written by (say) Marcus Chown, it is altogether on a different level to that.

quote:

Until you provide the necessary evidence, I would request that you refrain from insulting my intelligence.

If you were a student of mine I would suggest you take another course.

You take point A (unecessary as it goes without saying and has never been in contention)

and you take point B (unecessary as it goes without saying and has never been in contention)

and use them to give credibility to your conclusion (point C)which is in fact founded on nothing other than your own admitted lack of knowledge.

quote:

Originally posted by mongo:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:

quote:

Originally posted by mongo:
Ah. Mr Lacey. I've been expecting you.

You seem to appear regularly in order to post something contrary simply for the sake of being contrary? Still each to his own.

So?

Some people fall easily into pack / herd bullying mentality; I do hope you don't mind me remaining apart from that kind of person and having my own point of view.

quote:

This is from sniper himself;

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

.

Is this your evidence of Sniper comparing himself to Galileo? It is no such thing.

It doers, however, mention Galileo.

Some people fall easily into pack / herd bullying mentality.


And you are the swiftly galloping Galahad no doubt?

You remind me of the barking mad old dears who collects stray cats.

Except that they do so from genuine goodness, whereas you intercede, in this forum at least, with a moral superiority complex. No doubt to compensate for some real or imagined shortcomings

Unfortunately you come across as entirely self righteous and pompous. I believe you need to attempt to unwedge your head from your own arse.