Can you really say Evolution has no Meaning ?

originally posted by: TerraLiga

Still can't see it? I'll tell you. Peer review. Everyone outside of the German political hierarchy knew this was rubbish. An apt simile for what everyone outside of creationism thinks of your theories.

lol besides Italy and Germany's other allies. I'm sure Germany's peer-review agreed with how superior Germany was above all others. It's just compounding confirmation bias. Same stuff with blind belief in evolution. Same stuff with blind belief in God.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

I posted a credible resource that determines your understanding to be a "misconception". Which is another word for wrong.

So proud of you for that wikipedia source.

Wheeler's delayed choice experiment showed that the photon detection was in fact reacting to whether or not it was measured or not. It's quite phenomenal, and even insists that choice / consciousness is a determinant causal factor in physical reality. Measuring devices are simply extensions of our awareness..

a reply to: cooperton

In other words, you're smarter than they are but no one pays you to do the work they do.

And photon experiments are still unrelated to the subject of evolution.

originally posted by: cooperton
lol besides Italy and Germany's other allies. I'm sure Germany's peer-review agreed with how superior Germany was above all others. It's just compounding confirmation bias. Same stuff with blind belief in evolution. Same stuff with blind belief in God.

No other nation agreed that Aryans or Nordics were superior to themselves. What history are you reading? All other nations could see that German historians and philosophers were rewriting (or inventing) history to suit their own theories. They were a laughing stock through Europe. There was no confirmation bias except internally and within a small group at that.

Belief in any deity is blind, that is true. Belief in the scientific method is logical.

a reply to: TerraLiga

It's not "belief" if it's a conclusion derived from consistent data produced in carefully controlled circumstances that can be reliably replicated to demonstrate the same conclusion no matter what your preconceptions look like.

The photon experiment doesn't match the conclusions Cooperton has described.

a reply to: TerraLiga

he's not reading. He said "im sure...." then made up a scenario to support his position.

Because without just flat out making it up, he has nothing to support him.

a reply to: cooperton

Wheeler's delayed choice experiment showed that the photon detection was in fact reacting to whether or not it was measured or not. It's quite phenomenal, and even insists that choice / consciousness is a determinant causal factor in physical reality. Measuring devices are simply extensions of our awareness..

Why didn't you read this? Why do you insist on formulating a misinterpretation of the evidence? Nowhere does it say that instruments are an extension of consciousness. Werner Heisenberg, Roger Penrose, John Bell, Richard Feyman - and you're smarter than they are? Get real - and start reading.
An instrument is INDEPENDENT of consciousness and the human who's using it. That's the point. INDEPENDENCE.

"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory." - Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, p. 137

"Was the wave function waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some highly qualified measurer - with a PhD?" -John Stewart Bell, 1981, Quantum Mechanics for Cosmologists. In C.J. Isham, R. Penrose and D.W. Sciama (eds.), Quantum Gravity 2: A second Oxford Symposium. Oxford: Clarendon Press, p. 611.

 According to standard quantum mechanics, it is a matter of complete indifference whether the experimenters stay around to watch their experiment, or instead leave the room and delegate observing to an inanimate apparatus which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic measurements and records them by a time-irreversible process (Bell, John (2004). Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy. Cambridge University Press. p. 170. ISBN 9780521523387.). The measured state is not interfering with the states excluded by the measurement. As Richard Feynman put it: "Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not." (Feynman, Richard (2015). The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. III. Ch 3.2: Basic Books. ISBN 9780465040834.).

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

In other words, you're smarter than they are but no one pays you to do the work they do.

And photon experiments are still unrelated to the subject of evolution.

Thanks king of separation, but I'm mostly just reverberating the Copenhagen Interpretation. I know you hate empirical science that disagrees with your conclusions but I guess we all have our "cult"

originally posted by: Phantom423

Why didn't you read this? Why do you insist on formulating a misinterpretation of the evidence? Nowhere does it say that instruments are an extension of consciousness.

Conscious humans make measuring devices to extend their ability to observe things. As far as I'm aware, that is the trouble of proving or disproving the Copenhagen Interpretation

"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory." - Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, p. 137

"Was the wave function waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some highly qualified measurer - with a PhD?"

That's assuming evolution is true. I think consciousness is fundamental to existence. Which I guess is a kind of lame assertion considering our existence is unavoidably conscious

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: TerraLiga

he's not reading. He said "im sure...." then made up a scenario to support his position.

Because without just flat out making it up, he has nothing to support him.

Quantum physics has been trying to digest the empirical data for about a century now. The Copenhagen Interpretation is still a prominent explanation of what the data shows us. I'm not making it up, this is their postulate

a reply to: cooperton

Thanks king of separation, but I'm mostly just reverberating the Copenhagen Interpretation. I know you hate empirical science that disagrees with your conclusions but I guess we all have our "cult"

NONE of what you posted is the "Copenhagen Interpretation". Absolutely NONE. You deliberately misinterpret the theory and the data to suit your crackpot cult interpretation.

All of these scientists have made it clear:

"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory." - Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, p. 137

"Was the wave function waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some highly qualified measurer - with a PhD?" -John Stewart Bell, 1981, Quantum Mechanics for Cosmologists. InC.J. Isham, R. Penrose and D.W. Sciama(eds.), Quantum Gravity 2: A second Oxford Symposium. Oxford: Clarendon Press, p. 611.

 According to standard quantum mechanics, it is a matter of complete indifference whether the experimenters stay around to watch their experiment, or instead leave the room and delegate observing to an inanimate apparatus which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic measurements and records them by a time-irreversible process (Bell, John (2004). Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy. Cambridge University Press. p. 170. ISBN 9780521523387.). The measured state is not interfering with the states excluded by the measurement. As Richard Feynman put it: "Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not." (Feynman, Richard (2015). The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. III. Ch 3.2: Basic Books. ISBN 9780465040834.).

You are the personification of the arrogance of ignorance. You ignore the truth to rewrite your own crackpot history.
Ignorance is obviously your bliss.

a reply to: cooperton

Quantum physics has been trying to digest the empirical data for about a century now. The Copenhagen Interpretation is still a prominent explanation of what the data shows us. I'm not making it up, this is their postulate

Sure you're making it up. You have no conception what the Copenhagen Interpretation says. It's all mumbo jumbo to you that you think you can manipulate into your crackpot science. Well you can't.
Quantum mechanics even predicts evolution:



Quantum Mechanics predicts evolutionary biology
Author links open overlay panelJ.S.Torday

Abstract
Nowhere are the shortcomings of conventional descriptive biology more evident than in the literature on Quantum Biology. In the on-going effort to apply Quantum Mechanics to evolutionary biology, merging Quantum Mechanics with the fundamentals of evolution as the First Principles of Physiology-namely negentropy, chemiosmosis and homeostasis-offers an authentic opportunity to understand how and why physics constitutes the basic principles of biology. Negentropy and chemiosmosis confer determinism on the unicell, whereas homeostasis constitutes Free Will because it offers a probabilistic range of physiologic set points. Similarly, on this basis several principles of Quantum Mechanics also apply directly to biology. The Pauli Exclusion Principle is both deterministic and probabilistic, whereas non-localization and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle are both probabilistic, providing the long-sought after ontologic and causal continuum from physics to biology and evolution as the holistic integration recognized as consciousness for the first time.

originally posted by: Phantom423

"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory." - Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, p. 137

Here he is saying exactly what my stance is. The manifestation of the actual from the possible is absolutely necessary by the observer or the apparatus that the observer creates.

 According to standard quantum mechanics, it is a matter of complete indifference whether the experimenters stay around to watch their experiment, or instead leave the room and delegate observing to an inanimate apparatus which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic measurements and records them by a time-irreversible process (Bell, John (2004).

Yes because the device is doing the observation for them

. As Richard Feynman put it: "Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not." (Feynman, Richard (2015). The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. III. Ch 3.2: Basic Books. ISBN 9780465040834.).

Not so much. The double slit experiment shows that the main variable that determines whether the photon acts like a particle or a wave is whether or not the slit is being observed by human-made devices

You are the personification of the arrogance of ignorance. You ignore the truth to rewrite your own crackpot history.
Ignorance is obviously your bliss.

Embrace the catharsis. Get it out. Let your fury unravel on me

a reply to: cooperton

Human made is not required. You keep ignorimg that.

Whether a human is there or not....stars shine. You misunderstand it in a fundamental level.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: cooperton

Human made is not required. You keep ignorimg that.

Whether a human is there or not....stars shine. You misunderstand it in a fundamental level.

Ok a gopher-made double slit experiment. Still will work if the gopher knows how to make the proper device. Seriously I get you want to try to trap me in my words, but stop nit-picking everything. The device used to measure which slit the photon goes through in the experiment is the causative variable that makes the photon behave like a particle.

a reply to: cooperton


Reading comprehension and lack of scientific terminology and methods. Get a few good molecular biology books.
You simply don't understand science. You can't even read a simple statement without screwing it up.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton


Reading comprehension and lack of scientific terminology and methods. Get a few good molecular biology books.
You simply don't understand science. You can't even read a simple statement without screwing it up.

The cariablenthat determine photon behavior through a double slit is whether or not the slit can be measured to check which way the photon went. That's not even my opinion thats just the results of the experiment. Wheeler's delayed choice even compounds on the initial conclusions

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton


Reading comprehension and lack of scientific terminology and methods. Get a few good molecular biology books.
You simply don't understand science. You can't even read a simple statement without screwing it up.

The variable* that determines photon behavior through a double slit is whether or not the slit can be measured to check which way the photon went. That's not even my opinion that's just the results of the experiment. Wheeler's delayed choice even compounds on the initial conclusions

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton


Reading comprehension and lack of scientific terminology and methods. Get a few good molecular biology books.
You simply don't understand science. You can't even read a simple statement without screwing it up.

The variable* that determines photon behavior through a double slit is whether or not the slit can be measured to check which way the photon went. That's not even my opinion that's just the results of the experiment. Wheeler's delayed choice even compounds on the initial conclusions

Wrong again please pick up a science book. The double-slit experiment proves particle-wave duality. Originally light was thought to be a wave then along came Einstien who explained it's also a particle. in 1905 he published 3 papers on Brownian motion. In one paper he discussed the photoelectric effect we use this by using a diode to capture energy AKA solar cell. What he showed was light was quantized making it both a wave and particle.

The double-slit experiment shows we can get an interference pattern when the slits equal the wavelength of the light. This was further confirmed by Luis de Broglie When he showed matter has a wavelength. We can get electrons to have a diffraction pattern just like light. This means that even 1 electron passing through a slit can interfere with itself. Now, why don't we see this in everyday observations?

Any object could technically exhibit a diffraction pattern the problem is massive objects have incredibly tiny wavelengths. For example, a human to show diffraction would have to pass through a slit 10-36 meters ( a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth). Needless to say, this is far too small for a person so we will never see it. In other words as size increases wavelength decreases.

So the double-slit experiment had nothing to do with if it was measured or not your simply wrong. I think what you meant to discuss was a quantum eraser but you got that wrong as well so I'm not sure.

originally posted by: dragonridr


The double-slit experiment shows we can get an interference pattern when the slits equal the wavelength of the light. This was further confirmed by Luis de Broglie When he showed matter has a wavelength. We can get electrons to have a diffraction pattern just like light. This means that even 1 electron passing through a slit can interfere with itself. Now why dont we see this in everyday observations?

Any object could technically exhibit a diffraction pattern the problem is massive objects have incredibly tiny wavelengths. For example, a human to show diffraction would have to pass through a slit 10-36 meters. Needless to say, this is far too small for a person so we will never see it. In other words as size increases wavelength decreases.

So the double-slit experiment had nothing to do with if it was measured or not your simply wrong. I think what you meant to discuss was a quantum eraser but you got that wrong as well so I'm not sure.

Lol what? In The double slit experiment the photon behaved like a wave until the researchers cleverly found a way to measure which slit the photon was going through, then it behaved like a particle.

It's quite phenomenal

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: dragonridr


The double-slit experiment shows we can get an interference pattern when the slits equal the wavelength of the light. This was further confirmed by Luis de Broglie When he showed matter has a wavelength. We can get electrons to have a diffraction pattern just like light. This means that even 1 electron passing through a slit can interfere with itself. Now why dont we see this in everyday observations?

Any object could technically exhibit a diffraction pattern the problem is massive objects have incredibly tiny wavelengths. For example, a human to show diffraction would have to pass through a slit 10-36 meters. Needless to say, this is far too small for a person so we will never see it. In other words as size increases wavelength decreases.

So the double-slit experiment had nothing to do with if it was measured or not your simply wrong. I think what you meant to discuss was a quantum eraser but you got that wrong as well so I'm not sure.

Lol what? In The double slit experiment the photon behaved like a wave until the researchers cleverly found a way to measure which slit the photon was going through, then it behaved like a particle.

It's quite phenomenal

As i said your wrong and did not understand the experiment go figure. What the double-slit experiment did was make the slits equal the wavelength of the light. When this happens the light interferes with itself giving us a diffraction pattern. Space the holes too far apart or too close together you see particles. Had nothing to do with measuring anything passing through the slits. Again if your going to learn about science at least take the time to get it right.

a reply to: cooperton

Funny that you should bring up the Copenhagen interpretation. Are you familiar with the principle that no truth can be attributed to an object except according to the results of its measurement? Can you provide measurement of the extra dimensional mind you mentioned?

meas·ure
/ˈmeZHər/
verb

1. ascertain the size, amount, or degree of (something) by using an instrument or device marked in standard units or by comparing it with an object of known size.

originally posted by: dragonridr


As i said your wrong and did not understand the experiment go figure. What the double-slit experiment did was make the slits equal the wavelength of the light. When this happens the light interferes with itself giving us a diffraction pattern. Space the holes too far apart or too close together you see particles. Had nothing to do with measuring anything passing through the slits. Again if your going to learn about science at least take the time to get it right.

No lol. Watch this video it breaks it down very simply:

youtu.be...