• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by HARK!, Feb 3, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. HARK!

    HARK! Well-Known Member

    +503
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    This is an awesome presentation, which compiles different experiments in Quantum Physics; as it challenges the way that many see the world.

     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. DennisTate

    DennisTate Newbie Supporter

    +1,598
    Canada
    Messianic
    Married
    CA-Conservatives

    I have got to see this one soon.... this other video was inspiring to say the least. (For the record it is only an hour and a half long but whoever did it put several copies of the video back to back).


     
  3. Strathos

    Strathos No one important

    +3,309
    Christian
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I wish people would stop posting videos without summarizing them.
     
    • Agree Agree x 7
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • List
  4. HARK!

    HARK! Well-Known Member

    +503
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Science hasn't buried Elohim, it has revealed him, and with it buried materialism.
     
  5. HARK!

    HARK! Well-Known Member

    +503
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Quantum Randi Challenge
    Sascha Vongehr
    (Submitted on 23 Jul 2012 (this version), latest version 24 Dec 2012 (v3))
    Violations of Bell type inequalities in quantum experiments disprove all relativistic micro causal, classically real models. Desperate attempts at saving classicality retreated to claiming what Shimony calls a conspiracy. It is time to embrace the quantum paradigm instead of being stuck in defending it against positions on par with the belief in divinely planted fossils. However, different from 'quantum-magic' pseudoscience, there is resistance against quantum mechanics among scientific literate audiences, and it is growing. The Quantum Randi Challenge is designed to help scientists and educators discredit local realistic models and related attacks against quantum physics. Its 'Randi-type' properties are ensured via a simple computer game that can be made attractive and understandable to lay people.
    We introduce the general concept of a 'James Randi type' challenge as a tool for science outreach aimed against the spread of pseudoscience. This is a challenge which, according to the laws of nature as known to science, is impossible to meet. Randi challenges work simply by being known to exist while never having been overcome, despite the large rewards which would follow from meeting the challenge. This effectively refutes pseudoscientific claims according to which the challenge could easily be met. Pseudoscience exploits well meaning engagement in argument in order undermine science by artificially creating the appearance of a dispute between experts where there is none. Randi challenges allow scientists to publicly refuse to give a platform to pseudoscience without strengthening the perception of censorship and establishment conspiracy. Scientists may decline to enter rhetorical discussions "until the challenge has been met" and no-one can complain that their point of view is actively suppressed.

    Quantum Randi Challenge
     
  6. HARK!

    HARK! Well-Known Member

    +503
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Here's a new easier version:


    Quantum Randi Challenge
    Sascha Vongehr
    (Submitted on 23 Jul 2012 (v1), last revised 24 Dec 2012 (this version, v3))
    Observed violations of Bell type inequalities exclude all relativistic micro causal ("local"), counterfactual definite ("real") hidden variable models of nature. This further relativization of our concept of reality triggers a growing pseudoscientific resistance against quantum mechanics (QM). I define Didactic Randi Challenges (DRC) via five characteristics. These are challenges which, according to the laws of nature, are impossible to meet. They effectively refute pseudoscientific claims according to which the challenge could easily be met. DRC work by being known to exist while never having been overcome, despite the large rewards which would follow from meeting the challenge. Pseudoscience exploits well meaning engagement in argument to create the appearance of an expert dispute (sowing doubt). DRC decline to discuss "until the challenge is met", without solidifying the perception of establishment conspiracy. This requires transparency, thus DRC are efficient didactic tools. The Quantum Randi Challenge (QRC) is a DRC designed to reject hidden variable models by simply teaching QM; there is no bet or interaction with challengers. The QRC is a computer game that anybody can modify. The present version includes a simulation of true QM behavior that violates Bell 99% of the time, hidden variables that violate the Bell and CHSH inequality with 50% probability, and ones which violate Bell 85% of the time when missing 13% anti-correlation. The DRC challenge is to modify the hidden variables so that the predicted QM behavior arises, including anti-correlation. If such were possible, the presented programs would make it trivial to meet the challenge. This fact and the whole QRC can be taught to a wide audience via the presented heuristics. Demanding anti-correlation is argued to be superior to employing CHSH.

    Quantum Randi Challenge
     
  7. pitabread

    pitabread Well-Known Member

    +8,089
    Canada
    Agnostic
    Private
    But why post an honest summary when one can post clickbait instead?
     
  8. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting The Librarian Supporter

    +6,106
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others

    I'm a fan of capitalism.
     
  9. Kylie

    Kylie Defeater of Illogic

    +3,417
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    Given that channel is mostly religious apologetics videos, I think it's safe to say that the people making these videos do not have the necessary scientific qualifications to be a valid authority on QM.

    EDIT: On watching that video, it seems to be mostly pointing out some of the cool unexpected things that result from QM and saying that this means that there is no objective reality that is the same for every single observer, and our understanding of the world through general relativity is completely wrong.

    Nevermind the fact that GR actually explains how there is no single correct view of reality as well. Watch this video for an example of how a pole can be short enough to fit in a barn at the same time that it is too long to fit in the barn.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2020
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  10. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting The Librarian Supporter

    +6,106
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    New forum rules prohibit that.
     
  11. HARK!

    HARK! Well-Known Member

    +503
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    It's not that kind of materialism.

    It has to do with the nature of the Universe.
     
  12. HARK!

    HARK! Well-Known Member

    +503
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    You've presented yet another ad hominem fallacy. You seem to have a knack for that. I caught you doing it twice, in what, less than an hour?
     
  13. Kylie

    Kylie Defeater of Illogic

    +3,417
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    Yeah, you believe that there is no single objective view of reality possible, and that QM's description of things that go against what we expect shows that our macroscopic understanding of the universe is flawed.

    You seem to be unaware of the fact that our macroscopic understanding of the universe - general relativity - also shows that there is no single subjective viewpoint of reality possible.

    If you understood why GR replaced newtonian physics instead of clinging to the idea that newtonian physics was still the best explanation put forward by scientists, perhaps you would know that.
     
  14. Kylie

    Kylie Defeater of Illogic

    +3,417
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    No, I'm pointing out that you are committing the appeal to authority fallacy. Of course, you could show me why the makers of the video actually ARE a valid authority, and I'd be happy to retract my claims.

    Is this going to be your standard operating procedure? Throwing out claims I am committing logical fallacies while demonstrating that you don't actually understand how those fallacies work?
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  15. HARK!

    HARK! Well-Known Member

    +503
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Wow! More straw man arguments?

    GR served to explain flaws in Newtonian Physics. QM resulted to explain flaws in GR. I once read that Einstein realized that his work was flawed shortly before, or shortly after he released it.

    The Flaws of General Relativity
    A compilation of some defects of the conventional theory of gravitation
    It is generally assumed that Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity is an adequate theory of gravitation. However, although it has well passed all observational and experimental tests so far, some theoretical arguments indicate that it will have to be replaced with a more consistent theory.
    Last modification 18th July '97

    by Laro Schatzer <[email protected]>

    Remark: I removed the section stating the non-existence of interactive N-body solutions in general relativity [3-6], since the claim has been successfully refuted [7-8]. Accordingly, I decided to change the title: the "failure" was switched to "flaws".

    General Relativity Does Not Respect Local Energy-Momentum
    There are serious problems with local energy-momentum conservation in general relativity (see [1] for a review). It is well known that Einstein's theory does not assign a definite stress-energy tensor to the gravitational field. This property is extremely unsatisfactory, because one knows that all other fundamental interactions in nature actually do respect the principle of local conservation of energy-momentum. Essentially, the non-existance of a stress-energy tensor is a consequence of the purely geometrical interpretation of gravity as curvature of space-time.
    General Relativity Predicts Space-Time Singularities
    Space-time singularities and event horizons are a consequence of general relativity, appearing in the solutions of the gravitational field. Although the "big bang" singularity and "black holes" have been an topic of intensive study in theoretical astrophysics, one can seriously doubt that such mathematical monsters should really represent physical objects. In fact, in order to predict black holes one has to extrapolate the theory of general relativity far beyond observationally known gravity strengths. Quoting Albert Einstein shows that he was quite aware of this conceptual problem: "For large densities of field and of matter, the field equations and even the field variables which enter into them will have no real significance. One may not therefore assume the validity of the equations for very high density of field and of matter, and one may not conclude that the 'beginning of the expansion' [of the universe] must mean a singularity in the mathematical sense. All we have to realize is that the equations may not be continued over such regions." [2] Many physicists would prefer a gravity theory without mathematical anomalies in its field solutions.
    General Relativity Failed to Be Quantized
    Quantum mechanics can be said to be the cornerstone of modern physics. For every physical field theory it should be possible to formulate it as quantum field theory. Actually, it is generally accepted that the field theories of electromagnetism or gravitation are but an approximation, the "classical limit", of more fundamental underlying quantum field theories. It is also assumed that interaction theories have to be gauge theories. The possibility of formulating gravity as quantum field theory is essential in the context of the unification of all fundamental interactions. However, all attempts to find a consistent quantum gauge field theory of general relativity have failed. This indicates again that general relativity can hardly be an absolutely correct theory of gravitation.
    Towards a Consistent Theory of Gravitation
    It appears that general relativity is not an adequate theory of gravitation, and that it has to be replaced by a new consistent theory. An alternative is the gravity theory of Hüseyin Yilmaz [1-3].
    References
    [1] M. Carmeli, E. Liebowitz and N. Nissani: "Gravitation, SL(2,C) gauge theory and conservations laws", World Scientific, Singapore (1990), chapter 4
    [2] A. Einstein: The Meaning of Relativity, Fifth Edition, Princeton University Press (1956), 129
    [3] H. Yilmaz: "Towards a field theory of gravity", Nuovo Cimento 107B (1992), pp. 941
    [4] C. O. Alley: "Investigations with lasers, atomic clocks and computer calculations of curved spacetime and of the differences between the gravitation theories of Yilmaz and of Einstein", Frontiers of Fundamental Physics, edited by M. Barone and F. Selleri, Plenum Press, New York (1994), p. 125-137
    [5] H. Yilmaz: "Did the apple fall?", Ibid, p. 115-124
    [6] G. C. McVittie: Astronomical Journal 75 (1970), pp. 287
    [7] F. I. Cooperstock, D. N. Vollick: "The Yilmaz challenge to general relativity", Nuovo Cimento 111B (1996), 265
    [8] E. D. Fackerell: "Remarks on the Yilmaz and Alley papers", Proceedings of the first australasian conference on general relativity and gravitation, ed.: D. L. Wiltshire, University of Adelaide (1996), 117; click here to find thepostscript version

    The Flaws of General Relativity
     
  16. Gene2memE

    Gene2memE Newbie

    +2,942
    Atheist
    Private
    The opening video totally failed to mention quantum decoherence, or the fact that an "observer" in quantum mechanics doesn't need to be conscious (a very small minority [less than 3%] of quantum physicists subscribe to the von Neumann–Wigner interpretation concerning the consciousness of the observer).

    I wonder why that could be?
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  17. HARK!

    HARK! Well-Known Member

    +503
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Pot meet kettle.

    Argument from authority
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to navigation Jump to search
    An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of defeasible[1] argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, though some consider that it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context.[2][3] Other authors consider it a fallacy to cite an authority on the discussed topic as the primary means of supporting an argument.[4]

    Contents
    Forms
    Appeals to authorities
    Historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided: it is listed as a valid argument as often as a fallacious argument in various sources,[5] with some holding that it is a strong or at least valid argument[6][7][8][9] and others that it is weak or an outright fallacy.[10][11][4][12][13]

    If all parties agree on the reliability of an authority in the given context it forms a valid inductive argument.[2][3]

    Use in science
    Scientific knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment rather than argued through authority[14][15][16] as authority has no place in science.
    [15][17][18] Carl Sagan wrote of arguments from authority:
     
  18. Kylie

    Kylie Defeater of Illogic

    +3,417
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    You don't know what a straw man argument is.

    You are wrong. GR is still required, it has not been superseded by QM. If you disagree, please demonstrate how to predict the trajectory of a space probe to Saturn using QM.
     
  19. Kylie

    Kylie Defeater of Illogic

    +3,417
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    Yes, it's a very nice cut and paste from Wikipedia, but it doesn't explain where I have been guilty of the appeal to authority fallacy.
     
  20. HARK!

    HARK! Well-Known Member

    +503
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Maybe you're right. Maybe it's the rest of the world that's all wrong.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...