Observation, in the context of quantum mechanics, does not mean being watched, but with being measured.
There's no woo involved. The double slit experiment is weird, like a stage magician pulling a rabbit out of his hat it causes us to second-guess reality--but just like the magician pulling a rabbit out of his hat is not doing any magic but there is a perfectly rational explanation,
Any attempt to spiritualize quantum mechanics is bad.
Not much chance of that.
You didn't recognise Jipsah's post, and my response to it, were lyrics from The Pirates of PenzanceNever heard of it. No Gilbert & Sullivan either. So what is your point?
You don't have to read anyone's posts you don't want to. You don't own the threads you start, CF does.Then stop posting in my threads. Don't talk to me. Fairly simple. You can do it!
Level of education =/= credibility. There are some well educated people posting on this forum who believe in a flat earth enclosed in a dome with an ice wall around the perimeter.Chuck Missler is harvard educated and is much more credible than I.
This is a public forum and I will choose to post where I please.Then stop posting in my threads. Don't talk to me. Fairly simple. You can do it!
Having read Jipsah's responses on a wide variety of topics, I think you have this backwards.You know less about Science than I do.
Our resident Chuck Missler fanatic is not only gullible enough to fall for his nonsense but can't even get the facts right.Level of education =/= credibility. There are some well educated people posting on this forum who believe in a flat earth enclosed in a dome with an ice wall around the perimeter.
Well, we do actually. It is created by our brains. Our senses bring information from the outside world into our brains where it is synthesized into a gestalt. So the world we experience is a facsimile a copy, a recreation or a simulation within our minds.Ok so the possibility does exist that we do live in a simulation.
True!
What is Woo? And second guess what reality? The one we can see or the unseen? And what should I do with this?
2nd Corinthians 4:18
18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal..../KJV
Isnt this verse telling us that there is more to this planet (Creation) than meets the eye? So on what do I ignore this verse and disregard the unseen as magicians tricks? It sounds like you are saying that the only reality there is is the material earth and universe. And that's not what that verse is saying. Explain that one.
Are you for real?
Oh we have to spiritualize everything is what scripture says.
What does it say? Be led by the Spirit? Pray without ceasing? Does that mean do not spiritualize?
What do I do with 2 Corinthians 4:18? Should I tear that page out of my bible?
What does that verse mean? Look not at the things which are seen, which would be our material world. But look at the things which are not seen (in this material world)? WHat does that mean sir?
Very unlikely.You know less about Science than I do.
No scientifc issues have been raised.All you have done is trash talk. Not one scientific thought.
Talking to someone who espouses ridiculous and altogether baseless ideas.So where's that leave you?
Interesting. Especially the virtual scientist part. I think he would see what he expects to see. The spiritual paarrelels between the Matrix and the Bible are all over the movie. Neo is "the One" so is a type of Christ for the movie.
Neo has carried, since his conception, the Matrix's source code known as the Prime Program. This gives him the ability to freely manipulate the simulated reality of the Matrix, similar to the authority a system administrator has over a given system. He manifests these abilities as various superhuman powers. Kind of how Jesus does on earth?
You sound like you might have taken the red pill. I did too so they'll prolly yell at me for this post, lol.
Exactly. The experiement showed two things, an interference pattern and also a wave pattern so they tried to chart which slit each proton went through so they set up a camera and it foiled the expected results. Almost like it knew that it was being observed.
Observation, in the context of quantum mechanics, does not mean being watched, but with being measured
I can casually observe a group of women walking down the street without changing their behavior.
I can casually observe a group of women walking down the street without changing their behavior.
But the moment I insist they all step on a scale and let me weigh them...
For the second question ChatGPT 3.5 gave a general response which is accurate but did not go into specific detail of how Missler is contradictory and deliberately peddled misinformation as highlighted in this thread.The Electric Universe (EU) theory is a speculative idea that challenges mainstream scientific explanations for various astrophysical and cosmological phenomena. While it has gained some popularity among a small group of enthusiasts, it is important to note that the vast majority of the scientific community does not consider the Electric Universe theory to be well-supported or credible. Here are some of the criticisms and problems associated with the Electric Universe theory:
1. **Lack of Supporting Evidence:**
- One of the fundamental issues with the Electric Universe theory is the lack of empirical evidence to support its key claims. Scientific theories are typically built on a foundation of observational and experimental evidence, and the Electric Universe theory often lacks this support.
2. **Violation of Fundamental Laws of Physics:**
- The Electric Universe theory proposes electrical forces as the primary drivers of celestial phenomena, often in ways that appear to violate well-established laws of physics, such as gravity. Critics argue that the theory doesn't provide a coherent and consistent framework that aligns with the existing body of scientific knowledge.
3. **Limited Peer Review:**
- Many proponents of the Electric Universe theory publish their ideas in non-peer-reviewed publications or through outlets that are not widely recognized within the scientific community. The lack of rigorous peer review raises concerns about the validity and reliability of the claims made by supporters of the theory.
4. **Selective Data Interpretation:**
- Critics argue that proponents of the Electric Universe theory tend to selectively interpret data to fit their preconceived ideas, rather than following the scientific method, which involves letting observations guide theory development.
5. **Failure to Predict or Explain New Phenomena:**
- Scientific theories gain credibility when they successfully predict new phenomena or explain observations that were not initially understood. The Electric Universe theory has struggled to make successful predictions or provide compelling explanations for a wide range of astronomical observations.
6. **Lack of Academic Support:**
- The Electric Universe theory has not gained widespread acceptance within the scientific community. Mainstream astrophysicists and cosmologists generally do not endorse or support the theory, which is often considered outside the bounds of well-established scientific understanding.
7. **Simplistic Explanations:**
- Critics argue that the Electric Universe theory often relies on overly simplistic explanations for complex phenomena, neglecting the depth and intricacies of the well-established models and theories in astrophysics.
In summary, while the Electric Universe theory has captured the interest of some individuals, it faces significant challenges in terms of empirical support, adherence to fundamental physical laws, and acceptance within the scientific community. It's important to approach such theories with a critical mindset and consider the consensus within the scientific community.
Chuck Missler's views on physics, like many individuals who integrate science with their religious beliefs, are not widely accepted within the mainstream scientific community. Missler's interpretations often reflect a specific religious and theological perspective rather than a purely scientific one. It's important to understand that while he had a background in business and was a popular speaker on topics related to science and theology, he was not a trained physicist or scientist.
Some of Missler's views on physics, particularly those related to cosmology, astronomy, and quantum mechanics, may align with his interpretation of biblical teachings and his belief in an intelligent designer. However, many of his assertions and connections between scientific concepts and religious beliefs are highly speculative and not supported by the broader scientific community.
In mainstream science, theories and models are subject to rigorous testing, peer review, and scrutiny based on empirical evidence. Chuck Missler's approach, which sometimes involves exploring numerical patterns in the Bible or making connections between scientific principles and religious texts, often falls outside the standard scientific methodology.
It's crucial for individuals interested in the intersection of science and faith to approach such discussions with an awareness of the differences between scientific theories and religious beliefs. While there can be personal and philosophical perspectives on how science and faith relate, it's important to distinguish between empirical scientific findings and interpretations based on religious or theological convictions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?