Itoero

I do like colored balls, especially red ones. But that's a very lousy comparison. In your example, opening the bag (the correlation)ends the correlation...that's impossible. You end correlation by interacting with one of the balls, not by interacting with the bag. In your example, first you have one bag and then you have two bags... Because there are laws that seem to explain things, hidden variables are not necessary? hehe You again make a lousy comparison. The bag represents correlation, you can't end correlation by examining it. You can't examine the quantum correlation. You can only examine the particles. You can only know entanglement is there by measuring a particle, you can only measure the footprint entanglement leaves. Bell's theorem debunks theories concerning local hidden variables. If hidden variables are 100% unnecessary then Bell's theorem is 100% unnecessary? And those inequalities are a waste of time in your opinion?

So in your opinion only causal relations demand hidden variables. Why?

The holographic principle states that gravity in a three-dimensional volume can be described by quantum mechanics on a two-dimensional surface surrounding the volume. In particular, the three dimensions of the volume should emerge from the two dimensions of the surface. It seems that quantum entanglement provides the two dimensional information that builds (three-dimensional)space time. http://www.ipmu.jp/en/node/2174 Bell's theorem debunks local hidden variables in the three-dimensional, Newtonian world. Local causes for quantum effects are imo present in the two-dimensional world. If we ever empirically prove a hidden reality which causes the observable quantum effects and explain the probabilistic math, then we will also have the means to prove a quantum gravity model.

Amazing audition on Arabs Got Talent.

WoW

Correlation does not imply causation but that does not mean the correlation is not caused by anything.

Before you quote, cut or paste, press on the button on the left of 'Remove format' and above 'Bold'. I had the same problem when I first entered the forum. I think I read that the problem is caused by the operating system. Many fora have problems like that...

Thanks for using the word 'impinge'....first time I hear it. What do you mean with the start of the universe?

Yes but why? What of it is a fallacy? "If you think the universe is not caused by anything then everything does not need to be caused. Science is like a search. By saying there is no hidden reality, you've called the end of that search for this particular subject."

More or less. Criminality and religion are not really correlated(I'm sorry if I said so), religion (Islam) increases the probability of someone becomes a criminal (mostly because of education). There are of course many factors that influence this process...most Muslims are not criminal. I still don't understand how you can deny causation. -Muslims killed people in Paris because Charlie Hebdo made cartoons of Muhammed. -In islam countries, apostates are often punished and can even be killed. -In Saudi Arabia there is a law that states that all atheists are terrorists. How can you deny that religion causers those things? I've said those things before but I never got an answer. I agree it's helpful. I did not say that dogs eat grass when they feel sick. My dog does it but that's because he doesn't like green stuff. It doesn't say anything about the behavior of other dogs. This is what I said: "My dog eats grass when he has a problem with shitting. Dogs don't have bacteria to digest cellulose so when they eat grass, it enlargens the poo and makes things to go more smooth...he self medicates (medical science) " I never said religion is 'the' cause. It (Islam) forms a breeding ground which makes it more likely for people to become criminal. Apostates (people that no longer believe in Allah) risk punishment and can even be killed. You deny that's because of religion?

So then when religious people do good things then it's also not because of religion?

Which fallacy?

Perhaps you can create a system or make necessary precautions to make sure the omniscient mind can't get useful/harmful information from you. And you have to make sure Dr. Omniscient gives you correct info. Else there is no use in dealing with Dr. Omniscient. You can compare the omniscient mind with Internet.

Thanks for the very clear explanation Delta1212 So the wave particle duality is a way of describing the probabilistic behavior of particles? So electrons can leave a material (gain kinetic energy)when they reach a higher energy level. Is this photo electric effect what enables a solar cell? Back when I 'studied', there stood a solar car in the middle of our building.

Best song ever! Constipation Blues van Screamin' Jay Hawkins.

Life after death is not necessary linked to heaven and hell.

In the double slit experiment you can detect through which slit a photon goes by placing a detector. But the detector prevents interference so the wave behavior is no longer visible. If you place the detector at the beginning of the laser beam, can you then create light that behaves only as a particle? In other words, does the detector changes the behavior of a photon or only how we observe the behavior?

If you think the universe is not caused by anything then everything does not need to be caused. Science is like a search. By saying there is no hidden reality, you've called the end of that search for this particular subject.

That does not prove there is no causation. If you say there are confounding variables then you should give examples. If you can't give any then it's just a belief. this bothers me: -In the thread 'If humanity becomes extinct...?' you tried to disprove me with a study that does not prove anything...and then you say I don't have evidence and deal with pseudoscience. If a dog feels improvement by eating grass (or other green stuff) then that doesn't mean he only eats it when he's sick. You use a study without understanding the real meaning.

(mainstream)Science imo evolves via imagination. Creativity is about using that imagination. Your imagination decides how far your knowledge brings you. A quote from Einstein: "The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."

Ok, people agree on many stuff. The true reality is not known and can imo never be known. You can always ask: "And where does that comes from?" You can always say a divine force(or a dude with a big beard) created everything since science can never have all the answers. There are always gaps. What do people mean when they talk about the true meaning of our existence? It looks like the meaning of our existence is assumed to be the same as the cause for our existence.

My ideas are often confirmed (in other words) by (social)scientists...I just don't explain it very well... I try to base myself on evidence, nothing else. If you have data which prove there is no causation then I would like to see those. I honestly did not notice them, my eyes are 'messed up'.

On some level you must know you have no leg to stand on so you pretend to deal with things scientifically...like when you evoked confounding variables. And you advice me to open a thread concerning semantics??? Can you please just answer? -Good behavior is in your opinion caused by religion but the bad stuff not necessary. Why? -Can you give me data of good behavior that comes from Muslim communities? -There are so many anecdotes/data from criminality/terrorism (also in Muslim countries). If that's not caused by religion then good behavior is also not caused by religion. Then religion has no use.

Yes I acknowledge that Muslims do good in their communities. But can you give me data of good behavior that comes from a Muslim community? There are so many anecdotes/data from criminality/terrorism (also in Muslim countries). If that's not caused by religion then good behavior from a priest is also not caused by religion. Religion has then no use, it only causes ignorance. So when religious people do wonderful things, correlation implies causation. But when religious people do bad things then correlation not necessary implies causation?