Itoero

My 'theory' is an interpretation of science. The Parable comes out of a book... edit: Evolution theory is scientific yet it does not make predictions.

So only scientific theories are real theories?

My ideas concerning those theories and the fact that scientists use their knowledge about a specific subject (like physics) to create those theorie are imo common sense...that's not about QM. I never said that I provided links nor said I anything concerning your understanding of QM or the theorem.

A theory does not have to contain math and it does not need to be able to make predictions...you describe one form of theories. I advice you to read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

-Those were not concrete theories. Hidden variable theories were models concerning hidden variables. Those were the best explanations concerning the incompleteness of QM that scientists could com up with. They were probably called 'theories' because it's easier to talk about. A theory does not need to have a name. Many people have pet theories...theories without a name... -When a scientist creates a theory, he uses his knowledge about a specific subject (like physics) to do that. I don't have any sources, this is just common sense. Wikipedia does explains a lot concerning hidden variables. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_hidden_variable_theory

I gave reliable sources, the fact that you don't see that shows how little you understand.

I see. I'm sorry to have bothered you with my nonsense.

Those local hidden variable theories are not scientific theories. Like you very well know, many physicists argued that the state of a physical system, as formulated by quantum mechanics, does not give a complete description for the system; i.e., that quantum mechanics is ultimately incomplete. They argued that "elements of reality" (hidden variables) must be added to quantum mechanics. Those descriptions of "elements of reality" are the hidden variable theories...Bells inequalities show that the hidden variable theories which are considered to be local don't work. Those hidden variable theories are the best with what scientists could come up with and they obviously used their knowledge of physics to create them. This means that the hidden variable theories are a product of our knowledge of physics. Einstein was correct when he said that God does not play dice. God hates dices. (this is a joke)

The local hidden variable theories are a product of our knowledge of physics.

And you do not understand that the theorem states we can't explain QM with our knowledge of physics. When you shoot photons through a polarization filter or a double slit or in the bell test experiments, you measure the behavior of particles, you don't measure the cause for that behavior. Hidden variable theories and Bell inequalities are products of our knowledge and understanding of physics and math...which is what our logic is built by. Why do you think we can make valid assumptions concerning a reality we have no knowledge from? No, we can only conclude we can't measure local attributes at the moment. There are in your opinion no local attributes...it seems logical to you.. But why do you think you can explain anything about those locals, using your logic?

It has finally arrived! The package was opened up. If they checked the product and cleared it, does that mean it's real idebenone? When they found it's not idebenone then they could not know what it really is in which case they would not clear it. Does this makes sense?

Theistic religions slow science evolution, it inhibits scientific curiosity and can prevent people from doing science. The story of Kurt Wise is a nice example. As child, he was very interested in science, especially Geology. Later, as a sophomore in high school, he took a newly purchased Bible and a pair of scissors and cut out every verse which could not be interpreted literally if scientific determinations on the age of the earth and evolution were true. He pursued this task with a flashlight under the covers of his bed for several months; at the end, he had removed so much material that "with the cover of the Bible taken off, I attempted to physically lift the Bible from the bed between two fingers. Yet, try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two." Wise decided to reject evolution instead of Biblical literalism. Something he wrote: "Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate." Kurt Patrick Wise (born 1959) serves now as the Director of Creation Research Center at Truett McConnell University. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise#Views_and_criticism

Measuring the properties doesn't say anything about the cause for those properties. If you want to know the cause for the properties then you need to know what the particle is made of. You can measure the properties of an atom, but if you want to know the cause for the properties, then you need to know what the atom is made of.

Yes but the reality of those physical attributes is not defined. You can't understand the cause for the properties/behavior of fundamental particles without knowing what the fundamental particles are made of.

I found a picture about the bend between the retina and optic nerve. It shows that the bend is created by retinal ganglion axons, which is good news since axons regenerate a lot easier then cell bodies. I have a neuromuscular disease with macular degeneration and damage on my optic nerve...the more I know about this, the better.

You might find this to be interesting. They regenerate optic nerve axons with gene therapy. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160114162055.htm

The story goes that God sacrificed Jesus for the sins of mankind.

You said forgiveness is something the bible teaches, yet the main story in the NT teaches you can't have forgiveness without a (human) sacrifice.

If there are many other books that teach morals, then what's special about the teachings of the bible? You said forgiveness is something the bible teaches, yet the main story in the NT teaches you can't have forgiveness without a (human) sacrifice.

I don't understand why an atheist gives the bible such an elevated position. There are countless other books with wisdom...so what's special about the bible?

I should not have made the thread about 'my arguments against Bell's theorem.'. I agree with Bells theorem, it explains my idea. The 'definition' the article gives: "No physical theory of local Hidden Variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of Quantum Mechanics. " =>The theorem shows that our local theories can't reproduce all prediction of QM, it does not debunk local hidden variables. Especially since it's not defined what a hidden variable can be. Don't you agree with this? "ASSUME that a photon has 3 simultaneously real Hidden Variables A, B and C at the angles 0 degrees, 120 degrees and 240 degrees per the diagram above. These 3 Hidden Variables, if they exist, would correspond to simultaneous elements of reality associated with the photon's measurable polarization attributes at measurement settings A, B and C. " =>That's why I call it a hidden reality. They are ascribing our ideas of reality to hidden variables. Classical physics and quantum mechanics are if you will a different reality. You can't use your logic from classical physics to explain QM. What evidence do we have to think we can apply our logic to the cause of quantum effects or the hidden variables? This is a nice example of what happens when you have not enough knowledge/understanding about something and you apply logic: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/99867-we-are-in-early-stage-of-big-bang-and-there-would-be-a-black-whole-in-center-of-universe/

Why do you keep repeating that? Again, the inequalities show our local HV theories can't explain quantum effects. They don't show the absence of local hidden variables.

Atheists are (most of them) not religious, but they don't dismiss religion. Most of us are very tolerant. In very secular countries in Europe, you see a lot of moslim immigrants.

Surgeons in Oxford have used a robot to operate inside the eye - in a world first. A team at Oxford's John Radcliffe Hospital used the device, controlled via a joystick, to remove a membrane one hundredth of a millimetre thick. Patient Bill Beaver, 70, said it was "a fairytale". Surgeons hope the procedure will pave the way for more complex eye surgery than is currently possible with the human hand.

If you assume that you need religion to deal with fear then you think you need religion to be 'at peace'. No. A good education normally suffices. Religion does not create ethical frameworks. It teaches ethics which have evolved through natural processes. Atheists are generally very tolerant towards religion...moslims not so much I think.