exchemist

The fossil record provides a series of data points that suggest evolutionary trends. This is no different in principle from the data points you get from a series of measurements in an experiment in chemistry or physics. In both cases you have data points that appear to show a trend and you join the dots. In the case of evolution, we have confirmation of the principle at wrk in real time, when we observe the development of drug resistance in bacteria or cancers. So we most certainly do have evidence for evolution in response to environmental pressures

We've all had copious experience on this forum of nonsense emanating from LLMs, so I'm going to decline your suggestion. But returning to your idea, it seems to me a basic difficulty with it is that nobody nowadays (apart from quantum woo specialists of the Deepak Chopra type) suggests wave function collapse is anything to do with consciousness on the part of an "observer". The language of QM used by its founders in the 1920s indeed spoke of "observables" and "observations", but that was to distinguish what could be determined about the system from any further assumptions that might classically be made about it having other properties. Even at the time they were at pains to explain they were not attributing any magical influence to consciousness on the part of the observer. For instance this is what Wiki has to say: QUOTE Role of the observerBecause they assert that the existence of an observed value depends upon the intercession of the observer, Copenhagen-type interpretations are sometimes called "subjective".[51] All of the original Copenhagen protagonists considered the process of observation as mechanical and independent of the individuality of the observer.[52] Wolfgang Pauli, for example, insisted that measurement results could be obtained and recorded by "objective registering apparatus".[40]: 117–123  As Heisenberg wrote, UNQUOTE What is thought of as as leading to wave function collapse (in those interpretations that make use of this concept) is interaction, i.e. with the inanimate measuring apparatus, nothing to do with whether a conscious experimenter is watching a dial or a screen. So your idea, at least as I understand it, that QM should be interpreted differently before and after the advent of conscious beings, able to perceive the measurements, does not seem to be a fruitful approach.

Chat GPT will just tell you what you want to hear.

Goodbye then.

I think you will find, on this forum, that if you try to reintroduce a subject that the mods have closed, you get banned fairly rapidly. So I would not do that if I were you.

Exactly. Also one has to remember St. Peter was writing hundreds of years later than the time Exodus was written. In fact you can see in this passage of Peter that he is in effect saying that God is outside time and perhaps suggesting an interpretation of the creation story in which the periods of actual time involved might have been far longer than literal “days”.

No. The wave function for the electron in the hydrogen atom is just a rather messy algebraic expression, involving an exponent in the radial part and spherical harmonics for the angular part. Nothing at all about infinite numbers of coefficients.

Not if you are exploring the evolution of Man. Palaeolithic, mesolithic and neolithic are cultural stages in human society (= Old Stone Age, Middle Stone Age and New Stone Age, respectively). They relate to the types of artifacts produced in these societies and have nothing to do with biological evolution, as they are all far too recent. If you want to explore human evolution the relevant time periods are geological ones, namely the ones shown in the “Hominin Timeline” chart in this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Regarding Bell, surely the point is his theorem rules out hidden variables, unless they are non-local. I don’t see how can you say hidden variables are required by QM, when it makes no reference to them anywhere. I don’t recall the algebraic expressions for the wave function being an infinite series of complex numbers. They are just algebra, surely, expressing a probability amplitude at each point in space.

OK so perturbation due to measurement is nothing to do with whether or not pairs of operators commute. Regarding hidden variables I’m still unclear why you mention them. They are not implied by QM. They are purely an attempted bolt-on extra, designed in the hope of restoring deterministic physics. As they have no observable consequences, science can do without them. So I’m not sure what you mean by saying QM “does not work without it”, or them. Can you explain this further?

I have never heard that staining of teeth makes them fall out. You can get gum recession if you do not clean the margin where tooth and gum meet, especially between the teeth, but that is a different thing. I would consult a dentist if you feel your teeth are at risk of falling out. Staining and the argument for whitening are, so far as I am aware, a purely cosmetic issue.

I don’t claim to be expert on all this but are you sure what you say concerning non-commuting operators is right? My understanding is the issue of a measurement perturbing the system is known as the “observer effect” , which is quite separate from the non-commutativity of operators for conjugate variables. I’m also unsure what you mean by hidden variables. My understanding is that no system of hidden variables has been found to work, leading, at least provisionally, to the conclusion they are, to put it bluntly, useless fictions.

Yes I make dhal with vegetable oil - seems fine, but then I’m not a connoisseur of Indian cooking.

When I was in Dubai in the 1980s, there seemed to be a lot of heart attacks among the S Asians. But that could have been the lifestyle they tended to adopt with new found relative wealth: less walking, more smoking etc. I did wonder, though, about the prevalence of ghee in Indian cooking.

There is no evidence of that whatsoever.

They may die younger, of other things. Have you checked that possibility?

Iran’s leadership is not suicidal. They would not risk annihilation by nuclear first use, any more than any other nuclear nation. I don’t buy all this Israeli hysteria.

From the inside, eh? Right.

Gypsum is a form of hydrated calcium sulphate, which is not a carbonate. Heat treatment to drive off some of the water gives you plaster of Paris, which mixed with water sets hard. Gypsum also has other used, detailed on the internet. Clay minerals are not carbonates either, but aluminosilicates, variously hydrated and with other cations present. Many uses. Hydrated lime , or slaked lime is not a carbonate but calcium hydroxide, which can be derived from calcium carbonate by driving off CO2 to produce calcium oxide or quicklime, and then adding water. Sodium carbonate is washing soda, an alkali. Chalk is a relatively soft form of calcium carbonate compared to limestone. The multifarious uses of all these minerals are too long to list but are readily available on the internet.

Oh Christ, not here as well, now😱

You are not getting it, are you?

OK. Have you read the Biologos link I sent you? Suggest you look at that and come back with any comments or questions.

No one is getting “violent”. However it is important not to have threads derailed by silly distractions. It is part of the discipline of critical thinking to be able to stay on topic and make one’s arguments and questions clear. The video you linked to is over 2hrs long so I’m not going to watch it. However from the short description it looks like rubbish to me. “real genetics and science [sic] does not support Big Bang evolution theory” sounds like hopeless nonsense. But shouldn’t it have been obvious to you that this kind of stuff is not what I am recommending to you, but the polar opposite? Why did you suggest it?

What for?

But why brighter? I don’t understand this. The advancing side will be bluer, hence “brighter” in the sense of more energetic, in bolometric measurements, but the retreating side will be redder and “dimmer” by the same token. Why does the direction of rotation affect the overall net perceived brightness?