Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bombus

  1. Well, I suppose there is something I'd like to discuss, but it is 'the subject that dare not speak it's name' so I'm not going to discuss it. However, I think Geology should be listed as one of the sciences.
  2. That's a shame, I've just succeeded in turning myself into a frog.
  3. Not really, but there does not seem to be a thread for Geology - unless I am mistaken. Someone else requested that such a thread is opened, so I opened one.
  4. Ethdaran What you seem to be saying then is that science cannot explain CM either - as it's all based on QM. The conclusion of your argument would seem to be that everything is indistinguishable from magic? That's quite a bit further than I would be prepared to go:D
  5. I have started a geophysics thread. Anyone got anything they wish to discuss?
  6. How wierd. I replied to this yesterday, but my post has disappeared???
  7. I know what 'happens' in the double slit experiment - but cannot explain how - so can't really explain anything at all apart from what the results are, which anyone can do. It's not really a scientific explanation though is it? It's nothing more than a description of an experiment. We have the Method, Results, but are awaiting the Conclusion. I don't want this to become an argument about semantics. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I think you are deliberately trying to misunderstand me. I think you know precisely what I am getting at - even if photons or electrons are shot one at a time an interference pattern builds up if both slits are open. Can you explain this? Well obviously I am talking about the interpretations! I find it hard to believe you haven't the intelligence to realise this. What are the Conclusions? All scientific experiments should really have Conclusions - what are yours in this case? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Well I know how macroscopic objects act. How sub-atomic particles act seems to defy logic and run counter to much that we understand about reality. The problem with the definition of magic is due to this thread being started from the old one. It should have remained in the other thread. See my earlier post in this thread
  8. Classical Physics of course breaks down below a certain scale. Quantum Mechanics can then be used, which can make predictions about wave/particle behaviour based on statistical probability. However, there is no agreed or proven explanation for what actually occurs. We can make CPU's, lasers, solid state electronics etc. work by using statistical probabilities, but cannot explain what actually happens without resorting to seemingly bizarre explanations (which may or may not be true). Quantum Theory (as opposed to Quantum Mechanics - if a such a distinction is allowed) has come up with a number of possible explanations which I think most would agree are pretty damned wierd and are not universally accepted. It might as well be 'magic' for all we actually know about what actually happens, or possibly gives an explanation to some phenomena classed as 'magic'.
  9. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Is Arthur C Clarke's quote really that impenetrable to you? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged And he misquoted me in the thread title. If people had actually read what I had written there would have been no confusion. I disagree, but if you insist lets start with a simple one. Can you explain to me how a single photon interferes with itself please. Doesn't every scientist agree that the results are wierd? If not please explain them to me. I never said nature did have any obligation to be understandable to me - or anyone for that matter. Are you agreeing that science can't explain the results? I maintain that the results of QM are not understood (as in can be explained according to 'standard' scientific theory) in the slightest. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged
  10. It has been postulated that perhaps it is the process of accelaration that makes light speed impossible. If one can instantly travel at light speed (like a photon does) maybe one doesn't 'accumulate' infinite mass.
  11. Apparently 1 in 50 people are sociopaths, and sociopaths, uninhibited by morals or sympathy often get to the top in their careers. I think Cheney, Rumsfield and Bolton may be sociopaths.
  12. Firstly, I didn't say that the double slit experiment is magic - i said it was indistinguishable from magic. I was giving a nod to that famous quote from Arthur C Clarke about technology. Also, this was part of a discussion about magic so is now out of context. (Has a moderator has decided to be mischevious at my expense?) In the original thread I was suggesting a possible scientific explanation for the phenomenon some call 'magic' and therefore challenging the certainty that some have that it does not exist. I am not saying magic DOES exist, but that I am open minded to the idea that some things that could be described as magic might exist in some form and have a scientific explanation. I really think this should have stayed in the original thread. Now to answer some of the replies... That's not what I have said nor implied. I am saying (essentially) that the RESULTS of the double slit expt still confound science. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Indeed. That's the exact thing I am referring to. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedEdtharan Your post is a great example of avoiding trying to understand what is ACTUALLY happening. Our inability to undertand what exactly is happening below a certain scale is not a scientific explanation - It's a lack of one. You are simply saying that we should just accept that it's wierd. You might as well be saying 'it's just magic - nothing wierd'. Can you give me a scientific explanation of what ACTUALLY happens? Why does one superposition become the actual reality over other potential realities? There are some explanations emerging that may explain what is happening - i.e., quantum information may be able to travel back in time and so affect the present - but this is by no means agreed and would possibly be considered pseudoscience on this forum (???). You tell me! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No, on both counts. I am not saying either of those things.
  13. Yes I can. The results of the double slit experiment have confounded everyone since their discovery and are not understood in the slightest. Anyone who says that they understand Quantum Mechanics does not understand Quantum Mechanics-Richard Feynman If you understand the results, would you please explain them to us? I am sure the scientific community would love to hear the answer. You'd get a Nobel Prize for this one
  14. The double slit experiment is indistinguishable from magic, and yet some people are so certain magic does not exist! Mod note: thread split off from magic or not
  15. The stars were reversed in 2000 alledgedly, when GWB came to power.
  16. The problem is perhaps one of demarcation between philosophy and science. A pretty good article is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem#Logical_Positivism and one on the general philosophy of science here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Critiques_of_scientific_method Also an article about the existence of objective reality: http://www.rense.com/general69/holoff.htm
  17. It just seems crazy! The 'Religous Right' in the US are always seeing Satan in everything - why would the Republican Party jeopardise their support?
  18. Mooeypooey: I think therein lies the problem. Objective reality might not actually exist, and perhaps science will one day have to accept that mind and matter are inextricably linked. Maybe this is where magic (if it exists at all) comes from - if you don't believe in it it will never work, but if you do, maybe it will! I have been reading Roger Penrose's Shadows of the Mind. An interesting extract starts here (read the yellow highlighted text onwards): http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gDbOAK89tmcC&pg=PA419&lpg=PA419&dq=%22If+einstein%27s+general+relativity+has+shown+how+our%22&source=bl&ots=8RFmKauw5K&sig=nKIDfnKzVouk96b4EbJzZZhTEsw&hl=en&ei=qpWVSoi_DOaZjAfupdmBDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=%22If%20einstein%27s%20general%20relativity%20has%20shown%20how%20our%22&f=false
  19. In the beginning was the word! I think INTENTION began it all. I am not religious though (as far as the normal use of the word goes)
  20. I think Dawkins is great, and I totally agree with him that there is no need for God in evolution and science can explain just about everything without the need for intervention from supernatural entities - but ultimately I think he may well be wrong that there is no 'God' (note the inverted commas). I think the fact that the universe exists at all HAS to have a spiritual (for want of a better word) reason - and cannot ultimately have an objective scientific one. I think INTENTION had to play a part in its initial existence, and that requires a consciousness. I think the big bang (or whatever happened to start it all off) could have been the result of a 'supernatural' entity. Maybe the universe itself is that entity - which makes the whole thing tortological perhaps - but I suspect that's the way it works - everything is contained neatly within itself. I have a feeling mobius strips give us a clue! Although I am sure to be accused of pseudoscience or philosophy (and perhaps I can't really argue with that at this stage in developments) it may be worth looking up the theories of Frank Tippler. Very interesting indeed! Also look up Stuart Hammeroff and Amit Goswami. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Mmm. Some argue that fundamentally science is very much based on beliefs, although I agree it's not MEANT to, but HAS to. I think the key issue is that they are not unshakeable beliefs as they can usually be proven wrong via experiment (even if only theoretically). However, some scientific beliefs may be harder to shake than others as interpretation of results plays a major role.
  21. For the most part I agree with you. This is the argument that if ghosts exist they must be a natural phenomenon therefore not supernatural. However, there are things that science can never explain, because they are fundamentally not scientific questions and so a belief in the 'supernatural' is perhaps equally as valid as anything else. One such question is 'why is there anything at all'. Science cannot answer this - and will never be able to unless it becomes totally entwined with subjective personal experience - which is what 'real' magic (as opposed to Dungeons and Dragons magic) is all about. Belief is Everything (and all that).
  22. Yes, but I am thinking more that if willpower/positive thinking/prayer alone could affect the physical realm (even by tiny amounts) then it would qualify as magic vis-a-vis current scientific thinking. Also, if we are living in a grand simulation (c/f Tipler & Bostrom) then magic would also be possible in our reality.
  23. Magic could possibly exist if 'willpower' is able to cause quantum wave function collapse and/or influence which parallel reality one enters. Most practitioners of magic beleive that all the spells/rituals etc are just to cement a thought into the subconscious and that its all just willpower really. They also believe positive (or negative) thinking to be a form of magic. They can't do 'Bigby's Interposing Hand' though... On another vein, there are the thoughts of Frank Tipler (mathematical physicist and cosmologist). Below from wiki: In his controversial 1994 book The Physics of Immortality,[4][5][6] Tipler claims to provide a mechanism for immortality and the resurrection of the dead consistent with the known laws of physics, provided by a computer intelligence he terms the Omega Point and which he identifies with God. The line of argument is that the evolution of intelligent species will enable scientific progress to grow exponentially, eventually enabling control over the universe even on the largest possible scale. ...In more recent works, Tipler says that the existence of the Omega Point is required to avoid the violation of the known laws of physics. According to George Ellis's review of Tipler's book in the journal Nature, Tipler's book on the Omega Point is "a masterpiece of pseudoscience ... the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific and philosophical discipline",[5] and Michael Shermer devoted a chapter of Why People Believe Weird Things to enumerating flaws in Tipler's thesis.[7] On the other hand, David Deutsch (who pioneered the field of quantum computers), confirms that Tipler's basic concept of the physics of an Omega Point is correct.
  24. Can anyone answer why the Republican Party has reversed the stars on the elephant logo? Stars that point downward are a symbol of black magic, satanism, anti 'mother-nature' etc. Ssshurely just a coincidence (!!), but why on earth did they do it? Have the US Christian groups complained?
  25. Nope, I don't think so. Listen to the documentary. The implication is (I think) that the makers are able to charge almost what they like because they are in bed with the healthcare providers - or at least because there is too little accountability. It's the citizens that suffer via higher insurance premiums - and taxes as 50% of the US healthcare system is funded by the Government. Sounds like the other 50% is pure profit for private companies!! You don't have to listen to the whole thing, go straight to 26:00mins.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.