juanrga

And you re-start the cycle again with exactly the same misunderstandings, the same unfounded claims, the same misreadings, the same insinuations and personal attacks, ignoring the questions made to you, ignoring the advice given to you, and ignoring the same corrections given to you in the last nth cycle.

Your repetitive insults are not going to change the facts. You can be all your life calling dishonest to scientists, but the reality is that your fantasies about religion taking the place of science will remain a mere fantasy. At the same time it has been shown that all your 'facts' are a gross misunderstanding of the scientific method and of quantum mechanics, complemented with laughable citations to low quality sources, including pseudo journals with hidden agendas and winners of religious prizes awarded by discredited foundations to nonsensical work. Your misunderstandings of quantum mechanics are not new. A modern textbook on quantum theory was cited and it contains a section where all your nonsenses are corrected. This textbook is written by one of worldwide experts in modern quantum mechanics. You decided to ignore his work. You ignore anyone with serious credentials including Nobel laureates. Many modern papers in top journals such as Nature were cited. Them all show why you are plain wrong. You ignored that too. You pretended that some authors was suporting your point. But they said the contrary in blogs explaining his own work. You can be posting the same nonsense, insults, and insinuations forever. You can be repeating the same mistakes for other 150 posts. Nothing will change. Science has been receiving irrational attacks from religious zealots for several centuries now. But science always win.

This is a repetition [*] of the same unfounded accusations, nonsensical claims, and misinterpretations corrected in the last hundred of posts. [*] More correctly it is the repetition of the repetition of the repetition of the repetition...

Still waiting...

You confound science and philosophy once again. A very-low-impact journal on the subject of "religion & theology". Thanks by the laugh. You are attacking science with your pretensions that scientists are dishonest and that physicists would be substituted by philosophers. Yes in movies such as "Return of the Living Dead: Rave to the Grave" and in game computers. Sure, and that explains why their world-view is useless. You are who has shown a narrow mind, parroting outdated wrong points of view and unable to learn something rigorous and up to date. You chose to ignore science and reality and embrace traditions and mysticism. But who cares?

The supossition that one needs God to explain the universe is a very old but unneeded hypothesis: The God hypothesis continues being unneeded today http://www.quantumdi...s-a-hypothesis/ This was corrected before. It was also mentioned that the Templeton Prize is awarded to nonsensical work. The attacks on science from religious zealots are not anything new. From the above blog:

Radioactive material cannot decays at a constant rate because it would imply radioactivity even when the material exhausts. Macroscopically you can measure the rate and check that is exponential. If you are looking for an explanation, then you must study the microscopic details. A microscopic study shows that the decay follows a first order kinetics [math]\frac{dN}{dt}= -kN[/math] integrating this kinetic equation gives the exponential form of above.

The law of conservation of energy still holds. Why do you assume that Dark energy was transformed from some other form of energy? In principle it can be transformed to any other form of energy.

How can anyone deny that the works of those "religious scholars" have provided zero answers to scientific questions about nature? You cannot deny the history, and the history shows that those religious works have been systematically corrected/refuted by science up to a point where many religious scholars maintain their work in a safe stage with their claims that those works would not be taken seriously, but only in an anecdotal or spiritual way. Science has shown that reality is independent of the human mind. In one sense, the history of science is the history of the continuous lost of any special category for the human being. Astronomy showed that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe, chemistry showed that the animate and the inanimate was made of the same atoms, physics showed that the same basic laws apply elsewhere, biology showed that the human being becomes from evolution as any other species, etc. Only religious zealots deny the facts, still believe that they are special and touched by God's finger. Religious zealots attack/insult anyone who puts their faith and beliefs in danger.

The claims were refuted and your "evidence" was shown to be non-existent. The supreme master is the Flying Spaghetti Monster which created the universe. You already cited this before and was commented. I recall writing about the hidden agenda of the pseudo-scientific Journal of Scientific Exploration named therein. Go back and read. One of the authors that you cited before, David Deutsch, dismisses Penrose's interpretation as "based more on aesthetics than science". As someone once said "really?" Religion will never be able to understand the Mind-body problem and some religious guys say that they don't need to investigate Nature and say that gaps in religion will be filled by religion itself which is so untrue because of the well-known facts shown above. You grossly misinterpret them. They write about that they "found" not about what you believe they think:

There is a problem when you give a link to a preprint. The problem is that someone can follow the link and read the abstract... What is more, Terry Rudolph has a guest post here where he explains the relation between the first paper (with the famous theorem that you hate) and the preprint that you cite now: Thanks by sharing with us your subjective definition of dishonesty, crack-pottery and "personally biased and dogmatic" views, but let us discuss first your serious misunderstandings about quantum mechanics and reality.

A typo it would read:

As shown, your arguments are soundless and follow from a misinterpretation of both quantum theory and experiments. Therefore we would do an act of faith and accept your claims because you are very busy and submit a pair of posts with the answers to the questions and challenges made to you... but wait a moment, you are not busy for preaching us for weeks here. Accepting the existence of the well-known Flying Spaghetti Monster implies accepting that those Gods are not real but only a product of the imagination of some human minds.

One looks to the "experts"... but only find one author. One looks to the html page and finds that the paper has not been published. One looks to the content and one find gems such as: It is neither natural nor straightforward, in fact the density operator can be interpreted as the state with each pure state arising as an approximation when its density in the state is one and that of the rest of pure states zero. In fact, more rigorous literature calls it the "state operator" (see Ballentine textbook). Negative probabilities are really quasi-probabilities. The fifth excited state of the quantum harmonic oscillator gives "negative probabilities", but the ground state is everywhere positive and still verifies the uncertainty principle... But the most exciting part was already predicted by one of the bloggers (Scott): Amen! Thank by all this! Some quotes from here Now we can compare all that with the concept of "substancial" that you have when yuo give us as 'literature' an old popular work from a sensationalist magazine, a webpage linking to a crap journal, ancient 'mandalas'... Thank you!

This is named "learning" and it is one of the pillars of the scientific method. Science advances and in the next 10 years we will know reality better than today. He is not supporting your point of view. In fact he says the contrary that you. At Google's Zeitgeist Conference in 2011, Hawking said that "philosophy is dead." He believes philosophers "have not kept up with modern developments in science" and that scientists "have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge." He said that philosophical problems can be answered by science, particularly new scientific theories which "lead us to a new and very different picture of the universe and our place in it". He is confirming my claim that your traditions/philosophies/religions are useless... The objectivity of the scientific laws is made evident by the fact they work. The subjectivity of religion is evident by a similar reasoning. Trying to compare what science has discovered/explained about the origin of the cosmos with the lack of any discovery/explanation from religion is terribly unfair. I already knew that you invented the quote. What confirms that they are all useless. This is not going to happen, you even cannot convince others in a non-academic forum. I already explained to you that fields are non-observable objects and valid only under certain approximations and that information requires a physical substratum. When I comment on the material you answer with an authority argument, when I comment on the supposed authority you reply that authority is not important only content, when I comment on content you again try an authority argument... Can you read my posts? What you do not still understand is that he has developed an improved formulation of quantum mechanics that eliminates the inconsistencies, ambiguities and paradoxes of the ancient Copenhaguen formulation. He also provides consistency checks that your 'experts' are missing. I know that the claims of "those researchers" are wrong. They do not understand quantum mechanical reality. And the irony continues, specially when the other part has explained to you that "you have not given any evidence"... Yes she agrees. I already explained to you how those experiments are in agreement with quantum mechanics but are unrelated to your religions/traditions. Your above link only provides a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics plus pseudo-philosophical babbling. Not a surprise that was published in the pseudo Journal of Scientific Exploration: You must enjoy this quote: The science of mind does not rely on traditions, God or philosophy, because the three are useless for such matters. Many resources demystify delayed choice experiments. The textbook cited above devotes and entire chapter to such experiments and explain how people misunderstand such experiments. A consistent application of quantum mechanics reveals that reality existed before the observer was born. Your personal attack on akh will not hide the facts. The facts are that Matt Leifer present three position 1,2, and 3. About the 2 he says: This is the same quote that you repeated to us as support for your incorrect point of view. Matt claim about position 1: And finally adds: It is evident that he is not supporting your point of view against realism. The more I read your posts the more I find ironic your accusations of lying and intellectual dishonesty.

The difference between science and philosophy is taught at the kindergarten. Moreover, as Hawking emphasizes in a recent conference: I would say that philosophy is dead regarding the understanding of reality, but it can continue as independent field regarding other matters. No. Scientists are saying something different. Of both disciplines only science provides an objective (testable) insight about the nature of reality. Scientific research is not equivalent to religious research. Neither both are "on the same footing". I will repeat the famous quote about the difference between religion and science: It is very interesting that you follow the same pattern than anti-scientific creationists and intelligent design zealots. They also misrepresent science and pretend to blur the sharp distinction between science and religion for selling their mystical nonsense as if it was "on the same footing" than reliable scientific knowledge. I do not recall saying that. Link please. I already said to you, several dozens of posts ago, that the superior divinity is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Read the Holy Book! All of science is made without any need of those. Open a textbook on chemistry, physics, biology... and check it by yourself. Moreover, it is well-known that science has corrected religion in multiple occasions, whereas it never happened in the opposite. I offered you details of the ancient Galileo-Pope episode but there is more, just open a textbook on history of science. His book was presented to us as giving a new and deep understanding of reality but, as many reviewers have noted, your 'expert' does not know even elementary aspects of reality (I already said to you that he does not understand quantum mechanical reality). Read the reviews of his book and you will find a striking parallelism with the nonsense that you write here. I add bold face. Try again. I wrote about the content! I will repeat: "What part of the New scientists article you cite is plain wrong you do not still understand?" He gave explanation and even gave the link with the observed correlations in classical mechanics. After reading your posts, I find very ironic that you make accusations of lying and dishonesty against the scientific community. I do not know what is more ironic here: the fact that nature agrees with us and disproves your traditions or the fact you are who is here preaching us about how you decide what is the Truth and what is not, using your 'traditions'.

This explains why half dozen of people has said to you what you are writing nonsense and that you do not understand science. The only award which D'Espagnat's "rock solid" work has won is the Templeton Prize. I agree on that he must be the "leading authority" in bridging "the gap between sense and nonsense" (the 1999 Nobel laureate in physics own words about this prize). You already cited this guy before and I already commented on that, but since you do not read I will repeat. He is plain wrong. In fact his book about 'reality' has received bad reviews. Next I add some quotes from reviewers of his book Try again What part of the New scientists article you cite is plain wrong you do not still understand? What part of New scientists is a bad-fame popular magazine (not a reputable scientific journal) you do not understand? What part of Griffiths textbook provides a consistent presentation of quantum mechanics that avoids the mistakes and nonsense shared by the authord that you ctie, you do not understand? And finally, what part of your traditions were analysed and the conclusion is that they are nonsense you do not understand?

The phrase that you emphasized in bold does not contain the word "read" and the phrase that contains the word "read" does not mention you... Calling the scientific community (either in whole or in part) dishonest and liars is not going to help you to correct your multiple misunderstandings. Yes, and this is why I was ironic regarding your self-professed 'love' for science. Nope, as this well-known religious scene shows Which is merely a repository of papers, magazine articles, books and book's chapters, conference proceedings... Posted in ArXiv does not mean "peer-reviewed" neither "correct". This is all wrong. You are not going to correct your multiple misunderstandings if you do not read what others say. I refuted D'Espagnat's arguments when I read his nonsensical magazine article. I can do it because I studied quantum mechanics. When I cited Griffiths' textbook I said that I was doing it because of the next motive: "instead repeating all the arguments given in a hundred of posts, I will cite the beautiful summary from [...]". I did never appeal to authority. I know what he is rigth because I have studied quantum mechanics. Ironically, you are who continuously appeal to authority. But it can be still more ironic and laughable, because you wrote by "these reasons the John Templeton foundation recognizes the importance of the work of Bernard D'espagnat". Yes! D'Espagnat only won one award from an obscure pseudo-religious Foundation, because his contributions to quantum mechanics are easily summarized: zero. At the other hand Griffiths has made many contributions to quantum mechanics including a new formulation (together Murray Gell-Mann, Omnes and others) that improves the older and flawed Copenhagen version. For his work, Griffiths has been awarded several physical and mathematical awards from scientific bodies including this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dannie_Heineman_Prize_for_Mathematical_Physics For the sake of comparison, check what D'Espagnat has won: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templeton_Prize It was already pointed that those traditions are completely wrong and useless.

The word "read" was used only once time and it was in the phrase: "Reading a New Scientist article is not 'to learn physics'." Ironically you are not even mentioned in that phrase . You know the song: "I killed her because I loved her". Chemists know enough of the chemistry of the Brain to create substances that modify the perception, consciousness, personality, and behaviour. Not all the references have the same validity/status. A pseudo-recreational article in a popular magazine (with accusations of sensationalism) has not the same scientific status than a research paper in a top specialised scientific journal; A beginner's guide has not he same status than an advanced textbook (specially when the authors are recognized expertises in the topic who have advanced the field). Of course, the above is valid for any branch of knowledge. Reading a sensationalist article about chemistry in a popular magazine is not the same than reading a chemistry research article in JACS. You have quoted him saying that but he is wrong, because neither quantum mechanics nor experiments are in conflict with reality. Those misunderstandings about quantum mechanics and experiments are corrected in modern textbooks [1]: In short: Your traditions have not any basis... and are useless. Those misunderstandings about quantum mechanics are corrected in modern textbooks [1]: [1] Consistent Quantum Theory. Robert B. Griffiths. Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Insulting others will not change the fact that science is not a branch of philosophy. There exist one branch of history named history of philosophy and another branch named history of science, but neither science nor philosophy are branches of history. Already in #20 you wrote (quoting the old Scientific American magazine): But as kindly explained to you many many times, this is just untrue. The textbook cited in #104 explains why all what you have been saying here is based in a serious misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. You can repeat the same mistakes forever, that it will change nothing.

The scientific method, as a collection of systematic procedures and of consistency and reality tests, has nothing to do with the scientists personality and still less with scientists characterization in popular shows as Big Bang Theory (whose aim is not to inform people about what science really is). The incorrect characterization of science by the general public is not anything new. In fact, there are entire scientific disciplines such as chemistry, whose public image is very, very far from the real chemistry made in laboratories by chemists and chemical engineers. I recommend the book The Public image of chemistry for an excellent analysis (including incorrect characterizations of scientists in films).

Reading a New Scientist article is not "to learn physics". If you had studied quantum physics, for instance from the last textbook cited above, you would not be making and repeating the same mistakes again and again, as for instance your incorrect claim that quantum mechanics implies that reality is created by human observers through measurements. I repeat: quantum mechanics does not support your "traditions". Spreading myths and repeating old mistakes has never benefit anyone. You opened this thread to show us why scientific realism must be false and why both science and physicists must be substituted by philosophers and religions. You have failed to back up your claims.

As brilliantly emphasized by Albert Einstein: Therefore let us left him lie there and focus on what quantum mechanics actually is and says. First a warning for readers who approach to quantum mechanics by the first time. As I stated in the past many popular expositions of the subject (e.g. in non-academic magazines as "New Scientist") are notoriously wrong. In the words of Robert B. Griffiths [1]: I have corrected all the misunderstandings of quantum mechanics shared in this thread. Quantum mechanics does not imply that scientific realism has to be abandoned nor anything as that. Science rocks and once again corrects both philosophy and religion. Those misunderstandings about quantum mechanics are corrected in modern textbooks, therefore instead repeating all the arguments given in a hundred of posts, I will cite the beautiful summary from [1]: [1] Consistent Quantum Theory. Robert B. Griffiths. Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Depend. I gave you the answer for GR and QFT before. Go back and read. There are modern developments where spacetime is not anything fundamental but only emergent. First question answered before. Go back and read. Second question answered by "dynamics of correlations". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_AI Those are philosophical problems. As you know some philosophers negate the existencxe of such problems. As explained to you before (Go back and read), scientists deal with the real world not with what phylosophers imagine. Cognitive scientists and neuroscientists have already solved several previous philosophers disputes. Science rocks. No challenges but your misunderstandings about both science and nature. You have been explained all this before. Go back and read. Local realism continue being valid, this is the reason for which we continue to use SR, and electrodynamics to solve problems... Moreover, you confound local realism with scientific realism (read the title of your own thread). From the same link that you gave in the past: As explained to you many times before. Go back and read. Bohr interpretation/philosophy is wrong. Our modern understanding of QM does not rely on observers. QM predicts that the moon is here without any observing it. Experimental data confirms this, including astrophysics and cosmological models. As explained to you before (Go back and read), the state of the cat is not described by a state vector. There is not paradox, except when you insists on misunderstanding QM. As explained to you before (Go back and read), the reduction of the state does not need observers. There are dynamical models of the collapse. The infinite regression of observers was already pointed to you before as one of the reasons of why your 'philosophy' is inconsistent and useless. This was already revised/commented before. Go back and read. Nonsense. You confound religion with science. It is religion which is subjective. This is the reason why science has corrected religion many times, but never the inverse. This was already explained to you. Go back and read. It is also notable that you call scientists "dishonest", whereas you pretend that Steven Weinberg is supporting your nonsense!!! He was referring to another thing, the old problem of the relation between unitarity and non-unitarity (but this problem has been solved recently via non-unitary extensions of the Schrödinger equation). Gaps in science are filled by science itself. There is not "God hypothesis" in science by evident reasons stated to you before. Go back and read. Corrected before. Go back and read.

I did not assume what you pretend. I never wrote "read" because I do not know if you read and not understood or if did not read at all. I invited you to "learn" something concrete about the "quark epoch", because the observations blatantly contradict your claims. I did not know and was curious to search it. Google returns 9 results and none is an academic site. Alternatively a search of quark epoch returns 761000 results, including academic sites and encyclopedias. In any case... First, Linde is not an expert in quantum theory. Second, I already explained why the cat is never in a superposition dead plus live and the paradox is gone. Third, I find Linde claims too near the borderline of scientific method (similar claims are used by anti-science zealots to attack evolution). Fourth, his answer is "the universe looks as if it existed before I started looking at it." That is a different claim than yours: you said us that universe did not exist before the first human was born. You have not given any challenge, only exposed your misconceptions about both science and nature. No. Scientific community has not condemned anyone by her/his religious ideas (the inverse is not true as you know). Scientific community does not claim that "nothing exists outside the scientific method": scientists accept the existence of religion, philosophy, art, music,... What you pretend is that traditions are a substitute for the scientific method and this is plain false as logic and history show. E.g., I already said to you that science has corrected traditions and religions many times (just open a textbook on history), but never science has been corrected by those. Galileo and scientific method were right, not the Pope and his traditions. You pretend to substitute something that works very well by something that does not work. I very well know relativity is not violated and what I am demanding is an explanation or a mechanism to explain the correlations seen in these Bell experiments. Therefore you wait a physical mechanism for something that does not exist. I repeat, no mysterious signal is being sent faster than light from Bob to Alice. Physics is a branch of science and uses the scientific method. The scientific method gives objective knowledge. Your traditions are subjective and/or wrong. That is supposed to be Bohr's answer to Einstein's "God does not play dice". It has nothing to do with Einstein's quote given above: A Google search returns only five results for that quote; none is an academic resource and one is a link to your posts here. In any case you pretend that experiments "have confirmed" something, whereas the quote only says "Maybe"... I am sure that if tomorrow you pass away, I will continue to exist, but in any case your answer does not address my question. No. You repeat the same mistake. I already explained to you the difference between a system and the state of that system. Go and read. QM is a physical theory. By definition a metaphysical mind (even if we accept its existence) does not exist in the world. We already discuss this before. Everything was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Your traditions are not needed. There is still a small possibility that QM might break down at some classical point and a honest person accepts that he might be wrong something which you haven't learnt. This continue without solving your contradictions. You say us that "Of course QM applies to everything", and that it does not. No tradition was insulted here. Correcting your mistakes is not an insult. An insult is, for instance, when you call others "dishonest", as you did. As shown by several poster during the last days, you only showed your misconceptions about elementary aspects of both science and nature. You would not be sorry by making mistakes. The "God hypothesis" must be a philosophical hypothesis (religions take the existence of God as a dogma), but it is not a scientific hypothesis and cannot be falsified and/or verified in the real world, maintaining the hypothesis in a safe place. I already explained to you the difference between religion and science. I repeat it once again: Nonsense. The God hypothesis is so serious as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You say us that the hag fish is not made of atoms, but "is actually made of only five elements but it appears as though it is made of various tissues only when you interact with the world through the metaphysical sense organs which is entangled to a metaphysical mind". This is all completely incorrect, as anyone know the hag fish is made of little Invisible Pink Unicorns