Author Topic: Bell's Theorum.  (Read 6445 times)

Re: Bell's Theorum.
« Reply #30 on: May 05, 2014, 01:53:18 PM »
We had a conspiracy theorist on here- Atheistmofo- who would not, absolutely would not accept any counter evidence to his fanatical belief in a 9/11 conspiracy. Casparov is shaping up to be in the same mold. He simply will not accept any refutation or evidence to the contrary.

I'm not a shrink, but I'm pretty sure there is a personality type that meets this description.

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: Bell's Theorum.
« Reply #31 on: May 05, 2014, 02:22:41 PM »
Your interpretation of quantum theory does not interest me. You confuse classical realism with realism, unqualified. You consistently miss the point that even if you're correct that realism in general is dead, that does not disprove materialism nor does it prove idealism. There is no point in further discussion.

p.s. Now since every interaction I have with you so quickly degrades into childish name calling this will be my final response to anything you post. good day sir.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Re: Bell's Theorum.
« Reply #32 on: May 05, 2014, 07:13:12 PM »
This video explains why consciousness is nothing special to QM as shown by the quantum eraser experiment. I highly recommend the entire series in order.

http://m.
Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Re: Bell's Theorum.
« Reply #33 on: May 05, 2014, 08:14:01 PM »
Lol, I love the video. The narrator has exactly the same voice as my 7th grade English teacher. I was her favorite student because we had a school full of farmers that thought literature was what you put on the bottom of a birdcage. She loved me for the fact that I read Coleridge because I liked poetry.

Re: Bell's Theorum.
« Reply #34 on: May 05, 2014, 11:02:04 PM »
Lol, I love the video. The narrator has exactly the same voice as my 7th grade English teacher. I was her favorite student because we had a school full of farmers that thought literature was what you put on the bottom of a birdcage. She loved me for the fact that I read Coleridge because I liked poetry.

I love that you can hear the smile in her voice.  :smile2:
Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Offline Casparov

Re: Bell's Theorum.
« Reply #35 on: May 06, 2014, 01:00:41 AM »
I present to you peer reviewed scientific papers, you respond with cute youtube videos and Niele degrasse Tyson documentaries. If you study the actual evidence you can see for yourself what is actually happening, if you listen to the opinion's of others, you accept all of their bias' and fallibility as your own.

Every scientist or scientifically minded person or Atheist or person who is educated in science, who is a REALIST and/or MATERIALIST is obviously going to do there very very very best to either deny the evidence outright or obscure it by pointing to controversial in opinions. You cannot argue against bare facts and peer reviewed evidence with opinionated commentary designed for mass consumption produced by obvious Realists. That's not a actual argument.

Quote
“It is probably fair to say that most members of the physics community would reject these ideas.... However, their reasons would be based more on prejudice than on sound argument, and the proportion of those who reject it would be much smaller if we considered only those who had actually thought carefully about the problems of quantum theory.”
 - Euan Squires

It is quite obvious to anyone who actually studies the evidence that we are steadily trending towards Realism finally being declared totally bankrupt. Every out that Realism has is slowly being eliminated as a possibility one by one and as of today it has virtually no where else to go at all, but Realists will still hold onto to whatever thin threads they imagine must actually be there because once they give up Realism, once they let that one slip way, suddenly EVERYTHING is to be reconsidered. Their entire world view and basis for understanding reality must then be deeply questioned and worst of all, they must admit they were wrong.

You people have not provided a SHRED of evidence supporting either Realism or Materialism. Take note of that! No positive evidence, all you offer is apologetics in the form of "no that's not what it means" or "it only disproves this kind of realism not that kind of realism" or "that's not for certain, we aren't all the way sure of that" or "well this cute youtube video disagrees" or "this documentary disagrees" or "there isn't widespread scientific consensus" or "there is still some controversy". All of which are logical fallacies and do not even attempt to address the actual evidence at hand. Does this sound familiar: "TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!"???

ADDRESS THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE!!!

All you offer is apologetics. If you want to ACTUALLY defend Realism why don't you dig up a single peer reviewed scientific paper that proves that Realism is a viable assumption? Why don't offer a single piece of proof that supports your assumption? All you offer is apologetics about why all of this mountain of evidence that is at variance with your world view isn't actually at variance with your world view. You have no positive proof, you only dodge all of the evidence against your position. If you hold fast to Realism, you are making a positive assertion about the nature of reality, you are therefore subject to the Burden of Proof. SO PROVE IT!! Refute the evidence in a real way with COUNTER EVIDENCE, or better present POSITIVE EVIDENCE for Realism! Can you? I dare you to! I challenge you to prove that Realism is true. I triple double dog dare you to. Here's a suggestion: Take the Quantum Randi Challenge and prove Realism is compatible with QM predictions and claim yourself a Nobel Prize!

Of course you wont, because you can't, because it's not possible, because REALISM IS A DEAD IDEOLOGY WALKING and you can't admit it because you are married to it as your cherished belief you will never let go of until your high priests tell you to. All you have to offer is weak apologetics. Cute youtube videos and wishy washy documentaries. GIVE ME EVIDENCE OR GTFO

I feel like I offered a peer reviewed break down of the fossil record and you responded with a Kent Ham youtube video and a William Lane Craig documentary. ATHEIST APOLOGETICS
« Last Edit: May 06, 2014, 02:50:30 AM by Casparov »
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein

Offline Casparov

Re: Bell's Theorum.
« Reply #36 on: May 06, 2014, 02:21:43 AM »
This video explains why consciousness is nothing special to QM as shown by the quantum eraser experiment. I highly recommend the entire series in order.

http://m.

It is extremely cute how entirely wrong this video is. Do you not think that if this video were true that there would have been countless articles written by now that proclaim to the world finally, " Consciousness does not cause collapse!" Realism would be saved if this girl was correct. Unfortunately, she makes no sense. Notice how triumphantly she declares that consciousness does not cause collapse and then at the end of the video states that "how measurement works is still an open question today, which is strange because measurement is vital to quantum mechanics."

Let's consider her thought experiment:

Quote
Either M1 is a machine being monitored by a conscious observer, or M1 is a machine but no conscious observer ever sees the result. If the hypothesis is true, then in the first case, the slit that the particle goes through is measured, so there can be no interference pattern, but in the second case it's not measured, so there should be an interference pattern. Instead, when the experiment is done, both cases lead to no interference. This leads us to the conclusion that there really isn't anything special about conscious observers in Quantum Mechanics.

The first thing I notice is that she offers no sources in the description of her video, and thus I have no idea what experiment she is talking about when she claims, "Instead, when the experiment is done..." What experiment? Source please! Every Quantum Eraser experiment ever completed has had the exact opposite result as what she claims. If what she is saying were true, then the "Observer Effect" would have been explained when the first Quantum Eraser experiment was successfully conducted by Scully and Kim in 1999 http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9903047v1.pdf

From that peer reviewed paper titled "A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser":

Quote
In the two-slit experiment, the common "wisdom" is that the position-momentum uncertainty relation makes it impossible to determine which slit the photon (or electron) passes through without at the same time disturbing the interference pattern. However, it has been proven that under certain circumstances this common interpretation may not be true. In 1982, Skully and Druhl found a way around this position-momentum uncertainty obstacle and proposed a quantum eraser to obtain which-path or particle-like information without scattering or otherwise introducing large uncontrolled phase factors to disturb the interference. To be sure the interference pattern disappears when the which-path information is obtained. But it reappears when we erase (quantum eraser) the which-path information.

The cute little girl says, "when the experiment is done, both cases lead to no interference." and then when you read the actual peer reviewed paper it says, "To be sure the interference pattern disappears when the which-path information is obtained. But it reappears when we erase the which-path information." Thus your cute little video is refuted.

The entire point of a Quantum Eraser experiment is to ensure that the which-path information is obtained or erased only after it has been detected by, let's call the detector, M1.

So M1 detects the which path information, and the decision to obtain it (M1 is a machine being monitored by a conscious observer) or erase it (M1 is a machine but no conscious observer ever sees the result) is made after M1 has made the detection.

If it is decided to erase the which path information (M1 is a machine but no conscious observer ever sees the result) the interference patter reappears!! If it is decided to obtain the which path information (M1 is a machine being monitored by a conscious observer) the wave function collapses and they get a particle pattern!! In both cases M1 "measures" the only difference is if M1 is monitored by a conscious observer or not. Your video is 100% incorrect about the results of the experiment. The machine's measurement does not cause the collapse even when it erases the information and no conscious observer is able to monitor it. She said, "when the experiment is done, both cases lead to no interference," and SHE IS WRONG!!!! And she has no sources, so you are just trusting some little Australian girl's word on it. Do you see how easily you accept something that agrees with your beliefs and how much kickback you give when something disagrees with your beliefs? You are accepting the word of a little girl over the peer reviewed evidence because the little girl agrees with your beliefs and the peer reviewed evidence disagrees. TAKE NOTE OF THIS!!!

This is and has been the result of Quantum Eraser Experiments every single time and why the "mystery remains" in the worlds of Realists. If what your video said was true then every Realist in the world would be shouting the merits of the results of the Quantum Eraser experiment from the rooftops because finally they would have their proof that consciousness has nothing to do with observations!!! But alas, the exact opposite is the actual case, and you will find this out if you study the EVIDENCE instead of just browsing through commentary and opinions looking for anything that agrees with your beliefs....

A great break down reviewed by Dr. Kim himself who conducted the actual experiment is found here: http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scully/kim-scully-web.htm

Quote
In this experiment, a single photon is aimed at the double-slit. If it passes through the left slit, it will hit a crystal placed behind the slit on the left side of the crystal; if through the right slit, it will hit the crystal on the right side.

Quote
As discussed below, the experimental setup ensures that this which-path information for the signal photons is obtained or erased only after the signal photon has been detected and the information is winging its way toward the Coincidence Circuit.

Quote
The detecting mechanism that has tagged the which-path information (i.e., the generation of an entangled pair at either region A or region B) has already been accomplished, but it has not yet yielded up its which-path information to any observer.

Quote
Upon accessing the information gathered by the Coincidence Circuit, we the observer are shocked to learn that the pattern shown by the positions registered at D0 at Time 2 depends entirely on the information gathered later at Time 4 and available to us at the conclusion of the experiment.

Quote
Ho-hum. Another experimental proof of QM. This is the way it works, folks.

And if you want videos, here's a better one:

« Last Edit: May 06, 2014, 02:38:12 AM by Casparov »
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein

Re: Bell's Theorum.
« Reply #37 on: May 06, 2014, 02:39:08 AM »
I believe the video with the cutesy female voice was narrated by the scientist who did the experiment. And you of indeterminate scientific background are calling her a liar? Boy that is some serious hubris.

Offline Hijiri Byakuren

  • ULC Minister, Honorary Doctor of Divinity
  • *
  • Posts: 4978
  • Total likes: 1636
  • That's DOCTOR Hijiri, to you!
    • Pathos
Re: Bell's Theorum.
« Reply #38 on: May 06, 2014, 02:39:21 AM »
It is extremely cute how entirely wrong this video is. Do you not think that if this video were true that there would have been countless articles written by now that proclaim to the world finally, " Consciousness does not cause collapse!"


There are countless articles about "materialism." There just so happens to be an entire branch of human understanding devoted to the subject, in fact: science. The more you know!

Offline Casparov

Re: Bell's Theorum.
« Reply #39 on: May 06, 2014, 02:59:51 AM »
I believe the video with the cutesy female voice was narrated by the scientist who did the experiment. And you of indeterminate scientific background are calling her a liar? Boy that is some serious hubris.

She is calling Kim and Scully liars! She is calling Anton Zeilinger and every other Quantum Physicist who has actually conducted the Quantum Eraser Experiment and published the results in a peer reviewed journal liars! Of course I am going to call her out for distributing false information!

If she has done the experiment where can I read her paper? In which peer reviewed journal were her results published? Her results are the exact opposite results of every Quantum Eraser Experiment that has ever been conducted and published to date.
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein

Re: Bell's Theorum.
« Reply #40 on: May 06, 2014, 05:53:04 AM »
The point being how can YOU call her a liar? If she disagrees with others who publish different results and can back her results, what does that say? Ever heard of the parable of the blind men and the elephant? This is similar to what you are doing. You can disagree with one set of theorems and agree with another, but that DOES NOT MAKE YOUR CASE. You are arguing one set of beliefs against another, nothing more.

Quess what? I've been saying on here continually that you can't prove the existence of a deity. With all of your long winded prose, you have not done that and you never will. 6,000 years of effort by better minds than you has not done it and neither can you. You cannot even quantify what a god is, much less describe it.

I also said previously that particle physicists-Hawking, Krauss- have built paradigms that don't require a god to create the universe. Can you build a paradigm where a god is an absolute necessity, refuting their models? Based on the babble you have laid down here, I highly doubt it. I don't care how many theoretical situations you can quote mine, the simple fact is you can't build a model wherein god is an absolute necessity, because BECAUSE NOBODY ELSE EVER HAS.

I have a degree in English Lit. I am no physicist, but I can read. I also know how to wade through gobbedygook and find the meat of an argument. Go read up on Rhetoric. You have not provided a cogent argument and you never will, because everything you put on here is a rephrasing of your original thesis in a different form. Them's the facts. So stop all the babble and get to the fucking point. This whole thing has risen to a level of absurdity beyond measure. You have not proven your point because you can't.

Re: Bell's Theorum.
« Reply #41 on: May 06, 2014, 08:18:30 AM »
You seem to think that I am arguing that "reality doesn't exist" or "reality isn't real", but I'm not. Of course it's real! Of course it exists! It's just isn't as the Realist describes it. Realism is false and Materialism is false, this does not mean that nothing is real, only that the nature of reality is not as you believe it to be.

If this is really the case any paper or citation you've provided is now invalid regarding your argument because your citations rely on experiments bound by the measurable and quantifiable universe. You're saying this is not how we should be looking at what is real, so any experiment or paper you provide can be dismissed. You can really only attack this argument as a purely philosophical experiment designed to make you feel smart without having to actually come to a conclusion. Bravo, do you feel special? You should, your entire purpose on this forum is so you can make yourself feel special. Here's a lollipop.


Offline josephpalazzo

Re: Bell's Theorum.
« Reply #42 on: May 06, 2014, 08:31:43 AM »
So now Casparov went from, "If I don't understand X, therefore X doesn't exist" to, "If anyone doesn't agree with me is a liar". :liar:

Re: Bell's Theorum.
« Reply #43 on: May 06, 2014, 08:36:57 AM »
Quote
Do you not think that if this video were true that there would have been countless articles written by now that proclaim to the world finally, " Consciousness does not cause collapse!" Realism would be saved if this girl was correct.
And if your video was correct do you not think there would be a world revolution that proclaims to the world finally, "We only exist as consciousness"
Realism is alive and well.

The part you continually miss is that the issue of measurement lies at the heart of the problem of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, for which there is currently no consensus
And yet, without consensus and without being a physicist, you proclaim the issue solved just like a good religious person.
If you watch the Tyson lectures you'll see that ALL current theories are leaving out dark matter and dark energy which make up 96% of all there is and that we know nothing about. So with knowledge of only 4% of the universe you declare the issue resolved! That's a joke.


Why Quatum mechanics does not debunk Materialism

Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Re: Bell's Theorum.
« Reply #44 on: May 06, 2014, 10:02:23 AM »
OK Berati. Simply because of my great respect for your posting I will sit through an hour of explanations about materialism. The combined weight of philosophy and science and (shudder) math will probably make my head explode. But I'm doing this for the cause. Remember me fondly.