Jesus and Comparative Mythology

[abucs]

What I have been saying all along, and what the previous scientific experiments I posted earlier strongly suggest is that matter is secondary to mathematical probability laws. The reality we see is very different to what science says is actually there. It is always on observation that we see a concrete physical world that appears to interact at a local cause and effect physical way. But the underlying explanation does not support this, it only appears this way on observation. The important question that is asked, is why ‘nature’ always creates a material reality for an observer that is not consistent with its abstract internal reality.

The investigation of science seems very strongly to place the observer as a very important role in the working of the universe - between physical ‘reality’ and scientific abstract definition. This is incompatible with the 19th century materialist philosophy. Everyone in the field knows this.

We cannot put matter as the fundamental reality, the above experiments and your own links Yankee clearly show this. There is something obviously behind the matter which makes it obey strict mathematical laws of probability based on whether or not it is ’observed’ and this ’something’ in doing so creates ‘our material reality’ and the illusion of an almost flawless local cause and effect universe.

So you are back to square one, in trying to show how our modern science can be consistent with a 19th century atheist philosophy. I don’t think it can yankee.

Please take some time to go through the experiments and read the scientific consensus and theories about what is actually happening WITHOUT any preconceived philosophical notions of what you expect to find. Your preconceived notions are causing you to read articles to try and fit in with your own philosophy. You are not reading your own links objectively and then going off on wrong tangents to try and get back to your own philosophy.

OK, i have to go.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Now let me quote your words from post #110 giving your personal scientific interpretation……………

……………………In QM the position of a particle is where the wave amplitude is greatest (and the momentum is described by the wavelength). The position is uncertain to the degree the wave is spread out (well-defined wavelength), but the momentum is certain only to the degree the wavelength is well defined. Therefore, position and momentum for a particle have opposite requirements for good definition (which is why both momentum and position cannot be simultaneously well defined). I summarized this from an article (in case anyone is interested):…"

Now let me quote from the same article you posted to show you that your summary contradicts the linked encyclopaedia posting you give. I’m quoting from 4 clicks down the page a couple of paragraphs after the heading Uncertainty Principle and Observer Effect

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

“………………. Today, logical positivism has become unfashionable in many cases, so the explanation of the uncertainty principle in terms of observer effect can be misleading. For one, this explanation makes it seem to the non positivist that the disturbances are not a property of the particle, but a property of the measurement process— the particle secretly does have a definite position and a definite momentum, but the experimental devices we have are not good enough to find out what these are. This interpretation is not compatible with standard quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, states which have both definite position and definite momentum at the same time just don’t exist.…………”

You are giving an explanation of why momentum and position cannot be simultaneously defined based on ‘suitable requirements not being present’ in the measuring process of each definition at the same time. The encyclopaedia link you actually gave says this interpretation is not compatible with STANDARD quantum mechanics because it’s not that the definition of both position and momentum cannot be made - it is that they do not exist. Now this was the basis of your post #117. Let me quote you back your sentence for point number 4 of your latest post that you have asked me to focus on

“… 4. if you want to measure the position of any particle, say an electron or photon, you must disturb its momentum…’

You then go on to give a definition of what you (or the place you copied it from ) are saying as an explanation.

“… To precisely measure the location of an electron you have to fire another particle at it. The problem is smaller wavelength = higher frequency, and higher frequency = higher momentum. For instance, when a photon hits an electron it increases its momentum in an unpredictable way (this is where the uncertainty enters in). The harder you hit the electron the more you know about its location, but the less you can know about its momentum…

Now Yankee, please stop and think. This is EXACTLY the misconception the article you linked to is warning is not compatible with standard quantum mechanics. You are saying, when you go and measure the location of a particle (the measurement process), you necessarily disturb that particle and so it is impossible to know the momentum. THIS IS THE PROBLEM OF MEASUREMENT PROCESS that the article speaks of. The act of measurement changes the system, This is what you are saying. You are assuming that the particle does have a position and a momentum but that both cannot be measured because when you go and measure one, in doing that process, you change the characteristic of the other. Your encyclopaedia article that you quoted as an authority is contradicting this and saying it is a wrong interpretation (and i quote again)

No it’s not a misconception, because I fact checked every single claim I made. Nor does anything I said contradict the Wikipedia article.

“…In quantum mechanics, states which have both definite position and definite momentum at the same time just don’t exist…”

It’s not that it is impossible to measure both because we disturb the system upon measurement, but they just don’t exist at the same time.

Yes exactly (this is what I’ve been saying).

The only way to measure one is to disturb the other. It has nothing to do with consciousness (the crux of your hypothesis), flawed measurement devices, or anything. It’s an inherent property of quantum systems (simultaneous position and momentum does not exist), like I’ve been saying all along :takethat:

Will you concede that the links you are claiming for authoritarian support actually are not compatible with your own interpretation ?

dude … you get a little funnier with every post. Now that I’ve illustrated your hypothesis (that started this whole discussion) is wrong – you want to save face.

It’s alright bro … it’s rare to be as smart as me :egyptian:

 

[yankee_doodle]

What I have been saying all along, and what the previous scientific experiments I posted earlier strongly suggest is that matter is secondary to mathematical probability laws. The reality we see is very different to what science says is actually there. It is always on observation that we see a concrete physical world that appears to interact at a local cause and effect physical way. But the underlying explanation does not support this, it only appears this way on observation. The important question that is asked, is why ‘nature’ always creates a material reality for an observer that is not consistent with its abstract internal reality.

The investigation of science seems very strongly to place the observer as a very important role in the working of the universe - between physical ‘reality’ and scientific abstract definition. This is incompatible with the 19th century materialist philosophy. Everyone in the field knows this.

We cannot put matter as the fundamental reality, the above experiments and your own links Yankee clearly show this. There is something obviously behind the matter which makes it obey strict mathematical laws of probability based on whether or not it is ’observed’ and this ’something’ in doing so creates ‘our material reality’ and the illusion of an almost flawless local cause and effect universe.

So you are back to square one, in trying to show how our modern science can be consistent with a 19th century atheist philosophy. I don’t think it can yankee.

Please take some time to go through the experiments and read the scientific consensus and theories about what is actually happening WITHOUT any preconceived philosophical notions of what you expect to find. Your preconceived notions are causing you to read articles to try and fit in with your own philosophy. You are not reading your own links objectively and then going off on wrong tangents to try and get back to your own philosophy.

OK, i have to go.

 

[yankee_doodle]

What I have been saying all along, and what the previous scientific experiments I posted earlier strongly suggest is that matter is secondary to mathematical probability laws.

you gotta be kidding me. No wonder you suddenly “have to go” … now that I’ve shown conscious observation has nothing to do with it (there are some things that cannot be observed i.e. precise simultaneous position & momentum of a particle) you left stomping off with another trademark rant … but you’re a classic example of bad science pushed by theists who really don’t have a clue. It’s actually sort of scary that you people exist and try to pollute science with your absurdity.

BTW you might also like to know most scientists are atheists. Some studies put the number as high as 90% (with physicists and biologists usually being the most likely to not believe in a god, and PhD’s in advanced physics like quantum mechanics rating highest on the atheist scale).

Religion is primitive.

 

[abucs]

Yankee, you just are obviously out of your depth and yet you continue to keep up the appearance (very badly) that you know what you are talking about.

You have a high school view of physics that has formed your atheism and you refuse flatly to even consider that ‘proper physics’ is a little more advanced than your high school variety.

You say ‘nothing in the article you posted contradicts what you have said and that you have checked it thoroughly’ and this is just mind boggling stupid.

You main premise was that the quantum wave was actually real and the links clearly say that consensus scientific opinion is that it is not.

i say that a particle’s position and momentum just don’t exist, the articles you link to say exactly the same thing and yet you think you can trump this simply by saying ‘of course in reality a particle travelling through space has a position and momentum’.

This is the difference between your high school physics and proper advanced physics. You just can’t let go of your high school physics and you will not even listen even when your own links tell you how wrong you are.

You end up simply by making another meaningless tangent of some survey on atheists and saying how primitive religion is. that is a rant Yankee. You have nothing intelligent to say and have been caught by your own links which blatantly contradict your high school physics views.

You are an embarressment to atheism Yankee because you continue on regardless of all the evidence, still thinking you must be correct. This is delusion yankee.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Yankee, you just are obviously out of your depth and yet you continue to keep up the appearance (very badly) that you know what you are talking about.

You have a high school view of physics that has formed your atheism and you refuse flatly to even consider that ‘proper physics’ is a little more advanced than your high school variety.

well OK … if anyone really cares at this point they can go back and review the posts easily enough. I will try and resist the urge to sink to your level & belittle you.

You say ‘nothing in the article you posted contradicts what you have said and that you have checked it thoroughly’ and this is just mind boggling stupid.

you never really understood anything I said in the first place?

You main premise was that the quantum wave was actually real and the links clearly say that consensus scientific opinion is that it is not.

once again it is real … you still don’t understand the physics properly

i say that a particle’s position and momentum just don’t exist, the articles you link to say exactly the same thing and yet you think you can trump this simply by saying ‘of course in reality a particle travelling through space has a position and momentum’.

no I said they don’t exist, now you’re trying to redeem yourself in a pretty darn petty way.

This is the difference between your high school physics and proper advanced physics. You just can’t let go of your high school physics and you will not even listen even when your own links tell you how wrong you are.

well if I’m so wrong why aren’t you defending your ridiculous hypothesis anymore (which is what started this whole thing)

You end up simply by making another meaningless tangent of some survey on atheists and saying how primitive religion is. that is a rant Yankee. You have nothing intelligent to say and have been caught by your own links which blatantly contradict your high school physics views.

You are an embarressment to atheism Yankee because you continue on regardless of all the evidence, still thinking you must be correct. This is delusion yankee.

you can insult me all you want – that’s really all you have left (and all you had in the first place). Here’s your original hypothesis:

What i basically would argue for, in the secondary nature of matter is the fact that matter pops in and out of existance as a normal part of ‘nature’. That it follows a probability reality rather than a definite positional reality, that matter seems to ‘act differently’ on observation that cannot be accounted for in a ‘mechanical disturbance’ way, and finally that all matter seems to be connected (by something) in a non material way, and this non material way does not act in a ‘cause and effect’ way but gives the appearance, for some reason, to do so.

I’ve shown how impossible this is (and I didn’t even get to the absurd notion that matter pops in and out of existence, without going anywhere). Now you’re pissed, a so called scientist of 15 years.

This is why I always say theism and science doesn’t go together. Maybe 100 years ago it did, but today people like you shouldn’t even be considered scientists. This isn’t real science, this is pseudo-nonsense that pollutes science.

 

[yankee_doodle]

I’ve re-read this whole thing with a fresh mind and it occurs to me you’re hypothesis is probably trying to deal with the problems principals like the first law of thermodynamics create for the “god hypothesis”? Maybe I’m wrong, but your arguments suggest this may be your objective.

The law states, among other things, energy cannot be either created or destroyed. Therefore, it’s absurd to postulate something that cannot be created could have had a creator.

Yes, indeed … big problem for you guys. So I suspect you would like to debunk this rule (since, unless we think energy itself is god, it logically presents a huge problem for religion). Of course there’s a variety of problems in thinking god is energy (besides obviously reducing to the absurd).

 

[cthulhubryan]

While there are several examples of comparative “mythology” in history, most of those can be eliminated as simply reinforcing biblical truths. For example: If the story of Noah is true, then you would expect everyone to know about it. Much is made of the fact that the Sumerians had written their “Noah” story long before the bible was set down. It has more to do with the fact that Sumerians invented writing than it does with being a shared or borrowed “myth”

As for Comparative Mythology regarding Jesus I challenge you to find any serious discussion of this sort that predates the early 1880’s. Why? Because that is when Totemica and The Golden Bough were written.

Again, it is intellectually dishonest to conclude that because I can find elements of the story of Jesus in other cultures that the story of Jesus must be made up or stolen from other cultures.

When missionaries reached Celtic lands they discovered cults of what are sometimes called Druids. These were people that sacrificed people to give their blood to a tree. The blood was considered holy and was food and nourishment for the tree. What could cause people to do something like this?
Consider that each human is created in the image of God whether this or that human knows or has even heard of God.

Jesus Christ IS the Son of God, he WAS sacrificed on the Cross (sometimes called a tree) and His Flesh and Blood ARE food.

As humans, we all have a piece of this within us. However, everything of the world is but a poor image of God. Therefore uneducated peoples of Western Europe and Britain had all the basic elements (man, sacrifice, tree, blood as food) but just twisted in the way the world twists all things.

Mythology is how people who do not know Truth try to find Truth. Since the same spark of Life is within them as within all of us, sometimes they are going to get elements of Truth correct. Or, as my dad likes to say, even a blind hog gets an acorn now and then.

Do not let the efforts of people who only sought Truth lead you away from what IS the TRUTH. They would be disappointed in you.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Here’s something that says it all:

This view is nearly identical to that of Kenneth Miller in his book Finding Darwin’s God. What this means, of course, is that what appear to us to be random and unpredictable events on the subatomic level (for example, the decay of atoms) can really reflect God’s manipulation of those particles, and that this is the way a theistic God might intervene in the world. And of course these interventions are said to be “subtle” and “unrecognizable.” (Theologians are always making a virtue of necessity. They never explain why, if God wanted to answer a prayer, he would do it by tweaking electrons rather than, say, directly killing cancer cells with his omnipotence. After all, a miracle is a miracle. Theology might, in fact, be defined as the art of making religious virtues out of scientific necessities.) And why did these interventions used to involve more blatant manipulations of nature (several thousand years ago, virgin human females gave birth to offspring, were taken bodily to heaven, and their offspring brought back to life after dying), while in more recent years the manipulations have been confined to the subatomic level?

whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/the-hall-of-shame-god-and-quantum-mechanics/

It’s the same old god of gaps argument, or arguments from incredulity, religion has always been based on

 

[yankee_doodle]

While there are several examples of comparative “mythology” in history, most of those can be eliminated as simply reinforcing biblical truths. For example: If the story of Noah is true, then you would expect everyone to know about it. Much is made of the fact that the Sumerians had written their “Noah” story long before the bible was set down. It has more to do with the fact that Sumerians invented writing than it does with being a shared or borrowed “myth”

As for Comparative Mythology regarding Jesus I challenge you to find any serious discussion of this sort that predates the early 1880’s. Why? Because that is when Totemica and The Golden Bough were written.

even if this is true, why does it matter?

comparative mythology is a field of study today, and facts are facts right?

Again, it is intellectually dishonest to conclude that because I can find elements of the story of Jesus in other cultures that the story of Jesus must be made up or stolen from other cultures.

no … it’s not intellectually dishonest. Indeed, not to find relevance in the fact that the themes of Christianity have many parallels in earlier mythology is intellectual absurdity.

When missionaries reached Celtic lands they discovered cults of what are sometimes called Druids. These were people that sacrificed people to give their blood to a tree. The blood was considered holy and was food and nourishment for the tree. What could cause people to do something like this?

human knows or has even heard of God.

Jesus Christ IS the Son of God, he WAS sacrificed on the Cross (sometimes called a tree) and His Flesh and Blood ARE food.

no one is talking about later mythology (or elements of mythological stories that post-date Christianity). We’re talking about mythological themes that PRE-date Christianity.

As humans, we all have a piece of this within us. However, everything of the world is but a poor image of God. Therefore uneducated peoples of Western Europe and Britain had all the basic elements (man, sacrifice, tree, blood as food) but just twisted in the way the world twists all things.

so you would like to use mythological musings to support the veracity of the same mythological musings … OK

Mythology is how people who do not know Truth try to find Truth. Since the same spark of Life is within them as within all of us, sometimes they are going to get elements of Truth correct. Or, as my dad likes to say, even a blind hog gets an acorn now and then.

Do not let the efforts of people who only sought Truth lead you away from what IS the TRUTH. They would be disappointed in you.

ay

 

[yankee_doodle]

While there are several examples of comparative “mythology” in history, most of those can be eliminated as simply reinforcing biblical truths. For example: If the story of Noah is true, then you would expect everyone to know about it. Much is made of the fact that the Sumerians had written their “Noah” story long before the bible was set down. It has more to do with the fact that Sumerians invented writing than it does with being a shared or borrowed “myth”

yes, that’s the indoctrinated version … but the real version looks at the dating of the earliest manuscripts and archeological evidence pertaining to the story in question, then reaches logical conclusions based on that evidence.

Moreover, no one is postulating a copy-cat or Jesus myth theory (I personally don’t take either view, but I don’t rule them out either). I think the mythological interpolations were probably more subtle.

My favorite analogy (it’s kind of funny, at least to me).

If a guy you ran across tried to convince you to join his religion of the spaghetti god, but you knew the guy came from a region of the world known for its pasta myths. Prior to the spaghetti religion they worshiped a panoply of pasta gods (the lasagna god, macaroni god, even the rigatoni god) … would you be even the least bit compelled to join his religion?

What if the guy was able to show you how his spaghetti religion was totally different from all those other pasta religions. The spaghetti god is the one true god (it’s a monotheistic religion verses polytheistic). There’s many other nuances that clearly distinguish it from the other pasta religions – but nevertheless it’s another pasta religion from the land of pasta mythology?

 

[abucs]

Yankee,

You claimed that the quantum wave was real, I quoted your own link to say it wasn’t and you haven’t said anything about this since (and this was your main argument).

You claimed to interpret a limited real wave packet on the Chiao link and I quoted your own link to show that the wave is infinite and spread out over all space and you haven’t said anything about this since.

The last explanation you gave, that you are still arguing for, is that you say a particles position and momentum does exist but can’t be measured properly. I quoted you your own link to say ‘In quantum mechanics, states which have both definite position and definite momentum at the same time just don’t exist’

Say the words very slowly Yankee from your own link ‘In quantum mechanics, states which have both definite position and definite momentum at the same time J U S T D O N ’ T E X I S T’

Now you want to interpret this to say yes they do exist we just can’t measure them properly. I pointed you to the warning in the same link of people who erroneously try to interpret this as a measurement problem.

You basically reject this obvious refutation of your own thoughts from your own link and try to interpret it in a different way.

Now since you just won’t accept plain English from your own link, please consider the many, many other links which tell you that you are wrong -

The uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics is sometimes erroneously explained by claiming that the measurement of position necessarily disturbs a particle’s momentum.

experiencefestival.com/a/Uncertainty_principle_-_Overview/id/601247

The Uncertainty Principle is often presented as a manifestation of the fact that the act of measurement inevitably perturbs the state that is being measured. Thus, the smaller the particle being observed, the shorter the wavelength of light needed to observe it, and hence the larger the energy of this light and the larger the perturbation it administers to the particle in the process of measurement. This interpretation, while helpful for visualization, has its limitations.

encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3404200250.html

enotes.com/science-religion-encyclopedia/heisenberg-s-uncertainty-principle

The uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics is sometimes erroneously explained by claiming that the measurement of position necessarily disturbs a particle’s momentum. Heisenberg himself may have offered explanations which suggest this view, at least initially. That the role of disturbance is not essential can be seen as follows:

economicexpert.com/a/Uncertaintyrinciple.htm

rmcybernetics.com/science/physics/introduction_to_electromagnetism/heisenberg_uncertainty_principle.htm

knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Uncertainty_Principle/

In the ‘disturbance’ picture, an atom’s actual position and momentum are
always definite but usually unknown; its measured position and momentum cannot be
accurately predicted because the measuring device necessarily changes what it
measures.
“My belief in this disturbance model of reality was strengthened when I read that
young Werner Heisenberg once held a similar view of the quantum world. It did not
occur to me to wonder why Heisenberg quickly abandoned such an obvious
explanation to take up the more obscure and mystical Copenhagen interpretation,
which most physicists endorse today.

commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/commentary_on_subquantum_physics.pdf

 

[abucs]

Now let’s look at your link again which I already told you warns against interpreting the effect from disturbance in measurement. Just after it gives this warning which you think doesn’t apply to you it says …….

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

‘…This explanation is misleading in another way, because sometimes it is a failure to measure the particle that produces the disturbance. For example, if a perfect photographic film contains a small hole, and an incident photon is not observed, then its momentum becomes uncertain by a large amount. By not observing the photon, we discover indirectly that it went through the hole, revealing the photon’s position…’

So what they are saying here is that the phenomena happens even when we don’t measure it. We simply know the photons position because it went through the whole. But it hasn’t been directly measured.

Now look at the next paragraph

‘…The third way in which the explanation can be misleading is due to the nonlocal nature of a quantum state. Sometimes, two particles can be entangled, and then a distant measurement can be performed on one of the two. This measurement should not disturb the other particle in any classical sense, but it can sometimes reveal information about the distant particle. This restricts the possible values of position or momentum in strange ways…’

This is the first set of three links I gave on the Bell’s Theorem. When two particles are entangled and separated then they have characteristics that are entangled - either the same or opposite depending on the experiment. Because in theory, if we know they are say, the same, then we should be able to measure different characteristics of each and determine both characteristics. This was first designed to ‘beat the uncertainty principle’. In the Bell Inequality tests those characteristics were spin axies of entangled electrons that were then separated. Measuring one in theory, shouldn’t ’disturb’ the other and so in theory we should be able to know the spin about two different axies. As my links said, when the tests were done measuring the spin of one set of electrons it did affect the measurement for the spin of the other, even though they were separated by metres (and kilometres in a retest).

 

[abucs]

In fact Yankee, let’s print out the whole definition from your link.

First it talks about disturbance and while it says that disturbing does affect the measurement, that is correct, which is pretty obvious to all, it can lead to thinking of it as the observer affect which is misleading because it implies " the particle secretly does have a definite position and a definite momentum".

It then goes on to say looking at it this way is also misleading because we observe the Uncertainty Principle" even when no measuring occurs (and thus no disturbance) and thirdy it is misleading because we can entangle two particles and test one of them separately that does not disturb the other and hence should not disturb its position or momentum and yet the results show that is does "in strange ways:

Your explanation is misleading in exactly the way the article says, and it quotes 2 occassions when disturbance is not even a factor. Go back to the 6 or 7 scientific experimental results i gave earlier and you will see more reasons why your explanation is misleading (i.e. wrong).

Here is your full link again

'…
The uncertainty principle is often stated this way:

The measurement of position necessarily disturbs a particle’s momentum, and vice versa
This makes the uncertainty principle a kind of observer effect.

This explanation is not incorrect, and was used by both Heisenberg and Bohr. But they were working within the philosophical framework of logical positivism. In this way of looking at the world, the true nature of a physical system, inasmuch as it exists, is defined by the answers to the best-possible measurements which can be made in principle. So when they made arguments about unavoidable disturbances in any conceivable measurement, it was obvious to them that this uncertainty was a property of the system, not of the devices.

Today, logical positivism has become unfashionable in many cases, so the explanation of the uncertainty principle in terms of observer effect can be misleading. For one, this explanation makes it seem to the non positivist that the disturbances are not a property of the particle, but a property of the measurement process— the particle secretly does have a definite position and a definite momentum, but the experimental devices we have are not good enough to find out what these are. This interpretation is not compatible with standard quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, states which have both definite position and definite momentum at the same time just don’t exist.

This explanation is misleading in another way, because sometimes it is a failure to measure the particle that produces the disturbance. For example, if a perfect photographic film contains a small hole, and an incident photon is not observed, then its momentum becomes uncertain by a large amount. By not observing the photon, we discover indirectly that it went through the hole, revealing the photon’s position.

The third way in which the explanation can be misleading is due to the nonlocal nature of a quantum state. Sometimes, two particles can be entangled, and then a distant measurement can be performed on one of the two. This measurement should not disturb the other particle in any classical sense, but it can sometimes reveal information about the distant particle. This restricts the possible values of position or momentum in strange ways…’

 

[abucs]

Let’s also concentrate on the sentence…

“…So when they made arguments about unavoidable disturbances in any conceivable measurement, it was obvious to them that this uncertainty was a property of the system, not of the devices…”

… that is, it is not the devices that cause the uncertainty principle but the system. It is obviously true that, say shining a light on a system does change it, but the uncertainty principle is independent of the measurement devices (i.e. the light).

 

[abucs]

Yankee,

here is a link from the Harvard University Physics website, siting an article by Johan Wulleman titled - “About the Exact Role of Disturbance in Heisenberg’s Uncertainty relation”.

The page is part of the Astrophysical Data System and is operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory under NASA.

The first line reads

‘It is generally accepted that the disturbance interpretation cannot explain Heisenberg’s
uncertainty relation …’

adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006quant.ph.12109W

arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0612/0612109.pdf

Yankee, you have been extremely strident in your own views and dismissive of mine. Hopefully now i have shown that the consensus scientific position is that the probability wave in QM is abstract, not real (from your uncertainty link), that this wave is taken to be infinite and spread out over all space (as from another one of your links) and now that the uncertainty principle is not a function of measurement interference (as above).

These were your 3 objections that you strongly argued for.

If you can admit now that they have been demonstrated to be against the consensus of physics scientists today - then finally i can get on to my original assertions.

I’m simply dealing with your objections, one at a time until i prove to you that your objections are incorrect.

Can i continue now, or are you still objecting ?

 

[cthulhubryan]

yes, that’s the indoctrinated version … but the real version looks at the dating of the earliest manuscripts and archeological evidence pertaining to the story in question, then reaches logical conclusions based on that evidence.

Indoctrinated? How is the FACT that Sumerians invented writing indoctrination?

The Sumerian manuscripts are by default the oldest because they invented writing.

Therefore the fact that Ziusudra was written before Noah is meaningless in terms of veracity. All it does is validate the fact of the occurrence in question.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Indoctrinated? How is the FACT that Sumerians invented writing indoctrination?

The Sumerian manuscripts are by default the oldest because they invented writing.

Therefore the fact that Ziusudra was written before Noah is meaningless in terms of veracity. All it does is validate the fact of the occurrence in question.

That would be fine except for the fact the Sumerians were polytheists (and their flood account, although similar to the Hebrew version in virtually every other detail, clearly reflects that polytheism). No credible historian takes this view (it’s an exclusively religious view the CC has taken since Justin Martyr and St. Iraneaus first espoused it … it was ridiculous then & it’s no less ridiculous now).

 

[yankee_doodle]

Let’s also concentrate on the sentence…

“…So when they made arguments about unavoidable disturbances in any conceivable measurement, it was obvious to them that this uncertainty was a property of the system, not of the devices…”

… that is, it is not the devices that cause the uncertainty principle but the system. It is obviously true that, say shining a light on a system does change it, but the uncertainty principle is independent of the measurement devices (i.e. the light).

*The uncertainty principle can be restated in terms of measurements, which involves collapse of the wavefunction. When the position is measured, the wavefunction collapses to a narrow bump near the measured value, and the momentum wavefunction becomes spread out. The particle’s momentum is left uncertain by an amount inversely proportional to the accuracy of the position measurement. The amount of left-over uncertainty can never be reduced below the limit set by the uncertainty principle, no matter what the measurement process.

This means that the uncertainty principle is related to the observer effect, with which it is often conflated. The uncertainty principle sets a lower limit to how small the momentum disturbance in an accurate position experiment can be, and vice versa for momentum experiments.

A mathematical statement of the principle is that every quantum state has the property that the root mean square (RMS) deviation of the position from its mean (the standard deviation of the X-distribution):

Any measurement of the position with accuracy . . . collapses the quantum state . . . .

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

One way to understand the complementarity between position and momentum is by wave-particle duality. If a particle described by a plane wave passes through a narrow slit in a wall like a water-wave passing through a narrow channel, the particle diffracts and its wave comes out in a range of angles. The narrower the slit, the wider the diffracted wave and the greater the uncertainty in momentum afterwards. The laws of diffraction require that the spread in angle Δθ is about λ / d, where d is the slit width and λ is the wavelength. From the de Broglie relation, the size of the slit and the range in momentum of the diffracted wave are related by Heisenberg’s rule:*

I just wanted to reestablish the basic ideas we’re working with. It is measurement that somehow causes a disturbance and collapses the wave. You propose it’s conscious observation that causes the collapse (Wigner’s interpretation).

However, an experiment performed in 2006 by Carpenter and Anderson (University of Cambridge) shows that measurement alone is sufficient to collapse a quantum wave-function:

ABSTRACT. The implications arising from the “Schrödinger’s cat”
thought experiment have led some authors to argue that observation of a
measurement by a conscious observer is required to collapse quantum
wave-functions. Here we combine Schrödinger’s experimental paradigm
with a system for splitting the information about the quantum state between
two observers, thereby allowing distinct outcomes to be recorded without
either observer knowing the state of the measured quantum event. Our results
imply that to collapse a quantum wave-function, measurement alone,
rather than conscious observation of a measurement, is sufficient.

ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-311/aflb311m387.pdf

The objective of these researches was to debunk the notion that a conscious observer is required to collapse the wave function, which they achieved.

Furthermore, there’s new research into the question of whether quantum waved are real. Here’s another excerpt and a link.

In conclusion, we upheld that quantum waves must be real even if they do not belong to the same ontological level of events, which connected with particle detections.

springerlink.com/content/j688212025002460/

In conclusion ideas like subjective reality (which is ultimately what you propose) are getting moved to the side as quantum quackery and quantum mysticism.

Happy reading :coffeeread:

 

[cthulhubryan]

That would be fine except for the fact the Sumerians were polytheists (and their flood account, although similar to the Hebrew version in virtually every other detail, clearly reflects that polytheism). No credible historian takes this view (it’s an exclusively religious view the CC has taken since Justin Martyr and St. Iraneaus first espoused it … it was ridiculous then & it’s no less ridiculous now).

You seem to have some difficulties staying on task. Of course the Sumerian account reflects polytheism. Did you expect them to suddenly make Enki and Innana and others into one? The point is that the Sumerians wrote it first because they had writing first. They did not yet know the truth of God so they explained the FACT of the flood in accordance with their cosmovision. It also adds to the veracity of the Bible. Just because lesser lights are unable to fully understand something does not mean that the event didn’t happen.