0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 20/12/2013 16:49:01alancalverd : You just called your friend Ethos ...a psychopath , without even realising that fact .Two unsubstantiated assumptions and an offensive untruth based on a complete failure to understand (or a deliberate intention to misconstrue) simple logic. Not quite a world record for 13 words, but a strong contender.
alancalverd : You just called your friend Ethos ...a psychopath , without even realising that fact .
Quote from: alancalverd on 20/12/2013 23:33:02Quote from: DonQuichotte on 20/12/2013 16:49:01alancalverd : You just called your friend Ethos ...a psychopath , without even realising that fact .Two unsubstantiated assumptions and an offensive untruth based on a complete failure to understand (or a deliberate intention to misconstrue) simple logic. Not quite a world record for 13 words, but a strong contender.A word to the wise is sufficient. But were Don is concerned???And BTW; DON...., I never once detailed what that faith centered around. But now for the record:I believe in what I can measure with repeatable results, it's called science. Something you have yet to learn Don.What I can't measure with repeatable results, I may still wonder about the whys and wherefors until new evidence surfaces.But what I don't do is come to a SCIENCE forum vomiting up spooky and ill defined trash like the author of this thread.I thank folks like alancalverd for also knowing the difference between science and everyday what ifs.
QuoteBut , to believe in 2 mutually exclusive world views , that's a bizzare something that cannot be "achieved " but by guys like ...Ethos here . hahaIt's the very essence of faith and many other perversions. Remarkably common among congregations and psychopaths.
But , to believe in 2 mutually exclusive world views , that's a bizzare something that cannot be "achieved " but by guys like ...Ethos here . haha
You still haven't grasped the nature of discussion forums, have you? If you're going to quote fringe opinion in support of your point, you should be able to explain how it's relevant, and summarise or point to the key propositions. Your current approach is lazy, careless, and intellectually bankrupt.However, the breach of copyright is interesting; although slightly mangled by clumsy copy-n-paste, those excerpts actually expose Stapp as a misleading and unreliable source. I wasn't expecting that.He has revised the history of quantum mechanics and in particular, the Copenhagen Interpretation, to make his own hypothesis appear to have a firmer foundation than it otherwise would. He says, "quantum theory, ... was formulated from the outset as a theory of the interplay between physical descriptions and conscious thoughts", and talks of "the essential connection between physical description and subjective experience that quantum theory is designed to provide", and "Orthodox quantum theory ties these two problems of ‘consciousness’ and ‘collapse’ together", and "The earlier idea ... was abandoned in favor of a theory of natural phenomena in which the consciousness of the human observer is ascribed an essential role. This successor to classical physical theory is called Copenhagen quantum theory."This is all simply false. Quantum theory was formulated as a model to explain observations of the quantisation of energy and the wave-like properties of matter. The Copenhagen interpretation is one attempt to reconcile experimental observation with the mathematics of quantum theory in terms of the collapse of the wave function. There are many interpretations that address the nature of that collapse, the idea that consciousness is causal is just one -minority- view (as I mentioned in an earlier post). As Werner Heisenberg said, "... the Copenhagen interpretation is often confused with the idea that consciousness causes collapse, it defines an "observer" merely as that which collapses the wave function". I've mentioned previously that this observer can be any interacting particle. And suggesting that conscious collapse is 'orthodox' quantum theory is like saying the orthodox view in zoology is that Big Foot is really out there. That an experienced quantum physicist would distort the truth in this way is surprising - is it deliberate? is his attachment to his hypothesis distorting his view of reality? The fact that he was 79 when he published 'Mindful Universe' might be significant... These errors only heighten my distrust of his work, and I see no reason to revise my previously expressed opinion of it.