Instantaneous long-distance travel of LDS gods

[Guest]

Tobin,

You should be thanking Gadianton about now. He has worked very hard to help you understand some very basic science. He has done an excellent job. And I think you are making progress as well. Not far to go from here.

Actually Tobin is simply lightyears away from understanding. I just finished reading Krauss, "A Universe From Nothing," a VERY necessary read for the very most updated current understanding of the Cosmos. A MUST read, assuming we are serious in trying to understand our home here in the universe.

A Universe from Nothing : Why There is Something Instead of Nothing is one of a number of well written books by scientists interested in making cosmology, and cutting edge science in general, accessible to the general public. I rate it right up alongside Brian Greene's books such as The Elegant Universe and the The Hidden Reality.

Genesis and Kolob Cosmology just can't compete.

Sadly, I must agree about Tobin. His description of Schroedinger's poor dead dog having been laid low by a single radioactive particle was nothing short of astonishing.

It is pretty clear that, in spite of (or more likely because of) all the material he is gleaning from his creationist and weird science (pseudoscience) websites, he hasn't a clue regarding Schroedinger's classic thought experiment, quantum mechanics itself, or indeed the biological effects of ionizing radiation.

As has been mentioned earlier on this thread, Tobin does make a great foil.

After his claims regarding the Schroedinger dog, I was half expecting him to come back and say that he has just been having some fun pulling other folk's chains. Perhaps he will yet do so.

[_Tobin]

It is pretty clear that, in spite of (or more likely because of) all the material he is gleaning from his creationist and weird science (pseudoscience) websites, he hasn't a clue regarding Schroedinger's classic thought experiment, quantum mechanics itself, or indeed the biological effects of ionizing radiation.

Well, despite your opinion which I don't care the slightest about nor value, Schrödinger's cat was to be killed by a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. And there is the fact I was never asked directly about it by anyone I don't have on ignore, so if someone mentioned it and I'm ignoring them - well, that is probably why I never responded to the question. And DrW, I will ignore you if you continue in launching personal attacks on me. I don't have to put up with that and am more than happy to do so.

[Guest]

It is pretty clear that, in spite of (or more likely because of) all the material he is gleaning from his creationist and weird science (pseudoscience) websites, he hasn't a clue regarding Schroedinger's classic thought experiment, quantum mechanics itself, or indeed the biological effects of ionizing radiation.

Well, despite your opinion which I don't care the slightest about nor value, Schrödinger's cat was to be killed by a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. And there is the fact I was never asked directly about it by anyone I don't have on ignore, so if someone mentioned it and I'm ignoring them - well, that is probably why I never responded to the question. And DrW, I will ignore you if you continue in launching personal attacks on me. I don't have to put up with that and am more than happy to do so.

I don't have to put up with that and am more than happy to do so.

Pointing out the obvious by using examples from your own writing is not a personal attack.

This is a personal attack:

That is why DrW is full of gas.

[_Ceeboo]

Tobin and DrW,

Need I remind you that Rockslider and Stormy are watching!

Careful!


Peace,
Ceeboo

[_DrW]

Tobin and DrW,

Need I remind you that Rockslider and Stormy are watching!

Careful!


Peace,
Ceeboo

Thanks for the reminder, Ceeboo.

(It is the middle of the night here, so I assumed they were sleeping.)

[_Gadianton]

Long story short for now due to time. Some good input here from others. Anyway, I think I see two issues more clearly from Tobin's angle.

1) Causality. I believe Tobin demands causality to equate to strict determinism, and since QM contradicts the strongest expressions of determinism, I'd give a pass here as distinguishing the two isn't obvious and some philosophers may even argue that they can't be distinguished. But unfortunately, he brought retro-causation into the discussion and argued passionately for it, however, misunderstanding the idea, along with all the experiments associated with the idea that he has studied, to mean "randomness", but such randomness if it undermines causality, also undermines retro-causality, and all the theoretical propositions for retro-causality "backward in time" suggestions that have been made to fill in theoretical gaps, propositions that could one day be exploited for superluminal communication, time travel, etc. In other words, Tobin must pick between belief in retrocausality and it's uses for Gods communicating etc. and QM as pure randomness, which will undermine that possibility.

2) On the macro world. Tobin's example of the cat experiment where the radioactive material kills a dog rather than a cat, I think what he's saying that "there's a tiny quantum probability that the cat disappeared from the box and a dog appeared" or that a ball rolls uphill was the other example. The waveform of a dog could be defracted through a slit, right? Well, If I recall correctly, a small, green physics book a friend of mine at college had for his QM class had a childish drawing on the first page of a guy in a car in front of his closed garage (I think) and stated that if he ran into the garage door enough times, there is a probability he'd pop right into his garage. Well, this idea doesn't have anything to do with the pros and cons for superluminal communication or people exploiting QM for the macro world, but I think is what Tobin is refering to when arguing for one consistent rules where only QM applies, and this further hooks into his ideas about QM as randomness. If others have thoughts here, i'd like to hear them. I've got to get going, but will work up a response in the back of my mind in the mean time.

sorry tobin, didn't mean to reference you as a third party, i'm pressed for time and thisi is just how it came out trying to pack it all in a couple points.

[_Res Ipsa]

Ahh, I think I'm getting it better. Are you saying that, in realm of classical physics, there is no such thing as random? In other words, if you had sufficient information, you could predict the outcome of the slot machine every time I pulled the handle?

Yes.

Having noodled this some more, I think I've put my finger on what's bugging me about your conception of cause and effect. If I understand you correctly, you see cause and effect as requiring the ability to predict the effect before the cause occurs. Or, to put it another way, predictability is a necessary component of causation.

I don't see it that way. I think the simplest form of causation is what we call "but-for" causation: A is a cause of B if B would not have occurred but for A. Back to the cat, the cat would not have died but for the emission of the subatomic particle. Therefore, the emission of the particle is the cause of A. In my view, this relationship has nothing to do with whether I have the ability to predict the results of A before A happens. I can determine the causal relationship after A and B both occur.

[_Res Ipsa]

<snip>



1) Causality. I believe Tobin demands causality to equate to strict determinism, and since QM contradicts the strongest expressions of determinism, I'd give a pass here as distinguishing the two isn't obvious and some philosophers may even argue that they can't be distinguished. But unfortunately, he brought retro-causation into the discussion and argued passionately for it, however, misunderstanding the idea, along with all the experiments associated with the idea that he has studied, to mean "randomness", but such randomness if it undermines causality, also undermines retro-causality, and all the theoretical propositions for retro-causality "backward in time" suggestions that have been made to fill in theoretical gaps, propositions that could one day be exploited for superluminal communication, time travel, etc. In other words, Tobin must pick between belief in retrocausality and it's uses for Gods communicating etc. and QM as pure randomness, which will undermine that possibility.

<snip>

I agree with this. I think the focus on randomness actually detracts from the argument that retrocausality is possible. I think Tobin's argument would be stronger (and more interesting) if he set that aside and focussed on the potential for retrocausation.

But, heck, it's his argument.

[_Ceeboo]

Does the cat have to die?

Really people!


Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Res Ipsa]

Does the cat have to die?

Really people!


Peace,
Ceeboo

Dear Ceeboo,

No, the cat doesn't have to die. Just don't open the box.

Your friend,

Brad