Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
[Poll]

The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity


I watched. Sign me up for the SFTSOC.
  0% (0)
I watched. Interesting. I'd like to see more.
  46% (7)
I don't have to watch. I support the SFTSOC.
  0% (0)
I don't have to watch. Fuck the SFTSOC.
  53% (8)


Total Votes : 15
(last vote on : 4/23/2013 2:03:36 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/23/2013 8:13:25 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		I would not accept it, this being the internet.  

Regarding quantum entanglement, near as I know, it is still a statistical measurement, that seems to have a bias.  I do not follow the profound vagueness in the articles.

http://newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2012/08/11/175-Quantum-teleportation-used-to-beam-a-single-photon-97km.html

This produces a pair of photons with the same wavelength, but opposite (and unknown) polarization values.

^^^^^^^^^^ see?  this came out of that article, now how can that be? Violates Maxwells equations, they should have each 1/2 the wavelength, where did the energy come from?

Now, the uncertainty principle, how can they know the distance, AND the momentum simultaneously?

I vote for fucked up clocks, and nobody can see how that can be yet, somehow. 

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 81
RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/23/2013 8:18:14 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Interesting. But it is still millimeter sized crystals at millimetric distances. It still doesn't support psi which still requires interaction at much greater distances. Also keep in mind QE always means the two things have opposite states which means it cannot be what youthink it could be.

Entanglement is theoretically independent of distance, and has been demonstrated at kilometer ranges:
    Here we experimentally demonstrate entanglement-based quantum key distribution over 144 km ~Nature Physics







                  after reading the article on the crystals it is clear that in macro objects other factors affect the objects long before they can be seperated by a great distance.
                quote:

                Your observation about opposite states may or may not be relevant. The collapse into opposite states only happens upon measurment. Prior to collapse, the two systems would be in identical non-coincidental states of quantum coherence.
                  Quantum coherence, or superposition, between different states is one of the main features of quantum systems... [and] has triggered a surge of interest into the relationship between quantum coherence and biological function. ~Nature

                You really don't understand uncertainty.

                All quanta are always in an indeterminate state until observed. When entangled quanta are finally observed they always have opposite states that is what QE means.

                (in reply to Kirata)
                Profile   Post #: 82
                RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/23/2013 8:22:52 AM   
                mnottertail


                Posts: 60698
                Joined: 11/3/2004
                Status: offline                 		Agreed, it has little to do with causality.  The law is the law.  Unless you are mashing a bunch of megatons of atomic bombs into the equations, nothing is going to change about that.  Nobody has the energy. 

                _____________________________

                Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


                (in reply to DomKen)
                Profile   Post #: 83
                RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/23/2013 8:30:12 AM   
                DomKen


                Posts: 19457
                Joined: 7/4/2004
                From: Chicago, IL
                Status: offline
                quote:

                ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

                quote:

                ORIGINAL: DomKen
                quote:

                ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
                quote:

                ORIGINAL: DomKen
                Something for which there is no positive evidence and all the laws of physics say cannot be does not strike me as something that could be. however if you want every phrase of mine to be absolutely correct "However back in reality mystical claptrap remains not science and not observed ever by anyone." Happy?

                Not really. How is it that you claim it's never been observed by anyone? Did we not see things prior to understanding them? One of the most basics of science is seeing something and trying to figure out why. Not being able to figure out why doesn't mean it doesn't happen, especially since it's been observed.

                Please provide the measurements and other data supporting your claim that some supernatural event has been observed.


                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Lines_flight_1628_incident

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal



                An unidentified object is not supernatural. As a matter of fact the UA flight that checked out the supposed encounter saw nothing. Although there has been speculation that the radar return was from a test flight of a stealth aircraft.

                The Wow! signal was a radio frequency signal and clearly was not supernatral in origin. It has numerous possible natural causes and it could have been a radio signal from another civilization, as unlikely as that may be.

                (in reply to DesideriScuri)
                Profile   Post #: 84
                RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/23/2013 8:32:48 AM   
                DomKen


                Posts: 19457
                Joined: 7/4/2004
                From: Chicago, IL
                Status: offline
                quote:

                ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
                I'm not calling for religious explanations to be ruled in as science, but that they not be totally ruled out.

                Science cannot deal in the supernatural. Science must assume that observations are repeatable and not subject to the whims of some entity not subject to the "laws of nature."

                However it is important to keep in mind that no observation has ever been made that hinted at such interference.

                (in reply to DesideriScuri)
                Profile   Post #: 85
                RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/23/2013 8:35:37 AM   
                DomKen


                Posts: 19457
                Joined: 7/4/2004
                From: Chicago, IL
                Status: offline
                quote:

                ORIGINAL: mnottertail

                I would not accept it, this being the internet.  

                Regarding quantum entanglement, near as I know, it is still a statistical measurement, that seems to have a bias.  I do not follow the profound vagueness in the articles.

                http://newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2012/08/11/175-Quantum-teleportation-used-to-beam-a-single-photon-97km.html

                This produces a pair of photons with the same wavelength, but opposite (and unknown) polarization values.

                ^^^^^^^^^^ see?  this came out of that article, now how can that be? Violates Maxwells equations, they should have each 1/2 the wavelength, where did the energy come from?

                Now, the uncertainty principle, how can they know the distance, AND the momentum simultaneously?

                I vote for fucked up clocks, and nobody can see how that can be yet, somehow. 

                QE is required by the math underlying QM. The uncertainty principle absolutely requires that QE be real. The problem is that non physicists have got hold of the idea and tried to make it into a lot more than it is.

                (in reply to mnottertail)
                Profile   Post #: 86
                RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/23/2013 9:04:37 AM   
                GotSteel


                Posts: 5871
                Joined: 2/19/2008
                Status: offline
                quote:

                ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

                quote:

                ORIGINAL: DomKen
                quote:

                ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
                quote:

                ORIGINAL: DomKen
                Something for which there is no positive evidence and all the laws of physics say cannot be does not strike me as something that could be. however if you want every phrase of mine to be absolutely correct "However back in reality mystical claptrap remains not science and not observed ever by anyone." Happy?

                Not really. How is it that you claim it's never been observed by anyone? Did we not see things prior to understanding them? One of the most basics of science is seeing something and trying to figure out why. Not being able to figure out why doesn't mean it doesn't happen, especially since it's been observed.

                Please provide the measurements and other data supporting your claim that some supernatural event has been observed.


                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Lines_flight_1628_incident

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal


                And there's the conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo.

                (in reply to DesideriScuri)
                Profile   Post #: 87
                RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/23/2013 9:20:46 AM   
                Kirata


                Posts: 15477
                Joined: 2/11/2006
                From: USA
                Status: offline
                quote:

                ORIGINAL: mnottertail

                Agreed, it has little to do with causality. The law is the law. Unless you are mashing a bunch of megatons of atomic bombs into the equations, nothing is going to change about that. Nobody has the energy.

                For one thing to cause another would require some force and method of action. I don't think anybody in the field thinks Psi is a causal phenomenon in that strict sense, any more than anyone thinks that the collapse of the wave function of one entangled photon "causes" the other one to collapse in the strict sense of a force and method of action. That it happens is the weirdness. It is, however, a predicted weirdness. With Psi, there's no theory or mathematics that predict the correlations being observed. They're there, and they're replicable, but beyond some speculative hypotheses nobody has a clue why.

                K.




                < Message edited by Kirata -- 4/23/2013 9:29:45 AM >

                (in reply to mnottertail)
                Profile   Post #: 88
                RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/23/2013 9:49:09 AM   
                mnottertail


                Posts: 60698
                Joined: 11/3/2004
                Status: offline
                quote:

                ORIGINAL: Kirata


                quote:

                ORIGINAL: mnottertail

                Agreed, it has little to do with causality. The law is the law. Unless you are mashing a bunch of megatons of atomic bombs into the equations, nothing is going to change about that. Nobody has the energy.

                For one thing to cause another would require some force and method of action. I don't think anybody in the field thinks Psi is a causal phenomenon in that strict sense, any more than anyone thinks that the collapse of the wave function of one entangled photon "causes" the other one to collapse in the strict sense of a force and method of action. That it happens is the weirdness. It is, however, a predicted weirdness. With Psi, there's no theory or mathematics that predict the correlations being observed. They're there, and they're replicable, but beyond some speculative hypotheses nobody has a clue why.

                K.





                And to some extent, I will agree with this, and I actually buy into much of Psi, because, after all, we are a collection of choices.  And until that choice is made, nothing happens. 

                _____________________________

                Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


                (in reply to Kirata)
                Profile   Post #: 89
                RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/23/2013 10:01:51 AM   
                DomKen


                Posts: 19457
                Joined: 7/4/2004
                From: Chicago, IL
                Status: offline
                quote:

                ORIGINAL: Kirata


                quote:

                ORIGINAL: mnottertail

                Agreed, it has little to do with causality. The law is the law. Unless you are mashing a bunch of megatons of atomic bombs into the equations, nothing is going to change about that. Nobody has the energy.

                For one thing to cause another would require some force and method of action. I don't think anybody in the field thinks Psi is a causal phenomenon in that strict sense, any more than anyone thinks that the collapse of the wave function of one entangled photon "causes" the other one to collapse in the strict sense of a force and method of action. That it happens is the weirdness. It is, however, a predicted weirdness. With Psi, there's no theory or mathematics that predict the correlations being observed. They're there, and they're replicable, but beyond some speculative hypotheses nobody has a clue why.

                I should know better but where are you getting the claim that these observations and/or experiments are replicable? Who published and where?

                (in reply to Kirata)
                Profile   Post #: 90
                RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/23/2013 10:05:55 AM   
                DomKen


                Posts: 19457
                Joined: 7/4/2004
                From: Chicago, IL
                Status: offline
                quote:

                ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

                quote:

                ORIGINAL: DomKen
                quote:

                ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
                quote:

                ORIGINAL: DomKen
                Something for which there is no positive evidence and all the laws of physics say cannot be does not strike me as something that could be. however if you want every phrase of mine to be absolutely correct "However back in reality mystical claptrap remains not science and not observed ever by anyone." Happy?

                Not really. How is it that you claim it's never been observed by anyone? Did we not see things prior to understanding them? One of the most basics of science is seeing something and trying to figure out why. Not being able to figure out why doesn't mean it doesn't happen, especially since it's been observed.

                Please provide the measurements and other data supporting your claim that some supernatural event has been observed.


                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Lines_flight_1628_incident

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal

                Went out to run an errand and this reponse kept bothering me.

                Unexplained does not equal unexplainable nor does it equal supernatural.

                An observation that could be the result of supernatural action would be something where energy/mass was added to or remove from the system by no discoverable means and that did not reliably reoccur. Once all variables were accounted for and the measurements triple checked then there would be a reason to speculate that some occurence wa "not of this world."

                (in reply to DesideriScuri)
                Profile   Post #: 91
                RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/23/2013 11:17:24 AM   
                DesideriScuri


                Posts: 12225
                Joined: 1/18/2012
                Status: offline
                quote:

                ORIGINAL: GotSteel
                quote:

                ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Lines_flight_1628_incident
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal

                And there's the conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo.


                Where is there a conspiracy in either of those?


                _____________________________

                What I support:

                • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
                • Personal Responsibility
                • Help for the truly needy
                • Limited Government
                • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

                (in reply to GotSteel)
                Profile   Post #: 92
                RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/23/2013 11:23:15 AM   
                DesideriScuri


                Posts: 12225
                Joined: 1/18/2012
                Status: offline
                quote:

                ORIGINAL: DomKen
                quote:

                ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
                quote:

                ORIGINAL: DomKen
                quote:

                ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
                quote:

                ORIGINAL: DomKen
                Something for which there is no positive evidence and all the laws of physics say cannot be does not strike me as something that could be. however if you want every phrase of mine to be absolutely correct "However back in reality mystical claptrap remains not science and not observed ever by anyone." Happy?

                Not really. How is it that you claim it's never been observed by anyone? Did we not see things prior to understanding them? One of the most basics of science is seeing something and trying to figure out why. Not being able to figure out why doesn't mean it doesn't happen, especially since it's been observed.

                Please provide the measurements and other data supporting your claim that some supernatural event has been observed.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Lines_flight_1628_incident
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal

                Went out to run an errand and this reponse kept bothering me.
                Unexplained does not equal unexplainable nor does it equal supernatural.
                An observation that could be the result of supernatural action would be something where energy/mass was added to or remove from the system by no discoverable means and that did not reliably reoccur. Once all variables were accounted for and the measurements triple checked then there would be a reason to speculate that some occurence wa "not of this world."


                Unexplained does not mean unexplainable nor does it equal supernatural.

                I completely agree with both assertions.

                How do you differentiate between the inexplicable and the supernatural? Nevermind. I already know the answer. You ignore the supernatural and start to figure out how to explain the inexplicable.


                _____________________________

                What I support:

                • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
                • Personal Responsibility
                • Help for the truly needy
                • Limited Government
                • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

                (in reply to DomKen)
                Profile   Post #: 93
                RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/23/2013 11:53:32 AM   
                DomKen


                Posts: 19457
                Joined: 7/4/2004
                From: Chicago, IL
                Status: offline
                quote:

                ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

                quote:

                ORIGINAL: DomKen
                quote:

                ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
                quote:

                ORIGINAL: DomKen
                quote:

                ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
                quote:

                ORIGINAL: DomKen
                Something for which there is no positive evidence and all the laws of physics say cannot be does not strike me as something that could be. however if you want every phrase of mine to be absolutely correct "However back in reality mystical claptrap remains not science and not observed ever by anyone." Happy?

                Not really. How is it that you claim it's never been observed by anyone? Did we not see things prior to understanding them? One of the most basics of science is seeing something and trying to figure out why. Not being able to figure out why doesn't mean it doesn't happen, especially since it's been observed.

                Please provide the measurements and other data supporting your claim that some supernatural event has been observed.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Lines_flight_1628_incident
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal

                Went out to run an errand and this reponse kept bothering me.
                Unexplained does not equal unexplainable nor does it equal supernatural.
                An observation that could be the result of supernatural action would be something where energy/mass was added to or remove from the system by no discoverable means and that did not reliably reoccur. Once all variables were accounted for and the measurements triple checked then there would be a reason to speculate that some occurence wa "not of this world."


                Unexplained does not mean unexplainable nor does it equal supernatural.

                I completely agree with both assertions.

                How do you differentiate between the inexplicable and the supernatural? Nevermind. I already know the answer. You ignore the supernatural and start to figure out how to explain the inexplicable.


                How about start with the assumption that whatever observation is not supernatural and attempt to explain it. If after exhaustive study the phenomena remains inexplicable then maybe it is supernatural in origin.

                (in reply to DesideriScuri)
                Profile   Post #: 94
                RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/23/2013 1:03:47 PM   
                DomKen


                Posts: 19457
                Joined: 7/4/2004
                From: Chicago, IL
                Status: offline                 		This is why belief in woo is dangerous
                http://www.salon.com/2013/04/23/second_child_of_doctor_shunning_parents_dies_ap/

                (in reply to DomKen)
                Profile   Post #: 95
                RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/23/2013 1:16:25 PM   
                DesideriScuri


                Posts: 12225
                Joined: 1/18/2012
                Status: offline
                quote:

                ORIGINAL: DomKen
                How about start with the assumption that whatever observation is not supernatural and attempt to explain it. If after exhaustive study the phenomena remains inexplicable then maybe it is supernatural in origin.


                I have no problem with that, either.


                _____________________________

                What I support:

                • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
                • Personal Responsibility
                • Help for the truly needy
                • Limited Government
                • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

                (in reply to DomKen)
                Profile   Post #: 96
                RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/23/2013 1:31:36 PM   
                vincentML


                Posts: 9980
                Joined: 10/31/2009
                Status: offline
                quote:

                With Psi, there's no theory or mathematics that predict the correlations being observed. They're there, and they're replicable, but beyond some speculative hypotheses nobody has a clue why.

                Right. It will be difficult to accept unless someone comes up with falsifiable hypothesis as to how (why, whichever) Even particle entanglement will be tested as to how/why. You may question why entanglement is already accepted and extention is not [I predict you will] Maybe because one arose within as an anomaly within an already established discipline.

                This behavior is consistent with quantum-mechanical theory, has been demonstrated experimentally, and it is accepted by the physics community.[citation needed] However there is some debate[12] about whether a possible classical underlying mechanism could explain why this correlation occurs instantaneously even when the separation distance is large. The difference in opinion derives from espousal of various interpretations of quantum mechanics.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement


                The physicists in Vienna report not a new effect, but a deep investigation into one of the most fundamental phenomena of quantum physics, known as 'entanglement.' The effect of quantum entanglement is amazing: when measuring a quantum object that has an entangled partner, the state of the one particle depends on measurements performed on the partner. Quantum theory describes entanglement as independent of any physical separation between the particles. That is, entanglement should also be observed when the two particles are sufficiently far apart from each other that, even in principle, no information can be exchanged between them (the speed of communication is fundamentally limited by the speed of light). Testing such predictions regarding the correlations between entangled quantum particles is, however, a major experimental challenge.
                Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-04-photons-loopholes.html#jCp

                Interesting and rewarding stuff, all this. Makes my brain hummmmmm.

                (in reply to Kirata)
                Profile   Post #: 97
                RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/23/2013 1:32:45 PM   
                FunCouple5280


                Posts: 559
                Joined: 10/30/2012
                Status: offline
                quote:

                ORIGINAL: DomKen

                This is why belief in woo is dangerous
                http://www.salon.com/2013/04/23/second_child_of_doctor_shunning_parents_dies_ap/



                I disagree.... We need to permit it. From a Darwinistic standpoint, it cleanses the gene pool of idiots. Pray yourself to the grave, in fact, the faster you do it the better.

                (in reply to DomKen)
                Profile   Post #: 98
                RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/23/2013 1:36:32 PM   
                GotSteel


                Posts: 5871
                Joined: 2/19/2008
                Status: offline
                quote:

                ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
                How do you differentiate between the inexplicable and the supernatural?


                Real things don't get called supernatural. The label supernatural is a dumping ground for magical thinking. The portion of our civilization that actually figures out how things work (instead of just making stuff up) will not label phenomenon supernatural, just plain won't do it.

                When we found particles operating in violation of the known laws of physics we didn't label that supernatural and call that field of study meta physics. The natural word view expended to encompass that phenomenon and we call it quantum physics.

                We can actually turn lead into gold now, but we don't say that's supernatural and we don't call that alchemy. Try calling a physicist working at a particle accelerator an alchemist and you should rightly expect to get laughed at.

                The label supernatural isn't for real things, it's a dumping ground for magical thinking and the proponents of the supernatural generally have to rely on conspiracy theories to excuse the failure of their ideas to pan out.

                (in reply to DesideriScuri)
                Profile   Post #: 99
                RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/23/2013 1:50:06 PM   
                DomKen


                Posts: 19457
                Joined: 7/4/2004
                From: Chicago, IL
                Status: offline
                quote:

                ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280


                quote:

                ORIGINAL: DomKen

                This is why belief in woo is dangerous
                http://www.salon.com/2013/04/23/second_child_of_doctor_shunning_parents_dies_ap/



                I disagree.... We need to permit it. From a Darwinistic standpoint, it cleanses the gene pool of idiots. Pray yourself to the grave, in fact, the faster you do it the better.

                If the believers prayed themselves into early graves I wouldn't care but these "parents" killed 2 of their children.

                (in reply to FunCouple5280)
                Profile   Post #: 100
                Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
                All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
                Jump to:





                New Messages No New Messages
                Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
                Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
                 Post New Thread
                 Reply to Message
                 Post New Poll
                 Submit Vote
                 Delete My Own Post
                 Delete My Own Thread
                 Rate Posts




                Collarchat.com © 2025
                Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

                0.094