Science writer: Many Worlds (quantum multiverse) as a fantasy, verging on nihilism

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 18, 2015

Culture, Multiverse, News, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Many worlds:The Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics holds that there are many worlds which exist in parallel at the same space and time as our own. The existence of the other worlds makes it possible to remove randomness and action at a distance from quantum theory and thus from all physics. – Stanford Plato

Philip Ball, a British physicist turned science writer, reflects at Aeon on who loves the Many Worlds notion and why:

In any event, both ideas display a discomfort with arbitrariness in the universe, and both stem from
the same human impulse that invents fictional fantasies about parallel worlds and that enjoys
speculating about counterfactual histories.

Which is why, if I call these ideas fantasies, it is not to deride or dismiss them but to keep in view the fact that, beneath their apparel of scientific equations or symbolic logic, they are acts of imagination, of ‘just supposing’. But when taken to the extreme, they become a kind of nihilism: if you believe everything then you believe nothing. The MWI allows – perhaps insists – not just on our having cosily familial ‘quantum brothers’ but on worlds where gods, magic and miracles exist and where science is inevitably (if rarely) violated by chance breakdowns of the usual statistical regularities of physics.

Certainly, to say that the world(s) surely can’t be that weird is no objection at all; Many Worlders harp on about this complaint precisely because it is so easily dismissed. MWI doesn’t, though, imply that things really are weirder than we thought; it denies us any way of saying anything, because it entails saying (and doing) everything else too, while at the same time removing the ‘you’ who says it. This does not demand broadmindedness, but rather a blind acceptance of ontological incoherence.

That its supporters refuse to engage in any depth with the questions the MWI poses about the ontology and autonomy of self is lamentable. But this is (speaking as an ex-physicist) very much a physicist’s blind spot: a failure to recognise – or perhaps to care – that problems arising at a level beyond that of the fundamental, abstract theory can be anything more than a minor inconvenience. If the MWI were supported by some sound science, we would have to deal with it – and to do so with more seriousness than the merry invention of Doppelgängers to measure both quantum states of a photon. But it is not. It is grounded in a halfbaked philosophical argument about a preference to simplify the axioms. More.

By all means, read the whole thing. One of the best reflective pieces on the subject to come along in years.

Couple thoughts:

Although Philip Ball seems to think Many Worlds got started to solve a problem in quantum mechanics, there is reason to believe that it has an enormous philosophical appeal anyway to post-empirical types in science, who have no use for concepts like falsifiability or Occam’s razor.

Science is actually only an ornament, a trinket, in Many Worlds/multiverse reasoning. Sages sitting on a riverbank 2500 years ago could come up with the same sorts of ideas, and the same amount of evidence.

Today it could hardly matter less that there is no evidence for these Many Worlds. Evidence is just not hot any more.

See also: As if the multiverse wasn’t bizarre enough …meet Many Worlds

But who needs reality-based thinking anyway? Not the new cosmologists

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Sparc I never even brought up descent with modification , as I don't really believe in it anymore. What I am talking about is the shroud of turin. Maybe your an evolutionist but I no longer am. I was one 6 years ago and defended it vehemently on forums until I looked deeper and thanks to doctor stephen meyer I have changed my mind ;) I was just over at the sand walk blog to see that Diogenes had fled there with his tail between his legs on the shroud of turin discussion we had here, and I see that even there Diogenes couldn't give a rational defense against the evidences that were brought up in this thread, instead they engaged in an orgy of ridicule against it. I guess he was looking for some consolation lolwallstreeter43_{March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT}

Wallstreeter, my question was on the blood group of the stains on the shroud. How could they have been AB? Of course you could argue that the mother was AB. However, how could this be inherited to the son? In case the son would have been haploid or became diploid through duplication of a single haploid set of chromosomes inherited from his mother this would be impossible. He would have been either A or B. Alternatively, one may argue that the blood donor inherited both chromosome sets from his mother through automictic or apomictic parthenogenesis, respectively. However, these would have included the gonosomes (2X). As you point out there are cases of 46,XX males. However, since no contribution male DNA is supposed to have happened in this case there was no male SRY gene (AMELY) available to produce the genotype you assume. If the mother would have had the same genotype she must have been phenotypically male as well with the consequence that she/he couldn't have become pregnant in the first place. However, the phenotype may only display w weak penetrance and I do admit that there are cases of 46,XX males caused by mutations near one allele of the SOX3 gene. Thus, it would in principle be possible that the blood donor's genotype was caused by parthenogenesis and an additional mutation in the SRY region affecting the SOX3 gene. Be this as it may be I do appreciate that you consider descent with modification as the underlying mechanism in this case however unlikely it may appear.sparc_{February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT}

Skram , of course u don't care about the shroud. U probably don't care about God either right ;)wallstreeter43_{February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

Sparc fascinating stuff, thanks for bringing this up .I remember frank tipler mentioning something like this before but only glanced at it briefly , but did a little googling and found something I think u would find extremely interesting . http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/11/physics-of-christianity-frank-tipler-on.html """"There follows an extensive discursus on the phenomenon of parthenogenesis (literally, from the Greek, "virgin birth") in animals as well as in humans. (Yes, I said humans---Prof. Tipler cites the scientific references.) Then he stakes his claim: I propose that Jesus was a special type of XX male, a type that is quite rare in humans but extensively studied [footnote omitted]. Approximately 1 out of every 20,000 human males is an XX male. . . . An XX male results when a single key gene for maleness on the Y chromosome (the SRY gene) is inserted into an X chromosome. One possibility is that all (or at least many) of the Y chromosome genes were inserted into one of Mary's X chromosomes and that, in her, one of the standard mechanisms used to turn off genes was active on these inserted Y genes. (There is an RNA process that can turn off an entire X chromosome. This is the most elegant turnoff mechanism.) Jesus would then have resulted when one of Mary's eggs started to divide before it became haploid and with the Y genes activated (and, of course, with the extra X genes deactivated). . . . I hope I have quoted enough here to enable qualified geneticists to ascertain the basis of Professor Tipler's claim to have an explanation for the Virgin Birth of Jesus. As I understand it, the genetics of Jesus would have marked him as an unusually rare male of the species, and if we could somehow have access to a blood sample, we could determine whether or not Professor Tipler's theory was correct. And to give him his due, Prof. Tipler states as much: If a sample of Jesus' blood and/or flesh could be obtained, my proposal could easily be tested by carrying out two distinct DNA tests for sex: (1) test for the Y genes and (2) test for the two alleles (different gene forms) of X chromosome genes. In other words, a male born of a virgin would have two X chromosome genes for each of its counterpart Y genes. Normal males would only have one X chromosome gene for each Y counterpart gene. This pairing would apply to each of the thirteen genes on the Y chromosome that has an X counterpart. The odds of such a "virgin birth" would truly be fantastic, as Professor Tipler calculates here: Such a virgin birth would be improbable. If the measured probability that a single Y gene is inserted into an X chromosome is 1 in 20,000, then the probability that all Y genes are inserted into an X chromosome is 1/20,000 raised to the 28th power, the power corresponding to the number of Y genes. (Assuming that the insertion of each Y gene has equal probability and that these insertions are independent.) There have been only about 100 billion humans born since behaviorally modern Homo sapiens evolved . . . . Thus, the virgin birth of such an XX male would be unique in human history even if there were only two such Y genes inserted into an X chromosome. (I assume an upper bound to the rate of virgin birth is 1/300. Then the probability of a virgin birth of a male with 2 Y genes is 1/[300][20,000][20,000] = 1/120 billion.) But . . . if such an event had to occur [for God to exist according to physical laws that have shown themselves thus far as true], then the Virgin Birth probability would become 1; that is, certain to occur. In other words, it would be a miracle! But how can we today test the evidence available to us for proof of such a birth occurring more than 2,000 years ago? The answer, according to Professor Tipler (and a growing number of scientists), is to conduct scientific analysis on the bloodstains that allegedly were left on two pieces of cloth that are claimed to have enshrouded the body of Jesus as laid in the tomb outside of Jerusalem. The principal cloth, used to wrap his body, was the Shroud of Turin, and the second cloth was one that was put over his face, and called today the Sudarium of Oviedo. Note that they have entirely independent histories, and repose in two different places. The age of the cloth of the Shroud has supposedly been established by radiocarbon analysis as dating from the 14th century, but Professor Tipler provides an exhaustive review (based on the physics with which he is most familiar) as to why that dating is most probably wrong. And indeed, as he shows from the available scientific evidence, the correlation in the location and type of bloodstains between the two cloths establishes a strong possibility that they once covered the same corpse. Given that the Oviedo cloth is known to have existed as of about 1000 A.D. ---four centuries or so before the "known" dating of the Shroud according to radiocarbon decay analysis, the accuracy of the latter is called into question. However, this conclusion---that the Shroud of Turin and the Oviedo Sudarium are intimately related---is almost trifling compared to where Professor Tipler goes next. Scientist that he is, he asks whether anyone has conducted a DNA analysis of the bloodstains on the two cloths, to determine whether (a) the cloths have the same DNA imprint, and so are unquestionably related, but (b) whether it is possible, from the analyses that have been conducted and reported in the literature, to ascertain whether, assuming that the blood on both cloths was that of the crucified Jesus, its genetic profile was consistent with his hypothesis of an unusual (i.e., miraculous) XX male birth. It turns out, as Professor Tipler reports, that DNA analyses have been conducted of both the bloodstains on the Turin Shroud and on the Oviedo Sudarium: In January 1995 a group of Italian researchers, led by Professor Marcello Canale of the Institute of Legal Medicine in Genoa, conducted a DNA analysis of the blood on the Shroud. This group included several workers who had invented the standard DNA test for gender. . . . This group simultaneously tested the blood on the Oviedo Cloth. Imagine his surprise, therefore, when he could not obtain, through the usual library channels, a copy of their published results. Even more, it developed that the results the group had obtained were published in a very non-standard form: . . . The results were published, in Italian, in the very obscure journal devoted to the study of the Turin Shroud. Furthermore, only the raw data were published. That is, the Genoa team published black-and-white Xerox copies of the computer output of the DNA analyzer. This is never, never done. Always, the data are presented in a neat table or figure, and they are accompanied by a discussion of their significance. The Genoa team made no effort to interpret their data. . . . Being the scientist that he is, Frank Tipler went to work on the raw data of the Italians' tests, and reported triumphantly (the italics are in the original): But I was able to interpret the data at once. They are the expected signature of the DNA of a male born in a Virgin Birth! The data are presented in standard tabular form in Tables 7.1 and 7.2. . . . The standard DNA test for sex is the amelogenin test I mentioned earlier. The Italians performed this test, which gave 106 base pairs for the X form of amelogenin and 112 base pairs for the Y form. There is a phenomenon called sputtering, which can cause the actual value obtained to differ by 1 base pair from the expected value. The Turin Shroud data show 107 (106 +1) but no trace of a 112 base pair gene. The Oviedo Cloth data show 105 (106 - 1) but no trace of a 112 base pair. The X chromosome is present, but there is no evidence of a Y chromosome. This is the expected signature of the simplest virgin birth, the XX male generated by an SRY inserted into an X chromosome. It is not what would be expected of a standard male."""" This is one area of shroud study that I'm extremely weak in simply because there is very little research done on this . If this blood analysis and tiplers calculations is true then it shows a virgin birth , but a type of virgin birth that is so rare that it is many magnitudes over the amount of all human beings that have been born in all human history . Whenever I think the shroud surprises me it continually surprises me more . Very good find Sparc :)wallstreeter43_{February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

Sparc, very interesting. KFkairosfocus_{February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
12:49 AM
12
12
49
AM
PDT}

wallstreeter43 on blood stains the Turin shroud:
The first and most obvious coincidence is that the blood on both cloths belongs to the same group, namely AB.
While one allele was from the mother it remains completely unclear where the other allele came from. Remember we are talking about Parthenogenesis here. You may learn more from an older UD thread.sparc_{February 23, 2015
February
02
Feb
23
23
2015
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

wallstreeter43, As I said, I don't care much about the shroud. So there, my friend.skram_{February 22, 2015
February
02
Feb
22
22
2015
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT}

Actually it is nit contradictory because he is trying to hide his worldview behind his science , not from all science and that is why I his atheism is dogmatic and anything that supports his atheism in any way he will latch onto and anything that makes his atheism insecure he will ignore . A real truth seeker isn't afraid to follow the evidence wherever it leads him. A tony flew is on such . Skram thanks , I thought it was an excellent try . Most of the time my primary reason to bring out the shroud is to expose the dogmatism of the atheist not primarily to prove anything ,and I think it was a great try as it did just that . It turns out that Diogenes was the wiser of the 2 . At least he stopped commenting on the shroud and he didn't make any excuses about not studying it . Skram can hide behind his dogmatic little corner but truth doesn't hide and it exposes all that is not of its light :)wallstreeter43_{February 22, 2015
February
02
Feb
22
22
2015
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT}

wallstreeter43 @ 128
A scientist knows that the shroud is the most scientifically studied relic in the world but then again , you have an emotional objection to this don’t u Skram . Good luck on your dogmatic cult my friend , how long u can hide it behind ur science is something only u can answer
Those statements are contradictory. It is science which is trying to establish the authenticity of the Shroud. How can he 'hide it' behind science?Me_Think_{February 22, 2015
February
02
Feb
22
22
2015
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

Good try, wallstreeter43. :)skram_{February 22, 2015
February
02
Feb
22
22
2015
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

Skram since your an atheist and u know that the shroud s the most important relic of Christianity , your answer doesn't wash. , but the truthful answer is that you don't want to know about the shroud Skram . A true scientist would be at least curious about it . Hopefully ur past students aren't watching ur reply because they would be seeing a person that came to his atheism through a very dogmatic emotional window . A scientist knows that the shroud is the most scientifically studied relic in the world but then again , you have an emotional objection to this don't u Skram . Good luck on your dogmatic cult my friend , how long u can hide it behind ur science is something only u can answer . Now even though u didn't give me an honest and wet I'll respect that u want absolutely nothing to do with the shroud , but at least u have the intellect now to discuss it, unlike Diogenes ;)wallstreeter43_{February 22, 2015
February
02
Feb
22
22
2015
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT}

wallstreeter43 @ 109
Me think , fleming never said anything about the 34000 billion. This is from the ENEA experiment which successfully colored linen in the way it was colored on the shroud with the incredible thinness if depth that is on the shroud .
Every one reading this thread knows that. The point is, if both ENEA and Fleming are right, where is Fleming's proof for 34000 billion watts?
Maybe u should pay more attention to BA’s post.
IMO, BA77 has a better understanding of double slit experiment than Fleming! Have you read Fleming's Self Field Theory ? If you have, I am sure you will change your opinion of Fleming.Me_Think_{February 22, 2015
February
02
Feb
22
22
2015
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT}

I don't care much for the shroud, wallstreeter43. Haven't studied the topic, don't have much to say about it. Good enough for ya?skram_{February 22, 2015
February
02
Feb
22
22
2015
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT}

Skram again for the third time why are u avoiding the shroud ? Are u allergic to Linen ? Are you allergic to God. I thought atheists are free thinkers ? Maybe their definition of free thinking is to avoid things that make them uncomfortable with their worldview. Skram I'm a sensitive guy , if the shroud makes u fearful that your worldview of no ultimate meaning, no ultimate purpose , no ultimate value and no ultimate hope is in jeopardy I promise I won't ever bring it up again. Big hug for u skram Deal?wallstreeter43_{February 22, 2015
February
02
Feb
22
22
2015
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT}

wallstreeter43:
So far you have only asserted that he’s a crackpot. Show us by engaging in the argument with him. Until then ur just another big talker .
We're all talkers here, including you. At any rate, the forum links you provided are a bit stale: they are from 2005 and 2007. Try again, junior.skram_{February 22, 2015
February
02
Feb
22
22
2015
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

One doesn't need a PhD in physics to smell the BS in Fleming's writings. In this post he argues that the photon and the graviton are one and the same thing.
In general the various azimuthal modal forms of both kinds of rotation are a possible prerequisite to a discrete or quantum physics. The photon in this case then is a quantum of gravitation just like the photon is also the quantum of electromagnetic energy. The only difference between electromagnetics and gravitation is the differential form of the solution which involves differential electric and magnetic fields for example with respect to radius. So the graviton is nothing other than the photon when it forms the binding energy between conglomerates of atoms. In a sense then even a molecule of hydrogen, forces acting between two dipoles, is a gravitational system.
This is hilariously wrong. These particles are quanta of different fields: electromagnetic and gravitational. They have different internal angular momentum (spin): 1 for a photon, 2 for a graviton. The guy spews a lot of nonsense that even an undergrad majoring in physics can spot from a mile away. Why do you and ba77 like crackpots like him?skram_{February 22, 2015
February
02
Feb
22
22
2015
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

wallstreeter43:
It’s like a professor of embryology saying that a fellow professor is wrong in front if a group of engineer students.
I don't think the comparison is apt. Fleming is not a physicist, he is a general manager in a physics facility.skram_{February 22, 2015
February
02
Feb
22
22
2015
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT}

Strike that last sentence , seems like my ipad spell checker is typing words for me. Skram your opinion on the shroud please , unless ur afraid to talk about it . If so I can understand why as it might shake up ur atheism a bit ;) But a true seeker if truth isn't afraid to follow the evidence to wherever it will lead him. Your firmer high priest Antony foew who converted from atheism cause he no longer found it intellectually tenable said this . Or maybe u hide ur atheism behind ur opinion of physics :)wallstreeter43_{February 22, 2015
February
02
Feb
22
22
2015
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

Skram perfect then , he has a phd in physics as well so when u call him a. Rack pot that's ur opinion . He probably feels the same way aboit u . I'm sure he would find ur science to be crackpottery as well. So if you want to prove it just send him a message on the forum. Until then it's just the opinion of one phd in physics against urs . Right now it's hs opinion against urs still as you both have a phd but it's my guess that u dnt have lots if confidence in your opinion on him, and pointing out an alleged error to me doesn't mean much as I'm not an expert in physics . It's like a professor of embryology saying that a fellow professor is wrong in front if a group of engineer students. So far you have only asserted that he's a crackpot. Show us by engaging in the argument with him. Until then ur just another big talker . And Skram u still avoided my question on ur opinin on the shroud . Why are u afraid of it ? I still smell a whiff of dogmatic e optional atheism behind the science because of your fear of engaging him. Also your opinion not to chase him down is full of it since you are clearly here and this isn't a physics forum or math firum. Your acting exactly as a weasel would act that doesn't want to engage . Spout up or , well, you know the rest .wallstreeter43_{February 22, 2015
February
02
Feb
22
22
2015
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

Man you are touchy with this Krauss guy. Do you know him personally? Regardless of how much you may like him, he is, IMHO, a no-nothing smuck who has deluded himself, because he views himself as smarter than most everybody else, into thinking there is no God. Yet, he can't, with all his education, even account for the advanced mathematics that he (ab)uses to try to disprove there is a God, nor for the fact that his mind is able to comprehend those advanced mathematics in the first place. And since he, if he denies almighty God, can't even account for his primary 'tools' (mathematics and mind) without winding up in epistemological failure then tell me why I, or anybody else, should take his incoherent ramblings against God seriously? You would be better off listening to the Wino on the corner for advise on a coherent philosophy!
"Atheists may do science, but they cannot justify what they do. When they assume the world is rational, approachable, and understandable, they plagiarize Judeo-Christian presuppositions about the nature of reality and the moral need to seek the truth. As an exercise, try generating a philosophy of science from hydrogen coming out of the big bang. It cannot be done. It’s impossible even in principle, because philosophy and science presuppose concepts that are not composed of particles and forces. They refer to ideas that must be true, universal, necessary and certain." Creation-Evolution Headlines An Interview with David Berlinski - Jonathan Witt Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time …. Interviewer:… Come again(?) … Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects. http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/found-upon-web-and-reprinted-here.html The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner - 1960 Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin's process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,, It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind's capacity to divine them.,,, The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html
Indeed the entire atheistic framework is an incoherent mess. I strongly suggest watching Dr. Craig’s following presentation to get a small glimpse for just how insane the metaphysical naturalist’s position actually is.
Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQ 1.) Argument from intentionality 1. If naturalism is true, I cannot think about anything. 2. I am thinking about naturalism. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 2.) The argument from meaning 1. If naturalism is true, no sentence has any meaning. 2. Premise (1) has meaning. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 3.) The argument from truth 1. If naturalism is true, there are no true sentences. 2. Premise (1) is true. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 4.) The argument from moral blame and praise 1. If naturalism is true, I am not morally praiseworthy or blameworthy for any of my actions. 2. I am morally praiseworthy or blameworthy for some of my actions. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 5.) Argument from freedom 1. If naturalism is true, I do not do anything freely. 2. I am free to agree or disagree with premise (1). 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 6.) The argument from purpose 1. If naturalism is true, I do not plan to do anything. 2. I (Dr. Craig) planned to come to tonight's debate. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 7.) The argument from enduring 1. If naturalism is true, I do not endure for two moments of time. 2. I have been sitting here for more than a minute. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 8.) The argument from personal existence 1. If naturalism is true, I do not exist. 2. I do exist! 3. Therefore naturalism is not true.
bornagain77_{February 22, 2015
February
02
Feb
22
22
2015
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

bornagain77:
Hope you aren’t too attached to him, but I’ll let you in on a little secret. Krauss is full of it.
I don't think you have an ability to evaluate Krauss's science, ba77.skram_{February 22, 2015
February
02
Feb
22
22
2015
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

"Krauss’s science is fine.",,, Hope you aren't too attached to him, but I'll let you in on a little secret. Krauss is full of it. A self-promoting pompous little ass who makes mistakes so elementary that first year philosophy students could eat him for lunch. Other than that I'm sure he is a nice guy. :)bornagain77_{February 22, 2015
February
02
Feb
22
22
2015
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

bornagain77, Krauss's science is fine. Fleming's is pure crackpottery.skram_{February 22, 2015
February
02
Feb
22
22
2015
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

Do you think he is as big a crackpot as Lawrence Krauss? Or does Krauss set the standard? 2+2=5? (Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOrlIOm6eGM Not Understanding Nothing A review of A Universe from Nothing by Edward Feser June 2012 A critic might reasonably question the arguments for a divine first cause of the cosmos. But to ask “What caused God?” misses the whole reason classical philosophers thought his existence necessary in the first place. So when physicist Lawrence Krauss begins his new book by suggesting that to ask “Who created the creator?” suffices to dispatch traditional philosophical theology, we know it isn’t going to end well.,,, But Krauss simply can’t see the “difference between arguing in favor of an eternally existing creator versus an eternally existing universe without one.” The difference, as the reader of Aristotle or Aquinas knows, is that the universe changes while the unmoved mover does not, or, as the Neoplatonist can tell you, that the universe is made up of parts while its source is absolutely one; or, as Leibniz could tell you, that the universe is contingent and God absolutely necessary. There is thus a principled reason for regarding God rather than the universe as the terminus of explanation. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/06/not-understanding-nothingbornagain77_{February 22, 2015
February
02
Feb
22
22
2015
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

wallstreeter43:
Skram your assertion that he is a crackpot is just your opinion .. The guy has a phd in ohysics and my guess is that you don’t correct ? So imy guess is that in your own little world you believe that you not having a phd in physics makes u the expert and him a crackpot.
Wrong guess, wallstreeter43. I do have a PhD, and furthermore, I have graduated several students with a PhD. So yes, I have the expertise to evaluate Fleming's musings.
If you were that confident in what ur saying you would jump at the chance to obliterate him on these arguments as it would be quote a feather in ur can being you most likely domt have a phd in physics that you debunked someone of his credential.
Since I do have a PhD in physics, this does not apply to me. I don't chase crackpots, they chase me: my mailbox regularly brings spam from the flemings.
Until then my guess is that your the typical armchair atheist that talks a big game but has nothing if substance to show .
I have already pointed out a couple of silly errors made by Fleming. One is discussing Maxwell's equations in terms of the electric and magnetic fields E and H and mumbling about "gauge." The gauge field, in case you don't know, is A and φ. The curl of the former gives the magnetic field. Fleming does not understand that. No wonder: he isn't a physicist, he is a lab manager.
Your screen name kram fits u appropriately my friend
You have no idea what my screen name means.skram_{February 22, 2015
February
02
Feb
22
22
2015
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

Skram your assertion that he is a crackpot is just your opinion .. The guy has a phd in ohysics and my guess is that you don't correct ? So imy guess is that in your own little world you believe that you not having a phd in physics makes u the expert and him a crackpot. If you were that confident in what ur saying you would jump at the chance to obliterate him on these arguments as it would be quote a feather in ur can being you most likely domt have a phd in physics that you debunked someone of his credential. Until then my guess is that your the typical armchair atheist that talks a big game but has nothing if substance to show . Now if someone were combing through this forum It would be reasonable to think that it is in fact you that is the crackpot and not fleming . The scientists at ENEA as I have shown arr also quite willing to answer ur objections so why. Not send them an email? You also conveniently avoided my question about your opinion on the shroud of turin. Your screen name kram fits u appropriately my friend . God bless :)wallstreeter43_{February 22, 2015
February
02
Feb
22
22
2015
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

wallstreeter43:
Me think , fleming never said anything about the 34000 billion. This is from the ENEA experiment which successfully colored linen in the way it was colored on the shroud with the incredible thinness if depth that is on the shroud .
I am aware of the source. Go ahead and read the original (it's in Italian, sorry). Although the power of radiation is high (megawatts per square centimeter), the duration of the pulses is short (nanoseconds). Feel free to work out the energy involved, it is quite reasonable.skram_{February 22, 2015
February
02
Feb
22
22
2015
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

wallstreeter43, I am not going to chase random crackpots all over the internet. If you want Fleming to defend his silly "theory," by all means have him come here. I am sure he wants to spread the word.skram_{February 22, 2015
February
02
Feb
22
22
2015
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

Skram very deceptive . I never mentioned bringing him hete . I said why it go over there . You seem very sure that u know what yoir talking about Skram so why not go there ? Nice weakling out by the way .wallstreeter43_{February 22, 2015
February
02
Feb
22
22
2015
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

Me think , fleming never said anything about the 34000 billion. This is from the ENEA experiment which successfully colored linen in the way it was colored on the shroud with the incredible thinness if depth that is on the shroud . Maybe u should pay more attention to BA's post. As far as Flemings understanding of the double slit , again why not take him to challenge on the forum where he posts at. I have already posted a link to this forum . You can show us how much more you understand it then he does and gain some recognition for it . One guy already did and he was put in his place . I see lots of armchair responses from the atheists here but nit one with the intellectual integrity to correspond with him directly , gee I wonder why ;) Physics is not my area of expertise , but I do know quite a bit about the shroud . Maybe u can enlighten me on the shroud ? Probably not huh ;)wallstreeter43_{February 22, 2015
February
02
Feb
22
22
2015
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply