Michael Behe muses on design and COVID-19

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 12, 2020

Evolution, Intelligent Design}

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

COVID-19 — *A coronavirus, by CDC/ Alissa Eckert, MS; Dan Higgins, MAM / Public domain.*

He stands by what he wrote on Ebola virus six years ago:

The bottom line is that, while of course the virus is dangerous, the situation can be compared to a strong storm on the ocean. The waves may be huge and the surface roiling, but the deeper waters continue as they always have, essentially undisturbed. In a similar way, although superficially it changes very rapidly, some researchers think that the coronavirus and many other virus types have remained basically the same for tens of millions of years…
So, do I think viruses were designed? Yes, I most certainly do! The viruses of which we are aware — including the coronaviruses, Ebola, and HIV — are exquisitely, purposively arranged, which is the clear signature of intelligent design. Well, then does that mean the designer is evil and wants people to suffer? No, not necessarily. I’m a biochemist, not a philosopher. Nonetheless, I see no reason why a designer even of such things as viruses should be classified as bad on that basis alone.
I started this post with an analogy of a storm on the ocean. Certainly, if we were on a ship in a powerful storm, we might be excused for thinking storms are bad. But in calmer moments we understand that on balance the ocean is very good and that, given an ocean and the laws of nature, storms will arise from time to time. What’s more, we just might get caught in one. In the same way, most viruses do not affect humans and may well have a positive, necessary role to play in nature of which we are currently unaware. (I would bet on it.) From time to time a storm arises in the virosphere and affects humans. But that’s no reason to think either that viruses weren’t designed or that the designer of viruses isn’t good.
Michael Behe, “Evolution, Design, and COVID-19” at Evolution News and Science Today

Ebola six years ago? Ebola six years ago? Behe, M. J. 2014. Evolution and the Ebola virus: Pacing a small cage.

Comments

Bornagain77@ 60 Since you insist on quote-mining, take this quote:
Do we create the world just by looking at it? – 2008 Excerpt: In mid-2007 Fedrizzi found that the new realism model was violated by 80 orders of magnitude; the group was even more assured that quantum mechanics was correct. Leggett agrees with Zeilinger that realism is wrong in quantum mechanics, but when I asked him whether he now believes in the theory, he answered only “no” before demurring, “I’m in a small minority with that point of view and I wouldn’t stake my life on it.” For Leggett there are still enough loopholes to disbelieve. I asked him what could finally change his mind about quantum mechanics. Without hesitation, he said sending humans into space as detectors to test the theory.,,, (to which Anton Zeilinger responded) When I mentioned this to Prof. Zeilinger he said, “That will happen someday. There is no doubt in my mind. It is just a question of technology.” Alessandro Fedrizzi had already shown me a prototype of a realism experiment he is hoping to send up in a satellite. It’s a heavy, metallic slab the size of a dinner plate. http://seedmagazine.com/conten....._tests/P3/
and tell us what you understand "realism" to mean in the context of quantum mechanics. To assist you, I found this discussion:
When physicists doing work in quantum measurement, decoherence, Bells' inequalities etc. use the term "realism" what exactly do they mean? I'm looking for answers targeted towards, say, someone whose had formal education in physics, including multiple years of QM, but is not well versed in the literature in this sub-domain. I see popular accounts of some results in this field describing the conclusions of experiments as, to paraphrase, "disproving realism" and I'm suspicious that physicists are using this term in a localized manner that does not carry with it all of the implications that the term "realism" has in ordinary English. (…) Unfortunately, exactly how you define realism sometimes depends on whether or not you are trying to disprove it. For instance you might label a theory as having realism if measurements passively reveal a preexisting property. And there is a lot to unpack there. First we will review some quantum mechanics. Basically if you measured the z^ component of a spin 1/2 system twice in a row then the second time you will get the same result as you got the first time. The actual state after the first measurement is one that must give that result for that kind of measurement (the z^ component of that spin 1/2 system). You don't have to debate realism for this, it is just what Quantum Mechanics predicts. The state sometimes perfectly and reliably predicts a particular measurement outcome. So lets now discuss another example. First you measure the z^ component of a spin 1/2 system and then instead of doing another z^ measurement you measure the x^ component of the same spin 1/2 system. Now you get a result of ±?/2 but now you can bring realism in since multiple results are predicted. One approach is common if you want to disprove realism. You say that realism means the system that just underwent a measurement of the z^ component of a spin 1/2 system actually has a spin of +?/2 for a x^ component of the spin, or that it has a spin of ??/2 for a x^ component of the spin. And furthermore, that a x^ measurement, if done now, would reveal that property. You need the last part about revealing, since you can't just throw the word actual around without some experimental consequences or else it is meaningless. And now you can argue that realism makes predictions. And they are predictions that disagree with Quantum Mechanics. But that's exactly how you define realism if your goal is to disagree with Quantum Mechanics. If you don't want to disagree with Quantum Mechanics, you can still have realism. You just have to say that measurements change the state of the system rather than passively revealing something. For instance in Bohmian Mechanics they can be realists about position, and then they say that spin measurement outcomes are determined solely by the spin state of the system, the type and calibration of device used, and the position. So someone using Bohmian Mechanics could say they have realism because they were a realist about enough things to totally determine the results (states and position), but they didn't try to be a realist about other things (like components of spin) besides the things that were enough to determine all the results. And no one one should try. Because the results you get for different measurements (e.g. two z^ and an x^) can depend on the order you do them (z^, z^, x^ always have the two z^ agree with each other, and z^, x^, z^ can have the two z^ disagree with each other). So clearly what we call a measurement is an interaction that changes the state and not a passively revealing of knowledge. It can change a state from an eigenstate of ?^z into an eigenstate of ?^x. You can not expect noncommuting operators to passively reveal preexisting eigenvalues, that would not make sense for the noncommon eigenvectors. It's not so different than the colloquial idea that things appear a certain way becasue they already were a particular way and that the correspondence is pretty tight. In Quantum Mechanics when you have multiple results possible for one state, it's hard to have a tight correspondence. If you add something in addition to a state to make a tight correspondence you can get something just like realism ... if you want. But you can't have more than is needed to determine the results because then you go beyond a tight correspondence to an inconsistent theory. So Bohmian Mechanics as an example has to stop with states and position and doesn't have spin measurements passively reveal preexisting components of spin. It just has a state and a position.
One other point, if you argue there is no physical reality underpinning our observations then what we see is no more than a figment of our imagination - or an illusion - exactly as Coyne or Novella and others have pointed out. Is that what you believe?Seversky_{March 15, 2020
March
03
Mar
15
15
2020
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

@76 Ed George
Or are you going to argue that this violates religious freedom?

A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a loaded question that presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.
Truthfreedom_{March 15, 2020
March
03
Mar
15
15
2020
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

Pater Kimbridge at 69 falsely claims that nobody really expects life after death,
It’s not a promise of everlasting life, but nobody really expects THAT.
Pater Kimbridge is either ignorant or else he is purposely lying. The fact of the matter is that most Americans (3/4ths of the population) have consistently believed in life after death.
Paradise Polled: Americans and the Afterlife Excerpt: Americans' belief in an afterlife is very stable across the decades, showing little variability since 1944,,, belief in life after death remains roughly in the range of seven in ten. (73% as of 2014) https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/paradise-polled-americans-and-afterlife Graph since 1944 https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/Beliefs-about-heaven-hell-life-after-death.gif
Moreover, whereas atheists have no compelling evidence for all the various extra dimensions, parallel universe and/or multiverse scenarios that they have put forth, Christians, on the other hand, (as is shown in the following video), can appeal directly to the higher dimensional mathematics behind Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity and General Relativity to support their belief that God upholds this universe in its continual existence, as well as to support their belief in a heavenly dimension and in a hellish dimension.
Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo
As well, Christians can appeal to recent advances in quantum biology to support their belief in a soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our temporal-material bodies
Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg
As Stuart Hameroff states in the following article, the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it's possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
Leading Scientists Say Consciousness Cannot Die It Goes Back To The Universe - Oct. 19, 2017 - Spiritual Excerpt: “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it's possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.” - Stuart Hameroff - Quantum Entangled Consciousness - Life After Death - video (5:00 minute mark) https://www.disclose.tv/leading-scientists-say-consciousness-cannot-die-it-goes-back-to-the-universe-315604
Verse:
Mark 8:37 Is anything worth more than your soul?
bornagain77_{March 15, 2020
March
03
Mar
15
15
2020
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

I haven't seen a church service with 500 or more people since my Dad died. I doubt it's an issueET_{March 15, 2020
March
03
Mar
15
15
2020
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

TF
Good to know you support homosexuals and promiscuous people who spread AIDS and other STDs charged with public endangerment and gross negligence. They have killed and harmed millions.
If a person knows he/she has an STD and has unprotected sex with someone without informing them, they are charged. There have been plenty of examples. A pastor who proceeds with services when informed of the serious risks involved should also be charged. Especially if the state has imposed bans on gathering of that size. Or are you going to argue that this violates religious freedom?Ed George_{March 15, 2020
March
03
Mar
15
15
2020
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

Eddie George is clueless. The ban is for gatherings of 500 people or more.ET_{March 15, 2020
March
03
Mar
15
15
2020
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

*being charged*.Truthfreedom_{March 15, 2020
March
03
Mar
15
15
2020
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

@Ed George
For any that refuse to cancel services after government instruction to prevent gatherings, I hope that they are charged with public endangerment and gross negligence.
Good to know you support homosexuals and promiscuous people who spread AIDS and other STDs charged with public endangerment and gross negligence. They have killed and harmed millions.Truthfreedom_{March 15, 2020
March
03
Mar
15
15
2020
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

Thankfully, most churches have cancelled all services. Given the older demographics of church attendees, and the fact that COVID-19 is most deadly for the elderly, this is a wise move. For any that refuse to cancel services after government instruction to prevent gatherings, I hope that they are charged with public endangerment and gross negligence.Ed George_{March 15, 2020
March
03
Mar
15
15
2020
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

@ Pater Kimbridge
So far, it looks like at least 97% of people will survive being infected with the virus.
-Thank the immune system, which is the result of 'mindless processes' and that is so 'imperfect' according to naturalists.Truthfreedom_{March 15, 2020
March
03
Mar
15
15
2020
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

@69 Pater Kimbridge
I have some actual words of encouragement from the methodological materialism of science.
- So only if you believe in philosophical materialism can you practice science? https://strangenotions.com/the-big-problems-with-naturalism/ - Another very interesting point: according to you, prolonging a pointless life is something 'good'/ 'remarkable'. Makes zero sense.Truthfreedom_{March 15, 2020
March
03
Mar
15
15
2020
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

@Truthfreedom #68 I have some actual words of encouragement from the methodological materialism of science. 1) So far, it looks like at least 97% of people will survive being infected with the virus. 2) We have gotten pretty good at creating vaccines, and there are a number of candidate vaccines that are being tested right now for the corona virus. 3) Proper hygiene and social distancing can help you avoid infection until a vaccine is available. It's not a promise of everlasting life, but nobody really expects THAT.Pater Kimbridge_{March 15, 2020
March
03
Mar
15
15
2020
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

@57 Ed George
I hope that all churches do their part in avoiding the spreading of this virus and cancel all services.
For those who are stressed/ feel anguish, I have found some words of encouragement:
The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant... Stephen Hawking

The universe and life are pointless... Jerry Coyne

Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference. Richard Dawkins
Truthfreedom_{March 15, 2020
March
03
Mar
15
15
2020
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

@66 Bornagain77:
Apparently unbeknownst to Jim Thibodeau...
Jim Thibodeau does not understand QM. It is patently clear. Nor does he understand philosophy. But according to he himself, he is nothing more than a purposeless hyped-up monkey, a residue of 'evolution' that can not even trust his thought processes (confirmation bias, blind spots, reality is 'not real', morals are a 'trick'...etc, etc) -At least he understands what naturalism entails. Lunacy. Truthfreedom_{March 15, 2020
March
03
Mar
15
15
2020
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

Jim Thibodeau states,
If your QM system gets hit by a photon and it raises an atom’s energy level, that’s an “observation”. No consciousness required. But there’s a lot of woo woo babble that confuses people who don’t know any QM.
The scenario that Jim Thibodeau is referring to is known as 'decoherence". Apparently unbeknownst to Jim Thibodeau, in his rush to label the falsification of 'realism' by quantum mechanics as “woo woo babble that confuses people”, is that decoherence has now been falsified as the explanation for quantum wave collapse by 'interaction free measurements'. As Richard Conn Henry explains, "A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke "decoherence" - the notion that "the physical environment" is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in "Renninger-type" experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy."
The Mental Universe - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics John Hopkins University Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke "decoherence" - the notion that "the physical environment" is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in "Renninger-type" experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy. http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf Interaction-Free Measurements In physics, interaction-free measurement is a type of measurement in quantum mechanics that detects the position, presence, or state of an object without an interaction occurring between it and the measuring device. Examples include the Renninger negative-result experiment, the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb-testing problem [1], and certain double-cavity optical systems, such as Hardy's paradox.,,, Initially proposed as thought experiments, interaction-free measurements have been experimentally demonstrated in various configurations, 6,7,8,, 6. Kwiat, Paul; Weinfurter, Harald; Herzog, Thomas; Zeilinger, Anton; Kasevich, Mark A. (1995-06-12). "Interaction-Free Measurement". Physical Review Letters. 74 (24): 7. White, Andrew G. (1998). ""Interaction-free" imaging". Physical Review A. 58 (1): 8. Tsegaye, T.; Goobar, E.; Karlsson, A.; Björk, G.; Loh, M. Y.; Lim, K. H. (1998-05-01). "Efficient interaction-free measurements in a high-finesse interferometer". Physical Review A. 57 (5): - per wikipedia
As the following interaction free measurement article explains, "its presence can be detected without interacting with a single atom."
Interaction-free measurements by quantum Zeno stabilization of ultracold atoms – 14 April 2015 Excerpt: In our experiments, we employ an ultracold gas in an unstable spin configuration, which can undergo a rapid decay. The object—realized by a laser beam—prevents this decay because of the indirect quantum Zeno effect and thus, its presence can be detected without interacting with a single atom. http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150414/ncomms7811/full/ncomms7811.html?WT.ec_id=NCOMMS-20150415
As well there is now known to be "retrocausality" in Quantum Mechanics that completely undermines the reasoning behind atheists invoking decoherence in the first place, (i.e. that reasoning being atheists trying to save a classical view of the world that is compatible with their atheism). As the following article states, "a decision made in the present can influence something in the past."
Physicists provide support for retrocausal quantum theory, in which the future influences the past July 5, 2017 by Lisa Zyga Excerpt: retrocausality means that, when an experimenter chooses the measurement setting with which to measure a particle, that decision can influence the properties of that particle (or another particle) in the past, even before the experimenter made their choice. In other words, a decision made in the present can influence something in the past. https://phys.org/news/2017-07-physicists-retrocausal-quantum-theory-future.html
The following video also explains why decoherence does not solve the measurement problem: i.e. The irresolvable dilemma of deriving the "Born rule” within the MWI is discussed at the 4:30 minute mark of the following video,
The Measurement Problem in quantum mechanics - (Inspiring Philosophy) - 2014 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE
Even Steven Weinberg himself, an atheist, rejects decoherence as a viable explanation for quantum wave collapse:
The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics - Steven Weinberg - January 19, 2017 The trouble is that in quantum mechanics the way that wave functions change with time is governed by an equation, the Schrödinger equation, that does not involve probabilities. It is just as deterministic as Newton’s equations of motion and gravitation. That is, given the wave function at any moment, the Schrödinger equation will tell you precisely what the wave function will be at any future time. There is not even the possibility of chaos, the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions that is possible in Newtonian mechanics. So if we regard the whole process of measurement as being governed by the equations of quantum mechanics, and these equations are perfectly deterministic, how do probabilities get into quantum mechanics? One common answer is that, in a measurement, the spin (or whatever else is measured) is put in an interaction with a macroscopic environment that jitters in an unpredictable way. For example, the environment might be the shower of photons in a beam of light that is used to observe the system, as unpredictable in practice as a shower of raindrops. Such an environment causes the superposition of different states in the wave function to break down, leading to an unpredictable result of the measurement. (This is called decoherence.) It is as if a noisy background somehow unpredictably left only one of the notes of a chord audible. But this begs the question. If the deterministic Schrödinger equation governs the changes through time not only of the spin but also of the measuring apparatus and the physicist using it, then the results of measurement should not in principle be unpredictable. So we still have to ask, how do probabilities get into quantum mechanics?,,, http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/466-17/QuantumMechanicsWeinberg.pdf
Perhaps the simplest way to invalidate decoherence as a viable explanation for quantum wave collapse is to note that a photon is able to survive all the way to detection at the retina. If decoherence really explained the measurement problem, then how is it remotely possible that a photon is able to survive all the way to detection at the retina whilst avoiding being ‘decohered’ by its interactions with the billions upon billion of molecules in the eye? The following paper found that the human eye can detect the presence of a single photon, the researchers stated that “Any man-made detector would need to be cooled and isolated from noise to behave the same way.”,,,
Study suggests humans can detect even the smallest units of light – July 21, 2016 Excerpt: Research,, has shown that humans can detect the presence of a single photon, the smallest measurable unit of light. Previous studies had established that human subjects acclimated to the dark were capable only of reporting flashes of five to seven photons.,,, it is remarkable: a photon, the smallest physical entity with quantum properties of which light consists, is interacting with a biological system consisting of billions of cells, all in a warm and wet environment,” says Vaziri. “The response that the photon generates survives all the way to the level of our awareness despite the ubiquitous background noise. Any man-made detector would need to be cooled and isolated from noise to behave the same way.”,,, The gathered data from more than 30,000 trials demonstrated that humans can indeed detect a single photon incident on their eye with a probability significantly above chance. “What we want to know next is how does a biological system achieve such sensitivity? How does it achieve this in the presence of noise? http://phys.org/news/2016-07-humans-smallest.html
The retina detecting a single photon simply should not even be possible if decoherence were truly the explanation of quantum wave collapse. Moreover, they are now seeking to “probe our understanding of quantum reality” by using human eyes themselves as detectors.
The Human Eye Could Help Test Quantum Mechanics Experiments to confirm we can see single photons offer new ways to probe our understanding of quantum reality By Anil Ananthaswamy on July 10, 2018 Excerpt: Now, “there’s absolutely no doubt that individual photoreceptors respond to single photons,”,,, In 2016 a team led by biophysicist Alipasha Vaziri, then at the University of Vienna, reported using single-photon sources to show “humans can detect a single-photon incident on their eye with a probability significantly above chance.” Kwiat’s team,,, wants to improve the statistics by doing a much larger number of trials with many more subjects. - per scientific american
I am extremely confident that the results of using humans themselves as detectors, will be, as the experiments always have been in the past with quantum mechanics, extremely disappointing for atheistic materialists. Thus in conclusion, the only confusion with quantum mechanics as “woo woo babble that confuses people” is with Jim Thibodeau himself when he, (whether purposely or through ignorance), invoked the now refuted mechanism of decoherence to try to 'explain away' the 'spooky' findings of quantum mechanics that falsify his materialistic worldview. Supplemental notes:
How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f0hL3Nrdas Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism (v2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM0IKLv7KrE Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg
Verse:
Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
bornagain77_{March 15, 2020
March
03
Mar
15
15
2020
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT}

#62 An observation creates a record within an established medium, which is discontinuous to a function within a system. You can't name an unambiguous instance of observation that is not. There certainly may be some "woo woo babble that confuses people", but in your case, I wouldn't be pointing any fingers.Upright BiPed_{March 14, 2020
March
03
Mar
14
14
2020
10:44 PM
10
10
44
PM
PDT}

@62 Jim Thibodeau
But there’s a lot of woo woo babble that confuses people who don’t know any QM.
Trust me. Philosophy is NOT your field of expertise.Truthfreedom_{March 14, 2020
March
03
Mar
14
14
2020
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

@59 Seversky
Agreed. Personally, I find clinical neurologist Steven Novella makes a lot more sense.
This is the neurologist that says that: 'our perception of reality is an illusion, but an illusion that resembles reality'. Sorry, but it makes zero sense. I wouldn't trust such a person at all. https://mindmatters.ai/2019/07/tales-of-the-mind-a-neurologist-encounters-the-house-of-mirrors/Truthfreedom_{March 14, 2020
March
03
Mar
14
14
2020
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

@Seversky a lot of people get confused into thinking observation means, like, eyeball. Used in QM it really means an interaction with an element outside the system. If your QM system gets hit by a photon and it raises an atom’s energy level, that’s an “observation”. No consciousness required. But there’s a lot of woo woo babble that confuses people who don’t know any QM.Jim Thibodeau_{March 14, 2020
March
03
Mar
14
14
2020
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

LoL! So because mankind chose the route of knowledge that makes God bad? It's our responsibility to figure out nature. And thankfully we were intelligently designed with the ability and resources to do so.ET_{March 14, 2020
March
03
Mar
14
14
2020
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

Seversky, I did read the article and it is you who is cherry picking only the parts you want to listen to. You apparently do not understand what the Leggett and Garg inequality is all about
In contrast to the spatial Bell's inequalities, which probe entanglement between spatially-separated systems, the Leggett-Garg inequalities test the correlations of a single system measured at different times. Violation of a genuine Leggett-Garg test implies either the absence of a realistic description of the system or the impossibility of measuring the system without disturbing it.
Again,
The researchers observed the strong correlations predicted by Leggett and Garg, as they report in a paper in press at Physical Review Letters. “As we expected, it’s a very obvious effect,” Formaggio says. The data underscore that the neutrino has no flavor until it’s actually measured, he says. The result is not surprising, Garg says, as neutrino oscillations are inherently quantum mechanical. Still, he says, it “probes the conflict between the quantum and classical worlds in a new regime.”
Of related note to Leggett,
Do we create the world just by looking at it? - 2008 Excerpt: In mid-2007 Fedrizzi found that the new realism model was violated by 80 orders of magnitude; the group was even more assured that quantum mechanics was correct. Leggett agrees with Zeilinger that realism is wrong in quantum mechanics, but when I asked him whether he now believes in the theory, he answered only “no” before demurring, “I’m in a small minority with that point of view and I wouldn’t stake my life on it.” For Leggett there are still enough loopholes to disbelieve. I asked him what could finally change his mind about quantum mechanics. Without hesitation, he said sending humans into space as detectors to test the theory.,,, (to which Anton Zeilinger responded) When I mentioned this to Prof. Zeilinger he said, “That will happen someday. There is no doubt in my mind. It is just a question of technology.” Alessandro Fedrizzi had already shown me a prototype of a realism experiment he is hoping to send up in a satellite. It’s a heavy, metallic slab the size of a dinner plate. http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_reality_tests/P3/
bornagain77_{March 14, 2020
March
03
Mar
14
14
2020
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

Ed George@ 46
Egnor May be a good surgeon but I stopped taking anything he says seriously when he claimed that all mass shootings are caused by Democrats.
Agreed. Personally, I find clinical neurologist Steven Novella makes a lot more sense.Seversky_{March 14, 2020
March
03
Mar
14
14
2020
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77@ 42
Yet neutrinos, in and of themselves, have been used to falsify ‘realism’, which is the materialistic belief that a physical reality can exist completely separate from our measurement and/or conscious observation of it.
You should try reading the science to understand what they are trying to say rather than cherry-picking quotes that conform to your pre-existing religious beliefs. They are saying that quantum systems can exist in two or more superposed states and only collapse into the one we observe when we observe it. They are not saying that nothing, not even quantum systems, exist at all until we observe it, probably because they understand that it's an absurd proposition. If nothing exists until we observe it what are we observing in the first place? These observations do not falsify realism.
Thus, contrary to what Seversky seems to believe, experiments with neutrinos have actually falsified Seversky’s materialistic worldview.
Neutrinos are as much a part of the material world as any other observable phenomenon.
But I guess Seversky thanking God for neutrinos would kind of defeat Seversky’s entire purpose for mentioning neutrinos in the first place.
I might have thanked God if he's told us about neutrinos rather than leaving us to find out about them ourselves. I might have thanked God if he'd warned us about the bubonic plague in the Middle Ages and explained how to treat it. I might have thanked God if he'd told us all about COVID-19 in advance so that we could get ahead of it. But He didn't. In any of those and many other cases. So even if He's actually there, He might as well not have been. Maybe God is a quantum phenomenon. He both exists and doesn't exist at the same time. He's only there when you look, a bit like an illusion.Seversky_{March 14, 2020
March
03
Mar
14
14
2020
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

I hope that all churches do their part in avoiding the spreading of this virus and cancel all services.Ed George_{March 14, 2020
March
03
Mar
14
14
2020
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

@54 Seversky
…yet.
Promissory materialism, a. k.a. 'materialism-of-the-gaps'. Truthfreedom_{March 14, 2020
March
03
Mar
14
14
2020
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

At least seversky admits that his position is part of science.ET_{March 14, 2020
March
03
Mar
14
14
2020
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

Martin_r@ 40
Seversky, i got a simple question, will you reply ? isn’t it embarrassing, that your atheistic evolutionary theory can’t explain the evolutionary origin of the MOST ABUNDANT organism on Earth (viruses) ?
...yet. No.Seversky_{March 14, 2020
March
03
Mar
14
14
2020
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

Materialists rely on appeal to numbers and appeal to emotions fallacies like the champions they are. And never forget special pleading, because hey, cute materialists have reason even when they do not have reason, and their materialism deserves to be revered. https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/Truthfreedom_{March 14, 2020
March
03
Mar
14
14
2020
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

@44 Pater Kimbridge 44
An inability (or unwillingness) to grasp a reductio-ad-absurdum argument seems to be a common feature of the theist mindset.
Says the materialist with his self-refuting, proven absurd, unable to explain reality philosophy. But hey Pater, faith is faith. And materialism is fanatic. https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/Truthfreedom_{March 14, 2020
March
03
Mar
14
14
2020
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

Acartia Eddie:
The only claims I have made are that if viruses are designed it can’t be by a designer who has our best interests at heart, and that COVID-19 is not a particularly well designed virus.
But you are a proven imbecile who couldn't support what you claim if your life depended on itET_{March 14, 2020
March
03
Mar
14
14
2020
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply