Is there a center of the universe?

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 9, 2023

Big Bang, Intelligent Design}

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

This very homogeneous image of the early universe is proof of two things we discussed. First, that the ‘bang’ was not triggered by something, and second, if there is no point of origin for an explosion, there is no center of the universe, no privileged spot.
There is another important characteristic of the universe, it does not indicate any relevant direction. In fancy words, the universe is isotropic in the big picture, meaning it doesn’t have a preferred direction. Roads are not isotropic, you have to be going in a direction, a sink is not isotropic, the water moves to the drain. – Paula Ferreira* (March 8, 2023)

How do we know that the Big Bang was not “triggered by something”? Do we know anything about what went on before that?

*Ferreira is a PhD student in physics.

Comments

CR: I'm quite happy to let my posts stand as stated. All hidden variable theories, including Wiseman's current one, are shown to be false. I could care less how many gears and knobs he attaches to his current theory to try and make it a little less insane than MWI is. As to: "I won’t be holding my breath for reasons I’ve already outlined." But alas, in one of the veritable infinity of parallel universe, with zillions upon zillions of parallel CR's, there is a CR who happens to be holding his breath. Moreover, there is a CR who happens to be holding his breath while he is riding on a pink unicorn. :)
Why Most Atheists (must) Believe in Pink Unicorns - May 2014 Excerpt: Given an infinite amount of time, anything that is logically possible(11) will eventually happen. So, given an infinite number of universes being created in (presumably) an infinite amount of time, you are not only guaranteed to get your universe but every other possible universe. This means that every conceivable universe exists, from ones that consist of nothing but a giant black hole, to ones that are just like ours and where someone just like you is reading a blog post just like this, except it’s titled: “Why most atheists believe in blue unicorns.” By now I’m sure you know where I’m going with this, but I’ll say it anyway. Since we know that horses are possible, and that pink animals are possible, and that horned animals are possible, then there is no logical reason why pink unicorns are not possible entities. Ergo, if infinite universes exist, then pink unicorns must necessarily exist. For an atheist to appeal to multiverse theory to deny the need of a designer infers that he believes in that theory more than a theistically suggestive single universe. And to believe in the multiverse means that one is saddled with everything that goes with it, like pink unicorns. In fact, they not only believe in pink unicorns, but that someone just like them is riding on one at this very moment, and who believes that elephants, giraffes, and zebra are merely childish fairytales. Postscript While it may be amusing to imagine atheists riding pink unicorns, it should be noted that the belief in them does not logically invalidate atheism. There theoretically could be multiple universes and there theoretically could be pink unicorns. However, there is a more substantial problem for the atheist if he wants to believe in them and he wants to remain an atheist. Since, as I said, anything can happen in the realm of infinities, one of those possibilities is the production of a being of vast intelligence and power. Such a being would be as a god to those like us, and could perhaps breach the boundaries of the multiverse to, in fact, be a “god” to this universe. This being might even have the means to create its own universe and embody the very description of the God of Christianity (or any other religion that the atheist otherwise rejects). It seems the atheist, in affirming the multiverse in order to avoid the problem of fine-tuning (and/or quantum wave collapse), finds himself on the horns of a dilemma. The further irony is that somewhere, in the great wide world of infinities, the atheist’s doppelganger is going to war against an army of theists riding on the horns of a great pink beast known to his tribesman as “The Saddlehorn Dilemma.” https://pspruett.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/why-most-atheists-believe-in-pink-unicorns/ Atheist Accepts Multiverse Theory Of Every Possible Universe Except Biblical One - February 9th, 2017 Excerpt: The ardent Multiverse proponent went on to state that he readily accepts that a universe governed by Mr. T riding a cyborg ostrich is possible. Also, one with floating, flaming bears instead of stars, one that contains planets full of hairy toasters made out of grape-flavored pudding, a universe that is just one humongous chicken in a bikini, and a universe that is literally a zit wearing a chef’s hat with the “@” symbol tattooed on its face. “I like to think there is a universe where Richard Dawkins has 20 heads, waffles rain from the sky covered in ice cream, the only plant that grows is pot and weiner dogs are the most socially progressive and advanced animal there is,” Hemsworth said with a cheerful glimmer in his eye. “Also there are only ponies, no horses.” When asked if this means that the universe outlined in the Bible might be one of these infinite possibilities, Hemsworth scoffed and said, “I am a scientist. I don’t have the luxury of engaging in that kind of wishful thinking.” https://babylonbee.com/news/atheist-accepts-multiverse-theory-every-possible-universe-except-biblical-one
bornagain77_{March 15, 2023
March
03
Mar
15
15
2023
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

I wrote...
For example, how did I pick the wrong form of locality for the evidence he’s referring to? But, before BA could even start, he’d have to concede there actually are different conceptions of locality, depending on which theory of quantum mechanics is in question, which would implicitly concede that his claim reflects a false dilemma.
Note that, as I predicted, BA still hasn't addressed this. Nor do I expect him to for the above reason. Again, see the quote from Wiseman on the various characterizations of Bell's locality...
The most famous quantum theory which does make the assumption of determinism is of course David Bohm’s [4,5]. Indeed, Bohm’s theory was an inspiration to Bell who summarized the result of his 1964 paper in the introduction-cum-abstract as [A] hidden variable interpretation of elementary quantum theory [4,5] has been explicitly constructed. That particular interpretation has . . . a grossly nonlocal structure. This is characteristic, according to the result to be proved here, of any such theory which reproduces exactly the quantum mechanical predictions. Why Bell considered Bohm’s interpretation to be “grossly nonlocal”, rather than nonlocal simpliciter, is unclear. Perhaps it was because the theory is nonlocal even in situations where there is an obvious local hidden variable theory, as in the EPR-correlations [15], or the EPR-Bohm correlations [27].
IOW, Wiseman's theory is both non-local, despite having hidden variables. They're just not the kind of hidden variables implied that Einstein was referring to in regards to excluding quantum phenomena, EPR, etc. However, BA keeps referring to evidence targeting EPR / hidden variables that would make QM local, then claiming they falsify the many worlds interpretation, etc. This just doesn't add up. For example, BA wrote...
For crying out loud, I quoted Wiseman himself as to how Bohmian mechanics is related to his theory.
23:50 mark: “We’ve thought about how you generalize this beyond simple one particle in one dimension , and it becomes a lot more complicated. We don’t have any explicit form of the potential that we know would work but the basic idea would be is captured by this equation here that every world again obeys a newtonian, this is this is just newton’s equation, so the only thing which we’re doing is adding some quantum force which is exactly the force from Bohm’s quantum potential, but we’re imagining that that quantum force is determined by some sort of local averaging of the density of worlds uh in in the region for the where that particular world is”

But, he hasn't. To do this, BA would need to explain how the MIW theory being inspired by some aspect of Bohmian mechanics actually results in the theory having exposure to the same criticism he referenced. Specifically, he has yet to explain how the mere reference of the value of Bohm's quantum force from Bohmian mechanics / pilot wave theory is problematic in MIW. In fact, it's it seems that Bohm's quantum force is actually used as a way to test MIW.
While the MIW approach was motivated above as an approximation to the dBB interpretation of quantum mechanics, we have the opposite in mind. We regard MIW as the fundamental theory, from which, under certain conditions, dBB can be recovered, as an effective theory provided N is sufficiently large; see Sec. II B. Note that the MIW approach is conceptually and mathematically very different from dBB. Its fundamental dynamics are described by the system of N × J × D second-order differential equations.
This is why Wiseman's interpretation isn't, well, Bohmian mechanics! If it was just Bohmian mechanics, it's unclear why Wiseman would need to develop another theory. Also, note that BA ignored when I quoted Wiseman where he "[Takes] the crucial step of replacing the Bohmian force (6), which acts on each world-particle xn(t) via (5), by the approximation rN (xn(t); Xt)" in an earlier comment. So again, to summarize, the elephant in the room is BA equivocating on locality, in regards to falsification. But If he's not equivocating, then he should explain how I've got the wrong kind of locality in regards to the many worlds interpretation, Wiseman's many interacting worlds, etc., which has exposure to the evidence he keeps referring to. Again, I won't be holding by breath for reasons I've already outlined.critical rationalist_{March 15, 2023
March
03
Mar
15
15
2023
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

BA @59
Will one of the zillions of CRs apologize to me for lying? I have scant hope that there is enough integrity in any of the zillions of parallel CRs to do so.
LOLOrigenes_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

And as the newly minted, (Oct. 2022), Nobel Laureate Anton Zeilinger stated, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
“The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.” Anton Zeilinger – Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437
In fact, at his Nobel lecture Zeilinger stated, "When you look at the predictions of quantum mechanics for multi-particle entanglement,, so you could have one measurement here, one (measurement) there, an earlier (measurement), a later (measurement), and so on. These predictions (of quantum mechanics) are completely independent of the relative arrangements of measurements in space and time. That tells you something about the role of space and time. There's no role at all.",,,
"There's one important message I want to say here. When you look at the predictions of quantum mechanics for multi-particle entanglement,, so you could have one measurement here, one (measurement) there, an earlier (measurement), a later (measurement), and so on. These predictions (of quantum mechanics) are completely independent of the relative arrangements of measurements in space and time. That tells you something about the role of space and time. There's no role at all.",,, - Anton Zeilinger - 2022 Nobel Prize lectures in physics - video (1:50:07 mark) https://youtu.be/a9FsKqvrJNY?t=6607 Alain Aspect: From Einstein’s doubts to quantum technologies: non-locality a fruitful image John F. Clauser: Experimental proof that nonlocal quantum entanglement is real Anton Zeilinger: A Voyage through Quantum Wonderland - Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 “for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science”.
Thus from multiple lines of experimental evidence, (i.e. Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment with atoms, the violation of Leggett’s inequality, Quantum entanglement in time, and quantum contextuality, not to mention the Quantum Zeno effect and Quantum information theory), Einstein’s belief that “The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics” has been thoroughly, and impressively, falsified. In fact, I hold that it would now be much more appropriate to rephrase Einstein’s answer to the philosopher Rudolph Carnap in this way; “It is impossible for “the experience of ‘the now’” to ever be divorced from physical measurement, it will always be a part of physics.” Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
Thus in conclusion, besides free will, via Zeilinger's closing of the 'freedom of choice' loophole, being shown to be integral to quantum mechanics, the 'experience of the now' is also now shown, via multiple lines of evidence, to also be integral to quantum mechanics. i.e. fundamental aspects of the immaterial mind are shown to be extremely tightly correlated with the actions we are seeing in our quantum experiments. Personally, as a Christian, I consider the fairly direct Theistic implications of all these experiments to be VERY good news. Whereas, on the other hand, I have no idea how the zillions of parallel CRs may react to having their nihilistic atheism pretty much completely destroyed by these lines of evidence from quantum mechanics. My gut feeling is that anyone who is willing to believe in the insanity of a zillion parallel versions of himself just so in order to avoid God will not have a very pleasant reaction to this evidence. :)
Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: “In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." - Anton Zeilinger - Nobel Laureate 2022 - Quantum Physics http://www.metanexus.net/archive/ultimate_reality/zeilinger.pdf 49:28 mark: "This is now my personal opinion OK. Because we cannot operationally separate the two. Whenever we talk about reality, we think about reality, we are really handling information. The two are not separable. So maybe now, this is speculative here, maybe the two are the same? Or maybe information constitutive to the universe. This reminds me of the beginning the bible of St. John which starts with “In the Beginning was the Word”.,,, Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT - video https://youtu.be/s3ZPWW5NOrw?t=2969 John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
bornagain77_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PDT}

Einstein’s ‘categorical. denial that ‘the experience of the now’ can be a part of physical measurement was a very interesting claim for Einstein to make since “The experience of ‘the now’ has, from many recent experiments in quantum mechanics, established itself as very much being a defining part of our physical measurements in quantum mechanics. For instance, the following delayed choice experiment, (that was done with atoms instead of photons) demonstrated that, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”
Reality doesn’t exist until we measure it, (Delayed Choice) quantum experiment confirms – Mind = blown. – FIONA MACDONALD – 1 JUN 2015 Excerpt: “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” lead researcher and physicist Andrew Truscott said in a press release. http://www.sciencealert.com/reality-doesn-t-exist-until-we-measure-it-quantum-experiment-confirms
Likewise, the following violation of Leggett’s inequality stressed the quantum-mechanical assertion “that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.”
Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.” http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640
The Mind First and/or Theistic implications of quantum experiments such as the preceding are fairly obvious. As Professor Scott Aaronson of MIT once quipped, “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists,,, But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!”
“Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!” – Scott Aaronson – MIT associate Professor quantum computation – Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables
Moreover, advances in quantum mechanics even goes one step further and show us, via “quantum entanglement in time”, that “a decision made in the present can influence something in the past.” and, “Quantum correlations come first, space-time later.”
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 Quantum Weirdness Now a Matter of Time – 2016 Bizarre quantum bonds connect distinct moments in time, suggesting that quantum links — not space-time — constitute the fundamental structure of the universe. Excerpt: Not only can two events be correlated, linking the earlier one to the later one, but two events can become correlated such that it becomes impossible to say which is earlier and which is later.,,, “If you have space-time, you have a well-defined causal order,” said Caslav Brukner, a physicist at the University of Vienna who studies quantum information. But “if you don’t have a well-defined causal order,” he said — as is the case in experiments he has proposed — then “you don’t have space-time.”,,, Quantum correlations come first, space-time later. Exactly how does space-time emerge out of the quantum world? Bruner said he is still unsure. https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160119-time-entanglement/
And in regards to quantum entanglement in time, Professor Elise Crullis draws out the implications and provocatively states that “entanglement can occur across two quantum systems that never coexisted,,, it implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old.”
You thought quantum mechanics was weird: check out entangled time – Feb. 2018 Excerpt: Just when you thought quantum mechanics couldn’t get any weirder, a team of physicists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem reported in 2013 that they had successfully entangled photons that never coexisted. Previous experiments involving a technique called ‘entanglement swapping’ had already showed quantum correlations across time, by delaying the measurement of one of the coexisting entangled particles; but Eli Megidish and his collaborators were the first to show entanglement between photons whose lifespans did not overlap at all.,,, Up to today, most experiments have tested entanglement over spatial gaps. The assumption is that the ‘nonlocal’ part of quantum nonlocality refers to the entanglement of properties across space. But what if entanglement also occurs across time? Is there such a thing as temporal nonlocality?,,, The data revealed the existence of quantum correlations between ‘temporally nonlocal’ photons 1 and 4. That is, entanglement can occur across two quantum systems that never coexisted. What on Earth can this mean? Prima facie, it seems as troubling as saying that the polarity of starlight in the far-distant past – say, greater than twice Earth’s lifetime – nevertheless influenced the polarity of starlight falling through your amateur telescope this winter. Even more bizarrely: maybe it implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old. Elise Crullis assistant professor in history and philosophy of science at the City College of New York.,,, https://aeon.co/ideas/you-thought-quantum-mechanics-was-weird-check-out-entangled-time
Moroever, as if that was not provocative enough, with “quantum contextuality”, (which is integral for quantum computing), we find that “In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation”
Contextuality is ‘magic ingredient’ for quantum computing – June 11, 2012 Excerpt: Contextuality was first recognized as a feature of quantum theory almost 50 years ago. The theory showed that it was impossible to explain measurements on quantum systems in the same way as classical systems. In the classical world, measurements simply reveal properties that the system had, such as colour, prior to the measurement. In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation. Imagine turning over a playing card. It will be either a red suit or a black suit – a two-outcome measurement. Now imagine nine playing cards laid out in a grid with three rows and three columns. Quantum mechanics predicts something that seems contradictory – there must be an even number of red cards in every row and an odd number of red cards in every column. Try to draw a grid that obeys these rules and you will find it impossible. It’s because quantum measurements cannot be interpreted as merely revealing a pre-existing property in the same way that flipping a card reveals a red or black suit. Measurement outcomes depend on all the other measurements that are performed – the full context of the experiment. Contextuality means that quantum measurements can not be thought of as simply revealing some pre-existing properties of the system under study. That’s part of the weirdness of quantum mechanics. http://phys.org/news/2014-06-weird-magic-ingredient-quantum.html Quantum contextuality Quantum contextuality is a feature of the phenomenology of quantum mechanics whereby measurements of quantum observables cannot simply be thought of as revealing pre-existing values. ,,, Contextuality was first demonstrated to be a feature of quantum phenomenology by the Bell–Kochen–Specker theorem.[1],,, 1. S. Kochen and E.P. Specker, “The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics”, Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics 17, 59–87 (1967) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_contextuality
bornagain77_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT}

Since CR did not touch upon Zeilinger's closing of the 'freedom of choice loophole' which I listed at post 49, and yet the Theistic implications of free will was one of the primary motivations for the atheist Hugh Everett to formulate MWI, i.e. “(Everett) was repulsed by the fact that the human mind seemed to be given a special role—a conclusion that Everett thought smacked of the supernatural.” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-there-a-center-of-the-universe/#comment-777605 ,, since CR neglected to touch upon free will and quantum mechanics, I will go further into how consciousness and quantum mechanics are tightly correlated. First a little background. In 1922 there was a heated debate between Albert Einstein and Henri Bergson, (who was a prominent philosopher), over what the proper definition of time should be. Einstein bluntly stated, to an audience of prominent philosophers that he was invited to speak to, that, “The time of the philosophers did not exist”. And in fact, that disagreement with those philosophers, and with Henri Bergson in particular, over what the proper definition of time should actually be was one of the primary reasons that Einstein failed to ever receive a Nobel prize for his work on relativity:
Einstein vs Bergson, science vs philosophy and the meaning of time – Wednesday 24 June 2015 Excerpt: The meeting of April 6 was supposed to be a cordial affair, though it ended up being anything but. ‘I have to say that day exploded and it was referenced over and over again in the 20th century,’ says Canales. ‘The key sentence was something that Einstein said: “The time of the philosophers did not exist.”’ It’s hard to know whether Bergson was expecting such a sharp jab. In just one sentence, Bergson’s notion of duration—a major part of his thesis on time—was dealt a mortal blow. As Canales reads it, the line was carefully crafted for maximum impact. ‘What he meant was that philosophers frequently based their stories on a psychological approach and [new] physical knowledge showed that these philosophical approaches were nothing more than errors of the mind.’ The night would only get worse. ‘This was extremely scandalous,’ says Canales. ‘Einstein had been invited by philosophers to speak at their society, and you had this physicist say very clearly that their time did not exist.’ Bergson was outraged, but the philosopher did not take it lying down. A few months later Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the law of photoelectric effect, an area of science that Canales noted, ‘hardly jolted the public’s imagination’. In truth, Einstein coveted recognition for his work on relativity. Bergson inflicted some return humiliation of his own. By casting doubt on Einstein’s theoretical trajectory, Bergson dissuaded the committee from awarding the prize for relativity. In 1922, the jury was still out on the correct interpretation of time. So began a dispute that festered for years and played into the larger rift between physics and philosophy, science and the humanities. Bergson was fond of saying that time was the experience of waiting for a lump of sugar to dissolve in a glass of water. It was a declaration that one could not talk about time without reference to human consciousness and human perception. Einstein would say that time is what clocks measure. Bergson would no doubt ask why we build clocks in the first place. ‘He argued that if we didn’t have a prior sense of time we wouldn’t have been led to build clocks and we wouldn’t even use them … unless we wanted to go places and to events that mattered,’ says Canales. ‘You can see that their points of view were very different.’ In a theoretical nutshell this, (disagreement between Einstein and Bergson), expressed perfectly the division between lived time and spacetime: subjective experience versus objective reality.,,, Just when Einstein thought he had it worked out, along came the discovery of quantum theory and with it the possibility of a Bergsonian universe of indeterminacy and change. God did, it seems, play dice with the universe, contra to Einstein’s famous aphorism. Some supporters went as far as to say that Bergson’s earlier work anticipated the quantum revolution of Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg by four decades or more. Canales quotes the literary critic Andre Rousseaux, writing at the time of Bergson’s death. ‘The Bergson revolution will be doubled by a scientific revolution that, on its own, would have demanded the philosophical revolution that Bergson led, even if he had not done it.’ Was Bergson right after all? Time will tell. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/science-vs-philosophy-and-the-meaning-of-time/6539568
Henri Bergson, as the preceding article pointed out, championed the primacy of ‘lived time’ over and above Einstein’s ‘spacetime’, Which is to say that Bergson championed ‘subjective experience’ over and above ‘objective reality’ in providing the proper definition of time. As the preceding article stated, the subjective experience of “duration”, was “a major part of his (Bergson’s) thesis on time”. In support of Bergson’s main thesis, and as Dr. Egnor, (a brain surgeon), has pointed out, “Duration, and/or “persistence of self identity”, is one of the main defining attributes of the immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian atheists.
The Mind and Materialist Superstition – Michael Egnor – 2008 Six “conditions of mind” that are irreconcilable with materialism: – Excerpt: Intentionality,,, Qualia,,, Persistence of Self-Identity,,, Restricted Access,,, Incorrigibility,,, Free Will,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/11/the_mind_and_materialist_super013961.html
Likewise, J. Warner Wallace also lists “Persistent self-identity through time”, i.e. ‘duration’, as a property of the immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian atheists.
Six reasons why you should believe in non-physical minds – 01/30/2014 1) First-person access to mental properties 2) Our experience of consciousness implies that we are not our bodies 3) Persistent self-identity through time 4) Mental properties cannot be measured like physical objects 5) Intentionality or About-ness 6) Free will and personal responsibility http://winteryknight.com/2014/01/30/six-reasons-why-you-should-believe-in-non-physical-minds/
In more clearly defining what Henri Bergson actually meant by ‘duration’, and/or “persistence of self identity through time”, it is important to note that we each have a unique perspective of being outside of time. In fact we each seemingly watch from some mysterious ‘outside of time’ perspective as time seemingly passes us by. Simply put, we very much seem to be standing on a ‘tiny’ island of ‘now’ as the river of time continually flows past us. In the following video, Dr. Suarez states that the irresolvable dilemma for reductive materialists as such, “it is impossible for us to be ‘persons’ experiencing ‘now’ if we are nothing but particles flowing in space time. Moreover, for us to refer to ourselves as ‘persons’ (experiencing now), we cannot refer to space-time as the ultimate substratum upon which everything exists, but must refer to a “Person” who is not bound by space time. (In other words) We must refer to God!”
Nothing: God’s new Name – Antoine Suarez – video Paraphrased quote: (“it is impossible for us to be ‘persons’ experiencing ‘now’ if we are nothing but particles flowing in space time. Moreover, for us to refer to ourselves as ‘persons’, we cannot refer to space-time as the ultimate substratum upon which everything exists, but must refer to a Person who is not bound by space time. i.e. We must refer to God!”) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOr9QqyaLlA
In further defining the immaterial mind’s attribute of ‘the experience of the now’, in the following article Stanley Jaki states that “There can be no active mind without its sensing its existence in the moment called now.,,, ,,,There is no physical parallel to the mind’s ability to extend from its position in the momentary present to its past moments, or in its ability to imagine its future. The mind remains identical with itself while it lives through its momentary nows.”
The Mind and Its Now – Stanley L. Jaki, May 2008 Excerpts: There can be no active mind without its sensing its existence in the moment called now.,,, Three quarters of a century ago Charles Sherrington, the greatest modern student of the brain, spoke memorably on the mind’s baffling independence of the brain. The mind lives in a self-continued now or rather in the now continued in the self. This life involves the entire brain, some parts of which overlap, others do not. ,,,There is no physical parallel to the mind’s ability to extend from its position in the momentary present to its past moments, or in its ability to imagine its future. The mind remains identical with itself while it lives through its momentary nows. ,,, the now is immensely richer an experience than any marvelous set of numbers, even if science could give an account of the set of numbers, in terms of energy levels. The now is not a number. It is rather a word, the most decisive of all words. It is through experiencing that word that the mind comes alive and registers all existence around and well beyond. ,,, All our moments, all our nows, flow into a personal continuum, of which the supreme form is the NOW which is uncreated, because it simply IS. http://metanexus.net/essay/mind-and-its-now
Several years after Einstein’s heated exchange with Bergson, which resulted in Einstein failing to ever receive a Nobel prize for his work on relativity, Einstein had another encounter with another prominent philosopher,, Rudolf Carnap. In particular, and around 1935, (and on a train no less), Einstein was specifically asked by Rudolf Carnap, “Can physics demonstrate the existence of ‘the now’ in order to make the notion of ‘now’ into a scientifically valid term?”
“Can physics demonstrate the existence of ‘the now’ in order to make the notion of ‘now’ into a scientifically valid term?” – Rudolf Carnap
According to Stanely Jaki, Einstein’s answer to Carnap was ‘categorical’, he said: “The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics.”
“The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics.” – Albert Einstein Carnap and Einstein quotes are taken from the last few minutes of this video: Stanley L. Jaki: “The Mind and Its Now” https://vimeo.com/10588094
bornagain77_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
03:02 AM
3
03
02
AM
PDT}

CR is now resorting to flat out lying to defend the insanity of his belief that he exists in zillions of parallel universes. One of CRs zillions of compatriots claims "Note that BA hasn’t explained how Bohmian mechanics is actually related to the many worlds interpretation." For crying out loud, I quoted Wiseman himself as to how Bohmian mechanics is related to his theory.
23:50 mark: “We’ve thought about how you generalize this beyond simple one particle in one dimension , and it becomes a lot more complicated. We don’t have any explicit form of the potential that we know would work but the basic idea would be is captured by this equation here that every world again obeys a newtonian, this is this is just newton’s equation, so the only thing which we’re doing is adding some quantum force which is exactly the force from Bohm’s quantum potential, but we’re imagining that that quantum force is determined by some sort of local averaging of the density of worlds uh in in the region for the where that particular world is” – Wiseman https://youtu.be/92lCzlBCNgU?t=1427
Will one of the zillions of CRs apologize to me for lying? I have scant hope that there is enough integrity in any of the zillions of parallel CRs to do so. CR goes on to falsely claim "IOW, Wiseman’s many interacting worlds can be inspired by aspects of Bohemian mechanics, without actually being dependent on bohemian mechanics." Yet, to repeat Wiseman, "the only thing which we’re doing is adding some quantum force which is exactly the force from Bohm’s quantum potential, but we’re imagining that that quantum force is determined by some sort of local averaging of the density of worlds uh in in the region for the where that particular world is” So Wiseman theory, directly contrary to what CR is trying to claim, actually is dependent on Bohmian mechanics. Specifically, it is reliant on "the force from Bohm’s quantum potential". It is just that Wiseman IMAGINES that the force is determined by "some sort of local averaging of the density of worlds" Wiseman's words, not mine, Wiseman IMAGINES,, "SOME SORT" of local averaging of the density of worlds" that will get him "the force from Bohm’s quantum potential". Thus, since Wiseman's theory is dependent on Bohm’s quantum potential, then the empirical falsification of Bohm’s quantum potential that I listed still applies to Wiseman's new theory. CR further claims, "making a distinction regarding locality isn’t rambling." Yet, seeing that I referenced a paper in which ALL hidden variable theories are falsified, then it is certainly superfluous, and further demonstrates that CR, (whichever of the zillions of parallel CR I am talking to right now), does not know what he is talking about.
Experimental test of nonlocal causality – August 10, 2016 DISCUSSION Previous work on causal explanations beyond local hidden-variable models focused on testing Leggett’s crypto-nonlocality (7, 42, 43), a class of models with a very specific choice of hidden variable that is unrelated to Bell’s local causality (44). In contrast, we make no assumptions on the form of the hidden variable and test all models ,,, Our results demonstrate that a causal influence from one measurement outcome to the other, which may be subluminal, superluminal, or even instantaneous, cannot explain the observed correlations.,,, https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1600162
Then when it was pointed our that MWI was invented, first and foremost, to avoid God, CR claims that "God couldn’t have decided to create the multiverse? How does BA know the mind of an infinite being? Why should God conform to what BA does or does not think is crazy?" So CR's imagines his god to be some kind of cosmic trickster that creates zillions of parallel CRs every-time a photon is simply observed? No wonder CR does not believe in God. He imagines god to be a capricious, even a malevolent, cosmic trickster But alas, the Judeo-Christian God that lay behind the origin of modern science itself is certainly no cosmic trickster, nor is He capricious and malevolent, as CR falsely imagines his god to be. But is instead trustworthy and rational. Indeed, that trustworthiness and rationality of the living Christian God is a huge reason why modern science was born in the Judeo-Christian culture of medieval Christian Europe, and in no other culture
New Book: For Kepler, Science Did Not Point to Atheism - Stephen C. Meyer - January 17, 2023 The Conflict Myth Unmade,,, As historian Ian Barbour says, “science in its modern form” arose “in Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world,” because only the Christian West had the necessary “intellectual presuppositions underlying the rise of science.”2 So, what were those presuppositions? We can identify three. As Melissa Cain Travis shows, (in her book: "Thinking God’s Thoughts: Johannes Kepler and the Miracle of Cosmic Comprehensibility"), all have their place in Kepler’s seminal works. More generally, all find their origin in the Judeo-Christian idea of a Creator God who fashioned human beings and an orderly universe. (1) Intelligibility First, the (Christian) founders of modern science assumed the intelligibility of nature. They believed that nature had been designed by the mind of a rational God, the same God who made the rational minds of human beings. These thinkers assumed that if they used their minds to carefully study nature, they could understand the order and design that God had placed in the world.,,, (2) The Contingency of Nature Second, early pioneers of science presupposed the contingency of nature. They believed that God had many choices about how to make an orderly world. Just as there are many ways to design a watch, there were many ways that God could have designed the universe. To discover how He did, scientists could not merely deduce the order of nature by assuming what seemed most logical to them; they couldn’t simply use reason alone to draw conclusions, as some of the Greek philosophers had done.,,, (3) The Fallibility of Human Reasoning Third, early scientists accepted a biblical understanding of the power and limits of the human mind. Even as these scientists saw human reason as the gift of a rational God, they also recognized the fallibility of humans and, therefore, the fallibility of human ideas about nature.,,, Such a nuanced view of human nature implied, on the one hand, that human beings could attain insight into the workings of the natural world, but that, on the other, they were vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and prematurely jumping to conclusions. This composite view of reason — one that affirmed both its capability and fallibility — inspired confidence that the design and order of nature could be understood if scientists carefully studied the natural world, but also engendered caution about trusting human intuition, conjectures, and hypotheses unless they were carefully tested by experiment and observation.11,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2023/01/new-book-for-kepler-science-did-not-point-to-atheism/
CR then finishes with this false claim "he’d have to concede there actually are different conceptions of locality," Since I did reference a paper that falsified all hidden variable theories, I will simply let CRs lie hang there for all to see.bornagain77_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
01:23 AM
1
01
23
AM
PDT}

Critical Rationalist, is talking nonsense again. As referenced, MWI denies the reality of wave-function collapse. Yet, the empirical evidence itself says that wave function collapse is a real effect.
Note how BA hasn't actually addressed any of my follow ups Which references? Which evidence? What form of locality? As they say, the devil is in the details and this clam falls apart under scrutiny. BA hasn't even acknowledged there are different forms of locality in various interpretations of quantum mechanics, which would be falsified by different empirical evidence.
Moreover, I referenced papers that further falsified Wheeler’s new model via the falsification of Bohmian mechanics, but CR ignored them and rambled on about locality.
Note that BA hasn't explained how Bohmian mechanics is actually related to the many worlds interpretation. Apparently, he's read some passage or popular science article and reached this conclusion by some yet to be explained means. For example, from this paper on Wiseman's many interacting worlds.
The role of the wave function differs markedly in various formulations of quantum mechanics. For example, in the Copenhagen interpretation it is a necessary tool for calculating statistical correlations between a priori classical preparation and registration devices [1]; in the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation it acts as a pilot wave that guides the world’s classical configuration [2]; in the many-worlds interpretation it describes an ever-branching tree of noninteracting quasi-classical worlds [3]; and in spontaneous collapse models its objective ‘collapse’ creates a single quasiclassical world [4]. In other formulations the wave function does not even play a primary role. For example, in Madelung’s quantum hydrodynamics [5], Nelson’s stochastic dynamics [6], and Hall and Reginatto’s exact uncertainty approach [9], the fundamental equations of motion are formulated in terms of a configuration probability density P and a momentum potential S (or the gradient of the latter), with a purely formal translation to a wave function description via ? := P1/2 exp[iS/~]. These approaches can describe the evolution of any scalar wave function on configuration space, which includes any fixed number of spinless particles, plus bosonic fields. In this paper we will similarly treat spinless and bosonic degrees of freedom. [...] Here we take a different but related approach, with the aim of avoiding the ontological difficulty of a con- tinuum of worlds. In particular, we explore the possibility of replacing the continuum of fluid-elements in the Holland-Poirier approach by a huge but finite number of interacting ‘worlds’. Each world is classical in the sense of having determinate properties that are functions of its configuration. In the absence of the interaction with other worlds, each world evolves according to classical Newtonian physics. All quantum effects arise from, and only from, the interaction between worlds. We therefore call this the ‘many interacting worlds’ (MIW) approach to quantum mechanics. A broadly similar idea has been independently suggested by Sebens [14], although without any explicit model being given.
So, Wiseman is quite aware of the nuances present in formalisms of each interpretation of quantum mechanics. Later, Wiseman even explains how his many interacting worlds is different from, you guessed it, Bohmian quantum mechanics!
We now take the crucial step of replacing the Bohmian force (6), which acts on each world-particle xn(t) via (5), by the approximation rN (xn(t); Xt). Thus, the evolution of world-configuration xn(t) is directly determined by the other configurations in Xt. This makes the wave function ?t (q), and the functions Pt (q) and St (q) derived from it, superfluous. What is left is a mechanical theory, referred to as MIW, which describes the motion of a ‘multiverse’ of N co-existing worlds x1(t), . . . xn(t), . . . xN (t), where each world-configuration xn(t) is a K-vector specifying the position of J = K/D particles.
Did BA actually bother to read the paper before making his claim? Apparently not. IOW, Wiseman's many interacting worlds can be inspired by aspects of Bohemian mechanics, without actually being dependent on bohemian mechanics. After all, it's also inspired by the MWI, despite the wave function playing a different role. Specifically it comes after, instead of being fundamental in the many interacting worlds interpretation, but still has multiple universes. The formalism is different. Furthermore, making a distinction regarding locality isn't rambling. it's crucial to understanding how to interpret the results of the experiments BA has referenced. And I'm the one who doesn't care about evidence and science? What gives?
All to no avail. CR and his zillions of compatriots in parallel universes could apparently care less about actual empirical science and he is apparently more than willing to believe any insanity, even believing in a zillion parallel CRs...
This is rather odd, given that I've addressed the specifics about the evidence. If I didn't care about, the evidence, then I'd just start calling BA crazy for believing physical reality doesn't exist when he's not looking at it, then call it a day, instead of posting references to papers, etc.
... just so long as he can avoid believing in God.
Again, this is a false dilemma. God couldn't have decided to create the multiverse? How does BA know the mind of an infinite being? Why should God conform to what BA does or does not think is crazy?
CR then has the audacity to claim that his basic understanding of quantum mechanics is much better than mine. But alas, I think CR is confusing his atheistically driven gullibility to believe in a zillion parallel CRs with a basic understanding of quantum mechanics.
Then why does BA keep claiming experiments falsify the many worlds interpolation? Surely, if he had a better understanding, he's be able to pick references to papers that actually align with his position. There is no substance, just more ad-hominems.
In fact, I hold that his atheism is the primary thing that hampering him, big time, in ever achieving a proper, and basic, understanding of Quantum Mechanics.
Then, by all means, BA should enlighten us. I mean, we have yet to hear why I only think the MWI isn't falsified based on my follow ups, but it actually is. Where am I mistaken? Surely, If BA is correct, he should be able to reference some deeper understanding of quantum mechanics he can appeal to and elaborate on to clear things up. Right? For example, how did I pick the wrong form of locality for the evidence he's referring to? But, before BA could even start, he'd have to concede there actually are different conceptions of locality, depending on which theory of quantum mechanics is in question, which would implicitly concede that his claim reflects a false dilemma. So, no, I won't be holding my breath. But, by all means. Feel free to show me I'm wrong.critical rationalist_{March 13, 2023
March
03
Mar
13
13
2023
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

Critical Rationalist, is talking nonsense again. As referenced, MWI denies the reality of wave-function collapse. Yet, the empirical evidence itself says that wave function collapse is a real effect. As far as empirical science is concerned, MWI is falsified. Appealing to an infinity of branching universes does not negate the fact that wave function collapse is now shown to be a real effect in this universe. Moreover, I referenced papers that further falsified Wheeler's new model via the falsification of Bohmian mechanics, but CR ignored them and rambled on about locality. But alas, I also provided a link to a paper that falsified non-local hidden variables. Thus falsifying that angle of non-local hidden variables as well. All to no avail. CR and his zillions of compatriots in parallel universes could apparently care less about actual empirical science and he is apparently more than willing to believe any insanity, even believing in a zillion parallel CRs, just so long as he can avoid believing in God. Sad. CR then has the audacity to claim that his basic understanding of quantum mechanics is much better than mine. But alas, I think CR is confusing his atheistically driven gullibility to believe in a zillion parallel CRs with a basic understanding of quantum mechanics. I disagree with his belief that his atheistic gullibility equals a basic understanding of quantum mechanics.! :) In fact, I hold that his atheism is the primary thing that hampering him, big time, in ever achieving a proper, and basic, understanding of Quantum Mechanics.
Romans 1:20-22 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
bornagain77_{March 13, 2023
March
03
Mar
13
13
2023
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

CR: “Experimentally, the wave function not collapsing is empirically identical to it collapsing.” In what world? Oh yeah, you have the insanity of an infinity of worlds to choose from.
It's empirically identical because that what the theory predicts. If observers evolve according to the wave function, which is what Schrodinger's theory implies, when we take it seriously, then observers also split and end up in one of the possible outcome branches. This would give the appearance of collapse from each branching observer. But, again, this is outlined in the blog entry I just referenced. Apparently, BA cannot be bothered to read it. I guess I need to do his job for him?
The status of the Born Rule depends greatly on one’s preferred formulation of quantum mechanics. When we teach quantum mechanics to undergraduate physics majors, we generally give them a list of postulates that goes something like this: - Quantum states are represented by wave functions, which are vectors in a mathematical space called Hilbert space. - Wave functions evolve in time according to the Schrödinger equation. - The act of measuring a quantum system returns a number, known as the eigenvalue of the quantity being measured. - The probability of getting any particular eigenvalue is equal to the square of the amplitude for that eigenvalue. - After the measurement is performed, the wave function “collapses” to a new state in which the wave function is localized precisely on the observed eigenvalue (as opposed to being in a superposition of many different possibilities). It’s an ungainly mess, we all agree. You see that the Born Rule is simply postulated right there, as #4. Perhaps we can do better. Of course we can do better, since “textbook quantum mechanics” is an embarrassment. There are other formulations, and you know that my own favorite is Everettian (“Many-Worlds”) quantum mechanics. (I’m sorry I was too busy to contribute to the active comment thread on that post. On the other hand, a vanishingly small percentage of the 200+ comments actually addressed the point of the article, which was that the potential for many worlds is automatically there in the wave function no matter what formulation you favor. Everett simply takes them seriously, while alternatives need to go to extra efforts to erase them. As Ted Bunn argues, Everett is just “quantum mechanics,” while collapse formulations should be called “disappearing-worlds interpretations.”) Like the textbook formulation, Everettian quantum mechanics (MWI) also comes with a list of postulates. Here it is: - Quantum states are represented by wave functions, which are vectors in a mathematical space called Hilbert space. - Wave functions evolve in time according to the Schrödinger equation. That’s it! Quite a bit simpler — and the two postulates are exactly the same as the first two of the textbook approach. Everett, in other words, is claiming that all the weird stuff about “measurement” and “wave function collapse” in the conventional way of thinking about quantum mechanics isn’t something we need to add on; it comes out automatically from the formalism.
In response to this, the best we can get from BA is ad-hominems. The claim of being "crazy" is extremely vague criticism, as it could be applied to virtually anything. That would be like me saying BA is crazy for thinking physical reality doesn't exist when he's not looking at it. Suggesting something being unintuitive is not the same as crazy. After all, the idea of physical realty not existing unless someone is looking at is itself, unintuitive. You don't see me calling BA crazy. This is in contrast to the criticism that collapse based theories are a convoluted elaboration of the MWI. They would requite adding something to the theory, such as an "observer function" that explains what observers do other than evolve according to the wave function. The theory puts the Born rule in at the outset! See above. As for Wiseman's contraction, apparently, BA didn't actually read the paper, which was focused on loopholes in Einstein's views on quantum mechanics, the EPR experiment, etc.. Specially Einstein thought quantum mechanics was incomplete, which would exclude spooky action at a distance-like phenomena. This is explicitly addressed by the summary of the paper.
We have demonstrated, both rigorously and in the easy visualized form of nonclassical Wigner functions, the nonlocality of a single particle using a modern and simplified version of Einstein’s original gedankenexperiment. That is, we demonstrated Einstein’s ‘spooky action at a distance’ in that Bob’s quantum state (of his half of a single photon) was probably dependent on Alice’s choice of measurement (on the other half), and could not have been pre- existing. Quantitatively, we violated a multisetting nonlinear EPR-steering inequality by several s.d.’s (0.042±0.006). This EPR-steering experiment is a form of entanglement verification, for a single-photon mode-entangled state, which does not require Bob to trust Alice’s devices, or her reported outcomes. It was possible only because we used a high-fidelity single-photon state and very high-efficiency homodyne measurements, to perform the steering measurements on Alice’s side and the tomographic state reconstruction on Bob’s. Our results may open a way to new protocols for one-sided device-independent quantum key distribution10 based on the DLCZ protocol employing single-rail qubits46.
Again, Einstein's gedankenexperiment experiment, which is the target of this paper, is about hidden variables that would retain a classical characterization to reality. On the other hand, the many worlds interpretation isn't local in a classical sense, yet presents an alternative means of restoring locality. But don't take my world for it. Here are several excerpts from this paper co-authored by, you guessed it, Wiseman, which indicates he is quite familiar with multiple conceptions of locality, and that one of them is not applicable to, you guessed it, the many worlds interpretation.
“Locality” is a fraught word, even within the restricted context of Bell’s theorem. As one of us has argued elsewhere, that is partly because Bell himself used the word with different meanings at different stages in his career. The original, weaker, meaning for locality was in his 1964 theorem: that the choice of setting by one party could never affect the outcome of a measurement performed by a distant second party. The epitome of a quantum theory violating this weak notion of locality (and hence exhibiting a strong form of nonlocality) is Bohmian mechanics. [...] The answer to this EmQM17 focus question hinges, of course, on what one means by the term “local” (assuming that “nonlocal” is simply its complement). Perhaps surprisingly, it seems [2,6] that the word was not used in the context of interpreting EPR quantum correlations prior to the 1964 paper of Bell [7]. In that paper, Bell proved his 1964 Bell’s theorem; to quote [7]: In a theory in which parameters are added to quantum mechanics to determine the results of individual measurements, without changing the statistical predictions, there must be a mechanism whereby the setting of one measuring device can influence the reading of another instrument, however remote. In other words, some quantum phenomena are incompatible with the joint assumption of predetermination (or causality; Bell used both terms) and locality (or separability; Bell used both terms). In the above quote, it is the negation of locality that is characterised, in a way consistent with Bell’s earlier definition of locality; to quote [7]: It is the requirement of locality, or more precisely that the result of a measurement on one system be unaffected by operations on a distant system with which it has interacted in the past, that creates the essential difficulty. Thus, Bell intended to be (somewhat) precise about what he meant by locality. Unfortunately he did not give a general mathematical definition, nor did he define terms like “unaffected” or (in the first quote and elsewhere) “influence”. However, the obvious meaning, Equation (1), does not work in the EPR argument. Even one of Bell’s most ardent admirers [13] was forced to admit this [14]: It is simply not clear how to translate Bell’s words here (about locality) into a sharp mathematical statement in terms of which the EPR argument might be rigorously rehearsed.
…[I]t must be admitted that Bell’s recapitulation of the EPR argument in this paragraph leaves something to be desired.
Bell clearly (and, I think [2,3], rightly) thought local causality to be a more natural concept than locality as per Equation (1), as he never used the latter concept again. Regrettably, however, he did not abandon the word “locality”. Rather, beginning even in 1976 [19], he sometimes used “local” as short-hand for “locally causal”, and, a few years later, was apparently convinced that local causality was the concept that he (and EPR) had always used [21] (for details, see [2]). However, at least in his final word on the subject [20], Bell showed his preference unequivocally for the terminology “local causality” over “locality”. Thus we may return to the primary question posed above—Is the universe local or nonlocal? If by “locality” one means “locally causal”, the concept Bell promoted for most of his career in quantum foundations [22], then the answer (barring more exotic possibilities such as “superdeterminism” [20], retrocausality [23], and the subjectivity of macroreality [24]) is that the universe is nonlocal; it violates local causality. To avoid confusion, we might agree to say that the universe is Bell-nonlocal [2]. If, on the other hand, one adopts the definition of “local” indicated by Bell’s 1964 paper and commonly used in text books [25,26], then the answer is that we cannot say whether the universe is local or nonlocal. Operational quantum mechanics satisfies this weaker sense of locality, simply because it does not feature signalling faster than light, and denies the need for giving any account for quantum correlations beyond an operational one. We can only say that the universe is nonlocal, in this strict sense, if we make some other assumptions about its nature, such as determinism. [...] Why Bell considered Bohm’s interpretation to be “grossly nonlocal”, rather than nonlocal simpliciter, is unclear. Perhaps it was because the theory is nonlocal even in situations where there is an obvious local hidden variable theory, as in the EPR-correlations [15], or the EPR-Bohm correlations [27]. Unlike operational quantum mechanics, Bohm’s theory is a precise and universal physical theory. Restricting to the case of interacting nonrelativistic scalar particles for simplicity of discussion, it takes the universe to be described by a universal wavefunction ?(q) , obeying Schrödinger’s equation, where q is the vectorised list of the coordinates of all the particles. However, it also postulates a single point in configuration space, x , which encodes the real positions of all these particles. This “marvellous point” [28] or “world-particle” [29] has a deterministic equation of motion x?=v?(x) guided vicinally by ?(q) . (Note that “vicinal” is a synonym of “local” in the latter’s quotidian sense, introduced here to avoid any possible confusion with “local” in the technical sense defined in Section 2.) Here, “vicinal guiding” means that the world-particle’s velocity v?(x) depends on ?(q) and finitely many derivatives, evaluated at q=x . However, vicinal in configuration space is not vicinal in 3D space—the positions of Bohmian particles in one region of 3D space can affect the motion of an arbitrarily distant particle if entanglement is present. Since it is the position of Bohmian particles that encodes what an experimenter decides to measure, this gives rise to the `gross’ nonlocality of Bohmian mechanics which Bell noted in 1964. Bohm’s original proposal [4,5] actually used a second-order dynamical equation x¨=avicinal(x)+a?(x) The 3D-vicinal acceleration avicinal(x) is given by Newton’s laws, involving inter-particle potentials which drop off with 3D-distance. The nonlocal effects in Bohm’s theory arise from a separate, 3D-nonvicinal, quantum acceleration a?(x) Bohm’s publication of an explicitly nonlocal theory seems to have made it acceptable for other physicists to publish realist approaches to quantum mechanics in direct opposition to the Copenhagen interpretation. This included: de Broglie in 1956 [30], reviving his unpublished idea from 30 years earlier which prefigured much of Bohm’s work and used the first-order dynamics described earlier; and Everett in 1957 [31], introducing the relative state interpretation, more popularly known as the many worlds interpretation

Here, the paper co-authored by Wiseman explicitly discusses the various conceptions of locality, how the many worlds interpolation presents a realists approach to quantum mechanics, which is distinct from the realism suggested by Einstein. As such, it's unclear how Wiseman contradicts himself as BA claimed. IOW, again, BA's objection assumes the false dilemma that, if Einstein was wrong, then the MWI is false. But this doesn't follow.
What George Ellis’s comment has to do with Wiseman directly contradicting himself I have no idea... What Sean Carroll’s article on quantum eraser has to do with Wiseman directly contracting himself, I again have no idea either.
BA has made that painfully clear. I don't have much to add. Fortunately, we're not limited to what BA can comprehend, what work he's willing to do to improve his comprehension, etc. If it merely sounds like something supports BA's position, he'll quote it without actually understanding it, look for clarifying references, etc.
In short, I’ll gladly stand behind my posts at 48-50, and see no need to modify or edit anything that I have written from CR’s incoherent ‘rebuttal’, (if his response can even be called a proper ‘rebuttal’ of my claims).
My supposed "incoherent rambling" isn't even remotely controversial. Someone with a basic understanding of quantum mechanics, who actually bothered to do more than search for what appear to be confirming quotes, would make the distinction between the various kinds of locality, the various interpretations of quantum mechanics, which experimental results would conflict with them, etc. Apparently, this continues to go over BA's head and he is bound and determined to keep it that way. Which is why he sees no need to edit or modify anything. Again, BA understands the concept of being empirically indistinguishable, as he appealed to it earlier in this thread regarding multiple centers of the universe resulting in the same empirical experiences for an observer. He still hasn't explained why that was, other than an appeal to empirical indistinguishability.
And as George Ellis, (a former close colleague of Hawking), stated, “I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds…”
Given that The MWI is also empirically indistinguishable, surely BA thinks the MWI cannot be proved by observations. After all, this is precisely the criticism I've presented in regards to BA's claim that the MWI has been falsified by, you guessed it, observations. Right? Of course, not. It doesn't suit his purpose. IOW, BA continues to declare that the MWI has been falsified for reasons that don't actually hold up under scrutiny.critical rationalist_{March 13, 2023
March
03
Mar
13
13
2023
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

CR How seriously do you take the many-worlds interpretation (MWI)? Do you think that it is likely that you exist in an infinite number of parallel universes? Or does the idea strike you as counterintuitive?Origenes_{March 13, 2023
March
03
Mar
13
13
2023
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

CR: "Experimentally, the wave function not collapsing is empirically identical to it collapsing." In what world? Oh yeah, you have the insanity of an infinity of worlds to choose from. :) What George Ellis's comment has to do with Wiseman directly contradicting himself I have no idea, but alas, being rational is apparently not a high priority in CR's MWI. (which pretty much goes without saying) :) What Sean Carroll's article on quantum eraser has to do with Wiseman directly contracting himself, I again have no idea either. But alas, in the fevered imagination of zillions of parallel CR's, I guess, logically speaking, anything is allowed as long as God is avoided. CR rambles on incoherently about other issues, Born's rule, etc.., that also have nothing to do with Wiseman directly contradicting himself. In short, CR, much like his belief that he exists in an infinity of parallel universe, has nothing but incoherence rambling to try to address my main points at 48-50. In short, I'll gladly stand behind my posts at 48-50, and see no need to modify or edit anything that I have written from CR's incoherent 'rebuttal', (if his response can even be called a proper 'rebuttal' of my claims).bornagain77_{March 13, 2023
March
03
Mar
13
13
2023
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

Again, for full transparency, this blog entry expands on the problem of deriving the Born rule, and gives multiple solutions, including one from Deutsch and the author of the post. Of note: probably was originally introduced to refer to games of chance in 1565 by Gerolamo Cardano. From there it started to find its way into physics. But Deutsch argues probability can be expunged from physics and science in general because it doesn't actually speak about the actual physical world. Rather it just speaks of probable physical worlds, etc. See the talk Physics Without Probability As such, if probability can be removed from physics then probability, in the form of the Born rule, would be a non-issue.critical rationalist_{March 13, 2023
March
03
Mar
13
13
2023
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

First, note that BA hasn't, even remotely acknowledged or addressed the issue of selectively appealing to people he deems crazy, to prove and disprove things. Nor has he addressed the issue of arbitrarily appealing to empirically indistinguishable experimental results. Does he just think we're not paying attention? Second, BA wrote:
To point out the obvious, Wiseman. and MWI adherents in general, can’t have it both ways. Either “there’s no wave function collapse” or else, “the collapse of the wave function is a real effect”.
But this is where the above comes into play. Experimentally, the wave function not collapsing is empirically identical to it collapsing. Observers would have the same experience. This is exactly what BA previously appealed to as a means to avoid falsification. Observers would have the same experience regardless of where the center of the universe is. From an earlier comment....
And as George Ellis, (a former close colleague of Hawking), stated, “I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds…”
“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations… For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds… What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” – George Ellis – W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55
And as Fred Hoyle, who discovered stellar nucleosynthesis, himself stated, “Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
If this isn't an appeal to empirically indistinguishable results, then what is it? It seem that BA has inadvertently conceded the very criticisms I've made of his own position on the MWI, has teeth. He just didn't realize it would also bite his own claim that MWI supposedly has been falsified by the results of those experiments. Whoops!
Moreover, I point out that it is the evidence itself that is forcing Wiseman to say “the collapse of the wave function is a real effect” and that it his theory which is forcing him to say “there’s no wave function collapse”.
But it's not. that's the point. BA has somehow picked up the mistaken idea that ether Einstein was right or the MWI is false. This is, well, a false dilemma.
How does Wiseman reconcile the direct conflict between empirical evidence and his theory? I have no idea. And frankly, after watching his conclusions, I find Wiseman to be all over the map with his new theory. There are several questions I would like to ask him about many of the presuppositions of his theory that he simply accepts as given.
Yes, apparently, BA has no idea. But, thankfully, we're not dependent on whether BA can reconcile the results of those experiments and theories. Phew! From this article on the The Notorious Delayed-Choice Quantum Eraser...

The electron is simply part of the wave function of the universe. It doesn’t make choices about whether to be wave-like or particle-like. But a number of serious researchers in quantum foundations really do take the delayed-choice quantum eraser and analogous experiments (which have been successfully performed, by the way) as evidence of retrocausality in nature — signals traveling backwards in time to influence the past. A form of this experiment was originally proposed by none other than John Wheeler, who envisioned a set of telescopes placed on the opposite side of the screen from the slits, which could detect which slit the electrons went through long after they had passed through. Unlike some later commentators, Wheeler didn’t go so far as to suggest retrocausality, and knew better than to insist that an electron is either a particle or a wave at all times. There’s no need to invoke retrocausality to explain the delayed-choice experiment. To an Everettian, the result makes perfect sense without anything traveling backwards in time. The trickiness relies on the fact that by becoming entangled with a single recording spin rather than with the environment and its zillions of particles, the traveling electrons only became kind-of decohered. With just a single particle to worry about observing, we are allowed to contemplate measuring it in different ways. If, as in the conventional double-slit setup, we measured the slit through which the traveling electron went via a macroscopic pointing device, we would have had no choice about what was being observed. True decoherence takes a tiny quantum entanglement and amplifies it, effectively irreversibly, into the environment. In that sense the delayed-choice quantum eraser is a useful thought experiment to contemplate the role of decoherence and the environment in measurement. But alas, not everyone is an Everettian. In some other versions of quantum mechanics, wave functions really do collapse, not just the apparent collapse that decoherence provides us with in Many-Worlds. In a true collapse theory like GRW, the process of wave-function collapse is asymmetric in time; wave functions collapse, but they don’t un-collapse. If you have collapsing wave functions, but for some reason also want to maintain an overall time-symmetry to the fundamental laws of physics, you can convince yourself that retrocausality needs to be part of the story. Or you can accept the smooth evolution of the wave function, with branching rather than collapses, and maintain time-symmetry of the underlying equations without requiring backwards-propagating signals or electrons that can’t make up their mind.

Of course, I've alluded to this at length, repeatedly. And I've posted a reference to it in this thread. But this is inconvenient for BA, so he has either chosen to remain ignorant of it, disingenuously choose to exclude it, or some combination of the above. Perhaps he thinks if he doesn't observe it by reading it, it doesn't exist?
But anyways, as I pointed out previously, since Wiseman’s new theory is reliant on Bohmian mechanics, then his new theory can now be considered experimentally falsified,
Again, this doesn't follow. It's a non-sequitur. If Wiseman's theory is falsified, then why not some other theory of the center of the world because it too is empirically indistinguishable from some other center of the world. Again, this is a flawed conception of science. What gives? Apparently, not unlike suggesting physical reality doesn't exists unless someone is looking at it, BA thinks being empirically indistinguishable "does not exist" unless it suites his purpose.critical rationalist_{March 13, 2023
March
03
Mar
13
13
2023
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

Of supplemental note, a major part of the reason that atheists were driven to postulate the insanity of MWI in order to avoid God is that, prior to collapse, the wave function is mathematically defined as being in an ‘infinite dimensional’ state which takes an infinite amount of information to describe properly.
Why do we need infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces in physics? You need an infinite dimensional Hilbert space to represent a wavefunction of any continuous observable (like position for example).,,, However, these are all ugly and artificial schemes, and there is very little reason to prefer them over the perfectly reasonable standard Schrödinger theory, which is why we use infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces in everyday quantum mechanics. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/149786/why-do-we-need-infinite-dimensional-hilbert-spaces-in-physics Why does describing a quantum state take an infinite amount of information? Excerpt: Intuitively, things look pretty bad for Alice. She doesn’t know the state (of the wave function) of the qubit she has to send to Bob, and the laws of quantum mechanics prevent her from determining the state when she only has a single copy of (the wave function) in her possession. What’s worse, even if she did know the state (of the wave function), describing it precisely takes an infinite amount of classical information since (the wave function) takes values in a continuous space. So even if she did know (the wave function) it would take forever for Alice to describe the state to Bob. https://quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/14324/why-does-describing-a-quantum-state-take-an-infinite-amount-of-classical-informa
As is fairly obvious, the ‘infinite dimensional’ Hilbert space corresponds to the Theistic attribute of omnipresence. And the infinite information required to describe the ‘infinite dimensional’ wave function prior to collapse to its finite particle state corresponds to the Theistic attribute of omniscience. Of supplemental note, It is also very interesting to note that the collapse of the wave function, (which, I remind, has now been experimentally shown to be a real effect), fits very well into Aristotle and Aquinas’s ancient ‘first mover’ argument for the existence of God, i.e. (reduction of potency to act).
Stephen Hawking: “Philosophy Is Dead” – Michael Egnor – August 3, 2015 Excerpt: The metaphysics of Aristotle and Aquinas is far and away the most successful framework on which to understand modern science, especially quantum mechanics. Heisenberg knew this (Link on site). Aristotle 2,300 years ago described the basics of collapse of the quantum waveform (reduction of potency to act),,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/08/stephen_hawking_3098261.html What Is Matter? The Aristotelian Perspective – Michael Egnor – July 21, 2017 Excerpt: Heisenberg, almost alone among the great physicists of the quantum revolution, understood that the Aristotelian concept of potency and act was beautifully confirmed by quantum theory and evidence.,,, Heisenberg wrote: ,,,”The probability wave of Bohr, Kramers, Slater… was a quantitative version of the old concept of “potentia” in Aristotelian philosophy. It introduced something standing in the middle between the idea of an event and the actual event, a strange kind of physical reality just in the middle between possibility and reality…The probability function combines objective and subjective elements,,,” Thus, the existence of potential quantum states described by Schrodinger’s equation (which is a probability function) are the potency (the “matter”) of the system, and the collapse of the quantum waveform is the reduction of potency to act. To an Aristotelian (like Heisenberg), quantum mechanics isn’t strange at all. https://evolutionnews.org/2017/07/what-is-matter-the-aristotelian-perspective/
Frankly, I consider it nothing less than astonishing that Aristotle and Aquinas would deduce the basics of quantum wave collapse millennia before it would be confirmed by modern science.
Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
So thus in conclusion, the insanity of MWI was desperately postulated by atheists, first and foremost, to avoid God. Yet the insanity of MWI is contradicted by mathematical and experimental evidence. Moreover, the experimental demonstration that wave function collapse is a 'real effect' confirms Judeo-Christian presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science, (namely contingency), and also confirms the ancient unmoved mover, and/or first mover, of Aristotle and Aquinas. Not a bad track record for Christians and for Theists in general! Not a bad track record at all!
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.
bornagain77_{March 13, 2023
March
03
Mar
13
13
2023
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

To call Bohemian mechanics 'contrived' is an understatement. Moreover, it is contradicted by mathematical and empirical evidence.
"When Bohm expressed "hope" that violations of QM (Quantum Mechanics) would be found later and hidden variables supported, Bohr responded that the strange sentence is almost isomorphic to "I hope that 2×2=5 will be proven at some point which will have a good effect on our finances." - motls - blogspot The One Theory of Quantum Mechanics That Actually Kind of Makes Sense – But most physicists don’t buy it. – Dec 1, 2016 Excerpt: pilot-wave theory requires that “hidden variables” exist,,, But despite Einstein’s reservations, multiple mathematical theorems have all but proven that hidden variables cannot explain away all of the bizarre behaviors seen in quantum mechanics. http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a24114/pilot-wave-quantum-mechanics-theory/ “hidden variables don’t exist. If you have proved them come back with PROOF and a Nobel Prize. John Bell theorized that maybe the particles can signal faster than the speed of light. This is what he advocated in his interview in “The Ghost in the Atom.” But the violation of Leggett’s inequality in 2007 takes away that possibility and rules out all non-local hidden variables. Observation instantly defines what properties a particle has and if you assume they had properties before we measured them, then you need evidence, because right now there is none which is why realism is dead, and materialism dies with it. How does the particle know what we are going to pick so it can conform to that?” per Jimfit Experimental test of nonlocal causality – August 10, 2016 DISCUSSION Previous work on causal explanations beyond local hidden-variable models focused on testing Leggett’s crypto-nonlocality (7, 42, 43), a class of models with a very specific choice of hidden variable that is unrelated to Bell’s local causality (44). In contrast, we make no assumptions on the form of the hidden variable and test all models ,,, Our results demonstrate that a causal influence from one measurement outcome to the other, which may be subluminal, superluminal, or even instantaneous, cannot explain the observed correlations.,,, http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/8/e1600162.full
But anyways, putting Wiseman's direct contradiction in claims to the side, (and putting the falsification of Wiseman's new theory by empirical and mathematical evidence to the side), the insanity of MWI, (to repeat), was postulated, first and foremost, as a way for atheists to avoid God. Specifically, "(Everett) was repulsed by the fact that the human mind seemed to be given a special role—a conclusion that Everett thought smacked of the supernatural."
The Atheist War Against Quantum Mechanics – Nov 28, 2021 Excerpt: A dyed-in the-wool nihilist, Everett is known for ordering that his ashes be dumped into a trashcan when he died—a practice that Everett’s daughter later copied upon committing suicide. Everett brought this same dedication to bear in his scientific career. Today, Everett’s disciples praise him for bringing an atheistic scorn of the immaterial back to quantum mechanics. As a graduate student in the 1950s, Everett was alarmed to discover that traditional quantum mechanics did not line up with his materialist commitments. He was repulsed by the fact that the human mind seemed to be given a special role—a conclusion that Everett thought smacked of the supernatural. There seemed to be “a magic process in which something quite drastic occurred, while in all other times systems were assumed to obey perfectly natural continuous laws.”[4] In Jonathan Allday’s words, Everett firmly believed that such a “‘magic process’… should not be considered in quantum physics.” Everett therefore devised the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics—perhaps the most widely-known interpretation in contemporary popular culture. The purpose of the interpretation was, in essence, to create a consistent model of quantum mechanics that would preserve Thomas Huxley’s materialistic dismissal of the mind. Everett’s model continues to be extremely influential. David Deutsch, a militantly atheistic contemporary physicist, regards himself as a sort of apostle of Hugh Everett. “Everett was before his time,” says Deutsch. Before Everett, “things were regarded as progress which are not explanatory, and the vacuum was filled by mysticism and religion and every kind of rubbish. Everett is important because he stood out against it.”[5] Deutsch’s words of praise are important: Everett’s greatest achievement is not the elegance of his mathematical model, but that the fact that his model pushed back against “religion,” which is of course false. https://www.staseos.net/post/the-atheist-war-against-quantum-mechanics
The late Steven Weinberg, an atheist, put to irresolvable dilemma for Darwinian atheists like this, "“,,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,,”
The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017 Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11 Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,, Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,, http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/466-17/QuantumMechanicsWeinberg.pdf
In fact Weinberg, again an atheist, (and like Everett), rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within. Yet, regardless of how he and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave. As Anton Zeilinger stated, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
“The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.” Anton Zeilinger – Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437
Moreover, Anton Zeilinger and company have now, as of 2018, pushed the ‘freedom of choice’ loophole back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenter in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that the experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.
Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018 Excerpt: This experiment pushes back to at least approx. 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403
Thus regardless of how Steven Weinberg and other atheists may prefer the universe to behave, with the closing of the last remaining ‘freedom of choice’ loophole in quantum mechanics, “humans are (indeed) brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and thus these recent findings from quantum mechanics directly undermine, as Weinberg himself admitted, the “vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.” Moreover, when we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern science originally held with the presupposition of ‘contingency’), and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the “freedom-of-choice” loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), then rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and provides us with an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”
Oct. 2022 - although there will never be, (via Godel), a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything’ that bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between quantum mechanics and general relativity, all hope is not lost in finding the correct ‘theory of everything’. https://uncommondescent.com/cosmology/from-iai-news-how-infinity-threatens-cosmology/#comment-766384
Verse:
Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
bornagain77_{March 13, 2023
March
03
Mar
13
13
2023
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

Let's just simply observe that Critical Rationalist, in desperately clinging to a insane worldview that insists he is endlessly splitting into a veritable infinity of new versions of himself, is not being very 'critical' nor is he being very 'rational'.
“In the well-known “Many-Worlds Interpretation”, each universe branches into a bunch of new universes every time a quantum measurement is made. All possibilities are therefore realised – in some universes the dinosaur-killing asteroid missed Earth. In others, Australia was colonised by the Portuguese. https://phys.org/news/2014-10-interacting-worlds-theory-scientists-interaction.html
Moreover, since all possibilities are realized in MWI, (i.e. some universes the dinosaur-killing asteroid missed Earth. In others, Australia was colonised by the Portuguese), then it necessarily follows that in some universe CR agrees with me and thinks that MWI is insane and that Christian theism is true. To point out the obvious, that is NOT a 'rational' position for a person to hold. So again, CR is simply not being very 'critical' nor is he being very 'rational' in his clinging to MWI. Yet, CR insists that he is not being crazy but that "those other universes are implied by simply taking the wave function seriously". ,,, So CR readily believes he exists in a veritable infinity of other places simply because some mathematical equation written on a piece of paper can be contrived as implying he exists in a veritable infinity of other places? :) Gullibility thy name is CR! While MWI may indeed take the wave function 'seriously', to rehash, MWI denies the reality of wave function collapse,
Many-worlds interpretation Excerpt: The many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts that the universal wavefunction is objectively real, and that there is no wave function collapse.[2] – per wikipedia Quantum mechanics – Philosophical implications Excerpt: Everett’s many-worlds interpretation, formulated in 1956, holds that all the possibilities described by quantum theory simultaneously occur in a multiverse composed of mostly independent parallel universes.[52] This is a consequence of removing the axiom of the collapse of the wave packet. – per wikipedia
And while Wiseman may indeed deny the reality of wave function collapse in his new many 'interacting' worlds model,
"so there's no way function so of course there's no wave function collapse" - Wiseman - 25:00 mark https://youtu.be/92lCzlBCNgU?t=1500
I note that Wiseman himself, and via empirical evidence, directly contradicts himself and states, “the non-local, (i.e. beyond space and time), collapse of a (single) particle’s wave function”,, “the collapse of the wave function is a real effect”,, “the instantaneous non-local, (beyond space and time), collapse of the wave function to wherever the particle is detected”,, and “Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways, thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong.”,,
Quantum experiment verifies Einstein’s ‘spooky action at a distance’ – March 24, 2015 Excerpt: An experiment,, has for the first time demonstrated Albert Einstein’s original conception of “spooky action at a distance” using a single particle. ,,Professor Howard Wiseman and his experimental collaborators,, report their use of homodyne measurements to show what Einstein did not believe to be real, namely the non-local collapse of a (single) particle’s wave function.,, According to quantum mechanics, a single particle can be described by a wave function that spreads over arbitrarily large distances,,, ,, by splitting a single photon between two laboratories, scientists have used homodyne detectors—which measure wave-like properties—to show the collapse of the wave function is a real effect,, This phenomenon is explained in quantum theory,, the instantaneous non-local, (beyond space and time), collapse of the wave function to wherever the particle is detected.,,, “Einstein never accepted orthodox quantum mechanics and the original basis of his contention was this single-particle argument. This is why it is important to demonstrate non-local wave function collapse with a single particle,” says Professor Wiseman. “Einstein’s view was that the detection of the particle only ever at one point could be much better explained by the hypothesis that the particle is only ever at one point, without invoking the instantaneous collapse of the wave function to nothing at all other points. “However, rather than simply detecting the presence or absence of the particle, we used homodyne measurements enabling one party to make different measurements and the other, using quantum tomography, to test the effect of those choices.” “Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways, thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong.” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-there-a-center-of-the-universe/#comment-777575
To point out the obvious, Wiseman. and MWI adherents in general, can't have it both ways. Either "there's no wave function collapse" or else, “the collapse of the wave function is a real effect”. Moreover, I point out that it is the evidence itself that is forcing Wiseman to say “the collapse of the wave function is a real effect” and that it his theory which is forcing him to say "there's no wave function collapse". How does Wiseman reconcile the direct conflict between empirical evidence and his theory? I have no idea. And frankly, after watching his conclusions, I find Wiseman to be all over the map with his new theory. There are several questions I would like to ask him about many of the presuppositions of his theory that he simply accepts as given. But anyways, as I pointed out previously, since Wiseman's new theory is reliant on Bohmian mechanics, then his new theory can now be considered experimentally falsified,
23:50 mark: “We’ve thought about how you generalize this beyond simple one particle in one dimension , and it becomes a lot more complicated. We don’t have any explicit form of the potential that we know would work but the basic idea would be is captured by this equation here that every world again obeys a newtonian, this is this is just newton’s equation, so the only thing which we’re doing is adding some quantum force which is exactly the force from Bohm’s quantum potential, but we’re imagining that that quantum force is determined by some sort of local averaging of the the density of worlds uh in in the region for the where that particular world is” – Wiseman https://youtu.be/92lCzlBCNgU?t=1427 Bohm’s “quantum potential” can be considered falsified by experiment Antoine Suarez – Oct. 2014 Abstract: A Michelson-Morley-type experiment is described, which exploits two-photon interference between entangled photons instead of classical light interference. In this experimental context, the negative result (no shift in the detection rates) rules out David Bohm’s postulate of an infinite-speed time-ordered “quantum potential”, and thereby upholds the timeless standard quantum collapse.,,, Page 3: 4. Discussion.—David Bohm’s assumption of an “infinite-speed time-ordered quantum potential” is generally supposed to reproduce the experimental predictions of quantum mechanics, and, so far, considered a possible causal alternative to the standard interpretation of the timeless wavefunction collapse at detection (see for instance [3, 5, 10–12]). Strictly speaking, Bohm’s time- ordered quantum potential implies disappearance of the quantum correlation in case the decisions at the beam- splitters BSA and BSB happen simultaneously in the assumed “preferred frame”, and hence it is actually at odds with standard quantum physics [13]. Nonetheless this prediction cannot be tested by a real experiment. By contrast, in the experiment presented in the preceded section Bohm’s assumption implies the shift in the counting rates predicted by (7). This prediction conflicts with relativity and is testable. Although a real experiment would be “nice to have”, it does not seem required if one considers that the falsification of the prediction (7) results by induction from the Michelson- Morley experiments repeatedly performed in the past. To this extent the negative result of these experiments can be straightforwardly extended to the entanglement version presented in the precedent section to conclude that shift predicted by (7) will not be observed. And this means that the Michelson-Morley entanglement experiment (Figures 1 and 2) rules out Bohm’s “infinite-speed time-ordered quantum potential”.,, Page 4: 5. Conclusion.—It is noteworthy that Bohmian mechanics conflicts with both, standard quantum mechanics and relativity. Whereas the conflict with quantum mechanics is not testable, the conflict with relativity can be tested through the experiment we have presented in this paper. Therefore Bohm’s “preferred frame” assumption can be considered falsified by experiment to the same extent as relativity is considered to be confirmed by it. By contrast, the standard quantum collapse at detection ignores the “preferred frame” (time-order) and thereby implicitly contains relativity. The proposed experiment confirms this view and highlights that relativity and quantum physics are two inseparable aspects of one and the same description of the physical reality. These two theories neither are incompatible with each other nor have a “frail peaceful coexistence”, but rather imply each other: we can’t have one without the other. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.2014.pdf
And in empirical science, evidence falsifies theory all the time. And also to remind, here are a few more 'small' problems with Bohmian mechanics
Bohmian mechanics, a ludicrous caricature of Nature – Lubos Motl – July 15, 2013 Excerpt: There’s no way out here. If you attempt to emulate a quantum field theory (QED) in this Bohmian way, you introduce lots of ludicrous gears and wheels – much like in the case of the luminiferous aether, they are gears and wheels that don’t exist according to pretty much direct observations – and they must be finely adjusted to reproduce what quantum mechanics predicts (sometimes) without any adjustments whatsoever. Every new Bohmian gear or wheel you encounter generally breaks the Lorentz symmetry and makes the (wrong) prediction of a Lorentz violation and you will need to fine-tune infinitely many properties of these gears and wheels to restore the Lorentz invariance and other desirable properties of a physical theory (even a simple and fundamental thing such as the linearity of Schrödinger’s equation is really totally unexplained in Bohmian mechanics and requires infinitely many adjustments to hold – while it may be derived from logical consistency in quantum mechanics). It’s infinitely unlikely that they take the right values “naturally” so the theory is at least infinitely contrived. More likely, there’s no way to adjust the gears and wheels to obtain relativistically invariant predictions at all. I would say that we pretty much directly experimentally observe the fact that the observations obey the Lorentz symmetry;,,, and lots of other, totally universal and fundamental facts about the symmetries and the interpretation of the basic objects we use in physics. Bohmian mechanics is really trying to deny all these basic principles – it is trying to deny facts that may be pretty much directly extracted from experiments. It is in conflict with the most universal empirical data about the reality collected in the 20th and 21st century. It wants to rape Nature. A pilot-wave-like theory has to be extracted from a very large class of similar classical theories but infinitely many adjustments have to be made – a very special subclass has to be chosen – for the Bohmian theory to reproduce at least some predictions of quantum mechanics (to produce predictions that are at least approximately local, relativistic, rotationally invariant, unitary, linear etc.). But even if one succeeds and the Bohmian theory does reproduce the quantum predictions, we can’t really say that it has made the correct predictions because it was sometimes infinitely fudged or adjusted to produce the predetermined goal. On the other hand, quantum mechanics in general and specific quantum mechanical theories in particular genuinely do predict certain facts, including some very general facts about Nature. If you search for theories within the rigid quantum mechanical framework, while obeying the general postulates, you may make many correct predictions or conclusions pretty much without any additional assumptions. https://motls.blogspot.com/2013/07/bohmian-mechanics-ludicrous-caricature.html A Critique of Bohmian Mechanics (Pilot Wave theory) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn2hoU4jaQQ
bornagain77_{March 13, 2023
March
03
Mar
13
13
2023
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

What fuels them is the underlying assumption that if atheism fails, Christianity is true
Obviously no logical. But
What fuels them is the underlying assumption that if atheism fails, Christianity is possibly true
This is likely true for a lot of atheists. And
As for Christianity, and theism in general, supposedly God is an inexplicable mind, that exists in an inexplicable realm, which operates using inexplicable means and methods and is driven by inexplicable goals. From the perspective of an explanation, it’s unclear how adding God to the equation improves things
Gos was not added so this is backward. God was a conclusion or a given. Tying to explain God led to some of these explanations. ID just says there was a creator who had a purpose. One of those purposes was life. this creator had immense intelligence and immense power. No one knows how the creation happened. But was in the finite past. ID was not as formal as now as science has revealed a lot especially in the last 125 years. But the conclusion of a creator was prevalent from the beginning for probably most.jerry_{March 13, 2023
March
03
Mar
13
13
2023
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

"How do we know that the Big Bang was not “triggered by something”? Do we know anything about what went on before that?" According to current theory, there were no "before that" since time didn't exist before Big Bang. Human mind has harder time to comprehend that there was something "before" time existed.browntim_{March 13, 2023
March
03
Mar
13
13
2023
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

Their insane behavior indicates they are in some perceived existential struggle with Christianity. Christianity is absolutely unacceptable to them, so gloves are off.
Or they're not insane and the have adopted explanation that best explain the phenomena in question. As for Christianity, and theism in general, supposedly God is an inexplicable mind, that exists in an inexplicable realm, which operates using inexplicable means and methods and is driven by inexplicable goals. From the perspective of an explanation, it's unclear how adding God to the equation improves things. Theism is a special case of justifcationism. So criticisms of justifcationism are criticisms of theism. This includes the criticism of arbitrarily deciding to end criticism, there, rather than here, etc.
What fuels them is the underlying assumption that if atheism fails, Christianity is true.
Which is yet another false dilemma. I mean, come on guys. Where do yo get this stuff from?critical rationalist_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

CR, MWI apparently does not explain the evidence. Elsewise Wiseman would not have postulated the new “Many-Interacting Worlds” approach.
How did BA reach the conclusion that the MWI doesn’t explain the evidence? By what Wiseman would postulate. But, according to BA, Wiesman is crazy. Why would he appeal to what a crazy person postulates? Because it suits his purpose. Specially, BA appealed to someone who he would consider a crazy person without knowing it. He was more than happy to appeal to what Wiesman thought, when he thought it supposed his position. Had I not pointed this out, he could have happily continued to appeal to him. But it gets better. After I revealed this to him, apparently, this doesn't matter! He has still decided to appeal to Wiesman! Wiesman:
“But critics question the reality of these other universes, since they do not influence our universe at all. On this score, our “Many Interacting Worlds” approach is completely different, as its name implies.”
BA:
So I still hold the wave function collapse experiment to be a falsification of the original MWI.
The question is why? First, those other universes are implied by simply taking the wave function seriously. It predicts we will only observe one universe. This is why it is empirically indistinguishable from collapse and non-collapse theories, such as the many interacting worlds. But, BA is perfectly aware of this as he just appealed to empirical indistinguishability in an earlier comment, implying it excluded falsification. So, what gives? So, again, this does’t follow. It’s a non-sequitur. IOW, BA keeps selectively appealing to Wiesman, despite calling him crazy. Apparently, Wiesman is sane when he says something BA agrees with, but crazy when he doesn't? How convenient? Being transparent, I'd note Wiseman's quote was referring to is the Born rule. The Born rule was added as an after thought and I’ve already addressed it in an earlier video / comment. Regardless, I’ve previously referenced a video that criticizes probability in physics as a whole, which is fundamental to the Born rule. That would do away with the Born rule all together. So, it's not even clear that the Born rule actually needs to be explained at all. Furthermore, even if we ignore this, the same sort of criticism could be applied to ID, as there is plenty of evidence that ID does not explain, but Neo-darwnism does. For example, what is the origin of the knowledge in organisms a designer would have put there as a consequence of designing them? Why did a designer design things in the very specific way it did, etc.? At best, the ID proponent can say “that’s just what the designer must have wanted.” So, does BA consider ID falsified as well? I mean, if we try to take BA's own criticism seriously, isn't that it's true in reality, and that all our observations should conform to it, isn't that what we should expect? But, of course not. This is simply par for the course. It's only somehow a falsification when it suits BA's purpose.critical rationalist_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

PM1 at 43, Not hostile towards God? You missed a number of posts by Seversky? I doubt that. In the atheist world, only politics and power are real. These things are temporary. Eternity is eternal.relatd_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

@40
They are hostile toward religions but not God? You make no sense.
Why doesn't this make sense to you? It seems straightforward enough to me: they are hostile towards the institutions, social practices, and social and political functions of organized religions, to the point of thinking that these cause a good deal of harm and that humanity would be better off without them. That's perfectly consistent with these people not being hostile towards God, since no one cannot be angry at something that one doesn't believe exists. An atheist could no get more angry at God than I could get angry at the Loch Ness Monster. There is, interestingly enough, a phenomenon seen in literature and philosophy called "misotheism": a misotheist being someone who accepts that God exists, but that He lacks the competence or goodness that merit worship or praise. Needless to say, the New Atheists like Krauss are not misotheists. They are just old-school unsophisticated evidentialists.PyrrhoManiac1_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

Origenes at 41, The Pope was "lecturing" ALL Catholics about their attitude toward God, not just me. It is very important to point out that Catholics, in particular, are singled out for criticism, both in the past and today. I also heard the following: "You know what the problem is with you Catholics? All you do is listen to the Pope." So who should I listen to? You? Some total stranger? Who the heck are you? I heard that in the 1960s. Your criticism of Pope Francis is incorrect and reflects a lack of research on your part. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2022/05/22/without-mentioning-zens-arrest-pope-francis-says-he-is-praying-for-the-church-in-china/relatd_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

Relatdt @39 Pope Francis, who lectures you on hypocrisy, remained silent when in 2021 the CCP arrested the bishop of Xinxiang along with 10 priests. And when, in 2022, the Cardinal in Hong Kong was arrested by the new head of the country who is a CCP plant, Pope Francis said nothing. You are responsible for your choice to follow others.Origenes_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

PM1 at 38, They are hostile toward religions but not God? You make no sense.relatd_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

Origenes at 37, I saw the following on a sign outside a Christian Church: "Who or what influences you?" The following was said by Pope Francis: "Pope Francis, in his homily at the daily Mass at Casa Santa Marta, reflects on the hypocrisy of the “just,” who treat their Christianity “like a social habit.” They do not bring Jesus into their daily life, and so they cast him from their hearts. When we act like that, the Pope says, “we are Christians, but we are living like pagans!” "We who are born in a Christian society risk living out our Christianity as “a social habit,” in a purely formal manner, with the “hypocrisy of the just,” who are afraid to allow themselves to love. And when Mass is over, we leave Jesus in the Church; He does come with us when we return home, or in our daily lives. Woe to us! When we do this, we cast Jesus from our hearts: “We are Christians, but we live as pagans.” ' So, all of us live in societies that value God and religion less and less. We must choose to live out our beliefs daily, not leave them in Church. Those who reject God and religion are working very hard to remove both from public life and to replace it with perversion. Perversions of the truth. To convince many to keep their religion to themselves and only practice it in their Church building. The critics of ID fear a religious revival - a turning back to God. If ID is linked to God - well, that's unthinkable for some. We are responsible first to God, followed by civil authority. But recently, civil authority has been declared evil. That is not rational. No, I'm not saying that bad things never happened, but cooperation as opposed to conflict, needs to be promoted.relatd_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

@31
Suppose you are right, why would anyone be hostile (to the point of accepting the most insane proposals) towards God in general?
I don't think it makes any sense to say that they are hostile towards God. They are hostile towards organized monotheistic religions.PyrrhoManiac1_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

Relatd
The answer is, who do I worship? Myself? Or “great men”? If someone decides that only I can control myself. That only I get to choose, without outside interference from religion/god, what to do today and the rest of my life, then the answer is obvious.
I would say that if one allows oneself to be led by others (great men) then one still bears full responsibility. It is your choice to follow someone else and to give him a position of authority. One remains responsible. If the "authority" errs the follower shares equal responsibility. My point is, you are free, in control, and responsible. That responsibility cannot be delegated by following others.Origenes_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

Origenes at 31, I think the answer should be put in simple words. "Suppose you are right, why would anyone be hostile (to the point of accepting the most insane proposals) towards God in general?" The answer is, who do I worship? Myself? Or "great men"? If someone decides that only I can control myself. That only I get to choose, without outside interference from religion/god, what to do today and the rest of my life, then the answer is obvious. Man worships himself. No, not in a religious sense but certainly in a "I am free from everything, including god" sense. The critics of ID are more concerned about keeping people ignorant about the fact that they, and all living things, were designed. That means God to many, many people as far as who the Designer is. I think they fear the pressure to believe, and the behavior of believers. I heard the following: "Don't shove your religion down my throat!" John 3:19 "And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil." ================================================================= "Satan, formerly called Lucifer, is the first major character introduced in the poem. He is a tragic figure who famously declares: "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven" (1.263). Following his vain rebellion against God he is cast out from Heaven and condemned to Hell." - Paradise Lost by John Milton.relatd_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply