Culture Multiverse News Science

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

Spread the love
Schrodinger’s cat in Many Worlds/Christian Schirm, Wikimedia Commons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Couple thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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

Follow UD News at Twitter!

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

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Here is a video that exposes the weaknesses in the Many Worlds Interpretation. Weaknesses that in fact falsify it as to being a correct view of reality:

    A Critique of the Many Worlds Interpretation
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_42skzOHjtA&index=5&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Money quote:

    Too many worlds – Philip Ball – Feb. 17, 2015
    Excerpt:,,, You measure the path of an electron, and in this world it seems to go this way, but in another world it went that way.
    That requires a parallel, identical apparatus for the electron to traverse. More – it requires a parallel you to measure it. Once begun, this process of fabrication has no end: you have to build an entire parallel universe around that one electron, identical in all respects except where the electron went. You avoid the complication of wavefunction collapse, but at the expense of making another universe.,,,
    http://aeon.co/magazine/scienc.....a-fantasy/

  3. 3
    Diogenes says:

    THAT’S your money quote? So Ball has no argument against MWI then. MWI follows inevitable as a deduction from the principles of quantum mechanics.

    Let’s look again at BA77’s “money quote”:

    Too many worlds – Philip Ball – Feb. 17, 2015
    Excerpt:,,, You measure the path of an electron, and in this world it seems to go this way, but in another world it went that way.

    This is immediately false. QM does not say “in another world it went that way.” Rather, QM shows that particles exist in superpositions of eigenstates. One eigenstate is “this way”, one eigenstate is “that way”, and the electron is in a superposition. This is an observed fact, because in the double slit experiment you can make two parts of the wavefunction interfere with each other. They can’t interfere with each other unless they both exist.

    That requires a parallel, identical apparatus for the electron to traverse.

    No. Again false. Rather, only after the other apparatus measures the eigenvalue of the superposed particle, does the measuring apparatus itself exist in a superposition, with one machine recording “electron went this way” and the other machine recording “that way.” It’s not in a superposition until it makes the measurement.

    More – it requires a parallel you to measure it.

    Again, not true until you observe the readout from the machine. Until then, you’re not in a superposition. After you observe the readout, you’re in a superposition and your state is correlated with the state of the electron.

    Once begun, this process of fabrication has no end: you have to build an entire parallel universe around that one electron, identical in all respects except where the electron went.

    No, not an entire parallel universe– that’s ridiculous, because correlations and observations are limited by the speed of light. So what you’re doing here will not affect the Andromeda galaxy for millions of years.

    You avoid the complication of wavefunction collapse, but at the expense of making another universe.,,,

    But there is no “expense” and it isn’t another universe. It’s a macroscopic superposition of eigenstates.

    And to emphasize, there is no “expense” in the sense of, say, Occam’s razor because there are no concepts nor hypothesized entities not already in QM and not supported by direct observation. The idea of you being in a superposition is an unavoidable deduction from already established principles, but deductions are not unparsimonious in terms of Occam’s razor. Rather, going against deductions from valid premises is unparsimonious, and that’s the problem with anything but MWI.

    Again, all these entities are observed in QM:

    1. Quantum superpostion of simultaneous eigenstates of particles? Observed: see two slit experiment.

    2. Humans and machines are macroscopic aggregates of particles? Observed.

    3. Macroscopic aggregates of particles can be in quantum superpositions of macroscopic states? Observed: see superfluids.

    4. YOU are one eigenstate of a quantum superposition: inevitable deduction from 1..3.

    So you’re stuck with MWI, philosophy or no. Rather, it is everything else besides MWI which invokes some kind of mysterious “dark force” which has no description or definition, mathematical or otherwise, which violates known laws of physics, which somehow treats “observers” differently than other macroscopic systems– and says they violate knows laws of physics– but never defines what an observer is!

    And you can’t even go full ooga booga and say “an observer is a conscious being”, obviously, because the interference pattern of the micro-state disappears when a machine interacts with it. And the machine need not be a person, and you don’t have a definition of “conscious being” anyway.

    What if the scientist were brain-damaged? A baby? In a coma? Suppose we repeat the two-slit experiment with scientist observers and systematically damage their brains more and more until the alleged “wavefunction collapse” (which has never been defined or described or observed) stops happening. At what point does the brain damage become so severe that it stops the alleged “wavefunction collapse”? Never, because there was no “wavefunction collapse.”

    No matter how damaged or undamaged the scientist’s brain is, the scientist and the machine doing the observing obey already-established laws: when they interact with a quantum superposition of eigenstates in a fashion dependent on the eigenvalue, they themselves become a quantum superposition. That follows from the known, observed laws of physics as surely as the night follows day. No new entities need to be hypothesized.

    The opponents of MWI must hypothesize all kinds of crazy $%^& and new entities that we’ve never observed, like that the laws of physics are different for “conscious beings” than they are for other macroscopic systems, but they can’t say what a “conscious being” is, and they can’t say how the laws are different, or what a wavefunction collapse is– and they can’t explain why a “wavefunction collapse” must happen when the observer is a dumb machine! If all scientists everywhere died tomorrow, but the machines went on clicking, your “wavefunction collapse” would go on happening, in a universe without conscious beings!

    The opponents of MWI must hypothesize bizarre, hypothetical, counterfactual mysterious forces or principles that not only have never been observed, but that they can’t even define! The war against empiricism, indeed.

  4. 4
    Diogenes says:

    Here is Sean Carroll on MWI. Kicking ass and taking names as usual.

    Sean Carroll:

    Not only did we not need to add anything to make it [MWI] possible, we had no choice in the matter. The potential for multiple worlds is always there in the quantum state, whether you like it or not.

    The next question would be, do multiple-world superpositions of the form written in (2) ever actually come into being? And the answer again is: yes, automatically, without any additional assumptions. It’s just the ordinary evolution of a quantum system according to Schrödinger’s equation. Indeed, the fact that a state that looks like (1) evolves into a state that looks like (2) under Schrödinger’s equation is what we mean when we say “this apparatus measures whether the spin is up or down.”

    The conclusion, therefore, is that multiple worlds automatically occur in quantum mechanics. They are an inevitable part of the formalism. The only remaining question is: what are you going to do about it? There are three popular strategies on the market: anger, denial, and acceptance.

    There are other silly objections to EQM [Everettian Quantum Mechanics/MWI], of course. The most popular is probably the complaint that it’s not falsifiable. That truly makes no sense. It’s trivial to falsify EQM — just do an experiment that violates the Schrödinger equation or the principle of superposition, which are the only things the theory assumes. Witness a dynamical collapse, or find a hidden variable. Of course we don’t see the other worlds directly, but — in case we haven’t yet driven home the point loudly enough — those other worlds are not added on to the theory. They come out automatically if you believe in quantum mechanics. If you have a physically distinguishable alternative, by all means suggest it — the experimenters would love to hear about it. (And true alternatives, like GRW and Bohmian mechanics, are indeed experimentally distinguishable.)

    Sadly, most people who object to EQM do so for the silly reasons, not for the serious ones.
    [Sean Carroll on MWI]

  5. 5
    Diogenes says:

    And here, buried in Phillip Ball’s moronic article, is his key blunder– and when I say “blunder” I’m being kind.

    Phillip Ball wrote:

    Compared with these problems, the difficulty of testing the MWI experimentally (which would seem necessary if it is to be considered truly scientific) is a small matter. ‘It’s trivial to falsify [MWI],’ boasts the Caltech cosmologist Sean Carroll, another supporter: ‘just do an experiment that violates the Schrödinger equation or the principle of superposition, which are the only things the theory assumes.’ But most other interpretations of quantum theory assume them (at least) too – so such an experiment would rule them all out

    WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. The entire point of MWI is that all other interpretations (like Copenhagen et al.) hypothesize UNTESTED, UNOBSERVED VIOLATIONS OF THE SCHRODINGER’S LAW. If you want to daydream about “conscious beings” violating Schrodinger’s law in an unspecified, undefined way, that’s your untested, unwarranted speculation. Dream on, but don’t call your speculations “scientific.”

    This was Sean Carroll’s point, which Ball completely misrepresents. Or lies about. Take your pick.

    But let me return to Ball’s first sentence:

    Compared with these problems, the difficulty of testing the MWI experimentally (which would seem necessary if it is to be considered truly scientific)

    Stop right there. Deductions from already established laws don’t need to be tested; if they follow as logical deductions. If the conclusion is wrong, then then premises would have to be wrong, and thus the premises could be tested.

    When the coment Shoemaker-Levy crashed into Jupiter, all telescopes in the world were pointed at Jupiter, but none of them saw the collision. The comet went behind Jupiter and hit the far side. Every physicist in the world assumed the comet obeyed Newton’s laws when we couldn’t observe it. But I didn’t see Phillip Ball or the other idjits screaming, “It’s unscientific to assume the comet was obeying Newton’s laws when we couldn’t see it? That’s not testable!” No, because if you don’t like the deduction, then the premises must be wrong– you’re hypothesizing that there’s a “mysterious force” that violates Newton’s Laws when we’re not looking, and that’s untested, unwarranted speculation on your part.

    Where did you put your car keys? In the drawer? Do you think the car keys still exist when you’re not observing them? Is it unscientific to claim, “My car keys continue to exist when I am not observing them?” No, it follows as a deduction from already established principles. If you don’t like the premises, then you’re hypothesizing that matter pops into and out of existence when we’re not looking, and that’s untested, unwarranted speculation on your part.

    The opponents of MWI can fantasize about mysterious violations of Schrodinger’s Law, never specified, never well-defined, never observed, — dream on, but you can’t call your rich life of the imagination “science.”

  6. 6
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Diogenes Dude stop peddling this pseudo science and quoting Sean carrol as if he is an unbiased knower of all truths. Carrol is a known militant atheist and will believe only that which fits into his atheistic worldview .

    You can see this in Sean carrol when he steps out of his area of expertise and claims life after death must be incorrect . I guess no one told u and him that for the first time ever a veridical nde was times to have happened after even the 30second deep brain surge which gave atheists a brief break from the medical evidences that are starting to point to life after death.

    But lets get the real scoop here from another atheist that’s at least honest enough to see what crap many worlds interpretation is .

    This is from the former harvard physicist Luboš Motl who is no slouch in physics

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2014.....again.html

    Many worlds pseudoscience, again
    When Hugh Everett, a PhD student, wrote some bizarre papers about “alternative foundations” of quantum mechanics in the late 1950s, he was allowed to speak about it in Copenhagen etc. Niels Bohr et al. saw that there was no valid physics in the papers whatsoever. The chap only wanted to be a critic whatever it costs, regardless of the absence of any evidence, and Bohr knew it was too little. He discussed these things with the chap’s adviser, John Wheeler, and everyone agreed that this guy shouldn’t continue as a professional physicist simply because he didn’t have enough talent and understanding for that.

    And speaking if taking no prisoners Motl completely decimates Sean carrol here .

    “”When Hugh Everett, a PhD student, wrote some bizarre papers about “alternative foundations” of quantum mechanics in the late 1950s, he was allowed to speak about it in Copenhagen etc. Niels Bohr et al. saw that there was no valid physics in the papers whatsoever. The chap only wanted to be a critic whatever it costs, regardless of the absence of any evidence, and Bohr knew it was too little. He discussed these things with the chap’s adviser, John Wheeler, and everyone agreed that this guy shouldn’t continue as a professional physicist simply because he didn’t have enough talent and understanding for that.

    In the following 55+ years, there has been no development that would strengthen the case for Mr Everett’s musings. On the contrary, the experimental evidence and the modern crystallization of the quantum mechanical insights have made it increasingly clear that these musings were fundamentally wrong and proper quantum mechanics is the only viable theory to describe the relevant phenomena – which are really all processes in Nature.

    However, what has changed is that the Academia has been literally flooded by mediocre, incompetent pseudo-intellectuals similar to Hugh Everett – usually much worse and more inadequate than Everett himself. Sean Carroll is a textbook example of this sign of the degradation of the contemporary Academia which is why he wrote another text defending the indefensible,
    “”Why the Many-Worlds Formulation of Quantum Mechanics Is Probably Correct.”””

    Holy crap.

    “”The illustration of choice used to summarize and promote this “interpretation” of quantum mechanics is this Wikipedia picture of Schrödinger’s cat (a four-legged cat; Schrödinger would simultaneously maintain several two-legged ones, too).

    What is this picture supposed to convey?

    It suggests that there are two worlds (or two similar copies of our world), and not just one, after a cat is observed. In one of them, the cat is alive. In the other world, it is dead. This childish picture is supposed to solve some “problems” that the defenders of this picture believe to exist in quantum mechanics. There are no problems in quantum mechanics, of course.

    At the same time, salesmen like Carroll offer you lots of incredible statements such as the statement that this “many worlds interpretation” directly follows from quantum mechanics, is directly justified by quantum mechanics (more justifiable in quantum mechanics than in classical physics), and unlike proper quantum mechanics, it doesn’t introduce any new physical laws. All these statements are untrue. They are really the polar opposite of the truth.

    First, many worlds surely don’t follow from quantum mechanics.

    Quantum mechanics is the universal framework of modern physics which is a natural science. As every natural science, physics predicts or explains the observations that are actually being made in one Universe. Deterministic physics (which may only work approximately in Nature) gives unambiguous predictions. Quantum physics (which is valid everywhere in the real world) predicts phenomena by quantifying the probabilities of different outcomes. Outcomes with probabilities close to 100% will probably happen, those close to 0% will probably not. The precise value of the probability may be extracted from the experiment if we repeat it many times (but using the knowledge of probabilities, one can make precise predictions even if we perform many inequivalent experiments!).

    The calculation of the probabilities is the quantum mechanical output replacing the unambiguous classical predictions. If you can’t say anything about the values of probabilities of some phenomena, then you have no scientific theory whatsoever!

    This is the case of the many worlds “interpretation”, too.

    The many worlds “interpretation” is an artistic picture that simply has nothing to do with science. Note that the picture with the split film of the cat doesn’t tell you that the cat will survive with the 73% probability or anything like that. It just tells you that there are two possibilities. It shows you the set of potential histories, not any nontrivial information about the actual history.

    And even this information-free statement is really wrong or demagogic; and it can’t be derived from the many worlds “interpretation”, anyway.

    It is wrong because there aren’t just two possible outcomes. There are infinitely many outcomes. The cat also has a nonzero probability to morph into a small version of Elvis Presley and be hit by some air molecules that bring it or him to the Moon. The probability is small but it is nonzero. (I could invent more likely outcomes “in between”, too.)

    So the film should really be split into infinitely many strands at each spacetime point, including strands describing extremely unlikely histories. (In fact, we can’t even say that the splitting would occur at each spacetime point because some observations are nonlocal in character. There exist no well-defined rules that would allow us to describe the “cardinality” of the tree at all.) The very fact that only two “reasonably likely” histories were cherry-picked is nothing else than demagogy. Such a qualitatively different treatment of “reasonably likely” and “very unlikely” outcomes is only possible if we first calculate the probabilities and then use different treatments according to their value (and this decision is always about being useful, not being true; fundamentally, Nature doesn’t treat high and low probabilities qualitatively differently).

    The many worlds “interpretation” doesn’t allow us to calculate – or imprint – the generally different probabilities of different outcomes into the “strands” of the film. Even the fans of this religion admit it’s the case but some of them say that they are “working on a fix” which is supposed to be enough. (A similarly “modest” fix makes Genesis compatible with all the detailed data about the cosmic microwave background, the DNA, and genetics.)

    What they don’t realize is that the inability of this theory or “interpretation” to calculate any probabilities isn’t just a moderate vice or disadvantage. It is a complete, rigorous proof that this philosophy has nothing to do with the empirical data or science whatever and people who are defending it don’t have the slightest clue what they are talking about. Everything that modern science predicts are probabilities or their functions. If your ideas don’t predict any probabilities, they don’t predict anything at all. They have nothing to do with science.

    Moreover, there can’t be any fix. There can’t even exist a candidate theory that would “extract” the probabilities from something else. In proper quantum mechanics, probabilities are fundamental which means that they are pretty much directly predicted from the mathematical formalism. There is no useless “intermediate agent” that would extract probabilities from something else. There can’t really be any. A theory is either exactly deterministic (plus admitting complete knowledge in principle) or it is not. If it is exactly deterministic, it is possible to produce unequivocal predictions out of the information about the initial state, at least in principle. That’s the case of classical physics. In this setup, all predicted probabilities are either 0% or 100%. That’s no good for the experiments backing quantum mechanics where almost all the probabilities are strictly between 0% and 100%.

    Or the theory may fail to be strictly deterministic, or prohibit the observers from knowing the exact required information, even in principle. In that case, the probabilities may be in between 0% and 100%. But such continuous, a priori arbitrary probabilities may only be calculated from other probability-like continuous quantities that are present in the fundamental formalism of the theory such as the classical probability distributions on the phase space or the density matrix (which may be obtained from a state vector if the state is pure).

    The very illustration with the split film of the cat as well as many explicit statements by the many worlds apologists make it absolutely clear that one of the key assumptions of the whole many worlds movement is that probabilities are not fundamental. But it’s just mathematically impossible to derive a priori continuous numbers interpretable as probabilities from a formalism that rejects any fundamental quantities with a directly probability-like interpretation! Probabilities may only be calculated from other continuous numbers of a similar kind and all such continuous numbers are probability-like because probabilities are their functions! If there aren’t any, your formalism just can’t be capable of predicting probabilities.

    Note that this simple argument – pure maths – really eliminates all attempts to replace quantum mechanics with some ideas where probabilities are not fundamental. This includes the Bohmian and other hidden-variable theories. The pilot wave theory needs to assume that the classical particle it envisions has a position in the initial state that is statistically distributed according to the wave function (renamed as guiding wave). Only the correct time evolution of the probabilistic distribution is guaranteed by the mechanical equation of motion including the effect of the guiding wave.

    They don’t have any mechanism explaining the right probabilistic distribution of their classical particle in the initial state. Of course, there can’t be any. They prefer not to talk about this point at all even though this point really means that their claim that they have derived the “random generator” of quantum mechanics from something else is completely fraudulent. The same “random generator” must still exist somewhere to produce the classical particle in a position that is correctly distributed. It must be distributed according to the wave function which proves that if this condition is guaranteed, the wave function has a fundamentally probabilistic interpretation, anyway!

    But let me return to the many worlds. Its defenders often say something like
    the many worlds “interpretation” is just pure mechanics; it is not adding anything to it.
    Carroll makes this statement about 5 times and it is a complete lie. It is really the opposite of the truth.

    Proper quantum mechanics dictates the evolution of operators in the Heisenberg picture (or, equivalently, the direct Feynman path integral formula to calculate the probability amplitudes; or the evolution of the state vector in Schrödinger’s picture – the latter picture is the most popular approach among the superficial and confused people). The complex probability amplitudes may be directly squared (in absolute values, using the right Born’s rule etc.) to calculate the probabilities of various observations or outcomes or perceptions etc. Quantum mechanics works totally universally. It doesn’t matter what object we want to observe and which aspect of it we measure. Quantum mechanics predicts the probabilities using the same universal formulae and the time evolution is always given by the same equations, too.

    What about the many worlds “interpretation”? Just look at the marketing illustration at the top. Aside from Heisenberg’s or Schrödinger’s dynamical equations, there is a new process added on top of it – the splitting of the film, the splitting of the worlds to make them “many”. When writing this promotion of “many worlds”, Carroll must have forgotten about something, about the “many worlds”, right?

    Believe me that to produce a film that splits into two in the triangular junction is much harder than to produce an ordinary film with a single story of a cat. It’s also harder to insert such a film with “junctions” into a film projector. The film projector sometimes jams, and so on. It doesn’t work well. Try it if you don’t believe me.

    Now, to produce another copy of the Universe is even harder than to produce a plastic foil with junctions. It’s even a bit harder to produce many copies or exp(10120) copies you might need to describe the multiplicity of outcomes of every arrangement of processes that may occur within the patch of the visible Universe. But OK, you might rightfully say that it’s not your job to produce copies of the Universe. Nature can do it easily.

    Yes, Nature can do anything if the laws of physics say that it should happen. The problem is that one can’t even define the rules when the hypothetical splitting should take place and how the two or three or N or ? (also unknown) copies attached to the junction should differ from each other. And the problem isn’t just that we don’t know how often and finely the film should be “split” etc. We may easily see that whatever the rules are, they contradict some known facts about Nature. Why?

    The really key feature of the quantum evolution is that it always allows parts of the state vector to interfere in the future and affect various other measurements in non-classical ways.

    We know this even from the double slit experiment which, as Feynman observed, contains all the qualitative wisdom about quantum mechanics if you think about the experiment carefully enough. We can’t assume that the particle goes either through slit A or slit B (with the strict, classical assumptions about the alternatives) if we don’t observe it. The actual initial state implies nonzero probability amplitudes for both intermediate histories and their mutual interference affects the existence and location of the interference minima and maxima on the photographic screen!

    We can never strictly say that some observable (like the “which slit” information about position) took a completely specific value in the classical sense. The eigenvector may always interfere with another one. Now, if you think about it for a second, this totally elementary and universal feature of quantum mechanics in general and of the double slit experiment in particular is nothing else than the statement that the worlds just never split in the classical sense!

    The cat may be in the state
    |??=0.6|alive?+0.8i|dead?.
    I chose the probabilities non-uniform (36% and 64%, thanks to Pythagoras for these nice numbers) and I chose the amplitudes to be complex (with different phases) because I want to emphasize that the phases matter as much as the ratios of the absolute values! If you perform another measurement of an operator that doesn’t commute with the binary operator having eigenvalues zero (dead) and one (alive), the relative phase will matter for the predictions as much as the ratio of the absolute values!

    So the “dead cat” and the “alive cat” are two intermediate histories whose mutual interference may in principle affect the probabilities of later measurements just like the mutual interference of “slit A” and “slit B”. Just like we can’t assume that the particle in the double slit experiment picked one of the possible slits (and intermediate histories), we can’t assume it about the cat.

    The knowledge of the existence of interference of the state vector in quantum mechanics is the same thing as the knowledge that the world never fundamentally splits to two classical histories.

    In other words, people who really think that the two worlds separately exist in the classical sense are misunderstanding the lesson 1 of of the undergraduate quantum mechanics lecture that begins with the double slit experiment. They’re still not getting the point that the histories (basis vectors of the intermediate-time Hilbert space) can’t be assumed to be “mutually exclusive” in the classical sense (what I mean is that you can’t really assume that only one of the intermediate histories took place, and to calculate the weighted average of the probabilities from the two histories to get the probabilities of the final outcomes).

    Now, classical physics and classical interpretations do follow from quantum mechanics as a good approximation for large objects including cats. The interference patterns you could create by reinterfering the “dead” and “alive” cat are so fine, chaotic, and unpredictable (especially because the microstate of the environment that the cat has interacted with can’t be exactly followed and measured and one would need to know it very precisely) that in practice, one may use the classical interpretation for observables for which the classical interpretation is approximately OK and that tend to “classically xerox” the information about themselves by interacting with and by entangling many degrees of freedom of the environment. The interference patterns are too fine or average out in the real measurements. Equivalently, the aforementioned operators “not commuting” with the operator of the “livelihood of the cat” are extremely unnatural and hard to operationally measure. The classical reasoning is therefore OK.

    But all these classical interpretations are just approximate. And clearly, if we are using them, we are not “interpreting” anything about quantum mechanics. We are only “interpreting” classical physics and all of our comments only become (approximately) valid if all the special features of quantum mechanics (re-interference…) become unmeasurable!

    This conclusion is also equivalent to the reasons why another statement by Carroll, the statement that (using my words) “quantum mechanics directly opens the door for multiple universes while classical physics doesn’t”.

    Again, this claim is untrue. Again, it’s the polar opposite of the truth. The truth is exactly the other way around. Multiple universes that co-exist in the classical sense may be chosen as a way to visualize the classical probabilistic distribution but this way to visualize what’s going on breaks down exactly when the quantum mechanical effects are still important.

    (I didn’t say “become important” because these words would indicate that classical physics is the normal and one needs to go very far, in an unnatural domain, for the quantum weirdness to emerge. The truth is exactly the opposite. Quantum laws are valid everywhere and they’re completely normal and you have to go to special limits or corners if you want classical physics to become at least approximately usable!)

    If you throw a classical die, you may imagine that there are six mutually different universes that were split off their parent universe, just like on the picture of the “film juncture”. In one of them, you got “1”, and so on. The subsequent evolution in each of these 6 universes is independent of the others. The “tree of films” is the tree of potential histories and the set of potential histories may be imagined to “really exist” somewhere in classical physics (at least discrete classical physics, to avoid subtleties with continuous trees and probability densities).

    However, that’s exactly what quantum mechanics doesn’t allow because the right predictions of (probabilities of) future outcomes in a specific Universe – the only Universe or every Universe – are only obtained if you take the complex amplitudes in front of all the alternatives (“all the different universes”) and their interference into account, according to the right formulae.

    Again, the truth is the opposite than what these many worlds kibitzers are saying. In classical statistical physics, the probability distributions wouldn’t be normally visualized as “really existing” in different copies of the world because the 19th century physicists knew that such an expansion of the idea about the “size of the world” would bring them nothing whatever scientifically. It wouldn’t have increased their ability to explain or predict observations. But it was possible to imagine the branching tree of the classical histories and transitions between them.

    Quantum mechanics made it impossible to visualize the alternatives in this way because the alternatives [possible intermediate-time features of the history of any experiment] are no longer mutually exclusive in the classical sense. So even the “potential” for many worlds in the classical sense is deleted by the basic features of quantum mechanics.

    Sometimes, people or companies choose to cherry-pick some advantages of the products or ideas they are promoting. But what I find remarkable about the defense by individuals such as Sean Carroll is that their claims are downright lies from the beginning to the end. The truth isn’t just “independent” from what they’re saying. The truth about pretty much every isolated claim is demonstrably the opposite of what they say.

    They constantly say that the gold is šit and šit is gold. They constantly say that their philosophy isn’t adding anything to QM even though it’s the whole point of this philosophy that it is trying to add some extra process – an undefined, undefinable, awkward, unphysical, and ultimately inevitably inconsistent process of splitting the “film”. They constantly say that the proper quantum mechanics needs some extra laws to make the predictions even though it’s demonstrably the case, according to the basic rules of quantum mechanics, that quantum mechanics extracts the predictions directly from the objects that depend on time through the known universal equations.

    They repeatedly claim that their philosophy isn’t introducing or depending on any qualitative boundary between the “microscopic quantum phenomena” and “macroscopic classical phenomena” while proper quantum mechanics is postulating such a boundary. The truth is exactly the opposite. Their splitting of the film is only viable if it is only applied to processes that are compatible with the classical interpretation, while the splitting is prohibited for intrinsically quantum observables (like the “which slit” information in the double slit experiment) which means that they need to introduce a qualitatively different treatment for the “two domains”, otherwise they instantly get a wrong prediction for the double slit experiment and every other intrinsically quantum experiment. Proper quantum mechanics doesn’t introduce any qualitative difference between the “domains”. All phenomena are described by the same theory developed in Copenhagen etc. It’s only classical physics that is “only valid” (approximately) in a realm behind the boundary. It is valid along with quantum mechanics over there (QM holds everywhere, classical physics only holds approximately in the limit) and the validity of classical physics is also needed for observers to make classical-like statements about their observations but it’s just a limitation of classical-like statements about observations, not a limitation of the laws of quantum mechanics which always hold. An observer large enough to take decoherence in his brain for granted may choose the “Heisenberg cut” (the boundary, if interpreted using the words of the founders of quantum mechanics) anywhere in between his brain and the small objects whose interference may be measured, so the location of any would-be boundary is physically inconsequential. The theory really doesn’t depend on any features like that and the only “invariant enough” refinement of this boundary, the place where decoherence starts to legitimize the classical interpretation of the probabilities (by erasing the potential for re-interference), is again fully derivable from the same universal laws of quantum mechanics.

    (“The Heisenberg cut” and the basic foundations of quantum mechanics also clearly, crisply, and cleverly answer the question “how many junctions in the MWI film there should be?” or “how finely the histories should be divided?”. The answer is that it is only justified – but still not necessary – to imagine that the history of the world splits into several alternatives if you can and do actually measure a quantity. No measurement means no splitting. Whether one made a measurement or perceived an outcome is really a subjective question – think about Wigner’s friend – which is why all questions about “how fine the MWI tree objectively is” are no good because they are based on the fundamentally wrong assumption that such questions may have objective answers. Observation is a subjective experience or act by an observer.)

    They constantly say that their philosophy is a “friend” of the fundamental equations of quantum mechanics even though they have demonstrably no positive relation at all. All the equations of quantum mechanics are constraining the values of intrinsically probability-like basic entities (the state vector etc.) while the MWI advocates deny the existence of any concepts that must have a fundamentally probabilistic interpretation. So the claim that the philosophy is a “friend” with the equations of quantum mechanics is a much greater lie than the claim by a creationist who bought a T-shirt with the Standard Model Lagrangian and who says that “particle physics is on their side”. In the creationist’s case, the two “friends” are at least independent of each other. In Carroll’s case, the “friends” are two directly contradicting ideas.

    They constantly say that quantum mechanics made it more natural than classical physics to interpret probabilities through many worlds. The truth is that quantum mechanics eliminated the freedom to interpret probabilities in this way that existed in classical physics (classical physics allowed us to imagine that the “set of potential histories” is the set of “real histories” in an appropriately extended world). And so on, and so on. This whole MWI movement is completely irrational, dishonest, and just plain idiotic, and it has contaminated the Academia so thoroughly that there exists no Niels Bohr in 2014 who could just eliminate all these hacks.

    I am disgusted by this šit. If you combine it with other equally misguided stuff, it is probably fair to say that this trash has taken over the majority of most of the official institutions that should study conceptual issues in physics or science. The situation outside the Academia is no better. Just look at the dozens of imbeciles at Carroll’s blog – only a tiny fraction manages to mention that Carroll’s writing is just wrong.””

    So Diogenes , please stop peddling this crap as if it’s anything buts who’d science .

    Motl maybe an atheist but I respect him for speaking the truth no matter whose worldview it favors .

    Now maybe u can address Sean Carroll idiotic move out if his field of expertise and into an area he knows squat about and that’s Nde’s.

    Diogenes it sounds to me like u have a lot if hidden insecurities about your atheistic world. Fees up my friend . Your not trying to convince us . The oerson your really trying to convince is yourself.

    Yes many worlds is scientfic fact, and I have some prime beachfront property in Alabama right next to the beach I’m looking to sell you.

    Interested ?

  7. 7
    humbled says:

    “The opponents of MWI can fantasize about mysterious violations of Schrodinger’s Law, never specified, never well-defined, never observed, — dream on, but you can’t call your rich life of the imagination “science.””

    The irony, please stop bwahaha. Not one shred of evidence exists to support this ridiculous theory. This entire line of thinking was quickly and desperately thrown together to counter the superior fine tuning arguments put forward by the ID community.

    It does make for great science fiction though 😉

  8. 8
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Not just the fine tuning argument humble but also the wave length collapse and the consequences of the universe being mental , because if the universe is mental then consciousness rules and we would be forced to posit an uptime consciousness or uptime observer which is God the G word .
    Atheists must at all costs try to come up with a myriad of hocus pocus magic to keep God out .

    I wonder if Diogenes is a magician by trade 😉
    Cause it sure looks like what he believes in is magic

    I wonder if on one of these many worlds if I won the mister Olympia competition and married a supermodel who was a 35 year old virgin former prostitute . Or maybe I was a married bachelor ?
    I like that better be use u can enjoy the married life without actually being married .

    Wow , on the other hand maybe I’ll start pushing the beautiful magic of many worlds theory .

  9. 9
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Hey guys I’m going out to ask the worlds sexiest supermodel to marry me cause I wanna do my many worlds counterpart a favor.

    Cause if she says no to me here she will say yes to me there .

    But what he approaches her first and she says no to him ?
    That means that she will say yes to me

    Yes ! Guys I’m gonna get married tomorrow to a super model.

    I’ll invite my friend Scott who is about to become a married bachelor 😉

  10. 10
    humbled says:

    It does make one wonder why people are so willing to accept such a *gasp (theory) when there exists no evidence for it. It is so blatantly obvious that their position is one of faith and superstition. In fact, in order to believe this nonsense, one needs to distance themselves from logic, reason and reality. Only by ignoring the ability to think critically can a person accept such codswallop.

  11. 11
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Humbled what say you ? Lets go out and make our many worlds counterparts happy.
    Lets buy a lottery ticket . We will most likely lose but if if we play one of our many worlds counterparts will win and become instantly rich.

    Oh. It wait a minute by the mere fact that we thought of doing this means that one of our counter parts actually did buy the ticket.

    All I know is that our counterparts that won the lottery owe us and I think they should split the wealth with us .

    Oh wait but if they split the wealth does that mean that there is a world in which they didn’t split the wealth ? Or is there a possible world in which they evolved to be oranges !

    Or better yet is there a world in which evolution is not a delusional fantasy but is actually real.

    Ok I need a drink 🙁 and I don’t even drink 🙁
    Oh but wait does that mean one of my many worlds counter part is a alcoholic that lives on Bowery street ?

    My head is spinning . I need rest argh

  12. 12
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Humbled you basically defined atheist in a nutshell 🙂

  13. 13
    awstar says:

    Wallstreeter43 #9

    Yes ! Guys I’m gonna get married tomorrow to a super model.

    Doesn’t this prove that for some people, in this case the super model, hell is real?

  14. 14
    Diogenes says:

    Look, your ad hominem fallacies and Appeal to Motive are impotent. I don’t really care what Sean Carroll thinks, or Hugh Everett. It’s what the math says, and I can do the math, and none of you can. None of you know quantum field theory. That means I win and all of you lose. I can show 2+2=4, but you idjits think it’s a good counter-argument to say, “Stop quoting those mathematicians who say 2+2= 4, they’re militant atheists!” Do you think that will– what?– make 2+2 into 5? Or perhaps you think you will save face if you just write something, anything, and throw it at the wall? What’s your strategy with that?

    Do any of you religious fanatics and daydreamers have any NON-RELIGIOUS objections? Anything beyond Ad hominem fallacy? You got nothing, right? Can any of you do any math– multiplication, maybe? No? No math? Your religions and speculations are not evidence.

    Where is your “wavefunction collapse”? Is it testable? Did you observe it?

    Let’s see what Wallstreeter has. To start off, ad hominem fallacy from anonymous jackoff, followed by appeal to motive fallacy. Gotcha.

    Diogenes Dude stop peddling this pseudo science and quoting Sean carrol as if he is an unbiased knower of all truths. Carrol is a known militant atheist and will believe only that which fits into his atheistic worldview .

    But that’s only one ad hominem fallacy from an anonymous jackoff. Can you give me some more ad hominmen fallacy?

    “When Hugh Everett, a PhD student, wrote some bizarre papers about “alternative foundations” of quantum mechanics in the late 1950s, he was allowed to speak about it in Copenhagen etc. Niels Bohr et al. saw that there was no valid physics in the papers whatsoever. The chap only wanted to be a critic whatever it costs, regardless of the absence of any evidence, and Bohr knew it was too little. He discussed these things with the chap’s adviser, John Wheeler, and everyone agreed that this guy shouldn’t continue as a professional physicist simply because he didn’t have enough talent and understanding for that.”

    Now that reference I really love, from some a website that says “OUR STRINGY UNIVERSE FROM A CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINT” from a jackoff who can’t write English and doesn’t reference the apocryphal stories behind his ad hominem fallacies, and does not address the math.

    That’s funny, because I was there when the guy who wrote the above defended his thesis– me and Richard Feynman. When he was defending his thesis, Feynman and I both agreed that this author shouldn’t continue as a physicist because he was clearly a dumbass.

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    “Stop quoting those mathematicians who say 2+2= 4, they’re militant atheists!

    Better send a memo to Krauss

    2+2=5? (Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ytuj9LOhuM

    Moreover, the reason for using MWI, given by atheists, i.e. no additional assumptions, fails since it in fact, upon analysis, requires more assumptions rather than less assumptions:

    A Critique of the Many Worlds Interpretation
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_42skzOHjtA&index=5&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_

  16. 16
    kairosfocus says:

    Diogenes:

    When I have contemplated many worlds scenarios, one thing has always jumped up to make me back away, shaking my head.

    How much energy is required to build a cosmos?

    Please, ponder then a quasi infinite always forking cosmos every time a macro-level quantum-influenced event is observed. Per, Wiki:

    The many-worlds interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the universal wavefunction and denies the actuality of wavefunction collapse. Many-worlds implies that all possible alternate histories and futures are real, each representing an actual “world” (or “universe”). In lay terms, the hypothesis states there is a very large—perhaps infinite[2]—number of universes, and everything that could possibly have happened in our past, but did not, has occurred in the past of some other universe or universes . . . . Before many-worlds, reality had always been viewed as a single unfolding history. Many-worlds, however, views reality as a many-branched tree, wherein every possible quantum outcome is realised.[12] Many-worlds reconciles the observation of non-deterministic events, such as the random radioactive decay, with the fully deterministic equations of quantum physics . . . . Although several versions of many-worlds have been proposed since Hugh Everett’s original work,[4] they all contain one key idea: the equations of physics that model the time evolution of systems without embedded observers are sufficient for modelling systems which do contain observers; in particular there is no observation-triggered wave function collapse which the Copenhagen interpretation proposes.

    SEP:

    The fundamental idea of the MWI, going back to Everett 1957, is that there are myriads of worlds in the Universe in addition to the world we are aware of. In particular, every time a quantum experiment with different possible outcomes is performed, all outcomes are obtained, each in a different world, even if we are only aware of the world with the outcome we have seen. In fact, quantum experiments take place everywhere and very often, not just in physics laboratories: even the irregular blinking of an old fluorescent bulb is a quantum experiment . . . .

    What is “A World”?

    A world is the totality of macroscopic objects: stars, cities, people, grains of sand, etc. in a definite classically described state.

    The concept of a “world” in the MWI belongs to part (ii) of the theory, i.e., it is not a rigorously defined mathematical entity, but a term defined by us (sentient beings) in describing our experience. When we refer to the “definite classically described state” of, say, a cat, it means that the position and the state (alive, dead, smiling, etc.) of the cat is maximally specified according to our ability to distinguish between the alternatives, and that this specification corresponds to a classical picture, e.g., no superpositions of dead and alive cats are allowed in a single world.

    Another concept, which is closer to Everett’s original proposal, see Saunders 1995, is that of a relative, or perspectival world defined for every physical system and every one of its states (provided it is a state of non-zero probability): I will call it a centered world. This concept is useful when a world is centered on a perceptual state of a sentient being. In this world, all objects which the sentient being perceives have definite states, but objects that are not under observation might be in a superposition of different (classical) states. The advantage of a centered world is that a quantum phenomenon in a distant galaxy does not split it, while the advantage of the definition presented here is that we can consider a world without specifying a center, and in particular our usual language is just as useful for describing worlds that existed at times when there were no sentient beings.

    The concept of a world in the MWI is based on the layman’s conception of a world; however, several features are different. Obviously, the definition of the world as everything that exists does not hold in the MWI. “Everything that exists” is the Universe, and there is only one Universe. The Universe incorporates many worlds similar to the one the layman is familiar with. A layman believes that our present world has a unique past and future. According to the MWI, a world defined at some moment of time corresponds to a unique world at a time in the past, but to a multitude of worlds at a time in the future.

    Sorry, but that pegs my implausibility meter.

    Think, atom xyz with alpha-instability. At some instant in uni 1 it does not decay but in UNI 2 it does [say putting that poor cat to death . . . ], forking a flood of daughter worlds. Move to next instant in EACH of these, repeat.

    Even on the view that all this is a simulation or mind-game, this makes very little sense as a serious physically implemented alternative.

    Think at ultimate level 10^80 atoms, forking a new cosmos or two each every 10^-43 s. With the flood of energy required. Then, repeat for the next 10^-43 s in all 10^80 daughter worlds. Then . . .

    Where is the energy coming from?

    Or, let’s confine to every GM tube observation, or every flickering fluorescent tube, etc.

    Still, where does the energy come from if two distinct worlds are BOTH realised.

    Wiki’s summary on this objection brings out the point:

    Conservation of energy is grossly violated if at every instant near-infinite amounts of new matter are generated to create the new universes.

    MWI response: There are two responses to this objection. First, the law of conservation of energy says that energy is conserved within each universe. Hence, even if “new matter” were being generated to create new universes, this would not violate conservation of energy. Second, conservation of energy is not violated since the energy of each branch has to be weighted by its probability, according to the standard formula for the conservation of energy in quantum theory. This results in the total energy of the multiverse being conserved.

    That sounds suspiciously like something from nothing to me; compounded by appeal to a quasi-infinite . . . unobserved . . . multiverse.

    Nope, I will ponder such as a useful mathematical fiction but without a LOT more good reason, I will not take it seriously physically. By contrast, I have a lot less trouble with the idea that to observe one interacts with a system altering circumstances and triggering an outcome.

    Does someone out there have solid reasons why I should reconsider?

    KF

  17. 17
    Axel says:

    ‘Sean Carroll is a textbook example of this sign of the degradation of the contemporary Academia which is why he wrote another text defending the indefensible,
    “”Why the Many-Worlds Formulation of Quantum Mechanics Is Probably Correct.”””

    Don’t you let Sean’s poor, dear, sainted grandmother in County Tyrone hear you talk about her ‘Seanie’ like that, Wallstreeter!

    Sure, he’s broken her stout Catholic heart with his atheist shenanigans, but they’re not a very logical family anyway. But, nevertheless, the heart has its reasons…It’s her good, loyal Christian side coming out in her, too, even if her love for the wee spalpeen has become very ambivalent at times.

  18. 18
    Diogenes says:

    Wallstreeter, your straw-man misrepresentations of MWI are funny, though I had to dig through your execrable crap novel to find the comedy.

    It’s hard to see what went wrong in your education but you don’t understand the outer product, don’t understand entanglement, and possibly don’t know the difference between QM and quantum field theory. I suspect second quantization is beyond you.

    Wallstreeter seems to think that MWI is about a film splitting into two. He doesn’t seem to know what a quantum superposition is, or an outer product.

    Its [MWI] defenders often say something like
    the many worlds “interpretation” is just pure mechanics; it is not adding anything to it.
    Carroll makes this statement about 5 times and it is a complete lie.

    O RLY? Lay your wisdom on us, O genius.

    …Quantum mechanics predicts the probabilities using the same universal formulae and the time evolution is always given by the same equations, too.

    What about the many worlds “interpretation”? Just look at the marketing illustration at the top. Aside from Heisenberg’s or Schrödinger’s dynamical equations, there is a new process added on top of it – the splitting of the film, the splitting of the worlds to make them “many”.

    Jesus tapdancing Christ. THAT’S your argument? You write a freaking NOVEL and you can’t even understand that there is no “splitting of the film”?

    No, you attack a straw-man: there is no “splitting of the film” and there is no “new process added on”. That is a total lie you made up in your imagination. It’s not MWI.

    The math is very simple. The quantum state of a two-body system is ALREADY “SPLIT”, but not entangled, before the measurement occurs, because the quantum state of a two-body system is the outer product of the ket of the electron, which is already in a superposition, and the ket of the apparatus, which initially, is not. But the ket of the whole system is split but not entangled:

    (|+> + |->) x |apparatus>

    I want to emphasize that X means an OUTER PRODUCT. In that sense, there are already two states– but they are not entangled.

    After the observation, the apparatus is in two states and they’re mutually exclusive. One observed +, the other observed -. So

    |+> x |apparatus +> + |-> x | apparatus ->

    Note that the above is STANDARD QUANTUM MECHANICS. It’s what Wallstreeter has falsely called the “Splitting of the Film” but it’s just entanglement, basic level stuff.

    Again, let me return to what Wallstreeter wrote:

    there is a new process added on top of it – the splitting of the film, the splitting of the worlds to make them “many”.

    Again, NO. No new process. There are initially two states but not entangled, so one is separable. After observation, they’re entangled and inseparable. Basic time evolution, NO NEW PROCESS.

    When writing this promotion of “many worlds”, Carroll must have forgotten about something, about the “many worlds”, right?

    Believe me that to produce a film that splits into two in the triangular junction is much harder than to produce an ordinary film with a single story of a cat. It’s also harder to insert such a film with “junctions” into a film projector. The film projector sometimes jams, and so on. It doesn’t work well.

    Again, you attack a straw-man of your own imagination. There is no “splitting of the film”. The initial state of the system is a superposition of two states.

    Yes, Nature can do anything if the laws of physics say that it should happen. The problem is that one can’t even define the rules when the hypothetical splitting should take place and how the two or three or N or ? (also unknown) copies attached to the junction should differ from each other.

    No, this is uniquely determined by the initial state and time evolution operator. Nothing is undefined.

    But by contrast, all other interpretations have a wavefunction collapse that is undefined, happens instantaneously thus violating relativity, and have never been observed and isn’t testable– pure speculation and daydreaming from the the anti-MWI crew.

    The really key feature of the quantum evolution is that it always allows parts of the state vector to interfere in the future and affect various other measurements in non-classical ways.

    We know this even from the double slit experiment which… We can’t assume that the particle goes either through slit A or slit B… if we don’t observe it. The actual initial state implies nonzero probability amplitudes for both intermediate histories and their mutual interference affects the existence and location of the interference minima and maxima on the photographic screen!

    …Now, if you think about it for a second, this totally elementary and universal feature of quantum mechanics in general and of the double slit experiment in particular is nothing else than the statement that the worlds just never split in the classical sense!

    …the relative phase will matter for the predictions as much as the ratio of the absolute values!

    So the “dead cat” and the “alive cat” are two intermediate histories whose mutual interference may in principle affect the probabilities of later measurements just like the mutual interference of “slit A” and “slit B”.

    NO THEY WILL NOT. There is no interference pattern post-observation because the interference term vanishes!

    Try it. Do the math. After the observation, the apparatus is in two states, one that observed “+” and one that observed “-“. Again, from above:

    |+>|apparatus +> + |->| apparatus ->

    This is just like above, but I ditched the outer product “x.” Here “apparatus +” means the machine that observed “+”, and ditto for “appartus -“. The bra version of the state ket above is

    <+|<apparatus +| + <-|<apparatus -|

    Let us suppose we observe the X coordinate of the particle, post-observation. What’s the expectation value of X?

    (<+|<apparatus +| + <-|<apparatus -|) X
    (|+>|apparatus +> + |->|apparatus ->)

    = <+|X|+><apparatus +|apparatus +> +
    <+|X|-><apparatus +|apparatus -> +
    <-|X|+><apparatus -|apparatus +> +
    <-|X|-><apparatus -|apparatus ->

    So sorry! Cross terms (<apparatus +|apparatus -> and <apparatus -|apparatus +>) vanish so there’s no interference pattern! Because the observing apparatus, post-observation, is in two states and they’re orthogonal!

    <apparatus +|apparatus -> = <apparatus -|apparatus +> = 0

    So, returning to your misunderstanding,

    So the “dead cat” and the “alive cat” are two intermediate histories whose mutual interference may in principle affect the probabilities of later measurements just like the mutual interference of “slit A” and “slit B”.

    No, you misunderstand. No future time evolution of the system can restore the interference pattern. Suppose that the observing apparatus independently evolved by a time evolution operator U. The above expectation value, after time evolution of the apparatus, would be:

    = <+|X|+><apparatus +|UtU|apparatus +> +
    <+|X|-><apparatus +|UtU|apparatus -> +
    <-|X|+><apparatus -|UtU|apparatus +> +
    <-|X|-><apparatus -|UtU|apparatus ->

    Where Ut is complex conjugate of U. Well, the cross terms still vanish because time evolution operators U are unitary and UtU = 1 by definition.

    = <+|X|+> + <-|X|->

    So, their mutual interference vanishes and can never be made to un-vanish… unless you could “erase” the memory of the observing apparatus, but quantum mechanical theorems say that erasure isn’t possible, you can only copy or move information (entanglement) somewhere else.

    In other words, people who really think that the two worlds separately exist in the classical sense are misunderstanding the lesson 1 of of the undergraduate quantum mechanics lecture that begins with the double slit experiment.

    No, clearly the critics of MWI are the ones who don’t understand undergrad level physics!

    The knowledge of the existence of interference of the state vector in quantum mechanics is the same thing as the knowledge that the world never fundamentally splits to two classical histories.

    Oh. But since the interference vanishes, the world does split into two classical histories!

    <apparatus +|apparatus -> = <apparatus -|apparatus +> = 0

    Since the interference of state vector does NOT exist after observation in MWI, that is, “the same thing as the knowledge that the world does fundamentally split to two classical histories,” according to your own logic.

  19. 19
    Diogenes says:

    BA77, how can you paste so much falsehood into one sentence?

    Moreover, the reason for using MWI, given by atheists, i.e. no additional assumptions, fails since it in fact, upon analysis, requires more assumptions rather than less assumptions:

    No. MWI involves no new assumptions, and its critics have never pointed to a single “new assumption” in MWI. What “new assumption” would that be? MWI is a deduction from 1. QM involves superposition of states, 2. Superposition of states are observed to apply to macroscopic collections of atoms, and 3. Observers are macroscopic collections of atoms. Those are not assumptions and not new.

    The reasons for using MWI are not “given by atheists”, they are given by physicists, but nice attempt at ad hominem fallacy. By contrast, the opposition to MWI is always philosophically or religiously motivated, and assumes new and extraordinary violations of Schrodinger’s equations that can’t be observed nor even defined, and speculates about wavefunction collapses that have never been observed and can never be tested.

    The opposition to MWI is a war by philosophers and their speculations against empirical science. Call me when you have video of your precious wavefunction collapse! It’s only been 90 years…

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    watch the video.

    A Critique of the Many Worlds Interpretation
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_42skzOHjtA&index=5&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_

    Many worlds, as if it wasn’t absurd enough already, dissolves into absurdity.

    p.s. don’t complain to me. I’m not in a position to help you even if I thought your position had an ounce of sanity in it in the first place. Complain to the video’s maker and the PhD level critics that he cites in the video. Only then will you make progress towards advancing your insane atheistic worldview where ‘you’ really don’t objectively exist as one person but are instead a veritable countless infinity of selves.

  21. 21
    Diogenes says:

    KF:

    How much energy is required to build a cosmos?…

    Think at ultimate level 10^80 atoms, forking a new cosmos or two each every 10^-43 s. With the flood of energy required. Then, repeat for the next 10^-43 s in all 10^80 daughter worlds. Then . . .

    Where is the energy coming from?

    This is a misunderstanding based on two different definitions of “universe”. The MWI does not hypothesize creating a new universe akin to creating matter or energy. What is commonly called a “universe” in MWI is not galaxies etc., but a macroscopic collection of particles (which could be small or large) in a quantum superposition of states that becomes entangled with a system that was previously in a superposition. What is commonly (and perhaps incorrectly) called “splitting” is just quantum entanglement, which requires no energy.

    Again, the initial state has some particle already in a quantum superposition:

    Initial State = (1/sqrt(2) |+> + 1/sqrt(2)|->) x |apparatus>

    This is the INITIAL state, before any energetic interactions. The “x” above is the outer product, meaning that the particle and the apparatus exist in separate states and can’t be multiplied against each other (but their states can be multiplied against themselves, that is, particle-particle interference and apparatus-apparatus interference, but no particle-apparatus interference.) The “x” for outer product is clumsy so we usually drop it.

    The apparatus in the initial state has no “knowledge” of whether the particle is + or -. Note that its amplitude is 1.

    I’m also adding amplitudes for the particle + and -, here 1/sqrt(2) which I ignored before. Squaring them of course gives probability = 1/2.

    Initial State = 1/sqrt(2) |+> x |apparatus> + 1/sqrt(2)|-> x |apparatus>

    This is the same as the above, just rewritten. No energy involved.

    The observation process means that the apparatus interacts with the particle via a time-evolution operator U which must depend on the eigenvalue that distinguishes the + and – eigenstate.

    Final State = 1/sqrt(2) U|+> x |apparatus> + 1/sqrt(2) U|-> x |apparatus>

    But to be an “observation” of the state of + or -, the U interaction must depends on the state, |+> or |->, AND must leave the apparatus in one of two orthogonal apparatus states, which “record” the observed state of the particle:

    Final State = 1/sqrt(2) |+> x |apparatus +> + 1/sqrt(2) |-> x |apparatus ->

    To answer your question, the energy involved in this observation is only the energy of a particle interaction necessary to observe the + or -, and that’s all. How much that will be will depend on the nature of the observation process, but it can be very small.

    Note that the final state is now entangled, the apparatus is now not just in a superposition of states, but that superposition in entanngled with the initial superposition of the particle. This entanglement can be achieved with minimal energy.

    Note that the above “final” state will have all diffraction/quantum interference effects in the double slit experiment disappear, as I showed mathematically in my comment to Wallstreeter above, even though NO CONSCIOUS BEING HAS YET BECOME INVOLVED, only unthinking MACHINES. But the interference pattern will now cancel! This shows that the disappearance of the interference pattern does not require alleged actions of undefined “conscious beings” but only requires known physical processes of superposition and entanglement, making the unobserved “collapse of the wavefunction” superfluous in the extreme.

    KF asks: Is the energy of the system different? The EXPECTATION VALUE of total system energy does not change because each quantum state has an amplitude of 1/sqrt(2). If we compute the EXPECTATION VALUE of the energy, we sandwich an energy operator E between the dot product of the system with itself:

    {1/sqrt(2) <+| x <apparatus +| + 1/sqrt(2) <-| x <apparatus -|} E {1/sqrt(2) |+> x |apparatus +> + 1/sqrt(2) |-> x |apparatus ->}

    Then you just multiply out the cross-terms:

    (1/2)<+|E|+><apparatus +|E|apparatus +> +
    (1/2)<+|E|-><apparatus +|E|apparatus -> +
    (1/2)<-|E|+><apparatus -|E|apparatus +> +
    (1/2)<-|E|-><apparatus -|E|apparatus ->

    = (1/2)<+|E|+><apparatus +|E|apparatus +> +
    (1/2)<-|E|-><apparatus -|E|apparatus ->

    because cross-terms of orthogonal states cancel. (Here I’m assuming the particle and observer have separated and I neglect energy of interaction.) You’re left with two terms but they’re all pre-multiplied by 1/2 so the net energy is the same as before. This answers KF’s question about energy.

  22. 22
    Diogenes says:

    Continuing: Now what if another machine, say a computer, comes along and reads off the first apparatus? More of the same. First form the outer product of the previous system with the computer, which initially knows nothing about the outcome:

    {1/sqrt(2) |+> x |apparatus +> + 1/sqrt(2) |-> x |apparatus ->} x |computer >

    The above can be rewritten as

    1/sqrt(2) |+> x |apparatus +> x |computer >
    + 1/sqrt(2) |-> x |apparatus -> x |computer >

    Then the second observation process involves a new interaction dependent on the state of the apparatus:

    Final State = 1/sqrt(2) |+> x U’|apparatus +> x |computer >
    + 1/sqrt(2) |-> x U’|apparatus -> x |computer >

    Again, this only involves the energy of an observation process U, which can be arbitrarily small. This U will leave the computer in a quantum superposition entangled with both apparatus and particle:

    Final State = 1/sqrt(2) |+> x |apparatus +> x |computer +>
    + 1/sqrt(2) |-> x |apparatus -> x |computer ->

    and so on up the line, until the scientist reads off his computer screen, and then he becomes a superposition of two states entangeld with all the others. The energy requirements are nothing beyond the observations themselves. Note that the EXPECTATION VALUE of total system energy does not change because each quantum state has an amplitude of 1/sqrt(2).

  23. 23
    Diogenes says:

    BA77:

    I watched the video. It makes no mathematical points and contains no scientific criticisms, only philosophical preferences and speculation. You philosophical speculation bores me. You have no math, no equations, no observations and no evidence of any “wavefunction collapse.”

    Many worlds, as if it wasn’t absurd enough already, dissolves into absurdity.

    I don’t think you know what “absurdity” means, but to me “absurdity” means hypothesizing speculative violations of well-known rules (like Schrodinger’s equation) not supported by empirical tests, violations that can never be observed and must always remain speculative, like your “wavefunction collapse.” I define “absurdity” as extraordinary claims not supported by extraordinary evidence, and “extraordinary” means entities behaving in ways different from our past observations of entities of that class. We know how wavefunctions behave. We have seen them evolve. Allegations of wavefunction “collapse” are extraordinary claims not supported by extraordinary evidence, which is absurdity by my very clear definition. 90 years after Copenhagen this absurdity remains speculative, never observed, never tested, never empirically confirmed.

  24. 24
    kairosfocus says:

    Diogenes, if there are two worlds or more at each fork imposed by an experiment of any observable scale, the matter has to come from somewhere (with associated E = m*c^2 rest-mass energy) and the energy behind its momentum etc has to come from somewhere too. The above still reads a lot like something — especially energy — from nothing, you will note that earlier I went from the extreme case on an experiment being a Planck-time quantum event with “atoms” to the scale of setting up a GM tube and poison gas exercise with an unfortunate cat [and are there two worlds, one with a live and one a dead cat or a stochastic distribution pivoting on the odds, with the underlying population of atoms and decays driving?] . . . remember each gram of matter corresponds to 9*10^13 J of energy, a considerable amount, 90 TJ . . . and scaling with the mass involved, a micro gram would still be 90 GJ of energy. I find the concept that on exerting an observation one interacts with a system and triggers a collapse dependent on the stochastics involved, far more reasonable. But then I was educated back in the days when Copenhagen was dominant. KF

  25. 25
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: Oops, forgot 3 ords mag, 90 MJ for 10^-6 g.

  26. 26
    Diogenes says:

    “Humbled”, do you have any math or equations or observations to bring to the table or is it all Appeal to Motive fallacy with you?

    It does make one wonder why people are so willing to accept such a *gasp (theory) when there exists no evidence for it.

    That’s right– why should we believe the opposition to MWI when they have no evidence of this “wavefunction collapse”, nor any ability to even define it? Call me when you have video of a wavefunction collapsing.

    It is so blatantly obvious that their position is one of faith and superstition.

    Faith and superstition? Since when did you UDiots decide “faith and superstition” were bad? Isn’t this a website that comes out demanding that ghosts and phantasms are real, and that monks can levitate and fly through the air? Doesn’t your moderator News argue that ESP is real and dogs have telepathy? And isn’t this a website where BA77 is tolerated, nay rewarded for citing the Rev. Chuck “Peanut Butter Jar” Missler about the gravity-defying Quantum Shroud of Turin, “the science of the Shroud, such as total lack of gravity, lack of entropy (without gravitational collapse), no time, no space—it conforms to no known law of physics, a position held tenaciously after 3 carbon dating tests show the Shroud is medieval, when its 3-in-1 herringbone weave and its mixture of cotton and linen did not exist in the Ancient Near East, when contemporary documents say a skeptical bishop found the guy who painted it, when the 2 images top and bottom don’t match anatomically, they’re 7 cm different in height, the heads don’t match up and the arms are way out of alignment, so the 2 images can’t be simultaneous, and when historians have contemporary documentary evidence that paintings of Jesus were made on burial cloths as common props for Easter liturgy?

    Ah. But you don’t define your ghosts, your phantasms, your aerial flying monk, the ESP and psychic doggies, the crude, fake painting that you claim defies gravity and “conforms to no known law of physics”, you don’t call that “faith and superstition.” No. Rather, you UDiots define “faith and supersition” as NOT BELIEVING in your ghosts, phantasms, ESP, psychic doggies, flying monk and gravity-defying Quantum Shroud of Turin. Gotcha. That’s your definition of superstition. Right-o.

    OK then, every application of the scientific method is superstition then by your definition. Gotcha.

    And isn’t this a website where the moderator literally, actually bans people and deletes their comments for blasphemy? If I wanted to be banned for blasphemy, I’d visit Ray Comfort’s page. No faith or superstition when you ban people for blasphemy, right?

    Funny– why is it you always accuse us of religion, but we never, never accuse you of science?

  27. 27
    bornagain77 says:

    “3 carbon dating tests show the Shroud is medieval,”

    New Evidence Overturns Shroud Of Turin Carbon Dating – Joseph G. Marino and M. Sue Benford – video
    (with Raymond Rogers, lead chemist from the STURP project)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxDdx6vxthE

    Discovery Channel – Unwrapping The Shroud of Turin New Evidence – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyiZtagxX8

    The following is the main peer reviewed paper which has refuted the 1988 Carbon Dating:

    Why The Carbon 14 Samples Are Invalid, Raymond Rogers
    per: Thermochimica Acta (Volume 425 pages 189-194, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California)
    Excerpt: Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses. The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow–brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud. The fact that vanillin can not be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicates that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300- and 3000-years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years.
    http://www.ntskeptics.org/issu.....oudold.htm

    Rogers passed away shortly after publishing this paper, but his work was ultimately verified by the Los Alamos National Laboratory:

    Carbon Dating Of The Turin Shroud Completely Overturned by Scientific Peer Review
    Excerpt: Rogers also asked John Brown, a materials forensic expert from Georgia Tech to confirm his finding using different methods. Brown did so. He also concluded that the shroud had been mended with newer material. Since then, a team of nine scientists at Los Alamos has also confirmed Rogers work, also with different methods and procedures. Much of this new information has been recently published in Chemistry Today.
    http://shroudofturin.wordpress.....s-of-time/

    This following is the Los Alamos National Laboratory report and video which confirms the Rogers’ paper:

    “Analytical Results on Thread Samples Taken from the Raes Sampling Area (Corner) of the Shroud Cloth” (Aug 2008)
    Excerpt: The age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case……. LANL’s work confirms the research published in Thermochimica Acta (Jan. 2005) by the late Raymond Rogers, a chemist who had studied actual C-14 samples and concluded the sample was not part of the original cloth possibly due to the area having been repaired. – Robert Villarreal – Los Alamos National Laboratory
    http://www.ohioshroudconference.com/

    Shroud Of Turin Carbon Dating Overturned – Robert Villarreal – Press Release video http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=DPPWDPNX

    Turin Shroud ‘is not a medieval forgery’ – 28 Mar 2013
    Excerpt: Experiments conducted by scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy have dated the shroud to ancient times, a few centuries before and after the life of Christ.,,,
    The analysis is published in a new book, “Il Mistero della Sindone” or The Mystery of the Shroud, by Giulio Fanti, a professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at Padua University,,,
    Scientists, including Prof Fanti, used infra-red light and spectroscopy – the measurement of radiation intensity through wavelengths – to analyse fibres from the shroud,,,
    The tests dated the age of the shroud to between 300 BC and 400AD.,,,
    Scientists have never been able to explain how the image of a man’s body, complete with nail wounds to his wrists and feet, pinpricks from thorns around his forehead and a spear wound to his chest, could have formed on the cloth. Mr Fanti said the imprint was caused by a blast of “exceptional radiation”, although he stopped short of describing it as a miracle.
    He said his tests backed up earlier results which claimed to have found on the shroud traces of dust and pollen which could only have come from the Holy Land.,,,
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....rgery.html

    Here is a fairly good ‘unbiased’ article on the ‘laser’ test which undermined the credibility of the carbon dating from a completely different angle;

    Scientific tests of Shroud point to supernatural – December 2011
    Excerpt: The Italian scientists found they could achieve a Shroud-like coloration of linen yarns in a narrow range of irradiation parameters, using ultraviolent lasers that were completely unknown in the Middle Ages.
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?f.....eId=380633

  28. 28
    Diogenes says:

    KF:

    if there are two worlds or more at each fork imposed by an experiment of any observable scale, the matter has to come from somewhere (with associated E = m*c^2 rest-mass energy) and the energy behind its momentum etc has to come from somewhere too.

    No KF, for conservation of energy what matter is the expectation value of the energy which is computed by sandwiching the energy operator between the total state of the system and its conjugate. When a part of the system goes into a quantum superposition, each sub-state has a lower amplitude– in the above I set the amplitude to 1/sqrt(2) as is standard for 50-50 probability– this is universal for all quantum mechanics. I did the math above.

    Because each sub-state has an amplitude less than 1, and the sums of the squares of the amplitudes add up to 1, so the expectation value of E is the same, as I already showed above. Please read the math I so carefully typed out.

    Secondly, I emphasize that solid state physicists have observed macroscopic collections of atoms at low temperature in quantum superpositions of states. These aggregates of atoms have massive energy if computed by E=mc^2. If your idea were right (it’s not) these observed phenomena would require the energy of an atomic bomb. But they didn’t. So your assumptions are mathematically wrong and shown wrong by observation of macroscopic states that are entangled and in superpositions that require no special energies.

    This is the observational evidence. You are speculating. Your speculations must be testable against observation, which shows your assumptions are wrong. Look through the math above to find your error.

  29. 29
    bornagain77 says:

    “3-in-1 herringbone weave”

    Shroud Of Turin – Sewn From Two Pieces – 2000 Years Old (World Renowned Textile Expert – Matches Masada Cloth) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uST6qt9pfoo

    The Shroud of Turin – Evidence it is authentic
    Excerpt: In June 2002, the Shroud was sent to a team of experts for restoration. One of them was Swiss textile historian Mechthild Flury-Lemberg. She was surprised to find a peculiar stitching pattern in the seam of one long side of the Shroud, where a three-inch wide strip of the same original fabric was sewn onto a larger segment. The stitching pattern, which she says was the work of a professional, is quite similar to the hem of a cloth found in the tombs of the Jewish fortress of Masada. The Masada cloth dates to between 40 BC and 73 AD. This kind of stitch has never been found in Medieval Europe.
    http://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html

    THE SHROUD AS AN ANCIENT TEXTILE – Evidence of Authenticity
    http://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html

    The Shroud of Turin’s Earlier History: Part One: To Edessa
    https://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2013/03/14/The-Shroud-of-Turins-Earlier-History-Part-One-To-Edessa.aspx#Article

    List of Evidences of the Turin Shroud – 2010
    http://www.acheiropoietos.info.....istWeb.pdf

    (Jewish) STURP Shroud photographer Barrie Schwortz convinced of Shroud’s authenticity after years of doubting it – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fyUHhTdSAs

    Shroud of Turin: Hoax or Proof of Resurrection? (feat. Photographer of Los Alamos, Barrie Schwortz) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCyK2BzLy3Y

  30. 30
    Diogenes says:

    I accuse BA77 of superstition, and he proves me wrong with hyperlinks to… WorldNetDaily… Godtube… Youtube videos… a Shroud of Turin conference…

    Scientific tests of Shroud point to supernatural – December 2011
    Excerpt: The Italian scientists found they could achieve a Shroud-like coloration of linen yarns in a narrow range of irradiation parameters, using ultraviolent lasers that were completely unknown in the Middle Ages.
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?f…..eId=380633

    Supernatural. WorldNetDaily. Right. Nothing superstitious about that. Now here’s historian Charles Freeman: The bishop of Troyes, Henry of Poitiers, whose responsibility it was to monitor such claims [e.g. the real burial shroud of Jesus] in his diocese, investigated the shrine and reported that, not only were the images painted on the cloth, but that he had actually tracked down the painter. After this clerical onslaught, the Shroud was hidden away for more than 30 years. Yet the Church accepted that it was not a deliberate forgery and in January 1390 the (anti-)pope Clement VII allowed its renewed exposure in Lirey.

    Oh, how Intelligent Design proponents make medieval bishops look like icons of rationality and enlightenment!

  31. 31
    Diogenes says:

    Here is historian Charles Freeman that BA77 won’t read or refute, on the attempts to refute carbon dating results:

    Charles Freeman writes:

    The Shroud was carefully examined for a patch by Mechthild Flury=Lemburg, the textile expert who was put in charge of the restoration of the Shroud in 2002 and she found nothing. Years before, in 1978, photographs of the weave had also shown that the bandings of the linen continued uninterrupted through the sample area.

    The reweave theory was put forward by a former monk with a degree in theology, Joe Marino, who had never examined the Shroud. He seems to have a cult following on this but his latest move is to argue that there should not be another radio-carbon dating as the Shroud is not suitable.

    Gosh I wonder why he’d be against it.

    Whether radio-carbon specialists would agree with him,I do not know- but I doubt it! (I am not sure who he thinks will listen to him in the circles that might decide such things.)

    But we do have solid evidence that the earliest documentation of the Shroud and the iconography suggest the first half of the fourteenth century so it is a case where the radio-carbon dating has independent backing. There is absolutely no reason to discard it.

    The last desperate attempt to challenge it is the earthquake theory (earthquake (see relevant gospel) released neutrons that catapulted the carbon readings from first century to fourteenth). If this theory held true every artefact tested from an earthquake zone would also be miles out with its date. I did say’ desperate’

    [Charles Freeman comment, 2014]

  32. 32
    Axel says:

    Strange, Dio, that that painter should have painted a facsimile of a photographic negative in the 15th century; and reproduced the markings of the scourged and crucified Christ so accurately. Obviously an artist and engineer born before his time. Eat your heart out Leonardo. No, not the footballer, Dio.

    Are there any other photographic-negative paintings in existence from prior to the invention of photography?

    However, I suspect your post and BA77s crossed in the posting, and he will have exposed your extraordinary gullibility for all to ponder in bewilderment.

  33. 33
    bornagain77 says:

    Diogenes, you say the Shroud was painted. OK reproduce it with all the characteristics. i.e. photographic negative and 3-dimensional holographic information encoded in it:

    Q: Why can’t the Shroud just be be a medieval painting?
    A: The image is also extremely faint, fading away completely if you get closer than about six feet, so it would have been like trying to paint an enormous canvas in invisible ink.

    A short film about the first photographic negative taken of the shroud of Turin in 1898 by Secondo Pia
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTeKu2-3hRk

    Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words ‘The Lamb’ – short video
    https://vimeo.com/97156784

    Turin Shroud: a medical forensic study of its blood marks and image – G.Lavoie – May 2010
    Abstract – From extensive analytical studies of the Shroud of Turin we know that the image is not man-made, and from medical forensic studies of the blood marks we know that a crucified man was laid out on his back and wrapped in this cloth. But the question still remains as to what caused the shroud image. A forensic evaluation of the blood marks and a study of the effect of gravity on surface anatomy suggest that a natural event is not the most probable cause of shroud image formation.
    http://www.acheiropoietos.info.....oieWeb.pdf

  34. 34
    JimFit says:

    “3 carbon dating tests show the Shroud is medieval,”

    For the sake of humor, let’s assume it WAS forged.

    The forgers had to find the exact type flagellum used by the Romans at that time (hard to come by 1200 years later – especially without eBay.) They had to know that UV light would later be invented – as many details are not distinguishable to the naked eye.

    They had to be experts in anatomy. The abdomen shows distinct bloating (consistent with death by suffocation). The blood flows are from the wrists – not the hands (as was believed in the 1200’s), and at 65 degrees (correct for arm position for crucifixion). The face is unevenly swollen from being beaten. The buttocks are rigid from rigor mortis. They had to use HUMAN blood and have tortured the person first to get the levels of billirubin found. They also needed the blood type to be uncommon to medieval Europe. All silly, because scientists confirm that the blood is not painted on. They would have had to then take the shroud to Palestine (for pollen spores). Dirt found on the shroud is consistent with dirt from the Damascus gate (nowhere else). The forgers did all of this in anticipation of 20th century science???

    A bit of a stretch, don’t you think?

    Shroud is dated back in the Jesus Christ era.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....71850.html

    P.s Many Worlds Interpretation is pseudoscience.

  35. 35
    bornagain77 says:

    Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural – December 2011
    Excerpt: After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists.
    However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax.
    Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic.
    “The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin,” they said.
    And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: “This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date.”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....79512.html

  36. 36
    Axel says:

    Don’t confuse him, Jim, there’s a good chap.

    And BA77, why mention the 3-dimensional information of the photographic-negative markings? That’s just plain mean!

    But guess where Dio found that post by the Freeman lad – no, don’t laugh – a blog called, Why Evolution Is True….! I kid you not!

    That’s intellectual authority for you. You couldn’t make it up.

  37. 37
    Diogenes says:

    Oh for crying out loud, there isn’t any 3-dimensional “holographic” information in the shroud, and the images front and back don’t match up. They’re different in height and the arms don’t align. That’s no “hologram.”

    They had to be experts in anatomy.

    Please! The images front and back don’t match, they’re different heights, the arms don’t line up! Also the head is attached to the neck wrong. No, no experts in anatomy.

    And now you say that the proof that it’s supernatural is that it’s “faint”? Uh, medieval engravings show that it was NOT faint, but easily seen from hundreds of feet away, when shown to medieval audiences. It was just a painting on linen, and the paint flaked off over the centuries every time it was folded and unfolded. No big mystery. If it were incredibly bright and vivid, you’d say that was supernatural too.

    As Charles Marshall has pointed out, there are contemporary examples of the same thing, though not burial cloths: We have a good example in the Zittau Veil (1472) at Zittau, Saxony, where the pigments came off when it was steamed leaving an image of two figures (women in this case) very similar to the ghostlike figures of the Shroud.

    Strange, Dio, that that painter should have painted a facsimile of a photographic negative in the 15th century;

    No, it is not a “facsimile of a photographic negative.” it’s just a negative, so you’re wrong on that point. As has been pointed out many times, the painter was creating a prop for an Easter liturgy. It was supposed to look like a burial cloth of Christ, so the guy tried to make it look real. There’s no reason to believe medieval people didn’t understand negative images. Any moderately skilled artist should understand the idea.

    and reproduced the markings of the scourged and crucified Christ so accurately.

    How the hell would you know what Jesus’ scourging looked like? As Charles Marshall points out, the scourge marks on the Christ figure match medieval theological symbolism about Christ’s scourging.

    Charles Freeman:

    This was a crude painting but details of the iconography, notably the -all-over scourging, were not known before 1300. The blood flows on the head and arms are also typical of this period. This fits nicely with the earliest documentation and the radio-carbon date…

    The scourge marks are all over the body. The Shroud images Jerry has posted above show them well. Earliest known examples are c. 1300. The art historian James Marrow (Princeton) suggests that this [was] inspired by Isaiah 1.6 that was believed to be a premonition of Christ’s scourging.

    The crisscross of scourge marks can dimly be seen on the Enrie photograph of the Shroud taken in 1931 and on the Durante photograph of 2002. The earliest examples of an ‘overall’ flagellation come from the late 13th century (one example of this date is a wooden, painted crucified Christ, believed to come from the Rhineland, now in San Domenico, Orvieto) and the iconography is well established by 1325, as seen in the Holkham Bible. What caused this sudden but distinctive change in iconography? The catalyst appears to have been a new fascination with mining the Old Testament for prophecies of the Passion. The key text was Isaiah 1:6: ‘From the sole of your foot to the top of your head there is no soundness – only wounds and bruises and open sores, not cleansed or bandaged or soothed with oil’. Contemporary commentaries on the Passion described an extensive whipping of Christ, ‘so that there was no soundness left in him: only wounds, bruises and sores’. These extensive flagellations are therefore a development of the 14th century and this helps place the iconography of the Shroud more securely in this period.

    Again, there’s no reason to doubt the carbon 14 dating. The evidence from the shroud itself shows that the samples were not patches nor repairs nor medieval modifications, and the amount of bacterial contamination would have to be HUGE to throw off the date that much.

  38. 38
    JimFit says:

    Many Worlds interpretation faces a lot of problems

    1 Huge proliferation of universes for explaining the observations of an observer. In a way it does not respect the Occam’s razor. (Many worlders claim MWI respects it since this interpretation has an economy of principles).

    2 The problem of preferred basis.

    3 Defining a suitable measure of probability to achieve Born rule.

    4 Other universes can not be observed. (A variation of saying it does not respect Occam’s razor)

    5 The Problem of Observers

    6 It is rather a psychological way of thinking about Q.T. rather than a real ontology.

  39. 39
    Diogenes says:

    Well, nobody seems interested that we have contemporary documents saying that burial cloths with painted images of Jesus were used in the Easter liturgy of the 13th century, the dating that resulted fro the carbon 14 dating.

    In [Easter liturgy of] the 11th century there was a significant addition to the number of characters when John and Peter were introduced. This was a re-creation of that dramatic moment, described in Chapter 20 of John’s gospel, when Mary Magdalene tells Peter and that ‘other disciple that Jesus loved’… of the empty tomb and they both run to see it. The grave clothes, the facecloth separate from the rest, are lying there and in this extended version of the play, often now called the Visitatio Sepulchri, it is Peter and John who bring out the cloths and display them to the congregation with the chant: ‘See, O brethren, here are the facecloth and the wrappings and the body is not to be found in the tomb.’…

    A French Bible dictionary of 1912 states that there were ‘linen cloths, in which it was the custom to paint the body of Christ in the tomb and spread them afterwards on the altar to serve for the Mass on Easter Sunday’. This is a late reference to images on the linen but it is given some support by a few other texts. For instance, in the Mozarabic Rites that originate in the seventh century and are followed in some parts of Spain to this day, the Easter Preface reads: ‘Peter ran with John to the tomb and saw the recent imprints of the dead and risen man on the linens.’

    …There are others who back this solution to the original purpose of the Shroud. In the third volume of the theology section (1790) of the mammoth Encyclopedie Méthodique… the Abbé Bergier contributed the article on Suaire (‘Shroud’)… He describes the Gospel texts and concludes that the linens or shrouds that one sees ‘in several churches’ could not possibly be the actual burial cloth of Jesus. He goes on to note that in the Easter ceremonies, which he dates back to the 12th and 13th centuries, a linen cloth empreint de la figure de Jesus-Christ enseveli (empreint, ‘printed’, enseveli, ‘buried’) is displayed to the congregation. He goes on to tell how these cloths are preserved in church treasuries, which is why there are so many of them. He notes specifically those displayed at Cologne, Besançon, Turin and Brioude and argues that despite their lack of authenticity as the original Shroud they should still command veneration. Furthermore, an article by Herbert Thurston, a Jesuit who did much research on the Shroud in the early 20th century and who concluded that it dated from the 14th century, also makes the suggestion that the Shroud was originally an Easter grave-cloth.

    [Charles Marshall, http://www.historytoday.com/ch.....8N.dpuf%5D

  40. 40
    JimFit says:

    Diogenes please watch this documentary about the Shroud, it debunks every claim you have made with evidence

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNJPJ4JwHeE

    There is also this site that demolishes all of your claims about the pigment on the shroud, the repair and the dating

    http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.gr/

    Its impossible for Medieval people to have created the Shroud since we have evidence of its existence long before the dating

    http://theshroudofturin.blogsp.....hroud.html

    We have the Shroud even painted in the 12th century correct so they had to look at it

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

  41. 41
    Mapou says:

    Nonlocality falsifies the multiverse hypothesis. It makes multiverse proponents look stupid.

  42. 42
    Diogenes says:

    JimFit:

    1 Huge proliferation of universes for explaining the observations of an observer. In a way it does not respect the Occam’s razor. (Many worlders claim MWI respects it since this interpretation has an economy of principles).

    No, that is not how Occam’s Razor is applied. The complexity of a hypothesis is judged relative to how many extraordinary properties it has not supported by extraordinary evidence, with “extraordinary” here meaning different from known behavior of entities of that class.

    But we know from observation that macroscopic aggregates of atoms exist in quantum superpositions and become entangled, which is what “universe” means here. So entangled macroscopic quantum superpositions are not an extraordinary claim. Rather, non-MWI interpretations say there is ONLY one entangled macroscopic quantum superposition, in direct contradiction to observation of fluids at low temperatures.

    Suppose you were to argue that there’s one malaria germ on Earth and I show you a photograph of 100 malaria germs. Is “only one germ” a better solution to Occam’s razor because you think there’s only one? It isn’t the count of entities that matters, it’s their claimed unusual characteristics.

    Again: non-MWI interpretations say there is ONLY one entangled macroscopic quantum superposition, in direct contradiction to observation of fluids at low temperatures. Further, non-MWI interpretations say that wavefunctions collapse at poorly defined points in undefined ways in direct violations of Schrodinger’s equation. Any violation of Schrodinger’s equation would be extraordinary, but since we can’t see the wavefunction collapse, they’re not supported by extraordinary evidence.

    For every “universe” (not actually a whole universe, but entangled macroscopic quantum superposition) deduced by the MWI, the non-MWI must hypothesize an equal number of unobserved violations of Schrodinger’s equation.

    2 The problem of preferred basis.

    ?? No more a problem for MWI than for anything else.

    3 Defining a suitable measure of probability to achieve Born rule.

    ??? It’s the square of the amplitude, like in every other quantum mechanical model. All QM interpretations have this “problem”.

    4 Other universes can not be observed. (A variation of saying it does not respect Occam’s razor)

    Yes, you’re counting that twice.

    5 The Problem of Observers

    No such problem for MWI. It’s a much bigger problem for non-MWI wavefunction collapse. Why can dumb machines act as “observers” and cause this “wavefunction collapse” (actually a disappearance of the diffraction pattern)? Non-MWI interpretation has a problem and can’t even define “observation.” In MWI, observation is well-defined and I defined it mathematically above.

    6 It is rather a psychological way of thinking about Q.T. rather than a real ontology.

    What is that, Appeal to Motive? Ontology is philosophy. Let philosophy follow science, not the other way around. Non-MWI models can’t definitively define “exist” because they can’t agree if wavefunction collapse objectively exists. So they’ve got a problem with ontology themselves.

    In what sense of “exist” does a wavefunction collapse “exist”, if you can’t see it?

  43. 43
    JimFit says:

    Diogenes if you have proved MWI go grab the Nobel Price, i will make them a call now and i will inform them that where Physicists have failed to solve all these problems (and much more) you did it! Better think from now how you will spend the 1 million dollar prize! I wish i was smart like you 🙁

  44. 44
    Diogenes says:

    Mapou:

    Nonlocality falsifies the multiverse hypothesis. It makes multiverse proponents look stupid.

    Complete arglebargle backed up by no math. I already showed above that QM uses an outer product of the particle state and the apparatus state. Outer products are inherently non-local. Entangled states are non-local in MWI. Rather, one motivation for opposing MWI is an attempt to restore locality. It’s your problem and none of our own.

    But the real point of Mapou’s post is the use of name-calling to assuage his feelings of insecurity.

    It makes multiverse proponents look stupid.

    The “multiverse” is not the same as MWI, except in a generic sense. But the above shows the whole point of most comments at UD: to use name-calling to assuage your (plural) profound feelings of inferiority and status anxiety. You should feel inferior. You’ve contributed NO math.

  45. 45
    Diogenes says:

    JimFit:

    Its impossible for Medieval people to have created the Shroud since we have evidence of its existence long before the dating

    Long before? I looked at your source and the first sentence was

    This entry will briefly trace the locations of the Shroud of Turin, from its first appearance in undisputed history[1] at Lirey, France in c.1355, to its current location since 1578 in St John the Baptist Cathedral, Turin, Italy.

    I don’t see that source as claiming the Shroud is older than 1355.

    Your last source for this is the Pray Codex which according to Wikipedia is 70 years older than the carbon dating, and doesn’t look much like the shroud. It’s got four holes in it, big deal. As stated already, many churches used burial cloths pained with images of Jesus and held up by the Three Marys which are pictured in the Pray Codex. There were probably hundreds of them, and the liturgy was apparently standardized.

  46. 46
    Diogenes says:

    Axel:

    But guess where Dio found that post by the Freeman lad – no, don’t laugh – a blog called, Why Evolution Is True….! I kid you not!

    That’s intellectual authority for you. You couldn’t make it up.

    Genetic fallacy much? Yes, much.

    Yes Axel, I copied a couple comments from a historian, Charles Freeman, which he made at “Why Evolution is True.” I did not copy Jerry Coyne, a biologist, as my expert on history, but rather a historian. Why does it matter at which URL he writes the comment?

    Moreover, Freeman’s comments echo what he wrote in peer-reviewed article that I cited.

    Now, since you’re acting as if Genetic Fallacy is valid, I’ll point out that you guys have cited conspiracy rag WorldNetDaily, GodTube, YouTube, and BibleArchaeology.org.

  47. 47
    Mapou says:

    Diogenes is bloviating as usual. LOL. MWI creates multiple independent local systems, which is crap because nonlocality and the nonlocal conservation principles forbid it. Nonlocality is really synonymous with nonspatiality. Distance is abstract, an illusion of perception. Everything is ONE. MWI is stupid. Live with it.

  48. 48
    JimFit says:

    Your last source for this is the Pray Codex which according to Wikipedia is 70 years older than the carbon dating, and doesn’t look much like the shroud. It’s got four holes in it, big deal. As stated already, many churches used burial cloths pained with images of Jesus and held up by the Three Marys which are pictured in the Pray Codex. There were probably hundreds of them, and the liturgy was apparently standardized.

    Again the forgers had to find the exact type flagellum used by the Romans at that time (hard to come by 1200 years later – especially without eBay.) They had to know that UV light would later be invented – as many details are not distinguishable to the naked eye.

    They had to be experts in anatomy. The abdomen shows distinct bloating (consistent with death by suffocation). The blood flows are from the wrists – not the hands (as was believed in the 1200?s), and at 65 degrees (correct for arm position for crucifixion). The face is unevenly swollen from being beaten. The buttocks are rigid from rigor mortis. They had to use HUMAN blood and have tortured the person first to get the levels of billirubin found. They also needed the blood type to be uncommon to medieval Europe. All silly, because scientists confirm that the blood is not painted on. They would have had to then take the shroud to Palestine (for pollen spores). Dirt found on the shroud is consistent with dirt from the Damascus gate (nowhere else). The forgers did all of this in anticipation of 20th century science???

    No Pigments on the cloth, the only pigments they found belonged to paintings that lay above the cloth to bless.

    http://theshroudofturin.blogsp.....ye-or.html

    Dating tests were disputed on the basis that they were skewed by contamination by fibres from cloth that was used to repair the relic when it was damaged by fire in the Middle Ages. This is the most likely explanation: the radiocarbon laboratories dated a patch on the Shroud that was medieval.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci.....210369.stm

    I don’t see that source as claiming the Shroud is older than 1355

    Sorry wrong URL. As a Greek i know there are Greek texts from Byzantium that mention the cloth in Constantinopole in the 10th century together with the 3 gifts that he received from the Persian Astronomers (they are now in the Mountain Athos),the document of his trial, the crown of thorns and the other cloth that was put on his face and matches exactly the Shroud,The sudarium of Oviedo which we have concrete evidence that existed in Palestine until shortly before the year 614, when Jerusalem was attacked and conquered by Chosroes II, who was king of Persia from 590 to 628. It was taken away to avoid destruction in the invasion, first to Alexandria by the presbyter Philip, then across the north of Africa when Chosroes conquered Alexandria in 616. The sudarium entered Spain at Cartagena, along with people who were fleeing from the Persians. The bishop of Ecija, Fulgentius, welcomed the refugees and the relics, and surrendered the chest, or ark, to Leandro, bishop of Seville. He took it to Seville, where it spent some years.

    This documentary from History Channel took the image from the shroud and combined it with the sudarium and the blood matches exactly like a puzzle the blood on the Shroud, i mean.. if we have concrete evidence about the sudarium that is dated before the 6th century and matches the blood stains from the Shroud doesn’t that mean its proof that the Shroud has the same date as the sudarium?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNJPJ4JwHeE

  49. 49
    Diogenes says:

    And Mapou shows up to prove me right about UDites using name-calling as a way to assuage their feelings of inferiority.

    Diogenes is bloviating as usual. LOL. MWI creates multiple independent local systems

    Now it does not. A Hilbert space that is the outer product of a particle and an apparatus is non-locally entangled. I showed this mathematically above. Mapou has no math.

    , which is crap because nonlocality and the nonlocal conservation principles forbid it.

    “Nonlocality” is a property, not a law nor principle that can “forbid” anything. Nonlocality is a property of MWI, but there is no wavefunction collapse, if that’s what you probably mean by non-locality. But collapse is not the only meaning of non-locality.

    No conservation principles are violated by MWI and I have no idea what Mapou means by “the nonlocal conservation principles”. There’s no “nonlocal conservation of energy”, there’s just conservation of energy, etc.

    Nonlocality is really synonymous with nonspatiality. Distance is abstract, an illusion of perception. Everything is ONE. MWI is stupid. Live with it.

    God only knows what this gibberish is. I wrote out a bunch of equations and none of you got anything. You just instruct each other in how to sneer. Could you teach each other a little math?

  50. 50
    bornagain77 says:

    december 2014 videos on the Shroud

    Barrie Schwortz: Remembering Ray Rogers – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG6H5MklK3s

    Barrie Schwortz: on using Shroud.com – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsGm5T6LOW8

    worth a repost:

    Shroud of Turin: Hoax or Proof of Resurrection? (feat. Photographer of Los Alamos, Barrie Schwortz) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCyK2BzLy3Y

    (Jewish) STURP Shroud photographer Barrie Schwortz convinced of Shroud’s authenticity after years of doubting it – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fyUHhTdSAs

  51. 51
    bornagain77 says:

    Diogenes you hold that math shows, apparently without question, that there are an infinite number of you (forgive me for doubting that you are infinite), whereas I hold that math shows, without question, that there is an infinite God and that we are made in his image:

    An Interview with David Berlinski – Jonathan Witt
    Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time ….
    Interviewer:… Come again(?) …
    Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects.
    http://tofspot.blogspot.com/20.....-here.html

    The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960
    Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,,
    It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,,
    The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning.
    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc.....igner.html

    THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS – DAVID P. GOLDMAN – August 2010
    Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.
    http://www.firstthings.com/art.....ematicians

    Kurt Gödel – Incompleteness Theorem – video
    https://vimeo.com/92387853

    “Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine”
    Kurt Gödel

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy.
    This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,,
    Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,,
    Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

    The Fundamental Equation of Chemistry Is Itself Fine-Tuned – Granville Sewell – January 13, 2015
    Excerpt: It is well known that all of the fundamental constants of physics are finely tuned to make life possible in our universe; for example, see this nice video featured recently at ENV. It is also well known that many scientists, in order to avoid drawing the obvious conclusion from this fine-tuning, postulate the existence of a huge number of other unobservable universes, in which these constants have random values, so that one was bound to get lucky and produce numbers favorable to life.
    What is not so widely noticed is that not only are the values of the constants of chemistry (the masses and charges of electrons, protons and neutrons, the strengths of the nuclear and electromagnetic forces, etc.) critical for life to exist in our universe, but the fundamental equation of chemistry, the Schroedinger equation, is itself critical for life.,,,
    Are we to assume that in all these other universes there are still electromagnetic and nuclear forces, electrons, protons, and neutrons, and the behavior of the particles is still governed by the Schroedinger equation; but the forces, masses and charges, and Planck’s constant, have different values, generated by some cosmic random number generator?,,,
    The fundamental equation of chemistry appears to itself be fine-tuned.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92661.html

    ‘In chapter 2, I talk at some length on the Schroedinger Equation which is called the fundamental equation of chemistry. It’s the equation that governs the behavior of the basic atomic particles subject to the basic forces of physics. This equation is a partial differential equation with a complex valued solution. By complex valued I don’t mean complicated, I mean involving solutions that are complex numbers, a+bi, which is extraordinary that the governing equation, basic equation, of physics, of chemistry, is a partial differential equation with complex valued solutions. There is absolutely no reason why the basic particles should obey such a equation that I can think of except that it results in elements and chemical compounds with extremely rich and useful chemical properties. In fact I don’t think anyone familiar with quantum mechanics would believe that we’re ever going to find a reason why it should obey such an equation, they just do! So we have this basic, really elegant mathematical equation, partial differential equation, which is my field of expertise, that governs the most basic particles of nature and there is absolutely no reason why, anyone knows of, why it does, it just does. British physicist Sir James Jeans said “From the intrinsic evidence of His creation, the great architect of the universe begins to appear as a pure mathematician”, so God is a mathematician to’.
    Granville Sewell – Professor of Mathematics UTEP

    In the following video, at the 22:27 to the 29:50 minute mark, is a pretty neat little presentation of the Schrodinger Equation in answer to the question, ‘Why does mathematics describe the universe?’

    The Professors: An after-hours conversation on Georgia Tech’s hardest questions – veritas video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....038;t=1349

  52. 52
    JimFit says:

    The point is that we can use mathematics to prove even God.

    http://www.spiegel.de/internat.....28668.html

    But it doesn’t make it a Theistic argument except if you say that mathematics can prove something real, since you said that mathematics prove MWI true then mathematics can prove God as well.

  53. 53
    Mapou says:

    Diogenes,

    Math is a smokescreen for mediocrity. When you don’t have a theory you hide your inferiority with math. It’s not the math that explains the theory. It’s the other way around.

  54. 54
    Diogenes says:

    BA77:

    Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces.

    Dammit Berlinski, if you say that again I’m going to hit you with the number seven!

    But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects.

    I see. The number seven can hit you on the head = humans can understand the mind of the creator of Galactic Superclusters through their “devotional abilities”! Yes, these are precisely the same claims! Why, there is no difference between those claims at all!

    1. I can open a beer bottle with the loop in the number eight,

    and

    2. By wrapping phylacteries around my head and arm, I can know that the creator of Galactic Superclusters really friggin’ HATES GAY MARRIAGE!

    YES!! Those are PRECISELY THE SAME CLAIMS!

    Now my house is full of sevens. They’re filling up the living room, sliding down the bannister, talking on the telephone… inviting over more sevens! And I’m running out of cake.

  55. 55
    Mapou says:

    Diogenes:

    “Nonlocality” is a property, not a law nor principle that can “forbid” anything. Nonlocality is a property of MWI, but there is no wavefunction collapse, if that’s what you probably mean by non-locality. But collapse is not the only meaning of non-locality.

    Nonlocality is a property of what? MWI is not an entity with properties. It’s a voodoo interpretation based on another voodoo interpretation: superposition. What utter nonsense. Nonlocality is not a property but the direct result of conservation laws. Nature simply maintains a global equilibrium.

    I know that this will be too much for Diogenes to digest but the globality or nonlocality of these laws tells us that distance is an illusion. There is no longer any spookiness of action at a distance (a la Einstein) because distance does not exist. And if distance does not exist (something that Leibniz understood way back when), there can’t be no multiple universes.

    One more thing, Diogenes. Since you don’t know why particle interactions (such as the half life of neutrons) are probabilistic, all you are doing is pissing against the wind.

  56. 56
    Diogenes says:

    Mapou writes:

    MWI is not an entity with properties. It’s a voodoo interpretation based on another voodoo interpretation: superposition. What utter nonsense.

    Got it. Mapou doesn’t believe in quantum superposition. Everything is either one state or the other. Which is to say, Mapou denies Quantum mechanics, which has produced the most accurate predictions in the history of science. The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon can be predicted with an accuracy of one part in a billion.

    But Mapou, who doesn’t like maths, doesn’t like superposition, so pffft it goes and quantum mechanics with it. Bye-bye anomalous magnetic moment of the muon!

    Bye-bye, double slit experiment! Of course, if you send particles or photons through a double slit one particle at a time, one part of the wavefunction that goes through one slit can interfere with the other part of the wavefunction that goes through the other slit, and the resulting ONE-PARTICLE interference of a particle with itself makes a pattern that is observable and has no other explanation. But Mapou doesn’t like particles in a superposition of states! So bye bye, Twentieth Century Science!

    Bye bye, transistors, which depend on electrons in a superposition of states tunneling through potential barriers in non-Ohmic devices! Mapou doesn’t like you.
    Bye-bye, solid state electronics!

    Bye bye, computer that Mapou is using to deny quantum superposition!

    Oh wait…

  57. 57
    kairosfocus says:

    Diogenes,

    I’ll briefly speak to two things.

    First, attitude.

    I suggest, think yourself in someone’s living room having a conversation. I think that will improve tone. Which, is needed.

    Second, while you may indeed be enthusiastic about the MWI, not everyone sees things that way. There are concerns and energy is one of them; regardless of the magic of the operators. Look very carefully at the idea of splitting into two worlds (however interpreted) and you will see why there will be concerns. Perhaps reversing the timeline back, back back through event after event will allow you to see why some simply will not buy the interpretation.

    I for one have no dogs in the race on this, but will express my concerns that I remain uncomfortable on the energy story as a first step. Maybe when I look at the matter at a later time I will be less so, but do note that.

    KF

    PS: On matters of morality, I suggest your problem lies at a deeper level. Lab coat clad evolutionary materialism has in it no IS capable of grounding OUGHT with all sorts of things stemming from it. Including, as Plato warned, the highest right is might (including might at manipulation). So, when preening yourself on currently popular agenda points consider where having no rights safe from ruthless power agendas and their publicists ends up. Including, when you play with big matches on fundamental human identity, familial and socio-cultural stability concerns. (You would be well advised to ponder the doctrine of unintended consequences and some linked hard-bought history, in that context.)

  58. 58
    Mapou says:

    Diogenes @56,

    Man, give it a rest. I am not your female dog that you think you can put words in my mouth. I am nobody’s female dog and I make my own mind. I accept the empirical findings of quantum mechanics. I choose not to accept your interpretation or the mainstream interpretation of it. It’s all unfalsifiable voodoo crap or, as Karl Popper was fond of saying, it’s a field where the observer has been effectively and completely exorcised. It is superposed but you can’t see it. Yeah, the science is strong with the dark side. Not.

    BTW, I’m still waiting for you to explain to the class why particle decay is probabilistic. LOL.

  59. 59
    bornagain77 says:

    Diogenes, the problem with math, and information in general, is far more difficult for the materialists/atheists to explain than you seem to realize. Dr. Meyer notes:

    “One of the things I do in my classes, to get this idea across to students, is I hold up two computer disks. One is loaded with software, and the other one is blank. And I ask them, ‘what is the difference in mass between these two computer disks, as a result of the difference in the information content that they posses’? And of course the answer is, ‘Zero! None! There is no difference as a result of the information. And that’s because information is a mass-less quantity. Now, if information is not a material entity, then how can any materialistic explanation account for its origin? How can any material cause explain it’s origin?
    And this is the real and fundamental problem that the presence of information in biology has posed. It creates a fundamental challenge to the materialistic, evolutionary scenarios because information is a different kind of entity that matter and energy cannot produce.
    In the nineteenth century we thought that there were two fundamental entities in science; matter, and energy. At the beginning of the twenty first century, we now recognize that there’s a third fundamental entity; and its ‘information’. It’s not reducible to matter. It’s not reducible to energy. But it’s still a very important thing that is real; we buy it, we sell it, we send it down wires.
    Now, what do we make of the fact, that information is present at the very root of all biological function? In biology, we have matter, we have energy, but we also have this third, very important entity; information. I think the biology of the information age, poses a fundamental challenge to any materialistic approach to the origin of life.”
    -Dr. Stephen C. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin-of-life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences.

    Intelligent design: Why can’t biological information originate through a materialistic process? – Stephen Meyer – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqiXNxyoof8

    Information simply is not reducible to a material basis. Yet atheists/Darwinists insist that information emerges from a material basis. Yet, contrary to their insistence, no one has ever seen material processes produce non-trivial information.

    The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness – David L. Abel – 2011
    Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”
    If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided.
    The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction:
    “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”
    https://www.academia.edu/9957206/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness_Scirus_Topic_Page_

    In fact, in quantum teleportation experiments it is found that material reduces to an information basis thus directly contradicting the materialist’s/atheist’s claim that information emerges from a material basis.
    In pointing this fact out it is important to learn that ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, quantum entanglement (A. Aspect, A. Zeilinger, etc..) can be used as a ‘quantum information channel’,,,

    Quantum Entanglement and Information
    Quantum entanglement is a physical resource, like energy, associated with the peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems. Entanglement can be measured, transformed, and purified. A pair of quantum systems in an entangled state can be used as a quantum information channel to perform computational and cryptographic tasks that are impossible for classical systems. The general study of the information-processing capabilities of quantum systems is the subject of quantum information theory.
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/

    And by using this ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, ‘quantum information channel’ of entanglement, such as they use in quantum computation, physicists have reduced material to quantum information. (of note: energy is completely reduced to quantum information, whereas matter is semi-completely reduced, with the caveat being that matter can be reduced to energy via e=mc2).

    Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups
    Excerpt: In fact, copying isn’t quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable – it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can’t ‘clone’ a quantum state. In principle, however, the ‘copy’ can be indistinguishable from the original,,,
    http://www.rsc.org/chemistrywo.....ammeup.asp

    Atom takes a quantum leap – 2009
    Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been ‘teleported’ over a distance of a metre.,,,
    “What you’re moving is information, not the actual atoms,” says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second.
    http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....1769/posts

    How Teleportation Will Work –
    Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. — As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made.
    http://science.howstuffworks.c.....ation1.htm

    Quantum Teleportation – IBM Research Page
    Excerpt: “it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,,”
    http://researcher.ibm.com/view_project.php?id=2862

    In fact an entire human can, theoretically, be reduced to quantum information and teleported to another location in the universe:

    Quantum Teleportation Of A Human? – video
    https://vimeo.com/75163272

    Will Human Teleportation Ever Be Possible?
    As experiments in relocating particles advance, will we be able to say, “Beam me up, Scotty” one day soon? By Corey S. Powell|Monday, June 16, 2014
    Excerpt: Note a fascinating common thread through all these possibilities. Whether you regard yourself as a pile of atoms, a DNA sequence, a series of sensory inputs or an elaborate computer file, in all of these interpretations you are nothing but a stack of data. According to the principle of unitarity, quantum information is never lost. Put them together, and those two statements lead to a staggering corollary: At the most fundamental level, the laws of physics say you are immortal.
    http://discovermagazine.com/20.....eportation

  60. 60
    bornagain77 says:

    Thus not only is information not reducible to a energy-matter basis, as is presupposed in Darwinism, but in actuality both energy and matter ultimately reduce to a information basis as is presupposed in Christian Theism (John1:1-4).

    Moreover, this ‘spooky’ non-local quantum entanglement/information, though at first thought to be impossible to maintain in ‘hot and noisy’ cells, is now found in molecular biology on a massive scale, in every DNA and protein molecule:

    Quantum entanglement in hot systems – 2011
    Excerpt: The authors remark that this reverses the previous orthodoxy, which held that quantum effects could not exist in biological systems because of the amount of noise in these systems.,,, Environmental noise here drives a persistent and cyclic generation of new entanglement.,,, In summary, the authors say that they have demonstrated that entanglement can recur even in a hot noisy environment. In biological systems this can be related to changes in the conformation of macromolecules.
    per quantum mind

    Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint – 2010
    Excerpt: When the researchers analysed the DNA without its helical structure, they found that the electron clouds were not entangled. But when they incorporated DNA’s helical structure into the model, they saw that the electron clouds of each base pair became entangled with those of its neighbours. “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford.
    http://neshealthblog.wordpress.....blueprint/

    Does DNA Have Telepathic Properties?-A Galaxy Insight – 2009
    Excerpt: DNA has been found to have a bizarre ability to put itself together, even at a distance, when according to known science it shouldn’t be able to.,,, The recognition of similar sequences in DNA’s chemical subunits, occurs in a way unrecognized by science. There is no known reason why the DNA is able to combine the way it does, and from a current theoretical standpoint this feat should be chemically impossible.
    per daily galaxy

    DNA Can Discern Between Two Quantum States, Research Shows – June 2011
    Excerpt: — DNA — can discern between quantum states known as spin. – The researchers fabricated self-assembling, single layers of DNA attached to a gold substrate. They then exposed the DNA to mixed groups of electrons with both directions of spin. Indeed, the team’s results surpassed expectations: The biological molecules reacted strongly with the electrons carrying one of those spins, and hardly at all with the others. The longer the molecule, the more efficient it was at choosing electrons with the desired spin, while single strands and damaged bits of DNA did not exhibit this property.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....104014.htm

    Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA – short video
    https://vimeo.com/92405752

    Coherent intrachain energy migration in a conjugated polymer at room temperature. – 2009
    ABSTRACT The intermediate coupling regime for electronic energy transfer is of particular interest because excitation moves in space, as in a classical hopping mechanism, but quantum phase information is conserved. We conducted an ultrafast polarization experiment specifically designed to observe quantum coherent dynamics in this regime. Conjugated polymer samples with different chain conformations were examined as model multichromophoric systems. The data, recorded at room temperature, reveal coherent intrachain, (intra – within, on the inside), electronic energy transfer. Our results suggest that quantum transport effects occur at room temperature when chemical donor-acceptor bonds help to correlate dephasing perturbations.
    http://www.researchgate.net/pu.....emperature

    That ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints (Bell, Aspect, Leggett, Zeilinger, etc..), should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every DNA and protein molecule, is a direct empirical falsification of Darwinian claims, for how can the ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) cause when the quantum entanglement effect falsified material particles as its own causation in the first place? Appealing to the probability of various ‘random’ configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply!

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
    http://www.quantumlah.org/high.....uences.php

    Closing the last Bell-test loophole for photons – Jun 11, 2013
    Excerpt:– requiring no assumptions or correction of count rates – that confirmed quantum entanglement to nearly 70 standard deviations.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-06-b.....otons.html

    etc.. etc..

    In other words, to give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘special’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place!

    And although Naturalists/Atheists have proposed various, far fetched, naturalistic scenarios to try to get around the Theistic implications of quantum non-locality, none of the ‘far fetched’ naturalistic solutions, in themselves, are compatible with the reductive materialism that undergirds neo-Darwinian thought.

    “[while a number of philosophical ideas] may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics, …materialism is not.”
    Eugene Wigner
    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video playlist
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_&v=4C5pq7W5yRM

    Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism By Bruce L Gordon, Ph.D
    Excerpt: The underlying problem is this: there are correlations in nature that require a causal explanation but for which no physical explanation is in principle possible. Furthermore, the nonlocalizability of field quanta entails that these entities, whatever they are, fail the criterion of material individuality. So, paradoxically and ironically, the most fundamental constituents and relations of the material world cannot, in principle, be understood in terms of material substances. Since there must be some explanation for these things, the correct explanation will have to be one which is non-physical – and this is plainly incompatible with any and all varieties of materialism.
    http://www.4truth.net/fourtrut.....8589952939

    Thus, as far as empirical science itself is concerned, Neo-Darwinism is falsified in its claim that information is ‘emergent’ from a reductive materialistic basis.

    Verse and Music:

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

    Moriah Peters – You Carry Me – music
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2H-zQjgurQ

  61. 61
    bornagain77 says:

    Markwardt: Full Length History of the Shroud – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIEcpDh_Cx0

    treasure trove of Shroud talks here:

    https://www.youtube.com/user/RussBreault2/videos

  62. 62
    wallstreeter43 says:

    when its 3-in-1 herringbone weave and its mixture of cotton and linen did not exist in the Ancient Near East, when contemporary documents say a skeptical bishop found the guy who painted it, when the 2 images top and bottom don’t match anatomically, they’re 7 cm different in height, the heads don’t match up and the arms are way out of alignment, so the 2 images can’t be simultaneous, and when historians have contemporary documentary evidence that paintings of Jesus were made on burial cloths as common props for Easter liturgy?

    Diogenes , I’m gonna love destroying your pseudo scientific assertions 🙂
    You went from the fireman into the fire here as the shroud is something I have researched for 6 years . You shouldn’t have brought it up dude.

    You claim the 3 in one herringbone weave and it’s mixture of cotton and linen did not exist in the ancient near east.

    Lets see what the archeological evidences show shall we ?

    You claim that the shroud weave style was found in the near east is based on erroneous claims by shimon Gibson and we shall go into them here

    Here Gibson and his team claim

    “”A FALSE COMPARISON
    On December 17, 2009, the world press erupted with new denunciations of the Shroud of Turin [1].
    “Shroud of Turin Not Jesus’s, Tomb Discovery Suggests,” read the headline in National Geographic News. “The newfound shroud was simply woven linen and wool textiles (….) The Shroud of Turin, by contrast, is made of a single textile woven in a complex twill pattern, a type of cloth not known to have been available in the region until medieval times, [archaeologist Shimon] Gibson said.” “Assuming the new shroud typifies those used in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus, the researchers maintain that the Shroud of Turin could not have originated in the city” [2].
    “There have now been only two cases of textiles discovered in Jewish burials from this period,” said archaeologist Amos Kloner of Bar Ilan University. “And both appear to contradict the idea that the Shroud of Turin is from Jesus-era Jerusalem” [3]””

    If you had bothered to read the full article Diogenes since you seem allergic to anything that contradicts your religiously motivated atheism you would have seen that these burials were not typical burials at all as we
    See here

    “The tomb is said to have all the typical features of first- century tombs in Jerusalem, except for one striking feature. This and other burials in the cave tomb, later found to contain members of the same family, were sealed with hard white sealing plaster – “quite rare,” according to Gibson [9]. White plaster around the edges of the openings of several adjacent loculi clearly indicates that they also were originally sealed shut. The sealing plaster indicates that the family had not intended the customary secondary burials in ossuaries, which in fact did not take place. These were atypical burials, differing from what is known to have been usual in first-century Jewish practice.””

    Diogenes , I have debunked this claim about 20 different times and this was why I could debunk ur assertion so easily that the shroud weave etc did. It exist in the near east in the first century. I’m gonna mop the floor with your assertions my friend .

    Now that we have showed how Gibson was already caught in a lie LIE about one statement he made , I’m not done yet Diogenes. Here we see quite the opposite from what the typical archeological digs have found. First the claim that the typical burial for that time was multiple pieces and not one or 2 as was the shroud .

    “abundant evidence from ancient burial cloths from excavated sites in the Judean Desert and elsewhere contradicts their claim that the Turin Shroud differs remarkably from other documented burial cloths. Twill-weave textiles, shroud fragments, and intact or nearly intact shrouds have been excavated at various sites.

    At Khirbet Qazone, Jordan, located on the eastern shore of the Dead Sea, 3500 such shaft graves were recently discovered. These have been dated to the second and third centuries C.E. [16].
    Forty-two pieces of textile shrouds have been found from the fifty graves that have so far been excavated at Qazone. Some burial textiles, mantels and scarves remained in intact or almost intact condition. This includes an intact burial shroud dating from the second century, C.E. It is difficult to tell from the photograph whether this consists of one piece which wrapped the entire body, or whether there was also a second piece wrapped around the head. In any case, it appears to involve at least one large piece of cloth. I might add that some of the Qazone bodies were buried in leather shrouds made from several animal skins stitched together. Thus we can’t say, as the Akeldama excavators maintain, that fragmentary remains of one burial must be the paradigm for many thousands of other burials.””

    This alone destroys your claim, but I’m. It through Diogenes with exposing your lies to show that your not interested in the truth but only in pushing your atheistic dogmatic religion on us

    “At Murabba’at, the site of numerous manuscripts and artifacts in line with the finds from Qumran, archaeologists and textile experts Grace M. Crowfoot and her daughter Elizabeth Crowfoot recorded seven twill- weave fabrics, including a dark blue cloth of fine and regular herringbone twill weave (2:2) with Z spun warp threads and mixed S and Z spun weft threads, probably imported [17].””

    And in Masada there were even more complex herringbone weave then the shroud found as it shows here :

    “Numerous textile fragments were discovered at Masada by the Yadin excavations in 1963-65. Avigail Sheffer and Hero Granger-Taylor, archaeologists with the Israel Antiquities Authority, recorded in their preliminary report fourteen twill weave textiles [18]. These include several textiles in diamond twill weave, which is actually a more
    complex variation of the herringbone pattern, as the direction of the diagonal is reversed periodically, ultimately forming diamond patterns in the cloth [19]””

    So your claim that such an advanced form of weaving wasnt found in the near east at those times is not Only ignorant Diogenes but an outright lie and fabrication, but I’m not done yet , mister truth seeker.

    Now lets see if your claim that the 3 way herringbone weave was common in medieval times is true . Diogenes when I’m don’t with you , you won’t want tongi near shroud research because it’s obvious to me and everyone else here that your not interested in sound shroud research . Now if it validates atheism you wel have researched very nook and cranny with a fine toothed comb.

    http://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html
    “”In June 2002, the Shroud was sent to a team of experts for restoration. One of them was Swiss textile historian Mechthild Flury-Lemberg. She was surprised to find a peculiar stitching pattern in the seam of one long side of the Shroud, where a three-inch wide strip of the same original fabric was sewn onto a larger segment. The stitching pattern, which she says was the work of a professional, is quite similar to the hem of a cloth found in the tombs of the Jewish fortress of Masada. The Masada cloth dates to between 40 BC and 73 AD. This kind of stitch has never been found in Medieval Europe.””

    https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n26part9.pdf

    “”GABRIEL VIAL, ‘Le Linceul de Turin – Étude Technique’, Centre International d’Étude des Textiles Anciens, Bulletin 67, 1989, pp. 11-24.
    Gabriel Vial was one of the two textile specialists who examined the Shroud at the time of the taking of the carbon dating samples in April 1988, and this is an excellent technical study by him of the Shroud’s 3.1 chevron twill weave, with comparisons with ancient textiles such as those of Holborough, Palmyra, Dura-Europos, etc. Of the Shroud he notes how faults in the preparation of the shafts point to a specifically ancient twill weave manufacturing method, and how the unusual Z-twist of the threads has been found in several Near Eastern textiles. He also points out that the two selvages show an unusual structure, requiring further study. Like Raes before him (and the Precision Textiles laboratory – see p.7 of this Newsletter), Vial notes the presence of traces of cotton, but suggests these might be accidental accretions, along with so much other microscopic debris on the Shroud’s surface. He points out that the only European 3.1 chevron twill in linen that stands some comparison to the Shroud is the canvas of a late 16th. century ‘Last Supper’ painting attributed to Martin de Vos – and even so its weave is much simpler than that of the Shroud. In effect, he concludes, the Shroud weave is ‘incomparable’.””

    And Diogenes if as you say the herringbone weave was common in medieval times then someone forgot to tell atheist professor michael tite who was in charge if the 1988 c14 tests this because he simply could t find a medieval control sample to use which research,bed the herringbone weave of the shroud .in other words Diogenes I’m exposing your disingenuous and lying nature .

    http://theshroudofturin.blogsp.....sheet.html

    “” Wilson, I., “The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved,” Bantam Press: London, 2010, pp.72,76-77. Here is the part of what Wilson wrote:

    “A further highly unusual feature of the Shroud’s linen is the weave itself. … an altogether more complex three-to-one herringbone twill … To make it, the weaver would have had to pass each weft (or transverse) thread alternately under three warp (or vertical) threads, then over on; creating diagonal lines. At regular intervals he or she would then have had to reverse direction to create the distinctive zigzags.

    …Even among textile experts, therefore, the search for parallels to the Shroud, whether from the Middle Ages or from further back in antiquity, has not been easy. This difficulty was made very evident when the British Museum’s Dr Michael Tite, the official invigilator for the 1988 carbon dating work, was looking for some historical samples of linen resembling the Shroud’s weave to use for controls. His plan was that the carbon dating laboratories should not know which of the samples had come from the actual Shroud. He even sought my help on this. But the plan failed. In order to provide controls that were at least all of linen he had to abandon the requirement that their weave should be herringbone. French specialist Gabriel Vial found much the same difficulty following his hands-on examination of the Shroud in 1988. There was literally no parallel that he could cite from the Middle Ages. … Vial found the era of antiquity itself – that is, around the time of Christ – significantly more productive …” (Wilson, I., “The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved,” Bantam Press: London, 2010, pp.74-75).””

    I will deal with your claim of the different heights on each side in my next post. I just wanted to expose you here in front of all these good wipe as a dogmatic religious atheist who would lie and hide the real evidences and the truth in order to advance your atheistic agenda .

  63. 63
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Diogenes claims here “””when contemporary documents say a skeptical bishop found the guy who painted it,””

    You didn’t even have the courtesy to give us the whole story and the name of the bishop Diogenes . You probably were hoping that we couldn’t find it in order to debunk it . Poor you didn’t know that I have studied the shroud intensely for 6 years and this is actually one of the easiest pseudo objections to debunk .

    Lets examine this story shall we .

    http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Crazy/darcis.html

    “”A French bishop, Pierre d’Arcis, was trying to stop and exhibit of the Shroud. He drafted a letter to the pope claiming that an artist had confessed to painting it. Not many people took him seriously then. Not many historians do not take him seriously today.

    Several documents have been discovered that challenge both his honesty as well as his motives. Pilgrims were the problem. Rather than visiting his cathedral in the city of Troyes, France, they were visiting the small church in Lirey to see the purported burial shroud of Christ. And that is where they were spending their money. Money was needed for ongoing construction on the cathedral. There were shrines for four saints, although, admittedly, no one seemed to know who two of them were. Troyes was famous as the founding city of the by then outlawed Knights Templar.

    Though Pierre was possibly not the first to challenge the authenticity of the Shroud, he certainly wasn’t the last. The document is still referenced by skeptics even though its contents are suspect; even though it has now been scientifically proved that the Shroud was not painted.””

    Now lets see what the scientific evidence tells us shall we Diogenes ?

    Agnostic thermal chemist ray Rogers senior fellow at Los alamos labs shows conclusively that bishop D’arcy was lying about the shroud being a painting .

    https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers5faqs.pdf

    “1) How do you know that the image was not painted?
    The primary goal of STURP was to test the hypothesis that the Shroud’s image was painted, as claimed by Bishop d’Arcis in 1389. If it had been painted, some colored material had to be added to the cloth, but the colored material would have gone through the fire of 1532. The pigments and vehicles would have suffered changes in response to the heating, the pyrolysis products, and the water used to put the fire out. No changes in image color could be observed at scorch margins.
    We tested all pigments and media that were known to have been used before 1532 by heating them on linen up to the temperature of char formation. All of the materials were changed by heat and/or the chemically reducing and reactive pyrolysis products. Some Medieval painting materials become water soluble, and they would have moved with the water that diffused
    through parts of the cloth as the fire was being extinguished. Observations of the Shroud in 1978 showed that nothing in the image moved with the water.
    The Shroud was observed by visible and ultraviolet spectrometry, infrared spectrometry, x-ray fluorescence spectrometry, and
    thermography. Later observations were made
    by pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry, laser-
    microprobe Raman analyses, and microchemical testing. No evidence for pigments or media was found.
    Your eye sees colors when the surface absorbs some wavelengths of light and reflects others. A red surface absorbs all visible wavelengths other than red. Each chemical compound absorbs wavelengths that are characteristic of its chemical structure. The best way to determine the properties of a color is by measuring its spectrum. Reflectance spectrometry was one of the most important contributions of the STURP observations.
    The reflectance spectra in the visible range for the image, blood, and hematite are shown in the figure. The image could not have been painted with hematite or any of the other known pigments. The spectrum of the image color does not show any specific features: it gradually changes through the spectrum. This proves that it is composed of many different light-absorbing chemical structures. It has the properties of a dehydrated carbohydrate.””

    In other words simpleton the shroud image was scientifically proven to nit be composed of any paint or any added material what so ever but it was caused by a chemical change in the linen by some unknown event .

    Diogenes ur research on the shroud now exposes your dogmatic bias against God runs so deep that you will deny any scientific evidence no matter how well it’s attested in order to hold onto ur dogmatic atheistic beliefs .

    This speaks volumes against you not being an honest seeker of truth and shows what the bible says about people like you who have a harden heart. Atheism is an emotional objection to God not an intellectual one.

  64. 64
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Diogenes says here
    “”when the 2 images top and bottom don’t match anatomically, they’re 7 cm different in height, the heads don’t match up and the arms are way out of alignment, so the 2 images can’t be simultaneous, and when historians have contemporary documentary evidence that paintings of Jesus were made on burial cloths as common props for Easter liturgy?””

    Diogenes as usual thank you for making more still objections that come straight from atheist crackerjack box blogs instead of studying what the real experts said about this .

    Rossum – Here’s something on the article for you:
    http://www.shroud.com/piczek.htm

    “”The untrained human eye does not note the differences created by anatomical foreshortening on the frontal and dorsal image of the Shroud. Foreshortening and the TRUE DISTANCES of body parts from the surface go hand in hand. While a general research opinion sees a flatly reclining body on the Shroud, the professional figurative artist with extensive training in art anatomy can see substantial differences to caution him/her to accept the flatly reclining position as true.

    The foreshortenings describe very precise angles which the torso creates with the pelvis, the pelvis with the thighs and the thighs with the lower legs. The problem with all the time was that these angles could be easily calculated from a profile view, but the profile view is missing on the Shroud. Art anatomy, however, can restore that information.
    Is there conclusive proof, which even the untrained eye can see, that the body on the Shroud is not flatly reclining?

    The experiment with the model provides us with the clue. The one sure difference between the flatly reclining figure and one which is bent with the knees pulled up is the position of the crossed hands in relationship with the genitals. As the model in a reclining position leans forward more and more and slowly pulls up his knees, there comes a point at which the genitals become naturally covered by the crossed hands. At this point the model looks exactly like the body of the Man on the Shroud, — the two match each other line by line, form by form. The true position of the body has been found and the missing genitals on an otherwise perfect male body are explained. They are not missing, they are simply covered by the hands due to the bending of the body and the pulled up knees.
    A microscopist does not have to be an expert in art anatomy. Dr. McCrone makes a natural mistake regarding art anatomy when he states that the arms of the Shroud Man are too long — a mistake a medieval artist made painting the Shroud. His error provides us with further proof of the true position of the body on the Shroud.

    The arms would be too long if the Shroud Man would be flatly reclining. The arms, however are entirely parallel with the surface of the Shroud and we see them in linear full length. The torso, the thighs, the lower legs on the other hand we see shortened by geometric perspective and not in full length. They stand at an angle to the surface. Actually, Dr. McCone comes to our aid again. The discrepancy in the length of the arms he points out proves that the body on the Shroud is not in a flatly reclining position.

    The professional arts cannot find any such discrepancies and distortions in the anatomy of the Shroud Man, which cannot be explained experimentally and which would prove it to be a painting.””

    Diogenes you are way out of your league here,mbut lets take a look at professor Fantis research which also uses mathametical calculations to explain the differences in length between the 2 sides along with allowing for other factors .

    http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/marineli.pdf
    “”Figure 3.2 shows that, just because of the inflexion of the lower limbs, the length of the leg measured on the frontal side is longer than that measured on the dorsal side.
    In fact bending a limb, the center of rotation being just next to the knee, one will have a lengthening of the front leg and a shortening of the back one.
    Analogous considerations must be made for the position of the feet.
    The Man of the Shroud has his feet bent forward and this is very important for the measurement; in fact as shown in Figure 3.3, the position of the heel changes considerably if measured with a “hammer” or outstretched foot.
    The heel itself being a fundamental reference point for the length of the tibia, it becomes necessary to value this effect too.
    For these reasons, it became necessary to make corrections to the results of the measurements realized for the systematic effects, due to the inclination of the legs and the feet; they are valuable in a first approximation in:””

    And

    “”4b) Comparison between frontal and dorsal imprint
    After having reconstructed the two imprints and determined the outlines, an overlay comparison is carried out, shown in Figure 4.3.
    The first remarkable result obtained was to note that the two imprints are anatomically superimposable.

    Fig. 4.3: Overlay of the frontal and dorsal imprint: the two imprints are anatomically compatible. Moreover in the Figure the anthropometric points of greatest interest are shown.
    The numerical valuation of the mean tibio-femoral index allowed us to verify that the one calculated (83.5 %) is compatible with the mean ones quoted in bibliography [6,7,8,9].
    The larger width of the frontal imprint compared to the dorsal one is due to the position of the sheet: lying on the support surface, under the body, and lying on the Man of the Shroud outline in the upperside; the linear development of this one led to a greater deformation of the frontal imprint.””

    Diogenes this shows that you will take any evidence, no matter how incorrect it is as proof without even examining the more technically sound arguments simply be use they might go against your fairy tale dogmatic atheistic beliefs . This isn’t real and honest truth seeking my friend . It’s simply lying for ur atheism .

    As far as eastern liturgy making paintings of a jesus on burial tombs , someone forgot to tell you Einstein that the shroud of turin is not a painting . In fact the sturp team of scientists that got to examine it first hand determined that the shroud image wasn’t made by any added substance but by a chemical change to the cloth itself .

    What you are showing here Diogenes is that you do t care about the truth and you have even abandoned the scientific method you claim to love in order to spread your ignorant lies about the shroud .

  65. 65
    wallstreeter43 says:

    This is like taking candy away from a baby , although I knwi that it’s objectively morally wrong to do so, but Diogenes can only say its wrong only as an opinion.

    Diogenes , u can probably see how much I’m enjoying this 😉

    Special thanks to BA777 in getting Diogenes to start talkimg about the shroud to reveal how Diogenes is willing to leave science in order to hold onto his atheism 😉

    Diogenes writes “”Here is historian Charles Freeman that BA77 won’t read or refute, on the attempts to refute carbon dating results:

    Charles Freeman writes:

    The Shroud was carefully examined for a patch by Mechthild Flury=Lemburg, the textile expert who was put in charge of the restoration of the Shroud in 2002 and she found nothing. Years before, in 1978, photographs of the weave had also shown that the bandings of the linen continued uninterrupted through the sample area.

    The reweave theory was put forward by a former monk with a degree in theology, Joe Marino, who had never examined the Shroud. He seems to have a cult following on this but his latest move is to argue that there should not be another radio-carbon dating as the Shroud is not suitable.””

    The problem you have here Diogenes is that you didn’t even go any further to see if Madame fleury was later proved to be erroneous , and as I shall show you here nitwit the process of invisible French reweaving can fool even the. Est textile experts naked eye but it can’t fool a thermal Chemist who has hard Chemical evidence of a reweaving . This is coming from a company that still provides the very expensive method of French reweaving . The company is called without a trace ,motes see what they have to say genius shall we ?

    http://greatshroudofturinfaq.c.....aving.html

    “”French reweaving is one form of invisible reweaving. Unlike other forms of invisible reweaving such as inweaving, it is nearly invisible, without magnification, from both sides of the cloth.

    Michael Ehrlich, the owner of a company called Without A Trace offers invisible mending services for expensive fabrics. He explains that inweaving is detectable on the reverse side of the cloth while French reweaving is not. French reweaving was practiced in Europe during the time when it is likely that the shroud would have been repaired in this way before the devastating fire at Chambery in 1534 that did so much damage to the cloth that reweaving was no longer an option.

    According to researchers Sue Benford and Joe Marino:

    French Weaving, now only done on small imperfections due to its extensive cost and time, results in both front and back side ‘invisibility.’ According to Mr. Ehrlich, French Weaving involves a tedious thread-by-thread restoration that is undetectable. Mr. Ehrlich further stated that if the 16th Century owners of the Shroud had enough material resources, weeks of time at their disposal, and expert weavers available to them, then they would have, most definitely, used the French Weave for repairs . . . the House of Savoy, which was the ruling family in parts of France and Italy, owned the Shroud in the 16th century, and possessed all of these assets.””

    Now before insulting anyone else here Diogenes is advise you to look in the mirror because your responses on the shroud are so shallow , I’ll researched and ig irant that any first year researcher on the shroud could easily debunk you .

    Charles freeman is the punching bag of all researchers . Freeman relies on joe nickell, and Walter Mccrone to back up his work .
    Joe nickell doesn’t even have a 2 year associates degree in. Any scientific field and Walter Mccrone couldn’t even get one paper on the shroud to pass peer review .

    You keep claiming its a painting , but all the scientific evidence shows your wrong. I can even show you peer reviewed blood chemistry research by world renowned blood chemist Alan Adler that proves the red stuff on the shroud is human blood and not paint .

    Diogenes please go away from the shroud before u start doubting your atheism , which is blasphemy in your dogmatic emotionally charged atheistic religion .

  66. 66
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Diogenes again shows his ignorance and his state of denial.

    “”Your last source for this is the Pray Codex which according to Wikipedia is 70 years older than the carbon dating, and doesn’t look much like the shroud. It’s got four holes in it, big deal. As stated already, many churches used burial cloths pained with images of Jesus and held up by the Three Marys which are pictured in the Pray Codex. There were probably hundreds of them, and the liturgy was apparently standardized.””

    Genius , the 4 poker holes are a big deal , not just because they are poker holes but because they are shaped in a reverse L, exactly how we see them on the shroud of turin. You seem to be allergic to doing sound research, but then again your an atheist and atheism is an emotional worldview and not an intellectual one , as you have shown with your complete ignorance on the shroud .

  67. 67
    wallstreeter43 says:

    As Ray Rogers showed in his peer reviewed Chemical analysis published in the secular chemical specialist journal thermochimica acta, a cotton splice was found interwoven into regular shroud linen , a clear indication of a reweave . No cotyton splices interwoven were found in any other area of the shroud and Rogers had sticky tape samples of all areas of the shroud including image areas .

    Special thanks to BA777 for posting the link to Rogers work.

    Not only this but Rogers also found madder dye in the 1988 sample area , ,added dye was a medieval dye used by reweaving experts during medieval times. Rogers found no madder dye in any other areas of the shroud .

    The patches area also contained 37% vanillin content while the rest of the shroud had none making the rest of the shroud much older then the 1988 reweaved patch area .

    Diogenes , thank you so much for falling into the shroud trap and exposing your true any science and anti logic reasoning . Now if all this scientific evidence was against the shroud’s authenticity you would have jumped all over this .

    I’m not finished with you yet , but I’m now discussing the shroud with another atheist on another message board and as a result he is having serious doubts about his atheism .

    The difference between him and u is that he is open to sound evidence and reasoning , your clearly not .

  68. 68
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Lets crush that 1988 c14 test some more .

    The sudarium of oveido is held by believers of the shrouds authenticity to be the face cloth put on Christ when he died on the cross . The sudarium’s history is indisputable going all the ya back to 614ad when it was said to be in the cave of saint mark since the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ where it was moved ahead if an invading person army .

    The too expert in the sudarium is spanish expert marc guscin and here is what he and his team of spanish experts uncovered .

    https://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm

    “”One of the relics held by the cathedral in the town of Oviedo, in the north of Spain, is a piece of cloth measuring approximately 84 x 53 cm. There is no image on this cloth. Only stains are visible to the naked eye, although more is visible under the microscope. The remarkable thing about this cloth is that both tradition and scientific studies claim that the cloth was used to cover and clean the face of Jesus after the crucifixion. We are going to present and look into these claims.

    Such a cloth is known to have existed from the gospel of John, chapter 20, verses 6 and 7. These verses read as follows, “Simon Peter, following him, also came up, went into the tomb, saw the linen cloth lying on the ground, and also the cloth that had been over his head; this was not with the linen cloth but rolled up in a place by itself.” John clearly differentiates between this smaller face cloth, the sudarium, and the larger linen that had wrapped the body.

    The history of the sudarium is well documented, and much more straightforward than that of the Shroud. Most of the information comes from the twelfth century bishop of Oviedo, Pelagius (or Pelayo), whose historical works are the Book of the Testaments of Oviedo, and the Chronicon Regum Legionensium.

    According to this history, the sudarium was in Palestine until shortly before the year 614, when Jerusalem was attacked and conquered by Chosroes II, who was king of Persia from 590 to 628. It was taken away to avoid destruction in the invasion, first to Alexandria by the presbyter Philip, then across the north of Africa when Chosroes conquered Alexandria in 616. The sudarium entered Spain at Cartagena, along with people who were fleeing from the Persians. The bishop of Ecija, Fulgentius, welcomed the refugees and the relics, and surrendered the chest, or ark, to Leandro, bishop of Seville. He took it to Seville, where it spent some years.

    Saint Isidore was later bishop of Seville, and teacher of Saint Ildefonso, who was in turn appointed bishop of Toledo. When he left Seville to take up his post there, he took the chest with him. It stayed in Toledo until the year 718. It was then taken further north to avoid destruction at the hands of the Muslims, who conquered the majority of the Iberian peninsula at the beginning of the eighth century. It was first kept in a cave that is now called Monsacro, ten kilometres from Oviedo. King Alfonso II had a special chapel built for the chest, called the “Cámara Santa”, later incorporated into the cathedral.

    The key date in the history of the sudarium is the 14th March 1075, when the chest was officially opened in the presence of King Alfonso VI, his sister Doña Urraca, and Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar, better known as El Cid. A list was made of the relics that were in the chest, and which included the sudarium. In the year 1113, the chest was covered with silver plating, on which there is an inscription inviting all Christians to venerate this relic which contains the holy blood. The sudarium has been kept in the cathedral at Oviedo ever since.””

    Now for the fun part , are u following me Diogenes , or should I put it in audio form?

    “”From the composition of the main stains, it is evident that the man whose face the sudarium covered died in an upright position. The stains consist of one part blood and six parts fluid from a pleural oedema. This liquid collects in the lungs when a crucified person dies of asphyxiation, and if the body subsequently suffers jolting movements, can come out through the nostrils. These are in fact the main stains visible on the sudarium.

    These stains in the nasal area are also superimposed on each other, with the different outlines clearly visible. This means that the first stain had already dried when the second stain was formed, and so on.””

    Ok so we know the man of the sudarium died in an upright position .

    “”Dr. Villalaín had a specially modelled head made to reconstruct the process of staining and drying, and was thus able to calculate the time that elapsed between the formation of each stain.

    The cloth was not wrapped entirely round the head because the right cheek was almost touching the right shoulder. This suggests that the sudarium was put into place while the body was still on the cross. The second stain was made about an hour later, when the body was taken down. The third stain was made when the body was lifted from the ground about forty five minutes later. The body was lying at the foot of the cross for about forty-five minutes before being buried. The marks (not fingerprints) of the fingers that held the cloth to the nose are also visible.””

    Clues that the sudarium was put on the man while he was still on the cross and in an upright position , plus he stayed with it on him while on the cross for at least an hour.

    “”The experiments with the model head and the study of the stains also show that when the man died his head was tilted seventy degrees forward and twenty degrees to the right. This position further suggests that the man whose face the sudarium covered died crucified.

    There are smaller bloodstains at the side of the main group. It would appear that the sudarium was pinned to the back of the dead man’s head, and that these spots of blood were from small sharp objects, which would logically be the thorns that caused this type of injury all over Jesus’ head.””

    Further evidence that the man of the sudarium died while crucified and that the spots of blood came from small sharp objects on his head which logically are the crown of thorns .

    Diogenes did we lose u 🙁 aw I how not 🙁

    “”The medical studies are not the only ones that have been carried out on the sudarium. Dr. Max Frei analysed pollen samples taken from the cloth, and found species typical of Oviedo, Toledo, North Africa and Jerusalem. This confirms the historical route described earlier. There was nothing relating the cloth to Constantinople, France, Italy or any other country in Europe.

    An international congress was held in Oviedo in 1994, where various papers were presented about the sudarium. Dr. Frei’s work with pollen was confirmed, and enlarged on. Species of pollen called “quercus caliprimus” were found, both of which are limited to the area of Palestine.””

    Pollen samples taken from the sudaroum confirm its historic route written about in its history further confirming it’s already indisputable history . There is pollen from plants that are found specifically in Jerusalem .
    Diogenes can you say private eye work ? Or is that in your limited atbeists dictionary !

    “”The stains were also studied from the point of view of anthropology. The conclusion was that the face that had been in contact with the sudarium had typically Jewish features, a prominent nose and pronounced cheekbones.””

    Evidence that the man of the sudarium was a. Jewish man.

    But is there good evidence that links the shroud with the sudarium. Lets educate Diogenes further . Maybe he can actually be humble and learn something here .

    “”3: Coincidence with the Shroud

    The sudarium alone has revealed sufficient information to suggest that it was in contact with the face of Jesus after the crucifixion. However, the really fascinating evidence comes to light when this cloth is compared to the Shroud of Turin.

    The first and most obvious coincidence is that the blood on both cloths belongs to the same group, namely AB.

    The length of the nose through which the pleural oedema fluid came onto the sudarium has been calculated at eight centimetres, just over three inches. This is exactly the same length as the nose on the image of the Shroud.

    If the face of the image on the Shroud is placed over the stains on the sudarium, perhaps the most obvious coincidence is the exact fit of the stains with the beard on the face. As the sudarium was used to clean the man’s face, it appears that it was simply placed on the face to absorb all the blood, but not used in any kind of wiping movement.””

    Same blood type AB
    Same length of the nose on both relics
    Exact fit of the stains with the beard on both the sudarium and shroud .

    Diogenes notice a pattern ? Opps atheists are not to brite when it comes to teleological thinking .

    But there’s more . Big hug for you Diogenes . I’m so happy that you made it to class 😉

    “”The thorn wounds on the nape of the neck also coincide perfectly with the bloodstains on the Shroud.

    Dr. Alan Whanger applied the Polarized Image Overlay Technique to the sudarium, comparing it to the image and bloodstains on the Shroud. The frontal stains on the sudarium show seventy points of coincidence with the Shroud, and the rear side shows fifty. The only possible conclusion is that the Oviedo sudarium covered the same face as the Turin Shroud.””

    The thorn wounds are a perfect fit. Well what do you know huh Diogenes 😉
    What’s even more important is that we have 125 congruent matches between the shroud and sudarium in the blood stains making it apparent to any non biased ,rational person ( not Diogenes ) that the sudarium and shroud wrapped the same person within close time intervals .

    “”Jewish tradition demands that if the face of a dead person was in any way disfigured, it should be covered with a cloth to avoid people seeing this unpleasant sight. This would certainly have been the case with Jesus, whose face was covered in blood from the injuries produced by the crown of thorns and swollen from falling and being struck.

    It seems that the sudarium was first used before the dead body was taken down from the cross and discarded when it was buried.

    This fits in with what we learn from John’s gospel, which tells us that the sudarium was rolled up in a place by itself.””

    The sudarium also fits Jewish tradition perfectly in that when a person dies on the cross , if his face is badly disfigured they must wrap it with with a face cloth.
    And it fits in perfectly with what the gospel of John says in that the sudarium. Was rolled up in a place by itself .

    Lets have a round of applause for the amazingly in depth and unbiased. Filling research of Diogenes .

    Wow Diogenes , with research like that you should be nominated for atheist of the year award.

    Last year must have been Richard Dawkins with his brilliant report of the “who created God ” argument

    Big hug for dio-Plato-genes

  69. 69
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Is there more evidence that the shroud is much older then the now debunked 1988 c14 tests . Now we turn to the obvious match between the shroud and the Christ pantocrator fresco of 526ad

    http://theshroudofturin.blogsp.....90_16.html

    “”Christ Pantocrator mosaic, Sant’Apollinare Nuovo church at Ravenna, Italy (6th century)

    of All”) mosaic in the Basilica of Sant’Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna, was completed within 526 AD [1]. According to Maher [2] this “early (sixth-century) … mosaic of Christ enthroned” has “eight Vignon markings” which would be more than enough to identify the Shroud as the sixth century artist’s model. But as can be seen above, the Ravenna Pantocrator mosaic has at least thirteen of the fifteen Vignon markings on the Shroud [see part #2 (1)] namely: “(2) three-sided `square’ between brows, (3) V shape at bridge of nose, (4) second V within marking 2, (5) raised right eyebrow, (6) accentuated left cheek, (7) accentuated right cheek, (8) enlarged left nostril, (9) accentuated line between nose and upper lip, (10) heavy line under lower lip, (11) hairless area between lower lip and beard, … (13) transverse line across throat, (14) heavily accentuated owlish eyes, (15) two strands of hair” [3]

    The Greek word “pantokrator” is from the Greek words pas “all” and kratos “rule,” and therefore means the “all ruling one,” or the “Almighty.” It appears in the New Testament at 2Cor 6:18; Rev 1:8; 4:8;11:17; 15:3; 16:7, 14; 19:6,15; 21:22 where it is translated “Almighty.” It usually refers to God, but in Rev 1:8, in context, “the Lord God … the Almighty” refers to the risen Christ. [4]. Which is presumably why the early Christian church ascribed the title Pantocrator to Christ, who the New Testament elsewhere states is ruling over all things (Mt 11:27; 28:18; Jn 3:35; 13:3; 17:2; 1Cor 15:27; Eph 1:20-22; Php 2:9-10; Col 2:10; Heb 2:8; 1Pet 3:22). [5] This also explains why the artists transformed the signs of death on the Shroud into signs of life, e.g. the trickles of blood on Jesus’ forehead became tufts of hair. [6]
    Christ Pantocrator, St Catherine’s monastery, Sinai (6th century) The encaustic (hot wax on wood) icon of Christ Pantocrator

    at the monastery of St. Catherine in the Sinai Peninsula has a strong resemblance to the face visible on the Shroud.” [7] It is the earliest surviving portrait of Christ, its isolation enabling it to escape the waves of iconoclasm [Greek eikon + klastes breaker] in the 8th and 9th centuries. [8]

    Vignon markings on this icon include: “the high right eyebrow (5), the very hollow right cheek (7), and the garment neckline (13)” [ibid.]. But as can be seen above, there are at least eleven Vignon markings on the icon which are found on the Shroud, including: “… (2) three-sided `square’ between brows, (3) V shape at bridge of nose, (4) second V within marking 2, (5) raised right eyebrow, … (7) accentuated right cheek, (8) enlarged left nostril, (9) accentuated line between nose and upper lip, (10) heavy line under lower lip, (11) hairless area between lower lip and beard, … (13) transverse line across throat, (14) heavily accentuated owlish eyes, …” [3]

    Art historian, Professor Kurt Weitzmann of Princeton University has noted of this icon that:

    “… the pupils of the eyes are not at the same level; the eyebrow over Christ’s left eye is arched higher than over his right … one side of the mustache droops at a slightly different angle from the other, while the beard is combed in the opposite direction … Many of these subtleties remain attached to this particular type of Christ image and can be seen in later copies, e.g. the mosaic bust in the narthex of Hosios Lukas over the entrance to the catholicon … Here too the difference in the raising of the eyebrows is most noticeable …” [9]””

    This is a clear indication that the artist of the fresco could only have been painting it using the shroud as the initial foundation . This alone puts the shroud at 526ad, but is there more . Of course there is more because Diogenes has begged for more . We can’t disappoint our resident village atheist can we . Love ya Diogenes 😉

    “”Dr Alan Whanger, using his polarized overlay method, discovered 170 points of congruence between the face of this icon and that of the Shroud. [10] Some of these were merely creases and wrinkles that can still be seen on the Shroud. [8]””

    That’s 170 congruent points between the shroud and Christ pantocrator . In a court of law 25 to 55 points only are need for a positive
    ID.

    It’s clear that the shroud was in existence in at least 526ad from this fresco alone .

    The majority of evidence is in favor of the authenticity of the shroud as even agnostic Cambridge trained art historian thomas de Wesselow conceded when he asserted that the evidence for authenticity is strong and that the image on the shroud conforms to no known period of art history .

    Diogenes leave the shroud alone ,it’s only going to cause u headaches my friend 😉

  70. 70
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Hey BA777 I love the Russ breault presentation . He is one of my favorites when it come a to shroud historians. He knows his shroud history .

  71. 71
    bornagain77 says:

    wallstreeter43, I have only started reading your defense of the authenticity of the Shroud. Going to go get a cup of coffee this morning and go though it more thoroughly in a bit. But I have to admit, from perusal, you certainly seem to have done your homework. Thanks for your work. Your studious effort shows! 🙂

  72. 72
    Me_Think says:

    IMO, It is not worth defending Many-Worlds Interpretation.
    Let’s say a sphere (or machine- if you prefer) weighs 1 kg and has a diameter of 1 m, then the information coded inside it (using Bekenstein Bound) will be 3x10^43 x 0.5 x 1 = 1.5×10^43. This translates to 10^(1.5x10^43) possible quantum states! Without wave function collapse this small system will be unwieldy. Imagine the fate if the system is the universe.

  73. 73
    bornagain77 says:

    “IMO, It is not worth defending Many-Worlds Interpretation.”

    But that is the beauty of Many Worlds Me_Think, in some other universe you, (whatever ‘you’ means in Many Worlds), chose to believe it was worth defending. 🙂

  74. 74
    Silver Asiatic says:

    wallstreeter43 – very nice job. Thanks.

    the shroud image was scientifically proven to not be composed of any paint or any added material what so ever but it was caused by a chemical change in the linen by some unknown event .

    Even skeptics have recognized this and many attempts have been made to try to recreate the image. If it was simply painted, a reproduction would have been easy.

    a skeptical bishop found the guy who painted it

    Strange, for the most famous ‘work of art’ in the world, the bishop didn’t name the guy who painted it. The guy had genius-level skills, surpassing those of Da Vinci.

    Also, supposedly, there were hundreds of these shrouds at the time – but that makes it harder to explain why the Clement VII gave this one a special status.

    There are lots more problems with the ‘just a painting’ story – and other points, which you nicely refuted.

    It seems likely that the shroud is joined to the history of the sudarium and the mandylion of edessa – both held in palestine – then the shroud eventually transfereed and archived by the Templars after that.

  75. 75
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Thanks BA777 🙂
    The shroud is an amazing relic , but the irony is I never would have known about it if it weren’t for a group of voiciferous atheists who raided a forum I was on about 6 years ago claiming that the shroud had finally been replicated , that this proved that the shroud was a medieval forgery .

    I thought to myself “”big deal , what the heck is a shroud of turin anyways”” and initially let it go.

    A month later when the atheist chemist Luigi (who was funded by a large italian atheist/agnostic italian group ) allowed scientists to see his replica and critqiue it, it was debunked thoroughly and the loud mouthed atheist group disappeared .

    But that was when my curiousity got the best of me and I started studying it , once that happened the shroud got a hold me me and the more I studied it the more amazing it became to me. After a few years of researching I became convinced of its authenticity .

    A few years ago I remember going through a 5 month debate with an atheist on a forum who came in so confidently proclaiming that we are all atbeists , that he believed in one less God then I did.

    After out debate he was no longer an atheist and converted to agnosticism. The good part is that he has a. Christian girlfriend who is probably working on him to try to pull him closer to Christ 😉

    Diogenes assertions are typical shallow assertions that you read on crackerjack box atheist sites . The reason I love those atheist sites is that when their readers find out the true scientific and historical evidence for the shroud they usually go one of ways, they either ignore and leave the shroud alone , admit that they were wrong but say that authenticity doesn’t prove it was miraculous (like agnostic art historian thomas de Wesselow ), or they start to have doubts about their dogmatic atheism.

    The true reason I like using the shroud in debates is that it flushes the atheist’s true intentions out and exposes them not as a lover of science or truth , but it shows them to be unreasonable , dogmatic pushers of their worldview who will even deny science itself in order to hold onto their atheism .

    We see that if they behave this way when researching the shroud , we see that they are doing the same thing when they argue for other scientific theories .

    I will over the weekend when I have time post some very fascinating new videos from the at Louis shroud conference that took place last October .
    Wall

  76. 76
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Silver asiatic said
    “”Even skeptics have recognized this and many attempts have been made to try to recreate the image. If it was simply painted, a reproduction would have been easy.””

    Not just that silver, but the scientists who came closest to replicating it did so with radiation models . Doctor August Accetta was one such guy.

    He was a Catholic but left his faith in God in his college years when he started to believe that religion was a crutch that helped the elderly feel comfortable about death . He became an agnostic .

    He started researching the shroud and had a hunch . He then ingest
    Ed radioactive particles into his body and ran gamma rays through it , and produced an image that contained many of the unique qualities of the shroud , but it couldn’t create a true face and head image , plus it didn’t have the amazing focus of the shroud image .

    Doctor Accetta then knew that this image couldnt have been the work of a forger . This was when he started reading the New Testament again to verify the veracity of how accurately the shroud aligned with it . This was when he started to believe again and starts story come back to God because the evidence started to slowly pull him back.

    Or Missouri agnostic lawyer Marc Antonacci who was a happy and satisfied agnostic who had a Christian girlfriend and started to get into arguments with her about religion . He then made it a mission to show her that Christianity was a Fairy tale . His big mistake was that he started with picking the shroud to debunk.

    What he thought would take 2 weeks ended up taking 25 years and not only that but he himself came to believe in its authenticity and eventually ended up giving heart to The Lord and is now a Christian. He now heads up a team of scientists that are trying to petition the Vatican to allow them to test the shroud for neutrinos that would for all intents and purposes show that it could only have been the resurrection that caused this image .

    Ian wilson the shroud historian was an agnostic befire studying the shroud and eventually became a Christian afterwords .

    “”Strange, for the most famous ‘work of art’ in the world, the bishop didn’t name the guy who painted it. The guy had genius-level skills, surpassing those of Da Vinci.

    Also, supposedly, there were hundreds of these shrouds at the time – but that makes it harder to explain why the Clement VII gave this one a special status.””

    Correct and Charles freeman uses this as a guilty by association argument that says “there were hundreds of shroud replicas at that time, therefore this shroud is a replica “” which is basically a version of the genetic fallacy argument . Stephen jones has a devestating 20 page critique on Charles Freeman’s paper that just blows him sky high.

    “”There are lots more problems with the ‘just a painting’ story – and other points, which you nicely refuted.

    It seems likely that the shroud is joined to the history of the sudarium and the mandylion of edessa – both held in palestine – then the shroud eventually transfereed and archived by the Templars after that.””

    Correct silver . The mandylion also was talked bout in ancient koine greek history in the writings of the acts of Thaddeus , an updated early 6th century version from the doctrine of adai (400ad) which takes the mandylion all the way back to not only the time of Christ but to Christ himself .

    There was a history in the ancient koine greek writings of a relic called the mandylion or image of edessa . The mandylion was a relic that had a head image displayed in landscape form when it was displayed to its audience in edessa (modern day turkey)

    In the ancient koine greek writings there was a word used to describe how the shroud was folded before it was rolled out to be displayed and it was called tetradiplon which means “doubled 4 times ”

    In all of the koine greek writings this word is only used to describe the folding pattern of the mandylion . In 1978 when sturp was allowed to examine the shroud firsthand physicist john Jackson did his light raking experiment G&S and lo and behold he found major fold lines corresponding exactly to the tetradiplon folding pattern .

    This is strong evidence that the mandylion is in fact the shroud doubled 4 times

    This is a great link by stephen jones that talks about all this more in detail.
    http://theshroudofturin.blogsp.....-turin.htm

  77. 77
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Thanks wallstreeter. I appreciate all your research. I looked up Thomas de Wesselow and I guess he fully believes the Shroud is real.
    The guy who really opened my eyes recently is Paul Baade in his book “The Holy Face” – which is not about the shroud, but similar.
    He shows that the shroud is referenced in John’s gospel, and he put it like this …

    Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there … Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed.

    I never connected that before. Baade says that they saw the shroud and the sudarium. They ‘saw and believed’.

    I’m looking forward to reading Stephen Jones’ critique.
    Thanks!

  78. 78
    bornagain77 says:

    Thanks wallstreeter43, I look forward to the videos.

  79. 79
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Silver, we are left to wonder what in addition to the burial cloth he saw ?
    Some skeptics ask why didn’t the apostles mention the image and show it to others in the gospel.

    The main reason would be that if they take that burial cloth out if the tomb they would be violating a. Sacred Jewish law of taking a bloodied burial cloth out of a tomb and in first century Jerusalem the blood on a burial cloth is considered sacred and not to be tampered with .

    Skeptics also ask why there was very little mention of the shroud for the first 300 years if Christianity . The rman empire spent the first 300 years killing Christians and it was well known that they were trying to eradicate any evidence of Christianity including relics .

    Barrie Schwortz talks about this and more in this very entertaining video presentation in front of a crowd of evangelical Christians.

    Schwortz was an secular Jew that came back to his Orthodox Judaic faith and to a god through the shroud . He was also the documenting photographer on the sturp team that got permission in 1978 from the Vatican to study the shroud firsthand for 5 straight 24 hour days .

    It took him 18 years of research to finally start believing in the shroud .
    http://youtu.be/N0N9cMUQrZI

  80. 80
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Silver here is part 1 of stephen jones critique of Charles freeman. To get to part 2 and so on the link to the next parts are at the bottom of the part 1 article . It’s a multi part series .

    http://theshroudofturin.blogsp.....turin.html

  81. 81
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Your very welcome BA77, thank you also for all the exhaustive good work you have done here . When I first converted from evolutionist to ID advocate your posts gave me a lot of good info to read and soak up.

    I’ll have a few videos up in a bit , just battling a flu right now but it also gives me an excuse to stay home lol.

  82. 82
    skram says:

    We now have two spammers: ba77 and ws43. There goes the neighborhood.

  83. 83
    Diogenes says:

    I don’t have much time to comment today, I think, so I will copy this comment I wrote at Sean Carroll’s blog, in response to a Hindu critic.

    Kashyap: “But you should realize that Sean [Carroll] and his atheist friends launch tirades against religion and metaphysics and at the same time are pushing MWI which sounds very much metaphysical to me!!”

    No. This is a typical flattening argument used against atheists, ‘Why you atheists believe things on faith, so atheism is just like a religion!’ No. It’s a South Parkian flattening argument: e.g. those who oppose bullies are themselves bullies, those who oppose religion are themselves religious, those who oppose fascism are themselves fascist, etc. It’s about as sensible as saying “Those who don’t like mayonnaise do so because deep down inside, they really like mayonnaise.” No we don’t. An argument against mayonnaise is not mayonnaise-based.

    “Sean and his atheist friends” are not pushing MWI as a form of metaphysics, or for metaphysical reasons. There is a philosophical, or to be more precise, an epistemological reason to prefer MWI, namely the belief that the scientific method by definition should prefer the simpler hypothesis among those that are equally good at predicting and explaining the observations.

    And “simpler” here is not defined by counting the number of entities, especially not by counting the number of entities deducible as conclusions from a hypothesis. E.g. If I find termite damage in my house, I don’t say, “There must be ONE TERMITE in my house– because ONE TERMITE is a simpler hypothesis than 10,000! termites” No, neither just one termite, nor 50 million, is the simplest hypothesis; and zero termites would be ridiculous.

    Rather, to form the simplest hypothesis we would ask, given termite damage, what is the typical size of a termite infestation in a house? And any deviation from that number, higher or lower, is a less simple hypothesis. Thus, hypothesizing one termite is a more complex hypothesis, and hypothesizing ZERO termites is absurd!

    To be precise: in general, an unparsimonious hypothesis is assessed by counting the number of its extraordinary claims that are not supported by extraordinary evidence; and by ‘extraordinary claim’ I mean any assigning of a property to a hypothetical entity which is improbable for most entities of that type.

    This is a philosophical argument in the same sense that any restriction to the scientific method is epistemological, e.g. we’re rejecting conclusions that go against the scientific method, which we try to apply consistently.

    Moreover, as an epistemological matter, we’re including deductions from scientific hypotheses as being “scientific”, and part of science, even if the deductions are not themselves testable, so long as the premises upon which the deductions are based are testable. For example, if I were to ask, “Do your car keys still exist when no one is observing them?” the scientific answer is “Yes, they still exist when we’re not watching them” because that follows as a deduction from the testable premises “The keys existed a minute ago” and “matter rarely disappears.”

    To say, “My car keys disappear when I’m not watching them” may be ontologically simpler, because the number of hypothetical entities is smaller, but it is NOT the simpler hypothesis, because you’re hypothesizing an invisible force that makes matter disappear and re-appear higgled-piggledy. That’s extraordinary and that makes it complex.

    The anti-MWI position, which should correctly be called “Disappearing Worlds” or perhaps even better, “Disappearing Twins” (because they believe Schrodinger’s equation is invisibly violated to make all the variant versions of them disappear), pretends to define science in such a way that it excludes untestable deductions as not “scientific”, but it is hypocritical because it only defines “scientific” this way to make your invisible twins disappear, but not at any other times where this definition of “science” would lead to unpopular conclusions. If the “Disappearing Twins” proponents were consistent in their definition of “science”, i.e. rejecting untestable but natural deductions, they would have to call it “unscientific” to believe the far side of the moon exists when we’re not looking at it; or it’s unscientific to believe Comet Shoemaker-Levy obeyed Newton’s Laws before it hit Jupiter, because the comet hit the far side of the planet where we couldn’t see it; etc. etc.

    But no, the anti-MWI “Disappearing Twins” proponents do not apply their strict definition of “science” to exclude deductions where they would be unpopular, or bad for their PR for them to do so. So the anti-MWI crew will never say, “Your car keys don’t exist when you’re not looking at them!” They hypocritically redefine “science” this way, that way, and the other way as necessary for PR reasons, rejecting untestable “Alternate Me’s” one minute, but accepting equivalently untestable deductions like “My car keys still exist even when I’m not looking at them” the next minute.

    So yes, MWI does have a philosophical, or to be more precise an epistemological motivation: we’re trying to define “science” consistently, and they’re not. They’re into PR and emotional gratifications.

  84. 84
    Joe says:

    Diogenes- science only cares about reality. You are trying define science in such a way as to limit it from pursuing reality.

    It ain’t workin’…

  85. 85
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Skram , this is researched info as is BA’s posts which actually helped me in my conversion from evolutionist to ID advocate so I wouldn’t actually call it spam 🙂

  86. 86
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Diogenes , it looks like u have taken my advice and ignored the shroud of turin. See, now u can remain a happy atheist 😉
    Ignore what doesn’t fit and hold strong to a worldview that has no evidence , no ultimate value, no ultimate meaning , no ultimate purpose , no ultimate hope and no objective moral values.

    The definition of true insanity

  87. 87
    wallstreeter43 says:

    These are videos from the most recent shroud conference in October 2014

    This is a video from Los alamos labs chemist Robert Villarreal
    http://youtu.be/5MXdxTVC7O0

    Video of my favorite shroud researcher Barrie Schwortz who is an Orthodox Jew who believes in the authenticity of the . Barrie was the documenting photographer of Sturp.

    http://youtu.be/wsGm5T6LOW8

    This video is of doctor Petrus Soons who was the first to create a life size hologram of the shroud and doing the presentation of his work is the inventor of the vo8 image analyzer (which NASA uses to map out then erratic of mars and the moon in 3d) talks about the halo around the head of the man of the shroud and it’s connection to the mandylion. Fascinating presentation and info that I didn’t even know about . I will be viewing this video today.

    http://youtu.be/2Ypw61sr2ag

    Another awesome video from engineer Jeffrey skurka on the neutron flux theory in agreement with mark Antonacci and his team of scientists . BA and silver you guys will love this one .

    http://youtu.be/nXX-HA4CFYY

    Dana fullbright debunking the theory that a massive 9.0 earthquake caused the caused neutron flux to create that image in the shroud . Very good presentation
    http://youtu.be/Lac80MMs7hA

    Historian daniel scavone on documents in Constantinople showing the shroud was in edessa

    http://youtu.be/gn80uTv6irU

    Bishop michael Sheridan talks about how the shroud could be used as support for our faith, not a substitute for our faith.
    http://youtu.be/UgGZCzESOeU

    Presentation by dame Isabelle piczek world renowned artist and particle physicist specializing in the field of time.

    The published date says August 2014 so I don’t think this is from the St. Louis conference as that is in October . Lots of goodies here guys 🙂

    http://youtu.be/_u4gPl9A2Lw

    Physicist art Lind talking about the blood stains and the unique explanation for them. Lind is one if the scientists on mark Antonacci’s team.

    Emmanuella marinelli – shroud and iconography
    http://youtu.be/_cp5epABtOE

    Robery Rucker mcnp analysis of neutrons released by Jesus’s body during hs resurrection . I haven’t seen this or most if these videos yet as I’ve ben very busy but my guess is that this ties in direct with Antonacci and his teams neutron flux their that would prove the resurrection if neutrons were found on the shroud . It’s an hour video so it’s a bit long compared to the others .
    http://youtu.be/5Cjyvd2hMhg

    From the mandylion to the shroud by Ivan polvarari
    http://youtu.be/xcp4RnV5p6w

    Scientist Bruno barberis -the current state of science
    http://youtu.be/vQAWolRKaXo

    Another of my favorites , shroud expert Russ breault
    http://youtu.be/yTt8VKow6b4

    Capes at barta talks about new studies that show the soul on the sudarium of Oviedo match very closely to soil found in Golgotha . Very exciting presentation.
    This video I have seen.
    http://youtu.be/Pny7WGyq8ZU

    Professor Giulio Fanti 12 years of shroud research read by shroud expert Joseph Marino .
    http://youtu.be/E56zyNufEU0

    Pam moon- further evaluation of the 1988 c14 samples
    http://youtu.be/RkJdgb-Ok5c

    Tony Fleming – biophotonic theory that biophotonic IV light was emitted by the body of Christ to cause that image

    http://youtu.be/X4bejqAVfOk

    There are more videos from the conference but I think I’ve overflowed you guys with enough info for now .

    To end this post here is the newest shroud video documentary on professor Giulio Fanti and his corona discharge theory in which he actually does produce an image by corona discharge by I putting massive amounts of electrical energy to cause an image very much like the shroud image .
    I wonder what event could have caused this kind if massive energy to happen in first century Jerusalem .
    Silver and BA, you both will love this video documentary as it details fanti’s lomg journey on the shroud from when he was a kid in Italy .

    http://youtu.be/I4c4812XA9A
    Whew guys , talk about information overload hehe
    Wall

  88. 88
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Hey guys I have posted the video links for the Missouri shroud conference but fir some reason it’s awaiting moderation .
    Hooefully it passes soon.

  89. 89
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Ok guys it looks like my St. Louis shroud video links are still awaiting moderation, bit if anyone wants the links just show me an email at this screen name at yahoo dot come.

    I will also post the videos this weekend on the God and science forum
    🙂

  90. 90
    sparc says:

    I’ve learned that Luther and other reformers denied relics. Thus, can anybody explain why evangelical Christians here are so obsessed with the Turin shroud? Or has UD been taken over by good old Catholics lately?
    ETA: Or are European and American Protestants that different?

  91. 91
    mike1962 says:

    Digenes: “Sean and his atheist friends” are not pushing MWI as a form of metaphysics, or for metaphysical reasons. There is a philosophical, or to be more precise, an epistemological reason to prefer MWI, namely the belief that the scientific method by definition should prefer the simpler hypothesis among those that are equally good at predicting and explaining the observations.”

    The problem is, as I see it, is not so much theism vs atheism, but that one of the entailments of MWI is that one must jettison the idea of free-will, which is to deny one’s own primary conscious experience for the sake of a “simpler” hypothetical abstraction. That’s a lot to ask.

  92. 92
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Sparc ,the shroud of turin is no ordinary relic. Why so you think Diogenes ran from it when all of the facts were supplied . It’s not a catholic or Protestant relic but a relic for all Christians. Stephen jones who runs one if the top shroud if turin blogs is a calvinist himself .

    If all the evidence is true then.shroud image could be a snapshot if the resurrection moment right befire Jesus’s body came back to life .

    Most shroud researchers overlook the blood and focus on the image for one obvious reason , that we see blood every day , but we have never seen an image like that .

    One important aspect of the blood is the blood clots. They are anatomically perfect, unbroken and unsmeared. Tell me how do you wrap a bloodied corpse with a burial shroud, then take the man off the shroud (or he gets up under his own power) without smearing or breaking the blood clots .

    This tells us that the man of the shroud had to have come off that shroud in an unnatural way, or a supernatural way 😉

    There is a reason why it’s one of the most scientifically studied objects on earth .

  93. 93
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Sparc – Luther was mostly concerned with the traffic and abuse of relics. I’ve known several Evangelicals who are open to the honor of relics and sacred places. The shroud has support from researchers with diverse backgrounds. Barrie Schwartz, one of the most famous, is Jewish. As wallstreeter said, it’s not just a Catholic thing.
    At the same time, I think American and European Protestants are quite different. In the US we’ve done a pretty good job to put aside differences and work together. I think UD is a good example of this, with Catholics and Protestants supporting each other side-by-side and hardly ever fighting about denominational stuff. I think most of the Catholics here (like myself) have a lot of admiration and gratitude for the evangelicals and protestants working in ID have done through the years.

  94. 94
    wallstreeter43 says:

    I agree totally silver. I’ve spent just as much time with evangelicals (almost became one )as I have with Catholics and I’m a Catholic . The deep and loving fellowship that evangelicals with each other is something that rubbed off on me personally and is something we Catholics need more of in our churches .

    But as you also said we have put aside our denominational differences and have come together on this blog , and unity in these issues is something I think Christ loves to see .

    Yes Luther was correct in being against most relics in his time as many were being used for profit and to deceive innocent people out if their money.

    And yea the shroud has much scientific evidence going for it. In fact much if the best research on it wasn’t done by Christian scientists but non Christian scientists like

    World renowned blood chemist Alan Adler who is Jewish and determined through peer reviewed blood chemistry research that the red stuff on the shroud was human blood of type AB and billirubin blood which shows us that the man of the shroud was tortured severely .

    Agnostic Cambridge trained art historian thomas de Wesselow who dispelled all the silly pseudo claims by these ignorant atheist sites that the shroud image was a typical medieval art style image when he correctly noted in his book the sign that the image. On the shroud confirmed to known art style in any period of time.

    Agnostic doctor August Accetta who after his gamma ray research and subjecting his body to potentially harmful radioactive material converted back to Christianity .

    Agnostic lawyer mark Antonacci whose tenacity for doing research ended up bringing him to Christianity starting with his research into the shroud , all from an argument t about religion with his Christian girl friend .

    Agnostic shroud historian Ian wilson who converted to Christianity through his research on the shroud.

    Atheist physicist bryan miller who one day asked God to reveal himself to him in a different way as he was a scientist and his brain was wired this way .

    Barrie Schwortz as silver mentioned is an Orthodox Jew yet believes in the authenticity of the shroud .

    Agnostic thermal chemist Ray Rogers whose peer reviewed chemical analysis research published in thermochinica acta overturned the 1988 c14 tests .

    21st century science can’t replicate this image and the closest anyone ever has gotten to replicating it is with radiation models . This not only shows that no medieval forger could have reasonably replicated this image but simply didn’t have the technology to do it . Heck we today don’t even have it.

    So many evidences are against the forger theory .
    For instance , pollen found in the shroud come from the area of Jerusalem and bloomed only during springtime .

    Now if any one of you were a medieval forger why in the heck would u sprinkle pollen from Jerusalem on the shroud knowing full well that there was no way to even identify it during that time . No reasonable person would assume that the forger would do it or need to do it in order to fool a medieval audience .

    The more ur study the shroud the more it pulls u in and when it pulls you in your hooked lol.

    Hmm where has Diogenes gone off to 😉

  95. 95
    bornagain77 says:

    Thanks for the videos wallstreeter43. I am about to view this one:

    Tony Fleming – biophotonic theory that biophotonic IV light was emitted by the body of Christ to cause that image
    http://youtu.be/X4bejqAVfOk

  96. 96
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Your very welcome Bornagain77
    Thanks you also for the tireless work u have done here which has helped influenced me and other into the ID camp.

    Please make sure to also view the new document tray on professor Fanti as it is the. It’s recent shroud documentary and he has gotten even closer to replicating the image on the shroud with his corona discharge theory . It’s my favorite 🙂

  97. 97
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Hey BA, I just went throigh the tony fleming video. Fascinating stuff.
    He is both a physicist and biophysicist and the theory he is working on os self-field theory which seeks to unify physics and biophysics . It’s a real theory and is slowly being accepted in academia but very few in academia are educated in this theory .

    http://www.science20.com/profile/tony_fleming

    ABOUT TONY
    Tony is a mathematical physicist and biophysicist with more than 35 years experience and is currently the General Manager of the Biophotonics Research Institute, Australia. He has written two books both published by Pan Stanford Publishing, (1) Self-Field Theory – A New Mathematical Description of Physics, and (2) Inside the Photon – A Journey to Health. Bioelectromagnetic and Electromagnetic research -As a professional for the past 34 years Tony has been involved in a wide range of mathematical applications. These academic and research involvements have been mainly communications, bioeffects, and medical therapies. For the past decade he has been involved in a research project Self-Field Theory (SFT) that had its genesis within his Ph.D. studies, a field theory that provides a unifying principle within physics and biophysics. At the very least this is a modelling technique with physics wide application, but it is also a mathematical formulation for providing analytic insight across physics. SFT revises our concepts of relativity, uncertainty and many other mathematical and physical concepts. It gives revision to quantum theories and is recently being accepted reasonably widely within the research community, although there is much education of academia to be performed SFT is distinct from classical Electromagnetics and Quantum Field Theory. SFT promises to yield new directions in traditional, alternative, and modern medicine, biology, energy production, earthquake prediction, global warming, cosmology, and theoretical physics to name a few fields where it applies. Because of the ubiquitous nature of electromagnetics at the faculty level, SFT will hopefully bring fresh impetus across academia, science and technology.

    His theory is that the cells in Christ’s body started firing a type of UV radiation which was also captured on the surface of the shroud as his body came back to life .

    I know you are familiar with the 2011 study by the ENEA that replicated a small area of linen by firing a uv laser at it. Flemings theory seems to work in conjunction with the ENEA study if I’m correct . ENEA also replicated the tiny 2 micrometers thickness of the shroud image .

    http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_.....claim?lite

    Here we see the ENEA scientists talk about this and at the bottom of the article engage shroud skeptic joe nickell and just expose his non scientific pseudo criticism as garbage . In other words he gets humiliated lol.

    Here in this article ENEA talks about how they replicated only a small area of line and the power output needed to create a full body image would be in the area of 34 thousand billion watts and the amount of power needed for this kind if laser doesn’t exist today .

    http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.....nta-10738/

    “However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts )”.””

    But then add that they are still not able to replicate many other features of the shroud image. I call it the technology of God.

    However the Shroud image “has some features that we are not yet able to reproduce – they admit – for example, the gradient of the image caused by a different concentration of yellow colored fibrils that alternate with unstained fibrils”. And they warn: “We are not at the conclusion, we are composing pieces of a fascinating and complex scientific puzzle”. The enigma of the image of the Shroud of Turin is still “a challenge for intelligence”, as John Paul II said.

    Here is another link explaining self field theory which is a new mathematical description of physics . Exciting stuff.
    http://www.unifiedphysics.com/.....ld-theory/

    And finally here is a paper that describes the video presentation tony fleming gave
    http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/stlflemingppt.pdf

  98. 98
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Fleming is a very sharp physicist , and from watching the video it’s apparent that he’s a Christian 🙂
    And it looks like he is part of the biophotonics institute in Australia .
    Here is a message board that he participates in.

    http://www.toequest.com/forum/.....heory.html

    And the aim of the website
    http://www.unifiedphysics.com

    And he defends the math of self-theory here on a forum against critiques . This stuff is way over my head. This guy is a brain and a half lol

    http://mathforum.org/kb/messag.....ID=5512750

  99. 99
    Silver Asiatic says:

    wallstreeter – thanks for the excellent research and for all the references you’ve posted. It’s impressive!
    Thanks for links to the St Louis conference you mentioned.
    I’ve got Antonacci’s book and two by Ian Wilson that I’m looking forward to. I just finished a relatively new one “The Truth about the Shroud of Turin” by Robert Wilcox. That was great also.
    I thin some of the most important evidence is with the peer reviewed work that overturned the carbon 14 analysis. That has not been well publicized.

  100. 100
    skram says:

    I have skimmed an article by Tony Fleming, in which he presents his alternative to electrodynamics. It’s abundantly clear that he only has a rudimentary understanding of electromagnetism and does not even understand what the term “gauge” means.

    Tony’s current job title is a General Manager, which indicates that he has not been doing physics for quite a while. He is a garden-variety crackpot.

    He uses sciency-sounding terms like “gauge” and “spinor,” but he does not understand them. For example, in this paper what he terms “spinors” are actually vectors.

    Each spinor refers to a centre of motion

    That’s hilariously misguided.

  101. 101
    bornagain77 says:

    Actually, the biophotonic hypothesis has some very substantial empirical evidence behind it.

    First it is important to note that the image on the Shroud is found to be formed by a quantum process, not by a classical process:

    The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete values – Giovanni Fazio, Giuseppe Mandaglio – 2008
    Excerpt: This result means that the optical density distribution,, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the ‘quantum’ is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril.
    http://cab.unime.it/journals/i.....802004/271

    Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural – December 2011
    Excerpt: After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists.
    However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax.
    Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic.
    “The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin,” they said.
    And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: “This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date.”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....79512.html

    The Center Of The Universe Is Life – General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin – video
    http://vimeo.com/34084462

    Moreover, humans emit biophotonic ‘quantum’ light:

    Photocount distribution of photons emitted from three sites of a human body – 2006
    Excerpt: Signals from three representative sites of low, intermediate and high intensities are selected for further analysis. Fluctuations in these signals are measured by the probabilities of detecting different numbers of photons in a bin. The probabilities have non-classical features and are well described by the signal in a quantum squeezed state of photons. Measurements with bins of three sizes yield same values of three parameters of the squeezed state.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16520060

    Image – This first image shows one of the test subjects in full light. The middle image shows the body giving off weak emissions of visible (biophotonic) light in totally dark conditions. The rightmost image of the subject, captured in infrared wavelengths, shows the heat emissions.
    http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/M.....#215;2.jpg

    Biophotons – The Light In Our Cells – Marco Bischof – March 2005
    Excerpt page 2: The Coherence of Biophotons: ,,, Biophotons consist of light with a high degree of order, in other words, biological laser light. Such light is very quiet and shows an extremely stable intensity, without the fluctuations normally observed in light. Because of their stable field strength, its waves can superimpose, and by virtue of this, interference effects become possible that do not occur in ordinary light. Because of the high degree of order, the biological laser light is able to generate and keep order and to transmit information in the organism.
    http://www.international-light.....hotons.pdf

    Thus regardless of whatever you may think of his math or whatever, the empirical evidence itself tells us, much contrary to materialistic thought, that humans are emitting ‘biological laser light’. Obviously this readily implies a ‘quantum mechanism’ is in place to explain how the ‘quantum’ image formed on the Shroud. The only outstanding question left is what caused the extreme intensity and synchronicity of the burst of ‘biological laser light’ from the body of Christ so as to form the image on the Shroud.

    Needless to say, the resurrection of Christ from death answers that outstanding question nicely!

    Of related note:

    The Puzzling Role Of Biophotons In The Brain – Dec. 17, 2010
    Excerpt: In recent years, a growing body of evidence shows that photons play an important role in the basic functioning of cells. Most of this evidence comes from turning the lights off and counting the number of photons that cells produce. It turns out, much to many people’s surprise, that many cells, perhaps even most, emit light as they work.
    In fact, it looks very much as if many cells use light to communicate. There’s certainly evidence that bacteria, plants and even kidney cells communicate in this way. Various groups have even shown that rats brains are literally alight thanks to the photons produced by neurons as they work.,,,
    ,,, earlier this year, one group showed that spinal neurons in rats can actually conduct light.
    ,, Rahnama and co point out that neurons contain many light sensitive molecules, such as porphyrin rings, flavinic, pyridinic rings, lipid chromophores and aromatic amino acids. In particular, mitochondria, the machines inside cells which produce energy, contain several prominent chromophores.
    The presence of light sensitive molecules makes it hard to imagine how they might not be not influenced by biophotons.,,,
    They go on to suggest that the light channelled by microtubules can help to co-ordinate activities in different parts of the brain. It’s certainly true that electrical activity in the brain is synchronised over distances that cannot be easily explained. Electrical signals travel too slowly to do this job, so something else must be at work.,,,
    (So) It’s a big jump to assume that photons do this job.
    http://www.technologyreview.co.....the-brain/

  102. 102
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Sir am, why. It engage him on that forum and put your money where ur mouth is . He has a phd . My guess is you will take a rain check on that challenge because it is you that doesn’t know squat .

    But then again u don’t know much about the shroud if turin and u will assert that’s its a fake right , and I’m very sure u don’t know squat about the shroud 😉

  103. 103
    skram says:

    wallstreeter43:

    Sir am, why. It engage him on that forum and put your money where ur mouth is .

    Take out whatever it is in your mouth and say that again, please.

  104. 104
    Me_Think says:

    Fleming’s theory makes no sense. Look at how he equates double slit experiment with ‘picture building’. I am sure an IDer at UD has a better understanding of double slit experiment than Fleming :

    The image may have been produced in some ways similar to the well-known quantum version of the double-slit experiment where the picture can be built up photon by photon; like the spatial coherence of the double-slit image, so too the image on the Shroud is spatially coherent. The Shroud consists of flax; melanin is well known to exist within the epidermis of various species including plants. In general melanin absorbs UV radiation possibly on a photon by photon basis to protect chromosomes from UV damage. There are certain characteristics that this synergistic biophysical hypothesis matches to previous experimental observations including the recent finding of ‘double superficiality

    How does this theory explain the 34 thousand billion watts required for creating the vacuum ultraviolet (VUV) ?

  105. 105
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Great post BA77!!
    Will research it fully today.
    It seems the more we study the shroud the more it puts us with the only historical event that makes sense of how that image was firmed and that’s the resurrection of Christ .

    What this is starting to show is that God is no magician , but the most imaginative scientist ever.

    Where is Diogenes , my guess is that he SKRAMMED
    Oops , I couldn’t resist 😉

  106. 106
    skram says:

    The number “34 thousand billion watts” thrown around makes no sense. It isn’t the power of UV radiation that determines the exposure, it is the total energy, i.e., the number of photons absorbed.

    One doesn’t even need a PhD in physics to understand this simple fact.

  107. 107
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Skram , still avoiding my question . Lets setup a little debate between u and fleming . Lets see if his theory is quackery like u ignorantly assert it or it’s actually u that’s the quack.

    Why are u avoiding the question ?
    It’s not like he isn’t accessible because he has already shown the willingness to engage others to explain the theory .

    My guess is that you will keep avoiding the question 😉
    And we all know what that means

    Oh and by the way Skram what’s ur infinitely educated opinion on the shroud ? Let me guess, u believe its a medival fake despite most of the evidence that it isn’t right 😉

    This is where u will avoid yet another question if mine right 😉
    Got to love the honesty and integrity of atheism in action .

  108. 108
    skram says:

    Sure, wallstreeter43, feel free to invite Fleming here.

  109. 109
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Me think , fleming never said anything about the 34000 billion. This is from the ENEA experiment which successfully colored linen in the way it was colored on the shroud with the incredible thinness if depth that is on the shroud .

    Maybe u should pay more attention to BA’s post.

    As far as Flemings understanding of the double slit , again why not take him to challenge on the forum where he posts at. I have already posted a link to this forum . You can show us how much more you understand it then he does and gain some recognition for it .

    One guy already did and he was put in his place .
    I see lots of armchair responses from the atheists here but nit one with the intellectual integrity to correspond with him directly , gee I wonder why 😉

    Physics is not my area of expertise , but I do know quite a bit about the shroud . Maybe u can enlighten me on the shroud ?

    Probably not huh 😉

  110. 110
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Skram very deceptive . I never mentioned bringing him hete . I said why it go over there . You seem very sure that u know what yoir talking about Skram so why not go there ?

    Nice weakling out by the way .

  111. 111
    skram says:

    wallstreeter43,

    I am not going to chase random crackpots all over the internet. If you want Fleming to defend his silly “theory,” by all means have him come here. I am sure he wants to spread the word.

  112. 112
    skram says:

    wallstreeter43:

    Me think , fleming never said anything about the 34000 billion. This is from the ENEA experiment which successfully colored linen in the way it was colored on the shroud with the incredible thinness if depth that is on the shroud .

    I am aware of the source. Go ahead and read the original (it’s in Italian, sorry). Although the power of radiation is high (megawatts per square centimeter), the duration of the pulses is short (nanoseconds). Feel free to work out the energy involved, it is quite reasonable.

  113. 113
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Skram your assertion that he is a crackpot is just your opinion .. The guy has a phd in ohysics and my guess is that you don’t correct ? So imy guess is that in your own little world you believe that you not having a phd in physics makes u the expert and him a crackpot.

    If you were that confident in what ur saying you would jump at the chance to obliterate him on these arguments as it would be quote a feather in ur can being you most likely domt have a phd in physics that you debunked someone of his credential.

    Until then my guess is that your the typical armchair atheist that talks a big game but has nothing if substance to show .

    Now if someone were combing through this forum It would be reasonable to think that it is in fact you that is the crackpot and not fleming .

    The scientists at ENEA as I have shown arr also quite willing to answer ur objections so why. Not send them an email?

    You also conveniently avoided my question about your opinion on the shroud of turin.

    Your screen name kram fits u appropriately my friend .
    God bless 🙂

  114. 114
    skram says:

    wallstreeter43:

    Skram your assertion that he is a crackpot is just your opinion .. The guy has a phd in ohysics and my guess is that you don’t correct ? So imy guess is that in your own little world you believe that you not having a phd in physics makes u the expert and him a crackpot.

    Wrong guess, wallstreeter43. I do have a PhD, and furthermore, I have graduated several students with a PhD. So yes, I have the expertise to evaluate Fleming’s musings.

    If you were that confident in what ur saying you would jump at the chance to obliterate him on these arguments as it would be quote a feather in ur can being you most likely domt have a phd in physics that you debunked someone of his credential.

    Since I do have a PhD in physics, this does not apply to me. I don’t chase crackpots, they chase me: my mailbox regularly brings spam from the flemings.

    Until then my guess is that your the typical armchair atheist that talks a big game but has nothing if substance to show .

    I have already pointed out a couple of silly errors made by Fleming. One is discussing Maxwell’s equations in terms of the electric and magnetic fields E and H and mumbling about “gauge.” The gauge field, in case you don’t know, is A and φ. The curl of the former gives the magnetic field. Fleming does not understand that. No wonder: he isn’t a physicist, he is a lab manager.

    Your screen name kram fits u appropriately my friend

    You have no idea what my screen name means.

  115. 115
    bornagain77 says:

    Do you think he is as big a crackpot as Lawrence Krauss? Or does Krauss set the standard?

    2+2=5? (Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOrlIOm6eGM

    Not Understanding Nothing
    A review of A Universe from Nothing by Edward Feser June 2012
    A critic might reasonably question the arguments for a divine first cause of the cosmos. But to ask “What caused God?” misses the whole reason classical philosophers thought his existence necessary in the first place. So when physicist Lawrence Krauss begins his new book by suggesting that to ask “Who created the creator?” suffices to dispatch traditional philosophical theology, we know it isn’t going to end well.,,,
    But Krauss simply can’t see the “difference between arguing in favor of an eternally existing creator versus an eternally existing universe without one.” The difference, as the reader of Aristotle or Aquinas knows, is that the universe changes while the unmoved mover does not, or, as the Neoplatonist can tell you, that the universe is made up of parts while its source is absolutely one; or, as Leibniz could tell you, that the universe is contingent and God absolutely necessary. There is thus a principled reason for regarding God rather than the universe as the terminus of explanation.
    http://www.firstthings.com/art.....ng-nothing

  116. 116
    skram says:

    bornagain77,

    Krauss’s science is fine. Fleming’s is pure crackpottery.

  117. 117
    bornagain77 says:

    “Krauss’s science is fine.”,,,

    Hope you aren’t too attached to him, but I’ll let you in on a little secret. Krauss is full of it. A self-promoting pompous little ass who makes mistakes so elementary that first year philosophy students could eat him for lunch.

    Other than that I’m sure he is a nice guy. 🙂

  118. 118
    skram says:

    bornagain77:

    Hope you aren’t too attached to him, but I’ll let you in on a little secret. Krauss is full of it.

    I don’t think you have an ability to evaluate Krauss’s science, ba77.

  119. 119
    bornagain77 says:

    Man you are touchy with this Krauss guy. Do you know him personally? Regardless of how much you may like him, he is, IMHO, a no-nothing smuck who has deluded himself, because he views himself as smarter than most everybody else, into thinking there is no God.

    Yet, he can’t, with all his education, even account for the advanced mathematics that he (ab)uses to try to disprove there is a God, nor for the fact that his mind is able to comprehend those advanced mathematics in the first place. And since he, if he denies almighty God, can’t even account for his primary ‘tools’ (mathematics and mind) without winding up in epistemological failure then tell me why I, or anybody else, should take his incoherent ramblings against God seriously? You would be better off listening to the Wino on the corner for advise on a coherent philosophy!

    “Atheists may do science, but they cannot justify what they do. When they assume the world is rational, approachable, and understandable, they plagiarize Judeo-Christian presuppositions about the nature of reality and the moral need to seek the truth. As an exercise, try generating a philosophy of science from hydrogen coming out of the big bang. It cannot be done. It’s impossible even in principle, because philosophy and science presuppose concepts that are not composed of particles and forces. They refer to ideas that must be true, universal, necessary and certain.”
    Creation-Evolution Headlines

    An Interview with David Berlinski – Jonathan Witt
    Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time ….
    Interviewer:… Come again(?) …
    Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects.
    http://tofspot.blogspot.com/20.....-here.html

    The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960
    Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,,
    It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,,
    The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning.
    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc.....igner.html

    Indeed the entire atheistic framework is an incoherent mess. I strongly suggest watching Dr. Craig’s following presentation to get a small glimpse for just how insane the metaphysical naturalist’s position actually is.

    Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? – William Lane Craig – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQ

    1.) Argument from intentionality
    1. If naturalism is true, I cannot think about anything.
    2. I am thinking about naturalism.
    3. Therefore naturalism is not true.

    2.) The argument from meaning
    1. If naturalism is true, no sentence has any meaning.
    2. Premise (1) has meaning.
    3. Therefore naturalism is not true.

    3.) The argument from truth
    1. If naturalism is true, there are no true sentences.
    2. Premise (1) is true.
    3. Therefore naturalism is not true.

    4.) The argument from moral blame and praise
    1. If naturalism is true, I am not morally praiseworthy or blameworthy for any of my actions.
    2. I am morally praiseworthy or blameworthy for some of my actions.
    3. Therefore naturalism is not true.

    5.) Argument from freedom
    1. If naturalism is true, I do not do anything freely.
    2. I am free to agree or disagree with premise (1).
    3. Therefore naturalism is not true.

    6.) The argument from purpose
    1. If naturalism is true, I do not plan to do anything.
    2. I (Dr. Craig) planned to come to tonight’s debate.
    3. Therefore naturalism is not true.

    7.) The argument from enduring
    1. If naturalism is true, I do not endure for two moments of time.
    2. I have been sitting here for more than a minute.
    3. Therefore naturalism is not true.

    8.) The argument from personal existence
    1. If naturalism is true, I do not exist.
    2. I do exist!
    3. Therefore naturalism is not true.

  120. 120
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Skram perfect then , he has a phd in physics as well so when u call him a. Rack pot that’s ur opinion . He probably feels the same way aboit u . I’m sure he would find ur science to be crackpottery as well. So if you want to prove it just send him a message on the forum. Until then it’s just the opinion of one phd in physics against urs .

    Right now it’s hs opinion against urs still as you both have a phd but it’s my guess that u dnt have lots if confidence in your opinion on him, and pointing out an alleged error to me doesn’t mean much as I’m not an expert in physics . It’s like a professor of embryology saying that a fellow professor is wrong in front if a group of engineer students.

    So far you have only asserted that he’s a crackpot. Show us by engaging in the argument with him. Until then ur just another big talker .
    And Skram u still avoided my question on ur opinin on the shroud . Why are u afraid of it ?

    I still smell a whiff of dogmatic e optional atheism behind the science because of your fear of engaging him.

    Also your opinion not to chase him down is full of it since you are clearly here and this isn’t a physics forum or math firum.

    Your acting exactly as a weasel would act that doesn’t want to engage .

    Spout up or , well, you know the rest .

  121. 121
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Strike that last sentence , seems like my ipad spell checker is typing words for me.
    Skram your opinion on the shroud please , unless ur afraid to talk about it . If so I can understand why as it might shake up ur atheism a bit 😉

    But a true seeker if truth isn’t afraid to follow the evidence to wherever it will lead him. Your firmer high priest Antony foew who converted from atheism cause he no longer found it intellectually tenable said this .

    Or maybe u hide ur atheism behind ur opinion of physics 🙂

  122. 122
    skram says:

    wallstreeter43:

    It’s like a professor of embryology saying that a fellow professor is wrong in front if a group of engineer students.

    I don’t think the comparison is apt. Fleming is not a physicist, he is a general manager in a physics facility.

  123. 123
    skram says:

    One doesn’t need a PhD in physics to smell the BS in Fleming’s writings. In this post he argues that the photon and the graviton are one and the same thing.

    In general the various azimuthal modal forms of both kinds of rotation are a possible prerequisite to a discrete or quantum physics. The photon in this case then is a quantum of gravitation just like the photon is also the quantum of electromagnetic energy. The only difference between electromagnetics and gravitation is the differential form of the solution which involves differential electric and magnetic fields for example with respect to radius. So the graviton is nothing other than the photon when it forms the binding energy between conglomerates of atoms. In a sense then even a molecule of hydrogen, forces acting between two dipoles, is a gravitational system.

    This is hilariously wrong. These particles are quanta of different fields: electromagnetic and gravitational. They have different internal angular momentum (spin): 1 for a photon, 2 for a graviton.

    The guy spews a lot of nonsense that even an undergrad majoring in physics can spot from a mile away. Why do you and ba77 like crackpots like him?

  124. 124
    skram says:

    wallstreeter43:

    So far you have only asserted that he’s a crackpot. Show us by engaging in the argument with him. Until then ur just another big talker .

    We’re all talkers here, including you. At any rate, the forum links you provided are a bit stale: they are from 2005 and 2007.

    Try again, junior.

  125. 125
    wallstreeter43 says:

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

  126. 126
    skram says:

    I don’t care much for the shroud, wallstreeter43. Haven’t studied the topic, don’t have much to say about it. Good enough for ya?

  127. 127
    Me_Think says:

    wallstreeter43 @ 109

    Me think , fleming never said anything about the 34000 billion. This is from the ENEA experiment which successfully colored linen in the way it was colored on the shroud with the incredible thinness if depth that is on the shroud .

    Every one reading this thread knows that. The point is, if both ENEA and Fleming are right, where is Fleming’s proof for 34000 billion watts?

    Maybe u should pay more attention to BA’s post.

    IMO, BA77 has a better understanding of double slit experiment than Fleming!
    Have you read Fleming’s Self Field Theory ? If you have, I am sure you will change your opinion of Fleming.

  128. 128
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Skram since your an atheist and u know that the shroud s the most important relic of Christianity , your answer doesn’t wash. , but the truthful answer is that you don’t want to know about the shroud Skram .
    A true scientist would be at least curious about it . Hopefully ur past students aren’t watching ur reply because they would be seeing a person that came to his atheism through a very dogmatic emotional window .

    A scientist knows that the shroud is the most scientifically studied relic in the world but then again , you have an emotional objection to this don’t u Skram .

    Good luck on your dogmatic cult my friend , how long u can hide it behind ur science is something only u can answer .

    Now even though u didn’t give me an honest and wet I’ll respect that u want absolutely nothing to do with the shroud , but at least u have the intellect now to discuss it, unlike Diogenes 😉

  129. 129
    skram says:

    Good try, wallstreeter43. 🙂

  130. 130
    Me_Think says:

    wallstreeter43 @ 128

    A scientist knows that the shroud is the most scientifically studied relic in the world but then again , you have an emotional objection to this don’t u Skram .
    Good luck on your dogmatic cult my friend , how long u can hide it behind ur science is something only u can answer

    Those statements are contradictory. It is science which is trying to establish the authenticity of the Shroud. How can he ‘hide it’ behind science?

  131. 131
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Actually it is nit contradictory because he is trying to hide his worldview behind his science , not from all science and that is why I his atheism is dogmatic and anything that supports his atheism in any way he will latch onto and anything that makes his atheism insecure he will ignore .

    A real truth seeker isn’t afraid to follow the evidence wherever it leads him. A tony flew is on such .

    Skram thanks , I thought it was an excellent try .

    Most of the time my primary reason to bring out the shroud is to expose the dogmatism of the atheist not primarily to prove anything ,and I think it was a great try as it did just that . It turns out that Diogenes was the wiser of the 2 . At least he stopped commenting on the shroud and he didn’t make any excuses about not studying it .

    Skram can hide behind his dogmatic little corner but truth doesn’t hide and it exposes all that is not of its light 🙂

  132. 132
    skram says:

    wallstreeter43,

    As I said, I don’t care much about the shroud. So there, my friend.

  133. 133
    sparc says:

    wallstreeter43 on blood stains the Turin shroud:

    The first and most obvious coincidence is that the blood on both cloths belongs to the same group, namely AB.

    While one allele was from the mother it remains completely unclear where the other allele came from. Remember we are talking about Parthenogenesis here. You may learn more from an older UD thread.

  134. 134
    kairosfocus says:

    Sparc, very interesting. KF

  135. 135
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Sparc fascinating stuff, thanks for bringing this up .I remember frank tipler mentioning something like this before but only glanced at it briefly , but did a little googling and found something I think u would find extremely interesting .

    http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.c.....er-on.html

    “”””There follows an extensive discursus on the phenomenon of parthenogenesis (literally, from the Greek, “virgin birth”) in animals as well as in humans. (Yes, I said humans—Prof. Tipler cites the scientific references.) Then he stakes his claim:
    I propose that Jesus was a special type of XX male, a type that is quite rare in humans but extensively studied [footnote omitted]. Approximately 1 out of every 20,000 human males is an XX male. . . . An XX male results when a single key gene for maleness on the Y chromosome (the SRY gene) is inserted into an X chromosome. One possibility is that all (or at least many) of the Y chromosome genes were inserted into one of Mary’s X chromosomes and that, in her, one of the standard mechanisms used to turn off genes was active on these inserted Y genes. (There is an RNA process that can turn off an entire X chromosome. This is the most elegant turnoff mechanism.) Jesus would then have resulted when one of Mary’s eggs started to divide before it became haploid and with the Y genes activated (and, of course, with the extra X genes deactivated). . . .
    I hope I have quoted enough here to enable qualified geneticists to ascertain the basis of Professor Tipler’s claim to have an explanation for the Virgin Birth of Jesus. As I understand it, the genetics of Jesus would have marked him as an unusually rare male of the species, and if we could somehow have access to a blood sample, we could determine whether or not Professor Tipler’s theory was correct. And to give him his due, Prof. Tipler states as much:
    If a sample of Jesus’ blood and/or flesh could be obtained, my proposal could easily be tested by carrying out two distinct DNA tests for sex: (1) test for the Y genes and (2) test for the two alleles (different gene forms) of X chromosome genes. In other words, a male born of a virgin would have two X chromosome genes for each of its counterpart Y genes. Normal males would only have one X chromosome gene for each Y counterpart gene. This pairing would apply to each of the thirteen genes on the Y chromosome that has an X counterpart.
    The odds of such a “virgin birth” would truly be fantastic, as Professor Tipler calculates here:
    Such a virgin birth would be improbable. If the measured probability that a single Y gene is inserted into an X chromosome is 1 in 20,000, then the probability that all Y genes are inserted into an X chromosome is 1/20,000 raised to the 28th power, the power corresponding to the number of Y genes. (Assuming that the insertion of each Y gene has equal probability and that these insertions are independent.) There have been only about 100 billion humans born since behaviorally modern Homo sapiens evolved . . . .

    Thus, the virgin birth of such an XX male would be unique in human history even if there were only two such Y genes inserted into an X chromosome. (I assume an upper bound to the rate of virgin birth is 1/300. Then the probability of a virgin birth of a male with 2 Y genes is 1/[300][20,000][20,000] = 1/120 billion.) But . . . if such an event had to occur [for God to exist according to physical laws that have shown themselves thus far as true], then the Virgin Birth probability would become 1; that is, certain to occur. In other words, it would be a miracle!
    But how can we today test the evidence available to us for proof of such a birth occurring more than 2,000 years ago? The answer, according to Professor Tipler (and a growing number of scientists), is to conduct scientific analysis on the bloodstains that allegedly were left on two pieces of cloth that are claimed to have enshrouded the body of Jesus as laid in the tomb outside of Jerusalem. The principal cloth, used to wrap his body, was the Shroud of Turin, and the second cloth was one that was put over his face, and called today the Sudarium of Oviedo. Note that they have entirely independent histories, and repose in two different places. The age of the cloth of the Shroud has supposedly been established by radiocarbon analysis as dating from the 14th century, but Professor Tipler provides an exhaustive review (based on the physics with which he is most familiar) as to why that dating is most probably wrong. And indeed, as he shows from the available scientific evidence, the correlation in the location and type of bloodstains between the two cloths establishes a strong possibility that they once covered the same corpse. Given that the Oviedo cloth is known to have existed as of about 1000 A.D. —four centuries or so before the “known” dating of the Shroud according to radiocarbon decay analysis, the accuracy of the latter is called into question.

    However, this conclusion—that the Shroud of Turin and the Oviedo Sudarium are intimately related—is almost trifling compared to where Professor Tipler goes next. Scientist that he is, he asks whether anyone has conducted a DNA analysis of the bloodstains on the two cloths, to determine whether (a) the cloths have the same DNA imprint, and so are unquestionably related, but (b) whether it is possible, from the analyses that have been conducted and reported in the literature, to ascertain whether, assuming that the blood on both cloths was that of the crucified Jesus, its genetic profile was consistent with his hypothesis of an unusual (i.e., miraculous) XX male birth.

    It turns out, as Professor Tipler reports, that DNA analyses have been conducted of both the bloodstains on the Turin Shroud and on the Oviedo Sudarium:
    In January 1995 a group of Italian researchers, led by Professor Marcello Canale of the Institute of Legal Medicine in Genoa, conducted a DNA analysis of the blood on the Shroud. This group included several workers who had invented the standard DNA test for gender. . . .

    This group simultaneously tested the blood on the Oviedo Cloth.
    Imagine his surprise, therefore, when he could not obtain, through the usual library channels, a copy of their published results. Even more, it developed that the results the group had obtained were published in a very non-standard form:
    . . . The results were published, in Italian, in the very obscure journal devoted to the study of the Turin Shroud. Furthermore, only the raw data were published. That is, the Genoa team published black-and-white Xerox copies of the computer output of the DNA analyzer. This is never, never done. Always, the data are presented in a neat table or figure, and they are accompanied by a discussion of their significance. The Genoa team made no effort to interpret their data. . . .
    Being the scientist that he is, Frank Tipler went to work on the raw data of the Italians’ tests, and reported triumphantly (the italics are in the original):
    But I was able to interpret the data at once. They are the expected signature of the DNA of a male born in a Virgin Birth! The data are presented in standard tabular form in Tables 7.1 and 7.2. . . .

    The standard DNA test for sex is the amelogenin test I mentioned earlier. The Italians performed this test, which gave 106 base pairs for the X form of amelogenin and 112 base pairs for the Y form. There is a phenomenon called sputtering, which can cause the actual value obtained to differ by 1 base pair from the expected value.

    The Turin Shroud data show 107 (106 +1) but no trace of a 112 base pair gene. The Oviedo Cloth data show 105 (106 – 1) but no trace of a 112 base pair. The X chromosome is present, but there is no evidence of a Y chromosome. This is the expected signature of the simplest virgin birth, the XX male generated by an SRY inserted into an X chromosome. It is not what would be expected of a standard male.””””

    This is one area of shroud study that I’m extremely weak in simply because there is very little research done on this .
    If this blood analysis and tiplers calculations is true then it shows a virgin birth , but a type of virgin birth that is so rare that it is many magnitudes over the amount of all human beings that have been born in all human history .

    Whenever I think the shroud surprises me it continually surprises me more .

    Very good find Sparc 🙂

  136. 136
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Skram , of course u don’t care about the shroud. U probably don’t care about God either right 😉

  137. 137
    sparc says:

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

  138. 138
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Sparc I never even brought up descent with modification , as I don’t really believe in it anymore. What I am talking about is the shroud of turin. Maybe your an evolutionist but I no longer am. I was one 6 years ago and defended it vehemently on forums until I looked deeper and thanks to doctor stephen meyer I have changed my mind 😉

    I was just over at the sand walk blog to see that Diogenes had fled there with his tail between his legs on the shroud of turin discussion we had here, and I see that even there Diogenes couldn’t give a rational defense against the evidences that were brought up in this thread, instead they engaged in an orgy of ridicule against it.

    I guess he was looking for some consolation lol

Leave a Reply