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

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 18, 2015

Culture, Multiverse, News, Science}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Couple thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Thanks wallstreeter43, I look forward to the videos.bornagain77_{February 20, 2015
February
02
Feb
20
20
2015
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

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!Silver Asiatic_{February 20, 2015
February
02
Feb
20
20
2015
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

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.blogspot.com/2012/09/tetradiplon-and-shroud-of-turin.htmwallstreeter43_{February 20, 2015
February
02
Feb
20
20
2015
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

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 . Wallwallstreeter43_{February 20, 2015
February
02
Feb
20
20
2015
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

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.Silver Asiatic_{February 20, 2015
February
02
Feb
20
20
2015
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

"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. :)bornagain77_{February 20, 2015
February
02
Feb
20
20
2015
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT}

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 = 1.5x10^43. 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.Me_Think_{February 20, 2015
February
02
Feb
20
20
2015
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT}

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! :)bornagain77_{February 20, 2015
February
02
Feb
20
20
2015
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT}

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 .wallstreeter43_{February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
11:59 PM
11
11
59
PM
PDT}

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.blogspot.com/2012/02/four-proofs-that-ad-1260-1390_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 ;)wallstreeter43_{February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
11:57 PM
11
11
57
PM
PDT}

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-geneswallstreeter43_{February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PDT}

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 .wallstreeter43_{February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT}

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 .wallstreeter43_{February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT}

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.com/Definitions/Frenchreweaving.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 .wallstreeter43_{February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
11:01 PM
11
11
01
PM
PDT}

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 .wallstreeter43_{February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT}

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.wallstreeter43_{February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT}

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.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-shroud-of-jesus-21-linen-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 .wallstreeter43_{February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT}

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/videosbornagain77_{February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT}

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.com/2010/09/15/quantum-entanglement-holds-together-lifes-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/releases/2011/03/110331104014.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/publication/23797940_Coherent_intrachain_energy_migration_in_a_conjugated_polymer_at_room_temperature
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/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.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-bell-test-loophole-photons.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/fourtruthpbscience.aspx?pageid=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
bornagain77_{February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

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/chemistryworld/Issues/2004/October/beammeup.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/focus/news/2171769/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.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/teleportation1.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/2014/julyaug/20-the-ups-and-downs-of-teleportation
bornagain77_{February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

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.Mapou_{February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

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.)kairosfocus_{February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

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...Diogenes_{February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

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.Mapou_{February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

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.Diogenes_{February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

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.Mapou_{February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

The point is that we can use mathematics to prove even God. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/scientists-use-computer-to-mathematically-prove-goedel-god-theorem-a-928668.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.JimFit_{February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

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/2013/10/found-upon-web-and-reprinted-here.html The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner - 1960 Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin's process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,, It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind's capacity to divine them.,,, The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html 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/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians 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/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-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/2015/01/the_fundamental_1092661.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?feature=player_detailpage&v=vBQ9uFOFLWM&t=1349bornagain77_{February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

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=3fyUHhTdSAsbornagain77_{February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

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?Diogenes_{February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply