Re: Science of choices falls out of research


nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
stew dean wrote:
nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
stew dean wrote:

In what way are other being dishonest in saying you arnt making sense?

- that you are ignoring my argument, and continuously ask the same
questions already answered

You havnt made a clear argument. Saying people are ignorant and
dishonest isnt an argument.

In a paragraph what is your argument?

That the decision where the electron ends up around the atom is at the
center of the probability distribution, and that at the location of the
decision is nothing.

There is no decision. There is no mind that decides where the electron
will be, there is no way that the electron could change its location to
any particular place, and no other creationists would talk of electrons
having free will.

There is always a brain of some sort where decisions are made.


- that you shift from one example to another when I've refuted the
example

I can honestly say I havnt seen you refute anything. I've seen you get
confused about decisions and probabilities. Explain what is making the
decisions and changing probabilites. If it's humans then that's fine.
If it's physics then that's causality and not probability.

There you go asking the who question again, who is making the decision,
albeit now disguised as a what question, although I already told you 3
times that the who question is a subjective identity issue.

Actually, that is not an answer. It doesn't tell anybody anything,
since it makes no sense. If my wife decides to go for a run, it is *she
who decides. There's no problem answering the question. it doesn't
matter if it's a "subjective identity issue" - I can tell you who
decided. I don't see why it is subjective, and I have no idea what you
mean by subjective identity. How is this different from her objective
identity?

As for physics if a meteorite falls into Earth's atmosphere and hits
the ground, there was no decision by anybody or anything. It's simple
physics. If we see an asteroid in space, we can calculate its
likelihood of hitting Earth. If its path would travel a long distance,
and interact with other bodies, our uncertainty might be very high. As
it gets closer, we would be able to say "Yes, it will", or "No, it
won't" with a higher degree of confidence. Our mere observation changes
nothing except our ability to predict a collision or a miss. The rock
itself never decides anything.


Again, this argument can only progress if there is a moderator
punishing such willful ignorance.

I don't know if it's punishment, exactly. Reading your posts is more
like the morbid fascination of looking at a car accident.


Damn you to hell for asking me that question again, completely ignoring
what I wrote, even after I explicitely pointed it out to you numerous
times.

But most of what you say makes no sense. And that small fraction which
can be understood, is demonstrably wrong.


regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Kermit

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: entanglement and information teleportation
    ... interference, and information teleportation. ... Imagine that the particle in question is an electron. ... play a game by which an experimenter controlling the laser beam could ... there is a 1/sqrtprobability amplitude for the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Science of choices falls out of research
    ... being at the center of the probability distribution and something about ... since the probability distribution of an electron does not have a unique ... electron is at anyone point of time we use a cloud that represents ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
    ... This simply means that when repeated measurements of position are ... > pattern because the electron interferes with itself. ... >>calculate the probability distribution for it landing in different spots. ... You have the force as the classical limit ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Schr=F6dinger_Equation=2C_potential_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?box_pro
    ... An electron in the potential box ... Sketch the probability of finding the electron as a function of x at ... Find the complex conjugate of that, and the time dependence won't go away. ... There is no single E that characterizes your wavefunction because it's not an eigenfunction of the energy. ...
    (sci.physics)