Re: programming bomb-testing experiment on a regular computer

On 9 Mar, 09:25, "nando_rontel...@xxxxxxxxx"
<nando_rontel...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 8 mrt, 18:34, Woland <jerryd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

You are the only person to "call the photon going on one or the other
path
"choosing", no other creationist agrees with you.

Yeah the exact phrase was from a paper of some scientists that
implemented the bomb-testing-experiments.

Do you understand what 'figurative' means. It means not literal but
used to illustrate.

In this case choosing means the random path change of the photon as
particle at each of the half silvered mirrors. That's explicit in any
description of the experiement. It's like you taking 'wave' or
'interference' to mean the common everyday meaning in the experiment
when it actually means something more than that but in a commonly used
way in this context.

Context is everything.

So actually I am not the
only one using those words, actually those words are used commonly
among scientists who are experts on it.

They use it in a different context. You use it to mean something
literal, they don't. They use it to illustrate.

It's like if I said 'I could eat a horse' - the meaning is I am very
hungry. If you took the literally I'd be lying because horses are too
big to eat (in one sitting) and secondly I wouldn't because I'm a
vegetarian. Likewise when people have used the term 'mind of god' in
physics. It doesnt mean a literal god but means to understand the
fundamental laws of the universe. Another example - 'you broke my
heart' - it doesnt mean you physically broke my heart does it?

Stew Dean

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Homologous Myth (There are no gill slits)
    ... Actually there are a great deal of observational evidence provided. ... he was reporting a fact already known by scientists of the time. ... Because they are derived from a common ancestory. ... Since "evolutionists" understand and accept common ancestory, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Homologous Myth (There are no gill slits)
    ... Actually there are a great deal of observational evidence provided. ... he was reporting a fact already known by scientists of the time. ... Because they are derived from a common ancestory. ... Since "evolutionists" understand and accept common ancestory, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Making a monkey out of Darwin
    ... we share a common ancestor, ... one tenth of one percent of scientists who deny evolution, ... have two completely different soups or creatures. ... I accept evolution because of the evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Making a monkey out of Darwin
    ... we share a common ancestor, ... of one percent of scientists who deny evolution, ... view the evidence of human evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: My views on evolution
    ... Do you mean "common descent"? ... How many scientists know anything about Michael Polanyi ... > strong defense of Darwinianism, stating that these days only a minority ... > overcome by how wonderful are the mechanisms, and it brings to my mind ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading