Sociopath Community

There is no unconscious force that can be an observer to measure and collapse. None.

Wrong. There is however no way to interpret or measure the results without using a consciousness, but that's a different matter.

 

May I please have an example ?

With all due respect, that was in reply to you saying how our minds are limited to this universe. Though I wouldn't doubt the creator made all dimensions, it's not the foundation for what I've wrote. My point is, again, the creator made time, and it doesn't really apply to him.

Isn't this backward? You have no idea how things look outside of our universe, yet you use that as an argument for conscious design. You have no evidence that the Creator made time, just the fact that it fits your theory better.

 My conclusion is based on intuition that is derived from the details. People who return from being pronounced clinically dead see Jesus Christ and Yahweh, God of Abraham. The over all take in reports for NDE suggests how It's turned atheists and Muslims to Christians. I never see it the other way around. It's not a joke.

It so happens that people who experience this give credit to the Holy Bible. I know it sounds lame to preech, I know. But these things are real, there is no big prank happening here, when people come back from being clinically dead and months in recovery, it's not time to play head games. It doesn't seem logical to me to even doubt this detail.

That is one of many reason as to why I believe in the highest, and when one gets to know about the highest like this, he really is the creator of all things, and seriously, an unconscious force connecting the dots ? Never in the history human experiments !

Again. People die, and come back saying how there is a reality that is more real than this. In this universe, all things are relative to time, where as over there, all things are relative to eternity.

by Edvard

People call magic what they can't understand, they always have. When they have an answer, that thing stops being magical. So many superstitions and false beliefs have been disproved this way, and those who based their belief on that "magic" ended up looking like backwards idiots.

 

So Edvard. Would you say the Prime Creator is magical ? Or is it more important for you not to look like a backward idiot ?

 

This will probably happen with the quantum thing as well, and people who say God exists because of quantum physics will make belief in God look really stupid, after quantum physics is sorted out.

 You place your image above your own faith.

The day they sort out quantum physics, science and spirituality will no longer be seperated, for then science will become what it aspires to be. All knowing.

by Spatial Mind

Wrong. There is however no way to interpret or measure the results without using a consciousness, but that's a different matter.

May I please have an example ?

I explained quantum physics multiple times on the old forum, and I also posted this quote from Bell:

"The only 'observer' which is essential in orthodox practical quantum theory is the inanimate apparatus which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic consequences. Of course this apparatus, in laboratory experiments, is chosen and adjusted by the experiments. In this sense the outcomes of experiments are indeed dependent on the mental process of the experimenters! But once the apparatus is in place, and functioning untouched, it is a matter of complete indifference - according to ordinary quantum mechanics - whether the experimenters stay around to watch, or delegate such 'observing' to computers."

But we've been through this, so I'm positive you know what I'm talking about.

Isn't this backward? You have no idea how things look outside of our universe, yet you use that as an argument for conscious design. You have no evidence that the Creator made time, just the fact that it fits your theory better.

 My conclusion is based on intuition that is derived from the details. People who return from being pronounced clinically dead see Jesus Christ and Yahweh, God of Abraham. The over all take in reports for NDE suggests how It's turned atheists and Muslims to Christians. I never see it the other way around. It's not a joke.

It so happens that people who experience this give credit to the Holy Bible. I know it sounds lame to preech, I know. But these things are real, there is no big prank happening here, when people come back from being clinically dead and months in recovery, it's not time to play head games. It doesn't seem logical to me to even doubt this detail.

That is one of many reason as to why I believe in the highest, and when one gets to know about the highest like this, he really is the creator of all things, and seriously, an unconscious force connecting the dots ? Never in the history human experiments !

Again. People die, and come back saying how there is a reality that is more real than this. In this universe, all things are relative to time, where as over there, all things are relative to eternity.

The keyword here is "intuition", which to me means you are arguing for a faith. That's perfectly alright, of course, but it's not science. Scientifically the most probable answer to the universe should still be that it's an inanimate machine with no purpose or conscious design.

By looking at the bright side of life.

You know nothing about me or quantum physics, you shithead.

by Inquirer

by Spatial Mind

Wrong. There is however no way to interpret or measure the results without using a consciousness, but that's a different matter.

May I please have an example ?

I explained quantum physics multiple times on the old forum, and I also posted this quote from Bell:

"The only 'observer' which is essential in orthodox practical quantum theory is the inanimate apparatus which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic consequences. Of course this apparatus, in laboratory experiments, is chosen and adjusted by the experiments. In this sense the outcomes of experiments are indeed dependent on the mental process of the experimenters! But once the apparatus is in place, and functioning untouched, it is a matter of complete indifference - according to ordinary quantum mechanics - whether the experimenters stay around to watch, or delegate such 'observing' to computers."

But we've been through this, so I'm positive you know what I'm talking about.

 

The inanimate object they are referring to there are the tools they use to measure the events. When they ( the computer with it's instrumentation is set. As written in your quote "the inanimate apperatus". Machine)

The events and outcomes from the experiments already beging to collapse in advance. And why ? Because there are observers behind the tool. Only a mind can collapse the wave function.

Isn't this backward? You have no idea how things look outside of our universe, yet you use that as an argument for conscious design. You have no evidence that the Creator made time, just the fact that it fits your theory better.

 My conclusion is based on intuition that is derived from the details. People who return from being pronounced clinically dead see Jesus Christ and Yahweh, God of Abraham. The over all take in reports for NDE suggests how It's turned atheists and Muslims to Christians. I never see it the other way around. It's not a joke.

It so happens that people who experience this give credit to the Holy Bible. I know it sounds lame to preech, I know. But these things are real, there is no big prank happening here, when people come back from being clinically dead and months in recovery, it's not time to play head games. It doesn't seem logical to me to even doubt this detail.

That is one of many reason as to why I believe in the highest, and when one gets to know about the highest like this, he really is the creator of all things, and seriously, an unconscious force connecting the dots ? Never in the history human experiments !

Again. People die, and come back saying how there is a reality that is more real than this. In this universe, all things are relative to time, where as over there, all things are relative to eternity.

The keyword here is "intuition", which to me means you are arguing for a faith. That's perfectly alright, of course, but it's not science. Scientifically the most probable answer to the universe should still be that it's an inanimate machine with no purpose or conscious design.

You're cutting things short again and placing conclusions on the unfinshed. This time you broke the response and focused on 1 thing, thus removing the picture.

I said "intuition derived from the details". For instance, my intuition leads me to believe you wouldn't want to look foolish, so you care to continue this. It's important for your end of the debate, that I say this is all based on faith. But I told you, I'm convinced. You never looked into or saw or experienced the things I have. It's not a matter of you seeking out what I see, but rather you are at a stand still or YOUR faith in science.

No inquirer, I assure you again. I am convinced. I do not give merit to sheeple, to me that is not cool, I had to seek out answers and I managed to find some. The Inanimate does not have consciousness, this is common sense. Even the laws of probability with numbers higher than we can speak of is more along the lines of "probably not".

An infant needs to be taken care of. We were all infants, without parents we will die. At one point in evolution did some creature from the swamp live long enough to mutate, find a mate that also mutated, mate, give birth and play family ?

Up to this day no one is telling us what came first between the egg and the bird. No one.

by Spatial Mind

The inanimate object they are referring to there are the tools they use to measure the events. When they ( the computer with it's instrumentation is set. As written in your quote "the inanimate apperatus". Machine)

The events and outcomes from the experiments already beging to collapse in advance. And why ? Because there are observers behind the tool. Only a mind can collapse the wave function.

There are several different theories on the subject and we really don't have any way to prove or disprove any of them at the moment. It's a very interesting topic in terms of philosophy (which I told you on the old forum), but you can't use this as a proof of intelligent design.

You're cutting things short again and placing conclusions on the unfinshed. This time you broke the response and focused on 1 thing, thus removing the picture.

I said "intuition derived from the details". For instance, my intuition leads me to believe you wouldn't want to look foolish, so you care to continue this. It's important for your end of the debate, that I say this is all based on faith. But I told you, I'm convinced. You never looked into or saw or experienced the things I have. It's not a matter of you seeking out what I see, but rather you are at a stand still or YOUR faith in science.

No inquirer, I assure you again. I am convinced. I do not give merit to sheeple, to me that is not cool, I had to seek out answers and I managed to find some. The Inanimate does not have consciousness, this is common sense. Even the laws of probability with numbers higher than we can speak of is more along the lines of "probably not".

No, I don't think I am cutting things short. And please, stop attacking my ego. Why do you obsess over that so much?

What you are describing is, to me, a faith simply because you try to support it with your own opinions, non-scientific conclusions that can't be proved, the Bible, people's near-death recollections etc. It's interesting, but it's something you believe but can't prove.

An infant needs to be taken care of. We were all infants, without parents we will die. At one point in evolution did some creature from the swamp live long enough to mutate, find a mate that also mutated, mate, give birth and play family ?

Yes, basically. A mutation is either beneficial or not; that's evolution. I don't see the problem.

Up to this day no one is telling us what came first between the egg and the bird. No one.

The egg and the bird grew slowly apart. Evolution took the simple act of a cell splitting off from another cell and added to it a little each time.

Why a single eternal "Prime Creator", then? Why not two, and their pet?

You should look into these, Anthony. There are a couple you've somehow missed in your argumentation.

 Do you not know the definition of the word, prime ? And if so, would you see the fallacy in your question ?

I think it's a fair question.