Posted on 01/28/2005 6:50:34 AM PST by Heartlander
correction: no life AS WE KNOW IT.
you are slipping into projecting your observer bias into your data set. don't do it.
What do you call someone who spends his time (when not quote-mining) on computing the supposed odds against billions of isolated atoms from all over the universe randomly converging to create an amoeba?
Thank you for correcting the math…
An economist.
Those poor bastards have us surrounded.
And when science becomes religion?
So scientifically, all unexplained phenomenon are now attributed to 'an unspecified designing intelligence' and this attribution is called 'scientific'.
In other words...all that cannot be explained by science must 'scientifically' be attributed to God.
This is the usual attempt to drape religious beliefs in scientific robes. That is, all things that cannot be explained by science are by definition 'scientifically' attributed to 'an unspecified designing intelligence'. Sheesh. I have no problem attributing these things to 'God', but to say this is scientific is ignorant or disingenous and dishonest.
If they just said...all that is unkown is proof of God (the God of your choice, of course) then I'd be sympathetic. But to call it scientific proof, evidence, etc., is basically an attempt to forcefully and aggressively proselytize.
Well, d@mn, buddy (listen to that Southern accent!)! I like the way you think!
Please provide examples.
This has nothing to do with Heisenberg's relations. The rest of the article is just as bad.
...How could 'dumb' particles know that observers will be watching them in the future? ...
Anthropomorhizing inanimate objects isn't really part of physics. Here the author shows a misunderstanding about what QM actually says.
...it requires a conscious observer to collapse the wave-function...
A grain of salt will do.
Yes, and if we were to take all that ‘science’ professes to have solved with a grain of salt our blood pressure would be extremely high. Science is wrong now about many things as it has been throughout history.
Not all editors are careful. Some have an agenda; some are just careless.
A paper that I reviewed some time ago was still published even though I had recommended against it; there were incorrect mathematical statements; some made it into the published version. The authors tried to create a biased stream of bits by combining a random string (probability .5 for 0 and 1) with blocks of 1-bits. They claimed this would allow them to get any probability (false, exercise for the reader), and that the stream would look like random stream with non equal probabilities (false, exercise for the advanced reader.) This had little to do with the main point of the paper (parallization of some Monte Carlo code), but one never knows what a reader will try to use from an article.
bump
The map may not be the terrirory but it should be a faithful representation thereof.
Someone seems to have studied only the first unit of probablity theory.
"I can collapse that wave function in...one atom, Tom!"
...he said, measuredly.
So, Sternberg basically lied to the WSJ. Interesting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.