The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

thebaldsoprano

Hi

This relates to a particular forum that I mightn't be too popular on for some reason, but might also be relevant here.

Afaik Quantum Entanglement has been well tested at this point, and, to cut a long story short, this means that it's possible to transmit information (not matter) backwards through time. This kinda breaks causality a little bit.

Personally I'm very disappointed with this cos the maths behind Relativity is nice and the maths behind Quantum Theory is just a little bit suspect.

Just thought I'd let ye know

thebaldsoprano

Galvasean wrote: »

Shh... Don't mention feathers in the context of dinosaurs in the creationism thread! :eek:

Please stop tempting me

AtomicHorror

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Hi

This relates to a particular forum that I mightn't be too popular on for some reason, but might also be relevant here.

Afaik Quantum Entanglement has been well tested at this point, and, to cut a long story short, this means that it's possible to transmit information (not matter) backwards through time. This kinda breaks causality a little bit.

Quantum entanglement doesn't transmit information. It also does not violate causality.

thebaldsoprano

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Quantum entanglement doesn't transmit information. It also does not violate causality.

If it doesn't transmit information then it obviously wouldn't break causality.

Afaik it does, but I could be wrong and would happily be corrected.

Assuming it does, it'd be pretty easy to demonstrate how it breaks causality using Special Relativity.

AtomicHorror

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

If it doesn't transmit information then it obviously wouldn't break causality.

Afaik it does, but I could be wrong and would happily be corrected.

Assuming it does, it'd be pretty easy to demonstrate how it breaks causality using Special Relativity.

If entanglement can transmit information it has not yet been demonstrated. The only information transfer that has been performed using "quantum teleportation" has required a some sort of conventional communication system as an essential part of the process. No faster than light communication has ever been demonstrated, nor has any other violation of causality.

thebaldsoprano

AtomicHorror wrote: »

If entanglement can transmit information it has not yet been demonstrated. The only information transfer that has been performed using "quantum teleportation" has required a some sort of conventional communication system as an essential part of the process. No faster than light communication has ever been demonstrated, nor has any other violation of causality.

From what I remember of the "conventional communication system" it was fibre optic, which is of little relevance.

From what I remember of the theory, if it hasn't been demonstrated yet, it's only a matter of time... We may not have the necessary instrumentation yet, but that's of little relevance to the maths.

thebaldsoprano

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

From what I remember of the "conventional communication system" it was fibre optic, which is of little relevance.

From what I remember of the theory, if it hasn't been demonstrated yet, it's only a matter of time... We may not have the necessary instrumentation yet, but that's of little relevance to the maths.

After a few (free) pints, but I'm not exactly sure how you'd go about measuring faster than light communication anyway. That alone would break causality...

thebaldsoprano

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

After a few (free) pints, but I'm not exactly sure how you'd go about measuring faster than light communication anyway. That alone would break causality...

Relativity always made my head hurt, even if the maths is nice

AtomicHorror

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

From what I remember of the "conventional communication system" it was fibre optic, which is of little relevance.

From what I remember of the theory, if it hasn't been demonstrated yet, it's only a matter of time... We may not have the necessary instrumentation yet, but that's of little relevance to the maths.

As I understand it, quantum entanglement is not intended as a faster than light communication method, be it possible or not. Maths allows solutions which are impossible in the real world. Why are we talking about this?

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

After a few (free) pints, but I'm not exactly sure how you'd go about measuring faster than light communication anyway. That alone would break causality...

Try this. Synchronise two atomic clocks. Or normal clocks if you prefer. Hold one at point A. Move one of them to your destination point B. Transmit signal from point A at a recorded time. Record the time at which signal is received at point B. Calculate the speed of the signal. If it is less than 300,000 km/sec then Einstein can relax. I would suggest that you hold off on the beer if you want to talk physics?

thebaldsoprano

AtomicHorror wrote: »

As I understand it, quantum entanglement is not intended as a faster than light communication method, be it possible or not. Maths allows solutions which are impossible in the real world. Why are we talking about this?

Try this. Synchronise two atomic clocks. Or normal clocks if you prefer. Hold one at point A. Move one of them to your destination point B. Transmit signal from point A at a recorded time. Record the time at which signal is received at point B. Calculate the speed of the signal. If it is less than 300,000 km/sec then Einstein can relax. I would suggest that you hold off on the beer if you want to talk physics?

Oh come on, I need something of an altered state of mind to talk about this stuff

Just thinking about it, it would be absolutely necessary to send information using the entangled photons through a vacuum. Air, and especially fibre optics would slow them down way to much.

Re the maths, yeah, this would require a big expensive impractical experiment to demonstrate but what might seem impractical today mightn't be so in a while.

And to do anything like fetching the next set of lotto numbers would probably take something like all the energy in the Sun.

Yeah, it may be impractical, but it is possible, and if people are using things like Quantum Theory to asses their beliefs I just though they might like to know that all may not be quite as it seems.

AtomicHorror

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Oh come on, I need something of an altered state of mind to talk about this stuff

Just thinking about it, it would be absolutely necessary to send information using the entangled photons through a vacuum. Air, and especially fibre optics would slow them down way to much.

Re the maths, yeah, this would require a big expensive impractical experiment to demonstrate but what might seem impractical today mightn't be so in a while.

And to do anything like fetching the next set of lotto numbers would probably take something like all the energy in the Sun.

Yeah, it may be impractical, but it is possible, and if people are using things like Quantum Theory to asses their beliefs I just though they might like to know that all may not be quite as it seems.

No.

thebaldsoprano

AtomicHorror wrote: »

No.

Could you please explain?

Galvasean

Guys, go to bed.

thebaldsoprano

Galvasean wrote: »

Guys, go to bed.

Just ruffling the feathers for my pillow

thebaldsoprano

Come on, Atomic Horror, get back in that ring! I sense a cop out...

thebaldsoprano

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Try this. Synchronise two atomic clocks. Or normal clocks if you prefer. Hold one at point A. Move one of them to your destination point B. Transmit signal from point A at a recorded time. Record the time at which signal is received at point B. Calculate the speed of the signal. If it is less than 300,000 km/sec then Einstein can relax. I would suggest that you hold off on the beer if you want to talk physics?

Right, I suspected this anyway but I overlooked a few things to keep the debate going - you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Keep moving B away from A at a speed anyways close to c (speed of light) and see what happens.

Maybe you should try having a few beers before talking physics...

AtomicHorror

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Right, I suspected this anyway but I overlooked a few things to keep the debate going - you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Keep moving B away from A at a speed anyways close to c (speed of light) and see what happens.

Maybe you should try having a few beers before talking physics...

I'm no physicist and I wouldn't claim to understand much about it. You said there was no way to measure if we could communicate between two points faster than light. I explained how this measurement could be done. Why do you want to move point B away from point A at any speed? Why you discussing this here rather than here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=391

Asiaprod

AtomicHorror and thebaldsoprano
While Quantum entanglement may indeed be a fascinating subject it is dragging this thread of topic. Please take this debate to one of the science forums.
Thanks
Asia

AtomicHorror

Asiaprod wrote: »

AtomicHorror and thebaldsoprano
While Quantum entanglement may indeed be a fascinating subject it is dragging this thread of topic. Please take this debate to one of the science forums.
Thanks
Asia

Yeah that was the link I gave, Physics and Chemistry forum. Thought he might actually be going somewhere with the science. At least we didn't get derailed by semantics and moral philosophy again.

Standman

wolfsbane wrote: »

If God had wanted to take 6 billion years to finish Creation, I could have no problem with that. But since He told me He took 6 days, I believe that.
If [my wife] had wanted to [eat in], I could have no problem with that. But since [she] told me [she ate out], I believe that.

Anyone like to explain the difference?

Yes.

God, assuming he exists, is not a physical being. He is supernatural and therefore by definition cannot be explained or tested using naturalistic means. Now you obviously know your wife very well and you have learned that she is worthy of trust from observing that the vast majority of the time what she says is what she does. Since god is supernatural and therefore by definition an unknown, as opposed to your wife who is a natural being who's existence can actually be proven, the same test cannot be applied to both beings.

Now you could say that what you experience in your life coincides with the existence of a Christian god, but this kind of subjective reasoning is irrelevant to a naturalistic viewpoint which is what you have attempted to apply to the trust you have in god. It is in essence a philosophical argument which has no grounds in reality and has just as much merit as existentialism.

thebaldsoprano

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Yeah that was the link I gave, Physics and Chemistry forum.

Excellent place to bring up the God question

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Thought he might actually be going somewhere with the science. At least we didn't get derailed by semantics and moral philosophy again.

To cut an unfortunately long story short, entanglement breaks causality.

If causality forms some part of your belief system, you might like to know this.

AtomicHorror

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Excellent place to bring up the God question



To cut an unfortunately long story short, entanglement breaks causality.

If causality forms some part of your belief system, you might like to know this.

Seriously man, just go to the physics forum and tell them that entanglement breaks causality. They'll love that.

One topic, a recent-ish bit of satire regarding the Discovery Institutes latest big project:

http://nakedloon.com/sci-tech/2008/07/10/discovery-institute-takes-on-gravity-myth/

Ok, so it may not be particularly subtle but it made me smile! Particularly since a German reply poster seems to have gotten the wrong end of the stick and thinks Americans are genuinely taking up the idea...

thebaldsoprano

AtomicHorror wrote: »

One topic, a recent-ish bit of satire regarding the Discovery Institutes latest big project:

http://nakedloon.com/sci-tech/2008/07/10/discovery-institute-takes-on-gravity-myth/

I like! :D:D

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

One topic, a recent-ish bit of satire regarding the Discovery Institutes latest big project:

http://nakedloon.com/sci-tech/2008/07/10/discovery-institute-takes-on-gravity-myth/

This reply is brillant

John Fostr misstates the position of the Discovery Institute. Intelligent Motion does not deny that natural gravitation exists. We deny only that it has the power asserted by naturalistic physicists. Therefore, we divide gravitation into two parts, micro-gravity and macro-gravity.

Micro-gravity is observable. Drop an anvil on your foot to observe it in action. Natural forces are adequate to explain the attraction of small objects to earth. We admit that recent research has extended observations of micro-gravity to objects relatively large by a human scale; even tall buildings may fall by its power.

However, atheistic physicists claim that naturalistic gravity also makes the planets “fall” in their orbits. This is demonstrably false. The moon, for example does not fall, but remains suspended in the heavens. There is simply no such thing as macro-gravity. The only explanation is the existence of an Intelligent Designer that established the orbits of celestial objects. Even Newton, the founder of the now discredited theory of gravity, believed that God (his version of the Designer) keeps orbits from collapsing, when his calculations showed that they were unstable.

Claiming that observable micro-gravity and hypothetical, unproven macro-gravity arise from the same naturalistic force is as untenable as atheistic biologists’ claim that a single mechanism of evolution suffices for observable changes in finches and the development of the human spleen from a bit of primitive algae. Micro-gravity, like micro-evolution, may possibly arise from natural forces. But macro-gravity cannot.

thebaldsoprano

AtomicHorror wrote: »

One topic, a recent-ish bit of satire regarding the Discovery Institutes latest big project:

http://nakedloon.com/sci-tech/2008/07/10/discovery-institute-takes-on-gravity-myth/

You just watch yourself ya Eisteinist!

The comments are bloody brilliant! :D:D:D:D

wolfsbane

Standman wrote: »

Yes.

God, assuming he exists, is not a physical being. He is supernatural and therefore by definition cannot be explained or tested using naturalistic means. Now you obviously know your wife very well and you have learned that she is worthy of trust from observing that the vast majority of the time what she says is what she does. Since god is supernatural and therefore by definition an unknown, as opposed to your wife who is a natural being who's existence can actually be proven, the same test cannot be applied to both beings.

Now you could say that what you experience in your life coincides with the existence of a Christian god, but this kind of subjective reasoning is irrelevant to a naturalistic viewpoint which is what you have attempted to apply to the trust you have in god. It is in essence a philosophical argument which has no grounds in reality and has just as much merit as existentialism.

Thanks for your attempt. It fails, however, because it fails to see that my knowledge of God is not a matter of ascribing things to God, assuming Him to be the cause. It is rather having Him reveal Himself to my spirit. I know His character as well as I know my wife's, better even.

To restate it: your equation of supernatural with unknown is false. Many people have knowledge of the supernatural, eg., every true Christian.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

One topic, a recent-ish bit of satire regarding the Discovery Institutes latest big project:

http://nakedloon.com/sci-tech/2008/0...-gravity-myth/

Ok, so it may not be particularly subtle but it made me smile! Particularly since a German reply poster seems to have gotten the wrong end of the stick and thinks Americans are genuinely taking up the idea...

I appreciate the attempt at humour by evolutionary loons - but I get my biggist laughs from their serious stuff. :D:D

Anyway, since you value satire, here's a little piece from my side of the house:

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Evolution says nothing to the contrary. On a side note, why do you assume that your conscience tells the truth?

Yes, it is just evolutionists drawing the conclusion from the supposed fact that we originated as dirt and are just more sophisticated versions of it, given that the Biblical account of man's nature has been disproven. If I believed in evolution, I would concur. Why some of you think you can elevate man to a sacred status, I can't see - other than your conscience telling you it is so.

Conscience is honest, being given by God. Its message can be distorted by our evil hearts, of course, and we can sear it by continual abuse so that it can barely whisper as we slaughter the innocent.

Mine is informed by the word of God and by His Spirit, so is healthy. By I don't look to it as a final rule - the word of God helps me guard against self-deception.

Flamed Diving

'evolutionists drawing the conclusion from the supposed fact that we originated as dirt and are just more sophisticated versions of it'


No, thats Genesis you are thinking of. Not evolution.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

I get my biggist laughs from their serious stuff.

Do you feel you understand if thoroughly enough to have a laugh at it?