pantheory Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 Midniterider, "Particles can't possibly have intelligence or awareness. Why not? Uhhhh." https://www.sciencealert.com/5-times-everyone-thought-science-was-crackpot-only-to-be-proven-spectacularly-wrong --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Midniterider, I Expect you directed your question above to me, but if not ignore my answer below. According to my own theories in physics, everything in reality is extremely simple to understand. There could be great detail to it which could be called complicated detail, but its general understanding and explanations can be made very simple. This is the philosophy and perspective that I choose and believe in. As to your question above? Of course the answer I am giving is mine alone, but it is based on mainstream physics. Atomic particles like electrons, protons, neutrons, positrons, neutrinos, etc. are very simple entities. Electrons,, positrons, and neutrinos are believed to be elementary particles with no parts to them, and protons and neutrons are believed to be made upon of a few elementary parts. Very simple stuff and explanatory ideas IMO. They couldn't have any brain power or understandings of their own because they are far to simple IMO. Although protons, electrons, positrons and neutrons and spinning particles, that provides them with no mental abilities it just confuses them and makes them dizzy Aside from my intended joke, according to me, everything that exists in reality is very simple to understand, therefore simple particles cannot think. . with an emphasis on extremely simple IMO As to your link, yes there have been, and will be in the future, things discovered about reality that were never expected, and science interpretations that could make one believe that the some or many scientists are more stupid than the average person. But all of this relates to their lack of understanding of some aspects of reality IMO. But in the end, everything that possibly could exist in reality can be simply explained to a barmaid, therefore it can't be complicated at all IMO. THe ENd , OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted February 25, 2021 Author Share Posted February 25, 2021 Posting by WalterP in the science vs. religion double slit thread. "You begin your post with the word 'true', Pantheory. So, with the truth in mind, would you please supply true answers to these questions? 1. Did BAA correct you and hold you to account for posting a misleading interpretation about distant galaxies? 2. Was this the only example of where you posted a misleading interpretation about distant galaxies? 3. Is what Thought2Much said about you true - that you've been banned from various science forums? 4. Did you have a private agreement with BAA to present both sides of the story, your alternative cosmology and the mainstream one, to give a balanced picture for the members of Ex-C? 5. Did you break your agreement with BAA and present only your side of the story and only your interpretation of the data? Since Josh has weighed in about what happened back then, discussion of those times is now on the table and so you really can't use the excuse that my questions are off-topic to avoid answering them. Therefore, please answer them Pantheory. Thank you. Walter." -------------------------------------- Hi Walter, Your entire posting has the tone of cynicism and rancor toward me. If you want valid answers you must present your questions in a gentile, and non-hostile manner. Most of your questions also contain logical fallacies. If you don't know what what that means I will explain it to you if you ask in a friendly manner. I am not argumentative, so please rephrase your questions in a friendly manner if you want me to answer. you have been nice before in your postings, and I have always been respectful to you. I'm sure you could always be more tactful rather than hostile in your postings if you wanted. regards, Forrest ----------------------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 Do you feel that if an explanation is too complicated for a barmaid to understand that it cannot be true? Is simplicity part of the required criteria for a scientific theory? If so, that seems arbitrary. On the other hand if you feel that physics just IS simple, that seems more valid. I would agree that elementary particles, as individuals have little intelligence. I would not want to say zero because intelligent creatures seem to be made up of lots of elementary particles. There's a couple interesting (to me) things going on in the double slit thread. I appreciate your willingness to present something non-mainstream and stick to your guns about it. If your explanation of physical simplicity in the QM world is true then it will become mainstream. I of course like the weird woo that everyone here hates. And I actually find it strange that mainstream science tends toward the woo explanation of the 'which way' issue in the double slit experiment. I may not understand the mainstream thought on the matter , though. What I havent asked Walter yet is what his opinion is on why measurement collapses the wave function. I think you've already answered the question a million times, so I wont bug you with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted February 25, 2021 Author Share Posted February 25, 2021 5 hours ago, midniterider said: Do you feel that if an explanation is too complicated for a barmaid to understand that it cannot be true? Is simplicity part of the required criteria for a scientific theory? If so, that seems arbitrary. On the other hand if you feel that physics just IS simple, that seems more valid. I would agree that elementary particles, as individuals have little intelligence. I would not want to say zero because intelligent creatures seem to be made up of lots of elementary particles. There's a couple interesting (to me) things going on in the double slit thread. I appreciate your willingness to present something non-mainstream and stick to your guns about it. If your explanation of physical simplicity in the QM world is true then it will become mainstream. I of course like the weird woo that everyone here hates. And I actually find it strange that mainstream science tends toward the woo explanation of the 'which way' issue in the double slit experiment. I may not understand the mainstream thought on the matter , though. What I havent asked Walter yet is what his opinion is on why measurement collapses the wave function. I think you've already answered the question a million times, so I wont bug you with it. "Do you feel that if an explanation is too complicated for a barmaid to understand that it cannot be true? Is simplicity part of the required criteria for a scientific theory? If so, that seems arbitrary. On the other hand if you feel that physics just IS simple, that seems more valid. I would agree that elementary particles, as individuals have little intelligence. I would not want to say zero because intelligent creatures seem to be made up of lots of elementary particles." I believe there are two different aspects to it. First, I believe complicated things can be simply explained, but only when they are truly understood. And secondly, if something is really complicated it can be organized in such a way that its explanation will be logical, in contrast to modern quantum theory. Maybe a third idea is that the simplest answer is the best answer, all else being equal. Therefore elementary particles are very simple entities IMO. Mainstream science also hates the woo of science, but can't come up with better answers. Most of their biggest problems are their lack of understanding concerning the background field IMO. talk to you again soon, regards Forrest ----------------------------------------------- 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterP Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 1 hour ago, pantheory said: Posting by WalterP in the science vs. religion double slit thread. "You begin your post with the word 'true', Pantheory. So, with the truth in mind, would you please supply true answers to these questions? 1. Did BAA correct you and hold you to account for posting a misleading interpretation about distant galaxies? 2. Was this the only example of where you posted a misleading interpretation about distant galaxies? 3. Is what Thought2Much said about you true - that you've been banned from various science forums? 4. Did you have a private agreement with BAA to present both sides of the story, your alternative cosmology and the mainstream one, to give a balanced picture for the members of Ex-C? 5. Did you break your agreement with BAA and present only your side of the story and only your interpretation of the data? Since Josh has weighed in about what happened back then, discussion of those times is now on the table and so you really can't use the excuse that my questions are off-topic to avoid answering them. Therefore, please answer them Pantheory. Thank you. Walter." -------------------------------------- Hi Walter, Your entire posting has the tone of cynicism and rancor toward me. If you want valid answers you must present your questions in a gentile, and non-hostile manner. Most of your questions also contain logical fallacies. If you don't know what what that means I will explain it to you if you ask in a friendly manner. I am not argumentative, so please rephrase your questions in a friendly manner if you want me to answer. you have been nice before in your postings, and I have always been respectful to you. I'm sure you could always be more tactful rather than hostile in your postings if you wanted. regards, Forrest ----------------------------------- It's ok Pantheory. I've no need to rephrase because I knew some of the answers beforehand. I simply asked them so as to give you a chance and the opportunity to tell the truth. So, you acknowledge that you did have an agreement with BAA to present both mainstream and alternative explanations of scientific matters in your posts. https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/71751-astronomers-just-saw-farther-back-in-time/ BAA wrote this... After our seemingly-fruitful private discussion about the balanced presentation of science articles in this sub-forum, I must say that I'm very disappointed that you are trying to misrepresent this discovery in a way that gives credibility to your theory. Unless BAA was lying, this is clear evidence that you did break your agreement with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterP Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 2. Was this the only example of where you posted a misleading interpretation about distant galaxies? No. You did it again, here. https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/71959-outragiosly-bright-galaxies/ You could have said so and I gave you the chance to say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterP Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 3. Is what Thought2Much said about you true - that you've been banned from various science forums? You were banned from at least one science forum. Physicsforums.com You joined it May 19 2008 and last posted Jun 5 2008, having made only 19 posts. Your name now has a line through it, like this. Pantheory Once again, you could have answered my question truthfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted February 25, 2021 Super Moderator Share Posted February 25, 2021 Alright now. Don't make me have to separate you two. If y'all want to argue, this ain't the place for it. Take that shit to the Den. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted February 25, 2021 Moderator Share Posted February 25, 2021 Isn't this best discussed in the Science forum? Particles, Atoms, double slit, distant galaxies etc all sound very sciency to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator TABA Posted February 25, 2021 Moderator Share Posted February 25, 2021 8 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said: Isn't this best discussed in the Science forum? Particles, Atoms, double slit, distant galaxies etc all sound very sciency to me. Sciency. . . but also somewhat Ranty at present. What to do, what to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 3 hours ago, pantheory said: "Do you feel that if an explanation is too complicated for a barmaid to understand that it cannot be true? Is simplicity part of the required criteria for a scientific theory? If so, that seems arbitrary. On the other hand if you feel that physics just IS simple, that seems more valid. I would agree that elementary particles, as individuals have little intelligence. I would not want to say zero because intelligent creatures seem to be made up of lots of elementary particles." I believe there are two different aspects to it. First, I believe complicated things can be simply explained, but only when they are truly understood. And secondly, if something is really complicated it can be organized in such a way that its explanation will be logical, in contrast to modern quantum theory. Maybe a third idea is that the simplest answer is the best answer, all else being equal. Therefore elementary particles are very simple entities IMO. Mainstream science also hates the woo of science, but can't come up with better answers. Most of their biggest problems are their lack of understanding concerning the background field IMO. talk to you again soon, regards Forrest ----------------------------------------------- Fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted February 25, 2021 Moderator Share Posted February 25, 2021 1 hour ago, TABA said: Sciency. . . but also somewhat Ranty at present. What to do, what to do? Exactly. A quandary indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterP Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 Oh I don't need to say any more here. The evidence is all there in the links I've provided. Those who care about the facts can go read it. Those who don't care... won't. Bye! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted February 26, 2021 Author Share Posted February 26, 2021 4 hours ago, WalterP said: It's ok Pantheory. I've no need to rephrase because I knew some of the answers beforehand. I simply asked them so as to give you a chance and the opportunity to tell the truth. So, you acknowledge that you did have an agreement with BAA to present both mainstream and alternative explanations of scientific matters in your posts. https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/71751-astronomers-just-saw-farther-back-in-time/ BAA wrote this... After our seemingly-fruitful private discussion about the balanced presentation of science articles in this sub-forum, I must say that I'm very disappointed that you are trying to misrepresent this discovery in a way that gives credibility to your theory. Unless BAA was lying, this is clear evidence that you did break your agreement with him. To ask for someone to tell the truth is very aggressive behavior; considering your intelligence you should very well know this. If you wish to talk with me, you must at all times be civil and well mannered. And IMO you should behave this way to everyone in this formum including dumbbell Christians . If you think the person lies just don't talk to them. As to our agreements, mine and BAA's here they are: (from my mailbox) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM from BAA Hello Forrest. Sorry for the delay in PMing you. Here's what I had in mind. It's a matter of record in the Science vs Religion subforum, that I already give a balanced view of physics and cosmology issues and topics by referring to the entirely valid criticisms made by Peter Woit. Also, when it comes to Inflationary cosmology, I give a similarly balanced view by clearly stating what is supported by evidence and what currently isn't. In the future I'm prepared to go even further and also present, discuss and explain the following items, which are major problems in mainstream physics and cosmology. * The total lack of any direct evidence to support String Theory * How the concept of an Inflationary Multiverse relies on the use of logical inference, deduction and extrapolation. * How the Inflationary Multiverse cannot be directly verified. I'm reasonably confident that I can talk about these things and not make a complete fool of myself. Please note that I'm conceding and yielding here - in an effort to find common ground with you. If I do this, I'll be going beyond my already reasonable and balanced approached and singling out these three problem areas for attention. So I don't think it's at all unreasonable for me to expect something from you. What are you prepared to concede and yield so as to follow my example and to match me? Please note that since my concessions are confined exclusively to physics and cosmology, so should yours also be. This is an entirely fair, like-for-like exchange. Similarly, my concessions are exclusively confined to 20th and 21st century physics and cosmology ...therefore so should yours be. Please also note that I will also be selecting linked articles and papers that are critical of String Theory and Inflationary Cosmology. Therefore, in an impartial and fair, like-for-like exchange, I'd expect you to select articles and papers that confirm the successes of 20th and 21st century physics and cosmology. Please consider my offer at your leisure and get back to me. Thanks, BAA. ------------------------------------------------------------------ My response: Of course I would select some articles and papers that affirm the successes of 20th and 21st century in theoretical physics but probably not cosmology. This is because I believe that present-day cosmology is totally wrong in almost every way possible. But there have been lots of successes in astronomy where I can post related papers Also in physics there have been countless successes in modern times, but valid modern-day mainstream successes in theoretic physics IMO are very rare. So this is what I can promise as well as what I have said above. I think you will see that my future postings will contain more mainstream information based upon what I have said I believe both of us are seeking to educate readers so I will often now give explanations of the related mainstream background theory to enable a better mainstream understanding by some readers. So I will continue to introduce what I consider to be interesting threads and postings that sometimes challenge mainstream discoveries, provide alternative points-of-view, related interesting commentary, facts, perspectives, information, and present better mainstream explanations, if such explanations lack important information. all for now, regards Forrest ---------------------------------------------------- pantheory 286 Replied: January 13, 2016 Hello again BAA, btw, if I post comments against the mainstream on any topic in the ex-Christian net, concerning what might be wrong IMO with this or that theory/ an article, link, discovery, etc., I will try to make sure there is background information on the thread concerning the mainstream point-of-view of that subject, if not I will explain it, or better explain it if it's not clear. If only a mainstream point-of-view is given, I may choose to add one or more additional points-of-view (pov), but probably not my own pov in most cases (unless adding IMO) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- So that's it. Following these chat agreements we had little overt disagreements concerning my postings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted February 26, 2021 Author Share Posted February 26, 2021 1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said: Exactly. A quandary indeed. The problem was that even though some of the discussion involved since, the whole thing veering off topic. I could have changed the subject to Quantum Mechanics and theory but Walter changed the tone of the thread so I transferred related discussions here. 3 hours ago, TABA said: Sciency. . . but also somewhat Ranty at present. What to do, what to do? Yeah, I thought the discussion was getting too far off topic and too personal so I transferred the discussion here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 5 hours ago, WalterP said: It's ok Pantheory. I've no need to rephrase because I knew some of the answers beforehand. I simply asked them so as to give you a chance and the opportunity to tell the truth. So, you acknowledge that you did have an agreement with BAA to present both mainstream and alternative explanations of scientific matters in your posts. https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/71751-astronomers-just-saw-farther-back-in-time/ BAA wrote this... After our seemingly-fruitful private discussion about the balanced presentation of science articles in this sub-forum, I must say that I'm very disappointed that you are trying to misrepresent this discovery in a way that gives credibility to your theory. Unless BAA was lying, this is clear evidence that you did break your agreement with him. Maybe BAA just had a strong personal opinion about science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted February 26, 2021 Author Share Posted February 26, 2021 5 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said: Isn't this best discussed in the Science forum? Particles, Atoms, double slit, distant galaxies etc all sound very sciency to me. Yeah sciency. But even sciency discussions should stay on topic. Disagreements are part of science, but asking unrelated personal questions with insults are not a part of science, so I moved the discussion here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted February 26, 2021 Author Share Posted February 26, 2021 1 hour ago, midniterider said: Maybe BAA just had a strong personal opinion about science. Yeah, BAA was a big fan and had a passion for science as I do, as well as many of us. For me, I think certain science theories are not correct. In this way BAA and I had different opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterP Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 16 hours ago, pantheory said: To ask for someone to tell the truth is very aggressive behavior; considering your intelligence you should very well know this. If you wish to talk with me, you must at all times be civil and well mannered. And IMO you should behave this way to everyone in this formum including dumbbell Christians . If you think the person lies just don't talk to them. Your opinion is noted, Pantheory. If I think a Christian apologist is lying and I followed your advice, then not talking to them would just give them the thumb's up to carry on lying. This forum exists for the express purpose of encouraging those who have decided to leave religion behind. How are those who are trying to leave religion behind served if we just let Christians carry on lying and don't hold them to account? Therefore, your suggestion is impractical and a hinderance to the purpose of this forum, Pantheory. Also, by lying in the first place these Christians have forfeited the right to be treated with kid gloves, for the sake civility and good manners. The good of those trying to leave religion behind comes first. Their wellbeing takes priority over any offence that might be taken by Christians in this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterP Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 16 hours ago, pantheory said: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- So that's it. Following these chat agreements we had little overt disagreements concerning my postings. Pantheory, If you and BAA got along so well after your private conversation, then how do you explain what he publicly wrote to you? After our seemingly-fruitful private discussion about the balanced presentation of science articles in this sub-forum, I must say that I'm very disappointed that you are trying to misrepresent this discovery in a way that gives credibility to your theory. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted February 26, 2021 Super Moderator Share Posted February 26, 2021 18 hours ago, WalterP said: Oh I don't need to say any more here. The evidence is all there in the links I've provided. Those who care about the facts can go read it. Those who don't care... won't. Bye! 34 minutes ago, WalterP said: Your opinion is noted, Pantheory. If I think a Christian apologist is lying and I followed your advice, then not talking to them would just give them the thumb's up to carry on lying. This forum exists for the express purpose of encouraging those who have decided to leave religion behind. How are those who are trying to leave religion behind served if we just let Christians carry on lying and don't hold them to account? Therefore, your suggestion is impractical and a hinderance to the purpose of this forum, Pantheory. Also, by lying in the first place these Christians have forfeited the right to be treated with kid gloves, for the sake civility and good manners. The good of those trying to leave religion behind comes first. Their wellbeing takes priority over any offence that might be taken by Christians in this forum. 30 minutes ago, WalterP said: Pantheory, If you and BAA got along so well after your private conversation, then how do you explain what he publicly wrote to you? After our seemingly-fruitful private discussion about the balanced presentation of science articles in this sub-forum, I must say that I'm very disappointed that you are trying to misrepresent this discovery in a way that gives credibility to your theory. ? Seems like a lot to say, for someone who doesn't need to say anymore here. Listen, you two, your personal ax-grinding has already taken up plenty enough time and space in the science forum. Now y'all have spilled it over into the rants forum; and are continuing on with it despite being issued a warning yesterday. christians who disrespect forum rules and warnings end up getting banned. Should regular members be treated any differently? Or would that be... what's the word? "Hypocritical," I think. @pantheory @WalterP y'all sort this out between yourselves either in the Den or via PM. I'm locking this thread for now. If y'all want it moved to the Den and unlocked, let me or another Mod know, and we'll be happy to oblige. But this shit right here ain't doing nobody a damn bit of good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts