Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

No, I'm afraid not. Your single observation has a high likelihood of being correct, but not 100%. If others make the same observation then that increases the likelihood, but still not to 100%. Even if millions of others make the same observation, all that accomplishes is tacking more 9's after the decimal point. It still doesn't reach 100%.But returning to your comment that was originally questioned, where are you finding scientists declaring something to be absolutely true? The more determinedly you avoid supporting claims you make the more people are going to decide you're only worth ridicule and derision.--Percy

First, according to quantum field theory, our most accurate models of all things particles and energy, there is a vanishingly small, but real probability your one die stands up on a corner showing no face up.Second, do you know about Heisenberg? Again in QTF there are measurement restrictions. The more accurate your measure of position the less refined your measure of momentum, and visa versa. The same for time and energy along with a number of other complementary variables. You cannot measure both to the same fine degree. This is at the most basic level of reality. We can never have 100% certainty. The very operations of this universe forbids it.

I gave you a clear example as proof. But you have no response to that. Only repeating your rant. Shows how you are only able to repeat what you have been taught, and you accept it no matter how wrong it is.

You should read carefully. If the dice lands on one side, as I clearly stated, that does not include a situation where it lands on a corner or on an edge.Heisenbergs uncertainty principle is more about precision than it is about certainty. It applies to any two physical observables do not commute.

BS! You never mentioned a corner. Your claim is 100% pip on top when the die lands. That is wrong. Your 100% is more accurately 0.99999+% I don't know what this means. If this is your understanding of Heisenberg then there is no need to continue. The Uncertainty Principle deals with the uncertain precision of measurement. Again you try to obscure the facts with your false stringent definitions.Of course it is about precision. The more precise the measure of the one attribute the more uncertain, less precise, can be your measure of the other. And, not any two attributes can be conflicted. Only specific attributes of the particles eigenstate are subject to this uncertainty in precise measurement. Before you continue, learn something first.The take away here is that 100% certainty is not allowed in this universe.

This is literally from what Percy quoted me:"If you roll a single regular dice and it lands with one of the six sides ..."... and it lands on one of its six sides .. is what I meant. This rules out any corner landing..And now you are just angry and annoyed that I understand much more about quantum mechanics than you do.

quote:

---

"If you roll a single regular dice and it lands with one of the six sides ..."

---

What you are essentially doing is stating a logical truth. Which can be known with 100% certainty. You could try to nitpick that but I don’t see how you could do it without undermining your claim.Unfortunately that’s really not what science is about. Science is much more about the empirical world. And in the actual empirical world you can’t have absolute 100% certainty that you’ve rolled a die or that it’s a “regular dice” or that it has landed with one of it’s six sides up. Cartesian doubt can’t be overcome so easily.

Yes, your display of knowledge in QM and in all of science is quite telling.

Wow! Well, if you're ever in the mood you might look up the scientific definition of tentativity sometime.Meanwhile, can you finally support your claim that there are scientists out there making claims of absolute truth.--Percy

You're again repeating the mistake of not recognizing that different people will explain the same thing in different ways. AZPaul3's point is that your observation that the die landed on one side rather than a corner is also open to uncertainty.I don't think anyone here is angry or annoyed or ranting. I think we're all just a little bewildered at your determined ignorance.--Percy

You can lookup definitions yourself. It clearly did not help you in countering my example in any way.As that seems to be all that you can do. Run away and not directly responding, but instead pretending to be smart by referring to definitions and theory, without being able to use any of it to counter my example.

Wow, the uncertainty of the dice landing on a side. Really?Well then, why don't you say it's uncertain that we threw the dice as well?Or lets say it's uncertain that we measured the tempature at all, in your example.And you dare to speak about ignorance, while all three of you have nothing but bs responses.

OK, black or white.We have to choose between the complete and utter bullshit utterances of "sensei" (disregarding what complete and utter fools would ever choose him as any kind of teacher) and reality.Sorry, dude, but reality wins.But really, why is that idiot still around?

Entertainment? Like a palm reader has her script of open-ended loaded questions, sensei's schtick is as a science nerd who doesn't know anything.

Nah.A palm reader or other diviner does have a definite skill of reading the mark."sensei" doesn't even have that.