Thoughts On Robin Collins and the Many Universe Generator

Totally irrelevant to the question, and an unsupported assertion besides. I call bullshit; show me the survey you used to determine the views of the "majority" of scientists.I realize you're getting pissed off because I don't take your word for things; you need to realize that's because I know you're making it up as you go along. Around here we support our statements with evidence, not pull things right out of our asses to suit.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-18-2004 03:11 AM

Unless I misunderstand, saying that thw wave-function can exist apart from quanta is equivilant to saying that gravity can exist without matter, is it not? I thought that the wave-function was the force that effected quanta, not quanta itself.

So you don't deny it? Such a ridiculous presumption can't be widespread........

No, they're both the same thing, in different states. The wave function describes all the potentialities of the quanta simultaneously; the wave function "collapses" when one of those potentialities becomes reality. Prior to that, the quanta is indiscreetly at every point in the wave function; post-collapse, it is discreetly at only one of them.

Crash, you said you quoted scientists who say the universe isn't fine-tuned........good show, ya did your homework. I wouldn't have railed on you like that had I known, and I apologize.But it must have been during my absense, since I don't remember it. Please refer me to these posts.

I do deny it. But it's not a relevant question. We're talking about the "tuning" of the universe, not materialistic assumptions. So, you're just making it up as you go along. Did it ever occur to you that scientists are way smarter than you, and might, in their intelligence, find considerable merit in positions you dismiss in ignorance?This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-18-2004 03:18 AM

I know I've showed you the TalkOrigins response, which is thouroughly footnoted. But, here it is again, as a link: CI301: The Anthropic Principle

So, let me get this straight........when you refer to a particles wave function, it's like referring to a planet's orbit around the sun? It's like a path?

Oh, please, THAT was what you were referring to?! A dozen footnotes equals a dozen opinions now!?Not to mention that I refuted most of that already anyway...........

No, it's a position. For instance, if you were either in New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles, with an equal chance of all three, but we didn't know which one, and if you were quantized, then you would be described by a wave function with peaks in each of those three cities, and we would detect one-third of your total charge in each of those locations.When we tried to directly observe you, though, we would discover that you were only in one of the cities, and your third-charges would disappear from the other two instantly - faster, in fact, than your eigenstates could have communicated at the speed of light.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-18-2004 03:26 AM

Lam, EVERYTHING is potentially a physics problem........doesn't keep me from saying certain things with certainty, like it's not gonna start raining chocolate tomorrow, without knowing the numbers behind it.And for everything in physics where common sense DOESN'T apply, there;s actually a common sense reason behind it. Don't experience time dialation? Of course you don't, you've never moved a significant fraction of the speed of light.

For god's sake, this isn't difficult.Scroll to the bottom.You'll see a bibliography.That's a list of articles and their authors, who have been referenced in support of the brief TalkOrigins piece.Count them.There's 12 separate authors.That's 12 scientists who don't believe the universe is "fine-tuned for life." No, you waved away one or two of the objections, and ignored the rest. But now I'm using the article for something else - to disprove your made up claim about "all scientists." Well, there's 12 who disagree with you, so by definition, your claim is false.

Ah, but you wouldn't see a scientist overstate a claim so blatantly. Scientists understand the limits of probability and certainty. You, apparently, don't.

So, is this because the quanta actually exists in all three locations at once or because it moves so quickly that it appears to?

Moronic claim. You know how many materialists were quoted in Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator?