Whatsisface
Well-known member
By all means show me wrong. You haven't so far.You don't know what you're taking about, so stop pretending.
By all means show me wrong. You haven't so far.You don't know what you're taking about, so stop pretending.
Stop projecting. You've repeatedly been shown that actual physicists disagree with your uneducated opinions on QM.
I'm not responsible for your failure to read.
So my claim is false because "no-one disputes" it and this somehow "refutes" my "own claims", just how does that work?Which no-one disputes, and which also refutes your own claims.
I did, because wave function collapse requires "an observer" IOW a believing mind in order for wave function collapse to occur. And you can't show otherwise.By all means show me wrong. You haven't so far.
That's not what they are saying. They are saying that you are wrong about QM.I don't care who they are, because if they think that reality is knowable outside of a believing mind, then they went to school to learn how to be stupid.
Do you want me to give you the quote again? So you can ignore it again and continue pretending you know QM better than actual physicists?Explain how you know that wave function collapse can occur without a mind in order for it to occur in and with?
You are responsible for your failure to read properly. I gave you four objections and you have not addressed them.I am not responsible for your inability to think properly.
No, that's not what I said.So my claim is false because "no-one disputes" it and this somehow "refutes" my "own claims", just how does that work?
Please refer to what Nouveau said.I did, because wave function collapse requires "an observer" IOW a believing mind in order for wave function collapse to occur. And you can't show otherwise.
Unsupported as always.If the logical truth and reality exists and the only way and place that it can be known to exist and reside is in and with a believing mind, then the logical truth and reality must exist in God's believing mind.
And "If" it's not?If the only way and place that the truth and reality can be known to exist and reside is in and with a believing mind, then the truth and reality must be the product of Someone's believing mind. And that Someone is God.
That's not what they are saying. They are saying that you are wrong about QM.
Do you want me to give you the quote again? So you can ignore it again and continue pretending you know QM better than actual physicists?
You are responsible for your failure to read properly. I gave you four objections and you have not addressed them.
No, that's not what I said.
Please refer to what Nouveau said.
Unsupported as always.
And "If" it's not?
I can prove it isn't as truths and reality existed before man.
You forgot to say why.I did and he can't help you.
Because he cannot name of one instance when the truth and reality was known that it wasn't a believing mind making it known silly.You forgot to say why.
This is typical of you, to avoid the context and go straight to your stock in trade. The context was the collapse of the wave function.Because he cannot name of one instance when the truth and reality was known that it wasn't a believing mind making it known silly.
This is typical of you, to avoid the context and go straight to your stock in trade. The context was the collapse of the wave function.
You're confusing idealism and QM. You have not shown that physicality is impossible outside of a mind, and you have not shown that QM requires a mind for wave function collapse. Actual physicists disagree with you.I have not seen from anyone including you how physicality is possible outside or without a believing mind, so wave function collapse can occur. No physicist has ever shown that physicality is possible outside or without a believing mind in order to observe or measure it
This doesn't answer the question you were replying to.Anyone can know how the truth and reality is known, all they have to do is believe it.
Again, I gave you four clear objections and you've addressed none of them. So the bluffing is all yours.You have not shown anywhere what I have said is false or illogical, you just continue to bluff your way through life.
You've been told exactly how it works. Whenever you are called out on one of your more preposterous BS claims (like reality requiring a mind, being a mind, and also being inside a mind) you fall back on a trivial claim that no-one disputes (like knowledge requiring a mind) and demand that we disprove that instead. It is a very transparent bait-and-switch that you've also been called out on many times.Sure it is, as you keep saying that "no-one disputes" what I am saying about the truth and reality, but yet you saying that "no-one disputes" this somehow "refutes" my "own claims", just how does that work?
Oy vey. Van Til? Seriously???If the logical truth and reality exists and the only way and place that it can be known to exist and reside is in and with a believing mind, then the logical truth and reality must exist in God's believing mind.
You're confusing idealism and QM. You have not shown that physicality is impossible outside of a mind, and you have not shown that QM requires a mind for wave function collapse. Actual physicists disagree with you.
This doesn't answer the question you were replying to.
Again, I gave you four clear objections and you've addressed none of them. So the bluffing is all yours.
You've been told exactly how it works. Whenever you are called out on one of your more preposterous BS claims (like reality requiring a mind, being a mind, and also being inside a mind) you fall back on a trivial claim that no-one disputes (like knowledge requiring a mind) and demand that we disprove that instead. It is a very transparent bait-and-switch that you've also been called out on many times.
I see no argument.Oy vey. Van Til? Seriously???
The fact that you don't understand speaks volumes. You're copying Van Til and Bahnsen's flawed presuppositionalism.I see no argument.
I gave it to you and you ignored it and ran away. I just asked if you wanted me to repost it and you ignored the question.I have not seen one that showed how and why a believing mind isn't necessary for wave function collapse to occur. But if you have, then march it out and present it.
Really? What was the question that you think your response answered? I bet you don't even know.Sure it does...
You prove my point. No-one disagrees with the trivial truth that knowledge requires a mind. You keep arguing 'trivial truth, therefore complete nonsense' and when we say the nonsense is false and doesn't follow from your trivial truth, you demand we disprove the trivial truth instead of addressing what we actually disagree with....because in reality you cannot and have not named one instance when a believing mind wasn't necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to us.