Ahhhh...I see now. You misunderstood your own quote...AND it's wrong...I'm now wondering where you got it from.

Quantum theory is not the theoretical basis of modern physics, it is a mostly theoretical part of sub-atomic physics, and could be called a 'base' for understanding much of that subject, but is not a catch all explanation for even all sub atomic physics, certainly not physics in total.
Modern physics explains the nature and behaviors of matter and energy on the atomic and sub-atomic level, not quantum theory. Quantum theory does NOT explain atomic physics at all, it's only about sub atomic physics. Quantum theory is a sub set of physics, not the other way around as you implied.
Sub atomic physics and 'atomic' physics don't seem to jibe with each other... yet, and the rules of one do not work in the other. It's all counter intuitive and difficult for scientists to understand, the lay person has a snowball's chance in hell of understanding what we even think we know, even less if they get bad info to start with.
That means your understanding is completely wrong. Even sub atomic particles can't really be in two places at once in the way you understand it...it's all insanely difficult math that suggest something that, in lay man's terms, is close to being in two places, but is not actually that, because it's also in neither place (and in some equations, everywhere at once, and nowhere)! It's impossible to state fully in normal English, it's math...and screwy math at that.
Matter simply can't really be in 2 places at once, not even sub atomic parts of it. Certainly not a person. Some experiments may SEEM to show that certain particles/waves may be, but they aren't really...it's wierd. No actual quantum physics scientist has made such an insane claim (that YOU are in 2 places at once) that I know of....it's just plain wrong and displays a complete lack of understanding of the basic principles involved and the difference between sub atomic and non-sub atomic. If someone said that, you can be certain they were either not a physicist, or were trying to over simplify and explain through a poor, un-explained analogy as poor teachers have a tendency to do when explaining difficult subjects to those with no grasp of the basics.
And I don't own any scientists, gawd believing or no. ;-)
...and none of that has a thing to do with evolution beyond being the basic 'rules' for matter.
...and none of that has a thing to do with moral superiority or morality at all.
...and it all has nothing to do with religion based homophobia/bigotry....the topic of this video....so now that another thread has been hijacked, I'm taking this thread to Cuba!

Along with @VoodooV you both blindly miss the point. Voodooh is not worth even answering anymore. He is carrying around too many personal issues that the chip on his shoulder is weighing him down.

You believe that everything evolved and t there is no room for Quantum physics in evolution. You say these 2 ideas are exclusively different and not connected

I say Yes Quantum physics is part of evolution "Quantum theory is the theoretical basis of modern physics that explains the nature and behavior of matter and energy on the atomic and subatomic level." But from that understanding it is theorized that you are in multiple places at once. That point of thought has been well stated by your non god believing scientist.

In theory you are in many places at once. So what part of evolution does that serve? From an evolution point of view quantum physics should not be needed and should not exist.


And you indicate that before the big bang and up to that point its anybody's guess.

Your best guess is, well we don't know, but no fucking way GOD did it. Now that's being closed minded.


If science proves GOD to be a pipe dream then so be it. But every day I see science proving the case that there is a GOD.

<< Well thank (G)god and quantum theory and the high-priestesses of non-linearity (Hail Eris) for assisting the few brave and hapless souls in the quest watcher-man, I'd imagined in the most heated of moments to be dealing with creatures that looked like humans who were in fact, mindless automaton designed to make my experience on Earth a living hell of sorts...That said, if everyone shopped at Walmart the few times a year I go in there and spend less than $20 bucks atta time, every one of their locations would be a black hole of unused square footage slated for demolition and re-acquisition. They'd make for some great multi-lane bowling alleys, skating rinks, or homeless shelters-

Well,... what if she could explain Quantum Theory?
A man can dream.... a man can dream!

It is often stated that of all the theories proposed in this century, the silliest is quantum theory. In fact, some say that the only thing that quantum theory has going for it is that it is unquestionably correct.
-- Michio Kaku

Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.
-- Niels Bohr

Words are far removed from reality. You don't give me enough for me to know how much of my thinking you understand. You have to take all that I wrote as a whole to get somewhat close to what I am thinking. Picking out a word or sentence that I wrote tells me that you have no interest in understanding me but I don't know that for sure because you aren't giving me anything to go on to let me understand what you are thinking.

I am saying that if quantum theory is correct then evolution has to be correct as well.

"The big bang proves humans" seems to be a wholly different kind of statement that means one event in time proves another event in time.

I am saying that quantum physics and evolution are in essence describing the same process, the same truth, the same idea. People use slightly different words in these two areas but in essence: the interactions shape the whole and the whole shapes the interactions. Nothing is fixed, everything is constantly moving and changing so you cannot simply create a flower by itself nor an atom by itself. Atoms exist (in the sense we think of existence) because of quantum effects interacting and the flower exists because of all the interactions at its scales of time and size.

Calling part of what I wrote about fractals a separate argument seems to indicate exactly what the problem is. It isn't about agreeing or disagreeing or separate arguments. It is about using abstractions (words, sentences) to dance around a big idea in order to communicate that big idea. No one abstraction can describe the whole. at best we can circle around the edges and make the connections which will be a different process for you than for me.

Also I find it weird to be compared to intelligent design. I have never read anything nor seen any videos about intelligent design where their evidence supported their conclusions. It seems that they always present really good reasons why, for example, an eye has to have evolved over time from simple light-sensitive cells to current more complex structures but they present those reasons as evidence that evolution didn't happen but the eye was created whole as we know it now. Same thing with the flagellum thing. Everything they say about those structures tells me they have to have evolved from simpler structures in an ever evolving environment but the conclusion that they say they support is the opposite. In other words, I hope you don't think of me as dumb.

Philosophically speaking I am open to the idea that to an eternal mind the time from the big bang to today is like a flash. What to us would be a thought of an elephant that appears and disappears in a flash in our minds might be similar to the universe as we know it in the mind of the All. Even so, quantum physics and evolution is how that thought process would appear to us.
>> ^lampishthing:

As I said, quantum mechanics provides the mechanism for evolution.
I only object to your use of "proof". I will whole-heartedly agree with "Quantum physics supports evolution", I will not agree with "Quantum physics proves evolution." The argument about the beauty of the fractal nature of interactions progressing scale is akin to an argument used for intelligent design. Argument from beauty
>> ^swedishfriend:
>> ^lampishthing:
Um, no. Quantum mechanics is necessary for mechanisms involved in, say, genetics but to say that quantum physics proves evolution is like saying that the big bang proves humans.>> ^swedishfriend:
Quantum physics also proves evolution.


Quantum effects show that all is probability unless there is interaction. This leads at larger scales to the process we call evolution. No one living cell or organism can be created and exist by itself but rather has to evolve from simpler matter along with the other simpler matter in is environment. Everything relies on everything else would be a basic way of thinking about it. Everything grows out of everything. Experiments of quantum effects at larger scales have shown that what we call reality comes into being by interaction with all else that exists. In the same way living organisms cannot be created out of the blue without all other organisms and matter around it but rather has to grow and be shaped through time and interactions with the nature around it.
If you can hold large enough ideas and interactions in your mind I think you will see that evidence for quantum effects supports the idea of evolution and evidence of evolution supports the idea of quantum effects.
Nature is one thing, the functions of life and evolution fractally rise up out of atomic and quantum effects. If you truly understand fractals, evolution, and quantum effects it is easy to understand them as a whole.

"QM is no more difficult to understand than relativity"

I've always found some of the "weirdness" of quantum theory to be a little easier to wrap my peabrain around than some of the weirdness of relativity.

Honestly - consider the Doppler effect. With sound waves (and every other wave except for light/EM, so far as I know), the frequency of the wave changes depending on the relative velocity of the observer to the wave. But with light, we can observe the Doppler effect while the relative velocity is constant (speed of light remains constant regardless of the observer's frame of reference). WTF?

I accidentally responded to GF on his profile so if anyone is interested in that, thats where that is.

But I just also wanted to say is that no - what you are describing is not faith. Scientific theories are constantly and rigorously tested; if they fail tests, they are discarded or altered accordingly.

Faith doesn't allow the possibility of being wrong; that's why it's faith.

>> ^dirkdeagler7:

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
Tyson is just plain wrong here, he says:
"40% of scientists are religious, so this notion that if you are a scientist, your'e an atheist, and if you are religious, you're not a scientist, is just empirically wrong"
Well, those of us who do say there is a conflict between science and religion have never framed the problem that way, the mere fact that there are religious scientists out there isnt evidence of a non-conflict anymore than the fact that a nazi could marry a jew. People can hold 2 or more conflicting views at the same time, we all do it all the time.
First of all, lets look at that "40%" number, it really depends on which poll or survey you look at. Those surveys who asks questions like "Do you believe in a personal god" usually end up in the sub-20% area of "religious" scientists, but if you include people who answer yes to questions like "are you a spiritual person" then maybe the number is closer to 40%.
So I really think 40% is really stretching it in favour of Tysons view here, but I'll let it go, lets say its 40% then, fine. Whats the same number in the general public? 41% 43?. No. its like 90%, right? So what happened to the 50% difference here? Did "No conflict" just happen to them? They just so happened to learn about science and nature, and via a sheer bloody coincidence, the number of religious people dropped by over one HALF???!!
No conflict my ass.
Of course there is a conflict. Tysons own inflated number even shows it directly.
But even if his inflated number was 100%, that ALL scientists were religious, there would still be a conflict, because faith and science are fundamentally different ways of approaching information and knowledge. In fact, they are, by definition, the opposite of eachother. Science can almost fully be described as "A complete absense of faith" and vice versa. If you've got even a hint of faith in your science, you've contaminated the results. Period. Similarly, if you take a hint of science, even at the level of a curious 5-year old, and apply it to the claims of faith, they immediatly start to look preposterous.
No conflict my ass.

To say there is no form of "faith" in science is misleading as well. If you're an avid follower of the science world, how could you be blind to the number of areas where we hold things to be accepted/true that are impossible to prove (outside of complicated math or computer models)? The most obvious example would be a many worlds/dimensions view, so any string theory borders on requiring "faith" to accept. Anything beyond the atomic level is a combination of interpreted observation and applied mathematics that we'll never be able to observe/prove first hand, in a sense we have "faith" that we're correct and have yet to find a reason to break that "faith" but if it happens we accept our "truth" to be not true. People had faith in newtonian physics being a true predictor/theory and we found it to not be the case after all.
I'm not attempting to compare the validity or justifiability of the 2 different flavors of faith. But a rose by any other name is still a rose, and there are things we believe and treat as true in science that we only know to be true in the ways we can measure them, and those ways sometimes contradict themselves still! Imagine the wave-particle duality and the contradictions in quantum theorys and Einsteins relativity...both of which we still use today (hell we still use newtonian physics in schools).

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

Tyson is just plain wrong here, he says:
"40% of scientists are religious, so this notion that if you are a scientist, your'e an atheist, and if you are religious, you're not a scientist, is just empirically wrong"
Well, those of us who do say there is a conflict between science and religion have never framed the problem that way, the mere fact that there are religious scientists out there isnt evidence of a non-conflict anymore than the fact that a nazi could marry a jew. People can hold 2 or more conflicting views at the same time, we all do it all the time.
First of all, lets look at that "40%" number, it really depends on which poll or survey you look at. Those surveys who asks questions like "Do you believe in a personal god" usually end up in the sub-20% area of "religious" scientists, but if you include people who answer yes to questions like "are you a spiritual person" then maybe the number is closer to 40%.
So I really think 40% is really stretching it in favour of Tysons view here, but I'll let it go, lets say its 40% then, fine. Whats the same number in the general public? 41% 43?. No. its like 90%, right? So what happened to the 50% difference here? Did "No conflict" just happen to them? They just so happened to learn about science and nature, and via a sheer bloody coincidence, the number of religious people dropped by over one HALF???!!
No conflict my ass.
Of course there is a conflict. Tysons own inflated number even shows it directly.
But even if his inflated number was 100%, that ALL scientists were religious, there would still be a conflict, because faith and science are fundamentally different ways of approaching information and knowledge. In fact, they are, by definition, the opposite of eachother. Science can almost fully be described as "A complete absense of faith" and vice versa. If you've got even a hint of faith in your science, you've contaminated the results. Period. Similarly, if you take a hint of science, even at the level of a curious 5-year old, and apply it to the claims of faith, they immediatly start to look preposterous.
No conflict my ass.


To say there is no form of "faith" in science is misleading as well. If you're an avid follower of the science world, how could you be blind to the number of areas where we hold things to be accepted/true that are impossible to prove (outside of complicated math or computer models)? The most obvious example would be a many worlds/dimensions view, so any string theory borders on requiring "faith" to accept. Anything beyond the atomic level is a combination of interpreted observation and applied mathematics that we'll never be able to observe/prove first hand, in a sense we have "faith" that we're correct and have yet to find a reason to break that "faith" but if it happens we accept our "truth" to be not true. People had faith in newtonian physics being a true predictor/theory and we found it to not be the case after all.

I'm not attempting to compare the validity or justifiability of the 2 different flavors of faith. But a rose by any other name is still a rose, and there are things we believe and treat as true in science that we only know to be true in the ways we can measure them, and those ways sometimes contradict themselves still! Imagine the wave-particle duality and the contradictions in quantum theorys and Einsteins relativity...both of which we still use today (hell we still use newtonian physics in schools).

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@ChaosEngine Corporations are a creation of governments, not people or free marketers. If we want to do away with legal protections for corporate entities, fine by me, I have been calling for it for quite some time. Then again, that means you will most likely have to work for yourself in the future, which is a less lazy way to live.

The problem is not companies/corporations per se, but the idea that the market determines the "winner". A market is in essence a natural selection mechanic. It doesn't reward the best or the brightest, simply the most efficient/ruthless. And that's fine if that's how you want to run your society, but most people don't.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

And saying you can't apply the idea of individual rights to influence all following decisions is to disallow any conversation beyond the surface of any subject. You can't talk about calculus unless you already have a working foundation of simple algebra, everything has a foundation from which is erects more complexity. To build any functional, rational structure, it has to be continually built on one foundation or it will be inconsistent, IE trying to apply the rule of math to the rule of friendships or something. Are you making this an appeal to be inconsistent, or an appeal to a different base of measure? If you wish a different base of measure, then purpose one, but I refuse to make believe that an inconsistent building is a better one to make, that can be steered to very evil ends, as many large corporate bodies have had. But even private people have done so too, look at prohibition of alcohol. People can be just as evil as corporate bodies.


In math, all rules are absolute and all theories scale infinitely. That is not the case in the real world. You cannot apply Newtonian physics to quantum theory and you don't build a sky scraper using the same construction techniques as a log cabin.

"Think" is not a four letter word. You cannot simply apply one rule to every situation. You must measure, analyse, judge.

The idea of individual rights is a hugely important one. It should always figure prominently in the discussion of any idea. But it is not the only measure of fitness.

>> ^MonkeySpank:

I certainly don't disagree. We don't even know how much we don't understand - that's why science is still progressing. However, the magical appeal of simple benign things such as an escalator is gone. We might not know how the world works, but we know the laws of physics at a large scale (General Theory of Relativity) and small scale (Quantum Theory). The magical and unknown phenomena still have to fit within our dictations of GTR or QT.
that is entirely the problem. the major delusion of not having anything to wonder about anymore. Over 90% of our own seas isn't discovered yet. We don't have a shit of a clue what happens around us in the universe and there is so much a single mind simply can't compute.
And yet the majority doesn't see it. They are drunk on technology and can't perceive what is around them, what is so stunning about nature, the universe and of course everything.



I have only one thing to say to you guys: Portal 2

I certainly don't disagree. We don't even know how much we don't understand - that's why science is still progressing. However, the magical appeal of simple benign things such as an escalator is gone. We might not know how the world works, but we know the laws of physics at a large scale (General Theory of Relativity) and small scale (Quantum Theory). The magical and unknown phenomena still have to fit within our dictations of GTR or QT.

that is entirely the problem. the major delusion of not having anything to wonder about anymore. Over 90% of our own seas isn't discovered yet. We don't have a shit of a clue what happens around us in the universe and there is so much a single mind simply can't compute.
And yet the majority doesn't see it. They are drunk on technology and can't perceive what is around them, what is so stunning about nature, the universe and of course everything.

"Einstein's equation is only...1 inch long"

HAHA! Egg in your face, Einstein! With you and your little equation. Probably couldn't even satisfy the same way quantum theory can.