Tuesday, July 22, 2014

From Frank Tipler: An Explanation For Quantum Non-Locality... Or Is It?

From Ars Technica
With many-worlds, all quantum mechanics is local

"He’s essentially saying that scientists are arbitrarily adding nonlocality, which they can’t observe, and then claiming they have discovered nonlocality. Quite an accusation, especially for the science world. (The "collapse" he mentions is the collapse of the particle’s wave function, which he asserts is not a real phenomenon.) Instead, he claims that the experiments thought to confirm nonlocality are in fact confirming an alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation called the many-worlds interpretation (MWI). As its name implies, the MWI predicts the existence of other universes.

The Copenhagen interpretation has been summarized as “shut up and measure.” Even though the consequences of a wave function-based world don’t make much intuitive sense, it works. The MWI tries to keep particles concrete at the cost of making our world a bit fuzzy. It posits that rather than becoming a wave function, particles remain distinct objects but enter one of a number of alternative universes, which recombine to a single one when the particle is measured.

Scientists who thought they were measuring nonlocality, Tipler claims, were in fact observing the effects of alternate universe versions of themselves, also measuring the same particles.

Part of the significance of Tipler’s claim is that he’s able to mathematically derive the same experimental results from the MWI without use of nonlocality. But this does not necessarily make for evidence that the MWI is correct; either interpretation remains consistent with the data. Until the two can be distinguished experimentally, it all comes down to whether you personally like or dislike nonlocality."
Or whether you personally like dodging in and out of alternate universes, a trip you do not experience, much less control. Gotta love QM.

Federal Weaponized Homosexual Advocacy

VIDEO: Obama Signs New Executive Order Restricting Religious Freedom

"The new executive edict issued by Obama prohibits federal contractors from discriminating against homosexuals and those who identify as a different gender than that which they were assigned at birth.

The move is sure to delight many on the left and even some on the right; however, the executive order is sure to rile those who value the Constitution’s separation of powers as the president is supposed to serve as a law enforcer, not a lawmaker.

President Obama signed the executive order, bypassing Congress entirely, against the wishes of many religious institutions that argued that the order ought to maintain an exemption for religious institutions who have charged that the executive order could compel them to violate their religious tenets.

Obama hailed the executive order on Monday, saying,

“Thanks to your passion and advocacy and the irrefutable rightness of your cause, our government – the government of the people, by the people and for the people – will become just a little bit fairer.”
Of course, despite the populist rhetoric of advancing the rights “of the people,” Obama’s fiat advances the agenda of homosexuals and transgenders at a cost of trampling the rights of those who wish to adhere to their religious beliefs.

Religious institutions that maintain federal contracts, such as religious universities, now must adhere to the policy of dubious legitimacy and disregard their religious beliefs in order to adopt the federal government’s agenda.
No homosexual or transgender will fail to be hired without a lawsuit, at the federal level. This is weaponized homosexual advocacy. It will push principled religious organizations out of competition for federal largesse (large projects). Soon it will be a hate crime, with prison time.

Another Pamphlet For Orlando Schools

Ten Principles of Atheism

1. There is no God; therefore,
2. There are no morals with the authority of God; therefore,
3. I can lie;
4. I can cheat;
5. I can steal;
6. I can kill;
7. I can and will attack those who do have principles, because
8. I have no principles; there is no set of Atheist Principles;
9. I don’t want principles;
10. You should not have or want principles, either, because, like me, we are just animals in an empty universe.

If God does not exist, everything is permissible. —Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Attack Atheists Are Allowed To Distibute Weaponized Literature in Schools

‘Christianity is Abhorrent’: More Atheistic Materials to be Distributed in Public Schools

"ORLANDO – A federal judge has given a secular organization the green light to distribute more atheistic and anti-Christian materials to Florida public school students, in spite of the materials’ graphic content and offensive language.

As previously reported, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) learned last year that a Christian ministry had made Bibles available to Orlando high school students on “Religious Freedom Day.” To counter the Bible distribution, FFRF sought permission from the school district to give students a variety of atheistic and anti-Christian materials.

According to reports, the Orange County School Board permitted FFRF to distribute several books and pamphlets, including a booklet entitled “What’s Wrong With The Ten Commandments?” and a brochure entitled “What Is An Atheist?” However, the board prohibited FFRF from giving students several other publications, citing the materials’ “disruptive” and inappropriate content.

FFRF promptly sued the school board for not allowing the distribution of the materials. Eventually, the school board complied with the organization’s demands, giving FFRF permission to distribute the previously-prohibited materials. Then, earlier this month, a district judge officially dismissed the FFRF lawsuit, thus giving the green light to the in-school distribution of atheistic materials."
Christianity Is Abhorrent
"The materials approved by the Orange County School Board include a variety of graphic and anti-Christian content, including references to oral and anal sex, a description of God as the “most prolific abortionist of all,” and a number of explicit sexual references and offensive expletives.

Furthermore, the materials repeatedly attack Christian beliefs and doctrines, including the life of Jesus Christ.

“On the whole, Jesus said little that was worthwhile,” alleges the FFRF booklet “Why Jesus?”

“He introduced nothing new to ethics (except hell),” the booklet states. “He instituted no social programs. Being ‘omniscient,’ he could have shared some useful science or medicine, but he appeared ignorant of such things.”

Similarly, the “Dear Believer” booklet attacks the Bible’s message and content in a demeaning first person tone.

“Christianity, besides being false, is also abhorrent,” it alleges. “It amazes me that you claim to love the god of the bible, a hateful, arrogant, sexist, cruel being who can’t tolerate criticism. I would not want to live in the same neighborhood with such a creature! The biblical god is a macho male warrior.”

“Do you see why I do not respect the biblical message?” the booklet adds. “It is an insulting bag of nonsense. You have every right to torment yourself with such insanity—but leave me out of it. I have better things to do with my life.”

Many people have expressed concern at FFRF’s literature, arguing that the graphic, insulting material is inappropriate in a public school setting."

The Left, From Deep Inside

From The American Thinker:
Ten Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Leftist
This is an honest look at the Left from one who was a true insider. There is too much there to quote here; go there to read the whole thing. It's a vindication for those who want to build rather than destroy; to love, rather than to hate; and to be left alone and tolerate rather than attack with intolerance.

H/T Robert Coble

All You Need To Know About Roger Simon

Roger Simon Tweeted this:
"Rick Perry sending 1,000 National Guard troops to border to shoot small children. Could make good headlines -- in Russia."
Read the article, it's short and pointed.

Monday, July 21, 2014

Perfect, Buzz!




Watch a 72-year-old Buzz Aldrin punch a jerk in the face for calling him a 'liar'


"Buzz Aldrin: Famed astronaut, second man on the moon, and puncher of smug faces.

Sunday marks the 45th anniversary of the lunar landing — unless, of course, it never happened and the government faked the whole danged thing to make America look super powerful at the height of the Cold War. Is that conspiracy theory likely? Probably not, though there are some who ardently believe in it.

Bart Sibrel is one of those lunar truthers. And back in 2002, he ambushed Aldrin outside a Los Angeles hotel and berated him about his supposed role in the hoax, asking him to swear on a Bible he landed on the moon and calling him a "liar" and a "coward." Offended that someone would question his integrity, and fed up with being pestered for so long, Aldrin finally snapped and socked Sibrel in the face."
OK this is a dozen years old, but it's the first I've heard of it. Gotta love ol' Buzz...

Klavan On Israel

Earth Is Heating Up?

World breaks monthly heat record 2 times in a row

" WASHINGTON (AP) -- The globe is on a hot streak, setting a heat record in June. That's after the world broke a record in May.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Monday that last month's average global temperature was 61.2 degrees, which is 1.3 degrees higher than the 20th century average. It beat 2010's old record by one-twentieth of a degree.

While one-twentieth of a degree doesn't sound like much, in temperature records it's like winning a horse race by several lengths, said NOAA climate monitoring chief Derek Arndt.

And that's only part of it. The world's oceans not only broke a monthly heat record at 62.7 degrees, but it was the hottest the oceans have been on record no matter what the month, Arndt said.

"We are living in the steroid era of the climate system," Arndt said.

Arndt said both the June and May records were driven by unusually hot oceans, especially the Pacific and Indian oceans.

Heat records in June broke on every continent but Antarctica, especially in New Zealand, northern South America, Greenland, central Africa and southern Asia.

The United States had only its 33rd hottest June.

All 12 of the world's monthly heat records have been set after 1997, more than half in the last decade. All the global cold monthly records were set before 1917.

And with a likely El Nino this year - the warming of the tropical Pacific which influences the world's weather and increases global temperatures - it is starting to look like another extra warm year, said University of Arizona climate scientist Jonathan Overpeck.

The first six months of the year are the third warmest first six months on record, coming behind 2010 and 1998, according to NOAA

Global temperature records go back to 1880 and this is the 352nd hotter than average month in a row.

"This is what global warming looks like," Overpeck said in an email. "Not record hot everywhere all the time, but certainly a reflection that the odds of record hot are going up everywhere around the planet.""
Apparently unusually cool continental weather and record antarctic sea ice doesn't count for much in this game.

Mainstream Press Ignores Christian Holocaust in Iraq

Headline:
Sebastian Gorka: Christian Holocaust Underway in Iraq, USA and World Look On
Obama give them permission by his unconditional withdrawal. He will do nothing but fundraisers for the continuation of Leftism in the USA, it appears.

Sunday, July 20, 2014

Jerry Coyne On Faith And Science

Jerry Coyne seems to be a Four Horseman wannbe who never was. But now with the death of Christopher Hitchens there is a horseman opening, a chance to be a New Atheist if he can pass the exam. Maybe this article is the exam, I don’t know. But Coyne has been a divisive force who reviews books which he admits that he hasn’t read, and severely irritating the likes of Massimo Pigliucci, who didn’t give Coyne (or Dawkins for that matter) an article in “The Extended Synthesis” tome, which is the new evolutionary bible.

Coyne has declared that “evolution is true” and has a book and website by the same name to prove it. What Coyne proves is just that people like himself define words to suit themselves - words like "true". In his Slate article, Coyne makes several such adventures into words and concepts, which he panders as more truth.

So let’s take a look at his propositions in his Slate article.

His first proposition is that science is based on evidence while religion is based on “faith in the invisible”. After giving his examples of what he thinks are faith statements, he quotes,
“faith as defined by philosopher Walter Kaufmann:
‘intense, usually confident, belief that is not based on evidence sufficient to command assent from every reasonable person.’”
If you are familiar with Coyne, his website and his book, that statement describes him precisely. A case of projection, maybe? His faith in evolution can easily be shown to be faith in the invisible.

Then Coyne asserts,
“Indeed, there is no evidence beyond revelation, authority, and scripture to support the religious claims above, and most of the world’s believers would reject at least one of them. To state it bluntly, such faith involves pretending to know things you don’t.”
Let's ignore for the time being that there are more ways than science to know a thing. Here Coyne is implying that science does know things without pretense. That is false in many cases, most certainly in the inference of evolution, Coyne's focus.

In the case of science, pretense has been a fundamental tactic ever since Darwin made inference a “legitimate” form of "knowledge". This is primarily because Atheists grabbed ahold of a Materialist origins story, and declared it true: ideologically and unassailably. Finding animal types in certain geologic layers became inferred as progression. Finding different finches in the Galapagos became inferred as evolution. However, as far as objective, experimental, immutable truth, that did not exist; so it had to be asserted legally. The ideology has to be accepted without what Coyne refers to reverentially as,
“confidence derived from scientific tests and repeated, documented experience.”
There is no set of scientific tests nor repeated documented experience for the creation of birds from dinosaurs, nor of dinosaurs from sponges, nor of sponges from minerals. So Coyne’s very definition of science does not match what he actually believes and does for a living. But it is a convenient fiction, useful for attacking his target of the moment, which is the abstraction, “religion”.

In his book, Why Evolution Is True, Coyne indulges himself with story-telling as near-fact, not exactly fact, but good enough stories to make him ecstatic with evolution. He admits to many things not being known, but the stories are good’ns, good enough to call evolution “True”. Hence the new definition of "true". As for birds, he starts off with stories to fill in the knowledge blanks – blanks which are huge and encompass pretty much the entire affair of where birds came from. Wrote Coyne,
“But if you think a bit, it’s not so hard to come up with intermediate stages in the evolution of flight, stages the might have been useful to their possessors. Gliding is the obvious first step…”
And so goes the story, being created as a complete fiction which is imbued with the aura of truth in order to salvage the ideology. Eight pages later, Coyne is still at it:
“In either the “trees down’ or the ‘ground up’ scenario, natural selection could begin to favor individuals who could fly farther instead of merely gliding, leaping, or flying for short bursts. Then would come the other innovations shared by modern birds, including hollow bones for lightness and that large breastbone.”
And that story, you see, is Why Evolution Is True.
” The conflation of faith as “unevidenced belief” with faith as “justified confidence” is simply a word trick used to buttress religion. In fact, you’ll never hear a scientist saying, “I have faith in evolution” or “I have faith in electrons.” Not only is such language alien to us, but we know full well how those words can be misused in the name of religion.”
Whether they say it or not, scientists evince faith in hypothesis U due to the probability of its validity due to successful replication of experiments done on U. Denying that is merely absurd, or in Coyne's case, it is irrational denialism in the pursuit of an ideology. Whatever it is, it is not true.

Coyne falls into traps of his own making so regularly that people in his own discipline comment on it. Here is one now:
”What about the public and other scientists’ respect for authority? Isn’t that a kind of faith? Not really. When Richard Dawkins talks or writes about evolution, or Lisa Randall about physics, scientists in other fields—and the public—have confidence that they’re right. But that, too, is based on the doubt and criticism inherent in science (but not religion): the understanding that their expertise has been continuously vetted by other biologists or physicists. In contrast, a priest’s claims about God are no more demonstrable than anyone else’s. We know no more now about the divine than we did 1,000 years ago.”

It is absolutely faith that the energy bursts which were ferreted out of the considerable noise were actually due to a Higgs Boson. Not only is the boson not directly observable, it is not even secondarily observable because its energy (mass) is also not observable except fractionally, and the fraction could very conceivably be something else. One thing is certain: evolutionary biologists will always refer to physics which they don’t comprehend in order to gain “authority” as being “scientific”.


But let’s take his last comments separately. Specifically,
” In contrast, a priest’s claims about God are no more demonstrable than anyone else’s. We know no more now about the divine than we did 1,000 years ago.”
By “demonstrable”, Coyne means that the divine is not investigable by material science, and therefore is illegitimately called knowledge. The illegitimacy is conferred as the result of abject Philosophical Materialism, a philosophy which also is illegitimately called knowledge and is not investigable by emprical, experimental science - yet is the foundation of Atheism and is misused in claims as the foundation for science, which it is not. Science – empirical experimental objective science - is voluntarily functionally materialist purely because only material things can be investigated experimentally. So Coyne’s comment is merely a slur, not an assertion with actual meaning.

The bottom line is that a priest’s claims are never made with material demostrability in mind. Whether Coyne thinks that is illegitimate is of no concern, because his evolution claims are also not demonstrable materially.
”What about the public and other scientists’ respect for authority? Isn’t that a kind of faith? Not really. When Richard Dawkins talks or writes about evolution, or Lisa Randall about physics, scientists in other fields—and the public—have confidence that they’re right. But that, too, is based on the doubt and criticism inherent in science (but not religion): the understanding that their expertise has been continuously vetted by other biologists or physicists. In contrast, a priest’s claims about God are no more demonstrable than anyone else’s. We know no more now about the divine than we did 1,000 years ago.”
By the nature of his book and website, there is no inherent “doubt and criticism” involved in Coyne’s world, regardless of what he claims when facing the public. For Coyne as well as a great many other people making a living from inferential evolution stories, the science is settled, there is no objection which can be legitimate, the mental doors are shut and locked, all based merely on Just So Stories.

There is no “doubt or criticism inherent in religion”? Because he uses the cartoon word, the generalization: “religion”, he can be partly right while being entirely wrong. There are some fundamentalists in religions (just like Coyne being a fundamentalist in “science”), who claim to have “truth”. But that is not likely the general case. For most there is enough evidence to engender hope; and that, hope, is what Coyne actually has but he calls it truth instead. What Coyne does continually is to make sweeping generalizations about things about which he knows nothing – things such as religion and the evolution of birds – and then to call his generalizations “truth”, when they are nothing of the sort.
” The constant scrutiny of our peers ensures that science is largely self-correcting, so that we really can approach the truth about our universe.”
He is stealing legitimacy again. This does not apply to evolutionary biology in the manner which it applies to experimental biology. Evolution is dictated to the point that dissenting opinion cannot be expressed, lest it unleash a purge; it would and it has. And evolution is not about the universe; it is not even about biology because biology can be done entirely without evolution. Again Coyne attempts to legitimize his own story-telling schema on the backs of other, respectable, sciences.
” So scientists don’t have a quasi-religious faith in authorities, books, or propositions without empirical support.”
This is so egregiously false that it can only be an intentional lie. Coyne’s one book is loaded with untestable claims in support of conclusions which are not in the least supported empirically.

It gets worse.
” Do we have faith in anything? Two objects of scientific faith are said to be physical laws and reason. Doing science, it is said, requires unevidenced faith in the “orderliness of nature” and an “unexplained set of physical laws,” as well as in the value of reason in determining truth.

Both claims are wrong.

The orderliness of nature—the set of so-called natural laws—is not an assumption but an observation.”

Even the Atheist “empiricist”, David Hume knew better than that, and condemned anyone who claimed such. Orderliness is not guaranteed, either in the future or in the past.

Further, the orderliness of nature at the quantum level does not exist; Apparently Coyne’s attachment to physics as a big brother for protecting evolution does not include the physics of Quantum Mechanics. But wait, he weasels:
” We take nature as we find it, and sometimes it behaves predictably.”
It is predictable “sometimes”? Really?

And there is this, which is the reason that Coyne is not a philosopher and certainly not a logician:
” What about faith in reason? Wrong again. Reason—the habit of being critical, logical, and of learning from experience—is not an a priori assumption but a tool that’s been shown to work. It’s what produced antibiotics, computers, and our ability to sequence DNA. We don’t have faith in reason; we use reason because, unlike revelation, it produces results and understanding. Even discussing why we should use reason employs reason!”
You don’t have faith in your “tool” because it is a “tool”. You don’t have faith in reason because you use reason to discuss reason. By now Jerry has slipped the coils of rationality altogether.
” Finally, isn’t science at least based on the faith that it’s good to know the truth? Hardly. The notion that knowledge is better than ignorance is not a quasi-religious faith, but a preference: We prefer to know what’s right because what’s wrong usually doesn’t work.”
And yet it is likely that most scientists would describe their pursuits as having purely intellectual interest, with unknown practical applications. In fact, science is considered a success when it shows that something doesn’t work. This is part of knowing the factoids, and that is good. Coyne has split this hair into meaningless definitional drivel. He is motivated purely by the need to deny faith as an aspect of science, despite the faith he has in his story-models necessary for evolution to be “true”.

Finally he appeals to Dawkins:
” There's all the difference in the world between a belief that one is prepared to defend by quoting evidence and logic and a belief that is supported by nothing more than tradition, authority, or revelation.”
As if Dawkins has any evidence or logic which proves his belief in evolution and Atheism to be True. Just like Hitchens’ Razor, Dawkins comments have no proof for the truth value of the assertion being made. They are thus internally non-coherent.

So maybe Coyne and Dawkins can get together on the fourth horseman opening...