Does quantum entanglement violate relativity?

Ever since the implications of quantum entanglement between particles became unavoidable for physicists and cosmologists, the doubt of the accuracy or completeness of Einstein’s general and special theory of relativity became real… Einstein himself called quantum entanglement “spooky action at a distance” because the possibility of faster than speed of light transfer of information between two entangled particles (no matter what distance between them) would violate relativity and the fundamentals of one of the most successful theories in science…

Recently, however, several experiments have confirmed that entanglement is not only real but it seems to violate relativity.

The results of the first experiment have provided the speed of entanglement, which was measured to be at least 10.000 times faster than the speed of light. here

In the second experiment scientists have been able to send data via quantum entanglement at 1200 km distance. Next OP will be on this theme…

Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon in quantum physics where 2 particles, like photons or electrons, become entangled, or their quantum state, or properties, became interdependent. Any change to the property of one entangled particle instantaneously (or faster than speed of light) affects the other. Einstein believed that the exchange of information at the speed faster than speed of light would create paradoxes, such as sending information to the past. That was one of the reasons Einstein and many other physicists have rejected quantum mechanics as either incomplete or false. And yet, up until today, no experiment has ever contradicted any of the predictions of QM.

As the experiments clearly show, the speed of entanglement is at least 10.000 faster than the speed of light and if that is the case, then entanglement violates relativity, as quantum information about the quantum state of one entangled particle instantaneously affects the other entangled particle…

So, if that is true, as it clearly appears to be, why didn’t we hear about it on the News?

What I would like to do with this OP is to get everyone involved to state their opinion or provide facts why these news have not been widely spread or accepted…

As most of you probably suspect, I have my own theory about it…Yes, just a theory…for now… 😉

BTW: I love quantum mechanics…
Just like Steven Weinberg once said: <strong><i>”Once you learn quantum mechanics you are really never the same again…”

501 Replies to “Does quantum entanglement violate relativity?”

  1. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: If you think he is not a kook, I’m taking it all back then…
    You can enjoy conversing with him for me…
    He’s all yours…

    What has that got to do with anything? I think you’re a kook too.

  2. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: What has that got to do with anything? I think you’rea kook too.

    Thanks for your honesty!
    I won’t tell you what I think of you though… just in case you were hoping for some kind of retaliation… 😉

  3. Robert Byers
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: I would be careful when making personal paraphrases of scripture.

    When I read Genesis I take it to be saying that God created everything “in the beginning”.

    Genesis 1:1 is the only time the word is used in this passage.

    peace

    yes, But then it quickly says God created light. so god, or the writers, do believe light is the original essential element. If god did create as spelled out IT would be easily LIGHT as a first element. its possible energy just comes from light. Not light is separate from energy etc etc.

  4. Robert Byers
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: If you think he is not a kook, I’m taking it all back then…
    You can enjoy conversing with him for me…
    He’s all yours…

    why the wrath?
    is it the claim about genesis? Thats common YEC.
    is it using my imagination coupled with enough data to opine on this subject? well you and everyone is doing it!
    Yes I think physics is as likely wrong as evolutionary biology!
    If light is wrongly defined WHY wouldn’t it be thyat relativity and everything needs revision??
    I ask you. IF you say the speed of light is real and the fastest thing, Einstein said this, then is there anything else as fast? i can’t understand from wiki if they add other things! They say electro-magnetism is also as fast oR is what light is. Then does that mean each element is as fast or only in combination??

  5. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Robert Byers: yes, But then it quickly says God created light.

    no it says

    quote:
    And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
    (Gen 1:3)
    end quote:

    It could be describing the creation of light or it could (more likely I think) be describing God’s speech at the the start of a particular morning from the perspective of the earth.

    My point is to not read stuff into the text if we can help it.

    peace

  6. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: I would say our observations are entangled with our inferences so that we can’t know where one begins and the other ends.

    I would agree with that.

  7. Robert Byers
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: no it says

    quote:
    And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
    (Gen 1:3)
    end quote:

    It could be describing the creation of light or it could (more likely I think) be describing God’s speech at the the start of a particular morning from the perspective of the earth.

    My point is to not read stuff into the text if we can help it.

    peace

    no. Its not reading into but reading IT.
    It does say God said let there be light. So its the creation of light. Not the morning from a light source. I never heard that before.
    Its plain in intent to any reader.
    the light was invented and then divided during the first day.
    Before god said Let there be light THERE was No light.
    I’m sure it was peaceful though.

  8. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Robert Byers: no. Its not reading into but reading IT.
    It does say God said let there be light. So its the creation of light. Not the morning from a light source.

    God already created light “in the beginning”. So if this is the creation of light it must be a re-creation of some sort.

    What is striking about the account in Genesis one is not that God creates, (as I said the word “create” only occurs in verse one.) But that he Speaks. Over and over we find the phrase “And God said” in this text.

    The point being belabored is that unlike the mute gods of the pagans Yahweh is a God who reveals stuff. and he does so for our benefit.

    Robert Byers: I never heard that before.

    Perhaps you should read more. I suggest something from an conservative evangelical OT scholar like John Sailhamer who is more interested in trying to discover the meaning of the text as written than to reconcile it with our modern scientific understandings.

    Here is a good place to start.

    https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Unbound-Provocative-Creation-Account/dp/1935651218

    As it is I think you are bringing way too much modern philosophical/scientific baggage into a very simple straightforward text that was perfectly understandable to an ancient audience.

    Robert Byers: the light was invented and then divided during the first day.

    How exactly do you divide light???
    How many parts does light have???
    Is “undivided light” still light or something else?

    Robert Byers: Its plain in intent to any reader.

    This particular reader does not read it that way at all.

    I take Genesis 1:3-5 to be describing God’s revelatory action of defining the boundaries of what is to be considered a day for us. That is an important definitional task that has to be completed before the rest of the passage makes any sense at all.

    peace

  9. Robert Byers
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman,
    No. plain reading is the historical reading. it says God said let there be light. So he created light this way. before it was void and dark as it said.
    Ask God about dividing light! Why me?
    its not about mere making of days. its clearly about the origin of light, the suggestion light is the great first element, and likely itys the essence of all nature at the core.
    light sources are secondary things coming later.
    therefore light being so universal it suggests there is not a light speed.
    So puting in doubt, possibly, all the physics based on that.

  10. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Robert Byers: No. plain reading is the historical reading.

    I agree I just don’t think your reading is the historical reading. I think it became popular much later in response to a changing scientific understanding.

    Robert Byers: Ask God about dividing light! Why me?

    You are the one advocating reading the text to say that it’s about God dividing light instead of describing the separation of the light from the darkness.

    Robert Byers: its clearly about the origin of light, the suggestion light is the great first element, and likely itys the essence of all nature at the core.

    I just don’t think that the text says that. It never mentions “elements” at all. It talks about “morning and evening”. Simple things

    Robert Byers: light sources are secondary things coming later.
    therefore light being so universal it suggests there is not a light speed.

    How can light exist with out a source??

    The text on the other hand describes God’s gift of the sun and moon to serve as temporal markers for mankind. Simple stuff, nothing so sciencey as you describe.

    peace

  11. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman,

    Fifth,
    I seem to recollect that light, or the source of that light, the Sun, already existed but was not visible on Earth. Two different words were used first for ‘create’ heavens (including the Sun) and Earth, and then ‘letting the light to be seen’ on Earth…

  12. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: I seem to recollect that light, or the source of that light, the Sun, already existed but was not visible on Earth.

    depends on what you mean by “earth”.

    A very important point is that the Hebrew uses the same word for earth and land.

    It’s highly possible that the text is trying to describe light reaching a very special “land” that had previously been covered by darkness (verse 2) and water (verse 9).

    The text is there you can read it for your self. You don’t need me to interpret.

    I only caution you to exegete rather than eisegete.

    J-Mac: Two different words were used first for ‘create’ heavens (including the Sun) and Earth, and then ‘letting the light to be seen’ on Earth…

    Before verse 27 The word for create is only used in verse one. The rest of the time the word ( asah ) is used it means
    quote:
    asah-accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow,

    end quote;

    from here.

    http://biblehub.com/strongs/hebrew/6213.htm

    I picture some one making their bed or making a cake. It’s not the same thing as creating something.

    IMO The passage is all about God arranging and setting in order a special place for man to dwell and commune with him. Sort of the prototype of what happened when Moses built the Tabernacle at the end of the Pentateuch.

    One of the amazing things about scripture is that is often interprets itself with the use of these kinds of types and foreshadows.

    peace

  13. Robert Byers
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: I agree I just don’t think your reading is the historical reading. I think it became popular much later in response to a changing scientific understanding.

    You are the one advocating reading the text to say that it’s about God dividing light instead of describing the separation of the light from the darkness.

    I just don’t think that the text says that. It never mentions “elements” at all. It talks about “morning and evening”. Simple things

    How can light exist with out a source??

    The text on the other hand describes God’s gift of the sun and moon to serve as temporal markers for mankind. Simple stuff, nothing so sciencey as you describe.

    peace

    Oh no. The sun/moon are not temporal. they were meant for eternity originally.
    A light source not being the source of light is my point.
    thats what the bible says. Expects the reader to understand.
    Light exists everywhere after God created it. then he divided it and created morn/night.
    So it suggests light is the first/only element and all elements/energy come from it.
    therefore no speed of light and so errors in modern physics.

  14. Robert Byers
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac:
    fifthmonarchyman,

    Fifth,
    I seem to recollect that light, or the source of that light, the Sun, already existed but was not visible on Earth. Two different words were used first for ‘create’ heavens (including the Sun) and Earth, and then ‘letting the light to be seen’ on Earth…

    No. the sun was clearly created a few days later along with the starts. also light sources.
    Yet light was created DAYONE. Then divided up on same day.
    so light should be the first idea on the elements of physics.
    also this speed of light jazz is likely wrong.

  15. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    Byers:

    So it suggests light is the first/only element and all elements/energy come from it.
    therefore no speed of light and so errors in modern physics.

    I’ll have what he’s smoking.

  16. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    Byers, to fifth:

    No. plain reading is the historical reading. it says God said let there be light. So he created light this way. before it was void and dark as it said.

    Byers is correct about what the Bible says.

    Fifth is embarrassed by the straightforward reading. Hence the rationalization:

    It could be describing the creation of light or it could (more likely I think) be describing God’s speech at the the start of a particular morning from the perspective of the earth.

    Brighter folks know that:

    1. The Bible says what it says, even when that’s embarrassing to believers.
    2. The Bible is wrong about lots of things.
    3. The Bible cannot be the infallible word of an omniscient and honest God.

  17. Kantian Naturalist Kantian Naturalist
    Ignored
    says:

    Neil Rickert: You would need to set up a fast-than-light message transmitting system to show violation of relativity.Otherwise you might merely have an appearance of no real importance.

    Exactly this. Once you know that state of one entangled particle, you know the state of the other entangled particle. There’s no transmission of Shannon information, because there’s no reduction of uncertainty. So quantum entanglement doesn’t violate general relativity.

  18. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Robert Byers: The sun/moon are not temporal. they were meant for eternity originally.

    lasting for eternity does not mean not temporal.

    If something is a-temporal then it is outside of time all together. The texts clearly says that the sun and moon are to

    quote:
    separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years,
    end quote:

    Robert Byers: A light source not being the source of light is my point.
    thats what the bible says.

    No it does not say that. That is what you have inferred from the text. I believe that your inference is mistaken.

    You have assumed with out warrant that verse one the verse that uses the word create is not actually describing the creation.

    You have abandoned the strait forward reading

    Robert Byers: Yet light was created DAYONE. Then divided up on same day.

    No the text says light was created in the beginning. It’s part of “the heavens and the earth” after all

    On the first day God called the light good and defined what a day was.

    Robert Byers: Then divided up on same day.

    He did not divide light he defined the separation between light and darkness.

    I really wish you would stick to what the text says.

    peace

  19. petrushka
    Ignored
    says:

    keiths: The Bible is wrong about lots of things.

    But entertaining when it says something poetic that is sort of right.

  20. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    petrushka: But entertaining when it says something poetic that is sort of right.

    I actually begin to suspect that byers is just an avatar of some loonie who either got banned at TSZ or a pissed of materialists who wants to make Christianity look bad….
    I personally think that Beyers has not been banned here is because his very insightful comments make Glen Davison and OMGresorst look like they have something to say…

  21. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: I actually begin to suspect that byers is just an avatar of some loonie

    He’s just another type of you, you are just another type of him. The conversation you are having with fifth about light on creation day is the same conversation fifth is having with byers. It’s hard to believe, but you are both on the same side, like it or not. You are either with the reality based community or you are against it, whatever splinter group you are in. Quantum woo or bible woo. It’s all the same. You all got picked for the same team.

    J-Mac: materialists who wants to make Christianity look bad….

    And you seem to be a poe physicist out to make “quantum” look bad.

    J-Mac: I personally think that Beyers has not been banned here is because his very insightful comments make Glen Davison and OMGresorst look like they have something to say…

    Shrug. People like you think it’s always about comparisons. What interesting things have you got to say? Judging by your generally poor comment count on your OPs and the comments on those posts generally noting how risible the content is, I’d say very little.

    See how I did that without comparing you to someone else, with a much larger average comment count on their OPs? Someone like myself, for instance. In addition I don’t remember any campaign to limit the ability to post OPs based on things I was posting, but I seem to remember one based on your inane series of posts. And now you have to grovel and beg to get your posts noticed and published. Yes, that’s clear evidence that a waiting audience is just waiting on tenterhooks to hear what you have to say.

    I can point to hundreds of interesting comments by Glen, and many interesting OPs. I can’t do the same for you.

    Objectivity, therefore, you are that which you accuse others of being. One day you will remember all this and cringe so very very hard.

  22. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain: You are either with the reality based community or you are against it, whatever splinter group you are in.

    This sort of tribalism is what makes discussion on this site so difficult.

    I wish that folks could just grasp the fact that people are people. We all have our quirks and biases and we all think that the opinions of other side are foolish and don’t exactly correspond to reality.

    peace

  23. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: This sort of tribalism is what makes discussion on this site so difficult.

    It’s not tribalism. It’s a recognition that only one group has a position based in reality. What makes discussion on this site so difficult is generally your group. For example, how can a discussion ensue with your contention that I don’t know my own beliefs, that I really know god exists? No discussion worth having can be had under those circumstances.

    fifthmonarchyman: I wish that folks could just grasp the fact that people are people.

    Some people cannot grasp things that other people can. Some people need to recognise that. The people on the reality based side of things here are generally trying to teach you sufficient biology so you can recognise the claims of people like gpuccio are based in ignorance of actual science. Have you not seen the asymmetry in the discussions bill cole is involved in? His objections are based in ignorance, which is then filled with knowledge and he then moves onto the next objection without changing his position. Eventually even he will run out of pseudo-scientific objections and will have to just admit it’s a religious position.

    fifthmonarchyman: . We all have our quirks and biases and we all think that the opinions of other side are foolish and don’t exactly correspond to reality.

    The fact that only one side can demonstrate how closely their opinions track reality seems to have escaped you.

    But feel free to continue to discuss when or if god created light with absolutely no chance of a resolution or of convincing the other party. You keep yourself all busy doing that while the rest of us get on creating and improving the world.

  24. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain: It’s not tribalism. It’s a recognition that only one group has a position based in reality.

    That is what the Taliban says.

    OMagain: For example, how can a discussion ensue with your contention that I don’t know my own beliefs, that I really know god exists?

    Your beliefs are never a subject of my interest.

    There is a huge difference between what you know and what you believe.

    Your refusal to acknowledge the possibility of self-deception is hardly a sign that you are on the side of reality based thinking.

    OMagain: Some people cannot grasp things that other people can. Some people need to recognise that.

    I would agree except I would say you are confused about the members of each group.

    OMagain: The fact that only one side can demonstrate how closely their opinions track reality seems to have escaped you.

    No it does not escape me. What escapes you is the understanding of which side is which.

    OMagain: But feel free to continue to discuss when or if god created light with absolutely no chance of a resolution or of convincing the other party.

    I have no idea what leads you to think there is no chance of resolution. For Christians resolution will for certain happen when we die and might happen before that.

    On the other hand if your side is right there is absolutely no absolutely no hope of resolution of most of the the questions discussed here ever.

    If Materialism is true all we can hope for is a life time of arguing about stuff followed buy nothingness.

    peace

  25. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    If relativity is wrong, or some aspects of,it why should anyone trust science?

  26. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: That is what the Taliban says.

    Your beliefs are never a subject of my interest.

    There is a huge difference between what you know and what you believe.

    Your refusal to acknowledge the possibility of self-deception is hardly a sign that you are on the side of reality based thinking.

    I would agree except I would say you are confused about the members of each group.

    No it does not escape me. What escapes you is the understanding of which side is which.

    I have no idea what leads you to think there is no chance of resolution. For Christiansresolution will for certain happen when we die and might happen before that.

    On the other hand if your side is right there is absolutely no absolutely no hope of resolution of most of the the questions discussed here ever.

    If Materialism is true all we can hope for is a life time of arguing about stuff followed buy nothingness.

    peace

    OMgains life is based do the evolution of sticks; with no intermediates to it… so, his is a believer of miraculous appearance of sticks or bones in the evolutionary narrative … A story like that has to be true…

  27. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    For those who think I’m trying to do better than Einstein, or whatever…
    Here are his words about the nature of “time”…
    I hope you listen up, because these words had a great influence on me…

    “The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.

    https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/albert_einstein_148814
    I would say it is an illusion if we think of time in Newtonian terms…

  28. Kantian Naturalist Kantian Naturalist
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain: Objectivity, therefore, you are that which you accuse others of being. One day you will remember all this and cringe so very very hard.

    Ha ha! That’s never going to happen!

  29. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: Your refusal to acknowledge the possibility of self-deception is hardly a sign that you are on the side of reality based thinking.

    Out of the two of us, there is only one who refuses to admit the possibility of error.

    Revelation.

  30. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: For those who think I’m trying to do better than Einstein, or whatever…

    You can rest assured on that matter that literally nobody was thinking that.

  31. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: OMgains life is based do the evolution of sticks; with no intermediates to it… so, his is a believer of miraculous appearance of sticks or bones in the evolutionary narrative … A story like that has to be true…

    Would you like some dressing to go along with that word salad?

  32. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: If relativity is wrong, or some aspects of,it why should anyone trust science?

    Said the guy typing on a computer that science built.

  33. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain: Out of the two of us, there is only one who refuses to admit the possibility of error.

    Revelation.

    When did I ever refuse to admit that I could be wrong???

    unlike you I have repeatedly laid out simple testable criteria for demonstrating that I’m wrong.

    Simply demonstrate that truth does not exist and you will have falsified my worldview.

    If there is no truth then by definition there is no god. It’s certainly possible that truth is an illusion and absurdity rules the day.

    All you have to do to falsify Christianity is demonstrate that this state of affairs is actually the case.

    simple isn’t it.

    Now it’s your turn.

    Admit that you could be wrong in your claim to not know that God exists.

    I will be waiting………………..

    peace

  34. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: When did I ever refuse to admit that I could be wrong???

    unlike you I have repeatedly laid out simple testable criteria for demonstrating that I’m wrong.

    Simply demonstrate that truth does not exist and you will have falsified my worldview.

    If there is no truth then by definition there is no god. It’s certainly possible that truth is an illusion and absurdity rules the day.

    All you have to do to falsify Christianity is demonstrate that this state of affairs is actually the case.

    simple isn’t it.

    Now it’s your turn.

    Admit that you could be wrong in your claim to not know that God exists.

    I will be waiting………………..

    peace

    All question-begging nonsense.

  35. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: All question-begging nonsense.

    You never tell me exactly what question I’m begging.

    It would certainly be helpful if you could trouble yourself to do that.

    peace

  36. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Hey walto,

    What did you think of that sci fi story?
    Interesting huh?

    peace

  37. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: You never tell me exactly what question I’m begging.

    It would certainly be helpful if you could trouble yourself to do that.

    peace

    I’ve actually told you countless times. You can’t simply assume that if there is truth there is God. It’s not only question-begging, it’s absolutely ridiculous.

  38. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: Now it’s your turn.

    No. To do that would be to enter into a discussion with you. For the reasons already given that’s just not going to happen. I’ll occasionally comment on the things you write. Don’t expect me to comment on the comments you write in response to those comments. You’ll be disappointed. That would be a discussion. For the reasons already given that’s just not going to happen. To do that would be to enter into a discussion with you. For the reasons already given that’s just not going to happen. I’ll occasionally comment on the things you write. Don’t expect me to comment on the comments you write in response to those comments. You’ll be disappointed. That would be a discussion. For the reasons already given that’s just not going to happen. To do that would be to enter into a discussion with you. For the reasons already given that’s just not going to happen. I’ll occasionally comment on the things you write. Don’t expect me to comment on the comments you write in response to those comments. You’ll be disappointed. That would be a discussion. For the reasons already given that’s just not going to happen.

    Revelation

  39. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain,

    Excellent

  40. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    “The researchers measured the spins of hundred of entangled particles in two University of Delft labs, located 1.3 km apart, and confirmed that the entangled correlations are still observed when there is not enough time for light to travel from the first lab to the second, which means that entanglement isn’t limited by the speed of light.

    Einstein argued against the “spooky action at a distance” between entangled particles, but experimental results seem to side with entanglement.”

    https://hacked.com/quantum-physicists-confirm-spooky-instant-correlations/

    Experimental loophole-free violation of a Bell inequality using entangled electron spins separated by 1.3 km

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05949

  41. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: You can’t simply assume that if there is truth there is God.

    My statement does not assume that at all.

    I’m not saying here “if there is truth there is God” I’m saying “if there is no truth then my worldview is falsified.”

    It’s not the same thing by a long shot.

    Again of course for me God is defined as truth. For starters this is because God is the most important thing to me.

    I would point out again Martin Luther’s Definition of God

    quote:
    Whatever man loves, that is his god. For he carries it in his heart; he goes about with it night and day; he sleeps and wakes with it, be it what it may – wealth or self, pleasure or renown.
    end quote:

    from here
    http://www.azquotes.com/quote/797852

    Now you could simply say Truth is not the most important thing to you so truth could exist and you still would not value it as god.

    But I’ve already granted that you don’t find God to be worthy of your upmost allegiance and worship so we are in agreement there.

    I would only point out that if you don’t think that truth is the most important thing then you will if you deem it necessary deny or ignore truth.

    That is exactly what I claim you are doing when you deny that you know God exists.

    peace

  42. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain: To do that would be to enter into a discussion with you. For the reasons already given that’s just not going to happen.

    So you refuse to even entertain that you are wrong because that would be enter into a conversation. got it.

    OMagain: Revelation

    I don’t think you quite grasp what I mean by revelation.

    It’s not some supernatural unquestionable means I use to cut off discussion. It’s simply the means by which we come to know things.

    How do I know that you wont admit that you could be wrong because you think that would be entering into a discussion with me?

    Simple, I know it by revelation
    you just now revealed it to me.

    Get it now?

    peace

  43. Kantian Naturalist Kantian Naturalist
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: I’ve actually told you countless times. You can’t simply assume that if there is truth there is God. It’s not only question-begging, it’s absolutely ridiculous.

    It’s utterly absurd, but it’s pointless trying to point that out to him.

  44. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Kantian Naturalist: It’s utterly absurd, but it’s pointless trying to point that out to him.

    If it’s pointless why do you insist on pointing it out?

    It’s completely irrelevant to the present discussion.

    Again for the purposes of my present statement I’m not assuming that if there is truth there is God.

    I’m merely declaring that if truth did not exist I would be wrong and asking for similar criteria that would demonstrate that you acknowledge that you could be wrong in your claims not to know God exists.

    If you grant that possibility it should easy to produce a similarly testable criteria.

    peace.

  45. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Kantian Naturalist: It’s utterly absurd, but it’s pointless trying to point that out to him.

    Instead of pointing it out, why not discuss the cool sci fi story and it’s relationship to the many worlds interpretation.

    That might be fun and not “pointless”.

    peace

  46. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: Experimental loophole-free violation of a Bell inequality using entangled electron spins separated by 1.3 km

    Did you have some kind of point?

  47. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: My statement does not assume that at all.

    Yeah, it actually does. I’m not going through this with you again, however. You refuse to learn and OMagain puts quite well the reasons why it’s both pointless and unpleasant to discuss anything with you. I thus leave you with your happy-making nonsense.

  48. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    Kantian Naturalist: It’s utterly absurd, but it’s pointless trying to point that out to him.

    So true. (Uh, I guess I mean so God or Godlike or something.)

  49. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: If it’s pointless why do you insist on pointing it out?

    It’s hard to resist. It’s like if you know someone who likes to step in mud puddles. You can’t help but try and stop them, but if they like it, they like it.

  50. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain: Did you have some kind of point?

    He’s trying to sound smart. I remember it was just a few months ago when he had no idea even about Einstein’s spooky action at a distance paper. Now he talks about it like he wrote it.

    The thing is, he really should take his new found ersatz wisdom beard someplace where people don’t know him. The self-stroking is kind of pointless here.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.