Re: Evolution is NOT random
- From: John Edser <edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:07:28 -0400 (EDT)
Virgil <Virgil@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:-
I understand that the unaided human eye, under suitable circumstances,
can detect a single quantum of light impinging on the retina.
That strikes me as being a quantum event perceived without the aid of
any machine.
JE:-
I don't think that the perception of one photon via the unaided human
eye (if true) would validly allow the claim that the human eye can
perceive unaided, one quantum event.
If the mind of that human perceives what his/her eye detected, which is
implied, most others would allow it, and justifiably so.
JE:-
IMO the detection of one photon by the human eye does not constitute the
detection of one quantum _event_. For example, that would require the
unaided human eye to be able to perceive one electron moving
simultaneously from one quantum level to another. While this may be
perceived as a change in the color of the light emitted, the claim that
the unaided human eye has actually perceived one QUANTUM CHANGE is not
correct. A single quantum change is proposed as instantaneous (they
require no time at all) which is way too fast and can only happen with
way too small entities for the human eye to be able to perceive them as
a bona fide change in matter. The proposition that nature moves
instantaneously between quantum levels constitutes a theory for a
particular pattern (a theory for making an observation) forcing us to
devise massive high energy machines which can even attempt to perceive
such a pattern in nature e.g. a cyclotron. No theory of a process as to
WHY exactly, i.e. what causes nature to move instantaneously between
quantum levels has been provided by anybody. Because physics remains
dominated by mathematicians who require no falsifiable frame of
reference to do their mathematics, the quantum theory for the
observation of matter has not been adequately distinguished from a
theory proposed as a process which can explain the quantum pattern in a
falsifiable way.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Evolution is NOT random
- From: Virgil
- Re: Evolution is NOT random
- Prev by Date: Re: Panspermia Catch 22
- Next by Date: Sympatric Speciation or Speciation without Changes in Genes
- Previous by thread: Re: Evolution is NOT random
- Next by thread: Re: Evolution is NOT random
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
