Wormwood

In response to number 2, wouldn't that mean that consciousness DOES effect particle behavior in that it makes it behave in a way that is consistent with what we would expect? Also, how can a single photon travel through two slits?! I have read this before but it is hard to imagine. Even though I can accept that the photon travels as a wave of probable positions, it can only physically exist in one place at a time (discounting bi location in a vaccuum of course).

Thanks Two follow up questions: Does the fact that the particles have to interact with another kind of particle suggest that all particles developed with a pre-existing interdependant relationship? Why does measurment effect the outcome of the double slit experiment? Is this a related phenomenon suggesting that consciousness specifically, has some effect on particle behavior?

It sounds like some of you are suggesting that he could have been right in some respect....? Also, wouldn't the only things capable of making "observations" be beings with consciousness, and instruments for measurement?

I think this should be changed as well to stop this ridiculous abuse of the law. One of your parents should have to be a legal citizen before that should apply. Also, I think people should have to be 2nd or 3rd generation American before they are able to recieve public aid. This would end the anchor baby epidemic over night.

I don't blame you for being like that; in this political landscape that is the only behavior that is rewarded, but it isn't how things should be. Just consider this, if everyone were only out for themselves, we wouldn't even have civil rights. Civil rights/equal rights after all, was a molding of the views of society. Homogeneity (to some degree, not total) is not only a comfort issue, but it is far more conducive to a population that can organize and resist things like fascism, communism, controlism. If we are already divided, then we are already defeated. It's complicated. The Mexicans are the decendants of native inhabitants and the spanish. So one one hand we are condemned for taking America as a whole, but on the other hand we are especially hated for taking Texas and California. But what's appropriate at this point? We could make them work off their debt...that sounds fair. It isn't solely that they are illegal; that is to say, it isn't only the act of breaking that one law that is the problem. It is the fact that so many people come here illegally. This floods the market and the demand for laborers goes down. If you know anything about supply and demand, you know what that does to any market. If the Mexicans did things the correct way, we wouldn't have to lose the progress that early American Union organizers fought and died for. This is one of the things I was talking about with the whole divided loyalties comment. They don't care that they drive the wages WAY down (half in many cases) because many of them live 3-4 families per house until affordable housing kicks in and gives them a house because they make so little (because they drove the market wages down). Illegals are prefered because not only will they take way less than any American (because Americans have a different standard of living) but because the employers don't pay taxes or in many cases insurance for these guys. So they get by only paying social security and the illegals pay only SS and sales tax. Which means while most of us pay at least 34% of every dollar in taxes (including sales tax) illegals pay only 13.2% of their already diminished wages. It won't. That's why we shouldn't suddenly make 15 million people from another country citizens. We should allow reasonable amounts that DON'T put a strain on our society. The illegals that are here should be entered into the system, given work visas, then immediately have them revoked for breaking the law. They can either stay and work off the debt we acrued dealing with this immigration problem, or they can self deport. No more money back to Mexico, or sidestepping the legal system due to being an illegal alien. We need harsh and swift action to show the world we will not sit back and be taken advantage of. Nah, you had some good questions in there. I am concentrating on illegals. If they came here legally there would be about 14 million less of them, and these problems with disease and sidestepping the law would be a non-issue. For example: if you get into a car accident with an illegal, what do you think happens to him? Who pays for your car? Apples and oranges. Breathing is a little different than taking advantage of people. Also, it is unsettling to know that there are over a million people within an hours drive that have shown beyond a doubt that they will break the law or do what it takes to make their own lives better no matter the consequences for anyone else. Maybe this is the kind of community you want to live in, but it isn't what I want at all. Both are the same. Legal immigration IS a controled inflow and one that weeds out disease, language barriers, and poor people looking for a handout to a large degree. .You raise some interesting points as well. I have not fully decided what I think should be done about the problem that we already have, but amnesty isn't it.

Let's get him on that then. So? That doesn't make it a race issue. Social stability. If 1/4 speaks a different language then everyone else or has a different culture and allegence, this causes friction and a division of goals as a society. Instead of how do we improve life in our society, people ask, how can I improve life for my group in this society. To me their motives are better concealed, but their goals are just as selfish as the colonists. In Cali I have to listen to groups of demonstrators talk about how America stole Texas and California and how they are going to take it back for Mexico...then these angry teens return to their parents house that I paid for. Fantastic. I'm not sure how I feel about a massive sweep, but I certainly feel they should be punished. http://ctcic.net/ctcicnewsletterspring07.pdf This is only a fraction of the damage they have done to American wages. It is a myth that they work for less than minimum wage. If you think you have something that proves that let's see it. I live around plenty of illegals and they are doing fine (most better than me thanks to "affordable housing"). Well your position does make more sense in that light. I still disagree, but I see where you are coming from. It isn't just about pushing paper or learning "some language", it is also about basic respect. If your FIRST action in this country is to break our laws to serve your own interests, I say we don't need you. Do you think they care that we eat all of these billions of dollars in expenses associated with their unanounced visit? Also, as I have said, they spread diseases that used to be under control in this country. Do they care that they are making innocent Americans sick? All they seem to care about is their own financial situation and they have shown that they are willing to break the rules to get ahead. We used to call people like that criminals, and I think we are better off without them. That is not at all what I am suggesting. What I am suggesting is that if everyone had done everything the legal way, we would have about 14 million less Mexicans and those costs would disappear. I was not suggesting to make them all legal, or that there should be that many legal immigrants from ANY one area over such a short period of time.

So does that include other electrons? Also, what about the differences between the collapsed and non-collapsed wave functions on something like the double slit experiment where the outcome was influenced by measuring the phenomenon? Is that unrelated?

An interaction between what?

You take it down; I live on the other coast! I said SOCIAL not racial. You know little things like language and culture. Nice try though. That's the ONLY problem eh? Keep this in mind for my last response in this post. Two things: First your position seems to be little more than Two wrongs DO make a right. Second, since you bring it up, look what happened to the first inhabitants of this land that had a passive stance on immigration. Didn't work out so great for them... They make above minimum wage in most cases which is more than I can say for many lower class american citizens. Also they are pillaging when one considers that 20% of Mexico's GNP is American currency sent across the boarder. You are attempting to put a band aid soultion on a much larger problem. That is the most insane reasoning I have ever heard. We should make our society worse for people that are already poor here, because poor people in Mexico have no respect for our laws or society and they are willing to leech off of it. Why not just stop the people causing the problem? I have no problem with the state offering assistance to workers who are laid off due to outsourcing, or old people that have trouble making ends meet. I just don't feel like supporting the impovershed citizens of another country who could care less about me or my society. This is a strawman. 2$ an hour is the average wage in Mexico...they do not come here for $2 an hour. It is usually $9 an hour and up for the type of labor they perform. Again, this sounds insane. You are saying that there is no difference in countries or cultures. If there were no difference, then we wouldn't be having this discussion because everyone would stay where they were. The American way of life is better, and it got that way because of our culture. If you think this makes me snobby or elitist that fine, but the fact still remains. Also, the increase of communicable diseases associated with illegal aliens alone is enough to warrant stern and immediate action. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43275 This is BS. You give a free pass to one group of impovershed people that break the law to have a better life, but then condemn another. The pimps weren't hurting you, they just wanted a better life after all. So what if they had to break a few unjust laws; they were just providing for their family. Hell, why send anyone to jail ever or hold anyone accountable for their own actions? I'm sure they all just want a better life on some level or another. So you really want to compare forgetting to use a turn signal, to this: http://www.house.gov/garymiller/IllegalsCost2005.html Seriously? I am guessing that you are not a California resident

Hi Everyone I feel like I need to put a disclaimer before my actual question. I am not a physicist; I just have interest in the subject. I am not specifically religious; that is to say that I am a deist for most intents and purposes. There is no agenda in my question beyond the question itself. Now that I got that out of the way: It is my understanding that wave functions need consciousness or an observer to collapse. I recently heard someone say that since consciousness or an observer are required, that the universe as we know it could not exist without some greater consciousness that collapsed the wave functions, or that the universe did not exist in a definite state until consciousness came into being (?). I think that was the gist of it. To me this sounded interesting, and as if it might support my position of deism, but I am curious how much merit something like this has scientifically. Is it a possible correct interpretation of the data, or was this person just misunderstanding something or making it up? Again, I am not asking if you agree with deism, or even with the person I am asking about; just if what he said was possibly a correct interpretation of the data that exists. Thanks in advance for any answers.

We have had restricted access for over 100 years; more than half of the life of this country. The reason is, because contrary to the little phrase on the statue of liberty (which was a gift BTW), we do NOT want tired poor huddled masses yearning to be free. We want people that will contribute to society, and we want them in proportions that allow us to maintain some form of social homogeneity. The last thing we need is another special interest group. Because a majority of Americans see illegal immigration as a problem, and no one wants to take the unpopular position of giving hand outs to the cause of these problems. Why not turn the question around...why do you want to see them legal? Should they be rewarded for breaking our laws? An appeal to emotion perhaps? They do, but in their own country. They don't DESERVE anything here. If they continue to export their problems to America, then how will the situation be better in 10 years? Why not just annex Mexico now and save ourselves the time? Why? Would you say the same about any other criminal? 15 million pimps put in jail on my watch...I am so ashamed. Basically your contention is that we as a society made laws, but they shouldn't have to follow our laws or respect our society because they are poor and we should feel sorry for them. I should happily pay taxes so that citizens of another country can have free public services that I am not even entitled to. I should smile when paying higher car or medical insurance, because the poor Mexicans will not fix their own broken way of life. Not to sound callous, but why should I care? Seems like the EXACT same thing was said in the 80's and look how well that worked out. Letting Mexicans come here illegally isn't fixing the problem that causes their need in the first place. Give these 15 million amnesty, and just like last time that will send the clear message that following the law does nothing, but breaking the law is rewarded. And just like last time it will encourage MORE people to do the same thing.

Ok thanks a lot

Ah ok, I just wanted to clarify because you said "military" action. I realize that the soldiers also perform strictly non combat relief as well. Good points. Every free nation in the world, got that way because it's own people demanded to be free. It should be obvious from the insurgency that if the people of the middle east wanted to remove or resist a leader, they could do it on their own. We aren't spreading democracy, we are expanding american boarders for financial interests. You do raise a good point, but you can't have it both ways. Pre-emptively attacking anyone that can stand up to us will cause imperialism to follow. We waited until we were attacked, just as we should have, and everything turned out ok in the end.

This is a bit off topic, and may be the substance of another thread, I'm not sure how involved the answer is. My question is: Can magnets ever be arranged so that the repelling force could be used to create perpetual motion? Like if there was a magnet attached to a center lever and magnets attached to the outer frame to push the magnet in the middle causing the lever to turn? I'm sure that people have attempted similar things, but I just wanted to know why it can't work. Thanks.

Let me open by saying I hope this isn't your last post Mike; I was genuinely interested in hearing your side and discussing the differences in opinion. Fair enough; recognizing that there is a problem is certainly the first step. But is there really a problem? If black people only make up 15-30% of a given state, and that state still elects a black representative, I would say that is pretty good representation. In fact if you look at the total % of the population that black people have made up over the years, I would say your representation has been excellent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_in_the_United_States_Congress Ok, it just seemed like because you were making a contrast between the two groups, and you said that you were treated differently for being black, that you were suggesting that white people never deal with that. Sorry I misunderstood you. Profiling is just noticing patterns and dividing your attention accordingly. I agree that no one should be hassled with unjust traffic stops, but if there are people hanging around an area or already stopped somewhere in public, i don't think they should be ignored for the sake of being PC. Also, profiling doesn't mean racism. Teenage males are profiled. If there are a bunch of thugish looking teens outside of my house, I want the police to watch them, give them a hard time, or do what it takes to drive them away from my home or business no matter what race they are and not because they have done something wrong, but because I know that they might, and teenage boys are prone to destruction and trouble. When I was profiled, it was because most young white kids in that neighborhood were there to buy drugs. It was reasonable even if it wasn't all that fair. What you say does make sense on some level. It is part of the reason that I am so against illegal immigration; it's called a culture of poverty. It is self perpetuating and causes all sorts of deviant behavior. 9/10 people from a culture of poverty will always be poor. If you give them each $10,000 within a few months 9 of those people will still be poor while the 10th will have used the temporary advantage to get ahead. I know that there is truth to this phenomenon, but it is ultimately something that can't be undone from the outside. IMO the black community needs something like the black state of the union address but with more scholarly and less cartoonish people to start a process of education. I am normally against any organization that has a racial designation in the title, but I also grew up in what is essentially a large ghetto, and I know that many poor black people simply wouldn't believe or even tune in if this re-education were done for every race, or more specifically by white people. I don't say this to be racist at all; this is simply from my observations growing up with and around tens of thousands of poor black people. Just to counter this; consider the Japanese Americans during WWII. They were locked up into camps and called racial slurs etc. When they were released, they flourished within a generation. There was no long recovery process, they simply picked up and rejoined society with great success. Just something to consider. They raised children sure, but many of the children of that era were for civil rights and TV has been brainwashing mainstream american culture with PC for years. I think the number of intentional racists is much lower than the way you make it sound. I might be wrong, but I have not personally encountered that many people that just hate other races. I have definitely met people that have strange ideas about other races, but that is usually from too little exposure and ideas from television; I wouldn't consider it hate or even mean. . You are right. As I said above, no one should be stopped in traffic for no reason. Also, I didn't mean to imply that every black person is a crime waiting to happen, as I said, I couldn't think of a more polite way to say what I was trying to express. It isn't racism because the Mexicans are doing it to themselves; it has nothing to do with race. Like I said, if it were ANY group of people willing to work for $4-5 an hour with no insurance, they would be raped by big business. Mexico just happens to be the poorest country we boarder and they are willingly coming here to be taken advantage of. I don't see a racial connection. True, but sometimes it does. It does for everyone. I may be off here, but it seems to me that many black people actively seperate themselves from mainstream culture, then get upset when they are not included. I am talking about things like de facto segragation and "african"-american. These are active steps to be seperate from a culture that they feel hostility for, but they don't realize that the manifestations of this hostility cause the seperation that they desired, but in a way they don't like. Does that sound like a fair generalization? Right on, me to. I was just being a smart*ss, but I was also pointing out that people have taken further steps to try to make things better to the point of being racist to the majority. People do care and make efforts, but if all that is ever said is how unfair and terrible everything is for one group or another, then the desire to try fades and is replaced with resentment. One final thought; you think being black is a limitation, but at least you can say and think what you really feel and be proud of your race. When Ray Nagan said he wanted a chocolate New Orleans, he wasn't forced to resign, or apologize to david duke or anything. If that had been a white mayor saying he wanted to rebuild his town "white" or something to that effect, there would be a media circus and he would be forced to quit his job and even other white people would curse him on the streets. Do you know how many black specific scholarships there are? A lot. Do you know how many white specific scholarships there are? None because that would be illegal. How many groups are for black rights/special interests? How many groups exist like that for white people? What would everyone assume if I started a group about "white pride"? Just something to consider. Again I hope this wasn't your last post Mike, I am not try to be rude or patronizing with what I say. I just want to know your perspective on some of these issues.

Hi Imp First, your explaination for the genesis of cancer is incomplete. When some cells divide, there is an abnormality that causes a lack of differentiation in cells after division. This is what causes the defective cancer cells, and the rapid multiplication. Normally, cells start out as spore cells, or stem cells, then they become differentiated to become specific cells (like skin cells, muscle cells, pancreas cells, etc) But when someone gets cancer, their cells lose differentiation due to genetic damage and the mechanisms that regulate normal cells are disabled. That is why cancer replicates really fast and why most cancer cells are immortal. Yes the body has mechnisms that detect and destroy damaged cells usually. As we get older, or our systemic health is compromised, the number of mutations outnumbers the capacity of the body to destroy them and cancer develops. Usually cancer is from one cell or region and then it spread to other regions through the bloodstream. This is why you could have pancreatic cancer in your leg. I hope this helps.

People have discriminated against me for being white. I grew up in Mississippi in a town that was 70% black, so I was a minority most of my life and people are very open about their racism. As a teenager I was called "white boy" (and worse) more than my actual name. I got the strange looks, the distrust, the weird assumptions about what "my people" are like, all of that. It's not that everyone is oblivious to your plight, it's that people don't understand why that is a reason to fail to so many, or why it is so much more dramatic when it happens to black people. It's irritating to be called names or whatever, but I hardly see that as an excuse to freak out or start trying to fight people or having any reaction other than just mild annoyance. I've been pulled over for no reason. I've been pulled over for driving in a "black neighborhood" to visit one of my high school friends. This is nothing race specific to black people. Besides, black people can become cops so I hardly see how police behavior can be seen as a white thing or an against black people issue. This is more of a profiling issue. You say in one paragraph that you never blame anyone for your problems, then in the next paragraph you go on about how slavery started a chain that is responsible for black people's problems. Which is it? BTW, most of the slaves used in the US were already slaves when the Europeans acquired them, so how would their life have been any better or easier if they had been slaves somewhere else? My Irish ancestors were discriminated against and hated, but they came anyway and tried to assimilate. I am glad they did. They suffered so that I could be in what is now one of the greatest countries in the world. Am I mad about what was done to my ancestors? No, because I wasn't there and couldn’t care less. I could pretend to be all sentimental for the sake of other people, but in reality the only things I care about with passion are things that affect me either directly or indirectly. The net result of my ancestors mistreatment is that I live in the US instead of Ireland, so I can't say that I am truly that upset. I can sympathize because they were mistreated, but I could not act like it is something that still detrimentally shapes me to this day (and if I did, the net gain outweighs the detriment so I can't complain about the past, only make a better future). Think about this: Most of those people that were rioting in the streets against civil rights, are like 80 now so no one even cares about their opinion anymore. I will agree that some people do keep their racism subtle, but I also think that anyone under 45-50 isn't even old enough to remember pre civil rights, and most of those people aren't nearly as racist as you depict. If the cops give you and your friends extra attention it is probably because: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm That is 1/3!!! If it is you and two friends, statistically one of you will break the law at some point.I don't mean this to put you down or anything, just that it is what it is. Sort of like when you say: I would rather the police watch ANYONE that is statistically likely to commit crime, rather than be PC and watch people that are statistically unlikely to commit crime. Am I wrong for this? The fact that employers (which does not equate to white BTW) take advantage of immigrants is the sole reason that the immigrants are allowed to bypass the immigration laws, so no that is not surprising. If Canadians were pooring over the border to work for $4-5 an hour, businesses would take advantage of them as well. No race in this equation. . Should it help you? Is there any culture in the world where being in the minority is advantageous? Like affirmative action racism, or bad racism?

If I quote Mein Kampf as a source, can I use it to prove how evil the Jews are? All I mean is that the quality of what is being cited also has to be called into question. Fair enough, but it seems that it would be a lot more sensationalistic to paint the ID proponents as the complete idiots people think they are. I'm not sure how "carefully placed" they were considering that they were probably written by two different people, but even so, we have agreed that this source is biased, so there is no need to argue the specifics. You are probably right on this specific instance and let's just leave it at that. This is true. Well I tried to use the general definition and people started commenting on how it was an idea of the discovery institute (even though the idea appeared in ancient Rome), so I suggested using the discovery institute's (worst case scenario) to appease everyone else. In any incarnation I can find, I don't see anything about the specific issues that the anti-intelligent design people are so mad about. It has basically boiled down to a lack of published papers, which is a type of fallacy. That's like saying gravity didn't exist before there were equations made about it. Also those people might find this interesting: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177 http://my.opera.com/Bantay/blog/two-recent-peer-reviewed-papers-that-sup http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/07/john_derbyshires_new_bumper_st_1.html Apperantly, some people get all of their information from the highly biased "Talk Origins" atheist website. Ok, thanks. My sarcasm was because I couldn't find the specific point of your reference. Not at all. This is pretty much what I have been saying. That natural selection was guided or random could just be the way things appear, but certainly worth investigation and thought. Yes, because you said the key word "agenda". The theory itself is definitely worth mention and investigation in my opinion, but the ideas that are attached to it, or the ideas it was meant to mask are what cause the problems. Certainly it was indignant theist that wanted this theory endorsed for obvious self serving reasons, but I also think that many atheistic scientists oppose it for the same type of self serving reasons rather than what merit it may or may not contain. The fact that ID makes it possible for a church to teach creationism and still be consistent with current scientific theory (to some degree) is what pisses people off IMO. In other words, I don't think it is the theory itself as much as it's what the theory opens the door for in a pseudoscientific way. Science says, the universe was designed...see Johnny, Jesus wants you to hide Easter eggs. It's not just you. A lot of people do that, and today's schools, especially at the college level, are full of atheist instructors who put their own opinions into their work. This is fine, except we are teaching an assumption and a personal life choice as a fact. Don't get me wrong, I don't think "God did it" is a very good excuse for anything, and I certainly don't see that as a reason to stop searching for the mechanisms involved. And you are correct that the whole topic really has no place in science class, so perhaps a better method would be to refine what we teach about the randomness in nature? This would prevent the issue of atheist or the theist getting to express their religious view through teaching.

Obviously not since I learned about the primordial ooze in high school. Where do you draw the line? Who decides?

Obviously you haven't been using the internet very long jk Moreso than the average guy on the street? You bet. One group has professionals that edit, fact check etc, and the other group is anyone with an internet connection. Your willingness to believe the latter seems to reflect your desire to use that definition. If you want to use the wiki definition, go for it. I just never accept wiki as a primary source for myself. If I can't verify the info somewhere else that at least tries to appear unbiased, I have to assume that it is false. Conspiracy fan eh? If anything, the "liberal media" would take the most critical view of ID since it is akin to social lepracy from our "enlightened" social view. HAHA nice. I like the technical wins. We both know that the wiki article was written with an obvious bias. If you still want to use it, that's fine but I think it is going to slow the conversation even more. Since everyone agrees that the discovery institue is the main proponent of ID, why not just use what the discovery institute says ID is? What is this case supposed to mean? All I saw was this: A month later, the School District issued a press release announcing that teachers at Dover High School would be required to read an intelligent design statement in ninth grade biology class http://www.law.georgetown.edu/news/releases/documents/trowel_note_FINAL-1.pdf Wow a whole statement in 9th grade? That might take up 5-10 minutes...I can see why people are so upset. I think there is a middle ground here that you missed, which is that God designed the universe, and did so in a way that was pre-destined to produce human beings. So there is no active participation, but there is no randomness involved in the natural selection either. That's just it, at this point it is little more than a few sentences. All that is being taught is that the universe might not be random. That human life may indeed have a puropose other than just being the product of dumb luck. This is why people hear so many different versions of this idea; because it basically just opens the door for any other religious beliefs to be attached, but they are not implied. If scientists concede that maybe everything isn't random, then there is a place for these people's religion to co-exist with science (in a very general sense). Well, I think the issue is that you may want to teach your kid about your religion, then he goes to school and his teacher tells him that your religion is impossible, and ignorant, and disputed by an incomplete scientific theory. Some people get upset about this undermining by what they consider to be an overly liberal, and atheistic institution.

That is not creationism in disguise. It is an alternative to the idea that everything occurs randomly which is the predominant view in science classes. As far as I know, the supporters of ID want it taught WITH evolution, and not instead of. Can you really say for certain that anything leading to the development of our species was ever truly random? We don't know if it was guided or not, hence it would be reasonable to teach an alternative to the set standard of randomization. Looking at something like abiogenesis, or endosymbiosis develpoments, the anthropic principle, etc the random explaination seems really weak.

Could you be a little more obscure please? And don't bother to back up what you are saying, I'll just take your word for it.

Also, I noticed most of the problem revolves around the evil discovery institues view on this subject, so I went to their site to see what they say about it. This is what I found: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=4054&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20News&callingPage=discoMainPage No creationism, no mention of the God of Abraham, no wacky religious rehtoric. I think you guys are the ones misunderstanding something here. If I am making an error in logic, please point it out.