Strange

Have you been rewatching old episodes of Kung Fu?

Actually, it was a genuine apology for getting distracted by your poor examples. (Let's not mention that there wasn't anything else of significance to discuss and it wasn't clear what they were supposed to be examples of.) And I am involved in the discussion but not as a moderator. (We have rules about that sort of thing.) I haven't reported any posts in the thread and have not taken part in any discussions with the moderators about it.

That is what I am asking you to do, rather than pages of biography and other irrelevant waffle. Please remember to include the supporting evidence (behavioural, fMRI etc)

Interesting idea, but isn’t scientific peer review more like getting an engineer from a competitor to review your document? (I don’t think this contradicts your suggestion but it does add a twist)

Well, I did. But I couldn't see anything novel in there. There is no "theory" here. And I can't see anything new.

You keep referring to the double slit experiment but I am not sure what the relevance is. But it does suggest that you are confusing the concepts of "unobserved" and "unobservable". Also, the fact that observation removes the superposition ("collapses the wave function") does not mean that superposition is the same thing as being unobserved (or that the particle ceases to be described by a wavefunction). It's like saying that watching a movie lets you know the twist, but knowing the twist isn't the same as watching the movie. Good point. I see what you mean now. I don't know what you are trying to say. Are you ready to do this yet?

I gave you an example earlier. If it couldn't be measured, how would we know it existed? Here is another example: https://quantumsciencephilippines.com/seminar/seminar-topics/SchrodingerCatAtom.pdf But talking of math, when are you going to show us the equation you promised in your opening post?

Well, yes. Which is why I asked about that example. Does this answer mean that your understanding is that currently peer review is limited to the core subject of the paper and not statistical analysis (or whatever other expertise could usefully be applied)?

This is confused, I don't know where to start. This single particle is always described by a wave function. That wave function might be described by a superposition of states. But we can observe it anyway. So almost every part of your statement seems to be based on a profound misunderstanding. Surely, a single electron can be in a superposition of, say, spin up and spin down states? "For example, consider an electron with two possible configurations, up and down. This describes the physical system of a qubit. is the most general state. But these coefficients dictate probabilities for the system to be in either configuration. The probability for a specified configuration is given by the square of the absolute value of the coefficient." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition#Examples You are doing an excellent job discrediting yourself. You don't need any help with that.

Do papers like that only get sent to subject matter experts, or do they also get sent to people who do have expertise in statistical analysis? Because I assume both aspects are in need of peer review.

No. I am just asking you for a source that supports your definition of superposition. This is simply because it is not the usual definition (by a long way). We can put particles (and macroscopic objects) in a superposition of states then observe those objects. The idea that things suddenly become invisible because they are in a superposition is just ludicrous. I mean, Schrödinger's cat was invented as an example of how strange superposition is, but no one has ever claimed that the cat becomes invisible before. So, again: what is your source? If you made it up yourself, just say that. If you got it from somewhere then provide the source

We observe particles in the double slit experiment. Please provide a source for your definition.

Can you provide a reference to this definition?

I think studiot has a good point. Can you tell us what you think superposition means? (And why you think it can't be observed) It sounds as if this whole half-baked idea might be based on a profound misunderstanding.

We can see things in superposition. Why do you think we can't? It doesn't even have to be particles: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-microphone/

What is that you claim we can't see?

Can I assume this means you (a) have no evidence and (b) cannot show us the equation you claimed?

There is no danger of that happening. I hope one day you will learn a little basic science (and not feel too embarrassed about what you have posted here). The wave equation describes properties in three dimensional space.

If you are not going to provide any support for your claims, or this "equation" you claim to have then I will request this thread is closed. Can you provide any evidence? Can you show us your equation?

Objects in superposition do not "only exist as math". The clue is in the fact they are objects.

If it is so obvious, why can't you provide any evidence for it? Of course we can. Of course we can. No it doesn't. Perhaps because they don't exist. As you are just repeating the same baseless claims, without any support, perhaps this thread should be closed? When are you going to show us this equation?

OK. I will request this thread is closed then. You did know this a science forum? How do you know that? Have you heard of the finite speed of light? It is very unlikely that we would detect signals from an alien civilisation. Also, it doesn't matter if the universe is infinite or not. We can only ever receive signals from the observable universe. Which is finite and relatively small (compared to the whole universe). And yet we can observe the electromagnetic signals from galaxies in every part of the (observable) universe. So why would we not see signals from these hypothetical civilisations. That is the trouble when you just make stuff up without a model: you end with incoherent nonsense. No. If you are too lazy to write it down, then it isn't worth paying any attention to. There IS evidence. And it contradicts the hypothesis.

Depends which one you ask!

Exactly. The Turing test was suggested as a solution to this, but it seems to be insufficient. Just realised that there are 10 pages of this thread, most of which I have not read. I don't want to rehash old arguments (I'm sure others are quite capable of doing that!) so maybe I should drop out again now ... An AI that demands to see a priest before you turn it off might be a good indication!

Again, this is the problem with just looking words up in dictionaries. "Religious faith" and "religious delusion" are not synonyms. The first is the subject of this thread. The second might be what some people think of religion (and hence is off topic). Stop trying to derail the thread with your misrepresentation of the meanings of the words being used in this context.