Is the double slit experiment proof of original sin?
- Thread starter pittsburghjoe
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Have you ever heard of the Mandela Effect. Coined after Nelson Mandela the first black president of South Africa. Many people claim they remember Mandela dying in prison. The Mandela Effect describes different memories of events. I believe God can change the past and the Mandela Effect is memories of parallel universes that existed before God made the inception.
Our perception is decay but that can change with Gods intervention.
Our perception is decay but that can change with Gods intervention.
https://phys.org/news/2021-01-earth-faster.html
In Mark 13:20, the Lord Jesus says, “And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect’s sake, whom He hath chosen, He hath shortened the days.”
In Mark 13:20, the Lord Jesus says, “And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect’s sake, whom He hath chosen, He hath shortened the days.”
Another nonsense contradiction from you... since you said sin is only possible in physical
reality, whereas those who first sinned, in your view, were not physical at all. Ho hum.
Making plain your ridiculous vain philosophy, lesson number four thousand, three hundred and seventy two
reality, whereas those who first sinned, in your view, were not physical at all. Ho hum.
Making plain your ridiculous vain philosophy, lesson number four thousand, three hundred and seventy two
-
1
- Show all
@posthuman has shown that you do not understand it... nor many of the terms you use.
I have also pointed out multiple inconsistencies and outright contradictions in what you put forth.
It does not take a rocket scientist to see these things, although apparently they all go over your head
That, or you simply lack the honesty required to admit when you are wrong. Perhaps it is both
I have also pointed out multiple inconsistencies and outright contradictions in what you put forth.
It does not take a rocket scientist to see these things, although apparently they all go over your head
That, or you simply lack the honesty required to admit when you are wrong. Perhaps it is both
You are just trying to bait me into saying something rude. I do need to apologize for not using layman's terms. I posted these new ideas as I had them. I've been looking to Quantum Physics for years and need to consider others haven't. Decoherence is extremely difficult to explain. It is used in quantum computers all the time. The simplest definition is if something is real to us in the fallen reality then it is decoherent, wave collapsed, and local.
no it's not. you don't have to make it incoherent.
two things are 'decoherent' if they have variable phase difference.
to be coherent a couplet doesn't even have to be "in-phase" it only has to have an invariant phase difference.
these are terms which are dependent on existence over time intervals. they don't have meaning in instantaneous measure; by definition in any 'instant' of time all things are perfectly coherent because the differential over a time interval of length 0 is always 0.
two things are 'decoherent' if they have variable phase difference.
to be coherent a couplet doesn't even have to be "in-phase" it only has to have an invariant phase difference.
these are terms which are dependent on existence over time intervals. they don't have meaning in instantaneous measure; by definition in any 'instant' of time all things are perfectly coherent because the differential over a time interval of length 0 is always 0.
-
1
- Show all
that's absolutely false.
Bose-Einstein condensates are observed ((= 'wave collapsed')), physical, and coherent.
your lies are coherent -- because they are at all times out of phase with the truth by the same amount.
coherence is invariant phase difference. that doesn't mean "in phase" it means the phase of the two waves have the same offset, whether that offset is zero or non-zero. ((and per de Broglie both uncollapsed & collapsed states of matter, all matter, is wave-like -- so coherence & decoherence both are applicable to particle-like and wave-like phenomena))
Bose-Einstein condensates are observed ((= 'wave collapsed')), physical, and coherent.
your lies are coherent -- because they are at all times out of phase with the truth by the same amount.
coherence is invariant phase difference. that doesn't mean "in phase" it means the phase of the two waves have the same offset, whether that offset is zero or non-zero. ((and per de Broglie both uncollapsed & collapsed states of matter, all matter, is wave-like -- so coherence & decoherence both are applicable to particle-like and wave-like phenomena))
-
1
- Show all
dude the more you talk the more obvious it is you have no idea what you are talking about.
definition from Brittanica:
definition from Brittanica:
Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC):
A state of matter in which separate atoms or subatomic particles, cooled to near absolute zero (0 K, − 273.15 °C, or − 459.67 °F; K = kelvin), coalesce into a single quantum mechanical entity—that is, one that can be described by a wave function—on a near-macroscopic scale.
A state of matter in which separate atoms or subatomic particles, cooled to near absolute zero (0 K, − 273.15 °C, or − 459.67 °F; K = kelvin), coalesce into a single quantum mechanical entity—that is, one that can be described by a wave function—on a near-macroscopic scale.
-
1
- Show all
you have no clue what you are saying. waves collapse by observation
God saw all that He had made, Genesis 1:31
the transition from probability-state to actuality is representative of the giving of existence by the omniscient Creator, from whose sight nothing is hidden, and the dualistic nature of all things created is representative of the physical/spiritual dual nature of the living souls He created.
it is not sinful to exist. it is the gift of God, who Himself was born as one of us, in order to redeem us from evil, not from existence.
God saw all that He had made, Genesis 1:31
the transition from probability-state to actuality is representative of the giving of existence by the omniscient Creator, from whose sight nothing is hidden, and the dualistic nature of all things created is representative of the physical/spiritual dual nature of the living souls He created.
it is not sinful to exist. it is the gift of God, who Himself was born as one of us, in order to redeem us from evil, not from existence.
-
1
- Show all