Can retrocausality solve action-at-a-distance? + Consciousness is made of atoms, too

[Magical Realist]

Those two "reasons" are not experimentally justified, and they admit as much. Apparently they're at least more intellectually honest than you are. Did YOU even read the parts I put in bold for you? Do YOU even understand what experimentally distinguishable means? It really does not seem that you do.

It's easier to do science by remaining skeptical. The truly ignorant rush to drool over the next new shiny, without pausing to evaluate where an experimentally equivalent interpretation will have any real impact on what we can accomplish. Apparently, you're not up to the task...so you feel you must lash out at those who are. And I have zero doubt that you will now continue to heap thinly veiled ad hominems in order to avoid any embarrassing attempts to support your silly claim that this is experimentally verified.

Yeah...just keep generalizing while ignoring all the research in this field. You're looking more and more like an "expert" with every post. What else will we learn about retrocausality from you? Gee, I can hardly wait! lol!

[Syne]

Thanks for being so very predictable, MR. Even when I called it, you still can't help but do exactly as I said you would.

Still waiting for anything experimentally distinguishable in favor of retrocausality. Poor MR doesn't know what that means, so for his benefit...experimental results that could be understood under any other interpretation of QM cannot be said to be evidence for one specific interpretation.

Or just ask yourself this. Where is all the fanfare from scientists? If we've really narrowed QM to a single interpretation and found a way to unify QM and GR, why aren't they all as excited as you seem to be, MR? This would be the single greatest scientific achievement in my lifetime. Oh, that's right, you're the guy who believes in fairies, right?

[Magical Realist]

Oh, that's right, you're the guy who believes in fairies, right?

Hey, you're the local panentheist here. What kinds of phenomena are possible in THAT sort of reality? And where's all the scientific fanfare for THAT?

Hey CC! It's Jack Sarfatti!

http://www.academia.edu/12847939/Austral...ocausality

Confidentially, I don't know for sure what's out there. But I'd lay money on it being far stranger and more surprising than I can presently imagine. That's the nature of reality. It transcends us, even in the smallest of things.

[C C]

Hey CC! It's Jack Scarfatti!

http://www.academia.edu/12847939/Austral...ocausality

Hard to believe that Sarfatti is still alive, but apparently he's only age 77. Back in the days when Usenet still mattered and he was posting all over it, one somehow got the impression that his career even pre-dated the Beatnik era.

Fundamental Fysiks Group
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamen...siks_Group

What Physics Owes The Counterculture
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/boo...aiser.html

Hippie days: How a handful of countercultural scientists changed the course of physics in the 1970s
http://m.phys.org/news/2011-06-hippie-da...ysics.html

How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival [Book Excerpt]
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...l-excerpt/

While the "physics porn" of the Fundamental Fysiks Group contributed to keeping items like Bell’s Theorem alive, there was the downside of their predilections making them vulnerable to tricksters like Uri Geller. Sarfatti actually only retracted his view of Geller after being "under intense pressure from Phil Morrison and James Randi". Geller seems to form such tight friendship bonds with those that he gets a good chance to associate with that it can compromise what they're willing to declare or withdraw in public.

[Syne]

Oh, that's right, you're the guy who believes in fairies, right?

Hey, you're the local panentheist here. What kinds of phenomena are possible in THAT sort of reality?

Not much, considering panentheism really only accounts for the emergent properties and behaviors that we observe that cannot be explained as a direct consequence of constituent parts.

And where's all the scientific fanfare for THAT?

It's not a scientific theory. But thanks again for so clearly illustrating your intellectual dishonesty. It's always nice to know I can count on you.

[Magical Realist]

Not much, considering panentheism really only accounts for the emergent properties and behaviors that we observe that cannot be explained as a direct consequence of constituent parts.

Sounds like yet another God of the Gaps theory. Explaining mysteries with yet another mystery. Unless ofcourse you have an explanation for the existence of your deity.. Do you?

It's not a scientific theory. But thanks again for so clearly illustrating your intellectual dishonesty. It's always nice to know I can count on you.

Right...so your model of reality isn't scientific. Thanks for admitting that. You should probably be the last person preaching the gospel of scientific consensus then..

[Syne]

Not much, considering panentheism really only accounts for the emergent properties and behaviors that we observe that cannot be explained as a direct consequence of constituent parts.

Sounds like yet another God of the Gaps theory.  Explaining mysteries with yet another mystery.

It's not a "theory", it's a belief. Just like the Science of the Gaps belief, where some people assume science will ultimately explain all. I'm just more pragmatic about science, knowing that it defines the limitations of what its own methods can explain. You cannot say some unknown, future science is any less mysterious to us as any other mystery. You simply believe what comforts or makes sense to you.

Unless ofcourse you have an explanation for the existence of your deity.. Do you?

Panentheism, only assumes that god is to the universe as your subjective experience of your own being is to your own body (science cannot explain your subjective experience). But since it assumes this god to permeate all, it is just an amalgam of all such subjective experience of being. There is no single and personified deity as such.

It's not a scientific theory. But thanks again for so clearly illustrating your intellectual dishonesty. It's always nice to know I can count on you.

Right...so your model of reality isn't scientific. Thanks for admitting that.

Who said panentheism is any kind of model of reality? Look it up...it's a belief.

But hey, great job distracting from your complete inability to support your own assertion. We can see you're too afraid to try, and we do sympathize.

[Magical Realist]

Panentheism, only assumes that god is to the universe as your subjective experience of your own being is to your own body (science cannot explain your subjective experience). But since it assumes this god to permeate all, it is just an amalgam of all such subjective experience of being. There is no single and personified deity as such.

Your god then is a big gooey amalgam of subjectivity with no distinct properties in itself. lol! Makes perfect sense. Why do you call it a god then?

Who said panentheism is any kind of model of reality? Look it up...it's a belief.

Oh ok..an unscientific "belief". Like that makes it so much better now. lol!

We can see you're too afraid to try, and we do sympathize.

Whose this "we" suddenly? Your subjective feelings AND your god?

[Syne]

Just keep flailing about, waving your arms wildly to distract from the topic of this thread. Too bad you weren't up to the task of an adult conversation about science.

You couldn't even be adult long enough to answer the simplest of questions. Pity.

[Magical Realist]

Just keep flailing about, waving your arms wildly to distract from the topic of this thread. Too bad you weren't up to the task of an adult conversation about science.

You couldn't even be adult long enough to answer the simplest of questions. Pity.

Ad hominem---a desperate to discredit someone when all else fails..