Why do people deny evolution?

Science is the search for a deeper understanding of what we observe. Your oversimplifying of universe with this conclusion, "we weren't there when it began, we don't understand where it came from or (many unanwered questions in physics) so who cares. " You can't come up with the purely naturalistic explanation of how the universe created itself and therefor you assume that anybody who goes beyond that and asks who might have created it is not scientific. That simplistic and bigoted atheistic view of the universe is an insult to any Intelligent human being in quest of the fullest scientific understanding of the universe we are able to obtain.

I pointed out earlier we could not test any hypotheses on the original matter or the original of life. If we replicate Those processes with our intelligence we have just proven it takes intelligence for those processes to happen. Our intelligence is just as supernatural as any other being that might've existed long before we did as it established long ago all the information we are observing today.

Do you need a foreseeable edit to the inquiry.? The universe is mighty big I doubt will ever know what all.

What makes them good? They're good because they are provable? They're good because they're testable? They're good because they can be replicated? Or are they good because the guy that thought of them had a good imagination and didn't include intelligence as a source to the living information we observe?

QM is perfectly logical. it's a perfect but incomplete explanation of what happens as the particles of matter and space interact in very precise patterns.

What parts of Q1 them are illogical to you? Maybe I can explain how it is logical.

I see. Maybe we should dig up Richard Feynman so that you can put him straight on his comment " I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."

That was then this is now.

I suppose I should have anticipated that! The fact that classica logic is inapplicabe to phenomena as such 'complementarity' or 'non locality' is the issue, not your idiosyncratic religious 'logic' which you need to keep reinforcing to yourself,

It is capable and here is how:

All of space is filled with entangled higgs bosons. But, for that to be true a Higgs boson cannot be an elemental particle and, here is why. If it was it would be a naked singularity that cannot entangle and an entangled structure to space is required to logically solve your 'nonlocality' problem and complementary problem. The evidence of those two properties reveals that the higgs boson is a four particle boson constructed four entangled particles (we will call them higgs electrons for now) that all have the same spin when looking from the outside of each particle from the top down. These particles then are entangled withe the particle opposite of it and orbit around each other in a twisted figure eight type movement you would get by combining a twistor or a mobius strip.

This would also explain why we see very few antiparticles since 'higgs electrons' when viewed from the top down would all be spinning the same way and as they interact with the electrons of matter they would cause them to do the same thing.

So, classica logic can solve the problem by imagining the structure to space that is necessary to fit the physical evidence we have observed and then assuming it exists because the circumstantial evidence reveals it.

You clearly don't understand that 'classical logic' involves the 'law of non contradiction' which entanglement usurps. There are of course mathematical models (aka 'alternative logics') which can be applied to entanglement, and that simply endorses my point about the inapplicability of lay concepts like 'causality'.

The law of non-contradiction is usurped here only If, the false vacuum of empty space does not have a structure to it. But the potential energy function of the higgs field suggests it is storing energy. Therfore It is logical to assume that the Higgs field is constructed of rotating entangled virtual point particles that are arranged to construct virtual strings and these strings are Crisscrossing three dimensionally in a 90° Pattern Forming a three dimensional matrix. So in the end it is not the particles that are entangled instead, it is the four virtual higgs electrons of the Higg bosons that are entangle into the structure of higgs field. this is classical logic using detective reasoning to interpret the observed scientific data.

The thing I cannot determine from the scientific evidence is how the entangled stucture of the higgs field came to be. That my friend might require an eyewitness.

I suggest, like Bishop Berkeley, you evoke 'God' as 'the witness' thereby confirming my characterization of your 'logic'.

No I am in suggesting that if there is not a night with this we may never know
, Beyond wild speculation anyway. Because the only way to come up with a solid answer is with classical logic interpreting solud evidence. And without solid evidence or something that is replicatable or direct solid eye witness there is no way to know for sure .

No I am not suggesting magic, I am suggesting we may never know for sure because there are certian things we are incapable of replicating or observing. One is creating matter from nothing because in our universe there is no such thing as nothing (The higgs field is a matrix that is always there and is everywhere and everything else is matter). So that leaves no room for "nothing" and we need both matter and the higgs field to be able to observe anything.

Maistream sciences assertian that our universe is in a perpetual cycle of inflation and collapse or it popped into existence like a bubble does not fit the evidence. The evidence says it started from low or no entropy (perfection) and deteriorated to this. Why not just accept the evidence of that and try and figure out how that happened.

Sayin qm is not classically logical is wrong. Everything is classicaly logical and can be understood from a naive realism point of view as long as that view is guided by objective idealism. Qm is classically logical when it is completed. The structure of the higgs boson and the matrix of the higgs field along with the structure of the matrixes inside each atom must be developed as part of qm and then it is understandable.

But that means understanding matrixes embeded in a matrix which requires a more objective point of view that cannot be measured or replicated (uncertainty principle) but only imagined by deductive reasoning from the data. So why not just do that?

And chemistry follows sub atomic structural patterns. In the end all we have is patterns stored as certain number of rotating particles, arranged inside a certain way inside of atoms and these atoms are floating in a universe constructed of a field of higgs bosons that is a zero spin virtual particle that must be made up of four spinning virtual particles that really aren't virtual because they are there even when we can't detect them when they are entangled in a field made op of these super symmetrical particles.

of course no one understands QM, it is only gobbledygook, and nothing more.

QM really can't be taken seriously.

Maybe somebody will do us all a favour by beating you over the head with your QM based computer.

QM is a system of mathematical patterns that match measurements of energy levels and forces. It is not intended to explain why the math matches the measurements, because the measurements are being made of particles that are smaller than matter, which makes these particles very hard to detect in a world where the detectors are made of matter. And these are particles entangled inside the universe of atoms and entangled in the universe of the higgs field. These two universes interact in the electron cloud, which is the boundary between the two universes and is the spot where we take all our measurements. This cloud is a quantum foam, which makes accurate measurements impossible (see Heisenberg's uncertainty principle).

The fact that we do all our sensing in this quantum foam makes it hard for us to prove that the order in those universes of entangled particles exist let alone "picture' what it looks like. (but this foam can be turned back into a quasi crystal in a super conductor or Bose Einstein condensate.

If, one pictures what the math of quantum mechanics is telling us, it will tell us the entire universe is made up of miniature universes (higgs bosons) made up of 4 quark sized virtual particles embedded in the higgs field and matter is made up of 4 real particles and 4 antiparticles embedded in the universe of the atom. And these embedded universes and particles are the building blocks of a structure of space and matter that is always there all the time even when we aren't looking at it.

So, what the structure of space looks like is deducible and determined by the math of qm and relativity just like the shape of a jet is deducible from the data obtained from a wind tunnel. But just like the math obtained from qm, the math from a wind tunnel is gobbledygook until you figure out what the structure plane looks like. To make qm real (instead of gobbledy gook) it takes an intelligent imagination to construct what an undetecteble structure looks like.

So don't be made at people spouting the success of qm. Be mad at the people who refuse to use their intelligence and imagination to deduce what qm and relativity is telling them about the structure of space and matter (people like fresco), otherwise you won't be taken seriously.

Unless he can make the computer disappear by refusing to admit it exists when he's not looking at it.

About to lose your head yet again I see.

His comment cracked me up. I wonder if he is aware of how hard Eckert and Mauchly worked to eliminate quantum effects in early computers. And to add more irony to his observation, QM is now the limiting factor to staying on the path of Moore's Law, like quantum tunneling and all those other things that make the computer the virtual opposite of QM.

First, I am not mad at anyone at all. And , like qm, relativity is also bollocks.
Time running faster/slower etc what a joke on the mind it all is. And 'curved' space?? lol, talking about contradictions!. No one and nothing can 'curve' space, nor spacetime. it's all idiocy. and about computers and qm, i have put here earlier that the needed effects, like the transistor, was invented BEFORE qm bullocks, Maybe people should do more research and think more for themself, instead of blindly relying on textbooks.

Of course Grumpy is not 'mad at anyone' ! Trolls love any reaction they can get, whether positive or negative.