JonasM,

The Bohmian Interpretation is basically the simplest possible interpretation of the Schroedinger equation that involves so-called "hidden variables." Hidden variables are essentially pieces of information that a particle contains and hides from view. The hidden information dictates the dynamics of the particle, but we cannot know it directly. Any indeterminism about the position or velocity is actually just a lack of knowledge about those darn hidden variables. Rather than a precise wavefunction describing an unknowable system (the Copenhagen interpretation), the Bohmian interpretation instead has an imprecise wavefunction describing an incomplete system.

The interpretation certainly is "beautiful," because it does, as you say, eliminate much of the "ghostly" effects -- or, rather, it just banishes the ghostly effects to the insides of the particles themselves.

There are a variety of proofs (again, I'll say that a mathematical proof doesn't always guarantee things in Nature are as proven) that indicate that hidden variables can't exist. For example, according to Bohmian mechanics, the electron would have to show additional degrees of freedom due to its hidden variables, and we'd see additional planes of symmetry in the periodic table -- and we don't.

In addition, Bell derived a famous inequality that essentially indicates that there is no way for systems (like the Einstein-Padolsky-Rosen "paradox") to function as we know them to function if there are hidden variables. There are always caveats, of course, but quantum theory seems to conflict with the very idea of hidden variables. As a result, most physicist regard appeals to hidden variables akin to appeals to perpetual motion, and summarily dismiss them.

- Warren

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JonasM
[B]Have you heard of the Bohmian interpretation of Quantum Mechanics? To my understanding, it has 100% of the the predictive power of the currently accepted Copenhagen interpretation, fully explains all phenomena that the Copenhagen interpretation explains, and is 100% deterministic. No 'ghostly' effects are included (or necessary) in the description of quantum effects. In discussions with an acquaintance who is a Physics professional, he maintains that one of the main reasons that the Bohmian interpretation isn't taught much or accepted is due in part to our PostModern society's grasping for some remaining 'mystical' area which can justify the continued existence of faith. Many (as you've implied) seem to see Quantum Mechanics as the crack in the door of determinism that allows for free will. Accepting the Bohmian interpretation would close that door.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ltweintz
[B]

I think TH meant that he wanted to know if you had seen any of this with your own two eyes rather than hearing a story word of mouth.

[B]

Out of curiosity, was there any kind of "ritual" performed?

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Garyj
[B]

The issue is not what they are labeled - Christian or non-Christian.

 

JonBoy,

Please provide references to the medical literature.

There's a reason that hearsay is not permitted in courtrooms.

This is that reason.

- Warren

 

More, but never all. Science is still puttering along trying to explain how creation occurred and even then it is no more than theories. Science requires practically as much faith to believe as Christianity (or any religion) does. Some would say it requires more.

Remember, Christians do not deny the truth of science (some of it, at least). The really important parts, however, such as creation, time travel and space-time continuums and such, are (at best) purely theoretical. Science can "prove" some of it (based on other unproved "accepted" science) but really, how can they prove anything?

Everything in science is relative. Everything is dependent on everything else. You can't explain time travel without getting into physics. But who can prove physics at the smallest level? No one, because to "prove" it they have to disturb it, and in disturbing it they could easily be changing it! They throw out all kinds of numbers and formulae based on experimentation, but what calibrates the calibrators? What is the absolute in science? NOTHING. Therein lies its weakness - science uses science (ie, it uses itself) to prove science. What kind of proof or absolute is that?

 

While I understand the point you're making (a valid one), be careful not to generalize to the point of falsehood. Hearsay is permitted in courtrooms, as valid evidence, for a variety of uses; e.g., to corroborate the testimony of another witness. If you read "Helter Skelter" you'll find an interesting discussion by Bugliosi on this very subject. His opinion is that the general rule of hearsay being disallowed, with the multitude of exceptions when it is, should be replaced with a general rule that it is allowed, with the two exceptions when it isn't.

 

Give me a day or two to get in contact with them and see if they have an actual copy. I may have to get it scanned in or something, if it's not online.

 

Warren (chroot) and I covered this already.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JonBoy
[B]

I have both seen and heard of these things, not to mention that I know others that have seen and heard these things.

Ritual?