A001:

Tell me why I should waste my time in this discussion with you when I already gave the scientific concept underlying my submissions.

As I said earlier, I don't have time to waste in silly arguments.

A scientific explanation of a soul? Pray drop it again. I missed it earlier

Maynman:


You are saying jargons.
Go on quora, make a thread, post the link here and see how you’ll be disgraced.

Let me know when you find a Quora post that disproves the simple definition I gave above.

Keep learning science on Quora. You're silly joker.

KnownUnknown:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism

Quantum mysticism, sometimes referred pejoratively to as quantum quackery or quantum woo,is a set of metaphysical beliefs and associated practices that seek to relate consciousness, intelligence, spirituality, or mystical worldviews to the ideas of quantum mechanics and its interpretations. Quantum mysticism is criticized by non-believers with expert knowledge of quantum mechanics to be pseudoscience or quackery.

Metaphysics isn't science. Is that what A001 has been yapping about?

A001:
Foolish people. The scientific understanding of consciousness is still very low. That's why even the most brilliant scientists don't make claims about the subject with certainty.

Yet, some nonentities here that only learn science on Quora and YouTube think they understand consciousness deeply.

Arrogance in ignorance.

“That's why even the most brilliant scientists don't make claims about the subject with certainty.”

Then don’t make claims without certainty, how come you are?

Ignorance Soaked in delusion.

KnownUnknown:


Hook, line…….

… and sinker…. plus fish

jaephoenix:

A scientific explanation of a soul? Pray drop it again. I missed it earlier

Read the initial post you quoted again and stop mentioning me unnecessarily.

Why should I indulge you when I'd rather publish my research findings in a journal and put them in a book to be sold on Amazon?

I don't waste time in this sort of discussion on Nairaland.

A001:

Let me know when you find a Quora post that disproves the simple definition I gave above.

Keep learning science on Quora. You're silly joker.

You gave a dumb definition from a site l, sit down and learn!

You’re a witless joker.

You are saying jargons.
Go on quora, make a thread, post the link here and see how you’ll be disgraced.

A001:
Foolish people. The scientific understanding of consciousness is still very low. That's why even the most brilliant scientists don't make claims about the subject with certainty.

Yet, some nonentities here that only learn science on Quora and YouTube think they understand consciousness deeply.

Arrogance in ignorance.

Did you make your own research about consciousness?

Keep learning science on Quora and YouTube. I don't take such a clown seriously.

jaephoenix:

Did you make your own research about consciousness?

I've said enough on the subject.

A001:
Keep learning science on Quora and YouTube. I don't take such a clown seriously.

Keep posting jargons you got from site.
I don’t take illiterates serious.


Go on quora, make a thread, post the link here and see how you’ll be disgraced.

A001:

Read the initial post you quoted again and stop mentioning me unnecessarily.

Why should I indulge you when I'd rather publish my research findings in a journal and put them in a book to be sold on Amazon?

I don't waste time in this sort of discussion on Nairaland.

Lol. This confirms you don't know nada.

A001:

I've said enough on the subject.

Yet you are not a brilliant scientist and you are saying it with certainty? Bwahahahah



Go on quora, make a thread, post the link here and see how you’ll be disgraced.

The fools can keep me mentioning me. When you're tired, you'll find something useful to do with your time.

Keep learning science on Quora and YouTube while genuine scientists learn and engage in science by reading key textbooks and experiments.

The Imbeci.le can keep making baseless statements, and has no evidence to prove it.

If you are sure of yourself, Go on quora, make a thread, post the link here and see how you’ll be disgraced.

A001:
The fools can keep me mentioning me. When you're tired, you'll find something useful to do with your time.

Keep learning science on Quora and YouTube while genuine scientists learn and engage in science by reading key textbooks and experiments.

Retar.d, Mention the advanced quantum mechanics textbook you got your jargons

A001:

Another foolish post. Attached is a standard definition of the wave-particle paradox.

You've started quoting me all about like person we dey swear for.

Illiterate, light exhibits “Wave–particle duality”, but it isn't matter.


Post your textbooks, let’s see.

Maynman:


Retar.d, Mention the advanced quantum mechanics textbook you got your jargons

Keep learning Physics on Quora. I'm sure that makes you qualified to teach Physics and you're more knowledgeable than those of us in the field that spent years studying it.

Clown.

For those that know how wave-particle paradox is related to De-Broglie's wavelength, the highlighted captures the application of the paradox to macroscopic objects such as a human, again highlighting the natural limits explained earlier.

Maynman:


Illiterate, light exhibits “Wave–particle duality”, but it isn't matter.


Post your textbooks, let’s see.

Are you sure everything is okay with you? Where did you see light in the comment you quoted?

A001:

Keep learning Physics on Quora. I'm sure that makes you qualified to teach Physics and you're more knowledgeable than those of us in the field that spent years studying it.

Clown.

For those that know how wave-particle paradox is related to De-Broglie's wavelength, the highlighted captures the application of the paradox to macroscopic objects such as a human, again highlighting the natural limits explained earlier.

Illiterate.

A001:

Are you sure everything is okay with you? Where did you see light in the comment you quoted?

Are you sure you understand the jargons you are posting?

light exhibits “Wave–particle duality”, but it isn't matter.

A001:

Keep sounding ignorant and close-minded like the average religionist.

Maybe you think the concepts of Physics such as wave-particle duality of matter is only there to be crammed and poured to pass exams.

Enlightened people know the paradox is a key principle underlying reality.

I don't have time for silly arguments on Nairaland and may not dignify you with a response again.

I don't think there's any concept in physics that proves souls.

Even your so called evidence is not what it seem to be

The fool thinks a wave means light. Lols. Clown.

A001:
The fool thinks a wave means light. Lols. Clown.

Illiterate.
light exhibits Wave–particle duality, but it isn't matter.

Hin don dey clear for your eye

A001:
There are upper and lower limits of the range of light wave frequencies the human eyes can see, and also, there are upper and lower limits of the range of sound wave frequencies the human ears can hear.

These are natural limits.

Much is happening in our immediate surroundings we're unaware of.

We have equipments that we use in detecting these other wavelengths on EM spectrum. Even when we cannot see or hear it unadded, we know what happens with various equipments.

Trollronaldo:
I don't think there's any concept in physics that proves souls.

Even your so called evidence is not what it seem to be

No, there's no concept in Physics that proves soul as many theories of Physics are incomplete, including the Standard Model, arguably the most successful theory in Physics.

However, I cited the wave-particle duality as a theoretical basis for the existence of the soul.

No theory of Physics explains consciousness as of yet.

But researchers are working on the subject and breakthroughs will be recorded in the future.

Trollronaldo:
We have equipments that we use in detecting these other wavelengths on EM spectrum. Even when we cannot see or hear it unadded, we know what happens with various equipments.

Just give it time. The scientific understanding of consciousness now is low. But breakthroughs will be recorded in the future.

A001:

Keep learning Physics on Quora. I'm sure that makes you qualified to teach Physics and you're more knowledgeable than those of us in the field that spent years studying it.

Clown.

For those that know how wave-particle paradox is related to De-Broglie's wavelength, the highlighted captures the application of the paradox to macroscopic objects such as a human, again highlighting the natural limits explained earlier.

I do not see how wave-particle paradox and De-broglie's wavelength proves the existence of a soul and trust me, I am familiar with them so well. Can you enlighten me on your perspective?

Maynman:


Are you sure you understand the jargons you are posting?

light exhibits “Wave–particle duality”, but it isn't matter.

See this clown. You keep embarrassing yourself in public. Waves doesn't mean light. Lols.

A001:

See this clown. You keep embarrassing yourself in public. Waves doesn't mean light. Lols.

Illiterate, read. You can see everyone busting your jargons that you base your life on.

light exhibits Wave–particle duality, but it isn't matter.

Your definition is WRONG!

A001:

No, there's no concept in Physics that proves soul as many theories of Physics are incomplete, including the Standard Model, arguably the most successful theory in Physics.

However, I cited the wave-particle duality as a theoretical basis for the existence of the soul.

No theory of Physics explains consciousness as of yet.

But researchers are working on the subject and breakthroughs will be recorded in the future.

wave-particle duality really doesn't say anything about any existence of souls. It only tries to explain how a particle moving at a certain speed can exist as a matter and also have a wavelength function.

Trollronaldo:
I do not see how wave-particle paradox and De-broglie's wavelength proves the existence of a soul and trust me, I am familiar with them so well. Can you enlighten me on your perspective?

I already told you the concept is a theoretical basis. Do you know what's called theoretical basis for something?

A concept can serve as a theoretical basis for something that hasn't been established scientifically to exist.

For years, Einstein's general theory of relativity served as the theoretical basis for the existence of black holes before they were discovered in the 1970s.