09 Dec 14
Originally posted by no1marauderThe best way of putting it is that almost everyone hates it and no one has thought of anything convincingly better. I don't like the theory of measurement in it as they have these idealised measurements where the position or momentum of a particle is measured to infinite precision (obviously not at the same time) - this just doesn't correspond to any practicable experiment. I feel that that part certainly needs rethinking.
How's the Copenhagen interpretation doing these days? Or do most physicists still subscribe to the view that there is no way to describe an objective reality (maybe I'm butchering CI; please correct me if I am)?
I think as a sound bite your description of that interpretation is fine, but it's not really that there is no description of objective reality, it's that in C.I. the reality doesn't exist until after measurement. Quantum systems are freer than classical ones in that in classical physics there is only one trajectory a particle can take, in quantum systems they sort of probe the entire space of possible trajectories and select one apparently at random. There must be a better interpretation that the Copenhagen one.
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by SoothfastThat's a good point. The problem is that beyond a certain point - for example not derivable from a string theory - it becomes extremely difficult to know what such a universe would be like. I don't know how unreasonable it is to restrict attention to ones involving a retuning of our laws of physics - one for the philosophers probably.
One qualm I have with the whole "fine-tuning" debate is that there seems to be an assumption, accepted by both the "goddunnit" side and the "no-he-didn't" side, that there is only one fixed set of physical constants that are possible. I'm not talking about the adjustment of the dials, I'm talking about the assumption that there is only one possible set of ...[text shortened]... many more kinds of habitable universes than the standard "fine-tuning" arguments seem to allow.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by sonship"Atheists don't have "wishful thinking" ? Give me a break.I would say that scientist is not doing science at that moment. He may be wishfully thinking. Someone may even say it's in the Bible. But it's true, conviction or desire that one's hopes will be borne out can be a driver of scientific progress. We can't separate that out.
I'm not sure if you're are following or rejecting a myth of ...[text shortened]... ave pet personal philosophies and worldviews that they prefer to believe too? Give me a break.
Scientists do not have pet personal philosophies and worldviews that they prefer to believe too? Give me a break."
Did I say or imply either of those things? Give ME a break. I don't believe either one.
Sophistry, and not even good sophistry.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by Soothfast""goddunnit" side and the "no-he-didn't" side"
One qualm I have with the whole "fine-tuning" debate is that there seems to be an assumption, accepted by both the "goddunnit" side and the "no-he-didn't" side, that there is only one fixed set of physical constants that are possible. I'm not talking about the adjustment of the dials, I'm talking about the assumption that there is only one possible set of ...[text shortened]... many more kinds of habitable universes than the standard "fine-tuning" arguments seem to allow.
Those are not exhaustive of the sides.
There is also the "goddunit" is not scientifically supportable and neither is "no-he-didn't" side. I'm speaking to that side, in spite of sonship's mischaracterization of my position.
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by SoothfastSee my post on page 2 and the wiki link given there.
One qualm I have with the whole "fine-tuning" debate is that there seems to be an assumption, accepted by both the "goddunnit" side and the "no-he-didn't" side, that there is only one fixed set of physical constants that are possible. I'm not talking about the adjustment of the dials, I'm talking about the assumption that there is only one possible set of ...[text shortened]... many more kinds of habitable universes than the standard "fine-tuning" arguments seem to allow.
In some cases you'd have to imagine a universe without atoms or with only hydrogen atoms or with no stars or only existing for an extremely short period, etc. etc. etc. It's hard to see how any of those universes would be "habitable".
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
10 Dec 14
4 edits
Originally posted by JS357
"Atheists don't have "wishful thinking" ? Give me a break.
Scientists do not have pet personal philosophies and worldviews that they prefer to believe too? Give me a break."
Did I say or imply either of those things? Give ME a break. I don't believe either one.
Sophistry, and not even good sophistry.
Did I say or imply either of those things? Give ME a break. I don't believe either one.
Point taken.
If I am just waffling in sophistry then in contrast you should provide me with some crystal clear answers to some related questions.
Fred Holye followed the evidence of design until his atheism had to give way, at least, to a belief that some super intellect has monkeyed with the physics of the universe.
"Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."—Fred Hoyle, Wikipedia
(my bolding)
He didn't start out believing in God, if we're to believe his atheist position.
Why then should you be reluctant to follow evidence that could possibly lead to his conclusion?
Paul Davies didn't start out as any theistic creationist. His considering the evidence led him to have to refer to Fred Holye's conclusion.
“Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if "a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics”—Paul Davies
Are you concerned you might go from "no god possible" to "ID might conceivably suggest a super-intellect" ?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
10 Dec 14
3 edits
Originally posted by sonship"He didn't start out believing in God, if we're to believe his atheist position.
Did I say or imply either of those things? Give ME a break. I don't believe either one.
Point taken.
If I am just waffling in sophistry then in contrast you should provide me with some crystal clear answers to some related questions.
Fred Holye followed the evidence of design until his atheism had to give way, at least, to ...[text shortened]... cerned you might go from "no god possible" to "ID might conceivably suggest a super-intellect" ?
Why then should you be reluctant to follow evidence that could possibly lead to his conclusion? "
I'm not reluctant. You keep drawing conclusions. Discovering there to be an intelligent designer would be fantastic news. Better than anything.
" Are you concerned you might go from "no god possible" to "ID might conceivably suggest a super-intellect" ?
ID does suggest that. No problem. I'm not the smartest guy in the room.
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by no1marauderNo, you have not. You have given what you thought were answers based on your attempts at mind reading what I wanted to know, not based on what I actually asked. Please try reading the questions and answering them as asked.
I've answered all your questions actually.
10 Dec 14
The black marble fallacy:
If you tweak the physical constants just right, there is a possible universe in which there exists a Qualix. It is a dodecahedron shaped object made up of something similar to what we call atoms, but since the physics are different the atoms there are also different. There is only one possible universe in which the Qualix exists. Any change whatsoever to any physical constant will make the Qualix impossible.
Let us paint the universe with a Qualix in Purple, and all other universes White.
Now suppose there is only one universe in existence and it contains a Qualix. This is like having a bag full of trillions of white marbles and one purple marble and putting in your hand and picking out the purple marble. If this were to happen, then we would have to conclude that Goddunit.
But it didn't happen. Our universe is a white marble. There is no Qualix in our universe. S**t happens.
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by no1marauderThank God that we don't have to worry about other universes, since this one is it. 😏
See my post on page 2 and the wiki link given there.
In some cases you'd have to imagine a universe without atoms or with only hydrogen atoms or with no stars or only existing for an extremely short period, etc. etc. etc. It's hard to see how any of those universes would be "habitable".
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by no1marauder"Why personalize the matter?"
I really don't understand the extreme emotional reaction some people are having. Why would I feel " VERY special"? The mechanics of human conception are rather well known to me.
If the post is meant to drop back to a multiverse explanation for the issues raised, why not simply say so? Why personalize the matter?
This is so interesting even though I can hardly comprehend it all, but I have been enjoying the read through. JS357, LemonJello, DeepThought and others have produced an amazing debate.
I am woefully incapable of contributing, but I get the gist of it. I think. I want to ask you, without it being personalized or through emotion, do you believe the evidence is in favor of ID?
I tried to read carefully everything up to this point, and I'll read the rest of this thread before I weigh in, but I would like to clear the air a bit first. If you other fellows are reading this I would appreciate your exact answer as well.
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by JS357Then you believe faith is necessary to know whether all that exists exists by an act of creation by an omnipotent being?
My gut feel WRT the argument, is that arguing for (or against) ID on the basis of science is an example of the logical fallacy of unfalsifiability. (By way of clarifying, I am not saying that pointing out this fallacy supports rejecting ID. It supports concluding that this is not a scientific topic.)
My gut feel WRT ID itself is that it is an idea th ...[text shortened]... d, or see a way to avoid the fallacy mentioned above and see evidence of ID, my view may change.
Would such faith exist if no such being existed?
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by josephwWell, since it seems clear no such being exists, yet faith exists, it seems also clear that faith is misplaced and in fact used as a weapon to control people.
Then you believe faith is necessary to know whether all that exists exists by an act of creation by an omnipotent being?
Would such faith exist if no such being existed?
"WHY, IF YOU DON"T HAVE FAITH, YOU WILL GO TO HELL' and so forth. Weaponized spirituality.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
10 Dec 14
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357
I'm not reluctant. You keep drawing conclusions. Discovering there to be an intelligent designer would be fantastic news. Better than anything.
Why ?
Not everyone would consider it great news.
Many people would probably resent the idea or be repulsed by it.
For example:
In a 1997 book review, Harvard biology professor Richard Lewontin, speaking for the scientific community, famously remarked, “It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”(my bolding)
This scientist doesn't have a good feeling about and Intelligent Designer if such should be "divine."
See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/a_divine_foot_in_the_door#sthash.FgFxfRDa.dpuf
" Are you concerned you might go from "no god possible" to "ID might conceivably suggest a super-intellect" ?
ID does suggest that. No problem. I'm not the smartest guy in the room.
Now I am not quite sure at what point my alleged mediocre "sophistry" came in. But I thought you DID have a problem with considering Intelligent Design as a legitimate scientific inquiry IF the researcher has a pre-disposition to believe in a god.
While you're talking about fallacious arguments (sophistry) have you considered the "Genetic Fallacy" as one to be avoided as well ?
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis must be self-parody.
The black marble fallacy:
If you tweak the physical constants just right, there is a possible universe in which there exists a Qualix. It is a dodecahedron shaped object made up of something similar to what we call atoms, but since the physics are different the atoms there are also different. There is only one possible universe in which the Qualix exists ...[text shortened]... didn't happen. Our universe is a white marble. There is no Qualix in our universe. S**t happens.