[Besoeker]

@Besoeker
Yes i do.
Hiesenberg is one of those to study it. and the uncertainty principle is for it.
However it does not describe randomness, nor does it imply randomness.

OK. Just uncertainty if you wish. Knowing one state means you can be less certain about the order of other.

The concept of randomness in physics was a theme of classical physics.

But you know with certainty that it is currently otherwise?

Again, if randomness was factual in the universe, nothing would exist.

Sorry old chap. That's opinion.

And, random or otherwise, how does it demonstrate the existence of a supernatural entity?

[anasawad]

@Besoeker

OK. Just uncertainty if you wish. Knowing one state means you can be less certain about the order of other.

Yes, and there are two things you should consider here.
First, it assumes a certain order of things in its core.
And second, the uncertainty is on our side.

And it considers the state or value of each variable, not the order of it.

Basically, its about measurment.

But you know with certainty that it is currently otherwise?

Based on current studies and research, and based on former experience, yes it can be said with certainty that there are laws that govern the universe and that everything runs in order with everything else.

Sorry old chap. That's opinion.

If we assumed the universe is random, and there is no specific order in it, then by default we're saying that the way matter and particles and even subatomic particles behave could differ drastically between one moment and the other.

Lets say the universe and specifically particle physics is random.
Then by this, we can clearly say that.
Since everything on earth for example is made of atoms, and atoms bined with each other under certain laws and forces, and react to each other under specific laws.
Then assuming randomness in them would mean that they may or may not form any bonds at a given moment in time.
That means complex structures of atoms, which makes almost everything we see around us including us, could form and deform randomly at any time.

If we went further down, the subatomic particles forming atoms are bounded together under specific laws and forces, and the act and react in a set behaviors. If randomness was factual in subatomic particle physics. Then we could assume that atoms could form and deform randomly at moment in time.

That can also be said about subatomic particles and what forms them. (quarks and fundemental particles, check spelling)

If you were assuming that randomness exists only in some parts but not the others, and as you suggested electrical current as an example.
Then by your assumption, that there is no specific order or laws or forces that guides the behavior of electrons.
There are two scenarios, 1 is that its absolute randomness, which would mean that any time we attempt to utilize electricity, it may or may not work and mostly wont work at all not even slightly.
And it means that it couldn't be guided thus we wont have currents, and ofcourse since we use magnets to generate energy, and now its random, then we probably cant generate it to begin with.

If the assumption was partial randomness, then we'd have a huge waste, and not a single piece of technology would be functional.

(But seriously, there are many factors we already know that effects how electrons moves, and they don't BTW move around all over, they move between atoms on certain orbits, and they are bound by energy, magnatic force, gravity, etc.)

And, random or otherwise, how does it demonstrate the existence of a supernatural entity?

It doesn't.
It shows that the universe works under specific laws that makes everything in perfect harmony and relation to each other within it (not talking about people here).
You get the point behind this or ?

[Drlee]

But I don't know how you can possibly claim it as fact or certainty.

You simply refuse to get it. Get your head around the concept of faith. Christians, like myself, do not require "facts" and do not seek "certainty". So I made no such claim. Repeatedly I have mentioned faith and you simply refuse to acknowledge it.

Do you understand what faith is and how it works? Would you like me to explain it to you in a Christian context?

[Besoeker]

You simply refuse to get it. Get your head around the concept of faith. Christians, like myself, do not require "facts" and do not seek "certainty".

You don't and can't because there is none. Your position, that of those of a religious bent, is clear on that.

So I made no such claim.

Actually, you did in this statement.
"Please understand that the "universe" in which God lives is not the "same" universe that He created for people."
No ifs, no buts.

Repeatedly I have mentioned faith and you simply refuse to acknowledge it.
Do you understand what faith is and how it works? Would you like me to explain it to you in a Christian context?

I know what faith is. It's belief without facts. I have faith that my faithful furry beast will come back when I call him. I don't know that he will until he does. So I can't claim it as fact. But then, as you said, you don't require facts. Perhaps facts would be a distraction for you.

Samuel Clemens was much more succinct.

[Besoeker]

@Besoeker


Yes, and there are two things you should consider here.
First, it assumes a certain order of things in its core.
And second, the uncertainty is on our side.

And it considers the state or value of each variable, not the order of it.

Basically, its about measurment.

Based on current studies and research, and based on former experience, yes it can be said with certainty that there are laws that govern the universe and that everything runs in order with everything else.


If we assumed the universe is random, and there is no specific order in it, then by default we're saying that the way matter and particles and even subatomic particles behave could differ drastically between one moment and the other.

Lets say the universe and specifically particle physics is random.
Then by this, we can clearly say that.
Since everything on earth for example is made of atoms, and atoms bined with each other under certain laws and forces, and react to each other under specific laws.
Then assuming randomness in them would mean that they may or may not form any bonds at a given moment in time.
That means complex structures of atoms, which makes almost everything we see around us including us, could form and deform randomly at any time.

If we went further down, the subatomic particles forming atoms are bounded together under specific laws and forces, and the act and react in a set behaviors. If randomness was factual in subatomic particle physics. Then we could assume that atoms could form and deform randomly at moment in time.

That can also be said about subatomic particles and what forms them. (quarks and fundemental particles, check spelling)

If you were assuming that randomness exists only in some parts but not the others, and as you suggested electrical current as an example.
Then by your assumption, that there is no specific order or laws or forces that guides the behavior of electrons.
There are two scenarios, 1 is that its absolute randomness, which would mean that any time we attempt to utilize electricity, it may or may not work and mostly wont work at all not even slightly.
And it means that it couldn't be guided thus we wont have currents, and ofcourse since we use magnets to generate energy, and now its random, then we probably cant generate it to begin with.

If the assumption was partial randomness, then we'd have a huge waste, and not a single piece of technology would be functional.

(But seriously, there are many factors we already know that effects how electrons moves, and they don't BTW move around all over, they move between atoms on certain orbits, and they are bound by energy, magnatic force, gravity, etc.)



It doesn't.
It shows that the universe works under specific laws that makes everything in perfect harmony and relation to each other within it (not talking about people here).
You get the point behind this or ?

With respect, I think you miss the point. Individual particles, like electrons, can behave in a random fashion. Rounding them up like sheep can, on average, make them behave in a particular way. In a DC circuit, there is what's called electron drift. In an AC circuit, they just wiggle back and forth an extremely tiny amount.

[jakell]

...You are right about the trolling, it's slow and careful, but it is designed to close discussion to something dry and supremely minimal, ie a way to strangle the subject matter...

Trying to frame this discussion in terms of pure science is another way of sucking the air out of it. It's the next technique up from those over-clipped remarks disguising themselves as a 'conversational style' (which I was pleased to note that some forum members identified as bogus)

It's worth remembering that this is the Philosophy section, so an appropriate expansion might be to consider what we mean by something being 'random'. In my view there is no absolute version of this, it is just a relative term.
It seems to me that above it is being regarded as an absolute term, and this is being encouraged by the reduction of the thread's parameters to those of physical science.

[jakell]

Sorry, duplicate post, Don't know how to delete posts on here.

[anasawad]

@Besoeker
If we considered electrons in their true nature, being somewhat like a cloud of energy, not sure how to describe it correctly.
We can consider 2 things. First that its not actual movement rather, perhaps can be said as an expansion and contraction of a field of energy.
And second, given that they can be effected into behaving in a certain way by external force, then we can safely assume that simillarly there is some force that causes them to behave as they do normally, simply when external force is exerted, it over powers the basic one and changes the behavior.

@jakell
Its more like a mixture. Pure philosophy does not seem to cut it.

[jakell]

@jakell
Its more like a mixture. Pure philosophy does not seem to cut it.

I'm not sure that the two are equivalent enough to be capable of forming a 'mixture'.

By this I mean that science is a subset of philosophy, so to use science as an ultimate framework draws the box too small. Unfortunately, as science is regarded as the crowning achievement of our age, to the extent that many regard as almost a surrogate for religion, it's hard to avoid that small-boxiness.

Many materialists refuse to see that larger framework, they expect that science and rationalism will provide all the meaning that they require in life.

[anasawad]

True, and as you just said. Many would disregard a philosophical argument. Thus cutting it in size to just scientific one.

[Drlee]

Actually, you did in this statement.
"Please understand that the "universe" in which God lives is not the "same" universe that He created for people."
No ifs, no buts.

Don't be a dickhead. I don't intend to have a discussion with someone who wishes to resort to nitpicking when you know exactly what I meant.

I asked you if you wanted to try and understand religion from the position of religious people. You have ignored that. Obviously you have no desire to do that. Your shallow and deliberate:

I know what faith is. It's belief without facts.

Shows that you have no desire to explore something that is important to the vast majority of your fellow human beings. I am too old wish to have yet another lecture from a "teenage sniper". We get your point. You believe that destroying something valuable to other people makes what you have more valuable.

If you should ever come to a time in your life when you are concerned enough with your fellow human beings to respect their beliefs, you may learn how to coexist better. Few atheists ever do. The ones here who deserve my respect know who they are. I have acknowledged them publically. Most do not. Being an atheist does not make you smart. Nor is it a sign of intelligence. Intelligence is not a pile of facts. Someday you may learn this. Probably not.

[Besoeker]

@Besoeker
If we considered electrons in their true nature, being somewhat like a cloud of energy, not sure how to describe it correctly.
We can consider 2 things. First that its not actual movement rather, perhaps can be said as an expansion and contraction of a field of energy.

It is movement and calculable.

[Besoeker]

Don't be a dickhead. I don't intend to have a discussion with someone who wishes to resort to nitpicking when you know exactly what I meant.

I asked you if you wanted to try and understand religion from the position of religious people. You have ignored that. Obviously you have no desire to do that. Your shallow and deliberate:



Shows that you have no desire to explore something that is important to the vast majority of your fellow human beings. I am too old wish to have yet another lecture from a "teenage sniper". We get your point. You believe that destroying something valuable to other people makes what you have more valuable.

If you should ever come to a time in your life when you are concerned enough with your fellow human beings to respect their beliefs, you may learn how to coexist better. Few atheists ever do. The ones here who deserve my respect know who they are. I have acknowledged them publically. Most do not. Being an atheist does not make you smart. Nor is it a sign of intelligence. Intelligence is not a pile of facts. Someday you may learn this. Probably not.

Once again let me remind you that the topic isn't about me. I'm not god. When/if you can get that into your noddle and we can move on to discussing the topic of the thread. If you want to. Instead of you resorting to personal insults.

[anasawad]

@Besoeker
It is a movement that we don't know why or how it happens.
That is not the same as random.

And since the other types of simillar movements are responsible for a number of things in nature like pressure distribution.
Then it is safe to assume that these movements happen for a reason and it is effected by something.

[Besoeker]

@Besoeker
It is a movement that we don't know why or how it happens.
That is not the same as random.

We do know why and by how much, on average, it happens. What we don't know is at particle level.

[starman2003]

There are also many clever scientists who invented or discovered very useful things and did not reject the existence of god.

Some, like Ian Barbour, were scientists and theologians.

To a considerable degree, past scientists tended to believe because science had yet to find enough answers to make "god" epistemically unnecessary. Only recently has "god" been called "the infinitely lazy creator" as Atkins put it. He meant it didn't have to do anything at all, since science and rationality can now explain virtually everything without "him." Speaking of progress in understanding the origin of the Universe, Atkins wrote : "We have tracked the infinitely lazy creator all the way back to his lair. He is of course, not there." Btw Einstein, once thought to be a believer, called the bible "childish."
Btw getting back to that NATURE poll of 1998, the figure of 90% referred to TOP scientists not just scientists in general.

[Pants-of-dog]

To a considerable degree, past scientists tended to believe because science had yet to find enough answers to make "god" epistemically unnecessary. Only recently has "god" been called "the infinitely lazy creator" as Atkins put it. He meant it didn't have to do anything at all, since science and rationality can now explain virtually everything without "him." Speaking of progress in understanding the origin of the Universe, Atkins wrote : "We have tracked the infinitely lazy creator all the way back to his lair. He is of course, not there." Btw Einstein, once thought to be a believer, called the bible "childish."

Good thing I referred to Ian Barbour then, who published "Religion and Science" in 1997.

Btw getting back to that NATURE poll of 1998, the figure of 90% referred to TOP scientists not just scientists in general.

Which NATURE poll?

[starman2003]

Please understand that the "universe" in which God lives is not the "same" universe that He created for people. Obviously there are different "rules".

Sure. This is a head in the sand way to get around the utter inconsistency of science(i.e. verifiable reality) and religion--by invoking a different Universe where fairy tales are true.

IF ..... you really want to understand the nature of religious belief, you will have to drop the search for ultimate logic. Belief is, by definition, not "scientific" or even sometimes "logical". We are not called to prove for God we are called to believe in Him.

Sure, believe in something with no rational basis whatsoever. You might as well have written: "I know my fairy tales make no sense but I'll believe them anyway."

I don't think you do want to understand religious belief. I think it is obvious that you want to argue that it is unsupportable on scientific grounds and hope to persuade others to your line of reasoning.

There is no greater service one can do than promote truth, as determined by the true path to it--science.

[Drlee]

I will ignore the laughter. Most young people are rude these days.

There is no greater service one can do than promote truth, as determined by the true path to it--science.

Nonsense. Completely untrue. I can think of much greater services to mankind than the pursuit of science.

People are not always edified by science. Science does not always make them happy. Frequently it makes them profoundly unhappy and sometimes threatens the existence of humankind altogether. The task of moderating out of control science often falls to those practicing decidedly unscientific methods.

Sure, believe in something with no rational basis whatsoever.

I like art and music. They enhance my life. They make me like living more. They offer me beauty when I am confronted with a world that is decidedly ugly. There is no rational basis for why I like one picture more than others...One tune better than others. But I do. Can science tell me why I dislike jazz music and yet millions do?

I see the attempts. Pop science. Some researcher at the University of Upper East Mid-County Jones does a story about what the "perfect" woman looks like. They measure features, take surveys, wire subject's up to EEGs and proclaim one facial type "perfect". Then they go home to someone completely unlike that with whom they are completely besotted and have been for 20 years. A woman who makes them happy and without whom their life would be unfulfilled.

I am a scientist you know. Science is my job. But in the healing professions we completely understand that there are things which do not pass a strict scientific test and yet are an important part of that thing we call "wellness". Religion plays a role in wellness. In most people it makes them happier in general. You are not religious and would not understand this. Pity really. Happiness is a good thing.

I do not choose to live in a world ruled by entropy. I do not desire to sacrifice joy, hope and comfort on the altar science. Maybe some day science will succeed in solving all of the mysteries of human behavior. Maybe we will all get "patterned" to like the same art, listen to the same music, love the same body type and find comfort in the oblivion that comes at the end of an ever increasing number of days. I hope not. I love life. Religion makes my life better. It motivates me to, and helps me to make life better for others. If it does not do this for you then you are either not looking in the right place (perhaps not looking at all) or you have focused the magical thinking that all humans do upon a the demigod 'Scientist'. I hope that works out for you. It has for others.

You are young unless I miss my guess. As you grow older you will find that this thing called "happiness" is not an event but rather a process. You will come to put more value in things like hope, comfort, love and joy. And if you grow into a feeling person you will learn to respect those things with which you have no particular interest but which give other people joy. You will learn to be happy for them. My wife loves jazz and I love her. So I value it because it makes her (and others) happy. I am overtly religious. She is not. She sees that my religion makes me happy and she loves me so that is just fine with her.

In the end Starman the only thing you are attempting to do when trying to discourage religious people (and that is exactly what you are attempting to do) is make them unhappy at the service of your own sense of intellectual superiority. Oh I get it. Insert bullshit about the inquisition
or some other aberration of religion here. Then I will insert something about St Jude's Hospital or hope in times of despair....stalemate.

I'll take my road, thank you. I prefer to make people happy, give them hope against all odds and reduce their suffering in the service of a God who you believe is a fantasy. Well at least for the time being and for most people, my fantasy has more potential to make people happy than does your coldly scientific approach to all things human.

"Well Mrs. Jones. You have incurable brain cancer. You will decline rapidly over the next few weeks and before the flowers bloom in the spring, you will, under the influence of increasingly powerful opiates, blink out like a light bulb. When that happens all that you have ever been and experienced will disappear forever and in the realm of galactic time appear as nothing more than a singularity. Too bad you did not have children. Then at least you might draw some comfort in the diminishing importance of your DNA".

Sorry Starman. This does not work for me. And someday it may not work for you either.

[starman2003]

I will ignore the laughter. Most young people are rude these days.

You don't have to be young to see humor in holy joe naivete.

Science does not always make them happy. Frequently it makes them profoundly unhappy

Sure, for a lot of people, ignorance is bliss....

Science is the key to real world solutions like cures, which can make people happier. I think society would be better off if it were less deluded. I just want to wake people up a bit. All the prayers in the world aren't worth a hill of beans. If people want a better---ultimately happier--world, they shouldn't kid themselves with fantasies. They should support science, or secular ideology attuned to it.




The "coldly scientific approach" has given us everything--inventions, cures, knowledge. Holy bs is the road to nowhere.


No doubt, much of the existing appeal of religion stems from the inability of science, up til now, to deal with the problem of mortality. But as I posted a few pages back, this needn't be a lasting state of affairs. Given the rapid advance of science, it may be solved fairly soon. In any event, belief in "heaven" is just kidding yourself. It's just make believe. I was convinced of that even before I read Ehrman. He noted that "heaven" after death, was not an initial christian idea but one conjured up when, after a few decades, jesus had failed to come back to set up his "kingdom" here on Earth. Since he never did come back down here, people made up the notion of people going "up there." The whole christian thing is just so phony, so stupid.....