Quantum mechanics teaches a probabilistic, not deterministic, universe

[shmogie]

"Aaaah has dis old BOOK! Aaah does an' ahh has mah FAITH!"

An astute 14 yo sunday school student could easily destroy your quotation.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Here is the problem. There is much evidence for God, simply not the kind you will accept. .

Clearly, you must be a mind reader. But just as clearly, your god is not. Does your god not know what would constituted unbiased, objective evidence?

Not only does your god not know, it also seems incapable of providing any!

You will accept nothing less than a personal visit to you, with Him putting on a cosmic magic show for you. .

Nice little strawman you built up there. Be a shame if someone was to knock it down.

There is evidence based in philosophy, logic, history, theology, and yes, science..

No. There is not. If you must begin your "evidence" with "believe in god, first", then it's not evidence.

These you won´t accept. .

Correct. See above.

Science is riddled with faith. Life is riddled with faith, you practice it every day in one form or another..

False. Not how YOU mean the word "faith". Not even a tiny bit.

As to your tirade, it is irrelevant to me. You respond like most atheists, it is boorish, but doesn´t bother me.

And your sad attempt to paint me into your cute, and ugly corner I find funny.

Ain't you the nice one? No? Well.... I guess you and your god are two peas in the same incapable pod.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

An astute 14 yo sunday school student could easily destroy your quotation.

So you say. So you fail-- repeatedly-- to demonstrate.

Sad. As inept as the god you believe in's continued failure to be .... convincing.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Well, of course, Christianity has provided much of value. Most of the greatest scientists of history were Christians, and many today are. .

So what? To be a good scientist, simply means one puts away Childish Things, whenever one is doing actual science.

Humans are quite capable of compartmentalizing their behaviors. Especially true with christians who are also scientists. They correctly leave god at church, where he belongs.

So, science offers you death and obliteration, ditto for the earth, ditto for the universe. All an infinitesimally small piece of time in infinite time. Thatś OK, if you are comfortable with that, it is fine with me for me..

The Universe does not care about you, or your ego. How big an ego does a person require, to think that the Ultimate Creator has Special Plans for YOU?

You do understand that we humans infest a micro-fraction of a tiny itsy-bitsy miniscule particle in this vast Universe-- and that is just the parts we can see!

The visible universe is only 15 (or so) billion light years in radius, because of that pesky speed of light thing-- we can't see any farther, because the universe isn't old enough. It could be bigger than that, and we'd never know.

But you think... you have a Special Relationship with it's ... creator? Woha!
2

Science has and is doing marvelous things. Nevertheless, it cannot and will not change those ultimate outcomes..

Always and ever having to go against what Religion Teaches. Every Time. Not ONCE in the entire history of Science, have humans had to back-track, and say, Wait! We were WRONG! This Bronze Age Book had it right all along! Who knew?

NOT ONCE.

That's a lousy track record for Holy Books....!

Now, you state God doesn´t exist. You don´t know that, you can´t know that. That is pure hyperbole based in nothing..

Not true at all! It's based on a continuous stream of FALSE STATEMENTS from EVERY holy book, EVER, down through history.

IF THERE WERE A GOD? WHY ARE GOD'S HOLY BOOKS ALWAYS WRONG?

That fact alone proves that if there IS a god? IT IS EVIL FOR IT'S PRINCIPLE ATTRIBUTE IS ONE OF DECEPTION.

We all will ultimately know for sure, be patient, the time between now and your death will go by very quickly.

Lovely. You need to work on your threats: "Well! Wait until you DIE! My Dad's Gonna Beat You Up, Just You Wait!"

Are you going to also punch us in our auras?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Here is the problem. There is much evidence for God, ...

I see this pile of horse exhaust as a sentence pretty much all the time.

"there is much evidence for god"

BUT NOBODY EVER GOES OUT AND GETS IT. Never.

EVER.

"We has evidenceses, we does, my precious!"

Fine: LET'S SEE IT, THEN.

"Oh we has the precious evidenceses, we wont's gives it to yous, my precious! We keeps it for ourselveses. But we haves it we doeses. Precious."

 

[shmogie]

I see this pile of horse exhaust as a sentence pretty much all the time.

"there is much evidence for god"

BUT NOBODY EVER GOES OUT AND GETS IT. Never.

EVER.

"We has evidenceses, we does, my precious!"

Fine: LET'S SEE IT, THEN.

"Oh we has the precious evidenceses, we wont's gives it to yous, my precious! We keeps it for ourselveses. But we haves it we doeses. Precious."

sigh, have you ever read any philosophy, or studied logic ? How about early church history ? No, and you are not about to now. You simply are an angry atheist, who believes dumb sarcasm accomplishes something.

The only thing it has accomplished for me is to confirm that there will be no pearls cast to the ground before you.

You want to express your anger, nothing more. A civil conversation is beyond you here. Take your wounds somewhere else to show them off.

 

[shmogie]

So what? To be a good scientist, simply means one puts away Childish Things, whenever one is doing actual science.

Humans are quite capable of compartmentalizing their behaviors. Especially true with christians who are also scientists. They correctly leave god at church, where he belongs.



The Universe does not care about you, or your ego. How big an ego does a person require, to think that the Ultimate Creator has Special Plans for YOU?

You do understand that we humans infest a micro-fraction of a tiny itsy-bitsy miniscule particle in this vast Universe-- and that is just the parts we can see!

The visible universe is only 15 (or so) billion light years in radius, because of that pesky speed of light thing-- we can't see any farther, because the universe isn't old enough. It could be bigger than that, and we'd never know.

But you think... you have a Special Relationship with it's ... creator? Woha!
2

Always and ever having to go against what Religion Teaches. Every Time. Not ONCE in the entire history of Science, have humans had to back-track, and say, Wait! We were WRONG! This Bronze Age Book had it right all along! Who knew?

NOT ONCE.

That's a lousy track record for Holy Books....!


Not true at all! It's based on a continuous stream of FALSE STATEMENTS from EVERY holy book, EVER, down through history.

IF THERE WERE A GOD? WHY ARE GOD'S HOLY BOOKS ALWAYS WRONG?

That fact alone proves that if there IS a god? IT IS EVIL FOR IT'S PRINCIPLE ATTRIBUTE IS ONE OF DECEPTION.


Lovely. You need to work on your threats: "Well! Wait until you DIE! My Dad's Gonna Beat You Up, Just You Wait!"

Are you going to also punch us in our auras?

Threat ? The natural progression of life to death is a threat ? Lol Of course, the Bible has been proven right in many ways. However, you wouldn´t know that, would you ?

 

[shmogie]

So you say. So you fail-- repeatedly-- to demonstrate.

Sad. As inept as the god you believe in's continued failure to be .... convincing.

zzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzzz

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

sigh, have you ever read any philosophy, or studied logic ? How about early church history ? No, and you are not about to now. You simply are an angry atheist, who believes dumb sarcasm accomplishes something.

The only thing it has accomplished for me is to confirm that there will be no pearls cast to the ground before you.

You want to express your anger, nothing more. A civil conversation is beyond you here. Take your wounds somewhere else to show them off.

Still no evidence. Not even so much as an historical reference.

Just rhetoric and the same lame unproven nonsense as before.

"We has the evidences, my precious, yes we doeses... but we won't shares it we wonts, my precious"

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Threat ? The natural progression of life to death is a threat ? Lol Of course, the Bible has been proven right in many ways. However, you wouldn´t know that, would you ?

Name ONE thing the bible was "proven right".

This ought to be most amusing-- when 99% of the bible's claims have been proven so very, very wrong...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

sigh, have you ever read any philosophy, or studied logic ? How about early church history ?

Yes. Lots and lots and lots. How on EARTH do you think I became an atheist in the first place?

By reading the bloody, murderous and most hideous history of the christian church.

We call it the Dark Ages, because Christianity ruled with brutality and murder.

But even at the beginning, when Constantine's brutal armies force-"converted" people into christianity -- or they died instead.

Yeah. I've studied church history: The one consistent theme? If god is behind Christianity, god's favorite pastime is brutal murder of the innocent.

 

[osgart]

What is this thread's going definition of free will? Because there are a lot of different kinds of free will.

 

[exchemist]

He specifically mentioned evolution. I am an evolutionist, just not the macro kind. As one trained and educated to evaluate evidence, for me, as the jury for me, macro evolution, does not have sufficient evidence to support it.

As to the accusation ( *I assume about the existence of God or at least so called paranormal activities) that evidence isn't offered, there is a huge plethora of evidence.

However, in the atheist court, it is deemed inadmissable,, and is never considered. If, by the natural dogma if (A) could not occur, then it didn't

This mischaracterises the scientific method.

What that relies on is reproducible evidence, as a way to reduce, as far as humanly possible, subjective bias and error. Such evidence as there is for God seems to be subjective, personal experience and not objective and reproducible. So God does not qualify as a scientific hypothesis, that's all. Many scientists have religious belief. They just don't bring it into their scientific work.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Nevertheless, drop a billiard ball and it will fall in a deterministic and predictable way even though its subatomic constituents each has a statistical description. That's how large numbers of particles can make a collection of them behave predictably - the principle that insurance companies and casinos use to prognosticate accurately within a decreasing margin of error as the sample size grows. Not knowing the future does not equate to the presence of free will or indeterministic macroscopic physics.

We have no evidence of higher dimensional beings, and so far, no need to add them to our science or our personal worldviews. Nor is there any reason to believe that if such a creature or creatures existed, that they would not behave as predictably as the falling billiard ball

Correction: "YOU have no evidence of higher dimensional beings".

 

[BilliardsBall]

I struggle with the long post because BB didn’t break up most of the paragraphs with double-line, and when he didn’t quote external sources that made it difficult for me to determine his opinions from others.

But I found this below, which he highlighted himself, in the midst of his opinions on the Big Bang, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, out-of-place:



To me, not of his post before this very point actually follow what he say here, about “free will” and “higher dimensional being”.

This point here, make his whole OP nothing more than sophistry, or to be more brutally frank - philosophical BS.

I was quoting a physicist from Quora. I found his comment interesting, proceeding from his belief in a doubled-universe timeline.

 

[shmogie]

This mischaracterises the scientific method.

What that relies on is reproducible evidence, as a way to reduce, as far as humanly possible, subjective bias and error. Such evidence as there is for God seems to be subjective, personal experience and not objective and reproducible. So God does not qualify as a scientific hypothesis, that's all. Many scientists have religious belief. They just don't bring it into their scientific work.

Correct, we are back to standards of evidence again. Something reported by numerous witnesses from the legal definition of evidence would have value.

From the scientific standard, apparently not.

As an aside, the scientific method, as practiced by some, has been proven to have bias and error.

I agree, God is not a scientific hypothesis, that doesn't bother me in the least, after all, the scientific method is just a human construct, and as such, is limited.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The fact that the thesis of determinism has been empirically refuted, and therefore cannot be employed to deny the reality of free will, is indisputable. And one doesn't really need an extensive dissemination on QM in order to show that determinism is empirically false. The realism postulate has been shown to fail in various experiments on quanta, just as the locality (localness) postulate has. See the findings cited in posts # 11 and #19 here:

Solve the Riddle of Compatibilism, Win Big Prize

The failure of the realism postulate means that quanta do not exist with definite properties in the absence of or prior to a measurement. The thesis of determinism requires that the world have a definite state at t0 in order to determine what
happens at t1.

These facts are upsetting to people who have an allegiance to determinism as their religion because it undercuts the denial that (at least some) people are able to choose their actions.

Oddly, when faced with these facts, it isn't unusual for those dedicated to the thesis of determinism to assert that the world is dualistic, somehow made up of two non-interacting "levels" or "worlds," with quantum indeterminism confined to the "micro-world". It's all very confused and delusional.

Thank you, sincerely.

I've also noticed that all of jurisprudence says "Guilty of a crime when in one's right mind (able to exercise free will) and not guilty of a crime when under extreme duress (they couldn't help it, they were unable to act of free will)".

 

[Audie]

Correct, we are back to standards of evidence again. Something reported by numerous witnesses from the legal definition of evidence would have value.

From the scientific standard, apparently not.

As an aside, the scientific method, as practiced by some, has been proven to have bias and error.

I agree, God is not a scientific hypothesis, that doesn't bother me in the least, after all, the scientific method is just a human construct, and as such, is limited.

The big problem with these "numerous witnesses" is
the complete* lack of consistency.

To accept one particular version of "god" from among
the countless religions and inerrant readings of
so-called sacred texts is to admit to n objective
standards at all.

* well, not complete-complete.

The Gold Books
that Joseph Smith found, on which were the
Book of Mormon

These guys all same the same thing, to the word.


The Testimony of Eight Witnesses
Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

Christian Whitmer

Jacob Whitmer

Peter Whitmer, Jun.

John Whitmer

Hiram Page

Joseph Smith, Sen.

Hyrum Smith

Samuel H. Smith

 

[shmogie]

Thank you, sincerely.

I've also noticed that all of jurisprudence says "Guilty of a crime when in one's right mind (able to exercise free will) and not guilty of a crime when under extreme duress (they couldn't help it, they were unable to act of free will)".

Close to the legal definition. The standard is that a person is, for whatever reason, unable to determine right from wrong.

 

[exchemist]

Correct, we are back to standards of evidence again. Something reported by numerous witnesses from the legal definition of evidence would have value.

From the scientific standard, apparently not.

As an aside, the scientific method, as practiced by some, has been proven to have bias and error.

I agree, God is not a scientific hypothesis, that doesn't bother me in the least, after all, the scientific method is just a human construct, and as such, is limited.

It doesn't bother me either. I see no reason why there should not be a God, and I would like to think there is one. But I do not expect to see God feature in science, because science is a methodology designed for seeking natural explanations for natural phenomena. It simply does not deal with the issue.

What you say about bias and error is obviously true, which is why science has the processes it does to try to reduce them. Nobody claims any human discipline is perfect - and in fact the science journals regularly contain items on data found to be flawed in some way, with revisions to the resulting hypotheses and so on. That's all part of the process, just as airline pilots report near-misses.