Not so; Quantum mechanics is well understood.
Classification adopted by Einstein
The Copenhagen interpretation
Many worlds
Consistent histories
Ensemble interpretation, or statistical interpretation
de Broglie–Bohm theory
Relational quantum mechanics
Transactional interpretation
Stochastic mechanics
von Neumann/Wigner interpretation: consciousness causes the collapse
Modal interpretations of quantum theory
Time-symmetric theories
Branching space–time theories
If it’s so well understood, which interpretation should I follow?
And why did Richard Feyman say this?
“I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics”
It explains the behaviour of matter and its interactions with energy on the scale of atoms and subatomic particles. This as opposed to Classical physics, as was understood by Aristotle et al, which explains matter and energy on a scale familiar to human experience and upon which they incorrectly based their metaphysical premises.
Other than the fact that Aristotle was wrong in almost every argument and conclusion he made about physical science - as science has since shown! He had a great mind but could only work with the available information about the universe which, in his era, was extremely limited.
Without the 'View Post' facility I’m certainly not going back to search for the context of this remark.
Again: One cannot define what does not exist. I’m saying there is insufficient evidence for God’s existence to warrant such a belief in the first place.
Now if you told me that Magneto actually existed, then I can know what to look for based on the properties that you’ve given me. First thing I’d ask is where was he last seen.
The bolded is an unjustified bald assertion. It doesn't need a redundant deity to arrive at a "natural explanation".
Whatever it’s provenance, analogy is NOT evidence.
No, but as I said you have the satisfaction of acting according to your natural instincts – just as the instinctive nurturing of your infant daughter gives enormous satisfaction; it's the way we've evolved.
And, while the universe is ultimately purposeless, it is perfectly meaningful in the course of our day-to-day lives. But, that said, the universe per se “doesn’t care” about whether or not humans are in existence just as it didn't care about the 99% of species that are now extinct.
And, while the universe is ultimately purposeless, it is perfectly meaningful in the course of our day-to-day lives. But, that said, the universe per se “doesn’t care” about whether or not humans are in existence just as it didn't care about the 99% of species that are now extinct.
And why do you speak of 99% of species? Why use species as a sample? Life has been around for billions of years, and this life makes a better measurement, because we’ve evolved from it, and therefore without ‘it’ we wouldn’t be here.
There is no Libertarian Free-Will in a ‘Determined’ universe, only the illusion of it.
Theism has nothing to do with it. Codes of behavior have existed far longer than the religions and its precursors are found among the other primates as well.
Morals are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation consequent upon natural selection. They are naturally built into us, because those morals are beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals. That’s it; there isn’t any more.
Morals are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation consequent upon natural selection. They are naturally built into us, because those morals are beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals. That’s it; there isn’t any more.
As far as morals being derivatives of self-preservation and procreation consequent upon natural selection this doesn’t get us to moral obligations, all it does is tell us what is, not how things ‘ought’ to be, so all you’re saying is that humans are pointless conglomerations of matter living with yet another delusion that is morality, and I guess moral nihilism would be true if Theism was false.
This is no more than an Argument from Incredulity Fallacy! There is no reason to think that rationality didn't develop incrementally via natural selection as did the rest of our component qualities.
And why is your explanation simpler than ‘Rationality was inherited from a rational being’? Or do you deny simplicity as an important component with respect to gaining knowledge?
Not “obligation”, instinct – do you get the difference?
It is our evolved instinct as social animals to maintain social cohesion; it is not an externally imposed obligation. Evolutionary biologists and Socio-biologists have established that though human social behaviors are complex, the precursors of human morality can be traced to the behaviors of many other social animals. We are not unique, just the most intelligent.
God’s existence hasn’t been established in the first place due to insufficient evidence.
Maybe! Except that there’s no evidence of a “necessary being”; it’s merely an assumed concept.
Conversely, there is considerable evidence of the natural universe. And there IS evidence of consciousness. Thus the obvious conclusion is that it evolved via Natural Selection as have ALL of our other qualities. Introducing the unsupported notion of a Necessary Being to explain it is merely a god-of-the-gaps augment. And they have never fared well in history.
Conversely, there is considerable evidence of the natural universe. And there IS evidence of consciousness. Thus the obvious conclusion is that it evolved via Natural Selection as have ALL of our other qualities. Introducing the unsupported notion of a Necessary Being to explain it is merely a god-of-the-gaps augment. And they have never fared well in history.
Come now! What is your view of how they will be answered?
The “alternative” (i.e. the natural world), maybe a “joke” in your mind but it’s all we have substantive evidence for regardless of what you think.
The alternative I’m speaking of is this necessary nonrational, purposeless substance that is responsible for existence, and is the sustainer of everything that exists.
Maybe you’re quasi-God that you make so easy to debunk isn’t natural, but I’m arguing for your quasi-God.
You cannot give equal weight to two postulates when they are not equally supported by evidence. Thus for you to give equal value to the natural universe vis-à-vis the non-material universe is intellectual dishonesty. There is no substantive evidence for the latter but a great deal of substantiated evidence for the former, i.e. the natural universe. Thus, your alleged “neutral stance” is not “neutral” at all; it is heavily biased in favour of Theism.
What do you mean when you say these words? If you mean ‘natural’ in the sense of ‘material’ then I can understand you, because then we can call ‘God’ a disembodied mind, and I’ll accept that as ‘non-natural’
Otherwise I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about when you say ‘supernatural’
You miss the point. In a pre-scientific era the only means to explain otherwise inexplicable events – lightening strikes, earthquakes, eclipses floods etc – was attribution to invisible spirits or gods. And then, as now, these gods had to be placated with offerings and/or sacrifices. This applied to the alleged "God of everything" just as much the the earlier nature gods like Thor.
I hope you’re getting it now.
Science does not claim that is can “lead to all knowledge”. Science is not about objective metaphysical truth; it is a collection of methods for making abstract models of nature and then testing those models against reality. In principle even the most established scientific facts (e.g. gravity) are potentially falsifiable. Conversely metaphysics claims absolute truths when in actuality the best it can hope for are logically consistent arguments based upon an axiomatic premise.
The claim and context refer to new facts about nature, not trivial day-to-day learning experiences.
All correct. The “vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules” has resulted in many social animals such as us evolving instinctive behaviours geared towards maintaining social cohesion.
Really! Well you’ll have to make do because that’s all there is as far as we can tell. You can delude yourself with escapist fantasies if you wish.
You live with the fantasy of
“I say I’m special, therefore I’m special’ and that’’s the best you got?
Hmmm well now I must ask one question regarding those philosophical facts and trivial day to day learning experiences.
If a person named chuck reaches the age of 18 and then says ‘I say I’m special, therefore I’m special’ is this a philosophical truth about the world or is it a trivial day-to-day experience?
This is demonstrably untrue. Most of us lead lives of purpose and meaning. It’s rather sad that some can only find meaning via the forlorn, unevidenced hope of post mortem rewards. Life is not a dress rehearsal, its the actual show.
We find meaning through the lie of a purposeless evolution that gives us a psychological advantage just so we can propagate our pointless dna.
By the way was your life special when you weren’t old enough to realize it, or does it become special when you’re aware that it’s supposedly special?
There is no reason to think that abiogenesis didn’t occur via natural processes. Science is a work in progress and how abiogenesis initially occurred is not yet known – although there are several promising hypotheses currently being tested. But to argue that we don’t know “therefore god”, is merely another of your god-of-the-gaps arguments, which seems to be ALL that the so-called Arguments from Reason are.
Did the first organism have the potential to mutate, yes or no? Give me something to work with, because these god of the gap objections are getting old.
Do you ever think that one day you’ll use this logic?
“We don’t know, because the view doesn’t make sense, so let’s change our view”
Or is it hopeless?
Rhetorical trick which answers nothing. The fact remains that there are no proven absolutely true premises, except ones we have defined to be true (such as 2+2=4).
If you think my opinion is incorrect you need to supply evidence of proven absolute truths, rather than play recursive word-games.
The above demonstrates just how useless in practical terms metaphysical word-games are. This is a metaphysical problem, NOT a scientific problem. Scientific knowledge is not about objective metaphysical truth. It is a methodology for testing hypothetical models of nature against reality. And it has shown itself to be enormously successful in discovering new factual truths about the universe; metaphysics hasn't!
Gotcha
“Godless Universe”!? You don’t need an argument for it; you’re living in it.
No! Science is NOT individual interpretation, it is collaborative. It is the acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence using observations, hypotheses and deductions to develop testable, falsifiable theories, which can also make predictions. These theories are reinforced by continuing experiments from which further technologies and theories can develop.
As for your “godless conclusions” why would “godly conclusions” even be considered when there is no substantive evidence for gods?
ALL gods supposedly account for existence, just not very well. They were primitive attempts to understand a frightening, seemingly inexplicable universe. But the gods have been superseded. Science is demonstrably much better equipped to do this.
Dionysus was the god of wine, how in the world does that make him the God of existence…..If you can’t answer then by all means, concede a point, admit that you were wrong. I promise I won’t make a big deal about it.
Leave a comment: