Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Illyrius

Quantum Mysticism - dawning of the New Age

1,182 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Illyrius
1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

That the subatomic plays by different rules, how do you interpret it considering your thread title? 

I think it has to do with subject-object connection. Mere act of observing changes the "behaviour" of the particle. It is like consciousness itself has an impact on what is observed. I can't at the moment think of a better explanation.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
45 minutes ago, Piney said:

Like the way the sickle cell mutation was suppose to protect from malaria but instead kills when the marker is in both parents.

Exactly, the HbS carriers have been naturally selected. 

45 minutes ago, Piney said:

This brings back memories of our arguments about the existence of Bigfoot 10 years ago.....You won. From one end to the other of every Piney Woods in the Eastern U.S. I'm empty handed. :tu:

Mate I did my own hunts back I  those days, the way I remember it was learning from each other :tu:

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
6 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

I think it has to do with subject-object connection. Mere act of observing changes the "behaviour" of the particle. It is like consciousness itself has an impact on what is observed. I can't at the moment think of a better explanation.

But of you don't observe it, the effect still happens, it just happens to both instead of one. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
Just now, psyche101 said:

But of you don't observe it, the effect still happens, it just happens to both instead of one. 

The first oddity of double slit experiment is that a single photon acts as a wave when shooted through two slits, the second weirdness is that when it is observed to see what exactly happens when going through slits - it leaves a particle pattern - it "behaves" in a different way.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
9 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

The first oddity of double slit experiment is that a single photon acts as a wave when shooted through two slits, the second weirdness is that when it is observed to see what exactly happens when going through slits - it leaves a particle pattern - it "behaves" in a different way.

Its even more complicated and the answer likely resides in ourselves. Rather than tie in consciousness, it would be more prudent to establish exactly when the observation actually occur? 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

Its even more complicated and the answer likely resides in ourselves. Rather than tie in consciousness, it would be more prudent to establish exactly when the observation actually occur? 

 

It is a good question. But obviously something changes when a particle is under a focused attention. I said what i think it means, it can mean something different. What do you think about it all?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SeekerWCF
4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

There is no good reason to consider and grand designer pimples or not. Its purely a human philosophical construct which is not supported by any viable model. 

Gives matter mass which means matter can exist. Your works salad won't change that. 

Not what was said. I referred to the LHC you said the LHC was soley associated with particle physics and I said the LHC records behaviour as well as particles so the two are intimately linked as far as the LHC is concerned. 

Just another one of your word salads. Again, your protests changes nothing here. 

Pilot wave theory is being revisited. 

https://www.quantamagazine.org/pilot-wave-theory-gains-experimental-support-20160516/

No it's not, an intelligent designer can fix holes and we would see things happen that should not. Billions of years of natural development is not an intelligent design, it just offers that perspective from our vantage point. Incredible that we can see back 13 billion years but some still don't comprehend that time frame. 

Of course it is. We have examples already. If an intelligence designs an environment, the only way to make it work properly is to only manifest "stuff" when it's needed within a bell curve other wise an infinite infrastructure would be needed to uphold and make all events and things manifest simutaniously because all things would need another layer of scaffollding to uphold the previous layer. It would be Atlas all the way down baby! An algorithm with enough randomness built into it, is the ONLY WAY to prevent needing infinite layers of Mr. Atlas.  This is precisely what happens. Quantum tunneling is a real verified phenomenon. You can actually calculate how many times you have to walk into a wall, before you appear on the other side via a rare quantum tunneling event. The killer of the pilot wave junk is that the Copenhagen interpretation  is REQUIRED for the necessary tunneling events to happen inside of stars to allow them to sustain fusion. 

Word salad word salad word salad. Dude. What are you talking about? Quantum mechanics is already PERFECTLY defined. The LHC was not built to explore quantum mechanics, it was built already understanding it ( under the Copenhagen interpretation) to explore the standard model. I feel like I'm wading through led here. All that is besides the point.

As I mentioned before, we already have examples of how a reality needs to be structured in order to be autonomous. Yes that's right human beings being intelligent designed and are DESIGNING realities and have INDEPENDENTLY, without realizing it, come up with the same EXACT solution as "God" ( or whatever) did. Why? Because it's logical. 1+1 will always equal 2 no matter how much omnipotence you throw at it to try and change it. An independent autonomous reality MUST have certain elements in it so that God (or whatever) dosnt have to create an infinite amount of pegs to stand on. 

I cant express this enough..... this is PRECISLEY the way that nature behaves. If you  can't see how striking that is because you want so despretly to hang onto a conclusion you have already made banging on defunct theories like pilot wave for confirmation,  then there is nothing I could say any way. But. If you are a man of facts, these are them. Im not saying join my cult, and I'm not saying it's proof... just Evidence of a designer. 

Oh no. You are TOTALY WRONG. Computer scientists have been in a race to DESIGN AIs and make them actually functional for a long time. Try as they might for life like AIs or even simpliar life like simulations, they have to stumble fall.... die...and success is rewarded with continuation. Yes.... yet again we have discovered that error and imperfection is a necessary component for evolution of all things to exist. Why dosnt God ( or whatever) design things better?... the answer is because it couldn't possibly. In order for our cozy little existence to exist, there are only a narrow set of logical circumstances that can lead to it. Not even a great designer can subvert what is logically true. Again we are discovering all of this for ourselves, and when we look at the depths of reality in science, we discover that this is exactly the way fundamental reality works. The workings of the Universe have to be perfectly imperfect in order for it to be a functional universe in the first place.

No word salad dude. You simply can't have it any other way. Fundamental reality looks exactly the way it should be if it were designed by an intelligence. There is no escaping it. 

The underlying principle of the universe is an equation with randomness built into it. The Big Bang itself is a result of a rare mass tunneling event. The math of which is the egg before the chicken ( the chicken being matter/energy/particles etc...) The peg beneath this one. Is there intelligence really there? I don't known, but it seems to be a lot smarter than us.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
Just now, Illyrius said:

It is a good question. But obviously something changes when a particle is under a focused attention. I said what i think it means, it can mean something different.

Not necessarily. Somthing changes in our perception, like I mentioned, if we don't have an observer it still happens but to both slits so we seem to be the odd man out here, pardon the pun, not what simply appears to be wave particle duality, which we predicted before the slit experiment. Seems to me its our perception, not the function. 

Just now, Illyrius said:

What do you think about it all?

We see it in QM too, quarks and their flavours. It's surely our method of observing may the error be scale, how we resolve duality already or am illusion of sorts. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
10 minutes ago, SeekerWCF said:

Of course it is. We have examples already. If an intelligence designs an environment, the only way to make it work properly is to only manifest "stuff" when it's needed within a bell curve other wise an infinite infrastructure would be needed to uphold and make all events and things manifest simutaniously because all things would need another layer of scaffollding to uphold the previous layer. It would be Atlas all the way down baby! An algorithm with enough randomness built into it, is the ONLY WAY to prevent needing infinite layers of Mr. Atlas.  

No, a designer can go back to the board and completely rewrite the original idea. That's why there is a Tesla floating around in space and not a souped up model T. 

10 minutes ago, SeekerWCF said:

This is precisely what happens. Quantum tunneling is a real verified phenomenon. You can actually calculate how many times you have to walk into a wall, before you appear on the other side via a rare quantum tunneling event.

No. That's a wild exaggeration. You can approximate a minimum number of times you can walk into a wall before a few molecules go into it. The last black hole will expel the last of its Hawking Radiation before you walk through a wall. 

10 minutes ago, SeekerWCF said:

The killer of the pilot wave junk is that the Copenhagen interpretation  is REQUIRED for the necessary tunneling events to happen inside of stars to allow them to sustain fusion. 

And aspects of pilot wave theory may assist with testing particle wave duality, that's what science does, changes as is required. It may hold answers, it may not, point us we are working toward a solution. 

10 minutes ago, SeekerWCF said:

Word salad word salad word salad. Dude. What are you talking about? Quantum mechanics is already PERFECTLY defined. The LHC was not built to explore quantum mechanics, it was built already understanding it ( under the Copenhagen interpretation) to explore the standard model. I feel like I'm wading through led here. All that is besides the point.

Yes beside the point but you are nitpicking, the behaviour of bosons is studied and you said behaviour is not a function of the LHC, it is. 

10 minutes ago, SeekerWCF said:

As I mentioned before, we already have examples of how a reality needs to be structured in order to be autonomous. Yes that's right human beings being intelligent designed and are DESIGNING realities and have INDEPENDENTLY, without realizing it, come up with the same EXACT solution as "God" ( or whatever) did. Why? Because it's logical. 1+1 will always equal 2 no matter how much omnipotence you throw at it to try and change it.

No they have not, we have ancient philosophies that some have convoluted findings by utilising hindsight to merge the narrative with findings, that's not a conclusion, that's an opinion. An imaginative one at that. 

10 minutes ago, SeekerWCF said:

An independent autonomous reality MUST have certain elements in it so that God (or whatever) dosnt have to create an infinite amount of pegs to stand on. 

Why? What's God busy doing? 

10 minutes ago, SeekerWCF said:

I cant express this enough..... this is PRECISLEY the way that nature behaves. If you  can't see how striking that is because you want so despretly to hang onto a conclusion you have already made banging on defunct theories like pilot wave for confirmation,  then there is nothing I could say any way. But. If you are a man of facts, these are them. Im not saying join my cult, and I'm not saying it's proof... just Evidence of a designer. 

No, there is nothing you can say  evidence already tells the story, and an endless system is not proof that intligence designed trial and error. It certainly doesn't refute a natural universe by any means, its opinion. 

10 minutes ago, SeekerWCF said:

Oh no. You are TOTALY WRONG. Computer scientists have been in a race to DESIGN AIs and make them actually functional for a long time. Try as they might for life like AIs or even simpliar life like simulations, they have to stumble fall.... die...and success is rewarded with continuation. Yes.... yet again we have discovered that error and imperfection is a necessary component for evolution of all things to exist. Why dosnt God ( or whatever) design things better?... the answer is because it couldn't possibly. In order for our cozy little existence to exist, there are only a narrow set of logical circumstances that can lead to it. Not even a great designer can subvert what is logically true. Again we are discovering all of this for ourselves, and when we look at the depths of reality in science, we discover that this is exactly the way fundamental reality works. The workings of the Universe have to be perfectly imperfect in order for it to be a functional universe in the first place.

That's tells me that we don't need a designer though. 

Computer scientists designing AI do go back to the drawing board all the time, you seem to be confusing goal with method here. 

10 minutes ago, SeekerWCF said:

No word salad dude. You simply can't have it any other way. Fundamental reality looks exactly the way it should be if it were designed by an intelligence. There is no escaping it. 

No it does not. 

Over the past five hundred years, the progress of science has worked to strip away God’s roles in the world. He isn’t needed to keep things moving, or to develop the complexity of living creatures, or to account for the existence of the universe. Perhaps the greatest triumph of the scientific revolution has been in the realm of methodology. Control groups, double-blind experiments, an insistence on precise and testable predictions – a suite of techniques constructed to guard against the very human tendency to see things that aren’t there. There is no control group for the universe, but in our attempts to explain it we should aim for a similar level of rigor. If and when cosmologists develop a successful scientific understanding of the origin of the universe, we will be left with a picture in which there is no place for God to act – if he does (e.g., through subtle influences on quantum-mechanical transitions or the progress of evolution), it is only in ways that are unnecessary and imperceptible.   We can’t be sure that a fully naturalist understanding of cosmology is forthcoming, but at the same time there is no reason to doubt it. Two thousand years ago, it was perfectly reasonable to invoke God as an explanation for natural phenomena; now, we can do much better.

None of this amounts to a “proof” that God doesn’t exist, of course. Such a proof is not forthcoming; science isn’t in the business of proving things. Rather, science judges the merits of competing models in terms of their simplicity, clarity, comprehensiveness, and fit to the data. 

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/

10 minutes ago, SeekerWCF said:

The underlying principle of the universe is an equation with randomness built into it. The Big Bang itself is a result of a rare mass tunneling event. The math of which is the egg before the chicken ( the chicken being matter/energy/particles etc...) The peg beneath this one. Is there intelligence really there? I don't known, but it seems to be a lot smarter than us.

How rare is an event before spacetime existed? I think your counting chickens there myself. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SeekerWCF
19 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

No, a designer can go back to the board and completely rewrite the original idea. That's why there is a Tesla floating around in space and not a souped up model T. 

No. That's a wild exaggeration. You can approximate a minimum number of times you can walk into a wall before a few molecules go into it. The last black hole will expel the last of its Hawking Radiation before you walk through a wall. 

And aspects of pilot wave theory may assist with testing particle wave duality, that's what science does, changes as is required. It may hold answers, it may not, point us we are working toward a solution. 

Yes beside the point but you are nitpicking, the behaviour of bosons is studied and you said behaviour is not a function of the LHC, it is. 

No they have not, we have ancient philosophies that some have convoluted findings by utilising hindsight to merge the narrative with findings, that's not a conclusion, that's an opinion. An imaginative one at that. 

Why? What's God busy doing? 

No, there is nothing you can say  evidence already tells the story, and an endless system is not proof that intligence designed trial and error. It certainly doesn't refute a natural universe by any means, its opinion. 

That's tells me that we don't need a designer though. 

Computer scientists designing AI do go back to the drawing board all the time, you seem to be confusing goal with method here. 

No it does not. 

Over the past five hundred years, the progress of science has worked to strip away God’s roles in the world. He isn’t needed to keep things moving, or to develop the complexity of living creatures, or to account for the existence of the universe. Perhaps the greatest triumph of the scientific revolution has been in the realm of methodology. Control groups, double-blind experiments, an insistence on precise and testable predictions – a suite of techniques constructed to guard against the very human tendency to see things that aren’t there. There is no control group for the universe, but in our attempts to explain it we should aim for a similar level of rigor. If and when cosmologists develop a successful scientific understanding of the origin of the universe, we will be left with a picture in which there is no place for God to act – if he does (e.g., through subtle influences on quantum-mechanical transitions or the progress of evolution), it is only in ways that are unnecessary and imperceptible.   We can’t be sure that a fully naturalist understanding of cosmology is forthcoming, but at the same time there is no reason to doubt it. Two thousand years ago, it was perfectly reasonable to invoke God as an explanation for natural phenomena; now, we can do much better.

None of this amounts to a “proof” that God doesn’t exist, of course. Such a proof is not forthcoming; science isn’t in the business of proving things. Rather, science judges the merits of competing models in terms of their simplicity, clarity, comprehensiveness, and fit to the data. 

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/

How rare is an event before spacetime existed? I think your counting chickens there myself. 

Dude. We are going to have to work backwards on this one step at a time. I no longer have the patience or thumb skill with those block quote thingies to handle expanding arguments on every little thing and every little misconception. Let's start with your last statement.

You seem to be under the impression that the vacuum did not exist prior to the Big Bang. This is a common mistake because there are gaps in definition between what scientists say and laymen understand. There is even a new Job for physics majors where they learn to translate concepts to laymen from real physicists.

 We recognize that space is expanding based on redshift and standard candle calculations. Then we work it all backwards. 

When scientists say "space" was created at the Big Bang they are not saying "space itself" or what we call the vacuum. They are talking about the SPACE BETWEEN things, because according to our observation all THINGS were together. All space between those things couldn't have exited, but not the vacuum itself. Quantum fluctuations are a product of the vaccum or what you might call SPACE itself not simply space between things. You and are separated by spacetime. It's going to take time and energy for me to come embrace you, but that is independent of the vacuum that we all inhabit. There not being TIME before the Big Bang is because of how physicists define time with the premise of philosophical materialism. In no way shape or for has anyone ever tried to suggested that there were no events or vacuum prior to. Its about how things are defined by physicists and how they are defined in common language by laymen. Space and time are very different things to a layman than they are to a physicist. This is why there are so many stumbling blocks in this material is because everyone ends up having different conversations. Mostly because people don't try to really understand physics and just parrot what they here from documentaries or even books that are not always written for the right reasons.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
1 hour ago, Illyrius said:

The first oddity of double slit experiment is that a single photon acts as a wave when shooted through two slits, the second weirdness is that when it is observed to see what exactly happens when going through slits - it leaves a particle pattern - it "behaves" in a different way.

Hi Illyrius,

This particular subject is not one that I have any knowledge of and am learning as I follow along. I have though spent a fair bit of time observing human behavior in a variety of social environments. As an observer I detach myself from me and do not carry bias while observing, for me it is the experience as it unfolds without my influence. What does change or is affected is what I learn, the conditions for the observable exist although there can be some variation in the individual examples there will always be some constants, because I am the observer there is a change in my understanding of individual participants even if there are limited potential outcomes.

I would think that any observer that keeps an open mind no matter the subject of study experiences a personal change through discovery.

jmccr8 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SeekerWCF
51 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

No, a designer can go back to the board and completely rewrite the original idea. That's why there is a Tesla floating around in space and not a souped up model T. 

No. That's a wild exaggeration. You can approximate a minimum number of times you can walk into a wall before a few molecules go into it. The last black hole will expel the last of its Hawking Radiation before you walk through a wall. 

And aspects of pilot wave theory may assist with testing particle wave duality, that's what science does, changes as is required. It may hold answers, it may not, point us we are working toward a solution. 

Yes beside the point but you are nitpicking, the behaviour of bosons is studied and you said behaviour is not a function of the LHC, it is. 

No they have not, we have ancient philosophies that some have convoluted findings by utilising hindsight to merge the narrative with findings, that's not a conclusion, that's an opinion. An imaginative one at that. 

Why? What's God busy doing? 

No, there is nothing you can say  evidence already tells the story, and an endless system is not proof that intligence designed trial and error. It certainly doesn't refute a natural universe by any means, its opinion. 

That's tells me that we don't need a designer though. 

Computer scientists designing AI do go back to the drawing board all the time, you seem to be confusing goal with method here. 

No it does not. 

Over the past five hundred years, the progress of science has worked to strip away God’s roles in the world. He isn’t needed to keep things moving, or to develop the complexity of living creatures, or to account for the existence of the universe. Perhaps the greatest triumph of the scientific revolution has been in the realm of methodology. Control groups, double-blind experiments, an insistence on precise and testable predictions – a suite of techniques constructed to guard against the very human tendency to see things that aren’t there. There is no control group for the universe, but in our attempts to explain it we should aim for a similar level of rigor. If and when cosmologists develop a successful scientific understanding of the origin of the universe, we will be left with a picture in which there is no place for God to act – if he does (e.g., through subtle influences on quantum-mechanical transitions or the progress of evolution), it is only in ways that are unnecessary and imperceptible.   We can’t be sure that a fully naturalist understanding of cosmology is forthcoming, but at the same time there is no reason to doubt it. Two thousand years ago, it was perfectly reasonable to invoke God as an explanation for natural phenomena; now, we can do much better.

None of this amounts to a “proof” that God doesn’t exist, of course. Such a proof is not forthcoming; science isn’t in the business of proving things. Rather, science judges the merits of competing models in terms of their simplicity, clarity, comprehensiveness, and fit to the data. 

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/

How rare is an event before spacetime existed? I think your counting chickens there myself. 

1) The Tesla still has wheels because they are the most logical solution to a problem. The design is actually very similar. There is a point where the design has reach perfection given the parameters of what is logically possible. The designer cannot rise above logic. We have discussed this. Not even an omnipotent being can make 1+1 = 62

2) Time is completely irrelevant. It's not how likely it is, it's if it will happen or not, and it would regardless if it would take ten universes to do it. The real effects have real macro consequences. As I mentioned already the sun would not shine without it. ( and Hawking radiation has yet to be proven. The LHC has yet to produce a mini black hole to observe) 

3) It's evidence. The universe behaves exactly how we design simulations on the most fundamental levels which is a product of logic and conservation. Simulations have designers. Does that mean there has to be one?..... no of course not, but its a dam good piece of evidence to add to an intelligent design theory. To be so terribly bias against the idea to deny this is the true tell. 

4) It's a recognition not a conclusion, nor is based on any ancient ideas. I can see the facts, but I don't retain a bias one way or another when thinking about it. This allows me to explore the subject without colored glasses because I can take off my glasses. And intelligent design/simulation theory has merit, evidence, and stats on its side. Conclusive? No way, but enough to expose a scary level of bias and habit of confirmation bias in many athietis who claim to be agnostics.  

5) yet again dude you don't seem to get it. Science has ABSOLUTELY not worked to strip away "Gods Role". That is not what science does nor its purpose. It works towards the truth. Has it stripped away a lot of mythology? Yes.  In fact, the scientific method and inquiry is so robust that it has now challenged even the philsophy it was founded upon, but make no mistake it's purpose is not to disprove anything. I dont have anymore problems with what you have said except your bias towards non intelligence. I don't even think intelligence and naturalism are mutually exclusive, but we musnt try to exaplain away real evidence simply because we like one theory over another. There are reason to think there might be a designer, and there are reasons not to, but writing off potential evidence and observation of circumstances because of bias isn't science either. 

There really only needs to be a well written equation and a platform to run the equation for a reality to exist. Once we delve beyond quantum interactions and behavior we find that there are equations.  Equations that thang govern the bottom of the sea

Gotta sleep.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
26 minutes ago, SeekerWCF said:

There are reason to think there might be a designer, and there are reasons not to, but writing off potential evidence and observation of circumstances because of bias isn't science either. 

Though in short lines you explained aruguments for intelligent design, can you expand your views about reasons which support intelligent design and reasons which make it not likely?

Edited by Illyrius
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
6 hours ago, Illyrius said:

So, what can be the reason that when scientsts put observing devices to see why photon leaves a wave pattern, photon starts to leave a particle pattern? How to interpret that?

Decoherence.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
5 hours ago, Illyrius said:

I think it has to do with subject-object connection. Mere act of observing changes the "behaviour" of the particle. It is like consciousness itself has an impact on what is observed. I can't at the moment think of a better explanation.

This "mere act of observation" requires the detector to interact with the particle. Why would consciousness have an effect? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
15 hours ago, SeekerWCF said:

Dude. We are going to have to work backwards on this one step at a time. I no longer have the patience or thumb skill with those block quote thingies to handle expanding arguments on every little thing and every little misconception. Let's start with your last statement.

You seem to be under the impression that the vacuum did not exist prior to the Big Bang. This is a common mistake because there are gaps in definition between what scientists say and laymen understand. There is even a new Job for physics majors where they learn to translate concepts to laymen from real physicists.

 We recognize that space is expanding based on redshift and standard candle calculations. Then we work it all backwards. 

I am sure I am just as disadvantaged I am on a phone. 

15 hours ago, SeekerWCF said:

When scientists say "space" was created at the Big Bang they are not saying "space itself" or what we call the vacuum. They are talking about the SPACE BETWEEN things, because according to our observation all THINGS were together. All space between those things couldn't have exited, but not the vacuum itself. Quantum fluctuations are a product of the vaccum or what you might call SPACE itself not simply space between things. You and are separated by spacetime. It's going to take time and energy for me to come embrace you, but that is independent of the vacuum that we all inhabit. There not being TIME before the Big Bang is because of how physicists define time with the premise of philosophical materialism. In no way shape or for has anyone ever tried to suggested that there were no events or vacuum prior to. Its about how things are defined by physicists and how they are defined in common language by laymen. Space and time are very different things to a layman than they are to a physicist. This is why there are so many stumbling blocks in this material is because everyone ends up having different conversations. Mostly because people don't try to really understand physics and just parrot what they here from documentaries or even books that are not always written for the right reasons.

Space and time are inextricably linked  I am sure you are aware of E=MC2. All we know about the pre-existing state of the universe is that the forces were one, not four, and the universe was in a state that allowed quantum laws to operate in a similar fashion to that which they do now. We might be the first big bang, we might be the trlionth, we just don't know how it worked or if time impacted it. By our standards, 14 trillion attempts at a big bang might have lasted 14 seconds, it might have been 14 trillion years on our time scales as we experience them now. Anything else is speculation. 

And quantum fluctuations arrive via a difference in potential. That's not hinting at a creator at all. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SeekerWCF
14 hours ago, Illyrius said:

Though in short lines you explained aruguments for intelligent design, can you expand your views about reasons which support intelligent design and reasons which make it not likely?

There are a hodge podge of things going on the support intelligent design. When I say intelligent design, I mean in no possible way to support any religion. Fundemantal physics has some things to say, then there are statistics and logical outcomes of statistics, then we move into biology and NDEs. The critique of course is  abundant, but when you look at the MOUNTING circumstances, a look at the bigger picture might be in order. 

All kinds of things against intelligent design, but the cynics ( I refuse to call them true skeptics), have over looked some very important things, but I have yet to have a descent argument in these realms because most of the time they are not even ready to adress the issue properly. 

One of them is that natural processes tend to order them selves in balances. Imbalance is anhilation because when It happens it destroys itself. There really isn't any reason to assume the same balancing of things dosnt happen behind the scenes. In short the exotic reality we find ourselves in followed logic because evolution is ultimately logical indeed all things must be. Natural processes have to follow logic just like god does. It would make sense that both would come to the same conclusions in eternity because only the most logical progression of reality is going to be true after google^google^google years. We end up in a place where intelligent design and natural progression are pretty much on equal footing, and likely the same thing. 

Edited by SeekerWCF
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
2 minutes ago, SeekerWCF said:

All kinds of things against intelligent design, but the cynics ( I refuse to call them true skeptics), have over looked some very important things, but I have yet to have a descent argument in these realms because most of the time they are not even ready to adress the issue properly. 

One of them is that natural processes tend to order them selves in balances. Imbalance is anhilation because when It happens it destroys itself. There really isn't any reason to assume the same balancing of things dosnt happen behind the scenes. In short the exotic reality we find ourselves in followed logic because evolution is ultimately logical indeed all things must be.

I liked your argument about why universe is "not perfect". If everything is in perfect harmony then evolution of spirit through tests and trials wouldn't be possible. Imbalance is a consequence of limited perspectives, but in the long term nature balances things out.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MauriOra
4 minutes ago, SeekerWCF said:

There are a hodge podge of things going on the support intelligent design. When I say intelligent design, I mean in no possible way to support any religion. Fundemantal physics has some things to say, then there are statistics and logical outcomes of statistics, then we move into biology and NDEs. The critique of course is  abundant, but when you look at the MOUNTING circumstances, a look at the bigger picture might be in order. 

All kinds of things against intelligent design, but the cynics ( I refuse to call them true skeptics), have over looked some very important things, but I have yet to have a descent argument in these realms because most of the time they are not even ready to adress the issue properly. 

One of them is that natural processes tend to order them selves in balances. Imbalance is anhilation because when It happens it destroys itself. There really isn't any reason to assume the same balancing of things dosnt happen behind the scenes. In short the exotic reality we find ourselves in followed logic because evolution is ultimately logical indeed all things must be. Natural processes have to follow logic just like god does. It would make sense that both would come to the same conclusions in eternity because only the most logical progression of reality is going to be true after google^google^google years. We end up in a place where intelligent design and natural progression are pretty much on equal footing, and likely the same thing. 

Atamarie Friend..

Excellent ..!!!!

I Agree .. You have a fine Mind for these subjects and I Do enjoy reading what you say ..

Awesome.. Keep it up.!!!

Mo..xx

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
15 hours ago, SeekerWCF said:

1) The Tesla still has wheels because they are the most logical solution to a problem. The design is actually very similar. There is a point where the design has reach perfection given the parameters of what is logically possible. The designer cannot rise above logic. We have discussed this. Not even an omnipotent being can make 1+1 = 62

No the design is not similar, it has wheels, it's not closer to a model Than than a wheelbarrow is. 

And your not referring to what I said anyway. The Tesla is not a model T with 100 years of upgrades. It's a complete redesign. Like how an intelligent creator might just put a new laryngeal nerve in the giraffe as opposed to stretching the existing one to ridiculous lengths. Nature is full of mistakes and work around, which dues not imply a designer at all. 

Quote

2) Time is completely irrelevant. It's not how likely it is, it's if it will happen or not, and it would regardless if it would take ten universes to do it. The real effects have real macro consequences. As I mentioned already the sun would not shine without it. ( and Hawking radiation has yet to be proven. The LHC has yet to produce a mini black hole to observe) 

So whats the point in a theory that may well take the span of ten universe lifetimes to achieve? What means that it actually is achievable and not a mathematical curiosity? Who lives through ten universes to gather the evidence to prove something that is not going to happen on demand, and us of no use to us at all? 

I stand by my statement. Hawking Radiation will be tested and empty the last black hole before you walk through a wall, which won't happen anyway, only a few molecules will and you would be none the wiser regardless. 

Quote

3) It's evidence. The universe behaves exactly how we design simulations on the most fundamental levels which is a product of logic and conservation. Simulations have designers. Does that mean there has to be one?..... no of course not, but its a dam good piece of evidence to add to an intelligent design theory.

No it's not, that's a personal opinion. I could counter that by saying an intelligent being would not put Deepak Chopra or Justin Bieber in a universe for the sake of the beings in it. Makes just as much sense. 

Quote

To be so terribly bias against the idea to deny this is the true tell. 

And to promote something against the evidence is irrational and zealous. 

Quote

4) It's a recognition not a conclusion, nor is based on any ancient ideas.

A creator diety is indeed an ancient ideal completely unsupported by modern evidence. 

Quote

I can see the facts, but I don't retain a bias one way or another when thinking about it. This allows me to explore the subject without colored glasses because I can take off my glasses.

Are you reading what you post???????? 

You are definitely biased, and strongly. No two ways about it, and not by evidence but personal opinion based on ancient ideals. 

Quote

And intelligent design/simulation theory has merit, evidence, and stats on its side. Conclusive? No way, but enough to expose a scary level of bias and habit of confirmation bias in many athietis who claim to be agnostics.  

If it had merit and stats, that's what the academic heavyweights like Krauss Carroll and Greene would be studying and sharing, and that's not happening. What the best minds are saying today is nothing like your claim. 

Are you aware of Bertrands teapot agnostic or Dawkins Tooth fairy agnostic? 

Those definitions seem pretty sound and accurate to me. 

Quote

5) yet again dude you don't seem to get it. Science has ABSOLUTELY not worked to strip away "Gods Role". That is not what science does nor its purpose. It works towards the truth. Has it stripped away a lot of mythology? Yes.  In fact, the scientific method and inquiry is so robust that it has now challenged even the philsophy it was founded upon, but make no mistake it's purpose is not to disprove anything.

You might want to read the thread, I already stated that science us not here to probe things but disprove them. And I offered a quote from Krauss to illustrate that and we'll illustrate my thoughts. 

Here's it is again. 

I cannot stress often enough that what science is all about is not proving things to be true but proving them to be false.  

 

Lawrence M. Krauss 
 

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/lawrence_m_krauss_526740

Quote

I dont have anymore problems with what you have said except your bias towards non intelligence. I don't even think intelligence and naturalism are mutually exclusive, but we musnt try to exaplain away real evidence simply because we like one theory over another. There are reason to think there might be a designer, and there are reasons not to, but writing off potential evidence and observation of circumstances because of bias isn't science either. 

There really only needs to be a well written equation and a platform to run the equation for a reality to exist. Once we delve beyond quantum interactions and behavior we find that there are equations.  Equations that thang govern the bottom of the sea

Gotta sleep.

I just don't see the evidence for intelligence, I see philosophy. If there was reason to consider intelligence, then that's what people like Brian Green and Sean Carroll would be telling us, they don't care if an intelligence exists or not. They only follow the evidence, and when debating theologians or other religious representatives, they clearly show why the idea of a creator is not at all supported from any angle. 

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/

None of this amounts to a “proof” that God doesn’t exist, of course. Such a proof is not forthcoming; science isn’t in the business of proving things. Rather, science judges the merits of competing models in terms of their simplicity, clarity, comprehensiveness, and fit to the data. Unsuccessful theories are never disproven, as we can always concoct elaborate schemes to save the phenomena; they just fade away as better theories gain acceptance. Attempting to explain the natural world by appealing to God is, by scientific standards, not a very successful theory. The fact that we humans have been able to understand so much about how the natural world works, in our incredibly limited region of space over a remarkably short period of time, is a triumph of the human spirit, one in which we can all be justifiably proud. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
46 minutes ago, SeekerWCF said:

There are a hodge podge of things going on the support intelligent design. When I say intelligent design, I mean in no possible way to support any religion. Fundemantal physics has some things to say, then there are statistics and logical outcomes of statistics,

No there is not, could you back this claim by linking to a reputable peer reviewed source with that very clearly connects the ideal of intelligent design with our observations of the natural universe please. 

46 minutes ago, SeekerWCF said:

then we move into biology and NDEs. The critique of course is  abundant, but when you look at the MOUNTING circumstances, a look at the bigger picture might be in order. 

Seriously man, the afterlife now?? 

And your not basing your ideals on ancient superstition?? 

46 minutes ago, SeekerWCF said:

All kinds of things against intelligent design, but the cynics ( I refuse to call them true skeptics), have over looked some very important things, but I have yet to have a descent argument in these realms because most of the time they are not even ready to adress the issue properly. 

You don't have to have faith in evidence, that's the beauty of it. 

46 minutes ago, SeekerWCF said:

One of them is that natural processes tend to order them selves in balances. Imbalance is anhilation because when It happens it destroys itself. There really isn't any reason to assume the same balancing of things dosnt happen behind the scenes. In short the exotic reality we find ourselves in followed logic because evolution is ultimately logical indeed all things must be. Natural processes have to follow logic just like god does. It would make sense that both would come to the same conclusions in eternity because only the most logical progression of reality is going to be true after google^google^google years. We end up in a place where intelligent design and natural progression are pretty much on equal footing, and likely the same thing. 

And it makes even more sense to dismiss the man made construct of God and stick with pure evidence  not convoluting it with personal ideas. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
9 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Seriously man, the afterlife now?? 

And your not basing your ideals on ancient superstition?? 

Why do you think it is a superstition?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
20 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

Why do you think it is a superstition?

I don't have to apply my personal preferences  that's the dictionary definition. 

 

superstition
ˌsuːpəˈstɪʃ(ə)n/
noun
  1. excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural.
    "he dismissed the ghost stories as mere superstition"
    synonyms: unfounded belief, credulity; More
     
    • a widely held but irrational belief in supernatural influences, especially as leading to good or bad luck, or a practice based on such a belief.
      plural noun: superstitions
      "she touched her locket for luck, a superstition she'd had since childhood"
      synonyms: myth, belief, old wives' tale, notion;More
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
3 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I don't have to apply my personal preferences  that's the dictionary definition. 

 

superstition
ˌsuːpəˈstɪʃ(ə)n/
noun
  1. excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural.
    "he dismissed the ghost stories as mere superstition"
    synonyms: unfounded belief, credulity; More
     
    • a widely held but irrational belief in supernatural influences, especially as leading to good or bad luck, or a practice based on such a belief.
      plural noun: superstitions
      "she touched her locket for luck, a superstition she'd had since childhood"
      synonyms: myth, belief, old wives' tale, notion;More

But.. how about NDE's for example... there is at least some foundation not to take it as a mere "fairy tale"?

Edited by Illyrius
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
31 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

But.. how about NDE's for example... there is at least some foundation not to take it as a mere "fairy tale"?

There are better and far more sound explanations than an afterlife. This is what the AWARE project is trying to establish, just what is the exact point of death that a human can be revived from. As the death process begins, our bodies shut down function by function. The last sense to go is hearing. The rational and logical explanation is that these senses are still recording during that state of demise, and that oxygen deprivation leads to hallucinations that are expectations by the very tales we create ourselves of the afterlife. Our brain is just showing us what we expect to see according to these very claims as we move into oblivion. 

No, there is no foundation supporting an afterlife,  there are personal claims, nothing more. 

When we get deprived of oxygen, you don't even have to die to think your talking to God, or going to heaven. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-511220/This-pilot-speaking--crying-swearing-And-demanding-talk-God.html

 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.