so, either reality doesn't exist or locality (measurement doesn't effect reality, i.e. what we see, taste, smell, feel) doesn't exist.
so, if can touch myself, I don't exist? I don't WANNA exist if that can't happen at least once a day.
you should think about the implications for sex. i was bangin this SMOKIN hot chick the other day, but halfway through i realized she was just an illusion and i wasn't real and the great sensation i got from my naughty parts was just me deluding myself into thinking it was really happening... tough to keep it up after that. it was a huge bummer. she totally didnt understand when i explained it to her either... i guess she's close-minded.
yes, if you're on acid for me, in my day to day life, it doesn't mean a damn thing. i'm going to try that argument in court though after i murder a family. "your honor, according to bell's theorem, they probably never even really existed anyway, so i couldn't have killed them!"
this is no more relevant to my real life than jesus dying on the cross. they're both just mental masturbation.
did your belief system make you instantly turn away from that scientific theorem because it doesn't fit into your neatly catologued version of "real" science? Are your scientific beliefs getting in the way of comprehending what this would mean? I don't "believe" it but does it not raise more questions about the unknown since it is accepted in the scientific world and taught in college physics? (where I learned about it, btw)
And no it doesn't justify murder... it points to the locality problem. By observing something we make it come into existence. Uh oh here comes the metaphysical/buddhist/pseudo-science diatribe...
edit: I was reading about Schrodinger's Cat in popular culture and found this... kinda cool: "In Rock Band, a daily battle of the bands was entitled Schrödinger's Cat. It featured the songs "Alive" by Pearl Jam, "Dead" by The Pixies and "Wanted Dead or Alive" by Bon Jovi."
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
yes, if you're on acid for me, in my day to day life, it doesn't mean a damn thing. i'm going to try that argument in court though after i murder a family. "your honor, according to bell's theorem, they probably never even really existed anyway, so i couldn't have killed them!"
this is no more relevant to my real life than jesus dying on the cross. they're both just mental masturbation.
did your belief system make you instantly turn away from that scientific theorem because it doesn't fit into your neatly catologued version of "real" science? Are your scientific beliefs getting in the way of comprehending what this would mean? I don't "believe" it but does it not raise more questions about the unknown since it is accepted in the scientific world and taught in college physics? (where I learned about it, btw)
And no it doesn't justify murder... it points to the locality problem. By observing something we make it come into existence. Uh oh here comes the metaphysical/buddhist/pseudo-science diatribe...
edit: I was reading about Schrodinger's Cat in popular culture and found this... kinda cool: "In Rock Band, a daily battle of the bands was entitled Schrödinger's Cat. It featured the songs "Alive" by Pearl Jam, "Dead" by The Pixies and "Wanted Dead or Alive" by Bon Jovi."
this is the same thing as the age-old "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound". Of COURSE it makes a sound. Sound need not be in the presence of an ear to exist.
in my eyes, there is no locality problem. if it exists, it exists, it doesn't take human eyes laid upon to make it so.
but just because we don't observe it, doesn't necessarily mean it DOES exist, either.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
yes, if you're on acid for me, in my day to day life, it doesn't mean a damn thing. i'm going to try that argument in court though after i murder a family. "your honor, according to bell's theorem, they probably never even really existed anyway, so i couldn't have killed them!"
this is no more relevant to my real life than jesus dying on the cross. they're both just mental masturbation.
did your belief system make you instantly turn away from that scientific theorem because it doesn't fit into your neatly catologued version of "real" science? Are your scientific beliefs getting in the way of comprehending what this would mean? I don't "believe" it but does it not raise more questions about the unknown since it is accepted in the scientific world and taught in college physics? (where I learned about it, btw)
And no it doesn't justify murder... it points to the locality problem. By observing something we make it come into existence. Uh oh here comes the metaphysical/buddhist/pseudo-science diatribe...
i didn't turn away from the theorem, i just think it doesn't matter to me. i covered my thoughts on it in the post you quoted:
"that link says the implications for this are that... quantum mechanics is incomplete. so what? so is evolutionary theory. so is the big bang. so are many others. what's the science response? let's write new papers and design new experiments to figure out what's going on. meanwhile, in religion, christians realize jesus never really talked about the implications of nuclear weapons, stem cell research, abortion, or even homosexuality. do they put their heads together to come up with a few relevant chapters to add to the bible touching on these subjects? no, they go back to an even older text that their text supposedly supplanted and draw out random provisions out of context and the attempt to fit modern facts into that box."
bottom line... bell's theorem does not prove your point, it proves mine. rather than being rejected becos it didn't jive with quantum mechanics, it has been endlessly explored and continues to be in order to find out how it fits into what we know about QM or even if it renders QM totally obsolete. religion does not and will not do this. thus why science is not faith. the very existence of that article disproves your contention that science operates on some form of faith and resistance to new ideas and theories.
ugh... I didn't "contend" that science relies on faith or that it is faith. I said that your insistence of non-theism based on science is a faithful leap... just as is religion. "Becos" science is changing and has inherent flaws.
Your inability to comprehend these theorems is ironic given your compassion for it being an exhaustive and finite and immutable field. Bell's theorem says that all local experiments (quantum mechanics) are false (or that reality doesn't exist, which doesn't seem to be the case). NOT that it is incomplete. There is a distinct difference.
It proves my point because it shows the flaws of science... thus by relying on science to make a decision of "god or no-god" you are making a faithful leaped.
Science is my passion... but it doesn't prove shit about god. For example, the big-bang theory SCREAMS of creationism... which is why many atheist physicists HATE it.
People who are bystanders of science, who don't really know much about it, seem to think that it can dissprove god or spirituality or whatever. (it does certainly dissprove certain aspects of the bible). Increasingly, scientists aren't so sure. Hell, even Stephen Hawking met with the pope a few years ago.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
this is the same thing as the age-old "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound". Of COURSE it makes a sound. Sound need not be in the presence of an ear to exist.
in my eyes, there is no locality problem. if it exists, it exists, it doesn't take human eyes laid upon to make it so.
but just because we don't observe it, doesn't necessarily mean it DOES exist, either.
come on people... do a little reading before you form a baseless opinion:
ugh... I didn't "contend" that science relies on faith or that it is faith. I said that your insistence of non-theism based on science is a faithful leap... just as is religion. "Becos" science is changing and has inherent flaws.
Your inability to comprehend these theorems is ironic given your compassion for it being an exhaustive and finite and immutable field. Bell's theorem says that all local experiments (quantum mechanics) are false (or that reality doesn't exist, which doesn't seem to be the case). NOT that it is incomplete. There is a distinct difference.
It proves my point because it shows the flaws of science... thus by relying on science to make a decision of "god or no-god" you are making a faithful leaped.
Science is my passion... but it doesn't prove shit about god. For example, the big-bang theory SCREAMS of creationism... which is why many atheist physicists HATE it.
People who are bystanders of science, who don't really know much about it, seem to think that it can dissprove god or spirituality or whatever. (it does certainly dissprove certain aspects of the bible). Increasingly, scientists aren't so sure. Hell, even Stephen Hawking met with the pope a few years ago.
you assume i made a leap from science to atheism. i didn't. i'm a lawyer by training, not a physicist. and in my field, if you want me to believe something, you have to prove it's the case. i disbelieve god becos nobody has ever given me any reason, proof or evidence to believe god exists and there is lots of evidence that he does not exist in the form contemplated by most modern religions, not becos i think science has disproved god. i only defend science here becos it is a far more reasonable basis for daily life decisions than religion, based on its openness to new information. i don't believe in santa clause either, not becos the physics of one guy visiting everyone's houses negates the idea, but becos there is no proof he exists and a mountain of evidence indicating he doesn't. my atheism is not some logical leap of faith from science to atheism, nor do i think that's the case for most atheists i know. it exists separate from science, simply by virtue of the fact that pro-god people have no proof, and the circumstantial evidence and what we know about the world, while imperfect, falls more on the no-god side of things than the pro-god side of things.
this is the same thing as the age-old "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound". Of COURSE it makes a sound. Sound need not be in the presence of an ear to exist.
in my eyes, there is no locality problem. if it exists, it exists, it doesn't take human eyes laid upon to make it so.
but just because we don't observe it, doesn't necessarily mean it DOES exist, either.
come on people... do a little reading before you form a baseless opinion:
this is the same thing as the age-old "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound". Of COURSE it makes a sound. Sound need not be in the presence of an ear to exist.
in my eyes, there is no locality problem. if it exists, it exists, it doesn't take human eyes laid upon to make it so.
but just because we don't observe it, doesn't necessarily mean it DOES exist, either.
come on people... do a little reading before you form a baseless opinion:
you assume i made a leap from science to atheism. i didn't. i'm a lawyer by training, not a physicist. and in my field, if you want me to believe something, you have to prove it's the case. i disbelieve god becos nobody has ever given me any reason, proof or evidence to believe god exists and there is lots of evidence that he does not exist in the form contemplated by most modern religions, not becos i think science has disproved god. i only defend science here becos it is a far more reasonable basis for daily life decisions than religion, based on its openness to new information. i don't believe in santa clause either, not becos the physics of one guy visiting everyone's houses negates the idea, but becos there is no proof he exists and a mountain of evidence indicating he doesn't. my atheism is not some logical leap of faith from science to atheism, nor do i think that's the case for most atheists i know. it exists separate from science, simply by virtue of the fact that pro-god people have no proof, and the circumstantial evidence and what we know about the world, while imperfect, falls more on the no-god side of things than the pro-god side of things.
You misunderstood, I don't want you to believe in anything.
And I apologize, I didn't know you had proof that god does not exist... You must have proof if you believe there is no god because you're a "lawyer by training, not a physicist. and in my field, if you want me to believe something, you have to prove it's the case"
so what is the proof? Otherwise, without clear and convincing evidence I'd assume the answer to the ultimate question is, "I don't know." Unless a preponderance of evidence will work for you to "believe" in something. For me that isn't good enough.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
you assume i made a leap from science to atheism. i didn't. i'm a lawyer by training, not a physicist. and in my field, if you want me to believe something, you have to prove it's the case. i disbelieve god becos nobody has ever given me any reason, proof or evidence to believe god exists and there is lots of evidence that he does not exist in the form contemplated by most modern religions, not becos i think science has disproved god. i only defend science here becos it is a far more reasonable basis for daily life decisions than religion, based on its openness to new information. i don't believe in santa clause either, not becos the physics of one guy visiting everyone's houses negates the idea, but becos there is no proof he exists and a mountain of evidence indicating he doesn't. my atheism is not some logical leap of faith from science to atheism, nor do i think that's the case for most atheists i know. it exists separate from science, simply by virtue of the fact that pro-god people have no proof, and the circumstantial evidence and what we know about the world, while imperfect, falls more on the no-god side of things than the pro-god side of things.
You misunderstood, I don't want you to believe in anything.
And I apologize, I didn't know you had proof that god does not exist... You must have proof if you believe there is no god because you're a "lawyer by training, not a physicist. and in my field, if you want me to believe something, you have to prove it's the case"
so what is the proof? Otherwise, without clear and convincing evidence I'd assume the answer to the ultimate question is, "I don't know." Unless a preponderance of evidence will work for you to "believe" in something. For me that isn't good enough.
preponderance of evidence IS good enough for me. and if new evidence comes to light, i'll reevaluate my decision on appeal
i don't have any proof that the guy in the next office is not a murderer, but i deem him not a murderer becos nobody has ever indicated he is, most people are not murderers, most murderers get caught, and he is still working in the office next to me.
the burden of persuasion is on the person seeking to establish the fact. i don't give a flying fuck what you believe about god and have no interest in trying to convince you. hell, i don't even know what "kind" of god you're asking me to disprove. it's a term with so many meanings i can't even begin to guess which you're discussing, let alone try to disprove it.
but i will argue against christianity, or islam, or judaism becos they have very clear concepts of what god is and the real world tends to disprove them. nobody has ever seen god. no human being has ever done what they claim jesus did. many other stories of the same age feature similar tales of miraculous feats, the paradox of an all-powerful and all-loving god that created suffering, etc. i can offer proof that the weight of the evidence strongly supports no god more than the christian god/jesus. so for now, that is the presumption i will live by. and they ARE trying to convince me what to believe.
what are you trying to convince me of? that i can never know anything? i'm sorry, but i don't live by waffling on all important real problems to avoid taking a stand. you're urging me to... what? keep an open mind? i already have that. it is not mutually exclusive with knowledge you know. the problem you have is that my mind is not open in the exact same way yours is... so open that there's nothing in there becos to have something in there might come dangerously close to actually having to focus on real issues instead of abstract existential philosophy.
I understand that it is hard to wrap your head around this... especially since it is generally accepted in the scientific community. I may seem like "new ager" but this is not metaphysics or pseudo-science. And yes, I really can't wait to see that movie.
"remember the promise as a kid you made" - yim yames
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
the problem you have is that my mind is not open in the exact same way yours is... so open that there's nothing in there becos to have something in there might come dangerously close to actually having to focus on real issues instead of abstract existential philosophy.
Remember, George Costanza, "I'm okay and you're okay too"
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
But if no one observes the tree falling, how do we know that tree did not start in that position. The same can be said the with Schrödinger's cat as to the tree, we can not tell the state of either until it they are observed (we would need to have been in the forest at some point to see if the chosen tree was actually standing).
I believe (yes I said believe) that there is enough evidence out there to prove man's current set of religions wrong, thus invalidating them and the should be stopped for benifit of mankind. I am not saying there is a god or there is not a god, but so far I am going side with the later. I can not remember who said it on this thread but they said they literally believe in the bible, how can you do that when it is meant to be the word of god. This statement in itself would indicate a lack of faith in the religion that you are associating with.
Rod Laver Arena - Feb 18, 2003
Rod Laver Arena - Nov 13, 2006
Adelaide Oval - Nov 17, 2009
Etihad Stadium - Nov 20, 2009
BDO Melbourne - Jan 24, 2014
New York - May 02 - 2016
preponderance of evidence IS good enough for me. and if new evidence comes to light, i'll reevaluate my decision on appeal
i don't have any proof that the guy in the next office is not a murderer, but i deem him not a murderer becos nobody has ever indicated he is, most people are not murderers, most murderers get caught, and he is still working in the office next to me.
the burden of persuasion is on the person seeking to establish the fact. i don't give a flying fuck what you believe about god and have no interest in trying to convince you. hell, i don't even know what "kind" of god you're asking me to disprove. it's a term with so many meanings i can't even begin to guess which you're discussing, let alone try to disprove it.
but i will argue against christianity, or islam, or judaism becos they have very clear concepts of what god is and the real world tends to disprove them. nobody has ever seen god. no human being has ever done what they claim jesus did. many other stories of the same age feature similar tales of miraculous feats, the paradox of an all-powerful and all-loving god that created suffering, etc. i can offer proof that the weight of the evidence strongly supports no god more than the christian god/jesus. so for now, that is the presumption i will live by. and they ARE trying to convince me what to believe.
what are you trying to convince me of? that i can never know anything? i'm sorry, but i don't live by waffling on all important real problems to avoid taking a stand. you're urging me to... what? keep an open mind? i already have that. it is not mutually exclusive with knowledge you know. the problem you have is that my mind is not open in the exact same way yours is... so open that there's nothing in there becos to have something in there might come dangerously close to actually having to focus on real issues instead of abstract existential philosophy.
but it doesnt mean he isnt a murderer. just that he hasnt been caught yet if he is.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
But if no one observes the tree falling, how do we know that tree did not start in that position. The same can be said the with Schrödinger's cat as to the tree, we can not tell the state of either until it they are observed (we would need to have been in the forest at some point to see if the chosen tree was actually standing).
I believe (yes I said believe) that there is enough evidence out there to prove man's current set of religions wrong, thus invalidating them and the should be stopped for benifit of mankind. I am not saying there is a god or there is not a god, but so far I am going side with the later. I can not remember who said it on this thread but they said they literally believe in the bible, how can you do that when it is meant to be the word of god. This statement in itself would indicate a lack of faith in the religion that you are associating with.
scientific evidence will show that the tree did in fact fall and that a prone position wasnt where it started.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
preponderance of evidence IS good enough for me. and if new evidence comes to light, i'll reevaluate my decision on appeal
i don't have any proof that the guy in the next office is not a murderer, but i deem him not a murderer becos nobody has ever indicated he is, most people are not murderers, most murderers get caught, and he is still working in the office next to me.
the burden of persuasion is on the person seeking to establish the fact. i don't give a flying fuck what you believe about god and have no interest in trying to convince you. hell, i don't even know what "kind" of god you're asking me to disprove. it's a term with so many meanings i can't even begin to guess which you're discussing, let alone try to disprove it.
but i will argue against christianity, or islam, or judaism becos they have very clear concepts of what god is and the real world tends to disprove them. nobody has ever seen god. no human being has ever done what they claim jesus did. many other stories of the same age feature similar tales of miraculous feats, the paradox of an all-powerful and all-loving god that created suffering, etc. i can offer proof that the weight of the evidence strongly supports no god more than the christian god/jesus. so for now, that is the presumption i will live by. and they ARE trying to convince me what to believe.
what are you trying to convince me of? that i can never know anything? i'm sorry, but i don't live by waffling on all important real problems to avoid taking a stand. you're urging me to... what? keep an open mind? i already have that. it is not mutually exclusive with knowledge you know. the problem you have is that my mind is not open in the exact same way yours is... so open that there's nothing in there becos to have something in there might come dangerously close to actually having to focus on real issues instead of abstract existential philosophy.
but it doesnt mean he isnt a murderer. just that he hasnt been caught yet if he is.
but the evidence suggests he isn't and in terms of my day to day life, it makes far more sense for me to accept the weight of the evidence and deal with him like any other good coworker as opposed to sitting in my office constantly worrying about whether the guy next door is a murderer and if he's coming for me next. the latter is a very unproductive way to go through life.
But if no one observes the tree falling, how do we know that tree did not start in that position. The same can be said the with Schrödinger's cat as to the tree, we can not tell the state of either until it they are observed (we would need to have been in the forest at some point to see if the chosen tree was actually standing).
I believe (yes I said believe) that there is enough evidence out there to prove man's current set of religions wrong, thus invalidating them and the should be stopped for benifit of mankind. I am not saying there is a god or there is not a god, but so far I am going side with the later. I can not remember who said it on this thread but they said they literally believe in the bible, how can you do that when it is meant to be the word of god. This statement in itself would indicate a lack of faith in the religion that you are associating with.
....I did not bring up the "tree falling" issue... I brought up the observer effect... not the old Confuscious type of philosophy. Someone else interpreted it that way.
as far as you believing in "enough evidence out there to prove man's current set of religions wrong" I would agree in a literal sense of western religion. But, again, I don't know of many people who take the bible literally... other than Fundamentalists. ... But what of eastern religions? And as far as "stopping (them) for the benefit of mankind" that is kinda along the same lines of what Hitler was trying to do...
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
but it doesnt mean he isnt a murderer. just that he hasnt been caught yet if he is.
but the evidence suggests he isn't and in terms of my day to day life, it makes far more sense for me to accept the weight of the evidence and deal with him like any other good coworker as opposed to sitting in my office constantly worrying about whether the guy next door is a murderer and if he's coming for me next. the latter is a very unproductive way to go through life.
what evidence??? can no evidence be seen as evidence??
you said most murderers get caught and based on the fact that this guy is still working in the office next door youve made the decision the man NOT a murderer. you know as well as i do that the continued success of serial killers relies on the fact that they look just like the rest of us. they manipulate us into thinking theyre not murderers by parroting socially acceptable behaviour, when in fact theyve got 15 bodies buried in the crawlspace under the kitchen. they thrive on thinking just like yours conor.
im not suggesting this man is a murderer...but that doesnt mean he isnt.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
the burden of persuasion is on the person seeking to establish the fact.
this is EXACTLY the point I made earlier. Soul, you just put it much better than I did. Unfortunately, during this kind of discussion, whomever is trying to convince us god exists (or trying to point out that he doesn't NOT exist :roll: ), turns around and says they weren't actually trying to convince us of anything.
It's the same old runaround.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
But if no one observes the tree falling, how do we know that tree did not start in that position. The same can be said the with Schrödinger's cat as to the tree, we can not tell the state of either until it they are observed (we would need to have been in the forest at some point to see if the chosen tree was actually standing).
I believe (yes I said believe) that there is enough evidence out there to prove man's current set of religions wrong, thus invalidating them and the should be stopped for benifit of mankind. I am not saying there is a god or there is not a god, but so far I am going side with the later. I can not remember who said it on this thread but they said they literally believe in the bible, how can you do that when it is meant to be the word of god. This statement in itself would indicate a lack of faith in the religion that you are associating with.
....I did not bring up the "tree falling" issue... I brought up the observer effect... not the old Confuscious type of philosophy. Someone else interpreted it that way.
as far as you believing in "enough evidence out there to prove man's current set of religions wrong" I would agree in a literal sense of western religion. But, again, I don't know of many people who take the bible literally... other than Fundamentalists. ... But what of eastern religions? And as far as "stopping (them) for the benefit of mankind" that is kinda along the same lines of what Hitler was trying to do...
is not the tree issues and the observer effect one in the same?
but if you dont take a 'holy book' (lack of a better word) literally, then that would indicate that you belive it too be wrong. Which in turn would indicate that you believe it to be wrong. Well atleast in some sense, so therefore why allign ones self with something that you dont believe fully. Who is up for starting a religion?
Rod Laver Arena - Feb 18, 2003
Rod Laver Arena - Nov 13, 2006
Adelaide Oval - Nov 17, 2009
Etihad Stadium - Nov 20, 2009
BDO Melbourne - Jan 24, 2014
New York - May 02 - 2016
Rod Laver Arena - Feb 18, 2003
Rod Laver Arena - Nov 13, 2006
Adelaide Oval - Nov 17, 2009
Etihad Stadium - Nov 20, 2009
BDO Melbourne - Jan 24, 2014
New York - May 02 - 2016
this is the same thing as the age-old "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound". Of COURSE it makes a sound. Sound need not be in the presence of an ear to exist.
in my eyes, there is no locality problem. if it exists, it exists, it doesn't take human eyes laid upon to make it so.
but just because we don't observe it, doesn't necessarily mean it DOES exist, either.
come on people... do a little reading before you form a baseless opinion:
but it doesnt mean he isnt a murderer. just that he hasnt been caught yet if he is.
but the evidence suggests he isn't and in terms of my day to day life, it makes far more sense for me to accept the weight of the evidence and deal with him like any other good coworker as opposed to sitting in my office constantly worrying about whether the guy next door is a murderer and if he's coming for me next. the latter is a very unproductive way to go through life.
what evidence??? can no evidence be seen as evidence??
you said most murderers get caught and based on the fact that this guy is still working in the office next door youve made the decision the man NOT a murderer. you know as well as i do that the continued success of serial killers relies on the fact that they look just like the rest of us. they manipulate us into thinking theyre not murderers by parroting socially acceptable behaviour, when in fact theyve got 15 bodies buried in the crawlspace under the kitchen. they thrive on thinking just like yours conor.
im not suggesting this man is a murderer...but that doesnt mean he isnt.
no, but simple logical reasoning tells us he isn't until we suspect differently.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Comments
you should think about the implications for sex. i was bangin this SMOKIN hot chick the other day, but halfway through i realized she was just an illusion and i wasn't real and the great sensation i got from my naughty parts was just me deluding myself into thinking it was really happening... tough to keep it up after that. it was a huge bummer. she totally didnt understand when i explained it to her either... i guess she's close-minded.
did your belief system make you instantly turn away from that scientific theorem because it doesn't fit into your neatly catologued version of "real" science? Are your scientific beliefs getting in the way of comprehending what this would mean? I don't "believe" it but does it not raise more questions about the unknown since it is accepted in the scientific world and taught in college physics? (where I learned about it, btw)
And no it doesn't justify murder... it points to the locality problem. By observing something we make it come into existence. Uh oh here comes the metaphysical/buddhist/pseudo-science diatribe...
Schrodinger's Cat is another cool scientific problem... kind of similar to Bell's Theorem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat
edit: I was reading about Schrodinger's Cat in popular culture and found this... kinda cool: "In Rock Band, a daily battle of the bands was entitled Schrödinger's Cat. It featured the songs "Alive" by Pearl Jam, "Dead" by The Pixies and "Wanted Dead or Alive" by Bon Jovi."
this is the same thing as the age-old "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound". Of COURSE it makes a sound. Sound need not be in the presence of an ear to exist.
in my eyes, there is no locality problem. if it exists, it exists, it doesn't take human eyes laid upon to make it so.
but just because we don't observe it, doesn't necessarily mean it DOES exist, either.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
i didn't turn away from the theorem, i just think it doesn't matter to me. i covered my thoughts on it in the post you quoted:
"that link says the implications for this are that... quantum mechanics is incomplete. so what? so is evolutionary theory. so is the big bang. so are many others. what's the science response? let's write new papers and design new experiments to figure out what's going on. meanwhile, in religion, christians realize jesus never really talked about the implications of nuclear weapons, stem cell research, abortion, or even homosexuality. do they put their heads together to come up with a few relevant chapters to add to the bible touching on these subjects? no, they go back to an even older text that their text supposedly supplanted and draw out random provisions out of context and the attempt to fit modern facts into that box."
bottom line... bell's theorem does not prove your point, it proves mine. rather than being rejected becos it didn't jive with quantum mechanics, it has been endlessly explored and continues to be in order to find out how it fits into what we know about QM or even if it renders QM totally obsolete. religion does not and will not do this. thus why science is not faith. the very existence of that article disproves your contention that science operates on some form of faith and resistance to new ideas and theories.
Your inability to comprehend these theorems is ironic given your compassion for it being an exhaustive and finite and immutable field. Bell's theorem says that all local experiments (quantum mechanics) are false (or that reality doesn't exist, which doesn't seem to be the case). NOT that it is incomplete. There is a distinct difference.
It proves my point because it shows the flaws of science... thus by relying on science to make a decision of "god or no-god" you are making a faithful leaped.
Science is my passion... but it doesn't prove shit about god. For example, the big-bang theory SCREAMS of creationism... which is why many atheist physicists HATE it.
People who are bystanders of science, who don't really know much about it, seem to think that it can dissprove god or spirituality or whatever. (it does certainly dissprove certain aspects of the bible). Increasingly, scientists aren't so sure. Hell, even Stephen Hawking met with the pope a few years ago.
come on people... do a little reading before you form a baseless opinion:
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observ ... in_science
"In science, the term observer effect means that the act of observing will influence the phenomenon being observed."
you assume i made a leap from science to atheism. i didn't. i'm a lawyer by training, not a physicist. and in my field, if you want me to believe something, you have to prove it's the case. i disbelieve god becos nobody has ever given me any reason, proof or evidence to believe god exists and there is lots of evidence that he does not exist in the form contemplated by most modern religions, not becos i think science has disproved god. i only defend science here becos it is a far more reasonable basis for daily life decisions than religion, based on its openness to new information. i don't believe in santa clause either, not becos the physics of one guy visiting everyone's houses negates the idea, but becos there is no proof he exists and a mountain of evidence indicating he doesn't. my atheism is not some logical leap of faith from science to atheism, nor do i think that's the case for most atheists i know. it exists separate from science, simply by virtue of the fact that pro-god people have no proof, and the circumstantial evidence and what we know about the world, while imperfect, falls more on the no-god side of things than the pro-god side of things.
the effect of someone watching or not watching as a tree falls is so minimal as to be utterly irrelevant in any real sense.
true... but it doesn't just apply to a lone random tree in a forest. Obviously... :?
if you say so. let me ask... have you ever tried to walk through walls or kill animals with your thoughts, like these guys?
http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/m ... areatgoats
You misunderstood, I don't want you to believe in anything.
And I apologize, I didn't know you had proof that god does not exist... You must have proof if you believe there is no god because you're a "lawyer by training, not a physicist. and in my field, if you want me to believe something, you have to prove it's the case"
so what is the proof? Otherwise, without clear and convincing evidence I'd assume the answer to the ultimate question is, "I don't know." Unless a preponderance of evidence will work for you to "believe" in something. For me that isn't good enough.
preponderance of evidence IS good enough for me. and if new evidence comes to light, i'll reevaluate my decision on appeal
i don't have any proof that the guy in the next office is not a murderer, but i deem him not a murderer becos nobody has ever indicated he is, most people are not murderers, most murderers get caught, and he is still working in the office next to me.
the burden of persuasion is on the person seeking to establish the fact. i don't give a flying fuck what you believe about god and have no interest in trying to convince you. hell, i don't even know what "kind" of god you're asking me to disprove. it's a term with so many meanings i can't even begin to guess which you're discussing, let alone try to disprove it.
but i will argue against christianity, or islam, or judaism becos they have very clear concepts of what god is and the real world tends to disprove them. nobody has ever seen god. no human being has ever done what they claim jesus did. many other stories of the same age feature similar tales of miraculous feats, the paradox of an all-powerful and all-loving god that created suffering, etc. i can offer proof that the weight of the evidence strongly supports no god more than the christian god/jesus. so for now, that is the presumption i will live by. and they ARE trying to convince me what to believe.
what are you trying to convince me of? that i can never know anything? i'm sorry, but i don't live by waffling on all important real problems to avoid taking a stand. you're urging me to... what? keep an open mind? i already have that. it is not mutually exclusive with knowledge you know. the problem you have is that my mind is not open in the exact same way yours is... so open that there's nothing in there becos to have something in there might come dangerously close to actually having to focus on real issues instead of abstract existential philosophy.
I understand that it is hard to wrap your head around this... especially since it is generally accepted in the scientific community. I may seem like "new ager" but this is not metaphysics or pseudo-science. And yes, I really can't wait to see that movie.
"remember the promise as a kid you made" - yim yames
Remember, George Costanza, "I'm okay and you're okay too"
I believe (yes I said believe) that there is enough evidence out there to prove man's current set of religions wrong, thus invalidating them and the should be stopped for benifit of mankind. I am not saying there is a god or there is not a god, but so far I am going side with the later. I can not remember who said it on this thread but they said they literally believe in the bible, how can you do that when it is meant to be the word of god. This statement in itself would indicate a lack of faith in the religion that you are associating with.
Rod Laver Arena - Nov 13, 2006
Adelaide Oval - Nov 17, 2009
Etihad Stadium - Nov 20, 2009
BDO Melbourne - Jan 24, 2014
New York - May 02 - 2016
Powered by Pearl Jam
but it doesnt mean he isnt a murderer. just that he hasnt been caught yet if he is.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
nope. but i'm also not talking about killing people based on my views. notably, many religious folks are.
scientific evidence will show that the tree did in fact fall and that a prone position wasnt where it started.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
but the evidence suggests he isn't and in terms of my day to day life, it makes far more sense for me to accept the weight of the evidence and deal with him like any other good coworker as opposed to sitting in my office constantly worrying about whether the guy next door is a murderer and if he's coming for me next. the latter is a very unproductive way to go through life.
....I did not bring up the "tree falling" issue... I brought up the observer effect... not the old Confuscious type of philosophy. Someone else interpreted it that way.
as far as you believing in "enough evidence out there to prove man's current set of religions wrong" I would agree in a literal sense of western religion. But, again, I don't know of many people who take the bible literally... other than Fundamentalists. ... But what of eastern religions? And as far as "stopping (them) for the benefit of mankind" that is kinda along the same lines of what Hitler was trying to do...
it was a rhetorical question and by the spin response I assume you don't want to confront my point... which I'm sure you grasp.
what evidence??? can no evidence be seen as evidence??
you said most murderers get caught and based on the fact that this guy is still working in the office next door youve made the decision the man NOT a murderer. you know as well as i do that the continued success of serial killers relies on the fact that they look just like the rest of us. they manipulate us into thinking theyre not murderers by parroting socially acceptable behaviour, when in fact theyve got 15 bodies buried in the crawlspace under the kitchen. they thrive on thinking just like yours conor.
im not suggesting this man is a murderer...but that doesnt mean he isnt.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
this is EXACTLY the point I made earlier. Soul, you just put it much better than I did. Unfortunately, during this kind of discussion, whomever is trying to convince us god exists (or trying to point out that he doesn't NOT exist :roll: ), turns around and says they weren't actually trying to convince us of anything.
It's the same old runaround.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
is not the tree issues and the observer effect one in the same?
but if you dont take a 'holy book' (lack of a better word) literally, then that would indicate that you belive it too be wrong. Which in turn would indicate that you believe it to be wrong. Well atleast in some sense, so therefore why allign ones self with something that you dont believe fully. Who is up for starting a religion?
Rod Laver Arena - Nov 13, 2006
Adelaide Oval - Nov 17, 2009
Etihad Stadium - Nov 20, 2009
BDO Melbourne - Jan 24, 2014
New York - May 02 - 2016
Powered by Pearl Jam
ive done better than that. i am my own God.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
nice, i suppose in a way we all are our own god
Rod Laver Arena - Nov 13, 2006
Adelaide Oval - Nov 17, 2009
Etihad Stadium - Nov 20, 2009
BDO Melbourne - Jan 24, 2014
New York - May 02 - 2016
Powered by Pearl Jam
so, by your logic, you didn't become a condescending prick by writing this post, but only after someone read it?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
no, but simple logical reasoning tells us he isn't until we suspect differently.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
no, i've no clue what your point was. but if you care to clarify, i'd be happy to have a go at an answer.